Krystal and Saagar Abrego Garcia deportation, Israel double taps hospital, Bari Weiss meltdown over Breaking Points.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
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 this show.
Speaker 1 (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.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Become a member today and you'll get access to our.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Full shows, unedited, ad free and all put together for
you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
So we have a whole bunch of updates for you
with regard to kil marvrego Garcia. Just before we play
you the latest, let me bring everybody up to speed
so you'll recall that he was wrongfully deported to El
Salvador country, that he had been the judicial system to
come and said you cannot deport him to El Salvador.
(00:53):
The government admitted the mistake, but refused to bring him
back in spite of a Supreme Court decision saying you
should try to enable his return. Okay, government ultimately kind
of buckles does allow him to come back, but charges
him with these series of crimes, including alleged human trafficking,
and sort of use that as a cover and a
pretext for why, oh, we're not really backing down and
(01:16):
allowing him back. Instead, we want to bring him back
and charge him. Okay, So in the context of that trial,
he was released pending the actual court date. So he
was released last week. Now he had to go back
to check in at the Baltimore Ice office and.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
They ended up detaining him.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
And I'll give you the rest of what they plan
to do next, but first let's take a look at
Abrego Garcia speaking at a rally outside of that Baltimore
Ice office before turning himself in being redetained. And we
also have some images here of him saying goodbye to
his wife, who does happen to be an American citizen.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Let's take a listen to this.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
This is why I want to thank each and every
one one of you who marched. Lift your voices, never
stop praying, and continue to fight in my name.
Speaker 5 (02:10):
You told me familiar.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Thank you to my life partner and wife, Jennifer, to
my brother Sessar, to my mother, Cecilia, to my children,
to my nieces and nephews, to all of my family.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
All right, so let's go and put the next piece
up on the screen. That's a tear sheet with the
very latest development. So he turns himself in, he is
re arrested, and the government indicates that they want to
deport him to Uganda.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
It can't be deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
So they've decided that they want to deport him to Uganda.
That move has now been at least temporarily blocked by
a federal judge. Let me go ahead and read a
little bit of this political story to give you some
of the twists and turns here.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
So they said, a.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration's bid to deport
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who has become a
symbol of Trump's master deportation agenda, to Uganda. This judge
on Monday ordered the administration to keep Abrego in a
detention facility in Virginia while she weighs his renewed effort
to prevent immigration officials from abruptly casting himount of the
(03:21):
country for a second time in five months. This is
a critical part and helps to create an understanding about
what his legal challenge will be based on. So, his
lawyers say that the administration had offered to deport him
to Costa Rica, something that he agreed to. He accepted that,
(03:42):
but they said they would only allow him to be
deported to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to the
human smuggling charges that he faces in Tennessee. So he
refused to plead guilty in exchange for being able to
be deported to Costa Rica. And so in order to
punish him for not pleading guilty to these human trafficking charges,
(04:03):
which appear to be pretty flimsy at best, in order
to punish him for that, they have said, Okay, instead,
we're going to deport you to Uganda. That is this
specific piece that is likely to come under close scrutiny
from this judge. At a hearing Monday afternoon, that Judge
Zennis said she had several concerns about the rapid fire
(04:24):
deportation proceedings, noting Abrego might be entitled to go to
his designated country of choice, Costa Rica rather than Uganda.
She also said if the Justice Department used his deportation
as a cudgel to coerce a guilty plea, it would
be a violation of his constitutional rights. Quote, you can't
condition the relinquishment of constitutional rights in that regard. So
(04:45):
that sort of brings you, guys up to speed. He's
been re arrested. I think one of the obvious conclusions
to draw is that if they want to deport him
before his criminal trial even occurs, tells you something, Zager,
I think about the strength of the evidence that they
feel they have against him. You know, I think we
always suspected when they brought him back and throw these
charges at him, that was pretty flimsy, pretty protextual. They
(05:08):
have never been able to They've never you know, no
judge has ever found he was even a gang member,
let alone a gang leader. The traffic stop that this
alleged human smuggling charge is coming based on, you know,
the officers who evaluated him at the scene let him go, no.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Charges were filed, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So the fact they want to get him out of
the country before he even has his data in court.
If this was truly some violent gang leader, human trafficker,
et cetera, you would think you would want to lock
him behind bars, not just release them into whatever random
country you decide.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Look, I can't deny the Trump administration. Everything they've said
has been bullshit, and that's just baguely good true. Yes,
and some of us got taken for a ride. I'll
raised my hand and I'll admit it. Basically, not only
in the original deportation, the MS thirteen stuff, the case
I read it. Most of the accusations they're not particularly
(06:00):
well founded, So that's the truth. They're using the Uganda
thing broadly. It seems to some sort of like pay
scheme for what is it for pleading guilty? So that's it,
and they want to make an example broadly for deportation.
So I think that's fair, And I'll put that all
out there just where people know that I'm trying to
approach this in a fair enough way. I do think
it's still worth considering, how does this guy who's lived
(06:22):
here since what is it? Let me get the date correctly.
Is it twenty thirteen? I'm fairly certain twenty eleven. I
apologize twenty eleven. And he doesn't speak a word of
English and it can't give a press conference. How is
that acceptable? And that's the more broad question that I
think all of us need to answer here. Abrego Garcia
illegally entered our country in twenty and eleven. He was
(06:42):
not removed during that entire period. He came actually as
an unaccompanied minor to join his brother, who also came
here illegally in that time period. Does not acquire the
ability to speak English. Is a low skilled labor who
has not layo skilled labor, who has not graduated from
high school. And the broad current position is that he
(07:03):
should be allowed to stay here and get some sort
of pathway to citizenship. In my opinion, it all falls
apart for his whole deportation to Uganda thing, when his
lawyer quite literally says, with a straight face, you can't
deport him to a country where he doesn't speak the English.
Doesn't speak the language, D four, Please let's go ahead
and play it.
Speaker 6 (07:20):
It is preposterous that they would send him to Africa,
to a country where he does he even speak the language,
a country that documented human rights violations, when there are
so many other options. This family suffered enough, they need
to stop trying to separate them.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
The official language of Uganda is English. That is a
tacit admission that he doesn't speak the language of English.
This is the point that I think people really need
to grapple with.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Isn't it English and Swahili?
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Well yeah, but I mean English is one of their
official languages. My point is just more broadly, that he
has lived here since twenty eleven, doesn't speak English his
day labor, by his own admission, has literally been in
this country for more more than a decade. And this
is the type of person that we are supposed to
say should get amnesty in a pathway decisionship, I think
everyone should sit with that like that is for possible.
(08:09):
We've just had an argument earlier in our show about
the best and the Brightest. That's not what this looks like.
And I'm not putting him down as a human being.
I don't think his human worth is less his worth
to the United States. As an addition, and if we
were to legalize that person statistically, what happens to somebody
who doesn't have a high school education, who doesn't speak
any English. If that person is legally a United States citizen,
(08:31):
they can be on welfare. Okay, that's just the basic truth.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
But he's not, And in fact, you're not right that
he's a day laborer, he's a sheet metal worker. No
Local one hundred, Smart Local one hundred in Maryland who
defended him by the way in the.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Process of all of this.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
And I'm also curious what you make of the rights
of his American citizen wife and his American citizen children,
who are also being dramatically punished because again, because the
Trump administration made a mistake in their deportation of him,
violated a lawful court order, and.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Refuse to make life.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I'm acknowledging that that's why they're making an example of
him and trying to make his life miserable, accusing him
of crimes, that there is no evidence that he is committed,
smearing him in the public eye, and so I just
I disagree on I disagree on every level with your
characterization of who he is and his value and work
(09:26):
to society.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
You know, I think the fact that he's.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
A sheep metal worker apprentice, yes, I think that's important.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I think that's valuable to the country.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
He's clearly assimilated enough to have American wife and America
is that's a.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Commentary on America though, that you can live here and
have children and apparently have us and wife and English.
That's a huge problem. I don't know that. I don't
know how this is I don't know how this is acceptable, Sager.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Here's the other thing, though, I don't even know that.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Like, there's a big difference between being able to speak
any English and being able to give a press conference
in front of media and feel comfortable in your level
of fluency. Okay, those are two very different things. So
I haven't personally administered an English language test to him.
I know you haven't either, So you know, to hinge
his citizenship and whether or not he should be punished
and used in this way on what his level of
(10:12):
fluency is in the English language, I think is prepossible.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Why is possibly merely he hasmulated, you can't speak enough English?
In English? Why should you be a Really he.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Has assimilated enough to be fully integrated into a work community,
into a social community, into having again an American citizen
wife and kids. And I think it's thoroughly disgusting that
the Trump administration, rather than admit they made a mistake,
has sought to absolutely destroy this man in order to
(10:43):
make a point and to never back down.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
That is really the cool what's going on.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
That's why I'm separating the two because I agree with you. Okay,
they lied to us. It's absolutely true, one hundred percent,
absolutely one hundred percent. They're smearing him. They deported him wrongfully.
In my opinion, you should have been deported a long
time ago. But whatever, Okay, we are where we are today.
Do I think it should be sent to Uganda?
Speaker 2 (11:03):
No?
Speaker 1 (11:03):
All right, even Costa Rica doesn't make a whole lot
of sense. I'm sure we have all we should go
through the process. I think his asylum claim is bullshit
in my opinion, because the vast majority of these asylum
claims are bullshit. Especially in a country which dramatically less violence,
you can't really fear as much. Now, perhaps his fear
is from the government. I guess it's a different story. Again,
(11:24):
we can litigate all of that in court, so I'm
gonna put my cards there very closely on the table.
But again, at a basic level, you cannot have a
society where if you have lived here for over a
decade and you cannot present yourself in English, you cannot
be a citizen. Now, the point about being able to
assimilate is actually the opposite, because the problem is we
have now vast numbers of illegal immigrants and others who
(11:45):
come to the United States and have pockets where English
is not spoken. That is not acceptable. And the even
more broad point, very importantly is about not only assimilation
but also the economic value. Yes, I understand it's very
hard for liberals to talk about this, but when you're
talking about the addition of new entrants into your country,
(12:05):
you need to have an assurance that those people will
be able to stand on their own feed. Theres no no,
there is no no, no he does okay, no, but no,
what you just said. Note what you just said specifically
about sheet level apprentice. That's part of the reason I
said day level work labor. And if you also look previously,
hanging out in the home depot parking lot where he
was arrested in twenty nineteen is the quite literal definition
(12:27):
of day laboring. Now, when you put up will no,
but when you put that together and on.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Top of that black and its stable job.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
On top of lack of English proficiency, it is obvious
that that question should be asked, how can this person
be allowed to stay in the United States? And should
they be allowed to become a citizen? Again, this is
the problem broadly with speaking of immigrants as a broad group.
You're trying to loop in like Nobel Prize winning scientists
with somebody who's a day labor who doesn't speak in English,
(12:55):
who also under the country illegally. Those two are not
fundamentally this same I believe you agreed with me in
the past that there should be a requirement for English
language proficiency to become a citizen. I don't even think
you should be able to get a work visa or
anything if you don't speak any English. Now, in this
particular case, this is a problem and an emblem of
our broken immigration system, and it should not work for
(13:17):
Kilmo Brego Garcia if.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
He spoke English to your level of you know, whatever
your standard is.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Sure, Kenny, stay well, no, but that's not the point.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Then why are you making that the point?
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Because because it's an example of how somebody who has
lived here from twenty eleven doesn't speak English. That is
an insane, insane thing that nobody, apparently on the left
wants to grapple. We have tens of millions of people
here who don't speak anything.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
It does not offend me the way that it does.
