Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. It wouldn't be Breaking Points if we did
not cover Donald Trump's now apparently current decision to reschedule
marijuana from one to three. He confirmed it recently in
a press conference.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Let's take a lesson.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
There is reporting that the administration is going to reclassify marijuana.
Speaker 5 (00:50):
With that send mixed messages that if marijuana's okay, drugs
are some drugs are.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Okay, but we're trying to clean up crime.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
How do they go hand in hand.
Speaker 6 (00:56):
We're only looking at that. That's early, but you know,
somebody reported it which is fine. We're looking at it.
Some people like it, some people hate it. Some people
hate the whole concept of marijuana because if it does
bad for the children, it does bad for people that
are older than children. But we're looking at reclassification and
we'll make a determination over the next i would say,
over the next few weeks, and that determination hopefully will
(01:18):
be the right. One very complicated subject, that is, you know,
the subject of marijuana. I've heard great things having to
do with medical, and I've had bad things having to
do with just about everything else but medical. And you know,
for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things,
but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
Now you may be wondering who he's been hearing these
great things from, and the answer would be the big
pot companies, which are massively lobbying him to reschedule marijuana.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
So let's all talk about the issue, shall we. Look,
I know everybody hears show.
Speaker 7 (01:51):
We don't have a choice.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
People may know my views, but just stick with me.
At the very least, let's go and put what is
it the next element? Please up on the screen. This
is from the Wall Street report about reclassifying marijuana as dangerous.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Quote. This is how this has all come about. Just
so people understand.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
At a one million dollars a plate fundraiser earlier this month,
Trump told attendees he was interested in such a change.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Why.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
Well, the guests included the chief executive of one of
the largest marijuana companies in America, who is encouraging Trump
to pursue the change and quote expand medical marijuana research.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Apparently.
Speaker 3 (02:26):
Other executives there were the CEO of Pfizer, of Crypto,
and of others who have all supported the initiative. So
you may be asking, you know, why would the pharma
and these companies, why do they care so much? It's
just about the research. No, it's none of it has
to do with research. The reason is because at the
(02:46):
Schedule one status as it is right now, it means
that these marijuana companies which are printing money selling high
potency THC to probably half the people who are watching
this video, as well as half of America apparently, well,
they don't have as much access to the legitimate banking
system as they would like. So this is pure pay
(03:07):
for play corruption. They don't care one iota about quote
studying weed millions of people use weed every single day.
We know everything we need to know, and I will
come back to that here in a little bit. This
is entirely about expanding access to the banking system and
turning the marijuana companies of today, which are already massive,
multi billion dollar industries, into a multi trillion dollar industry.
(03:29):
A lah big tobacco this time around is the exact
same playbook you have capture every single one of these
licensed pot shops and all these that are springing up
across the country. It's all through the city getting municipal licensed,
deeply corrupt. All the money that's flowing in is from
venture capital, from big pharma, and from others, and the
amount of daily use has now surpassed alcohol. In the
(03:52):
United States, seventeen point seven million people as of twenty
twenty two smoke weed every single day. Apparently it's not
addictive though, Emily, whenever you don't smoke, when you smoke
something every single day, and it has become a major
social issue in terms of just the way it's impacted
social life, daily drug use, etc. So I just want
(04:15):
people to know that even if you support this, it
is because some major weed company wants to sell you
your THC soda unregulated by the way, THHC lollipop THHC
high potency stuff which your grandparents would never have dreamed
of getting as high as many of these people are
getting high on a daily basis. None of it factors
(04:37):
in any of the proven deleterious effects of daily marijuana
use or marijuana use in general.
Speaker 7 (04:45):
So I'm just.
Speaker 3 (04:46):
Laying it all out here in terms of this is
a corrupt deal because the pot companies are bribing a
bunch of conservative influencers to talk about rescheduling and research.
They are going after the Trump administration because they think
that this is this will expand their access to the
banking system. And again, even if you use weed, I
(05:06):
genuinely ask everybody to ask whether it is acceptable that
right now you have daily use which is not in
any way treated the way that we look at somebody
who's anybody who smokes cigarettes every day. They know that
they're massively increasing their risk of cancer, and all of
us socially are like, yeah, come on, man, what are
we doing here? Say if you drink every day, you're
(05:27):
a fucking alcoholic. Okay, you are an alcoholic. If you
drink every single day, everybody knows that if you.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Smoke weed, it's chill. There's no problems, there's no addiction.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
It's like this, there's no social stigma on public weed use,
on daily weed use.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
Everybody is just acting.
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Like there's no health risks or any of that whatsoever.
And these pod companies don't have come anywhere close to
the level of scrutiny that alcohol and tobacco companies.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
And everyone's like, oh, what about alcoholic?
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Yeah, tax them, you know, did you know alcohol taxes
are down fifty percent from the nineteen eighties. They should
be way higher. Alcoholic should be way more expensive. It's
horrible for you. I don't drink alcohol. There's a reason
for it. This is the problem, though, is that socially
everybody just is accepting this like nineteen nineties stone or
propaganda that everything is chill and there's no problems or whatever,
and now we have the results like teenager psycho psychosist problems.
