Ryan and Emily discuss Trump floats Lockheed Martin buy, Alex Jones dire warning on Trump health, Charlamagne calls Jeffries 'AIPAC Shakur', PBD cozy Bibi interview.
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. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 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 3 (00:33):
Good morning, and welcome to the Breaking Points Emily, how
you doing good.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
We've got two of the most famous tailors to cover
on the show today.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
That's right, Taylor Lorenz and the other one that's Swift
Tel Swift Swift. That's right. We were going to lead
the show, of course, with the biggest news in the country,
which is that Cracker Barrel is going back to its original.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Logo and they called the White House and.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Called the White House, and we're all happy about this, right,
This is a big win for the country.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
It's a big win for me. Personally, I prefer the
old Cracker Brow but I'm not sure that it warn't
at the President's attention.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
But then that got pushed aside because bigger news.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Yeah, you can't waste oxygen on Cracker Burrow when Taylor
Swift getting.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Okay, Swift is getting engaged.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Yeah, in all, honestly, we have a massive show today.
If you look at the bottom bar and you're watching this, yes,
that is accurate. We have that many blocks to get through.
We did sort of twist producer Griffin's arm to let
us talk about the Taylor Swift engagement because Ryan was
checking his dms last night and the people were.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
People want to know what Emily thinks about Taylor Swift?
And your background is in like culture and how this
is supposed to be important stuffings about things? What's your
what's your take here? We got to get to Charlie Kirk.
Do you want to do that first?
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Well, let's let's get through the intro to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
People can just guess it's basically the same show we
do every every day.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's true. Howard Lutton Nick back on the circuit talking
about China, talking about university and the university grants, research grants,
all of that, and that comes on the heels of
the Fed. He's talking about intel very uncertain economic climate,
to say the least, So we'll get into updates on that.
We're going to talk a little bit about Alex Jones
(02:20):
thinking Donald Trump is in a seriously bad state health wise,
and you know what he actually doesn't. It's important to
know what Alex joon six. But Trump obviously has been
visibly bruised, and so we're going to break all of
the information that we have on that down. Ryan, We're
talking about Wesley Bell and Israel's influence in American politics.
(02:42):
We have a new nickname for Hakim Jeffreys from Charlemagne.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Boy called him akor a pahakor. That's one's going to
leave them Mark it hurts.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
It auto corrected from producer Griffin to a pac Shakira,
which I thought was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
To a pa is just brutal.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
It's brutal. And Ryan, you're also walking us through through
some new reporting on money.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Yes, uh in Maine. So Graham Platner will be here tomorrow.
He's the now Bernie endorsed working class oystermen running for
Senate in Maine in the Democratic primary. There is an
existing candidate in that race who has already raised two
million dollars. I'm going to help you figure out how
it is he raised two million dollars this this quickly.
(03:24):
It's quite an incredible story.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, I'm looking forward to that, and then Taylor the
Rerenz will be with us for I think what's definitely
going to be a debate about cell phones in high schools.
It's back to school season, so a lot of kids
have new cell phone bands or yonder patches that they're
walking into school with this year. But other people, like
your kids are used to it at this point.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Well, when my daughter found out that I would be
arguing for the ban on phones in schools, she basically
wanted to disown me.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
She yeah, what's wrong with yeah? Which is actually you're going.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
To get death threats.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
It's a good argument.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
I was like that this is going to going to
be the thing.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah, yeah, of all the things.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
She's like genuinely worried. Now it wasn't before. Now She's like, wow, okay.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
But once again, that is an argument in she's not.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Helping me out. If it comes to it, you're on
your own.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Yes, and Ryan, you have some new reporting on Serbia
that we're going to be sharing with the audience as well.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Yeah, some drop Site report from on the ground there.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
And as a reminder, Breakingpoints dot com that's where you
can go to get a subscription. We also want to
make sure we give a shout out to intern MJ,
who's been super helpful and just we're very grateful to
MJ for all of her help.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
In turn, she's been helping out drop Site as well,
so it's it helps to like get the drop site
reporting that we've been doing and kind of help help
fuel the reporting and the program here.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
Yeah, no, the original report is Yeah, it's super helpful,
So thank you MJ. Now, without further further Ado, let's
get into the celebration, the nationwide celebration over the Taylor
Swift Travis engagement.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
And the first question that people had for you was
will Blake Lively be invited to the Taylor Swift.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
We all know the answer to that and it's absolutely not.
Barring some unforeseen reconciliation, Blake Lively will not be at
that wedding. Now, the Blake Lively story. If you haven't
been following the Taylor Swift Blake Lively feud. It's actually
a very interesting story of how tabloid reporters are used
to manipulate narratives and how those can have sweeping.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
You can't trust tabloid reporters.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
Now, you can't trust the table and you trust you can't.
You can't trust Blake Lively either.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Can't trust. That's hard trust.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
That's hard for people to wrap their heads around. Can't
trust Blake Lively apparently. But anyway, it's an interesting story
of how celebrities can weaponize the media to protect their
bottom lines or pad their bottom lines. But Taylor Swift
America's sweetheart. I usually say that sarcastically. I think it's
probably accurate in most cases. She's upset some men by
showing up an NFL games, But Ryan, you've been okay
(06:01):
with it.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Any guys that are upset about that are fooling themselves.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I will say, when she first started going to the
Chiefs games, they cut away to her so much that
it did become laughable.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
That's on the NFL.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
It was pretty funny. It was not Taylor's fault.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
If I went to a game and they cut away
to me every like five seconds, people would rightly be upset,
but not at me. Yeah, that's not my fault. It's
just too magnetic.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Too magnetic. Now, most people were busy. I'm telling you
Instagram last night, I am in Taylor Swift, like target
demographic came out when I was a teenager, all of that,
Like she she was huge when I was a teenager.
Who music coming out when I was a teenager. And
my Instagram last night was full of people who genuinely
were reposting this Instagram like it was one of their
(06:45):
friends who had just gotten engaged. It was like I'm
clicking through it like another tale, another tale. It was
just like everyone's best friend.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And the people have been for her engaged, They've been
rooting for her for like it's like if the Dallas
Cowboys made it to this super Bowl rooting for him
for decades. No, I mean, but.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
Fan.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
But that's but that's how miserable her experience has been.
She's basically been the Dallas Cowboys of dating.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Well, so jeez, this is where it gets. This is
where the conversation becomes political in a way. And I've
written a ton about Taylor Swift over the years, but
most people were wishing Taylor Swift well. Most people have
been wishing Taylor Swift well. This is not a particularly
controversial couple. I think everybody likes the pairing of Taylor
(07:37):
Swift and Travis Kelsey. They seem to be very happy together.
They did their podcast a couple of weeks ago and
seemed to be very happy together. But Charlie Kirk entered
Charlie Kirk, who had some thoughts. Yesterday, even though lots
of people in the right saying Taylor happy for you,
lots of people in the last saying Taylor happy for you,
the President of the United States said that he was
(07:58):
happy for her. Here's what Charlie her can't to say.
Speaker 7 (08:01):
But maybe one of the reasons why Taylor Swift has
been so just kind of annoyingly liberal over the last
couple of years is that she's not yet married and
she doesn't have children. I say this non sarcastically. I
say this as a husband and a father. Having children
changes you, Getting married changes you. And I hope that
(08:26):
America's biggest pop star marrying the pharmaceutical spokesperson ends up
conservatizing them. Taylor Swift might deradicalize herself, engage in reality
more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism.
Submit to your husband, Taylor.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Okay, right, the camera should really be on Ryan. He's
losing it right now. But whenever you do the Ephesians
five verse, submit to your husband, and don't continue to
the verse. Yes, it says, wives, submit to your husband's
submit yourself to your husband's as you do to the Lord.
For the husband as the head of the wife, as
Christ as the head of the church, his body of
(09:09):
what she is the savior now is the church submiths,
so Christ. So also, wives should submit to their husbands
and everything. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved
the church and gave himself up for her to make
her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through
the word, and present her to himself as a radiant church,
without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy
and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love
(09:30):
their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. I had to have that one ready
to go, Ryan, because if you don't complete the verse,
it's not that the first part is wrong, it is
that the implication is incomplete, and the full verse is
basically was very radical at the time. It was very
radical in Rome, is that it's a relationship of equals.
(09:54):
There is no Jew or Greek, or male or female.
There's only one. I don't even know wh I'm gett
into this in the tap Swift.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Segment, Yeah, I like that line. There's no no male
or female drew a gentile or Greek or whatever. Yeah. So,
but Charlie Kirk read submit your wife and just put
the book down, like this is good stuff.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
What's the message to Travis. I'm sure Charlie would endorse
the rest of the verse, but anytime it's used, it's
without the rest of it. It's a little bit of
a red flag. Now that is the.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Good note which Gospels have been endorsed by Charlie.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
You got to keep your track now, But that is
the sort of question about Taylor Swift. Now we could
do I think right, I think you and I could
probably go for a couple of hours on the question
of whether being unmarried and childless into your thirties is
a liberalizing force. There's some social science evidence that suggests
that's the case, and people could understand by the way
(10:51):
why that would be the case. So it's not an
insane point. And I think Taylor Swift has been fairly
open about, as you pointed out earlier in the segment,
being miserable. I don't think she's about to be conservatized
by bearing Travis Kelcey though.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
Hey, that's why we have this news program. We can
follow this developing story for years to come, and we
can and we'll report on the on those developments.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Say we were talking about drop sites original reporting earlier,
but this is a glaring hole.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Is going to get on it?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Fantastic. Let's move on to the economy, the second most
important story, well, the third most importantory versus Cracker brow
that's Taylor's question. Then we have the economy. So Howard
Lutnik was he's like been, He's always on every show,
it seems like, but he loves it. He's been on
(11:44):
every every show over the last couple of days in
the wake of the Intel deal. So let's start off
with this clip of Howard Lutnik talking about how the
Intel deal could potentially spiral into something else in the
defense industry. Here's a one.
Speaker 8 (11:58):
Didn't the US government say, you know what we use
Palenteer services. We would like a piece of Palenteer. We
use Boeing services, we would like a piece of Boeing.
There are a lot of businesses that do business with
the US government that benefit by doing business with the
US government.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I guess where's the line.
Speaker 9 (12:17):
Oh, there's a monstrous discussion about defense. I mean, Lockheed
Martin makes ninety seven percent of their revenue from the
US government. They are basically an arm of the US government.
They make exquisite munitions, I mean, amazing things that can
knock a missile out of the air when it's coming
(12:39):
towards you. But what's the economics of that? I'm going
to leave that to my Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. These guys are on it and
they're thinking about it. But I tell you what, there's
a lot of talking that needs to be had about
how do we finance our munitions acquisitions. I think a
lot of that is talking. Now you have the right
(13:01):
people in the jobs and Donald Trump.
Speaker 10 (13:03):
At the head.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Okay, Ryan, this I think is well worth considering in
the context of the Trump administration right now trying to
build towards a sovereign wealth fund, right I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
He has said, they said this is this is a
step toward a sovereign wealth fund, right, and so.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
That's I mean, actually, Andrew Russ Sarkin's question about Palenteer,
it's kind of like it does sound I mean, it's
just abnormal for the United States. And so his question
being like this is ludicrous may not look so ludicrous
in a few years when we look back and we're like, well,
that was the beginning of the sovereign wealth fund.
Speaker 10 (13:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yeah, you have Sorkin there who's putting this out there
in a way that where he's saying, isn't this going
to sound absurd to everybody?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Exactly?
Speaker 3 (13:45):
And Howard Letnx like, yeah, actually, good point. Why are
all of these people getting fantastically rich from Lockheed? And
that's just that's just don't not just Lockheed, all of
the parasites around Lockheed, all of northern Virginia stretching from miles.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Except he doesn't really even use the word parasites. He's
acting now like it's but that's the thing, right, Like,
if you think it is a parasitic relationship, then you
can either go in one of two directions. You can
try to say that this is going to be a
parasite relationship that is also synergistic and nationalize to some degree.
Or you can say this is crony capitalism.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, if his crony capitalism, make an actual strategic crony
capitalism where you're putting the cronies in place and you're
developing your industrial policy from the top down rather than
just enriching people. Sager has been on a role on
Twitter lately.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Comrade and Jenny, go check.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Out brother Sager's response to this. He's pointed out that say,
Intel's the New York Stock Exchange is way up in
the last twenty years, China's is not yet China has
developed an actual kind of economy and manufacturing base, and
he points to Intel stock which is like doubled in
less fifteen years or whatever, while Intel's self is like
(15:03):
hollowed out like we have. We have a system that
extracts wealth from our economy to.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
The rich and to financialization.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
What Sager, myself, Howard Lutnik, and President she want to
see is an economy that creates wealth and for the
society itself.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
On that point about Chairman, she apparently your comrade, let's
rule a too, because Howard Lutnik talked about China as well.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Missus Serach.
Speaker 11 (15:34):
I'm really interested in how you personally would see it
if another country did something of this ilk back, because
I know how much you don't like non tariff barry.
Speaker 9 (15:45):
You mean, like China does it every day?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Yeah, every single day.
Speaker 11 (15:50):
That's exactly what I want to ask about, because because
I totally get that perspective on China, and it's obviously
led to so much of the last year's policy towards
China in the last decades since President Trump came in.
But what about from a UK perspective, what if the
UK started to take stakes and domestic companies that kind
of act as a China like approach to this?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
No?
Speaker 3 (16:10):
No, but does that count as all your Mary?
Speaker 9 (16:13):
I mean you don't. You're not really thinking about the
fact that the UK government nationalized British Steel a couple
of months ago.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Yes, really, so, I mean asked me about that.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do we get punished for that now? Do we deserve
to be?
Speaker 10 (16:29):
No?