I will certainly acknowledge should be the case. We don't
have an official language as a country.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Are are I think trump is The history and.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Tradition as a nation has been.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
There's always been these immigrant pockets and communities and guess
what a lot of issues A generation later, Guess what,
their kids are fully integrated Americans. So yes, for some people,
you know what, I'm not that great at learning foreign
languages either. For some people who come here it may
be more of a struggle to be able to acquire
in a language and the level of fluency you know
(14:15):
that you know that you're looking for.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
We also don't have right now.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
If we had a pathway to citizenship that was conditional
upon English language acquisition, I have no doubt that he
would pursue that in order to be able to meet
the metrics that are set out by the government. We
don't have that, So there is no motivation for him
to learn the language outside of what level, which again
I don't even know whether he is language.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
For his motivation. No, the motivation again should not be
working for the people who broke the law and entered
our country illegally. Since two thousand and eleven, let me
underscore that two thousand eleven. This person has lived here.
I'm not putting down as worth as a human. I
think he has been treated very badly by the US government.
If he actually stays and prosecute, he'll probably get himself
a settle.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Here's what busters and me, Sager is, I don't look
your view legitimate. And there's obviously we have profound disagreements
about the level of immigration that should be permitted into
this country and the value of immigrants who come into
this country. What bothers me about your approach is you're
more outraged about this man who, Okay, yes, he crossed
(15:17):
the border illegally. Yes, outside of that, zero evidence he
did anything wrong, applied for asylum, went through the process,
followed the court order, all of these sorts of things right,
contributing to society, becomes a sheet metal apprentice. Mary's an
American wife, by all accounts, is a good dad. You know,
was there with his disabled son when he gets arrested,
et cetera. You are more upset about that one man
(15:38):
than you are about this government lying trying to ruin
his life, accusing him of crimes he did not commit.
And we can put the we can put this DHS
tweet D three up on the screen that you have
a government that can just to the whole world, smear
someone who.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Has not been found guilty of any of them. Says
DHS is.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Thrilled that this MS thirteen gang number human traffick or
wife beat or child protter is being processed for.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Removal to Uganda.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
That the government, which has infinitely more power than k
Abrego Garcia, could do this and that's not your primary outrage.
That to me is just that's hard for me to
wrap my.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
hYP I completely understand where you' come from, and I'll
explain it very clearly. It's because I think for you
and for most people, they fail you. Kilmar as an American.
I don't think he's an American. I don't know. I
don't think he should be, or I think he is
an emblem of a broken society.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Honestly, it's irrelevant to me whether he's an American.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
But that's kind of my point.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
This is about a government.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
A government that will do this to him, will do
it to anyone anyway.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
See.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
I actually, first of all, I don't think that that's
it is of course. Second, because of course it's true,
it's not true, because nobody has been deported to Seacott.
Now again, i've I have openly said I was full
of I was.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Americans have been arrested by Ice and detained for lengthy
periods of time. You do have massive cracked on the
speech of Americans. And he is married to an American.
What about her rights? Why don't you care about what
this is doing to her life? Since your cent she's
focused for first and foremost on the rights of American citizens.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
She's not being prosecuted as far as I know.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
From being ruined.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Yes, who was here illegally? And when you do that
there are consequences. I mean, I so just because somebody
who's married to somebody who is legal, they get absolved.
Our immigrants, why marry a drug casolved?
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Our immigration system is meant to enable American citizens to
be able to marry who they want.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
I mean, that's why we.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Have a process for people to be able to obtain
green cards and then ultimately become permanent residents and naturalized
citizens based on getting their you know, their marriage to
an American citizen and so you know that seems to
not enter into your quation either.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
But again, he didn't mine. But you're reversing terms because
he came here illegally before he got married. He broke
the law far long before, and he this happened if
his US's and wife had gone down to El Salvador,
met him down in El Salvador, tried to bring him
back here. It's a little bit of a difference.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
So she deserves to have.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Broken apart and needs the American kids to lose their
dad and you know him be shipped to you gotta
and locked up and you know, have.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
The whole weight.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
I don't think the federal government set against this one
man because they won't admit that they made a mistake.
I mean, that is such an abusive power, and I
don't know why you think that anyone American citizen or
not is going to be protected from that abuse of
power when clearly this government is willing to lie, to
ignore court orders, to refuse the Supreme Court order, to
(18:38):
put out their scurrilous allegations with no basis. In fact,
there's no limiting principle on that whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
And I think it is entirely fair and to the
extent that is affected Americans. I have spoken repeatedly again
against it, now again it gets to the outrage, and
it's about the system, and I think he represents the
thirty Nobody even knows what the actual number is. It
could be thirty million, it could be fifty million, apparently
according to more recent statistics. I have no clue. But
my point is I am outraged by the fact that
we have literal lawlessness which is endorsed and was created
(19:09):
by the previous administration, which has wreaked mass social chaos
and a lot of very bad effects. I think it's
a good thing to make sure that people who are
illegally who, in my opinion, are not just opinion. I
think there's a lot of studies to back it up,
are depressing American wages and also are basically being used
as like quasi cutouts for big business. All of that
(19:30):
I think is really bad. I think somebody should try
to fix it, and instead this becomes an emblem for
the outrages of the Trump administration, which I by the way,
I blame entirely on the Trump administration. And they have
lost me one hundred percent in their ability to ever
convince me of what they're telling the truth. That's why
I'm the kill Mark case. I'm like Look, I'm going
to read it for myself. I'm not sitting here saying
he's some gang member or anything like that. I don't
(19:51):
think he deserves to be beaten or tortured or sent
to Uganda. I don't think that generally is how any
human being deserves to quote be treated. So I will
totally accept everything you're saying. I am talking specifically about
the next step for if the Democrats and the Liberals
have their way, which is he becomes a citizen. I'm
totally against that, not just him, but the representation of
(20:12):
mass pockets of the United States of America where English
is not spoken. It's Barack Obama who said, actually that
when he walks down the street or tries to go
get his car fixed and he has to hear Spanish
and sees people waving Mexican flags, that it makes him
feel angry. I think we should make anybody actually who
lives here in the United States and believes in some
sort of civic identity the fact that we have mass
(20:33):
pockets of people who have lived here potentially for decades,
who are unable to speak the language. But again, that is.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
But it is you certainly don't support, like a pathway
to citizenship with an English language requirement.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, okay, let's flip it around. If it didn't, if
there was an English pref if there was an English
language proficiency, if you had a let's say, decade long
track record where you could prove that you not only
had the skills to actually get some sort of some
sort of not only education, had the education requirement, had
the ability the skills to make sure that you're never
(21:07):
going to be on welfare, that you're going to be additive.
If you could actually prove that your job and what
you're adding to America would not be able to depress
or be used as some sort of H one B
style cutout, then maybe I would, as long as there
was also stringent and massive enforcement on illegal immigration. But
that's not the system. And that's why I don't entertain
the amnesty or any of that right now, because I
(21:29):
know it basically is a blank check giveaway to all
of the people here with none of the same requirements.
This is the problem too, about the broader conversation I
think around immigration. You know, specifically, like what you're saying earlier,
the conflation of skilled and unskilled makes it so be
like Oh, well, broadly together, they're all the same.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
But don't you know all immigration.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
No, I don't oppose all immigration, no oc current system.
So let's explain again. When I oppose immigration, I'm saying
in the interim period we need an immigrate more etorium
because we have so many tens of millions of foreign
born citizens, which is causing again, in my opinion, mass
social chaos. I didn't say no immigration forever. I think
(22:10):
probably for the next twenty maybe twenty five years. I
think it's important now if you look at it broadly.
What I mean, Look, I think it is adaptuange the country.
It's already been for Americans. I think it'd be bad
for everyone. And I just I don't agree with your
assessment that immigrants are the cause of like social chaos.
But there's you know this massive Often you have a
society non assimilation, there's you know, an actuality. The studies
(22:34):
that have been done have found that new immigrants in
this era assimilate into American culture much faster, partly because
American culture is so globally dominant that there's already a
lot of sort of American culture spread around the world,
and so the you know, acquisition of whatever you know,
sort of core American cultural traits are happens at a
much faster clip than it did in previous generation. How
(22:55):
can it continue to go a pace when you're adding
one point five million more per year and you have
pockets of people who don't speak any English and which
apparently it's not even a societal expectation that you can
live here for over a decade. I mean, I think
the reason though that probably want is because we have
no understanding.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Want to motivate people to learn English. If that's a
specific thing, there's a very clear way to do that.
You create a pathway to citizenship that is contingent on
some sort of English language acquisition, which I certainly would
be okay with, and I think most Democrats would support.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
That's not what you want. I actually don't think that
they would support it because it would have to be paired.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
With as they have long This has long been the
standard as Democratic Party physicians since you know, but probably before.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Because but they don't believe in the actual enforcement and
the deportation where it's not true.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Barago, wom again was the deporter in chief. Jill Biden
deported more people than Donald Trump deported. Okay, so it's
such a canard that Democrats are open borders.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
It's for the ten to twelve million people illegally enter
the country under the last administration. Even if Joe Biden
deported quote more numbers, ten to twelve million people are
here illegally because of him. It's a basic fact. And
by the way, it's a huge reason why the election
was lost. This is the lack of grappling. And you're
saying the lack of enforcement, because what it comes down
to it is not everybody's going to pass those stringent
(24:11):
requirements that we just laid out. So what happens, they
got to go and when times for them to go, well,
that's when I know again, Oh everybody comes bleeding hard
and nobody's ever supposed to lay. The thing is nobody
actually believes in sitting him back.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
This is where I think there is I'm confused by
your position. And then you know, we can we can
wrap this Out'll let you have the last word. We
can wrap this up and move on because you don't
want any immigration. But then you're also saying, well, you
would theoretically support a pathway to citizenship that has English language,
but then you don't think Democrats will support it, Like,
(24:44):
what do you actually what do you actually think is
the English language thing important? It just seems to me
that you think immigrants are bad for society, and I disagree.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
No, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I think immigrants have been the probably most important part
of America developing into the country that it is. I
look at kill Mar and Brego Garcia, and I see
someone who's been a valuable member who isn't on welfare,
who did is a sheet metal of right on.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Welfare because he's not a citizen. Like it's not like
this is my point.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
But my point is working like you, I don't know
what more you.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Want when people who worked aren't on welfare. That's come on,
like the forty percent of the country's on food stamps
right now, as if they're not all working. Like that's
my point is that if you have a low wage
and you're unable to actually idification.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
That he's some like, you know, bottom feeder, it can't
support himself. Not that i'm you know, those people in
that way. So it's just to bring it back.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
It's I don't.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Get how you can look at this story and not
be first and foremost horrified by the abuse of power
by this government against people who are genuinely powerless in
this system, and be concerned about what that means for
all of us, immigrant and non immigrant.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
I think, as I've said, I take your point, and
to the extent it has affected Americans, I have spoken
out against it. I do think the Trump administration's actions
have not only been outrageous but deeply damaging to the
cause that I actually support. And just to wrap it
all together, for what you were saying, you were saying
I think that all immigrants are bad for the country. No,
I don't think that. I think that more immigrants would
(26:15):
be bad for the country. When I say could I
conceptually could I conceptually see a pathway to citizenship perhaps
if paired with stringent enforcement, very high standards for who
those people were, and no more future immigration. All of
these things are actually non contradictory because what they come
to boards is to try and have a society which
can actually hash out its differences and have a civic
(26:37):
understanding and not be one of ethnic pockets which creates
huge strife. Basically, and as degrades are overall social fabric,
which I believe is the current system as it is
right now, deportation and enforcement is very important until I
see any particular movement on that. That's why we shouldn't
even entertain so called pathway to citizens shop citizenship talk,
(26:57):
and especially if it were to be paired with the
current endorse of the system, which brings some one point
five million people new people into the country every single year.