(06:20):
There's in fact, doctors have had to invent new names
for the problems. When teenagers in particular use extremely high
levels of THHC and then it causes vomiting.
Speaker 1 (06:32):
You can end up in the hospital.
Speaker 3 (06:34):
It actually gets stored in your fat cells. It's craziness.
And this happens to you know, to babies as well,
from mothers who use cannabis their favorite word instead of
weed for their while they're pregnant.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
And it's the same thing.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Everybody knows about fetal alcohol syndrome, but cannabis, Oh, it's
got health properties or anything. Because one person with glycoma
is using it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
So anyway, that's the end of my ram's.
Speaker 7 (07:00):
Yeah, you were like Woody, like I can just keep
it all.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
You can't come on, ye.
Speaker 8 (07:05):
So, but I actually had a question you were You
were saying that the rescheduling here is about access to banking. Banking,
tell us more about that, because that's so what happens
when you reschedule and then with the as it pretends
to the money.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
Yeah, all right, so right now this is crazy, by
the way, is right now weed is federally illegal Schedule
one status.
Speaker 8 (07:27):
But I didn't remember people working in the Biden White
House couldn't smoke by which.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
Is good legal in DC. And then you really want
potheads running our government? I don't, Okay, I don't want
to deal with drinkers running our government either.
Speaker 3 (07:36):
All right, so drug trust. Everybody be fine with me.
So let's think about this. The schedule one status means
that the big banks in particular do want not want
to accept your business. It's also much more difficult for
these pot companies to raise money to gain access to
let's say, venture capital rounds, et cetera. People a lot
of uh called LPs and funds. They have vice clauses
(07:59):
in there where they're like, we don't want to invest
in anything that makes it risky for our investment.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Okay, so that's the main problem.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Now, this has caused issues because banking is access to
credit markets and basically the ability to borrow. Yeah, exactly,
and it costs them a lot of problems because they
have all this cash on hand and they need to
move it by armored trucks.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
It's all crazy, and they have to use that.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Basically, it's like a shadow banking system, even though absolute
oceans of money and all this are being made.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
What they want.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Access to is the ability to basically become big tobacco.
They want to be totally legitimized in the federal legal code.
They want zero regulation, which again currently they don't have.
Everyone always says, yeah, we need regulation. We're long past that.
People all right, this high potency stuff and all that.
The reality is it's not happening, and it won't. People
are already massively addicted to this high potency THC, and
(08:50):
nobody even really wants to acknowledge the problem. So to
go to Schedule three status, it makes access to the
banking system almost not immediate, but much much easier for
these companies. It lets Goldman Sacks and all these venture
capital funds pour as much money into these as possible,
and it will massively increase the current lobbying in the
same way that big Tobacco had for years, right they
(09:13):
were able to hire all of these massive lobbyists.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
That's already part of the problem.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
These people have become so filthy rich that they're hiring
all these conservative influencers and others. They're paying them hundreds
of thousands of dollars. Just so everybody understands.
Speaker 8 (09:25):
Let's get into this, okay. So let's put D three
on the screen. This is Alex bruce Wits. So if
you're not on Twitter, you might not know the name
Alex bruce Witz. But the headline here in the drug
report is Alex bruce Wwitz's company took three hundred thousand
dollars from a pro weed pack days before he said
he had quote unquote no personal stake in rescheduling in
(09:45):
the rescheduling fight basically, So that's what bruce Witz said
on July eleventh. It turns out his company, according to
the Drug Report, was paid three hundred thousand dollars by
the American Rights and Reform Pack, which has been, as
Josh Dossi put it in the Wall Street Journal, seeded
with money from the industry. And I believe that pack
also gave a million dollars to Trump's inaugural pack or
(10:08):
campaign pack.
Speaker 7 (10:09):
I'll look it up all you.
Speaker 3 (10:10):
I have nothing personal against Alex These may be his views,
but the fact is is that he and many others
have obviously a financial incentive to be talking about this.
And by the way, that fits with Matt Gatz, who
look the guy.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
I'll give him credit.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
He actually has mostly held these views for quite a.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Long time, many years. He's not bought in paid for
from marijuana. I don't think he's bought and paid for.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
It doesn't hurt, you, know that having the support, because
I also know that he's had a lot of money
that flowed into him from these weed companies over the years,
and they're now trying to frame this as some major
populist decision D four.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Please let's put it on the screen.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
It's populism meets practicality. Suddenly, Maga hats in line at
the dispensary Patriots by pre rolls called seventeen seventy six
freedom Cush beautiful. Now, don't get me wrong, there are
still people clutching their pearls saying bye. Marijuana is a
gateway drug. Yeah, so is drinking mountain dew if you
consume enough of it. In reality, marijuana is more like
(11:07):
a gateway to eating three sleeves of oreos and having
deep thoughts about how ceiling fans work.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah, I mean I thought this was maha. Is that
what we want? We want people to eat two sleeves?
By the way, Yeah, mountain dew is horrible for you.
It's like that. Are we sitting around and defending it?
This stuff drives me crazy.
Speaker 3 (11:24):
But the point is is that at the end of
the day, I will acknowledge everything I'm saying is deeply unpopular.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I get it.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
You know, people you like to get high fine, but
don't sit here and gaslight me about how because one
child was helped by not getting a seizure, who, by
the way, still has access to it if they want to.