Speaker 9 (16:29):
You don't get punished for it because what they did
is what happened is the Chinese a Chinese company bought
British Steel, put British Steel out of business. And was
just importing, you know, subsidized Chinese steel. Put the British
steel industry out of business. And the British figured out,
along with the Trump administration teaching them that you need
(16:51):
steel to be a real country to be able to
defend yourself. And the British figure that out, they nationalized
British steel. And now because they nationalized British steel, America
can do it deal with Britain on steel because otherwise
we would just be inviting the Chinese. In imagine British
steel was really Chinese steel, and ren.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
It's there are no libertarians on the show, so we
can treat the argument as foolish as it actually is,
because you can't have national defense without industrial policy, like
national yeah, you can't actually have a military without industrial
you can't have a strong military without industrial policy. And
(17:34):
so it's obvious and the point Howard Lutnik is making
is also obvious. And what the Trump administration is doing
right now is just sort of putting the lie to
all of the rights pretenses for years and not just
the rights or the center centrist Democrats as well, that
this is some type of like efficient free market middle
ground who's been calling this capitalism with American characteristics. Yes,
(17:58):
I forget who who coined that, obviously in reference to
socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is what student Ping versus
the Chinese system as. But I don't understand the moral
panic because this is not worse than the status quo. Like,
that's my perspective.
Speaker 12 (18:11):
It.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I think it comes with all kinds of disadvantages and baggage,
but the status quo does as well.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
So it's like, right, well, you don't understand the moral panics.
It's not even a different It's not coming for you.
It's coming for that guy. Guys who wear cuff links
on a Tuesday and sit on CNBC and there's starched
white shirts as avatars for this industry Wall Street that
has spent the last forty years hollowing out the country.
It was so instructive the way he said, But why
(18:37):
should we be punished for this? What he wants is
to be able to continue to hollow out our economy.
Put a giant funnel into the economy, suck all the
wealth out of it, distribute it up to the very top,
wear cuff links on a Tuesday. Watch the standard of
living of the middle class erode destroy unions. That was
(19:01):
the goal. But then after that they went just hog
wild afterwards, saying why should we be punished for this?
Like why do you think you should be pushing for this?
Like what you represent should not exist.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
But I don't even know to what extent this will
actually be punishing them, because well.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
It's punishing in the sense that they don't get to
commit crimes against the American people forever. They might have
to actually make something that makes the country and the
world a better place.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
I hope so. But it's just also like a ten
percent and.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
They would see that, like they would definitely see that
as a punishment. Yes, absolutely, Now we can set aside.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Like because it takes away money from the hedge funds
that need to be used to make us all better, Right,
you need to have that little extra money to trade
on and put it into the hedge funds and have
some fun with.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
And I don't want to stand in the way of
comrade Trump when he's like on his way to nationalizing
the economy here, but I would point out, like, if
you want to share on the upside of corporate America's
wealth creation for itself, the way to do that is
you tax them when they actually make income, like you
actually tax them. Buying ten percent or just taking ten
(20:20):
percent of Intel without taking any controlling share of it
is kind of a dead end because it's like, Okay,
what are you going to do with that ten percent? Well,
I think let's say Intel doubles in another five years.
Now your ten percent that you had is now worth
you know, was worth ten billion, now it's worth twenty billion.
You sell it, like what are you doing? Like, what
are you doing with this ten percent? The point of
(20:42):
you know, government involvement with these companies and when it
comes to China or the UK or anywhere else is
to tell them what to do, direct them like, hey,
we think, actually it would be good if we made
these chips somewhere in the country. So we're going to
as a policy tell the companies that we're involved with,
go do that. Like that's the point. Not see your
(21:03):
portfolio kind of goes up because then you have the problem.
Well then what you yeah, one hundred sell just go
on a merrior trade and sell your shares? Is Trump
day trading Intel shares? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (21:16):
So I see this as a really pathetic statement on
Congress and our ability to make any law like the
conservative movements consensus on what tax policy should look like
is not what any of the Republican tax bills from
twenty seventeen to the One Big Beautiful Bill have looked like.
(21:38):
It's the One Big Beautiful Bill is not what the
American people would say they want their tax policy to
look like. And there's actually a way that you can
write tax policy without taking a ten percent stake in
Intel in a board seat that makes Intel a better company.
You can close myriad tax loopholes, you can do all
(21:58):
kinds of different things and six to make Intel a
better company. But we don't legislate anymore, like we actually
do not legislate anything that isn't a gargantuan you know, omnibus.
So we have no smart policies, and you end up
then with a strong man in power. And that's basically
(22:19):
like I'm not saying my only disagreement, it's authoritarian. I'm
just saying that it's like, because we are now so
desperate to have companies like Intel that are getting the
privileges of incorporation in the United States and all kinds
of benefits from the taxpayers, because we can't even have
them operating in a like basically moral way. We have
(22:39):
to try to force them through executive authority, which is
and that's where we are.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
My disagreement there would be that the Inflation Reduction Act
was actual and industrial policy. It's said and they called
it this just a satisfy mansion. It was basically, I
just think the Clean Energy Bill, and it said, we
as a country believe that going forward, we need to
move away from fossil fuels and we need to pivot
to clean energy, and we need a lot of energy,
(23:07):
and so we need to invest in transmission, We need
to invest in move you know, moving the energy from
where it's produced to where it's then consumed, and we
need to innovate in how we create that energy. And
that was basically uprooted by Trump.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
But that was also a giant I mean, that bill
was a hulking mesh too, and some parts of it
had to be like a lot of the stuff made
it hard for people who were trying to build factories
because there's all kinds of like this. There's a I
think a pretty legitimate abundance argument about some parts of
that bill. But either way, yes, I agree that that
(23:44):
was industrial policy, and I think there was a little
bit of industrial policy in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
There is, Yeah, there's attempts at it. Meanwhile, this all
goes hand in hand with Trump's continued push to take
over the Federal Reserve. Put up a four here. Breaking
Voice talked about this earlier this week. This is the
biggest probably the biggest dudes in the country at the moment.
(24:09):
Lisa Cooke is a member of the Board of Governors
and Trump wants to not just replace Powell when his
term is up later this year, but to have a
majority of basically pro Trump doves, and in order to
do that, he needs to get Lisa Cooke out of
the way. Lisa Cook has last night said she's going
to sue to keep her position, arguing that you know,
(24:34):
Trump doesn't have the power to remove her for policy reasons.
We all know that Trump is removing her for policy reasons.
That's because he wants to take control of the Federal Reserve.
They combed through her records to try to find some
justification for that.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
I asked. I actually reached out to Bill Polti's office
yesterday and asked how they stumbled upon the mortgage records
Because George shown professor an interesting blog about how in
order to do that, you're basically it's not like you're
using the federal government to dig up the record. It
wasn't as that somebody dropped them in the right.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
There is a reasonable case to be made that Pulti
himself broke the law, and there's privacy records around what
executives at the f h A f A are able
to look at when it comes to american's personal data.
If the FBI, or let's say, you know, Atlanta Police,
which is where one of her places was condo, wants
(25:33):
to you know, gets a tip on some mortgage fraud,
then there are ways that we investigate mortgage fraud. You
can do. You can you know, file a subpoena, you
know subpoena. You can get a warrant, you can go,
you know, look into this stuff. You're like, wait, I
don't think I've ever seen a criminal referral from the
f HFA before. Yeah, that's odd. I'm sure this is
(25:55):
just a run of the mill criminal case going on. Oh,
they went fishing through all of Lisa Cook's information. Yeah,
and they found if people are not familiar, that she
bought a place in twenty twenty one and called it
her primary residence in Michigan or whatever it was. Two
weeks later, bought another one a condo and also called
her primary residence, which meant that she got a lower
(26:18):
interest rate on one of them than she would have
gotten if she would have called it her like vacation condo.
It's pretty now twenty twenty one, by the way, last point,
interest rates were like zero. So like the difference between
why bother what she was gonna pay as a vacation
home versus a primary with her income and her like
(26:39):
she's gonna get a especially in twenty twenty one, you're
getting a two something interest rate no matter what. So
did she corruptly save a few hundred dollars a year
on one of those mortgages? Probably?
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:54):
I mean is it corrupt looks that way?
Speaker 13 (26:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah it does.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
What about if it's two hour part parking and you
park for four and you know you did, but you
don't pay. I mean, that's that's corrupt.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
It's corrupt. Is corrupt if you sit on if you're
a governor on federal reserve board.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Like that's like yeah, and if if this emerged any
other way, you know what, Hey, she should suffer the
consequences of her actions, whatever those would be. But it
emerged because he wants to take control of the Fed
so that he can personally so that he can do
his tariff policy and then monkey with interest rates at
(27:38):
the same time to try to balance that out, which
you could argue the president should be able to do
and we shouldn't have these like technocrats over there rolling this.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
So I think that's a good point.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
That's a separate argument.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
It's obviously true that the administration or that Donald Trump
himself wants a full takeover of the Federal Reserve, so
this would give him if his nominees are confirmed for
out of the seven seats. He has trying to fast
track the man who's already been nominated for the third
seat to get him confirmed quickly, and is mulling right
now whether to nominate someone to put in Lisa Cook's
(28:13):
place right away, even though this is going to be
tied up in the courts, maybe kicked actually to the
Supreme Court. And actually, Ryan, you'll love this could put
Humphrey's executor back in the spotlight because this is like
actually the history of Humphrey's executor plating out the question
of unitary executive theory that the Trump administration, or the
(28:34):
theory that the Trump administration has of what executive power
should look like, is more in line with Franken Dellan
or Roosevelt than it is with basically any other certainly
any other Republican president. But that's what the question is.
Whether this is truly independent? Is it different from some
of the other independent agencies that the Trump administration has
been saying should be brought to heel by a president,
(28:55):
whether the Republican or Democrat. Is it different because it's
the Federal Reserve. That's something that's also been argued in
the courts. So this is a really significant move because
it is going to test some fundamental questions. And as
we look back on the first seven months of the
Trump administration seven and a half months of the Trump administration,
it is remarkable how many fundamental questions of governance are
(29:18):
being kitched to the Supreme Court for foundational constitutional tests.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
It's going to test my theory of the court. I'm
curious what you think will happen, because my theory of
the Court has always been that it is a radical,
far right wing court. But it has deep ties with
the Reagan business wing YEP of the Republican Coalition, and
therefore we'll push back on Trump's more populist efforts when
(29:46):
it comes to undermining what they see as the integrity
of the kind of neoliberal economy. And this goes right
to it. You can put up a five markets already.
So on the one hand, markets are responding in a
it's a frentic way because on the one hand they're like, whoa,
this could mean even deeper interest rate cuts, which you know,
(30:07):
could mean asset price bubbles, and so therefore we need
to buy. On the other hand, it could It looks
like Argentina and Turkey models are being applied here in
the United States, which means we're going to get runaway inflation.
And so the tenure note plummeted, which means interest rates
that the US has to pay for for its debt,
(30:31):
you know, went up, went up significantly around these inflation concerns.
Because the idea is that whether it's Bernie Centers or
Trump or whoever, if they control interest rates, then one
of the checks on what they can do. The vond
market is not as immediate a concern. So if if
(30:53):
Trump is doing tariff policy and is destroying the economy.
He can just dial down, he can just print a
whole lot of money basically to try to like paper
over literally paper over the problems that his policies are creating.
And so then thinking from Wall Street is, well, then
they're going to do a lot of these problematic things.
They're gonna they're gonna bust all the budgets. In the
(31:16):
short term they'll covered up with by printing money. In
a long term, you'll get inflation like an Argentina or
Turkey or wherever else. Uh, And so that so that
that's what's driving the other Wall Street moves. But they're
still they're sort of confused. So the idea, my idea
of the court would be that their Reagan instincts will
take over and be like, we don't actually want this
(31:39):
much of a populist revolution to the point where the
president is just setting interest rates. What do you what?
What's your read on the court? You know that these
these jackals better than I do.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
I think your your reader is correct on that it
would be, but it's not. It's not just a Reagan
instinct necessarily. It's also I mean, you're looking at full
picture of the administration's moves here. I'm curious how the
process question plays into this because I referenced earlier the
Georgetown law professor Adam Leviton who wrote a blog post
(32:10):
that said, quote, the only way anyone would have noticed
a problem with Cook's loan application is that Pulty, as
head of faha FA, directed Fanny or Fetti to pull
Fanny or Freddy to pull her application, and that is
unheard of. Does that also factor? And by the way,
I sent that to the FAHFA and asked if that
was true. Didn't get a response back. But I'm curious
(32:31):
if that plays into the broader question of how this
played out legally. Is there a legal you know, if
you're a cop and you don't read the Miranda rights,
you've got a problem in your prosecution. Is there a
question of how all of this happened that would also
kick in? So somebody, even like Justice Alito, is uncomfortable
with the decision. I don't know, but I think your
(32:55):
instinct is correct that it would wouldn't necessarily even just
be a Reagan instincts so much as a Normy instinct.
I don't know if that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
This is discomfort with Yeah right there their NORMI is
too yeah right. And they're also probably like, when I
bought that boat, what did I put down as my income?
Speaker 10 (33:15):
Right?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Oh am?
Speaker 10 (33:16):
I am?
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I in trouble now too well.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
And there's this divide that has never been.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Clarence Thomas is still in the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas
still there flagrantly corrupt. Oh come on, are you like joking,
like the guy you forgot to disclose like enormous amounts
of bribes and his like rich friend bought his bought
his like mom's house.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Like I grew.
Speaker 13 (33:39):
That was bad.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Yeah, and I grew that was bad. I don't think
it was like evidence of significant corruption.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
He was if you're taking gifts, they're all.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Vacationing with rich people. And the RV loan, I'll say
it was bad. The forgiven RV A loan was that
was all bad stuff?
Speaker 7 (33:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Well, I think I mean everyone in there's just just
just friends. It had nothing to do with the fact
that he's a Supreme Court justice. It's very clear as
soon as he said that he was broke and was
thinking about retiring, and they're like, oh my god, we're
going to lose this seat, the money started flowing to him.