All that would do, in my opinion, is poor gasoline
on all the fire. Individually, much of these things work together.
Part of the reason why the Republican Party is where
it is today of no amnesty and basically broke the
twenty thirteen consensus, is because it seems like the amnesty
(27:20):
always happened like it did under Reagan, and then the
deportation in the enforcement continues to slow as while the
Immigration of the Is Act of nineteen sixty five remains
in place with the current USCIS numbers that are put
into place, which brings some one point five million people
on over and over and over again, and with the
highest foreign born population since the early nineteen hundreds, which
(27:41):
I will remind you was followed by an immigration massive
immigration restriction. There were a lot of problems with that bill.
It was explicitly racist, and it kind of caused the
Japanese to go away from US. I don't believe in
racial quotas or any of that to be implemented, but
it had a lot of net social benefits. Actually, if
you look at the way that we had immolation over
some forty year period, and I do think that people
(28:03):
need to grapple deeply with the fact that we have
currently part of our social fabric and destruction is not
just economic. A huge part of it is civic. And
it comes down to the fact that we have millions
of people who entered this country illegally and are somehow,
you know, seen as more American, you know, than the
rest of us, or better actually citizens, because that's the
(28:25):
way that a lot of the Democratic leaders actually even
talk about them. I mean, I saw Amy Klobachar and others.
It's like a quasi system. And actually, as a someone
who is a child, it's offensive, you know, to say
that we're somehow like better than others. I hate this
whole model minority thing that people always talk about with Indians.
It's like, no, that's preposterous because it's saying that, like,
we're better than the people who are already here. No,
(28:47):
we're all the same, and we should strive to actually
all kind of be the same and to reach that understanding.
That's my broad thing. You're happy to respond.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Yeah, immigrants aren't the problem, okay.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I mean the billionaire class that has rigged the system
that pits us against each other and makes it into
some freaking zero sum game that yes delights and paying
people under the table and violating their labor rights, that's
a problem. And if you want to deal with, you know,
the tearing of social fabric and the you know, societal strife,
(29:19):
the best thing you could do is to make sure
people can get a good job with a high wage
and have access to healthcare and housing, and for that
to be affordable, and for people to be able to
feel again like it is possible to aspire to a
middle class life.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And I think immigrants have.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Very little to do with that, and generally are positive
in terms of their contribution to society and helping to
people to achieve.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
This will be the central question of our time. By
the way, I'm probably going to lose this fight, just
so everybody knows, thanks to most of the actions of
the Trump administration, which I've got my eyes very wide
open to So just in case anybody is wondering which direction,
you're probably win Crystal. After the Trump administration is out
of power, in my opinion, let's get to Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Yeah, so we covered this horrible story yesterday, and I
am going to play the video again just as a reminder,
and you know, warning before I play it that it
is deeply disturbing. The IDF struck NASA Hospital, which is
the large, most significant hospital in the Gaza Strip at
this point, and then they waited fifteen minutes for journalists
(30:31):
to arrive to document the damage, for ambulance crews, civil
defense personnel to come in to rescue those who had
been impacted. They waited fifteen minutes, and then they struck again.
They murdered I believe it was twenty people, five of
them journalists by the way, and also again a number
of civil defense workers that bombing. That strike was caught
(30:53):
on camera. Again, warning, this is disturbing. Let's take a
look us so you can see them just blown apart
and the damage was utterly catastrophic.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
So, because you had five.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Journalists killed, number of whom actually work for Western outlets,
there was a significant outcry you know this. When this
happens to Palestinians who aren't attached to any sort of
Western organization, this just happens, and no one says a
goddamn thing. But because these journalists, courageous journalists, were working
(31:40):
for Western outlets, there was a bit of an outcry,
including some comments from President Trump that will play you
in a moment. So in response, the Israelis did what
they have done occasionally when they felt this sort of
international pressure.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
They've claimed this was a mishap. Oh, We're so sorry.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
We're going to launch a full invest litigation to find
out what went wrong.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
As if this isn't.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Part and parcel standard issue israelly government IDF policy. Here
is a spokesperson for the IDF issuing a statement in English,
by the way, expressing how they're going to look into
this and how they're going to launch an investigation.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
We are aware of reports that harm was caused to civilians,
including journalists. I would like to be clear from the
start the IDF does not intentionally target civilians. Has begun
this war, created impossible fighting conditions, and is preventing its
end by still holding fifty of our hostages. Having said that,
(32:42):
as a professional military committed to international law, we are
obligated to investigate our operations thoroughly and professionally. The Chief
of the General Staff has instructed that an inquiry be
conducted immediately to understand the circumstances of what happened and
how it happened. As always, we will present our findings
(33:04):
as transparently as possible. We regret any harm to uninvolved
individuals and are committed to continue fighting.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Hamas we regret any harm Saga. We don't intentionally target civilians.
Let me just lay on for you, guys. This came
out recently. Even by the Israeli military's official figures, they
say that eighty three percent of the dead are civilians,
and we know that is actually far below what the
(33:33):
actual percentage of civilians is because they count all men,
basically all men over the age of like fifteen, as
being humas or some sort of militant. Even by their standards,
eighty three percent of those who have been killed were civilians.
So at this point for them to claim that they, oh,
they don't intentionally target civilians, and oh, we regret this mishap,
(33:55):
We're going to look into it. We're going to investigate
I don't know who believes the scrapet.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
What was crazy to me was actually the initial response
was let's put E three please up on the screen.
This is really important. Originally, the Channel fourteen in Israel
said that this was Hamas's Noser headquarters and said that
they had quote identified a surveillance camera used for intelligence gathering,
saying it was used by Hamas militants, and then fired
(34:23):
the tank shell to quote neutralize the threat. The strike
was approved and coordinated with senior command. They knew about
it before it was being carried out. It was only
after it was caught on video basically on what live
television that they came back and they're like, oh, actually
it was a mishap. Like no, I mean, it is
just emblematic of everything that we've seen on camera with
(34:46):
Tony whenever we interviewed him. Here, the former Green Beret
HF whistle player is shoot first, ask questions later, if
at all, and basically fire at will if you want to.
Everything is cameras are hum any camera there is Hamas.
The degradation of a hospital or of any civilian infrastructure, reporters,
et cetera. They all deserve to die. Initially, By the way,
(35:09):
a lot of the prose earl accounts were saying that
the journalists and or others of people who were killed
in the strike were all Hamas anyway, so why do
we even care? And then the IDF clowns them because
they say what do they say? They're like, well, actually
it was a mistake. After they've spent hours justifying the
strike all hamas.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
And I want to we can we can play a
little bit of let's see what is this D five.
Speaker 3 (35:35):
This is one of the women. One of the journalists
who was killed.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Is a woman who's featured in this video that was
put out to support Gaza's journalists women. That's her actually
right there. Her name is Ariam Abu Dhaga. Apparently another
one of the women who was featured in this video.
Her husband was killed by the Israelis. And you know,
I just want to like put a name to these individuals.
(36:03):
They're not just you know, statistics in all of this,
even though, of course there's so many you could never
say all of their names. Hassam al Masri, who was
a Reuter's contractor, Mohammed Salama and al Jazeer worked for
Al Jazeer as a cameraman. As I said before, Mariam
Abu Daga, she was freelance, worked with AP and others,
has incredible photo journalists. By the way her work people
(36:25):
have been sharing it is just extraordinary. Ahmed Abu Azi's
freelance contributed to Middle East I and others, and MOA's
Abu Taha who was freelance and contributed some to Reuters
and other outlets. And you know the way that these outlets,
even when their own people were murdered, covered this was
also shameful. But that's the reason why the IDF even
(36:47):
felt the need to pretend like they cared and like
this was a mishap, and you know, something that they
don't do every single day. We are now at somewhere
around two hundred and fifty journalists who've been killed by
the IDF, and it's really clear like they don't want
people to be there to document their genocide. That's why
they don't allow international journalists from outside to come in.
(37:09):
That people we're talking about Eureal Palestinians who work freelance
for these various news organizations, so that those news organizations
have some sort of a window into what is happening
inside of the Gaza strip. Israeli government doesn't allow journalists
in because they don't want their war crimes documented, and
then they directly target journalists also like Anas and his
whole crew for Al Jazeera, because they don't want people
(37:32):
to see what they are doing on the ground. The
tactic that they use documented by nine seven to two
magazine of these double tap strikes. This is also standard
issue protocol. They will hit something in this case of hospital,
then they will wait fifteen minutes for journalists, aid workers,
rescue crews, everyone to gather, and then they will strike
(37:54):
it again. It is literally a tactic of terrorists that
is a terrorist, that's what we're talking about here, and
they do.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
It all the time.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
One last note on NASA Hospital is all the doctors
that we've talked to American doctors who we've spoken to
after they've come back to Gaza to relay their experience there,
at least the once we've talked to recently, they all
go to NASA Hospital. That is the hospital as closest
to these IDF AID distribution sites that end up in
AID massacres on every according to the doctors on a
(38:28):
daily basis, and NASA Hospital is the one that receives
most of the casualties from those massed casualty incidents. So
this is a very important part also of the medical
infrastructure which has been you know, I mean, the whole
medical infrastructure in Gaza has just been attacked and decimated
and destroyed. But you have a lot of international doctors
from America and around the world who are at NASA Hospital,
(38:50):
and that's the place that they're attacking.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
I mean, it's just utterly and.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
If they killed them insane, I mean yeah, I mean,
imagine the.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Tuition will investigate ourselves twist.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
In the turns that Mike Huckabee and other people would
twist them and put themselves in if the American doctor
was killed there. It really is just disgraceful. All right,
So we go ahead and play Trump and his reaction.
Let's get to it.
Speaker 7 (39:13):
Israeli's mom the hospital in Daza that killed twenty people,
including five journalists. This happened overnight today. I didn't know
any reaction to this. I got to talk to you
about it. I don't want to see it. At the
same time, we have to end that all nightmare. Right now,
they're talking about Gaza City. There's always talking about something.
At some point it's going to get settled, and I'm saying,
(39:34):
you better get it settled soon. You have to get
it settled soon. And that means, you know, nobody can
forget October seventh. With that being said, it's got to
get over with It's got to get over with it,
because between the hunger and all of the other probably
worse than hunger death, pure death, people being killed. It's
a terrible situation. Over the terrible, terrible situation. But it's
(39:56):
coming to a head. It's coming to an end. I
think within the next two to three weeks you're gonna
have pretty good, conclusive, conclusive ending.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
So you could see he says it needs to come
to an end, and it will come to an end
in two to three weeks. That is a news, I
think to the Israeli government, who wants to continue this
thing basically forever.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Who didn't even respond to the latest he sees fire
proposal that Hamas exp.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Literally, which as I understand it, that was the most
ground they had given, and it sees fire proposal. Look,
they want endless war. Trump and these people they just
they either don't understand it, do understand it, and just
continue to talk outsides of their mouth. I tend to
think Trump doesn't understand it. I think he takes a
lot of this baby shit seriously, Like I think it
(40:43):
gets on the phone and Bibe's like, yes, yes, we're close,
we're close, We're close, And he's like, well he told
me he was close. Like, it's about the deference, do
you think so? I really do, because at this point,
what is the alternative for what's happening is that you know,
the alternative right now is total different to Israeli policy
is an absolute obfuscation and removal of American leadership, of
(41:06):
American control over this proxy state, and instead they do
what they want to do and accepting their lives or
whatever their policy is without any strategic understanding. And then
we had Shahead on yesterday, and anybody who says otherwise,
get rid of them. Yeah. Right, that's it.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
You guys need to listen to that interview if you haven't,
because not only does he expose that that you.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
Can't even diverge.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
He got fired for being like, guys, we're not supposed
to catch you day in Samaria. It's the West Bank
that has been standard issue government policy forever.