That means that it's healthy, or that you need more
study or for application, or any of these these big
companies they care about it for one reason. It's obviously
(11:52):
highly if you're all using it every single day, you're addicted.
You're addicted to weed, and they're willing to sell it
to you in the same way that these alcohol companies
and these gambling companies who I go after are these
people are scum. They do it specifically because they know
that they can peddle it to you and that you
need it and you're a dependent customer. I think that's
really gross, you know, And I've even looked at other
(12:13):
models that might work. The only one I could ever
potentially support would be a highly regulated.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
And a non profit system.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
There's some areas in Canada actually which do this, which
we remove the judicial problem, which by the way, is fake.
There's nobody who goes to jail for marijuana. You can
fact check me if you want on that zero people
go to jail for smoking marijuana or for possession of marijuana.
They go to for possession of drugs, and even then
that's only three point two percent of the entire state
(12:42):
prison population. Zero inmates are currently federally incarcerated for possession
of marijuana. The only marijuana related defenses are people who
are high level cartel drug traffickers who are probably involved
in a whole lot other mess.
Speaker 1 (12:55):
Than just moving weed across the border.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
And also, oh lo and behold the cartel business in America,
and the illegal weed market remains thriving even in states
of California where weed has been legal now for quite
some time, because they undercut the legitimate price. So my
point just around the entire thing is that the road
that we are on is unregulated, unchecked, massive addiction, the
(13:17):
intersection between marijuana and big capitalism, which is it is
right now. And if that's what you want, okay, just
say it, though, you know, be honest about really the
road that we're all leading down to. And everyone says,
what about alcohol? The way alcohol is right now is horrible, horrible,
especially if you look at the way that people are,
if you look at the drinking rates post COVID, it's
(13:38):
a disaster.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
And the way that the taxes.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And everything continue to go low on it, and we
have these like sin industries which become massively extractive. Nobody
can sit here and tell me that it's a good thing.
You know, there needs to be much more like deep thought.
The gambling thing is another example around it.
Speaker 7 (13:56):
This is what I was just gonna say.
Speaker 8 (13:57):
I mean, so gambling to me, as radical as you
are on that, there's truly nothing else like app online
sports betting that exists right now. And that's what's complicated
about the marijuana conversation because between alcohol, sugar, all kinds
of these actual addictive substances, marijuana can make an argument
(14:19):
that these are also harmful in similar ways, and I mean,
I agree with that, And that's sort of where I
think the Maha conversation is an interesting one in the
context of marijuana, where it's just like we already have
set the bar across the board for what we allow
into our food system and what we tolerate. You are
(14:40):
consistent and you say that should all be different. But
I don't think most people would agree that we should
treat alcohol like if you were arguing, like, should be
way higher taxes on alcohol, I don't think most people
agree with.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
Yeah, I know people like to drink.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
I get it, Okay, I understand, but I don't know
what to say, like, look at what it does to
your body?
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Look at there is no you want more studies on alcohol?
Speaker 8 (15:01):
Well, but what they're saying is that look at what
it does your body short you know, but hey, I'm
choosing to do it, and I'm an adult.
Speaker 7 (15:10):
So that's where I think for marijuana, it becomes.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
Genuinely okay butt.
Speaker 8 (15:14):
If you can consume as much sugar as you want,
if you can consume as much alcohol as you want,
That's where I see a difference between gambling and marijuana.
Speaker 7 (15:20):
I'm not saying this.
Speaker 8 (15:21):
I'm like, actually pretty ambivalent on this. I don't hear
what the right answer is, but it's difficult.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
But let's compare it then to cigarettes.
Speaker 3 (15:27):
So, yeah, cigarettes are right, exactly do you know how
much a cost of cigarette?
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Griffin?
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Text me and tell me how much is a pack
of cigarettes in New York City today?
Speaker 1 (15:35):
What am I guessing?
Speaker 7 (15:36):
Like?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Nineteen bucks? Maybe seventeen. I'm waiting for him to tell me.
So let's so, yeah, eighteen to twenty dollars. If you
go to North Carolina, a state which doesn't tax. How
much is a pack of cigarette five bucks? Is that
fifteen extra bucks? We're like, hey, you want to smoke, Okay, fine,
it's going to be massively taxed. At the same time,
(15:58):
it is going to be paired with unending do not smoke.
Smoking is bad for you in school from the time
you're what like four years old. If that was the
social norm, I'd say, okay, fine, But that's not the
social norm. The social norm is one where you have
a modest tax on the marijuana and you have an
entire society which is basically things just like giggling, cheech
(16:21):
and chong is the way this is all. It's like, no,
that's not what's happening. By the way, oh people are like,
oh what about alcohol? Yeah, added to the schools. Nobody'd
be happier than me if we educate people about what
actually does to your body or any of that. But
this is this what I'm what I am objecting to
is not just the government policy and the corruption behind you.
Speaker 7 (16:39):
And you're objecting to the social The entire.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
Social conversation around this is one that acts like it
has zero downside. Yes, very similar to alcohol. Most people
have no idea until very very recently what alcohol actually
does to the body. Because of social stigma, Everyone's like, oh,
it's totally fine, this is.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Just part of our culture or whatever.