That's that's the timeline. He wrote a letter to the
(34:15):
Congress saying Supreme Court justices aren't paid enough. I can't
I can't keep talking Ginny and the RVs that she needs.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
This was like fifteen years yeah, way back.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
So he said this to Congressional Republicans, you need to
give more money to Supreme Court justice not fair, or
I'm going to quit. Basically that was the message that
of the letter that he sent out.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
I think he's probably right about Supreme Court justices, by
the way.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
Yeah, but they found another way to pay him. The
money just started flowing in all of a sudden, not
so he would rule any differently, but so that he
would stay on the bench. So anyway, that's again that's
a good point.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
But I think the primary narrative is that he's being
bribed by like Harlan Crod ruled differently in the court.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
And I think he was bribed to stay on the court,
will take care of you, because they agreed, right, any
whatever RV she wants.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Ideological compatriots, right, and the RVY loan was I think
the last part of it was forgiven something like that.
So Anyway, all that is to say, Clarence Thomas actually
might be the interesting one on this question, because what
I was just about to say is the salience of
the unitary executive theory hasn't been strong in the conservative
(35:22):
movement for a long time, because you have this group
of people who really wants to be critical of FDR,
and the line of the conservative movement has been FDR
governed like a king. But then they're the same thing
with Obama. And then there's this also argument that existed
since Nixon that the president should have power over the
deep state executive agencies, and those two things are kind
(35:45):
of in conflict, and I'm actually curious how Clarence Thomas
would rule on that, because there is no consensus among
the Reaganite federalist society world on that. MAGA tends to
be more FDR obviously more pro governing like FDR than
old school Republicans, but at the same time, it's an
(36:06):
argument that old school Republicans could get behind too, because
some of them went through it with Nixon.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Now we were going to talk briefly about this crazy
person in the White House talking about how gas is
under two dollars in some places, but like, why we're
shows getting tight? Let's move on to his cankeles.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
Well, well, let's say Trump did say gas was below
two dollars. Gas buddy says, we're not seeing any stations
reported to us blow two dollars account.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
Of course nobody's seeing that.
Speaker 4 (36:32):
So yes, anyway, let's move on then to what did
you say is cankeles? Cankeles?
Speaker 3 (36:41):
So is Donald Trump going to die? Well, we're all
going to die. Is Donald Trump going to die today? Doubtful?
No soon?
Speaker 4 (36:49):
Maybe he's seventy nine years old. And Alex Jones one
of his pre eminent supporters in the new media ecosystem.
Although Alex Shones is kind of a new media pioneer
if you think about it. He's been around, Yeah, exactly,
it knew me for thirty years. But one of Donald
Trump's preeminent backers is deeply concerned actually about the state
(37:10):
of Trump's health because of the images because in part
of the images that continue rolling out of Trump with
bruised hands and very swollen ankles. So this would be
one we can roll through some of this. Trump reappeared
on Monday after questions had been raised. He reappeared on
Monday with the bruises on his hands. Again, we've seen
(37:31):
sort of splotches of foundation rubbed over the bruises at
different points too, So sometimes you see the bruising visible
and then sometimes you see the foundation like right there.
If you're listening to this, it's exactly what you think
it is. You've probably seen the pictures already on your own.
But that's what Alex Jens is going to be reacting
(37:51):
to here in this clip. And again, Ryan Trump seventy
nine years old, probably not surprising to anybody that he
might have some health complications. Alex Jones be too.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
Because you can see him declining faster and faster. It's
not super bad yet. I predict Trump is going to
have some type of collapse within the next twelve months
at the current trajectory. I'm not saying he's going to collapse.
I'm saying if he doesn't take his foot off the
gas pedal, I guarantee you and I've got stamina way
(38:25):
better than most people. If I had Trump's job at
fifty one.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
For a month, I would have a nervous breakdown.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
I've seen a lot of signs of Trump declining, the
fear that he's getting sick who knows what's going on.
His ankles are giant. That usually means serious heart decline.
I mean liver failure too. But his eyes aren't yellow.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
So he's saying, I.
Speaker 6 (38:56):
Don't know if I'm doing a good job. I don't
know if I'm going to get into heaven. I hear
I'm not doing good job. This is the President on
stage calling into Fox News in the morning saying this.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Okay, so what auctions was just referring to. Let's skip
ahead to be five. This is Trump talking about how
he will ask you whether he will go to heaven
in regard to ending the conflict in Ukraine.
Speaker 14 (39:22):
If I can say seven thousand people a week from
being killed, I think that's I want to try and
get to heaven if possible. I'm hearing I'm not doing well.
I really hit the bottom of the totem poll. If
I can get to heaven, this will be one of
the reasons.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
And finally, here's what the White House has said about
the bruising and the ankles will start with B. Three.
Speaker 15 (39:43):
Recent photos of the President have shown minor bruising on
the back of his hand. This is consistent with minor
soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin,
which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regiment.
This is a well known and benign effect of aspirin therapy.
And the President remains in excellent health, which I think
(40:05):
all of you witness on a daily basis.
Speaker 4 (40:07):
Here and then we can go ahead and move right
onto the next clip about the inkles.
Speaker 15 (40:11):
In recent weeks, President Trump noted mild swelling in his
lower legs. In keeping with routine medical care and out
of an abundance of caution, this concern was thoroughly evaluated
by the White House Medical Unit. The President underwent a
comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies. Bilateral lower extremity venus
(40:33):
Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency a
B nine in common condition, particularly in individuals over the
age of seventy. Importantly, there was no evidence of deep
vein thrombosis or arterial disease.
Speaker 4 (40:51):
So a benign condition in people over the age of seventy.
Two things, Ryan, One, I think we've learned it's important
to pay attention to this. In the last four years
that the executive. I mean, I guess we didn't have
to learn it. I don't know if the media actually
learned it, but I think we've had a let's just say,
a lesson in why it's important or a real world
example is they say when you're in elementary school of
(41:11):
why these things are important over the last four or
five years with Joe Biden. Secondly, Alex Jones is known,
especially in the right, for being something of a what's
the right way to put it, an nostradamus like figure
mine Well. Tucker Carlson, for example, will say everything Alex
(41:32):
Jones claims comes true basically right, like that's the meaning.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
So if he says something it's people are like, oh,
they're getting nervous. It's like the opposite of Jim Kramer.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
It's the opposite of Jim Kremen. He makes predictions. People
have said, now, you really got to listen to Alex
Jones because he predicted X, Y, and Z.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
On the left, we have a hard time even understanding that.
You guys take him seriously. But he seems to have
almost had a renaissance or did he never go away?
Speaker 4 (41:57):
No, I think he did have a run. I think
the post Sandy Hook aile, he's quite literally sobered up,
but also just.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
I don't know, it's this is for people who didn't
follow he said the whole Sandy Hook thing was completely
made up. It was almost insane. It was horrible.
Speaker 10 (42:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (42:17):
Yeah, But anyway, he does get taken a bit more
seriously now, and part because people feel like they've looked
back and realized that Alex Jones said things they felt
were true not that well, that is to say, Ryan
people are going to take that seriously coming from Alex Jones,
and people like Maga is going to take it seriously
coming from Alex Jones. So what do you make of
(42:38):
the White House saying benign, Okay, everything's fine.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
I mean, I'm not I'm not a doctor. I do
know it's not good when your angles are swelling that
that's suggestive of yes, circulatory or heart problems because the
blood's going down it's not coming back up like that's
I mean, there can be other things that cause swallowing,
other fluid issues, but in general, that's why they rushed
him to get that looked at. Now. Certainly, like he
(43:03):
is shaking hands with like alpha dudes and alpha women
all day law yeah, who, this is their chance to
shake the president's hand. They're coming with their a game,
and I'm sure every time he's like, oh God, oh
Jesus Christ liked you see my hand? You still had
to do that. Macron almost like ripped his fingers off.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Remember, yeah, but then didn't He almost ripped Macrone's fingers.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
Right, And so now everybody knows that it's going to
be like a handshake off.
Speaker 4 (43:33):
So there's nobody but self to blame. Yes, really well
you heard here first Rangram not a doctor, but we
do have some comments from someone also.
Speaker 3 (43:42):
Not a doctor. Is he a doctor?
Speaker 4 (43:44):
I think he's let's just work like six six.
Speaker 16 (43:48):
The President's congestive heartor failure is getting worse. I'm a
home health physical therapist with a doctorate in my field.
I see congestive heart failure patients on a daily basis.
The reason I know that he has congestive heart failure
is because of the swelling in his feet and ankles.
And the reason I know it's getting worse is because
he's sitting behind the desk on camera now he lashed
out against MSNBC for giving him hash about his ankles.
(44:09):
This is how we know that something is true because
it gets to Trump. Remember recently where he was talking
about going to heaven for some fucking reason, as people said,
I'm not doing very well. I don't think he's talking
about the media. I think he's talking about the doctors
who are treating him. The only reason his health has
been maintained at all is because he has the privilege
of getting IV diuretics, spirriinalacton, lasix bumex something like that.
(44:31):
That's why his hands have been bruised and covered with
makeup badly.
Speaker 3 (44:35):
I might add.
Speaker 16 (44:36):
We know that it's getting worse because he knows he
cannot hide the degree of swelling.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
That's why he's sitting behind the desk.
Speaker 4 (44:42):
Oh.
Speaker 16 (44:42):
He also has chronic kidney disease, which is also contributing
to the swelling and the feet and ankles. I can't
tell you how many times I have seen a patient
in their home because they were hospitalized for aki or
acute kidney injury and the kidney injury was caused by
nephrotoxic medications, namely diuretics spirinal actom umex lysis. The President
(45:04):
is definitely getting sicker, and we know he's not going
to change his diet because he's such a fucking idiot.
I think he's going to be around for six to
eight months tops. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 4 (45:14):
Brian was losing it During's like it's bluing on a
horseshoe theory with Alex Jones.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
Basically, my favorite part is I'm a home health aide
with a doctorate in my field with a dictor wait,
wait in your field. So he has a PhD and
something could mean a lot.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
Yeah, there's a great moment in Friends where.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
This is a viral, like we're not just picking any
random Oh yeah, no, this was very much going everywhere.
Speaker 4 (45:39):
Yes, there's a great moment in Friends where someone asks
Ross is trying to insist that he's a doctor because
he's a PhD in like paleontology, and Rachel's like, yeah, yeah, Ross,
if I'm having a heart attack, what I need is
you there with your fossil brush. That's equivalent what we
just like, at.
Speaker 3 (45:58):
Least that guy works with old dying people. So like,
if he was a friend of mine, I'd be like, yeah,
let me hear your experience in life of like dealing
with old and dying people, and then.
Speaker 4 (46:09):
You'd come on here, and say a source, like a medical.
Speaker 3 (46:11):
Source with a doctor in his field, says to me
that he has six to eight months.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Listen, Trump was tweeting at like I think he's tweeting
at like one in the morning, just about I'll have
to go back. I want to say it was about
cracker Brough. I think we got an early morning treat
about true social postbark cracker brow Like. The guy sleeps
five hours then again he then he'll golf eighteen hoole Saturday,
golf eighteen hole Sunday. He seems to eat whatever the
(46:37):
hell he wants. So I don't know if he's in
great health or horrible health. It could be one of
the two.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
We know he will not die in his sleep because
he doesn't sleep. The odds are low, yeah, so jd vance.
I don't know if he's getting ready lasened up. I
don't know. Trump's life force is attention. So I find
it very hard to believe that whatever diseases he has
(47:04):
in his body can overcome the power of that life
force well throughout, at least until he's no longer president,
because you know, once he's back and sitting around with
like real estate guys again, then he could decline quickly,
like like when somebody leaves the Senate, it's like, uh,
(47:26):
you know how when old folks get but one of
one of the spouses dies and the other one dies
within six months. That's what happens to senators when they
leave office within six month, within six months, they just
would because they don't they're not getting that energy, that
life force anymore, which is the adulation.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
You lose your access to the adrina chrome and the
kid's blood when you leave the Senate.
Speaker 3 (47:49):
I've heard people make actual medical arguments that around this,
like life force creating sense that that some that's some
people in particular are particularly able to like stuck it up,
and Trump is definitely one of them. He's the first
president in his first term who not only did an age,
(48:11):
he left office like looking better than he came in.
So finally, maybe gravity is catching up with him, but
that gravity has a lot to work against because he
absolutely loves the spotlight and thrives in it. That like
a lizard on a rock.
Speaker 4 (48:30):
Like a lizard on a rock, let's move on to
Apac Shakur. We went from a lizard on a rock
to Apac Shakur. This is the new nickname that Hakeem
Jefferies has gotten from Charlemagne. We should just take a
look at this clip because describing it doesn't do it justice.
Let's real see one.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
I love having the speaker minority speaker haiking Jefferies because
you know, I'm a political nerd, like I love talking.
Speaker 17 (48:55):
I don't hate him. I just don't think he stands
for anything. Well, I think that he I call him
apac Well tell me.
Speaker 5 (49:02):
We did talk about messaging and I actually went to
the capitol and had a meeting with him and we
talked about messaging and how I was like the frustration
with the party is y'all have to get more gangs,
like stop going by the politics of the late two thousands,
you know, in twenty ten, and you have to like
rise to the occasion.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
And the messing. And he did.
Speaker 17 (49:19):
I saw him do more afterwards. I came as a puppet.
I came to not doing anything in structuring. Won don't
tell him to do it, and it's similar that, but
I did.
Speaker 5 (49:27):
I was very happy that he came on our little
podcast though, because we can like have these conversations and
I feel like, you know, a lot of a lot
of people don't press these folks, you know what I mean,
And we do, and we need to do that.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
We need to be pressing all of them. For people
not steeped in. There came Jeffrey's law. He loves. He
loves to rap, like he got fundraisers at major events
like he will. He will spit bars as the kids say.
Speaker 4 (49:52):
It's.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
Right, that's so bad, So I think that's going to stick.
It hurts.