Speaker 3 (41:39):
But that was a bridge too far. Also, he was like,
you know, we should I guess.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
We don't write, guys, we don't support removing Palestinian to
what was a Soudan that he objected to, specifically Salsudan,
And they're like, no, you got to go. Sorry, you're
too much of a pro Palestine activist here. This again
standard issue problem stuff from the Biden administration, from the
first Trump administration, from the Obama administration.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
You can, George w but you could go.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
All back and back and back, and now that is
out of bounds. The other thing that was important to
get from him is that who is running our policy
towards Israel at this point, and based on his assessment,
it's pretty much my Kokaby. It's pretty much my Kakaby
and his aide whose name I'm blanking on Milstein, who
(42:29):
was critical in getting Shahooed fired apparently. And Huckabee, as
we know, is an absolute end Times psycho. That is
who is he is a religious zealot who is not
pushing Israeli policy because it's in America's interest. It's because
he has a certain religious ideological fringe belief and that
(42:50):
is what more than anything at this point appears to
be guiding US policy visa VI. You know this quote
unquote ally that we send billions of dollars to year
in order to create and cause this absolute horror. So
that's where we are there. Trump's like, oh, it's going
to be over in a few weeks, Like what are
you talking about?
Speaker 3 (43:09):
His way?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
It's almost worthless to listen to what he has It
just confuses issues more to even listen what he has
to say, because there's zero sign that there's anything other
than endless death, destruction, ethnic cleansing, attacks on hospitals, murdering
of journalists for the indefinite future, based on what we
actually see happening, not whatever bullshit falls out of Donald
(43:31):
Trump's mouth.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
I don't gay it. I think broadly what it is
is that Trump and them view it like Ukraine, it's intractable,
and by intractable, leave it up to how it goes.
It is the expert, Yeah exactly. And that and also
because the part of the coalition which is all that
enthused about it is mostly in the Democrats. They're like, yeah, fine,
(43:53):
they don't seem to understand the damage that it's doing
to them broadly, not just with young people. But even
with younger Republicans, and to be honest, I'm not sure
they even care anymore because they paid a lot of
lip service podcasters, and all of a sudden they don't.
They just don't. Their view is we're America, bitch, it's
our second term. We can do whatever we want. And
that really basically defines all of their actions if you're
(44:15):
looking for like a through line in it. They have
no time for anybody who jumps off, even people who
have good faith criticisms like shot. I mean, it was
not some mouth breathing liberal like did you have that
same takeaway. He was a guy who was like, look,
I'm a descending view. I'm on the inside. I'm gonna
try and work it to the best I can. But
I mean, he wrote a tweet that said, make gods
(44:36):
a beautiful again. All right, this is not like literally
like he drafted that tweet for Secretary Rubio. Right, that's problematic.
Last time I checked, Like, he's not some he's not
some pink hair code pinker.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
He wasn't trying to do some revolution exactly.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
He was just like, hey, guys, like you know, this
is a little bit you know, this isn't a boom done.
You know, and I think that's that's the scary part.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Yeah about this absolutely speaking of journalists under attack.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Yes, we over Breaking Points. Wow, Free Press has really
upset about journalists against journalism. That's where they're calling us.
Is going to put this up here on the screen.
We can go ahead and read from their editorial. They
ran an entire piece here defending their piece quote unquote
(45:26):
debunking how pictures of twelve guys and children who were
held up as famine victims actually had pre existing conditions.
So they quoted us from our show. Thank you for
tuning in, by the way, already over at the Free Press,
appreciate they say to Crystal Ball, host of Breaking Points,
our journalism was quote just so disgusting. Sure, Ball's co
host Sager and Jetty chimed in to compare our reporters
to Holocaust deniers, saying that a key tenant of Holocaust
(45:47):
denial is trying to claim that many of initial victims
or reported victims had other preconditions and that's part of
the reason why they died.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
True.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Yeah, I mean that is an empirical fact. I was
stating a fact. And new people are the ones who
are supposedly so concerned about Holocaust and iles, so maybe
you should learn something about it, And they say quote
those who care about the truth will note that these
children were not presented as the initial victims of anything.
They were deceptively promoted to reflect the average Gossin to
suggest otherwise betrays a fleeting relationship with reality. Ball and Jettie,
(46:18):
you are not alone. Glenn Greenwald, a so called self
proclaimed free speech appictors, argued not just for our censorship,
but for our trial at the Hague. Here he didn't
say you should be shut down, he said you should
be tried. And Barack Obama's former National security advisor Ben
Rhodes says we are sociopathic. Ryan Grimm predicts that Olivia
(46:39):
Ryan Gold's name will become notorious for a generation.
Speaker 3 (46:43):
You left out that Ben Rhodes's nickname was Hummas.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
I thought it was so dumb that I'm amas.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
That was apparently what Apak, according to Ryan Okay, so
APAC's nicknames.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
So since Olivia, I'm going to say something I wouldn't
even have. I don't have a ball to put this
on Twitter, but I'll say it here. Olivia, if you're
so concerned about narratives about children that are being used
for political purposes. Do you think you know where I'm
going here, Crystal, I have a little story for you
called October seventh and claims about beheaded babies who were microwaved. Olivia,
(47:15):
I have a task. Please go and investigate all of
the claims about beheaded babies and microwaving and slaughtering and
raping if you would like, because I can guarantee you, Olivia,
you will perhaps find that many initial claims turned out
to be bullshit and were used for propagandistic purposes to
(47:35):
push an agenda on the American and the global community
to justify a war of annihilation in Gaza. So, Olivia,
that's a great story for you. In fact, you may
want to look into Ryan Grimm or many of the
other people who have debunked systematically many of the claims
that have come out. And so Yes, I believe that
since she is so concerned with journalism, that she should
(47:56):
then investigate the claims that her own news outlet has
made about I graved and beheaded babies on the day
of October seventh. Also, there's a documentary put out by
potentially one of your patrons Cheryl Sandberg about rape on
October seventh. I would love to go through that one
with a fine tooth comb, shall we, And let's look
at some of the rapes that have happened since October seventh,
(48:16):
and a lot of them that happened in Israeli prison
camps that were actually found on video in fact, barberism
and gangsterism and behavior of such sort of which we
have multiple documented interests. And yet the ones that were
pushed by you were used for propagandistic war purposes. So, Olivia,
since I know that you're watching, you can go ahead
and take that. You can even clip this if you
(48:38):
would like, I guess, go ahead and cancel me A.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Have another assignment suggestion for them, since they have such
a keen interest in journalism. Yes, well, first of all,
they might want to fact check their own friggin piece,
because we'll get to that in just a moment, because
they are multiple provable, like clear falsities even within this
one garbage smear piece. But in addition, since you're so
concerned about journalists, I'm sure you've done tons of exploration
(49:05):
of the way that hundreds of journalists have been targeted
for murder by the IDF.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
We just covered five who were killed yesterday.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
They are five among many who have been targeted for
murder because they dare expose the truth about what's happening
in Gaza. And that is enough for these Raelies to
want to make sure that their existence is snuffed out.
Not to mention, of course, that they block international journalists
from being able to come into the Gaza strip to
(49:36):
document what's going on whatsoever. So that might be something
else that you might want to explore, given your keen
interest in the journalistic qualities and integrity. But speaking of
that fact check, we can go ahead and put is
it F four? Yes, F four up on the screen. Ryan,
I actually didn't even read that whole piece because I can't.
(49:59):
But Ryan did and noted that there were multiple provable
falsities in this in this one piece that was put
up to a test to their incredible journalism. In particular,
they write this, why have these reporters ignored credible reports
(50:20):
of the UN and its allied organizations themselves blocking the
distribution of aid and Gaza. Okay, that is not true,
and why are they twisting the truth about Hamas's theft
of eight? Also not true, and you don't have to
listen to me. You can listen to Israeli military officials
who said as much to the New York Times, hardly
a pro Palestine outlet. Similarly, why have they ignored the
(50:42):
fact that the UN's associated body that attempts to assess
whether there is a famine monkeyed with the metrics for
its assessment in Gaza. This is exactly the claim that
I spent quite a long time yesterday in my monologue debunking.
There's this claim from these railies that they change the
threshold for famine measurement in order just to find famine
(51:05):
in Gaza. They say they couldn't find a famine, so
they forged one. This is just this is just garbage,
Like this is just a lie. They use the same
exact criteria in Gaza that they had used in previous
findings before. There are two separate thresholds that you can meet.
One of them is basically a BMI metric. But oftentimes
when there is a famine, it's very difficult to get
(51:27):
a full assessment. So there's an alternative indication that they
use called mid upper arms circumference. Now, the mid upper
arm circumference metric. In order to establish a phase five,
which is the most severe level of famine, you need
fifteen percent of the population to have met that. With
the BMI metric, it's thirty percent of the population. Because
they measure different things, so you would have different standards.
(51:49):
It takes longer for the arm to wither down to
the size that would indicate with certainty that there is
famine conditions. That is the same guidance and threshold that
they have used for us their conflicts as well. So
maybe they might want to spend a little bit more
time journalistically looking into some of their own bullshit claims,
even within the context of this one article.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
Yeah wow, shocking what actually scrutiny of their journalism will do.
By the way, Olivia's claimed to fame is the girl
who did the TikTok where she read all of zoron
mom day streeets and she's like, it's called journalism, So
that's what we're all dealing with her. So Olivia, again,
since I know you're watching and potentially your salary depends
(52:33):
on your boss Barry Conning David Ellison into buying your
bullshit outlet for two hundred and fifty million, dollars then
get that you're very upset, and I just want to
end on that one, which is just let's just as
all say the truth. Here's the truth. The reason why
they're the most mad, and I'm almost one hundred percent
(52:54):
sure of this is because of our segment making fun
of their two hundred and fifty million dollar valuation. They
I am aware, I am aware to do this. That
segment made the rounds amongst certain very influential people in
Silicon Valley, many of people who are laughing at Barry's
audacity for two hundred and fifty million dollars valuation so
(53:15):
that she can be the CBS News pro Israel ombudsman
and con some super rich billionaire into bailing out her
shitty business where she's spending vast amounts of money on
real estate, with a number thirty one ranked podcast, a
YouTube channel which might as well be a dud, which
is spending two dollars a word to commission people trying
(53:37):
to hire people with free health or with healthcare and
all of these top level benefits. She needs a little
bail out there. It's the pro Israel bailout that she
needs from Larry Ellison's son and so perhaps maybe that
editorial and sniping had something to do with Yeah, So sorry, Barry,
because the thing is, as we've said here repeatedly, we
want her to sell for two fifty because it means
(53:58):
you and I are filthy rich on paper. If that's
the case, So Barry, we wish you nothing with the best,
all right. I've always wanted to be worth one hundred
million dollars on paper, or at least go around telling people.
So that's only possible if you paid the way for us.
So please, Barry, please go around. We're cheering for you,
all right, just so I can tell people I'm sent
a millionaire on paper. All right, So with all of that,
(54:20):
let's go ahead and get No, we're done. We're gonna
do the AMA now.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
Sorry, Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
Ryan and Emily will be in tomorrow soccer and I
will be back on Thursday and we'll see y'all.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Don
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 this show.
Speaker 1 (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.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Become a member today and you'll get access to our.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Full shows, unedited, ad free and all put together for
you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
So we have a whole bunch of updates for you
with regard to kil marvrego Garcia. Just before we play
you the latest, let me bring everybody up to speed
so you'll recall that he was wrongfully deported to El
Salvador country, that he had been the judicial system to
come and said you cannot deport him to El Salvador.