Speaker 3 (16:58):
And you know, all of the studies, just like they've
gone on alcohol and marijuana prove the deala Touri's effects.
At the end of the day, sure, you can make
your own decision, but government policy should be engineered around
trying to actually get good outcomes, and that is the
opposite of what we're having right now.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
So that's the end of my rant. If you made
it this far.
Speaker 8 (17:18):
I'll also just add the lobbying is particularly gross in
this space because it's just I mean, the Josh Dossi
story is worth reading. It's really similar to what happened
with Crypto, where people realize that if you can sit
down across the table with Donald Trump and you meet him,
if you can make a smart argument knowing what Trump
(17:39):
wants to hear, which is, according to the Dossi article,
he wants to be on the eighty side of eighty
twenty issues and politically part of Trump's genius there and
what happened is he got all this money from people
associated with true Leave and the packs and supported the
legalization in Florida last year, and that's now happening at
a federal scale. And it's very so order what happened
(18:00):
with Trump and Crypto. You get in front of him,
you make a clever argument that you know is along
the lines of what he wants to hear, and he's
pleased to be a negotiation to have people come kiss
the ring and make deals with him. And that's happening
now with something that affects Yeah, lots of kids and
their lives too, and as Crypto does as well. I mean,
Crypto's going to affect people's it's obviously currently affecting people's.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
Real life for a one K thing.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
By the way, update on the Block five. I have
finally gotten all my money back. It only took three
and a half years after the company went bankrupt.
Speaker 1 (18:31):
I really have no idea how they did it, but
I did actually get it back.
Speaker 4 (18:35):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:35):
I mean it didn't grow, so the opportunity cost is high,
but yeah, I got it back. I have no idea
of thank you to the bankruptcy attorneys.
Speaker 3 (18:41):
I recently got an email and I was like, wow,
I thought this money was gone forever.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
It's back.
Speaker 7 (18:46):
Amazing news.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
Yeah, amazing news. Okay, let's go to Tucker.
Speaker 8 (18:52):
Tucker Carlson yesterday dropped an episode of his show which
featured George Stephanopoulos's sister who's a nun who lived.
Speaker 7 (18:59):
For a long time in the Holy Land, and.
Speaker 8 (19:02):
The conversation was focused on the plight of Christians in
the Holy Land. What it is like from this nun's perspective,
Mother Stephanopolis, I suppose to live as a Christian in
the Holy Land.
Speaker 7 (19:14):
And it's gone massively viral.
Speaker 8 (19:15):
Soccer This just on YouTube alone has already a million
views and it's been up for about twenty four hours
and it's definitely hanging around a lot in Christian circles.
Speaker 7 (19:24):
No surprise there.
Speaker 8 (19:25):
So let's just get a flavor of what this woman
told Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 7 (19:30):
We can roll the first element here.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
What is don yellow two weeks?
Speaker 9 (19:33):
License point means yellow plate is for people who live
in the state of Israel and they can go on
certain roads, all roads, and for Palestinians who have a
Jerusalem id are allowed to have a car with a
yellow plate. And then Palestinians have green and white plates
and they cannot use so over that time, that I've
been here. As the settlements have grown, you build the
(19:55):
infrastructure for it, the electricity, the roads, separate roads that
are used on by people that have yellow plates. As
a foreigner and part of a foreign church, we were
entitled to have either those or they also white to
bladic and religious plates that are there. So there's very
much an apartheid system.
Speaker 7 (20:12):
So mother I got.
Speaker 8 (20:13):
Pia Stephanopolis is a Russian Orthodox nun, the sister of
George Stefanopolis. They talk a little bit in their interview
actually about what it's been like for her brother, George
Stefanopolis to get heat over the years as she's shared
her perspective, mostly about Israel soccer. So that's where this
is causing already predictable levels of controversy on the right,
(20:36):
because she's very very anti Israel in this episode and
throughout her whole career.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
She's her Yeah, look her.
Speaker 3 (20:44):
The episode consistently I found valuable because she's like, look,
I'm a nun.
Speaker 1 (20:49):
I live in the Holy Land.
Speaker 3 (20:50):
Here is my daily interaction with the Muslim population. Here
is what it's like being a nun in my Orthodox
Christian community, in doing ministry and going to these churches
in Gaza and generally observing what things are like and
what she is talking about. The main criticism I've seen
is that it's preposterous for Tucker to interview her about
(21:11):
Christian destruction because Christianity is growing in Israel. But everyone
then ignored that she's talking about the West Bank and
what she's talking about is thea and she's talking about
the separate system and the war on these settlers, on
many of these communities, many of which are also Christian,
(21:32):
and of the two tiered not even two tiered system
of justice, there's justice for one and then there's not
for other. And that's the part that is so annoying
is everybody, the Israeli defenders will say in one breath
that the West Bank is in Israel, but that then
they will cite the policies of the officially recognized Israel,
and it's like, well, if you combine the two things.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Are a little bit different.
Speaker 3 (21:52):
Now it's like, yeah, Arab Israelis can vote in Israel,
how does it work when she's talking about the yellow
license plate?
Speaker 1 (21:58):
And also the settler thing is a.