Speaker 4 (50:02):
It's like when he's when some kid is at their
like middle school talent show. That's what it's like watching
Hakim Jeffries wrap.
Speaker 3 (50:09):
It's like, I'm critical of Kim Jeffries.
Speaker 4 (50:14):
You give it to him in the wrapping.
Speaker 3 (50:16):
I mean, he's not going to like get on a
label or anything, but like I think he's better than
like a bar mitzvah guy. It's a low bar, but
I think he's I got, like this is decent. Like
you know, it's not nothing original. He's just sticking to
the you know, the old beats and it's like nineties
kind of beats. But you know, I'm a nineties kid,
(50:38):
so that's true. That's all I need.
Speaker 4 (50:41):
Well, this comes out the heels of the d NC
vote and Ryan and I'm very very curious to get
your breakdown of everything that happens. So C two we
can put up the screen on the screen. This is
the d n C vote. There was an amendment at
the d n C urging the support for a recognition
of pass And as a state and then also ending
all military aid to Israel ran into some trouble. You
(51:02):
may be shocked to learn hit a few snags. Ryan,
tell us what happened.
Speaker 3 (51:06):
And speaking of APAK, Shkor will start with this DMFI.
Democratic Majority for Israel, which is an offshoot of APAK,
put out this statement because APAK is too toxic and
democratic party, so they made DMFI. They said, today the
Democratic Party sent a clear and resounding message by defeating
a reckless and divisive resolution. We stand with the people
of Israel and will continue to do so. For more
(51:28):
than seventy five years, the US Israel relationship has been
strong because it's grounded and shared values on mutual security interests.
We cannot forget how we got here. Hamas started this
war and continues to hold fifty hostages. Passing this resolution
would have been a gift to Republicans, further divided our
party and rewarded Hamas's brutality because Hamas is very closely
(51:48):
following the DNC bylaws and platform creation, no doubt, in
this critical moment, Democrats stood firm rejected this dangerous effort
and sent a message that they remain united in our
commitment to israel security and our long standing alliance. And
so the meeting began with Ken Martin, the new head
of the d n C, putting forward a resolution that
(52:15):
was as milk toast as it could be while still
being offensive to some pro Israel members of the party.
It all it said was that basically, the land of
Israel is a place where you know, two peoples have
you know, historical historical roots, which is undeniably true. Yet
(52:40):
still there is a whole strain of pro Israel argumentation
that says that Palsitians are made up and didn't don't
actually exist and didn't even exist before like the nineteen
seventies or something, even though they're mentioned in like Home
by like Homer all the way back for court of history.
(53:02):
It's obviously true. So that that passed, and it had
you know, some other like not fairly uncontroversial for the
DNC things, and that resolution and then it gets to
the one that says that there's going to be an
arms in bargo in Israel and the Democrats are going
to recognize a palace city and state. There was an
attempt to amend it to add offensive weapons right and
(53:27):
put in some other palatable things to Israel that that
was defeated, I think by a combination of the Resolutions
supporters didn't want to water it down, and the Resolutions
opponents didn't want it to be watered down out of
fear that it might pass if it was watered down then,
(53:50):
so that amendment was rejected. So it went straight with
an arms embargo, and Democrats voted it down and DMFI
celebrated so and then when they left the room, all
the reporters followed them, and the DNC staff was and
members are just livid, like, why won't you stick around
(54:12):
and follow the rest of our proceedings. Why are you
so concerned about just this one issue, which I get it,
but they're carrying out a genocide and so.
Speaker 4 (54:27):
It's interesting that they couldn't even get it amended, right,
because that's a Lyssa slot Can set literally right here
and said she would consider an offensive weapons ban.
Speaker 3 (54:36):
Yeah, and then went on to Colbert and missed the vote,
but said she would have voted for it, right, Yeah,
which anyway, It's thing is insane, like, if you think
somebody is committing a genocide, why give them any weapons whatsoever?
And if it's only about civilians, who needs the defensive
weapons more than the Palestinians. If you really want to
(55:00):
protect civilians, wouldn't you send the iron dome the Palestinians.
When was the last time anything was fired at Israel?
Speaker 4 (55:08):
It reminds me we were sitting at the DNC last year.
It just was the most obvious thing in the world
that the party should allow, just from the Beaver political
standpoint of this should allow somebody from the Free Palestine
movement to go up and speak. I mean, they have
so many speakers throughout the week they have they're just
(55:31):
doing right, random people, throwing random people out there, and
they can't give any They won't give an inch.
Speaker 3 (55:38):
They wanted a two minute, vetted speech by a Palestinian
American who serves as a Georgia lawmaker, and they wouldn't
allow it. In Saint Louis, Corey Bush, as we know,
was ousted by Wesley Bell last cycle Bush is rumored
to be looking at a rematch. Wesley Bell, as you
saw last week, had a town hall where a bunch
(56:01):
of constituents complained to him about his support for Israel's genocide.
He told them he would talk to them after he
dealt with the media. He went and did some interviews
with the media. As he was back talking to the media,
his security then beat up a bunch of constituents. Now
he would have a new event. It's supposed the public event.
(56:21):
If you look, watch see how many people you can
count in the audience. If I'm about to show you
where he's asked about the enormous amounts of money that
he has taken, and his defense is quite remarkable. Let's
roll Wesley Bell here.
Speaker 18 (56:38):
People want to support this, support what we're doing.
Speaker 3 (56:41):
Please, Hey, we'll take.
Speaker 4 (56:42):
It because we got to get our message up.
Speaker 18 (56:45):
And the bottom line is is that in our in
our in our politics, you know that they have they're
expecting close to a like a couple billion dollars in
these elections coming out, and so that money is flowing
everywhere and until we address that issue and give campaign
finance reforms, if you want representation, that's gonna represent your district.
(57:10):
Those people can't just go in there with empty pockets
and and just hopes and dreams. We gotta understand there's
a game being played. Politics is a game that's being played.
And we can sit back and be righteous and say
now we're not gonna do it that way, and we
can keep losing, and you know what, that's what we've
been doing.
Speaker 3 (57:27):
Listen.
Speaker 4 (57:27):
We can't just sit back and just.
Speaker 18 (57:29):
Be like, oh, well, we just go just keep doing
what we're doing and now we're not gonna get involved.
Speaker 10 (57:35):
No, we can't do that.
Speaker 18 (57:37):
And so I hear what you're saying, and that's why
I stay accessible. I say, I'm gonna come out in
the community. I'm not gonna shy away from tough stuck.
Speaker 3 (57:46):
So Wesley Bell got more than twelve million dollars from
a pack to defeat Corey Bush. His diagnosis is that
Democrats are not doing better because they are too discerning
and puritanical about who they will take money from. And
if they would just take more money from more people,
Democrats wouldn't be in the bind that that they're in now.
(58:09):
If he had not taken a penny and not even
run for Congress, Saint Louis would still be represented by
Corey Bush and her quote unquote empty pockets. So I
don't quite understand what he accomplished in terms of representation
for Saint Louis by taking the money but setting that aside.
So if are democrats too discerning about who they take
money from, set your assessment.
Speaker 4 (58:30):
Yeah, clearly. I mean all that cash from Jeffrey Epstein
and Harvey Weinstein, that was just they were just being careful,
that's all you can say.
Speaker 3 (58:43):
Yeah, So thank you to Wesley Bell for being opened
about your willingness to take money from absolutely anybody.
Speaker 4 (58:52):
Oh, let's not forget Sam Bankment Freed. That was a
fun one.
Speaker 3 (58:58):
You know, it's nice. It's nice when people are upfront
about it. At least you'll take that. So if Corey
Bush does run again, that's going to cost a pack
another ten fifteen million dollars in Saint Louis. Yeah, and
maybe Bell wins, maybe he doesn't. He only won by
four percentage points, yeah, or something like that. More or
(59:18):
less than that. It was I think it was like
four thousand votes or something like that, which.
Speaker 4 (59:21):
Is actually I think remarkable given how radical compared to
the average Democrat Corey Bush.
Speaker 3 (59:27):
Yes, yeah, yes, she was the one of the first,
and she's a lead sponsor of the ceasefire resolution like
she yeah, she did. She did not back down remotely,
and so this was you know, we're you know, two
years later, she may be in a better position.
Speaker 4 (59:47):
Yeah, oh my gosh, especially because I think the climate
has changed significantly on.
Speaker 3 (59:52):
This real question and he's going to have to go
around continuing to explain how why he's taking all of
his money and he is going to have to do
better than that. But you can't do better than that,
Like that is it? Like that's like, that's that's it.
Speaker 4 (01:00:08):
It's just a behind the scenes secret Democrats are and
Republicans are not at all discerning in whose money they take. No,
that's they will take any more money.
Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
Like Corey Bush, like the justice Democrats are right now,
she doesn't have to be discerning because a pack is
not showing up and offering no money. Although, as I
reported my book Squad, you know, after AOC one, her
campaign got a call when and said, like a pack
(01:00:41):
is ready to raise two hundred thousand dollars for you
off the bat, one hundred two hundred thousand. Check the
details in the book and there's a lot more where
that came from, and we'd love to educate you on
the historic relationship between Israel and the United States, and
we believe so it was even on offer for her,
she said, no, I'm not doing that, like and and
(01:01:04):
the campaign was even a little surprised at the brazenness
of it, like you're kind of I think trained to
think it's a little more sophisticated than that.
Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
No, absolutely, not absolutely. Yahoo decided to drop by Patrick
Bett David's show, of course, and so.
Speaker 3 (01:01:26):
Tell us about who's Patrick Bett David? Like, what's his
what's his place in this ecosystem? Do we know?
Speaker 4 (01:01:32):
I mean maybe you could lump him in with the
like podcast bro category of people. Yeah, he's definitely bro coded.
He has like very lively conversations on his channel.
Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
What's Yahoo doing like milk Boys and now this? And
then he I mean it's they brought these uh weird
influencers over to like take video the.
Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
Prigger you influence. Yeah, I mean it's exactly what Yah like.
There's just from a cynical perspective, I think the Nlkboys
decision as unseerious as we all know it is, And
as cynical as we all know it is. That is
exactly what you would want to do if you are
trying to prevent losing young right wing men to the
(01:02:17):
anti Israel movements. Like, actually, exactly what you would want
to do, and you would also want to go on
Patrick but David's show, if that's what you're trying to do,
so I think strategically it's like pretty clever. How do
we think it went for him? Let's take a look.
Speaker 13 (01:02:32):
Israel owns America. You know, Israel is who makes America
do things they want him to do, whether it's through
APAC you know, whether it's through you know, funding money.
You'll typically hear this. This has been overly said the
last couple of years in a major way, and there's
a big there's a there's a community of Americans that
at this point believe that whatever Israel wants, they make
(01:02:54):
a phone call to America, America better do or else.
Speaker 3 (01:02:57):
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 10 (01:02:59):
Absolutely not. It's full of hocum. First of all, do
you know President Trump sort I've known him for many years. Okay,
you don't make him do anything. He does what he
thinks is in America's interests.
Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 10 (01:03:12):
It's a good question, but you've said something about Biden
that I should just point out the facts. In fact,
President Biden supported US in the beginning of the war,
after this horrific massacre, and he came here and I
very much appreciate it. But as the war progressed in
the vilifications of Israel, the distortions on the media began
to pylon, you know, he began to take a different course.
(01:03:36):
And when we were just two thirds of the way,
three fourths of the way in Gaza, I said, we
have to go into that last position that they had
where they had organized battalions. It's in a city called Rapha,
in the southern part of the Gaza strip. And he said,
don't go there. And he said, if you do go there,
(01:03:59):
I'll smack him. Bargo on you. You know, you're fighting
a seven five war and all of a sudden you're
slapped with an embargo.
Speaker 3 (01:04:06):
What do you think? So Biden did say publicly repeatedly,
and Miller and others, Matt Miller and others State Department
spokes and said RAFA is a red line that for
many reasons it was the US policy was that RAFA
should is a red line, you do not go into Rafa.
(01:04:30):
Now for the first time we have na whose claim
of what Biden was willing to say to back up
this red line, there will be an embargo. I assume
he means arms in bargo, not not massive, not the
mass starvation of Israel. That's barbaric. Nobody should do that. Clearly,
(01:04:55):
he did not do that. Nana who called his bluff
or he we know he made a bluff of some
sort because he publicly said it's a red line. So strategically,
it seems like what who's doing there is trying to
say I'm with Trump, Biden is with Hamas and so
(01:05:20):
if you Patrick but David Viewer are with Trump, then
you're with me and and further creating adversaries out of Democrats.
But he which we just talked about Apax Corps, and
(01:05:41):
you know, the the Democratic establishment support of Israel remains
like rock solid. Nenya, who's adversarial relationship to the Democratic
Party is remains very strong. It's this it's this one
way support.
Speaker 4 (01:06:00):
Yep. That's a really interesting point because I was gonna say,
I mean, Netta Yaho can be credited with solidifying the
Republican party's magnetic relationship with Israel. It was not always
like that. If you go back to the Reagan administration,
there's a lot of support for Israel, but there's not
this deference, this reflexive deference to Israel, which is actually
(01:06:21):
really just the reflexive deference to the coud Uh. And
that's Yaho now who's led the way on that point.
And it's been whatever you say about Netta Yaho, and
you can say a lot of things about natzen Yah,
who that has been politically cynically a calculation that paid
off for him. And I think that's what you're seeing
(01:06:43):
in the Patrick back David interviews. He's continuing to try
to make that point that he is the that Israel
is the renegade actor, that that is the Maverick actor,
that is the if you're if you're an American who
wants to see this sort of global elite busted up,
you're supporting is Ill in this situation against the rest
of the world and the evil forces of the rest
(01:07:06):
of the world, the Islamists that want to take down
America for American freedom and all of that. He's trying
the same line out and it's probably the best he's got,
I mean, unfortunately for him, it's probably the best he's
got at this point.