(00:53):
The government admitted the mistake, but refused to bring him
back in spite of a Supreme Court decision saying you
should try to enable his return. Okay, government ultimately kind
of buckles does allow him to come back, but charges
him with these series of crimes, including alleged human trafficking,
and sort of use that as a cover and a
pretext for why, oh, we're not really backing down and
(01:16):
allowing him back. Instead, we want to bring him back
and charge him. Okay, So in the context of that trial,
he was released pending the actual court date. So he
was released last week. Now he had to go back
to check in at the Baltimore Ice office and.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
They ended up detaining him.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
And I'll give you the rest of what they plan
to do next, but first let's take a look at
Abrego Garcia speaking at a rally outside of that Baltimore
Ice office before turning himself in being redetained. And we
also have some images here of him saying goodbye to
his wife, who does happen to be an American citizen.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Let's take a listen to this.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
This is why I want to thank each and every
one one of you who marched. Lift your voices, never
stop praying, and continue to fight in my name.
Speaker 5 (02:10):
You told me familiar.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Thank you to my life partner and wife, Jennifer, to
my brother Sessar, to my mother, Cecilia, to my children,
to my nieces and nephews, to all of my family.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
All right, so let's go and put the next piece
up on the screen. That's a tear sheet with the
very latest development. So he turns himself in, he is
re arrested, and the government indicates that they want to
deport him to Uganda.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
It can't be deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
So they've decided that they want to deport him to Uganda.
That move has now been at least temporarily blocked by
a federal judge. Let me go ahead and read a
little bit of this political story to give you some
of the twists and turns here.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
So they said, a.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration's bid to deport
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who has become a
symbol of Trump's master deportation agenda, to Uganda. This judge
on Monday ordered the administration to keep Abrego in a
detention facility in Virginia while she weighs his renewed effort
to prevent immigration officials from abruptly casting himount of the
(03:21):
country for a second time in five months. This is
a critical part and helps to create an understanding about
what his legal challenge will be based on. So, his
lawyers say that the administration had offered to deport him
to Costa Rica, something that he agreed to. He accepted that,
(03:42):
but they said they would only allow him to be
deported to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to the
human smuggling charges that he faces in Tennessee. So he
refused to plead guilty in exchange for being able to
be deported to Costa Rica. And so in order to
punish him for not pleading guilty to these human trafficking charges,
(04:03):
which appear to be pretty flimsy at best, in order
to punish him for that, they have said, Okay, instead,
we're going to deport you to Uganda. That is this
specific piece that is likely to come under close scrutiny
from this judge. At a hearing Monday afternoon, that Judge
Zennis said she had several concerns about the rapid fire
(04:24):
deportation proceedings, noting Abrego might be entitled to go to
his designated country of choice, Costa Rica rather than Uganda.
She also said if the Justice Department used his deportation
as a cudgel to coerce a guilty plea, it would
be a violation of his constitutional rights. Quote, you can't
condition the relinquishment of constitutional rights in that regard. So
(04:45):
that sort of brings you, guys up to speed. He's
been re arrested. I think one of the obvious conclusions
to draw is that if they want to deport him
before his criminal trial even occurs, tells you something, Zager,
I think about the strength of the evidence that they
feel they have against him. You know, I think we
always suspected when they brought him back and throw these
charges at him, that was pretty flimsy, pretty protextual. They
(05:08):
have never been able to They've never you know, no
judge has ever found he was even a gang member,
let alone a gang leader. The traffic stop that this
alleged human smuggling charge is coming based on, you know,
the officers who evaluated him at the scene let him go, no.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Charges were filed, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
So the fact they want to get him out of
the country before he even has his data in court.
If this was truly some violent gang leader, human trafficker,
et cetera, you would think you would want to lock
him behind bars, not just release them into whatever random
country you decide.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Look, I can't deny the Trump administration. Everything they've said
has been bullshit, and that's just baguely good true. Yes,
and some of us got taken for a ride. I'll
raised my hand and I'll admit it. Basically, not only
in the original deportation, the MS thirteen stuff, the case
I read it. Most of the accusations they're not particularly
(06:00):
well founded, So that's the truth. They're using the Uganda
thing broadly. It seems to some sort of like pay
scheme for what is it for pleading guilty? So that's it,
and they want to make an example broadly for deportation.
So I think that's fair, And I'll put that all
out there just where people know that I'm trying to
approach this in a fair enough way. I do think
it's still worth considering, how does this guy who's lived
(06:22):
here since what is it? Let me get the date correctly.
Is it twenty thirteen? I'm fairly certain twenty eleven. I
apologize twenty eleven. And he doesn't speak a word of
English and it can't give a press conference. How is
that acceptable? And that's the more broad question that I
think all of us need to answer here. Abrego Garcia
illegally entered our country in twenty and eleven. He was
(06:42):
not removed during that entire period. He came actually as
an unaccompanied minor to join his brother, who also came
here illegally in that time period. Does not acquire the
ability to speak English. Is a low skilled labor who
has not layo skilled labor, who has not graduated from
high school. And the broad current position is that he
(07:03):
should be allowed to stay here and get some sort
of pathway to citizenship. In my opinion, it all falls
apart for his whole deportation to Uganda thing, when his
lawyer quite literally says, with a straight face, you can't
deport him to a country where he doesn't speak the English.
Doesn't speak the language, D four, Please let's go ahead
and play it.
Speaker 6 (07:20):
It is preposterous that they would send him to Africa,
to a country where he does he even speak the language,
a country that documented human rights violations, when there are
so many other options. This family suffered enough, they need
to stop trying to separate them.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
The official language of Uganda is English. That is a
tacit admission that he doesn't speak the language of English.
This is the point that I think people really need
to grapple with.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Isn't it English and Swahili?
Speaker 1 (07:48):
Well yeah, but I mean English is one of their
official languages. My point is just more broadly, that he
has lived here since twenty eleven, doesn't speak English his
day labor, by his own admission, has literally been in
this country for more more than a decade. And this
is the type of person that we are supposed to
say should get amnesty in a pathway decisionship, I think
everyone should sit with that like that is for possible.
(08:09):
We've just had an argument earlier in our show about
the best and the Brightest. That's not what this looks like.
And I'm not putting him down as a human being.
I don't think his human worth is less his worth
to the United States. As an addition, and if we
were to legalize that person statistically, what happens to somebody
who doesn't have a high school education, who doesn't speak
any English. If that person is legally a United States citizen,
(08:31):
they can be on welfare. Okay, that's just the basic truth.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
But he's not, And in fact, you're not right that
he's a day laborer, he's a sheet metal worker. No
Local one hundred, Smart Local one hundred in Maryland who
defended him by the way in the.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Process of all of this.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
And I'm also curious what you make of the rights
of his American citizen wife and his American citizen children,
who are also being dramatically punished because again, because the
Trump administration made a mistake in their deportation of him,
violated a lawful court order, and.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
Refuse to make life.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I'm acknowledging that that's why they're making an example of
him and trying to make his life miserable, accusing him
of crimes, that there is no evidence that he is committed,
smearing him in the public eye, and so I just
I disagree on I disagree on every level with your
characterization of who he is and his value and work
(09:26):
to society.
Speaker 3 (09:27):
You know, I think the fact that he's.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
A sheep metal worker apprentice, yes, I think that's important.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
I think that's valuable to the country.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
He's clearly assimilated enough to have American wife and America
is that's a.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Commentary on America though, that you can live here and
have children and apparently have us and wife and English.
That's a huge problem. I don't know that. I don't
know how this is I don't know how this is acceptable, Sager.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Here's the other thing, though, I don't even know that.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Like, there's a big difference between being able to speak
any English and being able to give a press conference
in front of media and feel comfortable in your level
of fluency. Okay, those are two very different things. So
I haven't personally administered an English language test to him.
I know you haven't either, So you know, to hinge
his citizenship and whether or not he should be punished
and used in this way on what his level of
(10:12):
fluency is in the English language, I think is prepossible.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Why is possibly merely he hasmulated, you can't speak enough English?
In English? Why should you be a Really he.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
Has assimilated enough to be fully integrated into a work community,
into a social community, into having again an American citizen
wife and kids. And I think it's thoroughly disgusting that
the Trump administration, rather than admit they made a mistake,
has sought to absolutely destroy this man in order to
(10:43):
make a point and to never back down.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
That is really the cool what's going on.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
That's why I'm separating the two because I agree with you. Okay,
they lied to us. It's absolutely true, one hundred percent,
absolutely one hundred percent. They're smearing him. They deported him wrongfully.
In my opinion, you should have been deported a long
time ago. But whatever, Okay, we are where we are today.
Do I think it should be sent to Uganda?
Speaker 2 (11:03):
No?
Speaker 1 (11:03):
All right, even Costa Rica doesn't make a whole lot
of sense. I'm sure we have all we should go
through the process. I think his asylum claim is bullshit
in my opinion, because the vast majority of these asylum
claims are bullshit. Especially in a country which dramatically less violence,
you can't really fear as much. Now, perhaps his fear
is from the government. I guess it's a different story. Again,
(11:24):
we can litigate all of that in court, so I'm
gonna put my cards there very closely on the table.
But again, at a basic level, you cannot have a
society where if you have lived here for over a
decade and you cannot present yourself in English, you cannot
be a citizen. Now, the point about being able to
assimilate is actually the opposite, because the problem is we
have now vast numbers of illegal immigrants and others who
(11:45):
come to the United States and have pockets where English
is not spoken. That is not acceptable. And the even
more broad point, very importantly is about not only assimilation
but also the economic value. Yes, I understand it's very
hard for liberals to talk about this, but when you're
talking about the addition of new entrants into your country,
(12:05):
you need to have an assurance that those people will
be able to stand on their own feed. Theres no no,
there is no no, no he does okay, no, but no,
what you just said. Note what you just said specifically
about sheet level apprentice. That's part of the reason I
said day level work labor. And if you also look previously,
hanging out in the home depot parking lot where he
was arrested in twenty nineteen is the quite literal definition
(12:27):
of day laboring. Now, when you put up will no,
but when you put that together and on.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Top of that black and its stable job.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
On top of lack of English proficiency, it is obvious
that that question should be asked, how can this person
be allowed to stay in the United States? And should
they be allowed to become a citizen? Again, this is
the problem broadly with speaking of immigrants as a broad group.
You're trying to loop in like Nobel Prize winning scientists
with somebody who's a day labor who doesn't speak in English,
(12:55):
who also under the country illegally. Those two are not
fundamentally this same I believe you agreed with me in
the past that there should be a requirement for English
language proficiency to become a citizen. I don't even think
you should be able to get a work visa or
anything if you don't speak any English. Now, in this
particular case, this is a problem and an emblem of
our broken immigration system, and it should not work for
(13:17):
Kilmo Brego Garcia if.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
He spoke English to your level of you know, whatever
your standard is.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Sure, Kenny, stay well, no, but that's not the point.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Then why are you making that the point?
Speaker 1 (13:27):
Because because it's an example of how somebody who has
lived here from twenty eleven doesn't speak English. That is
an insane, insane thing that nobody, apparently on the left
wants to grapple. We have tens of millions of people
here who don't speak anything.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
It does not offend me the way that it does.
I will certainly acknowledge should be the case. We don't
have an official language as a country.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Are are I think trump is The history and.
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Tradition as a nation has been.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
There's always been these immigrant pockets and communities and guess
what a lot of issues A generation later, Guess what,
their kids are fully integrated Americans. So yes, for some people,
you know what, I'm not that great at learning foreign
languages either. For some people who come here it may
be more of a struggle to be able to acquire
in a language and the level of fluency you know
(14:15):
that you know that you're looking for.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
We also don't have right now.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
If we had a pathway to citizenship that was conditional
upon English language acquisition, I have no doubt that he
would pursue that in order to be able to meet
the metrics that are set out by the government. We
don't have that, So there is no motivation for him
to learn the language outside of what level, which again
I don't even know whether he is language.