Speaker 3 (22:00):
Much more urgent question today because it used to actually
be controversial in Israel.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
There are a lot of Israelis are against it.
Speaker 3 (22:05):
There might still be, but it's part of the governing
coalition now to not just support them, to arm them
and to protect them with military forces almost certainly coming
to Gaza very soon. So then the question of how
do they act outside of currently recognize Israel or what
Israel calls itself Israel and in greater Israel, Well that
becomes the urgent question of that treatment, which she has
(22:27):
now lived through for many years, and why I thought
her perspective was very valuable.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
She also, yeah, go ahead, well no.
Speaker 8 (22:33):
I mean, it's just super interesting stuff. It was a
long conversation. So we have a selection of highlights. Do
you want to get to this mainstream media?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Yeah, this is well, this is important because she talks
about her brother who works at George Stephanopoulos.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
But more importantly what she talks about.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
Is the way that mass media in the US frames
the issue. In the conversation, let's take a listen.
Speaker 9 (22:52):
It's certainly a great problem right now. I mean, you know,
and even with this we're dealing now, it's becoming a
lot of publicity on the start, even though it is
being distorted. I actually watched the news this morning and
the James Tavritiz is on and he's talking about it's
all Hamasa and they show the emaciated hostage and as
if you know, we would everything would be okay if
(23:13):
only Hamas would release the hostage. And and that's the
starvation when it's taking place. Millions of people are being starved,
Babies are dying there, and we're focused. God, I hope
the hostage gets freed. He should get freed, and he
should get freed, and Israel should remove themselves from Gaza
and allow the food to get in. And that's and
(23:33):
Christians should be pushing for that, and I think we
are seeing that to some degree now, but it's still
obscuring the main point. Like I said that, the great,
the unspoken thing when I talk to all my friends
on the West Bank now is that because that they
know we're next, that it's going to happen, and it
will happen. Maybe we'll go back to that time where
it'll be more like they they play a long game,
(23:54):
you know, even with this settlement building, we'll build and
then if America gives a little bit of pushback. Okay,
we stopped for a while and then we start again,
so maybe even in the West Bank for now.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
So yeah, I mean, I think that that perspective is
very valuable from her, again as somebody who currently experiences
so much of this stuff, and where she really kicked
I think the hornous nest was by claiming that Christian fundamentalist.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
Support for Israel is heresy.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Now I am not Christian and I'm not going to
get engaged in theological debates, but you tell me what
the response to that was.
Speaker 7 (24:26):
Well, let's ull a clip.
Speaker 8 (24:28):
This is going to be E three and it's not
surprising at all of her Russian Orthodox none today at
this point. Let's we'll get into it on the back end.
Speaker 7 (24:37):
This is E three.
Speaker 9 (24:39):
Just like many Jews are protesting and saying not in
our name, there has to be much more done by
the Christians in America because these Christian Zionists are speaking
in our name. Someone like Ted Cruz is saying and
doing what he's doing because he's following a Christianity that
is not the Christianity of the Holy Land.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
We are commanded as Christians support the government of Israel.
We are commanded to support Israel.
Speaker 9 (25:00):
Heretical belief.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
What is Christian Zionism.
Speaker 9 (25:02):
It's sort of this cruel bargain they have going with
Israel because basically what they say that they're going to
be swooped up into heaven, right, and then there's going
to be a thousand year kingdom, and then there'll be
the end of the world and the judgment by Christ
and he'll come back. This is a false It was
condemned as a heresy in three eighty one because basically
there is no thousand year millennium to come those thousand
(25:24):
year period we are in that time period now, it's
a false belief there.
Speaker 1 (25:29):
So basically they're arguing, is that Jesus coming the first
time wasn't enough?
Speaker 9 (25:33):
Yeah, And it's like, in a way, it's denying the Messiah.
Speaker 1 (25:36):
So all right, tell me, tell me what's going on.
Speaker 8 (25:39):
So we don't have to get into the whole premillennial
dispensation listening again, But that's basically what she's talking about.
Ryan and I talked about extensively in our Red Heifer
segment that Ryan reported out last week, and we're talking
about before too, But the idea that there's a rapture
and then the it's mostly evangelicals now and evangelical. You
(26:01):
hear sometimes those arguments made, and I would say it
was probably the case in that interview that comes across
as just anti Protestants, but just still sensitive. I don't
take any offense to that. I think it did sound
sort of anti Protestant. But to say it's a heresy
to me is as much as I disagree with it
and think it is dangerous, this is a semantic conversation.
(26:22):
It's just a bad interpretation, and it's a bad It's
it's a I think, a thin interpretation to base your
foreign policy on. It's not a crazy interpretation of scripture.
It's just in many cases a very literal interpretation of scripture.
So I wouldn't go so far as to call it
a heresy. But she did God a heresy, which.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Of course, again this is like you know, my experience
with this is like the da Vinci Code, but like
talking about she was like in three fifty eight they
declared it on like sure, whatever, I'll take your word
for it.
Speaker 8 (26:53):
She's roughen orthodoxy. She's not Protestant, so it's it's not offensive.