Speaker 3 (01:07:20):
And while this is going on, the news out of
Gaza is that Israel's incursion into Gaza City is continuing,
and the reporting that we're getting from the ground there
is that it's horrific, beyond even the description of what
we've seen before previously when cities have been taken by
(01:07:40):
the IDF and destroyed. First they would take the city,
would they be completely depopulated, and then they would send
in these combat engineering units that would then detonate block
house by house, block by block until cities at complete rubble,
which has now been done to Rafa. That's not what
(01:08:01):
they're doing this time. This time they are sending in
bomb laden robots into populated city blocks and setting the
explosives off and to the point where you can see
the explosions from like miles away. You had this like
IDF linked Mosad, it's called Mosad ocent account saying that
(01:08:24):
actually that Hamas was doing this. It's like Massa doesn't
have robots. First of all, mass doesn't have explosives with
charges like that, And also why would Hamas be blowing
up like city blocks filled with people, and so they're
sending in these robots basically you know, suicide bombers, except
(01:08:45):
their robots rather than people, and then and then and
then moving in, and then clearing, and then and and
proceeding a pace. You've got close to a million people
affected by this in and around the Gaza City area
who are now being pushed further west. They're very nervous
(01:09:05):
about going south, they're telling us because if they know
or they believe that if they go south, like that's it,
like that Gaza City is over and it'll be it'll
be completely flat and completely destroyed. Saying there's very little
hamas resistance in the area in these areas, because what
are you gonna do, Like there's these robotic bomb laden
(01:09:26):
monsters are rolling in and they're just blowing up like
there's that's there's nothing you can really do as a
as a resistance force against something like that. Now, this
is happening in the context of the assassinations of all
of the journalists, who not all of them, there's you know,
many are still working, but many of the most prominent
(01:09:47):
journalists in Gaza City were killed over the last several weeks.
Conunis we had. You know, five more journalists killed the
other day, including a sixth in his tent later and
investigative list in a separate attack. So fallout from that
attack continues. And that's so let's move to that next
(01:10:08):
because we're learning two just absolutely unbelievable details about this.
And I think it's people need to retain their ability
to be shocked by this because if you if you're not,
then you're losing the moral core, your moral core, and
people want you to become numb to this stuff. And
(01:10:28):
when things that shock the conscience happen, we should still
acknowledge that they're shocking. So it goes back to this.
We could place C six here. This is a strike
that probably everybody has seen by now. That's the second
hit on this second of the double tab Master hospital.
And so they struck the hospital at ten am and
then at ten seventeen. As you can see in the
(01:10:49):
bottom corner there it says coods ten to seventeen. Ol
Kodes is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. So seventeen minutes
after the first strike, there are first responders, medics, journalists,
a medical student, a civil defense worker who rushed to
the scene, trying to save the people who'd been killed,
(01:11:11):
which included the Reuter's cameraman, because they attacked this camera,
which we'll talk about in a moment. Seventeen minutes later,
they bomb they bomb it again to kill all of
those people. So the IDF is now come out with
its own explanation for what happened. We'll get into that
in a second. What we're learning though, is that the
(01:11:33):
day before this happened, the international doctors working at Naser
Hospital were told that the next morning they would have
to go to the WHO headquarters, which is thirty minutes away,
for an in person gender violence a training. They extremely unusual,
(01:11:57):
and we'll talk and we'll talk about this as a second.
But let's see seven here.
Speaker 12 (01:12:02):
I was just listening to your reporter saying that Natanyajo says,
this is a tragic mishap. This is absolutely untrue. This
is strategic and intentional. The foreign aid workers, the foreign
doctors that are actually in the hospital were asked to
leave before this airstrike, and so that is not a mishap.
That is absolutely deliberate. This is not the first time
Israel has struck a hospital.
Speaker 4 (01:12:23):
You know, you hearing from your contacts on the ground.
Speaker 13 (01:12:25):
The foreign doctors working in Nasa Hospital were given the
heads up to evacuate Nasa Hospital before striking.
Speaker 12 (01:12:33):
Absolutely, they were told some arbitrary reason that they had
to leave and they weren't allowed to come back until
the next day. So this is this is not an accident.
Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
Now to travel from Naza Hospital and Kanye's to the
who that travel would have to be coordinated with Kogat,
which is the Israeli agency that makes sure that they
know who's moving where and if they see convoy moving
and it is an unapproved convoy, they will strike it
with a drone. And so the hospitals always coordinate their movement.
(01:13:07):
Who coordinates this movement with Israel at dropsite We confirmed
directly with a person on the ground there that this
that what doctor said maybe side there said, did in
fact occur. There are another interview was done by I
believe it's a nurse. With times of Times of London,
we can roll C eight.
Speaker 19 (01:13:27):
There are other engo's that do you enter the hospital
that were also attending the mandatory meeting, but they don't
sleep in the corridors.
Speaker 3 (01:13:41):
Okay, so how many of them were you approximately at
this mandatory training, and you've already said it's pretty unusual
for you to have this sort of mandatory training.
Speaker 1 (01:13:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 19 (01:13:52):
It was about fifteen of us that were there, and
the training was in what Amanda, The training was at
the baby how sin it was training for gender based violence?
Speaker 3 (01:14:05):
Was it strange to you? Is this normal to receive
this type of training?
Speaker 19 (01:14:12):
Yeah, And my prior times of volunteering internationally, we usually
get all the information prior to our starts. The fact
that they're now introducing this gender based violence lecture halfway
through my rotation was also interesting is they mandated that
one of our other volunteers who's planning to exit tomorrow
(01:14:34):
to also attend, So it was mandated for volunteers who
really weren't going to have any physical interaction with patients.
Also the fact that we inquired about other ways to
attend the lecture remotely and it was completely turned down.
So far, us as a group, our NGO have discussed
(01:14:56):
amongst ourselves and we're all in consensus that this was
a fishing expedition like this, This didn't seem right, This
didn't sit right with any of us.
Speaker 4 (01:15:05):
In our gut, we knew something was not right.
Speaker 19 (01:15:10):
And so we inquired with our lead coordinator to investigate
this with the Delilah Show to give us more answers
as to who ordered them to have us leave.
Speaker 3 (01:15:23):
So, at a bare minimum, we know that the Israelian
military knew that all of the international doctors and nurses
were out of nas Or hospital when they attacked the hospital.
That's at a minimum. The questions that remain to be
answered are who insisted to the who that these nurses
(01:15:46):
and doctors go in person at this time. Why didn't
they do this beforehand? Why did they have to do
this in person? Like who made that demand? One of
the internet as I don't know if she said it
in this clip or not. One of the international doctors
was leaving the next morning or later that day or something.
(01:16:07):
So it's like and try to get out of it,
like I only need this gender based training, Like I'm leaving.
They're like, nope, you also must attend every single person
because if you're going to do a double tap strike
in a hospital, you're going to kill a lot of
medical staff because if you hit what they hit the
(01:16:28):
fourth floor right near the intensive care unit. And so
one of the doctors who was killed is a he's
a resident who's a third year medical student. He rushed
to the scene. American, European, Malaysian all you know, these
other doctors who were at Nasser Hospital would have rushed
(01:16:48):
to the scene. It was seen a terrible carnage, trying
to treat people as quickly as possible. And then when
you double tap it, you would have killed those Americans
and Europeans and Malaysians or else is there? So at
a minimum we know that that was not a risk
that they faced with this double tap strike.
Speaker 4 (01:17:06):
So then also we have now c ten we can
put on the screen. This was the headline in the
New York Times just yesterday saying Israel says it attacked
Gaza Hospital to destroy camera placed by Hamas and Ryan.
You posted this by saying, compare to this honest and
pressed reporting from New York Times as Eric Toler and
(01:17:27):
others with the headline that The New York Times put
on his article absolute night and day. The journalists find
the idea flat out lied. The editors then write a
headline that pretends the idea of claim is serious and
includes their slenders claim that six of those killed were militants.
Speaker 7 (01:17:42):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:17:42):
Yeah, and for contacts and credit there. We put up
C eleven as well, the first person, the first reporter
to observe this, and Eric Toler in his thread credited
units to RAWI, who drops that contributor who's done incredible work.
He's the guy who is constantly doing investigations into the
war crimes committed by Israeli force is using their own
(01:18:04):
TikTok and Instagram and Facebook confessions that they post. What
he observed is that on Channel twelve a right wing
ocent enthusiasts, as Unice calls him. Here, you know these
guys who go on Twitter and look at satellite images
and say, oh, look look what I found here.
Speaker 4 (01:18:25):
Toller is a beling cat guy.
Speaker 3 (01:18:27):
Toller is a former biling cat guy who now does
this exact thing ocent for the New York Times. You geolocate,
you look at satellite image on this day compared to
this day, and you can try to figure out what happens.
Is very valuable. It's an incredible skill if you're good
at an incredibly dangerous if you're not. We reported earlier,
remember that that the US used some ocent advice from
(01:18:50):
amateurs and Yemen and killed dozens of innocent people. So
this guy, he claimed on Channel twelve to have identified
a Hamas camera. And you know there's a there are
cranks all over Twitter and all over YouTube and everywhere else.
(01:19:12):
It's it shouldn't be a crime to be a crank.
But according to this crank, he was involved with the strike.
He was online with them. He's said, he's he's. He
is now saying publicly to Israeli media that he was
(01:19:32):
helping to guide the missile, and Israel is still saying
it was the second shot was a tank shell. There
are photos of a missile approaching the hospital, precision guided missile,
and that he was guiding it. He said. He points
to this white towel covering the camera, which is his
evidence that it's a hidden camera. Use your use your
(01:19:55):
brain for a second. A black camera sitting out in
the sun is going to overheat. You put a white
towel over it. If you're Hamas, is that how you
hide a camera by putting a white towel over it
the fourth floor of a hospital where all the media work.
Now what we also know is whose camera this was.
(01:20:17):
This was a Reuter's camera, So we can put up
C twelve. So Reuter's cameraman was killed immediately and their
camera was struck. And so the IDF then comes out
and does not give any explanation for the second half
of the double tap, but they say that they're now
(01:20:40):
official story is that they identified a quote hamas camera
and moved to eliminated if we can put up the
Reuter's headlined, So the Reuter's camera man was killed in
this attack on a Reuter's camera. In the article at self,
(01:21:01):
there's a picture of the Reuter's camera that was destroyed
with a live view backpack. A live view backpack is
only used for broadcasting. You've probably used them maybe back
way in the day, like.
Speaker 4 (01:21:12):
Yeah, you see them at any precedent, Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (01:21:16):
It's for broadcasting. It is not for communication. It's not
it's not for secret communication with militants. You need you
need like a broadcast license. You need to be working
with a broadcaster like or to with like a YouTube
channel or something.
Speaker 4 (01:21:29):
Yeah right. It's not just like a streaming kit.
Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
Right, But it's not for communication one to one.
Speaker 4 (01:21:40):
It's a broadcast, like the broadcast of the broadcast.
Speaker 3 (01:21:43):
Word yeah yeah. And so they have a picture in
the Reuters article of the live view backpack that was
hit by the shelf. Reuter's headline is initial inquiry says
Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that killed journalists,
and says by Reuters interesting, there's no byline, which usually
in the newsroom when there's no byline, no whoever was
(01:22:05):
forced to write the story refused to put their name
on it. So they killed a Reuter's cameraman and then
said he was and then said it was Hamas. They
didn't say he was mossed. They said camera was Hamas.
And Reuters is willing to call itself Hamas because Israel
(01:22:25):
says so, knowing full well that it was their camera
and their cameraman that they attacked. Again, the headline initial
Inquiry says Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that
killed journalists. And nowhere in the article do they even
say that that's not true. What they do say is
that their camera operator was killed and that their camera
(01:22:48):
was hit. But they don't even connect the dots that
that's the camera they're referring to. I don't know what
more capitulation you could have than to literally call yourself
Hamas as Reuters it's like a and to do that
in the wake of their colleague being killed. It's truly startling.
(01:23:11):
A Reuters photographer resign in protest over this I saw
yesterday or the day before. So, like I said, I
think we need to maintain our capacity to be shocked
by this stuff, because if this isn't shocking to us,
(01:23:32):
then then and then it just becomes normalized and they
won't even bother offering explanations.
Speaker 4 (01:23:40):
Meanwhile, as he was before, he was going on the
Patrick Bett David podcast, Designahoo was posting C nine that
Free Press video discussing how they wrote the article. This
is getting really made that Crystal and Sager talked about
yesterday because they went after you Crystal and Sager by England.
Speaker 3 (01:24:01):
Did you feel left out?
Speaker 4 (01:24:02):
Of course I felt left out. I mean, you know,
I like to be part of greup activities, but they
went after you guys for questioning the article. And then
Natanyahu actually posted in solidarity with the Free Press, basically
the video where they talked about the process of developing
the article.
Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
Yeah, he posted facts Matter. And in one of the
clips here and this is the one we just had
up there, Olivia Ryan Gold is citing the case of
most debs and this is what they This is what
the Free Press itself put in their video. They write
or they quote. The fourteen year old boy was featured
(01:24:42):
in the same CNN story as another child quote suffering
from malnourishment scare quotes. The original caption didn't mention that
last May he sustained a traumatic head injury amid what
s HMS News Agency, a Gaza based outlet, called quote
in Israeli shell explosion. So, according to the Free Press,
(01:25:06):
CNN is being unfair to Israel because they said that
a fourteen year old boy is suffering from malnourishment without
in the caption mentioning that he'd also had part of
his skull blown out by an Israeli shell. And Benjamin Nenyah,
who is so proud of this reporting from Olivia Ryangold
(01:25:29):
and the Free Press that he shared it with facts matter.
Speaker 4 (01:25:33):
So in that editorial, one of the things the Free
Press cited in defense of that article was that Washington
Post other outlets added corrections, which really weren't corrections so
much as they were updates to the stories.
Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
Update the fourteen year old suffering from malnourishment also has
a traumatic brain injury, and that's exactly, okay, thank you,
that's useful information.