Speaker 1 (14:37):
For his motivation. No, the motivation again should not be
working for the people who broke the law and entered
our country illegally. Since two thousand and eleven, let me
underscore that two thousand eleven. This person has lived here.
I'm not putting down as worth as a human. I
think he has been treated very badly by the US government.
If he actually stays and prosecute, he'll probably get himself
a settle.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Here's what busters and me, Sager is, I don't look
your view legitimate. And there's obviously we have profound disagreements
about the level of immigration that should be permitted into
this country and the value of immigrants who come into
this country. What bothers me about your approach is you're
more outraged about this man who, Okay, yes, he crossed
(15:17):
the border illegally. Yes, outside of that, zero evidence he
did anything wrong, applied for asylum, went through the process,
followed the court order, all of these sorts of things right,
contributing to society, becomes a sheet metal apprentice. Mary's an
American wife, by all accounts, is a good dad. You know,
was there with his disabled son when he gets arrested,
et cetera. You are more upset about that one man
(15:38):
than you are about this government lying trying to ruin
his life, accusing him of crimes he did not commit.
And we can put the we can put this DHS
tweet D three up on the screen that you have
a government that can just to the whole world, smear
someone who.
Speaker 3 (15:57):
Has not been found guilty of any of them. Says
DHS is.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Thrilled that this MS thirteen gang number human traffick or
wife beat or child protter is being processed for.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
Removal to Uganda.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
That the government, which has infinitely more power than k
Abrego Garcia, could do this and that's not your primary outrage.
That to me is just that's hard for me to
wrap my.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
hYP I completely understand where you' come from, and I'll
explain it very clearly. It's because I think for you
and for most people, they fail you. Kilmar as an American.
I don't think he's an American. I don't know. I
don't think he should be, or I think he is
an emblem of a broken society.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Honestly, it's irrelevant to me whether he's an American.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
But that's kind of my point.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
This is about a government.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
A government that will do this to him, will do
it to anyone anyway.
Speaker 5 (16:41):
See.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
I actually, first of all, I don't think that that's
it is of course. Second, because of course it's true,
it's not true, because nobody has been deported to Seacott.
Now again, i've I have openly said I was full
of I was.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
Americans have been arrested by Ice and detained for lengthy
periods of time. You do have massive cracked on the
speech of Americans. And he is married to an American.
What about her rights? Why don't you care about what
this is doing to her life? Since your cent she's
focused for first and foremost on the rights of American citizens.
Speaker 1 (17:13):
She's not being prosecuted as far as I know.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
From being ruined.
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Yes, who was here illegally? And when you do that
there are consequences. I mean, I so just because somebody
who's married to somebody who is legal, they get absolved.
Our immigrants, why marry a drug casolved?
Speaker 2 (17:30):
Our immigration system is meant to enable American citizens to
be able to marry who they want.
Speaker 3 (17:35):
I mean, that's why we.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Have a process for people to be able to obtain
green cards and then ultimately become permanent residents and naturalized
citizens based on getting their you know, their marriage to
an American citizen and so you know that seems to
not enter into your quation either.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
But again, he didn't mine. But you're reversing terms because
he came here illegally before he got married. He broke
the law far long before, and he this happened if
his US's and wife had gone down to El Salvador,
met him down in El Salvador, tried to bring him
back here. It's a little bit of a difference.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
So she deserves to have.
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Broken apart and needs the American kids to lose their
dad and you know him be shipped to you gotta
and locked up and you know, have.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
The whole weight.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
I don't think the federal government set against this one
man because they won't admit that they made a mistake.
I mean, that is such an abusive power, and I
don't know why you think that anyone American citizen or
not is going to be protected from that abuse of
power when clearly this government is willing to lie, to
ignore court orders, to refuse the Supreme Court order, to
(18:38):
put out their scurrilous allegations with no basis. In fact,
there's no limiting principle on that whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
And I think it is entirely fair and to the
extent that is affected Americans. I have spoken repeatedly again
against it, now again it gets to the outrage, and
it's about the system, and I think he represents the
thirty Nobody even knows what the actual number is. It
could be thirty million, it could be fifty million, apparently
according to more recent statistics. I have no clue. But
my point is I am outraged by the fact that
we have literal lawlessness which is endorsed and was created
(19:09):
by the previous administration, which has wreaked mass social chaos
and a lot of very bad effects. I think it's
a good thing to make sure that people who are
illegally who, in my opinion, are not just opinion. I
think there's a lot of studies to back it up,
are depressing American wages and also are basically being used
as like quasi cutouts for big business. All of that
(19:30):
I think is really bad. I think somebody should try
to fix it, and instead this becomes an emblem for
the outrages of the Trump administration, which I by the way,
I blame entirely on the Trump administration. And they have
lost me one hundred percent in their ability to ever
convince me of what they're telling the truth. That's why
I'm the kill Mark case. I'm like Look, I'm going
to read it for myself. I'm not sitting here saying
he's some gang member or anything like that. I don't
(19:51):
think he deserves to be beaten or tortured or sent
to Uganda. I don't think that generally is how any
human being deserves to quote be treated. So I will
totally accept everything you're saying. I am talking specifically about
the next step for if the Democrats and the Liberals
have their way, which is he becomes a citizen. I'm
totally against that, not just him, but the representation of
(20:12):
mass pockets of the United States of America where English
is not spoken. It's Barack Obama who said, actually that
when he walks down the street or tries to go
get his car fixed and he has to hear Spanish
and sees people waving Mexican flags, that it makes him
feel angry. I think we should make anybody actually who
lives here in the United States and believes in some
sort of civic identity the fact that we have mass
(20:33):
pockets of people who have lived here potentially for decades,
who are unable to speak the language. But again, that is.
Speaker 2 (20:41):
But it is you certainly don't support, like a pathway
to citizenship with an English language requirement.
Speaker 1 (20:47):
Well, okay, let's flip it around. If it didn't, if
there was an English pref if there was an English
language proficiency, if you had a let's say, decade long
track record where you could prove that you not only
had the skills to actually get some sort of some
sort of not only education, had the education requirement, had
the ability the skills to make sure that you're never
(21:07):
going to be on welfare, that you're going to be additive.
If you could actually prove that your job and what
you're adding to America would not be able to depress
or be used as some sort of H one B
style cutout, then maybe I would, as long as there
was also stringent and massive enforcement on illegal immigration. But
that's not the system. And that's why I don't entertain
the amnesty or any of that right now, because I
(21:29):
know it basically is a blank check giveaway to all
of the people here with none of the same requirements.
This is the problem too, about the broader conversation I
think around immigration. You know, specifically, like what you're saying earlier,
the conflation of skilled and unskilled makes it so be
like Oh, well, broadly together, they're all the same.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
But don't you know all immigration.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
No, I don't oppose all immigration, no oc current system.
So let's explain again. When I oppose immigration, I'm saying
in the interim period we need an immigrate more etorium
because we have so many tens of millions of foreign
born citizens, which is causing again, in my opinion, mass
social chaos. I didn't say no immigration forever. I think
(22:10):
probably for the next twenty maybe twenty five years. I
think it's important now if you look at it broadly.
What I mean, Look, I think it is adaptuange the country.
It's already been for Americans. I think it'd be bad
for everyone. And I just I don't agree with your
assessment that immigrants are the cause of like social chaos.
But there's you know this massive Often you have a
society non assimilation, there's you know, an actuality. The studies
(22:34):
that have been done have found that new immigrants in
this era assimilate into American culture much faster, partly because
American culture is so globally dominant that there's already a
lot of sort of American culture spread around the world,
and so the you know, acquisition of whatever you know,
sort of core American cultural traits are happens at a
much faster clip than it did in previous generation. How
(22:55):
can it continue to go a pace when you're adding
one point five million more per year and you have
pockets of people who don't speak any English and which
apparently it's not even a societal expectation that you can
live here for over a decade. I mean, I think
the reason though that probably want is because we have
no understanding.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
Want to motivate people to learn English. If that's a
specific thing, there's a very clear way to do that.
You create a pathway to citizenship that is contingent on
some sort of English language acquisition, which I certainly would
be okay with, and I think most Democrats would support.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
That's not what you want. I actually don't think that
they would support it because it would have to be paired.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
With as they have long This has long been the
standard as Democratic Party physicians since you know, but probably before.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Because but they don't believe in the actual enforcement and
the deportation where it's not true.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Barago, wom again was the deporter in chief. Jill Biden
deported more people than Donald Trump deported. Okay, so it's
such a canard that Democrats are open borders.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
It's for the ten to twelve million people illegally enter
the country under the last administration. Even if Joe Biden
deported quote more numbers, ten to twelve million people are
here illegally because of him. It's a basic fact. And
by the way, it's a huge reason why the election
was lost. This is the lack of grappling. And you're
saying the lack of enforcement, because what it comes down
to it is not everybody's going to pass those stringent
(24:11):
requirements that we just laid out. So what happens, they
got to go and when times for them to go, well,
that's when I know again, Oh everybody comes bleeding hard
and nobody's ever supposed to lay. The thing is nobody
actually believes in sitting him back.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
This is where I think there is I'm confused by
your position. And then you know, we can we can
wrap this Out'll let you have the last word. We
can wrap this up and move on because you don't
want any immigration. But then you're also saying, well, you
would theoretically support a pathway to citizenship that has English language,
but then you don't think Democrats will support it, Like,
(24:44):
what do you actually what do you actually think is
the English language thing important? It just seems to me
that you think immigrants are bad for society, and I disagree.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
No, I don't think.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
I think immigrants have been the probably most important part
of America developing into the country that it is. I
look at kill Mar and Brego Garcia, and I see
someone who's been a valuable member who isn't on welfare,
who did is a sheet metal of right on.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
Welfare because he's not a citizen. Like it's not like
this is my point.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
But my point is working like you, I don't know
what more you.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
Want when people who worked aren't on welfare. That's come on,
like the forty percent of the country's on food stamps
right now, as if they're not all working. Like that's
my point is that if you have a low wage
and you're unable to actually idification.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
That he's some like, you know, bottom feeder, it can't
support himself. Not that i'm you know, those people in
that way. So it's just to bring it back.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
It's I don't.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Get how you can look at this story and not
be first and foremost horrified by the abuse of power
by this government against people who are genuinely powerless in
this system, and be concerned about what that means for
all of us, immigrant and non immigrant.
Speaker 1 (25:55):
I think, as I've said, I take your point, and
to the extent it has affected Americans, I have spoken
out against it. I do think the Trump administration's actions
have not only been outrageous but deeply damaging to the
cause that I actually support. And just to wrap it
all together, for what you were saying, you were saying
I think that all immigrants are bad for the country. No,
I don't think that. I think that more immigrants would
(26:15):
be bad for the country. When I say could I
conceptually could I conceptually see a pathway to citizenship perhaps
if paired with stringent enforcement, very high standards for who
those people were, and no more future immigration. All of
these things are actually non contradictory because what they come
to boards is to try and have a society which
can actually hash out its differences and have a civic
(26:37):
understanding and not be one of ethnic pockets which creates
huge strife. Basically, and as degrades are overall social fabric,
which I believe is the current system as it is
right now, deportation and enforcement is very important until I
see any particular movement on that. That's why we shouldn't
even entertain so called pathway to citizens shop citizenship talk,
(26:57):
and especially if it were to be paired with the
current endorse of the system, which brings some one point
five million people new people into the country every single year.
All that would do, in my opinion, is poor gasoline
on all the fire. Individually, much of these things work together.