But I think most people would say it's it's not
so much heretical, it's not gnosticism, but it's a very
literal interpretation and it's thin gruel for your foreign policy,
which is a very fair point. Like the red halfer
segment we had last week, it's to base your foreign
(27:15):
policy around this as ostensibly my cocka being Mike Johnson
and Ted Kruz do.
Speaker 7 (27:20):
That's really a serious problem.
Speaker 8 (27:22):
And I think that's probably what's most offensive is not
calling it a heresy, because that's more stemantic.
Speaker 7 (27:28):
I mean, pre.
Speaker 8 (27:29):
Millennial dispensations know that they're kind of a lot of
people disagree.
Speaker 7 (27:33):
With them and think that they're bananas.
Speaker 8 (27:35):
But I think what's more offensive is this idea that
your lifelong support for the Israeli state, the Israeli government,
political israel I think it's it's a more sensitive topic
because it hits a live wire for a lot of
people that you kind of look around and you realize,
h guess some of this maybe was wrong.
Speaker 7 (27:56):
Yeah, that's why it's so sensitive.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
I would hope so do E four as well.
Speaker 7 (28:02):
I think this is what was most This seemed to
be the most contraus.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
This is what people got upset about. Yeah, le's take
a lisson. I mean, I'm sure you've dealt with Hamah
or no. People who are they religious fanatics? Are they jihatis?
Speaker 9 (28:15):
Not the people that I know. Like I said, I
when I was again at the school, we had a
couple teachers Meslim men and there were some elections going
on and it wasn't Hamas then it was the social
party or somebody was definitely a religious Muslim religious party.
I would have voted for those guys because they weren't corrupt.
They wanted to serve their people, and that's what it
(28:38):
was about. So I'm not saying it doesn't happen anywhere.
I'm not totally ingrained in the community, but I don't
it doesn't. The vibe there isn't one of wanting everybody
to convert to Islam and forcing it upon them at
all at all. And the purpose of Hamas is primarily
to resist and to protect their people in their land.
Speaker 8 (29:01):
And she's a bit kaj when talkers if you can proselytize,
and she says, you know, we don't really.
Speaker 7 (29:06):
Do that because we're Orthodox. It's not part of our faith.
Speaker 8 (29:09):
But Sager again important point that a lot of people
do want to gloss over Hamas is not exactly the
same as isis right, like there are distinctions between the otherization. Yeah,
it's a political organization. They're very I mean, I guess
you can call Isis one too, but they're very meaningful distinctions.
It doesn't mean one is great, it means that it's different.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
The the take I saw was that she's reluctant to
say it because then she couldn't be able to go back.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
Yeah. I don't know.
Speaker 3 (29:40):
I mean, at the end of the day, I guess
I'll take a word for it, Like I would probably
want to say, we should you get ask like other
people who are Christian in let's say, Gaza and or
in the West Bank about their general experience, because those
are the ones ultimately you have to deal, you know,
with the population. I did think what was kind of
interesting talking or listening to her was just about the
(30:02):
Islamic and Christian communities who live side by side there. Yes,
And she did not make it seem as if it
was the Muslim population that was driving them out. She
much more laid the blame at Israel. I don't know
if that is to be true. It is just interesting
though to hear her say that, And I was like, well,
you know, I mean, I'm assuming there's I mean, what
incentive do you have for a Christian leader not to
(30:23):
say the otherwise?
Speaker 8 (30:24):
Well, so I think it's very obviously true when you're
talking about some of these sites, and she makes a
really interesting argument about Jacob's Well and other sites in
the West Bank where for Muslims these sites were actually
here's an even better example, some of the sites where
Jesus's birthplace.
Speaker 7 (30:41):
Yeah, those are really those.
Speaker 8 (30:43):
Are actually also important sites to Muslims because obviously they
incorporate Jesus into Islam and always have, and so they
have incentives to protect these holy sites for Christians in
the same way that Christians have incentives to protect their
holy sites. But if you are is what incentive do
you have to protect a site that has to do
(31:03):
with Jesus, who you believe was a false Messiah. So
from that perspective of just purely preserving the history, there's obviously,
like the ven diagram has an overlap on the question
of like holy sites for people who believe in Jesus Christ.
So I thought that point was interesting. She's basically saying
there's a real risk with settlements and such of these
(31:26):
holy sites being completely obliterated because the Israelis may have
reason to preserve Jacob's well, but what reason do they
have to preserve Christian like christ centered holy sites?
Speaker 7 (31:38):
Not really much at all, and that is a legitimate risk.
But yeah, the Humas stuff, did it sound like she
maybe was a little a little tense. Yeah, she was
like she.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
Was like, they're you know, they're defending their people.
Speaker 3 (31:50):
I was like, wow, I mean, you know, theoretically, I
guess technically true, maybe she has her own incentive. She probably,
if I had to guess, is just one who's so
horrified by Israel that she doesn't want to fall any trap.
Which I actually think that's I do understand that she.
Speaker 8 (32:05):
Did not want to make it sound like by criticizing
Hamas and she can take it shure with this argument,
yis exactly she didn't want to fall into.
Speaker 7 (32:14):
You called it trap. I think it's exactly right. That
was my internal It's like.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
There's Morgan, you know, like do you but do you condemn?