Speaker 4 (01:25:55):
That is fine, right, And that's where they're like, yeah,
that's where it's like, yep, this is absolutely correct. That
the context is important, and in some cases the context
is even more devastating to the narrative that you know,
this is all okay, that this isn't you know, some
(01:26:16):
deeply serious concern because like when you when you zoom
into the con to the context, you realize, oh, this
kid had his head blowed off, right, or you realize
this is a condition because someone was malnourished in the womb.
This is a condition because someone like the nobody objects
to the context, and I actually think that's the Washington
(01:26:37):
Post and whoever else. Updating their story proves that nobody objects.
Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
To the full context, right, And nobody would object to
this reporting from the Free Press if they didn't follow
it immediately with Israel's opponents are saying that these are
the average representatives of people in Gaza, and they're using
them to tell you that there's a fan and when
in fact, there is not a famine there. Certainly there're
(01:27:03):
suffering in God's but there's no famine. So they are
very clear about the purpose of their context that they're adding.
They think that what they're doing is complicating the question
and letting people know that actually it's not as bad
as people want you to believe. That's what they're saying.
The context they're adding does not actually make their case.
Speaker 7 (01:27:25):
And so.
Speaker 3 (01:27:27):
If they're actually genuinely curious about why people are objecting
to their reporting, that's why. It's because their conclusion, which
clearly they started with before they did the reporting, Their
conclusion is incorrect. Also, they keep citing cerebral palsy and
all these other maladies that are not fatal in children.
(01:27:50):
So the fact that they're dying with these pre existing
conditions is not the point that you think it is.
The point is too treat these conditions, not to malnourish
them such that they die with them, and then point
to those conditions as some type of excuse for Israel
(01:28:10):
to continue with its genocide
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. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 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 3 (00:33):
Good morning, and welcome to the Breaking Points Emily, how
you doing good.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
We've got two of the most famous tailors to cover
on the show today.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
That's right, Taylor Lorenz and the other one that's Swift
Tel Swift Swift. That's right. We were going to lead
the show, of course, with the biggest news in the country,
which is that Cracker Barrel is going back to its original.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
Logo and they called the White House and.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Called the White House, and we're all happy about this, right,
This is a big win for the country.
Speaker 4 (01:02):
It's a big win for me. Personally, I prefer the
old Cracker Brow but I'm not sure that it warn't
at the President's attention.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
But then that got pushed aside because bigger news.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Yeah, you can't waste oxygen on Cracker Burrow when Taylor
Swift getting.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Okay, Swift is getting engaged.
Speaker 4 (01:16):
Yeah, in all, honestly, we have a massive show today.
If you look at the bottom bar and you're watching this, yes,
that is accurate. We have that many blocks to get through.
We did sort of twist producer Griffin's arm to let
us talk about the Taylor Swift engagement because Ryan was
checking his dms last night and the people were.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
People want to know what Emily thinks about Taylor Swift?
And your background is in like culture and how this
is supposed to be important stuffings about things? What's your
what's your take here? We got to get to Charlie Kirk.
Do you want to do that first?
Speaker 4 (01:50):
Well, let's let's get through the intro to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
People can just guess it's basically the same show we
do every every day.
Speaker 4 (01:58):
That's true. Howard Lutton Nick back on the circuit talking
about China, talking about university and the university grants, research grants,
all of that, and that comes on the heels of
the Fed. He's talking about intel very uncertain economic climate,
to say the least, So we'll get into updates on that.
We're going to talk a little bit about Alex Jones
(02:20):
thinking Donald Trump is in a seriously bad state health wise,
and you know what he actually doesn't. It's important to
know what Alex joon six. But Trump obviously has been
visibly bruised, and so we're going to break all of
the information that we have on that down. Ryan, We're
talking about Wesley Bell and Israel's influence in American politics.
(02:42):
We have a new nickname for Hakim Jeffreys from Charlemagne.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Boy called him akor a pahakor. That's one's going to
leave them Mark it hurts.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
It auto corrected from producer Griffin to a pac Shakira,
which I thought was pretty good.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
To a pa is just brutal.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
It's brutal. And Ryan, you're also walking us through through
some new reporting on money.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
Yes, uh in Maine. So Graham Platner will be here tomorrow.
He's the now Bernie endorsed working class oystermen running for
Senate in Maine in the Democratic primary. There is an
existing candidate in that race who has already raised two
million dollars. I'm going to help you figure out how
it is he raised two million dollars this this quickly.
(03:24):
It's quite an incredible story.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
Yeah, I'm looking forward to that, and then Taylor the
Rerenz will be with us for I think what's definitely
going to be a debate about cell phones in high schools.
It's back to school season, so a lot of kids
have new cell phone bands or yonder patches that they're
walking into school with this year. But other people, like
your kids are used to it at this point.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:44):
Well, when my daughter found out that I would be
arguing for the ban on phones in schools, she basically
wanted to disown me.
Speaker 4 (03:53):
She yeah, what's wrong with yeah? Which is actually you're going.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
To get death threats.
Speaker 4 (03:57):
It's a good argument.
Speaker 3 (03:58):
I was like that this is going to going to
be the thing.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah, yeah, of all the things.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
She's like genuinely worried. Now it wasn't before. Now She's like, wow, okay.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
But once again, that is an argument in she's not.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
Helping me out. If it comes to it, you're on
your own.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Yes, and Ryan, you have some new reporting on Serbia
that we're going to be sharing with the audience as well.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
Yeah, some drop Site report from on the ground there.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
And as a reminder, Breakingpoints dot com that's where you
can go to get a subscription. We also want to
make sure we give a shout out to intern MJ,
who's been super helpful and just we're very grateful to
MJ for all of her help.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
In turn, she's been helping out drop Site as well,
so it's it helps to like get the drop site
reporting that we've been doing and kind of help help
fuel the reporting and the program here.
Speaker 4 (04:47):
Yeah, no, the original report is Yeah, it's super helpful,
So thank you MJ. Now, without further further Ado, let's
get into the celebration, the nationwide celebration over the Taylor
Swift Travis engagement.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
And the first question that people had for you was
will Blake Lively be invited to the Taylor Swift.
Speaker 4 (05:09):
We all know the answer to that and it's absolutely not.
Barring some unforeseen reconciliation, Blake Lively will not be at
that wedding. Now, the Blake Lively story. If you haven't
been following the Taylor Swift Blake Lively feud. It's actually
a very interesting story of how tabloid reporters are used
to manipulate narratives and how those can have sweeping.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
You can't trust tabloid reporters.
Speaker 4 (05:33):
Now, you can't trust the table and you trust you can't.
You can't trust Blake Lively either.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Can't trust. That's hard trust.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
That's hard for people to wrap their heads around. Can't
trust Blake Lively apparently. But anyway, it's an interesting story
of how celebrities can weaponize the media to protect their
bottom lines or pad their bottom lines. But Taylor Swift
America's sweetheart. I usually say that sarcastically. I think it's
probably accurate in most cases. She's upset some men by
showing up an NFL games, But Ryan, you've been okay
(06:01):
with it.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Any guys that are upset about that are fooling themselves.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
I will say, when she first started going to the
Chiefs games, they cut away to her so much that
it did become laughable.
Speaker 3 (06:10):
That's on the NFL.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
It was pretty funny. It was not Taylor's fault.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
If I went to a game and they cut away
to me every like five seconds, people would rightly be upset,
but not at me. Yeah, that's not my fault. It's
just too magnetic.
Speaker 4 (06:23):
Too magnetic. Now, most people were busy. I'm telling you
Instagram last night, I am in Taylor Swift, like target
demographic came out when I was a teenager, all of that,
Like she she was huge when I was a teenager.
Who music coming out when I was a teenager. And
my Instagram last night was full of people who genuinely
were reposting this Instagram like it was one of their
(06:45):
friends who had just gotten engaged. It was like I'm
clicking through it like another tale, another tale. It was
just like everyone's best friend.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And the people have been for her engaged, They've been
rooting for her for like it's like if the Dallas
Cowboys made it to this super Bowl rooting for him
for decades. No, I mean, but.
Speaker 6 (07:07):
Fan.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
But that's but that's how miserable her experience has been.
She's basically been the Dallas Cowboys of dating.
Speaker 4 (07:16):
Well, so jeez, this is where it gets. This is
where the conversation becomes political in a way. And I've
written a ton about Taylor Swift over the years, but
most people were wishing Taylor Swift well. Most people have
been wishing Taylor Swift well. This is not a particularly
controversial couple. I think everybody likes the pairing of Taylor
(07:37):
Swift and Travis Kelsey. They seem to be very happy together.
They did their podcast a couple of weeks ago and
seemed to be very happy together. But Charlie Kirk entered
Charlie Kirk, who had some thoughts. Yesterday, even though lots
of people in the right saying Taylor happy for you,
lots of people in the last saying Taylor happy for you,
the President of the United States said that he was
(07:58):
happy for her. Here's what Charlie her can't to say.
Speaker 7 (08:01):
But maybe one of the reasons why Taylor Swift has
been so just kind of annoyingly liberal over the last
couple of years is that she's not yet married and
she doesn't have children. I say this non sarcastically. I
say this as a husband and a father. Having children
changes you, Getting married changes you. And I hope that
(08:26):
America's biggest pop star marrying the pharmaceutical spokesperson ends up
conservatizing them. Taylor Swift might deradicalize herself, engage in reality
more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism.
Submit to your husband, Taylor.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Okay, right, the camera should really be on Ryan. He's
losing it right now. But whenever you do the Ephesians
five verse, submit to your husband, and don't continue to
the verse. Yes, it says, wives, submit to your husband's
submit yourself to your husband's as you do to the Lord.
For the husband as the head of the wife, as
Christ as the head of the church, his body of
(09:09):
what she is the savior now is the church submiths,
so Christ. So also, wives should submit to their husbands
and everything. Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved
the church and gave himself up for her to make
her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through
the word, and present her to himself as a radiant church,
without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy
and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to love
(09:30):
their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his
wife loves himself. I had to have that one ready
to go, Ryan, because if you don't complete the verse,
it's not that the first part is wrong, it is
that the implication is incomplete, and the full verse is
basically was very radical at the time. It was very
radical in Rome, is that it's a relationship of equals.
(09:54):
There is no Jew or Greek, or male or female.
There's only one. I don't even know wh I'm gett
into this in the tap Swift.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
Segment, Yeah, I like that line. There's no no male
or female drew a gentile or Greek or whatever. Yeah. So,
but Charlie Kirk read submit your wife and just put
the book down, like this is good stuff.
Speaker 4 (10:16):
What's the message to Travis. I'm sure Charlie would endorse
the rest of the verse, but anytime it's used, it's
without the rest of it. It's a little bit of
a red flag. Now that is the.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
Good note which Gospels have been endorsed by Charlie.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
You got to keep your track now, But that is
the sort of question about Taylor Swift. Now we could
do I think right, I think you and I could
probably go for a couple of hours on the question
of whether being unmarried and childless into your thirties is
a liberalizing force. There's some social science evidence that suggests
that's the case, and people could understand by the way
(10:51):
why that would be the case. So it's not an
insane point. And I think Taylor Swift has been fairly
open about, as you pointed out earlier in the segment,
being miserable. I don't think she's about to be conservatized
by bearing Travis Kelcey though.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
Hey, that's why we have this news program. We can
follow this developing story for years to come, and we
can and we'll report on the on those developments.
Speaker 4 (11:16):
Say we were talking about drop sites original reporting earlier,
but this is a glaring hole.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Is going to get on it?
Speaker 4 (11:23):
Fantastic. Let's move on to the economy, the second most
important story, well, the third most importantory versus Cracker brow
that's Taylor's question. Then we have the economy. So Howard
Lutnik was he's like been, He's always on every show,
it seems like, but he loves it. He's been on
(11:44):
every every show over the last couple of days in
the wake of the Intel deal. So let's start off
with this clip of Howard Lutnik talking about how the
Intel deal could potentially spiral into something else in the
defense industry. Here's a one.
Speaker 8 (11:58):
Didn't the US government say, you know what we use
Palenteer services. We would like a piece of Palenteer. We
use Boeing services, we would like a piece of Boeing.
There are a lot of businesses that do business with
the US government that benefit by doing business with the
US government.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
I guess where's the line.
Speaker 9 (12:17):
Oh, there's a monstrous discussion about defense. I mean, Lockheed
Martin makes ninety seven percent of their revenue from the
US government. They are basically an arm of the US government.
They make exquisite munitions, I mean, amazing things that can
knock a missile out of the air when it's coming
(12:39):
towards you. But what's the economics of that? I'm going
to leave that to my Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. These guys are on it and
they're thinking about it. But I tell you what, there's
a lot of talking that needs to be had about
how do we finance our munitions acquisitions. I think a
lot of that is talking. Now you have the right
(13:01):
people in the jobs and Donald Trump.
Speaker 10 (13:03):
At the head.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
Okay, Ryan, this I think is well worth considering in
the context of the Trump administration right now trying to
build towards a sovereign wealth fund, right I mean.
Speaker 3 (13:13):
He has said, they said this is this is a
step toward a sovereign wealth fund, right, and so.
Speaker 4 (13:18):
That's I mean, actually, Andrew Russ Sarkin's question about Palenteer,
it's kind of like it does sound I mean, it's
just abnormal for the United States. And so his question
being like this is ludicrous may not look so ludicrous
in a few years when we look back and we're like, well,
that was the beginning of the sovereign wealth fund.
Speaker 10 (13:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Yeah, you have Sorkin there who's putting this out there
in a way that where he's saying, isn't this going
to sound absurd to everybody?
Speaker 4 (13:44):
Exactly?
Speaker 3 (13:45):
And Howard Letnx like, yeah, actually, good point. Why are
all of these people getting fantastically rich from Lockheed? And
that's just that's just don't not just Lockheed, all of
the parasites around Lockheed, all of northern Virginia stretching from miles.