Part of the reason why the Republican Party is where
it is today of no amnesty and basically broke the
twenty thirteen consensus, is because it seems like the amnesty
(27:20):
always happened like it did under Reagan, and then the
deportation in the enforcement continues to slow as while the
Immigration of the Is Act of nineteen sixty five remains
in place with the current USCIS numbers that are put
into place, which brings some one point five million people
on over and over and over again, and with the
highest foreign born population since the early nineteen hundreds, which
(27:41):
I will remind you was followed by an immigration massive
immigration restriction. There were a lot of problems with that bill.
It was explicitly racist, and it kind of caused the
Japanese to go away from US. I don't believe in
racial quotas or any of that to be implemented, but
it had a lot of net social benefits. Actually, if
you look at the way that we had immolation over
some forty year period, and I do think that people
(28:03):
need to grapple deeply with the fact that we have
currently part of our social fabric and destruction is not
just economic. A huge part of it is civic. And
it comes down to the fact that we have millions
of people who entered this country illegally and are somehow,
you know, seen as more American, you know, than the
rest of us, or better actually citizens, because that's the
(28:25):
way that a lot of the Democratic leaders actually even
talk about them. I mean, I saw Amy Klobachar and others.
It's like a quasi system. And actually, as a someone
who is a child, it's offensive, you know, to say
that we're somehow like better than others. I hate this
whole model minority thing that people always talk about with Indians.
It's like, no, that's preposterous because it's saying that, like,
we're better than the people who are already here. No,
(28:47):
we're all the same, and we should strive to actually
all kind of be the same and to reach that understanding.
That's my broad thing. You're happy to respond.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Yeah, immigrants aren't the problem, okay.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
I mean the billionaire class that has rigged the system
that pits us against each other and makes it into
some freaking zero sum game that yes delights and paying
people under the table and violating their labor rights, that's
a problem. And if you want to deal with, you know,
the tearing of social fabric and the you know, societal strife,
(29:19):
the best thing you could do is to make sure
people can get a good job with a high wage
and have access to healthcare and housing, and for that
to be affordable, and for people to be able to
feel again like it is possible to aspire to a
middle class life.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And I think immigrants have.
Speaker 2 (29:40):
Very little to do with that, and generally are positive
in terms of their contribution to society and helping to
people to achieve.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
This will be the central question of our time. By
the way, I'm probably going to lose this fight, just
so everybody knows, thanks to most of the actions of
the Trump administration, which I've got my eyes very wide
open to So just in case anybody is wondering which direction,
you're probably win Crystal. After the Trump administration is out
of power, in my opinion, let's get to Israel.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
Yeah, so we covered this horrible story yesterday, and I
am going to play the video again just as a reminder,
and you know, warning before I play it that it
is deeply disturbing. The IDF struck NASA Hospital, which is
the large, most significant hospital in the Gaza Strip at
this point, and then they waited fifteen minutes for journalists
(30:31):
to arrive to document the damage, for ambulance crews, civil
defense personnel to come in to rescue those who had
been impacted. They waited fifteen minutes, and then they struck again.
They murdered I believe it was twenty people, five of
them journalists by the way, and also again a number
of civil defense workers that bombing. That strike was caught
(30:53):
on camera. Again, warning, this is disturbing. Let's take a
look us so you can see them just blown apart
and the damage was utterly catastrophic.
Speaker 3 (31:15):
So, because you had five.
Speaker 2 (31:18):
Journalists killed, number of whom actually work for Western outlets,
there was a significant outcry you know this. When this
happens to Palestinians who aren't attached to any sort of
Western organization, this just happens, and no one says a
goddamn thing. But because these journalists, courageous journalists, were working
(31:40):
for Western outlets, there was a bit of an outcry,
including some comments from President Trump that will play you
in a moment. So in response, the Israelis did what
they have done occasionally when they felt this sort of
international pressure.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
They've claimed this was a mishap. Oh, We're so sorry.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
We're going to launch a full invest litigation to find
out what went wrong.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
As if this isn't.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
Part and parcel standard issue israelly government IDF policy. Here
is a spokesperson for the IDF issuing a statement in English,
by the way, expressing how they're going to look into
this and how they're going to launch an investigation.
Speaker 5 (32:18):
We are aware of reports that harm was caused to civilians,
including journalists. I would like to be clear from the
start the IDF does not intentionally target civilians. Has begun
this war, created impossible fighting conditions, and is preventing its
end by still holding fifty of our hostages. Having said that,
(32:42):
as a professional military committed to international law, we are
obligated to investigate our operations thoroughly and professionally. The Chief
of the General Staff has instructed that an inquiry be
conducted immediately to understand the circumstances of what happened and
how it happened. As always, we will present our findings
(33:04):
as transparently as possible. We regret any harm to uninvolved
individuals and are committed to continue fighting.
Speaker 2 (33:12):
Hamas we regret any harm Saga. We don't intentionally target civilians.
Let me just lay on for you, guys. This came
out recently. Even by the Israeli military's official figures, they
say that eighty three percent of the dead are civilians,
and we know that is actually far below what the
(33:33):
actual percentage of civilians is because they count all men,
basically all men over the age of like fifteen, as
being humas or some sort of militant. Even by their standards,
eighty three percent of those who have been killed were civilians.
So at this point for them to claim that they, oh,
they don't intentionally target civilians, and oh, we regret this mishap,
(33:55):
We're going to look into it. We're going to investigate
I don't know who believes the scrapet.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
What was crazy to me was actually the initial response
was let's put E three please up on the screen.
This is really important. Originally, the Channel fourteen in Israel
said that this was Hamas's Noser headquarters and said that
they had quote identified a surveillance camera used for intelligence gathering,
saying it was used by Hamas militants, and then fired
(34:23):
the tank shell to quote neutralize the threat. The strike
was approved and coordinated with senior command. They knew about
it before it was being carried out. It was only
after it was caught on video basically on what live
television that they came back and they're like, oh, actually
it was a mishap. Like no, I mean, it is
just emblematic of everything that we've seen on camera with
(34:46):
Tony whenever we interviewed him. Here, the former Green Beret
HF whistle player is shoot first, ask questions later, if
at all, and basically fire at will if you want to.
Everything is cameras are hum any camera there is Hamas.
The degradation of a hospital or of any civilian infrastructure, reporters,
et cetera. They all deserve to die. Initially, By the way,
(35:09):
a lot of the prose earl accounts were saying that
the journalists and or others of people who were killed
in the strike were all Hamas anyway, so why do
we even care? And then the IDF clowns them because
they say what do they say? They're like, well, actually
it was a mistake. After they've spent hours justifying the
strike all hamas.
Speaker 2 (35:28):
And I want to we can we can play a
little bit of let's see what is this D five.
Speaker 3 (35:35):
This is one of the women. One of the journalists
who was killed.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Is a woman who's featured in this video that was
put out to support Gaza's journalists women. That's her actually
right there. Her name is Ariam Abu Dhaga. Apparently another
one of the women who was featured in this video.
Her husband was killed by the Israelis. And you know,
I just want to like put a name to these individuals.
(36:03):
They're not just you know, statistics in all of this,
even though, of course there's so many you could never
say all of their names. Hassam al Masri, who was
a Reuter's contractor, Mohammed Salama and al Jazeer worked for
Al Jazeer as a cameraman. As I said before, Mariam
Abu Daga, she was freelance, worked with AP and others,
has incredible photo journalists. By the way her work people
(36:25):
have been sharing it is just extraordinary. Ahmed Abu Azi's
freelance contributed to Middle East I and others, and MOA's
Abu Taha who was freelance and contributed some to Reuters
and other outlets. And you know the way that these outlets,
even when their own people were murdered, covered this was
also shameful. But that's the reason why the IDF even
(36:47):
felt the need to pretend like they cared and like
this was a mishap, and you know, something that they
don't do every single day. We are now at somewhere
around two hundred and fifty journalists who've been killed by
the IDF, and it's really clear like they don't want
people to be there to document their genocide. That's why
they don't allow international journalists from outside to come in.
(37:09):
That people we're talking about Eureal Palestinians who work freelance
for these various news organizations, so that those news organizations
have some sort of a window into what is happening
inside of the Gaza strip. Israeli government doesn't allow journalists
in because they don't want their war crimes documented, and
then they directly target journalists also like Anas and his
whole crew for Al Jazeera, because they don't want people
(37:32):
to see what they are doing on the ground. The
tactic that they use documented by nine seven to two
magazine of these double tap strikes. This is also standard
issue protocol. They will hit something in this case of hospital,
then they will wait fifteen minutes for journalists, aid workers,
rescue crews, everyone to gather, and then they will strike
(37:54):
it again. It is literally a tactic of terrorists that
is a terrorist, that's what we're talking about here, and
they do.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
It all the time.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
One last note on NASA Hospital is all the doctors
that we've talked to American doctors who we've spoken to
after they've come back to Gaza to relay their experience there,
at least the once we've talked to recently, they all
go to NASA Hospital. That is the hospital as closest
to these IDF AID distribution sites that end up in
AID massacres on every according to the doctors on a
(38:28):
daily basis, and NASA Hospital is the one that receives
most of the casualties from those massed casualty incidents. So
this is a very important part also of the medical
infrastructure which has been you know, I mean, the whole
medical infrastructure in Gaza has just been attacked and decimated
and destroyed. But you have a lot of international doctors
from America and around the world who are at NASA Hospital,
(38:50):
and that's the place that they're attacking.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
I mean, it's just utterly and.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
If they killed them insane, I mean yeah, I mean,
imagine the.
Speaker 3 (38:57):
Tuition will investigate ourselves twist.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
In the turns that Mike Huckabee and other people would
twist them and put themselves in if the American doctor
was killed there. It really is just disgraceful. All right,
So we go ahead and play Trump and his reaction.
Let's get to it.
Speaker 7 (39:13):
Israeli's mom the hospital in Daza that killed twenty people,
including five journalists. This happened overnight today. I didn't know
any reaction to this. I got to talk to you
about it. I don't want to see it. At the
same time, we have to end that all nightmare. Right now,
they're talking about Gaza City. There's always talking about something.
At some point it's going to get settled, and I'm saying,
(39:34):
you better get it settled soon. You have to get
it settled soon. And that means, you know, nobody can
forget October seventh. With that being said, it's got to
get over with It's got to get over with it,
because between the hunger and all of the other probably
worse than hunger death, pure death, people being killed. It's
a terrible situation. Over the terrible, terrible situation. But it's
(39:56):
coming to a head. It's coming to an end. I
think within the next two to three weeks you're gonna
have pretty good, conclusive, conclusive ending.
Speaker 1 (40:07):
So you could see he says it needs to come
to an end, and it will come to an end
in two to three weeks. That is a news, I
think to the Israeli government, who wants to continue this
thing basically forever.
Speaker 2 (40:18):
Who didn't even respond to the latest he sees fire
proposal that Hamas exp.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Literally, which as I understand it, that was the most
ground they had given, and it sees fire proposal. Look,
they want endless war. Trump and these people they just
they either don't understand it, do understand it, and just
continue to talk outsides of their mouth. I tend to
think Trump doesn't understand it. I think he takes a
lot of this baby shit seriously, Like I think it
(40:43):
gets on the phone and Bibe's like, yes, yes, we're close,
we're close, We're close, And he's like, well he told
me he was close. Like, it's about the deference, do
you think so? I really do, because at this point,
what is the alternative for what's happening is that you know,
the alternative right now is total different to Israeli policy
is an absolute obfuscation and removal of American leadership, of
(41:06):
American control over this proxy state, and instead they do
what they want to do and accepting their lives or
whatever their policy is without any strategic understanding. And then
we had Shahead on yesterday, and anybody who says otherwise,
get rid of them. Yeah. Right, that's it.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
You guys need to listen to that interview if you haven't,
because not only does he expose that that you.