Speaker 1 (32:22):
Do you condemn Hamas?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
And by the way, she was like, yes, the hostage
should be released anyway.
Speaker 1 (32:27):
Interesting Combo.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
I'm glad that I at least got your perspective on it.
Let's get to Epstein.
Speaker 7 (32:34):
Hashtag release the Quomo list. That is the new campaign
push from Zoron Mamdani, Democratic nominee, not Andrew Cuomo for
mayor of New York City. Obviously everyone is familiar with him.
But let's go.
Speaker 8 (32:48):
Ahead and take a look at this ad that Zoron
dropped yesterday with hashtag release the Cuomo list, now tying
Andrew Cuomo, his opponent, whom he obviously defeated in the
Democratic I'm mary to the Epstein list.
Speaker 7 (33:03):
Let's roll the clip.
Speaker 5 (33:04):
Four years ago, Andrew Cuomo resigned in disgrace, and you
probably know.
Speaker 6 (33:07):
Why Governor's office kept the nursing home death data secret.
Speaker 1 (33:10):
Fomo aggressively growthed an aid, inappropriately touched a female d trooper,
use of state resources or COVID nineteen memoir.
Speaker 5 (33:18):
Less well known is what he spent the last four
years doing, besides getting trounced in the Democratic primer. In
twenty twenty two, Cuomo started Innovation Strategies LLC to represent
individuals and corporations in a variety of matters definitely not vague.
Last year, it raked in more than half a million
dollars who paid for Cuomo's services, he refuses to say,
but what journalists have been able to piece together is troubling.
(33:41):
In April, Bloomberg revealed the Cuomo advised a cryptocurrency exchange
based in the Seychelles as it faced federal investigations. Then
in May, Politico reported that Cuomo failed to disclose two
point six million dollars in stock options to the New
York City Complex of Interest For his excuse, the stocks
were technically owned by Innovation Strategies LLC, of which is
the Finally, in June, the New York Times uncovered the
(34:03):
Cuomo had worked with his longtime friend Andrew Farcas on
a luxury marina project in Puerto Rico. Farcas's previous partner
on luxury murders in the Caribbean, Jeffrey Epstein, we had.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
A finance chair like a Marcas.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
That's the thing about Andrew Cloma. Once you think you
found out about all of us scandals, you find out
about a number, and then a number, and then probably another.
But if my friend, the disgraced former governor of the
State of New York, feels that's unfair, how do you
release your client list?
Speaker 8 (34:31):
Lease the client list Okay, well, so let's put the
next element on the screen. This is a tweet that
went Megavirel and said breaking Andrew Cuomo was on the
Epstein list. But you know what that article links to,
saga is a story about the binders that Pam Bondi
released in late February, which all of this was already known,
(34:51):
has been known for a really long time. Another thing
I noted in the Cuomo video that Mom Donnie just
put out, Actually they're tying him more to COVID in
that as well.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
Yeah you get I think that's COVID.
Speaker 7 (35:03):
Yeah it is.
Speaker 1 (35:03):
Yeah, we're what they.
Speaker 3 (35:04):
Were talking about with the Epstein list binder is, like
you said, of the contacts that were included in there.
By the way, we can put that on the screen
from the New York Post if we want to f
three please and it says, you know, the Epstein contact
list included such luminaries as Alec Baldwin, Michael Jackson, Mick Jagger,
and RFK Junior's mom. I will say, you know again,
(35:25):
to be fair, and this is what they always say,
there were people in the Black Book apparently who literally
had never corresponded with him. So in some cases like
he would keep their information but they didn't necessarily know it.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
But the point beyond the.
Speaker 3 (35:38):
Zoron ad is more about using it as a political vector,
and I think very effectively. I've seen some Democrats try
to do this in the past. Of course, the COVID
connection in general. What do you want to gin up
against Andrew Cuomo is this was a corrupt governor, his
sketchy ties in the past, and he literally his policies
(35:58):
killed people whenever he was the governor. Why would you
want somebody whos at is New York all that is.
Speaker 8 (36:02):
True sexual misconduct application which the epstein putting gasoline on it.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Yeah, exactly exactly. So I think those two things together
are effective. And I mean Coomo himself just seems to
be going through some like mental crisis. Like in his
attacks on Zoran he's like, you know, I'm the son
of you know what He's saying, I'm a boxer, Like
I'll meet you in the ring.
Speaker 7 (36:24):
He fly like a butterfly thing.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Yeah right, yeah, it's like what are you doing here?
Speaker 3 (36:31):
Like, you know, And I think what it all kind
of comes together with in his strategy is sending himself
as a tough guy that's that's what it seems to me.
But you know the problem is in the current split field,
I think all it's doing is consolidating the support right
now for Zarn because you have Silwa, you have Adams,
(36:52):
you have Cuomo. All of those together they're going to
split any so called moderate vote.