Speaker 4 (14:02):
Except he doesn't really even use the word parasites. He's
acting now like it's but that's the thing, right, Like,
if you think it is a parasitic relationship, then you
can either go in one of two directions. You can
try to say that this is going to be a
parasite relationship that is also synergistic and nationalize to some degree.
Or you can say this is crony capitalism.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Well, if his crony capitalism, make an actual strategic crony
capitalism where you're putting the cronies in place and you're
developing your industrial policy from the top down rather than
just enriching people. Sager has been on a role on
Twitter lately.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
Comrade and Jenny, go check.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
Out brother Sager's response to this. He's pointed out that say,
Intel's the New York Stock Exchange is way up in
the last twenty years, China's is not yet China has
developed an actual kind of economy and manufacturing base, and
he points to Intel stock which is like doubled in
less fifteen years or whatever, while Intel's self is like
(15:03):
hollowed out like we have. We have a system that
extracts wealth from our economy to.
Speaker 4 (15:11):
The rich and to financialization.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
What Sager, myself, Howard Lutnik, and President she want to
see is an economy that creates wealth and for the
society itself.
Speaker 4 (15:25):
On that point about Chairman, she apparently your comrade, let's
rule a too, because Howard Lutnik talked about China as well.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Missus Serach.
Speaker 11 (15:34):
I'm really interested in how you personally would see it
if another country did something of this ilk back, because
I know how much you don't like non tariff barry.
Speaker 9 (15:45):
You mean, like China does it every day?
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Yeah, every single day.
Speaker 11 (15:50):
That's exactly what I want to ask about, because because
I totally get that perspective on China, and it's obviously
led to so much of the last year's policy towards
China in the last decades since President Trump came in.
But what about from a UK perspective, what if the
UK started to take stakes and domestic companies that kind
of act as a China like approach to this?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
No?
Speaker 3 (16:10):
No, but does that count as all your Mary?
Speaker 9 (16:13):
I mean you don't. You're not really thinking about the
fact that the UK government nationalized British Steel a couple
of months ago.
Speaker 4 (16:22):
Yes, really, so, I mean asked me about that.
Speaker 3 (16:26):
Do we get punished for that now? Do we deserve
to be?
Speaker 10 (16:29):
No?
Speaker 9 (16:29):
You don't get punished for it because what they did
is what happened is the Chinese a Chinese company bought
British Steel, put British Steel out of business. And was
just importing, you know, subsidized Chinese steel. Put the British
steel industry out of business. And the British figured out,
along with the Trump administration teaching them that you need
(16:51):
steel to be a real country to be able to
defend yourself. And the British figure that out, they nationalized
British steel. And now because they nationalized British steel, America
can do it deal with Britain on steel because otherwise
we would just be inviting the Chinese. In imagine British
steel was really Chinese steel, and ren.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
It's there are no libertarians on the show, so we
can treat the argument as foolish as it actually is,
because you can't have national defense without industrial policy, like
national yeah, you can't actually have a military without industrial
you can't have a strong military without industrial policy. And
(17:34):
so it's obvious and the point Howard Lutnik is making
is also obvious. And what the Trump administration is doing
right now is just sort of putting the lie to
all of the rights pretenses for years and not just
the rights or the center centrist Democrats as well, that
this is some type of like efficient free market middle
ground who's been calling this capitalism with American characteristics. Yes,
(17:58):
I forget who who coined that, obviously in reference to
socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is what student Ping versus
the Chinese system as. But I don't understand the moral
panic because this is not worse than the status quo. Like,
that's my perspective.
Speaker 12 (18:11):
It.
Speaker 4 (18:11):
I think it comes with all kinds of disadvantages and baggage,
but the status quo does as well.
Speaker 3 (18:16):
So it's like, right, well, you don't understand the moral panics.
It's not even a different It's not coming for you.
It's coming for that guy. Guys who wear cuff links
on a Tuesday and sit on CNBC and there's starched
white shirts as avatars for this industry Wall Street that
has spent the last forty years hollowing out the country.
It was so instructive the way he said, But why
(18:37):
should we be punished for this? What he wants is
to be able to continue to hollow out our economy.
Put a giant funnel into the economy, suck all the
wealth out of it, distribute it up to the very top,
wear cuff links on a Tuesday. Watch the standard of
living of the middle class erode destroy unions. That was
(19:01):
the goal. But then after that they went just hog
wild afterwards, saying why should we be punished for this?
Like why do you think you should be pushing for this?
Like what you represent should not exist.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
But I don't even know to what extent this will
actually be punishing them, because well.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
It's punishing in the sense that they don't get to
commit crimes against the American people forever. They might have
to actually make something that makes the country and the
world a better place.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
I hope so. But it's just also like a ten
percent and.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
They would see that, like they would definitely see that
as a punishment. Yes, absolutely, Now we can set aside.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
Like because it takes away money from the hedge funds
that need to be used to make us all better, Right,
you need to have that little extra money to trade
on and put it into the hedge funds and have
some fun with.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
And I don't want to stand in the way of
comrade Trump when he's like on his way to nationalizing
the economy here, but I would point out, like, if
you want to share on the upside of corporate America's
wealth creation for itself, the way to do that is
you tax them when they actually make income, like you
actually tax them. Buying ten percent or just taking ten
(20:20):
percent of Intel without taking any controlling share of it
is kind of a dead end because it's like, Okay,
what are you going to do with that ten percent? Well,
I think let's say Intel doubles in another five years.
Now your ten percent that you had is now worth
you know, was worth ten billion, now it's worth twenty billion.
You sell it, like what are you doing? Like, what
are you doing with this ten percent? The point of
(20:42):
you know, government involvement with these companies and when it
comes to China or the UK or anywhere else is
to tell them what to do, direct them like, hey,
we think, actually it would be good if we made
these chips somewhere in the country. So we're going to
as a policy tell the companies that we're involved with,
go do that. Like that's the point. Not see your
(21:03):
portfolio kind of goes up because then you have the problem.
Well then what you yeah, one hundred sell just go
on a merrior trade and sell your shares? Is Trump
day trading Intel shares? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (21:16):
So I see this as a really pathetic statement on
Congress and our ability to make any law like the
conservative movements consensus on what tax policy should look like
is not what any of the Republican tax bills from
twenty seventeen to the One Big Beautiful Bill have looked like.
(21:38):
It's the One Big Beautiful Bill is not what the
American people would say they want their tax policy to
look like. And there's actually a way that you can
write tax policy without taking a ten percent stake in
Intel in a board seat that makes Intel a better company.
You can close myriad tax loopholes, you can do all
(21:58):
kinds of different things and six to make Intel a
better company. But we don't legislate anymore, like we actually
do not legislate anything that isn't a gargantuan you know, omnibus.
So we have no smart policies, and you end up
then with a strong man in power. And that's basically
(22:19):
like I'm not saying my only disagreement, it's authoritarian. I'm
just saying that it's like, because we are now so
desperate to have companies like Intel that are getting the
privileges of incorporation in the United States and all kinds
of benefits from the taxpayers, because we can't even have
them operating in a like basically moral way. We have
(22:39):
to try to force them through executive authority, which is
and that's where we are.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
My disagreement there would be that the Inflation Reduction Act
was actual and industrial policy. It's said and they called
it this just a satisfy mansion. It was basically, I
just think the Clean Energy Bill, and it said, we
as a country believe that going forward, we need to
move away from fossil fuels and we need to pivot
to clean energy, and we need a lot of energy,
(23:07):
and so we need to invest in transmission, We need
to invest in move you know, moving the energy from
where it's produced to where it's then consumed, and we
need to innovate in how we create that energy. And
that was basically uprooted by Trump.
Speaker 4 (23:22):
But that was also a giant I mean, that bill
was a hulking mesh too, and some parts of it
had to be like a lot of the stuff made
it hard for people who were trying to build factories
because there's all kinds of like this. There's a I
think a pretty legitimate abundance argument about some parts of
that bill. But either way, yes, I agree that that
(23:44):
was industrial policy, and I think there was a little
bit of industrial policy in the One Big Beautiful Bill, and.
Speaker 3 (23:48):
There is, Yeah, there's attempts at it. Meanwhile, this all
goes hand in hand with Trump's continued push to take
over the Federal Reserve. Put up a four here. Breaking
Voice talked about this earlier this week. This is the
biggest probably the biggest dudes in the country at the moment.
(24:09):
Lisa Cooke is a member of the Board of Governors
and Trump wants to not just replace Powell when his
term is up later this year, but to have a
majority of basically pro Trump doves, and in order to
do that, he needs to get Lisa Cooke out of
the way. Lisa Cook has last night said she's going
to sue to keep her position, arguing that you know,
(24:34):
Trump doesn't have the power to remove her for policy reasons.
We all know that Trump is removing her for policy reasons.
That's because he wants to take control of the Federal Reserve.
They combed through her records to try to find some
justification for that.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
I asked. I actually reached out to Bill Polti's office
yesterday and asked how they stumbled upon the mortgage records
Because George shown professor an interesting blog about how in
order to do that, you're basically it's not like you're
using the federal government to dig up the record. It
wasn't as that somebody dropped them in the right.
Speaker 3 (25:10):
There is a reasonable case to be made that Pulti
himself broke the law, and there's privacy records around what
executives at the f h A f A are able
to look at when it comes to american's personal data.
If the FBI, or let's say, you know, Atlanta Police,
which is where one of her places was condo, wants
(25:33):
to you know, gets a tip on some mortgage fraud,
then there are ways that we investigate mortgage fraud. You
can do. You can you know, file a subpoena, you
know subpoena. You can get a warrant, you can go,
you know, look into this stuff. You're like, wait, I
don't think I've ever seen a criminal referral from the
f HFA before. Yeah, that's odd. I'm sure this is
(25:55):
just a run of the mill criminal case going on. Oh,
they went fishing through all of Lisa Cook's information. Yeah,
and they found if people are not familiar, that she
bought a place in twenty twenty one and called it
her primary residence in Michigan or whatever it was. Two
weeks later, bought another one a condo and also called
her primary residence, which meant that she got a lower
(26:18):
interest rate on one of them than she would have
gotten if she would have called it her like vacation condo.
It's pretty now twenty twenty one, by the way, last point,
interest rates were like zero. So like the difference between
why bother what she was gonna pay as a vacation
home versus a primary with her income and her like
(26:39):
she's gonna get a especially in twenty twenty one, you're
getting a two something interest rate no matter what. So
did she corruptly save a few hundred dollars a year
on one of those mortgages? Probably?
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:54):
I mean is it corrupt looks that way?
Speaker 13 (26:56):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (26:57):
Yeah it does.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
What about if it's two hour part parking and you
park for four and you know you did, but you
don't pay. I mean, that's that's corrupt.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
It's corrupt. Is corrupt if you sit on if you're
a governor on federal reserve board.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
Like that's like yeah, and if if this emerged any
other way, you know what, Hey, she should suffer the
consequences of her actions, whatever those would be. But it
emerged because he wants to take control of the Fed
so that he can personally so that he can do
his tariff policy and then monkey with interest rates at
(27:38):
the same time to try to balance that out, which
you could argue the president should be able to do
and we shouldn't have these like technocrats over there rolling this.
Speaker 4 (27:50):
So I think that's a good point.
Speaker 3 (27:51):
That's a separate argument.
Speaker 4 (27:52):
It's obviously true that the administration or that Donald Trump
himself wants a full takeover of the Federal Reserve, so
this would give him if his nominees are confirmed for
out of the seven seats. He has trying to fast
track the man who's already been nominated for the third
seat to get him confirmed quickly, and is mulling right
now whether to nominate someone to put in Lisa Cook's
(28:13):
place right away, even though this is going to be
tied up in the courts, maybe kicked actually to the
Supreme Court. And actually, Ryan, you'll love this could put
Humphrey's executor back in the spotlight because this is like
actually the history of Humphrey's executor plating out the question
of unitary executive theory that the Trump administration, or the
(28:34):
theory that the Trump administration has of what executive power
should look like, is more in line with Franken Dellan
or Roosevelt than it is with basically any other certainly
any other Republican president. But that's what the question is.
Whether this is truly independent? Is it different from some
of the other independent agencies that the Trump administration has
been saying should be brought to heel by a president,
(28:55):
whether the Republican or Democrat. Is it different because it's
the Federal Reserve. That's something that's also been argued in
the courts. So this is a really significant move because
it is going to test some fundamental questions. And as
we look back on the first seven months of the
Trump administration seven and a half months of the Trump administration,
it is remarkable how many fundamental questions of governance are
(29:18):
being kitched to the Supreme Court for foundational constitutional tests.
Speaker 3 (29:23):
It's going to test my theory of the court. I'm
curious what you think will happen, because my theory of
the Court has always been that it is a radical,
far right wing court. But it has deep ties with
the Reagan business wing YEP of the Republican Coalition, and
therefore we'll push back on Trump's more populist efforts when
(29:46):
it comes to undermining what they see as the integrity
of the kind of neoliberal economy. And this goes right
to it. You can put up a five markets already.
So on the one hand, markets are responding in a
it's a frentic way because on the one hand they're like, whoa,
this could mean even deeper interest rate cuts, which you know,
(30:07):
could mean asset price bubbles, and so therefore we need
to buy. On the other hand, it could It looks
like Argentina and Turkey models are being applied here in
the United States, which means we're going to get runaway inflation.
And so the tenure note plummeted, which means interest rates
that the US has to pay for for its debt,
(30:31):
you know, went up, went up significantly around these inflation concerns.
Because the idea is that whether it's Bernie Centers or
Trump or whoever, if they control interest rates, then one
of the checks on what they can do. The vond
market is not as immediate a concern. So if if
(30:53):
Trump is doing tariff policy and is destroying the economy.
He can just dial down, he can just print a
whole lot of money basically to try to like paper
over literally paper over the problems that his policies are creating.
And so then thinking from Wall Street is, well, then
they're going to do a lot of these problematic things.