Speaker 3 (41:28):
Can't even diverge.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
He got fired for being like, guys, we're not supposed
to catch you day in Samaria. It's the West Bank
that has been standard issue government policy forever.
Speaker 3 (41:39):
But that was a bridge too far. Also, he was like,
you know, we should I guess.
Speaker 2 (41:44):
We don't write, guys, we don't support removing Palestinian to
what was a Soudan that he objected to, specifically Salsudan,
And they're like, no, you got to go. Sorry, you're
too much of a pro Palestine activist here. This again
standard issue problem stuff from the Biden administration, from the
first Trump administration, from the Obama administration.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
You can, George w but you could go.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
All back and back and back, and now that is
out of bounds. The other thing that was important to
get from him is that who is running our policy
towards Israel at this point, and based on his assessment,
it's pretty much my Kokaby. It's pretty much my Kakaby
and his aide whose name I'm blanking on Milstein, who
(42:29):
was critical in getting Shahooed fired apparently. And Huckabee, as
we know, is an absolute end Times psycho. That is
who is he is a religious zealot who is not
pushing Israeli policy because it's in America's interest. It's because
he has a certain religious ideological fringe belief and that
(42:50):
is what more than anything at this point appears to
be guiding US policy visa VI. You know this quote
unquote ally that we send billions of dollars to year
in order to create and cause this absolute horror. So
that's where we are there. Trump's like, oh, it's going
to be over in a few weeks, Like what are
you talking about?
Speaker 3 (43:09):
His way?
Speaker 2 (43:10):
It's almost worthless to listen to what he has It
just confuses issues more to even listen what he has
to say, because there's zero sign that there's anything other
than endless death, destruction, ethnic cleansing, attacks on hospitals, murdering
of journalists for the indefinite future, based on what we
actually see happening, not whatever bullshit falls out of Donald
(43:31):
Trump's mouth.
Speaker 1 (43:31):
I don't gay it. I think broadly what it is
is that Trump and them view it like Ukraine, it's intractable,
and by intractable, leave it up to how it goes.
It is the expert, Yeah exactly. And that and also
because the part of the coalition which is all that
enthused about it is mostly in the Democrats. They're like, yeah, fine,
(43:53):
they don't seem to understand the damage that it's doing
to them broadly, not just with young people. But even
with younger Republicans, and to be honest, I'm not sure
they even care anymore because they paid a lot of
lip service podcasters, and all of a sudden they don't.
They just don't. Their view is we're America, bitch, it's
our second term. We can do whatever we want. And
that really basically defines all of their actions if you're
(44:15):
looking for like a through line in it. They have
no time for anybody who jumps off, even people who
have good faith criticisms like shot. I mean, it was
not some mouth breathing liberal like did you have that
same takeaway. He was a guy who was like, look,
I'm a descending view. I'm on the inside. I'm gonna
try and work it to the best I can. But
I mean, he wrote a tweet that said, make gods
(44:36):
a beautiful again. All right, this is not like literally
like he drafted that tweet for Secretary Rubio. Right, that's problematic.
Last time I checked, Like, he's not some he's not
some pink hair code pinker.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
He wasn't trying to do some revolution exactly.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
He was just like, hey, guys, like you know, this
is a little bit you know, this isn't a boom done.
You know, and I think that's that's the scary part.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
Yeah about this absolutely speaking of journalists under attack.
Speaker 1 (45:05):
Yes, we over Breaking Points. Wow, Free Press has really
upset about journalists against journalism. That's where they're calling us.
Is going to put this up here on the screen.
We can go ahead and read from their editorial. They
ran an entire piece here defending their piece quote unquote
(45:26):
debunking how pictures of twelve guys and children who were
held up as famine victims actually had pre existing conditions.
So they quoted us from our show. Thank you for
tuning in, by the way, already over at the Free Press,
appreciate they say to Crystal Ball, host of Breaking Points,
our journalism was quote just so disgusting. Sure, Ball's co
host Sager and Jetty chimed in to compare our reporters
to Holocaust deniers, saying that a key tenant of Holocaust
(45:47):
denial is trying to claim that many of initial victims
or reported victims had other preconditions and that's part of
the reason why they died.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
True.
Speaker 1 (45:54):
Yeah, I mean that is an empirical fact. I was
stating a fact. And new people are the ones who
are supposedly so concerned about Holocaust and iles, so maybe
you should learn something about it, And they say quote
those who care about the truth will note that these
children were not presented as the initial victims of anything.
They were deceptively promoted to reflect the average Gossin to
suggest otherwise betrays a fleeting relationship with reality. Ball and Jettie,
(46:18):
you are not alone. Glenn Greenwald, a so called self
proclaimed free speech appictors, argued not just for our censorship,
but for our trial at the Hague. Here he didn't
say you should be shut down, he said you should
be tried. And Barack Obama's former National security advisor Ben
Rhodes says we are sociopathic. Ryan Grimm predicts that Olivia
(46:39):
Ryan Gold's name will become notorious for a generation.
Speaker 3 (46:43):
You left out that Ben Rhodes's nickname was Hummas.
Speaker 1 (46:47):
I thought it was so dumb that I'm amas.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
That was apparently what Apak, according to Ryan Okay, so
APAC's nicknames.
Speaker 1 (46:53):
So since Olivia, I'm going to say something I wouldn't
even have. I don't have a ball to put this
on Twitter, but I'll say it here. Olivia, if you're
so concerned about narratives about children that are being used
for political purposes. Do you think you know where I'm
going here, Crystal, I have a little story for you
called October seventh and claims about beheaded babies who were microwaved. Olivia,
(47:15):
I have a task. Please go and investigate all of
the claims about beheaded babies and microwaving and slaughtering and
raping if you would like, because I can guarantee you, Olivia,
you will perhaps find that many initial claims turned out
to be bullshit and were used for propagandistic purposes to
(47:35):
push an agenda on the American and the global community
to justify a war of annihilation in Gaza. So, Olivia,
that's a great story for you. In fact, you may
want to look into Ryan Grimm or many of the
other people who have debunked systematically many of the claims
that have come out. And so Yes, I believe that
since she is so concerned with journalism, that she should
(47:56):
then investigate the claims that her own news outlet has
made about I graved and beheaded babies on the day
of October seventh. Also, there's a documentary put out by
potentially one of your patrons Cheryl Sandberg about rape on
October seventh. I would love to go through that one
with a fine tooth comb, shall we, And let's look
at some of the rapes that have happened since October seventh,
(48:16):
and a lot of them that happened in Israeli prison
camps that were actually found on video in fact, barberism
and gangsterism and behavior of such sort of which we
have multiple documented interests. And yet the ones that were
pushed by you were used for propagandistic war purposes. So, Olivia,
since I know that you're watching, you can go ahead
and take that. You can even clip this if you
(48:38):
would like, I guess, go ahead and cancel me A.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Have another assignment suggestion for them, since they have such
a keen interest in journalism. Yes, well, first of all,
they might want to fact check their own friggin piece,
because we'll get to that in just a moment, because
they are multiple provable, like clear falsities even within this
one garbage smear piece. But in addition, since you're so
concerned about journalists, I'm sure you've done tons of exploration
(49:05):
of the way that hundreds of journalists have been targeted
for murder by the IDF.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
We just covered five who were killed yesterday.
Speaker 2 (49:15):
They are five among many who have been targeted for
murder because they dare expose the truth about what's happening
in Gaza. And that is enough for these Raelies to
want to make sure that their existence is snuffed out.
Not to mention, of course, that they block international journalists
from being able to come into the Gaza strip to
(49:36):
document what's going on whatsoever. So that might be something
else that you might want to explore, given your keen
interest in the journalistic qualities and integrity. But speaking of
that fact check, we can go ahead and put is
it F four? Yes, F four up on the screen. Ryan,
I actually didn't even read that whole piece because I can't.
(49:59):
But Ryan did and noted that there were multiple provable
falsities in this in this one piece that was put
up to a test to their incredible journalism. In particular,
they write this, why have these reporters ignored credible reports
(50:20):
of the UN and its allied organizations themselves blocking the
distribution of aid and Gaza. Okay, that is not true,
and why are they twisting the truth about Hamas's theft
of eight? Also not true, and you don't have to
listen to me. You can listen to Israeli military officials
who said as much to the New York Times, hardly
a pro Palestine outlet. Similarly, why have they ignored the
(50:42):
fact that the UN's associated body that attempts to assess
whether there is a famine monkeyed with the metrics for
its assessment in Gaza. This is exactly the claim that
I spent quite a long time yesterday in my monologue debunking.
There's this claim from these railies that they change the
threshold for famine measurement in order just to find famine
(51:05):
in Gaza. They say they couldn't find a famine, so
they forged one. This is just this is just garbage,
Like this is just a lie. They use the same
exact criteria in Gaza that they had used in previous
findings before. There are two separate thresholds that you can meet.
One of them is basically a BMI metric. But oftentimes
when there is a famine, it's very difficult to get
(51:27):
a full assessment. So there's an alternative indication that they
use called mid upper arms circumference. Now, the mid upper
arm circumference metric. In order to establish a phase five,
which is the most severe level of famine, you need
fifteen percent of the population to have met that. With
the BMI metric, it's thirty percent of the population. Because
they measure different things, so you would have different standards.
(51:49):
It takes longer for the arm to wither down to
the size that would indicate with certainty that there is
famine conditions. That is the same guidance and threshold that
they have used for us their conflicts as well. So
maybe they might want to spend a little bit more
time journalistically looking into some of their own bullshit claims,
even within the context of this one article.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
Yeah wow, shocking what actually scrutiny of their journalism will do.
By the way, Olivia's claimed to fame is the girl
who did the TikTok where she read all of zoron
mom day streeets and she's like, it's called journalism, So
that's what we're all dealing with her. So Olivia, again,
since I know you're watching and potentially your salary depends
(52:33):
on your boss Barry Conning David Ellison into buying your
bullshit outlet for two hundred and fifty million, dollars then
get that you're very upset, and I just want to
end on that one, which is just let's just as
all say the truth. Here's the truth. The reason why
they're the most mad, and I'm almost one hundred percent
(52:54):
sure of this is because of our segment making fun
of their two hundred and fifty million dollar valuation. They
I am aware, I am aware to do this. That
segment made the rounds amongst certain very influential people in
Silicon Valley, many of people who are laughing at Barry's
audacity for two hundred and fifty million dollars valuation so
(53:15):
that she can be the CBS News pro Israel ombudsman
and con some super rich billionaire into bailing out her
shitty business where she's spending vast amounts of money on
real estate, with a number thirty one ranked podcast, a
YouTube channel which might as well be a dud, which
is spending two dollars a word to commission people trying
(53:37):
to hire people with free health or with healthcare and
all of these top level benefits. She needs a little
bail out there. It's the pro Israel bailout that she
needs from Larry Ellison's son and so perhaps maybe that
editorial and sniping had something to do with Yeah, So sorry, Barry,
because the thing is, as we've said here repeatedly, we
want her to sell for two fifty because it means
(53:58):
you and I are filthy rich on paper. If that's
the case, So Barry, we wish you nothing with the best,
all right. I've always wanted to be worth one hundred
million dollars on paper, or at least go around telling people.
So that's only possible if you paid the way for us.
So please, Barry, please go around. We're cheering for you,
all right, just so I can tell people I'm sent
a millionaire on paper. All right, So with all of that,
(54:20):
let's go ahead and get No, we're done. We're gonna
do the AMA now.
Speaker 3 (54:24):
Sorry, Thank you guys so much for watching.
Speaker 2 (54:26):
Ryan and Emily will be in tomorrow soccer and I
will be back on Thursday and we'll see y'all.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
Don
Popular Podcasts
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.