Speaker 8 (36:56):
But you also, you don't look like a tough guy
when you lost, of course to an upstore thirty something
like state legislator. It just you can't come back from
that and look tough, even if you have all the
resources in the world, because you were just outgunned by
somebody with no resources, Like, there's just no way to
recover your tough reputation. Clearly, what he has is some
(37:17):
type of like teenager or with somebody with a teenage
mentality running his Twitter account and posting those things exactly
what you said you would hope so well, those quotes
that you just alluded to where he's he's referencing his
dad and fly like a butterflies thing, like, I mean,
it just crazy stuff. But he clearly hired somebody to
run his social media in a way that makes it
(37:38):
look like he's having a mental breakdown and is about
to you know, buy a red convertible and uh, do
some more adultery.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, and keeping with the Epstein thing, the more that
there is like a cover up and mentality to it,
I think, the more this will resonate amongst the Democrats
and specifically you know, we've seen this, you know, all
of a sudden, some of the Democratic influencer accounts or whatever,
they're going crazy with epstin, which is fine with me.
Late anything that rea leads to the release of more information,
(38:08):
it's totally cool. Let's put the F four please up
on the screen, just to give everybody an update. The
judge will not unseal grand jury papers of Ghlaine Maxwell
or Gallaine Maxwell after Donald Trump and the administration asked
them to. So that kind of, you know, defeats the
alleged transparency that they were going for by saying that
(38:29):
they were going to ask the judge to release the
grand jury information. Both Maxwell, Maxwell's attorney and the government
previously had opposed the release of such documents, and so
now the judge has basically been like, yeah, no, we're
not going to do it. And Glaane is miraculously still
in the federal prison camp in my hometown Brian, Texas,
and yeah, I should when I go back, I should
(38:50):
go and survey because apparently in a federal prison camp,
so there was some story going around work release. Apparently
it's not true. Her lawyer denies that she has work release,
but you do have like more limited interaction like with
people in the community possibly, like especially because some people
do have work release there who would know her. So
I need to go and investigate the next time. Then
I go on, you do Apparently you can even go
(39:11):
take photos the Daily Mail as photos of Elizabeth Holmes daily.
Speaker 7 (39:14):
Workouts and Jenshaw from real house.
Speaker 1 (39:17):
We shouldn't.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
We shouldn't arrest her as well down in Club Fed.
So maybe I'll do that.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
I'll do the paparazzi thing.
Speaker 3 (39:23):
I'll go, I'll shout some questions at Gleane and see
if I can get an interview with her.
Speaker 7 (39:26):
This judge's response was pretty annoying.
Speaker 1 (39:28):
Why so what do you think?
Speaker 7 (39:29):
Well, I mean, it's just like they're.
Speaker 8 (39:30):
Saying there's nothing new public's not going to learn, and
obviously they don't want to breach the grand jury.
Speaker 7 (39:35):
I get it. Yeah, but if that's the case, just
let us see it.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
Well, it's complicated, because I think it was designed to fail.
Speaker 7 (39:41):
Right.
Speaker 3 (39:41):
The point is not to point to these The point
is what's in the government's purview already if they wanted
to realise, which they fully have. They have one hundred
thousand documents compiled in the FBI, They have so many
doctor that, Treasury Bank reports, et cetera, all of which
are totally open and subpoenable by Congress, except which they
are blocking.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
They're not allowing them to have it.
Speaker 3 (40:02):
So I'm hoping that at least some of it, you know,
does come out at some point, because you know, even
these Republican politicians when they eventually come back to town
in two weeks, the Oversight Comedian others have subpoena Glean Maxwell,
They've subpoenas some of these records, right, So more information
actually could still be coming out.
Speaker 7 (40:19):
Yeah, so let's just pause. Just one more thing to
add on that.
Speaker 8 (40:23):
A lot of people were following Thomas Massey's post yesterday
about how Trump can't do recess appointments to fill hundreds
of empty seats in his administration because gp House and
Senate I'm quoting here hold pro forma sessions to block him. Meanwhile,
bureaucrats carry on, is that they report to no one.
Here's the one they held today in an empty chamber,
And he posted a video of a pro forma session
happening in an empty chamber. Someone tagged us in response
(40:44):
to the Massy tweet and said, why can you find
out about this? So I asked a source. And this
is also Epstein related. The reason basically that you can
assume we can assume that they're doing these pro forma
sessions that blocked Trump's own recess appointments is because and
all like hood Trump agreed with Mike Johnson and John
Thune to do this to block the raci's appointments in
(41:06):
order to avoid a vote on the Epstein bill. So again,
all of these things that are like designed to fail.
That you just I think that was perfect description what
you just mentioned. That is what the Trump administration is
now pushing under the banner of trying to ascertain some
level of transparency and to get more information out into
the public.
Speaker 7 (41:26):
There are all of these.
Speaker 8 (41:27):
Like stall mechanisms that we're starting to see, I think
pop up, and that'll likely be the course of the
next three years the administration.
Speaker 3 (41:34):
I agree with that, all right, Emily, thank you for
having me. I appreciate it. Thanks for letting me hijack
the show no no and rant about weed.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
That's the only you would let me allow.
Speaker 7 (41:43):
Let me do it, I learned.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
I hope the audience.
Speaker 7 (41:46):
I always do it. And my favorite thing is that
you had to drink out of a mug with my
Ryan's face.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
Listen, I don't care. You know it's good for us,
it's good for the company. All right, guys, thank you
so much for watching. I'll be on with Crystal tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
We'll see you.
Speaker 9 (41:59):
Then pick