They're gonna they're gonna bust all the budgets. In the
(31:16):
short term they'll covered up with by printing money. In
a long term, you'll get inflation like an Argentina or
Turkey or wherever else. Uh, And so that so that
that's what's driving the other Wall Street moves. But they're
still they're sort of confused. So the idea, my idea
of the court would be that their Reagan instincts will
take over and be like, we don't actually want this
(31:39):
much of a populist revolution to the point where the
president is just setting interest rates. What do you what?
What's your read on the court? You know that these
these jackals better than I do.
Speaker 4 (31:49):
I think your your reader is correct on that it
would be, but it's not. It's not just a Reagan
instinct necessarily. It's also I mean, you're looking at full
picture of the administration's moves here. I'm curious how the
process question plays into this because I referenced earlier the
Georgetown law professor Adam Leviton who wrote a blog post
(32:10):
that said, quote, the only way anyone would have noticed
a problem with Cook's loan application is that Pulty, as
head of faha FA, directed Fanny or Fetti to pull
Fanny or Freddy to pull her application, and that is
unheard of. Does that also factor? And by the way,
I sent that to the FAHFA and asked if that
was true. Didn't get a response back. But I'm curious
(32:31):
if that plays into the broader question of how this
played out legally. Is there a legal you know, if
you're a cop and you don't read the Miranda rights,
you've got a problem in your prosecution. Is there a
question of how all of this happened that would also
kick in? So somebody, even like Justice Alito, is uncomfortable
with the decision. I don't know, but I think your
(32:55):
instinct is correct that it would wouldn't necessarily even just
be a Reagan instincts so much as a Normy instinct.
I don't know if that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (33:05):
This is discomfort with Yeah right there their NORMI is
too yeah right. And they're also probably like, when I
bought that boat, what did I put down as my income?
Speaker 10 (33:15):
Right?
Speaker 3 (33:16):
Oh am?
Speaker 10 (33:16):
I am?
Speaker 3 (33:17):
I in trouble now too well.
Speaker 4 (33:19):
And there's this divide that has never been.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
Clarence Thomas is still in the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas
still there flagrantly corrupt. Oh come on, are you like joking,
like the guy you forgot to disclose like enormous amounts
of bribes and his like rich friend bought his bought
his like mom's house.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
Like I grew.
Speaker 13 (33:39):
That was bad.
Speaker 4 (33:40):
Yeah, and I grew that was bad. I don't think
it was like evidence of significant corruption.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
He was if you're taking gifts, they're all.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Vacationing with rich people. And the RV loan, I'll say
it was bad. The forgiven RV A loan was that
was all bad stuff?
Speaker 7 (33:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Well, I think I mean everyone in there's just just
just friends. It had nothing to do with the fact
that he's a Supreme Court justice. It's very clear as
soon as he said that he was broke and was
thinking about retiring, and they're like, oh my god, we're
going to lose this seat, the money started flowing to him.
That's that's the timeline. He wrote a letter to the
(34:15):
Congress saying Supreme Court justices aren't paid enough. I can't
I can't keep talking Ginny and the RVs that she needs.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
This was like fifteen years yeah, way back.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
So he said this to Congressional Republicans, you need to
give more money to Supreme Court justice not fair, or
I'm going to quit. Basically that was the message that
of the letter that he sent out.
Speaker 4 (34:34):
I think he's probably right about Supreme Court justices, by
the way.
Speaker 3 (34:37):
Yeah, but they found another way to pay him. The
money just started flowing in all of a sudden, not
so he would rule any differently, but so that he
would stay on the bench. So anyway, that's again that's
a good point.
Speaker 4 (34:47):
But I think the primary narrative is that he's being
bribed by like Harlan Crod ruled differently in the court.
Speaker 3 (34:53):
And I think he was bribed to stay on the court,
will take care of you, because they agreed, right, any
whatever RV she wants.
Speaker 4 (35:01):
Ideological compatriots, right, and the RVY loan was I think
the last part of it was forgiven something like that.
So Anyway, all that is to say, Clarence Thomas actually
might be the interesting one on this question, because what
I was just about to say is the salience of
the unitary executive theory hasn't been strong in the conservative
(35:22):
movement for a long time, because you have this group
of people who really wants to be critical of FDR,
and the line of the conservative movement has been FDR
governed like a king. But then they're the same thing
with Obama. And then there's this also argument that existed
since Nixon that the president should have power over the
deep state executive agencies, and those two things are kind
(35:45):
of in conflict, and I'm actually curious how Clarence Thomas
would rule on that, because there is no consensus among
the Reaganite federalist society world on that. MAGA tends to
be more FDR obviously more pro governing like FDR than
old school Republicans, but at the same time, it's an
(36:06):
argument that old school Republicans could get behind too, because
some of them went through it with Nixon.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
Now we were going to talk briefly about this crazy
person in the White House talking about how gas is
under two dollars in some places, but like, why we're
shows getting tight? Let's move on to his cankeles.
Speaker 4 (36:21):
Well, well, let's say Trump did say gas was below
two dollars. Gas buddy says, we're not seeing any stations
reported to us blow two dollars account.
Speaker 3 (36:30):
Of course nobody's seeing that.
Speaker 4 (36:32):
So yes, anyway, let's move on then to what did
you say is cankeles? Cankeles?
Speaker 3 (36:41):
So is Donald Trump going to die? Well, we're all
going to die. Is Donald Trump going to die today? Doubtful?
No soon?
Speaker 4 (36:49):
Maybe he's seventy nine years old. And Alex Jones one
of his pre eminent supporters in the new media ecosystem.
Although Alex Shones is kind of a new media pioneer
if you think about it. He's been around, Yeah, exactly,
it knew me for thirty years. But one of Donald
Trump's preeminent backers is deeply concerned actually about the state
(37:10):
of Trump's health because of the images because in part
of the images that continue rolling out of Trump with
bruised hands and very swollen ankles. So this would be
one we can roll through some of this. Trump reappeared
on Monday after questions had been raised. He reappeared on
Monday with the bruises on his hands. Again, we've seen
(37:31):
sort of splotches of foundation rubbed over the bruises at
different points too, So sometimes you see the bruising visible
and then sometimes you see the foundation like right there.
If you're listening to this, it's exactly what you think
it is. You've probably seen the pictures already on your own.
But that's what Alex Jens is going to be reacting
(37:51):
to here in this clip. And again, Ryan Trump seventy
nine years old, probably not surprising to anybody that he
might have some health complications. Alex Jones be too.
Speaker 6 (38:01):
Because you can see him declining faster and faster. It's
not super bad yet. I predict Trump is going to
have some type of collapse within the next twelve months
at the current trajectory. I'm not saying he's going to collapse.
I'm saying if he doesn't take his foot off the
gas pedal, I guarantee you and I've got stamina way
(38:25):
better than most people. If I had Trump's job at
fifty one.
Speaker 3 (38:31):
For a month, I would have a nervous breakdown.
Speaker 6 (38:35):
I've seen a lot of signs of Trump declining, the
fear that he's getting sick who knows what's going on.
His ankles are giant. That usually means serious heart decline.
I mean liver failure too. But his eyes aren't yellow.
Speaker 3 (38:52):
So he's saying, I.
Speaker 6 (38:56):
Don't know if I'm doing a good job. I don't
know if I'm going to get into heaven. I hear
I'm not doing good job. This is the President on
stage calling into Fox News in the morning saying this.
Speaker 4 (39:08):
Okay, so what auctions was just referring to. Let's skip
ahead to be five. This is Trump talking about how
he will ask you whether he will go to heaven
in regard to ending the conflict in Ukraine.
Speaker 14 (39:22):
If I can say seven thousand people a week from
being killed, I think that's I want to try and
get to heaven if possible. I'm hearing I'm not doing well.
I really hit the bottom of the totem poll. If
I can get to heaven, this will be one of
the reasons.
Speaker 4 (39:37):
And finally, here's what the White House has said about
the bruising and the ankles will start with B. Three.
Speaker 15 (39:43):
Recent photos of the President have shown minor bruising on
the back of his hand. This is consistent with minor
soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin,
which is taken as part of a standard cardiovascular prevention regiment.
This is a well known and benign effect of aspirin therapy.
And the President remains in excellent health, which I think
(40:05):
all of you witness on a daily basis.
Speaker 4 (40:07):
Here and then we can go ahead and move right
onto the next clip about the inkles.
Speaker 15 (40:11):
In recent weeks, President Trump noted mild swelling in his
lower legs. In keeping with routine medical care and out
of an abundance of caution, this concern was thoroughly evaluated
by the White House Medical Unit. The President underwent a
comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies. Bilateral lower extremity venus
(40:33):
Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency a
B nine in common condition, particularly in individuals over the
age of seventy. Importantly, there was no evidence of deep
vein thrombosis or arterial disease.
Speaker 4 (40:51):
So a benign condition in people over the age of seventy.
Two things, Ryan, One, I think we've learned it's important
to pay attention to this. In the last four years
that the executive. I mean, I guess we didn't have
to learn it. I don't know if the media actually
learned it, but I think we've had a let's just say,
a lesson in why it's important or a real world
example is they say when you're in elementary school of
(41:11):
why these things are important over the last four or
five years with Joe Biden. Secondly, Alex Jones is known,
especially in the right, for being something of a what's
the right way to put it, an nostradamus like figure
mine Well. Tucker Carlson, for example, will say everything Alex
(41:32):
Jones claims comes true basically right, like that's the meaning.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
So if he says something it's people are like, oh,
they're getting nervous. It's like the opposite of Jim Kramer.
Speaker 4 (41:40):
It's the opposite of Jim Kremen. He makes predictions. People
have said, now, you really got to listen to Alex
Jones because he predicted X, Y, and Z.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
On the left, we have a hard time even understanding that.
You guys take him seriously. But he seems to have
almost had a renaissance or did he never go away?
Speaker 4 (41:57):
No, I think he did have a run. I think
the post Sandy Hook aile, he's quite literally sobered up,
but also just.
Speaker 3 (42:05):
I don't know, it's this is for people who didn't
follow he said the whole Sandy Hook thing was completely
made up. It was almost insane. It was horrible.
Speaker 10 (42:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (42:17):
Yeah, But anyway, he does get taken a bit more
seriously now, and part because people feel like they've looked
back and realized that Alex Jones said things they felt
were true not that well, that is to say, Ryan
people are going to take that seriously coming from Alex Jones,
and people like Maga is going to take it seriously
coming from Alex Jones. So what do you make of
(42:38):
the White House saying benign, Okay, everything's fine.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
I mean, I'm not I'm not a doctor. I do
know it's not good when your angles are swelling that
that's suggestive of yes, circulatory or heart problems because the
blood's going down it's not coming back up like that's
I mean, there can be other things that cause swallowing,
other fluid issues, but in general, that's why they rushed
him to get that looked at. Now. Certainly, like he
(43:03):
is shaking hands with like alpha dudes and alpha women
all day law yeah, who, this is their chance to
shake the president's hand. They're coming with their a game,
and I'm sure every time he's like, oh God, oh
Jesus Christ liked you see my hand? You still had
to do that. Macron almost like ripped his fingers off.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Remember, yeah, but then didn't He almost ripped Macrone's fingers.
Speaker 3 (43:29):
Right, And so now everybody knows that it's going to
be like a handshake off.
Speaker 4 (43:33):
So there's nobody but self to blame. Yes, really well
you heard here first Rangram not a doctor, but we
do have some comments from someone also.
Speaker 3 (43:42):
Not a doctor. Is he a doctor?
Speaker 4 (43:44):
I think he's let's just work like six six.
Speaker 16 (43:48):
The President's congestive heartor failure is getting worse. I'm a
home health physical therapist with a doctorate in my field.
I see congestive heart failure patients on a daily basis.
The reason I know that he has congestive heart failure
is because of the swelling in his feet and ankles.
And the reason I know it's getting worse is because
he's sitting behind the desk on camera now he lashed
out against MSNBC for giving him hash about his ankles.
(44:09):
This is how we know that something is true because
it gets to Trump. Remember recently where he was talking
about going to heaven for some fucking reason, as people said,
I'm not doing very well. I don't think he's talking
about the media. I think he's talking about the doctors
who are treating him. The only reason his health has
been maintained at all is because he has the privilege
of getting IV diuretics, spirriinalacton, lasix bumex something like that.
(44:31):
That's why his hands have been bruised and covered with
makeup badly.
Speaker 3 (44:35):
I might add.
Speaker 16 (44:36):
We know that it's getting worse because he knows he
cannot hide the degree of swelling.
Speaker 3 (44:40):
That's why he's sitting behind the desk.
Speaker 4 (44:42):
Oh.
Speaker 16 (44:42):
He also has chronic kidney disease, which is also contributing
to the swelling and the feet and ankles. I can't
tell you how many times I have seen a patient
in their home because they were hospitalized for aki or
acute kidney injury and the kidney injury was caused by
nephrotoxic medications, namely diuretics spirinal actom umex lysis. The President
(45:04):
is definitely getting sicker, and we know he's not going
to change his diet because he's such a fucking idiot.
I think he's going to be around for six to
eight months tops. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Speaker 4 (45:14):
Brian was losing it During's like it's bluing on a
horseshoe theory with Alex Jones.
Speaker 3 (45:19):
Basically, my favorite part is I'm a home health aide
with a doctorate in my field with a dictor wait,
wait in your field. So he has a PhD and
something could mean a lot.
Speaker 4 (45:31):
Yeah, there's a great moment in Friends where.
Speaker 3 (45:35):
This is a viral, like we're not just picking any
random Oh yeah, no, this was very much going everywhere.
Speaker 4 (45:39):
Yes, there's a great moment in Friends where someone asks
Ross is trying to insist that he's a doctor because
he's a PhD in like paleontology, and Rachel's like, yeah, yeah, Ross,
if I'm having a heart attack, what I need is
you there with your fossil brush. That's equivalent what we
just like, at.
Speaker 3 (45:58):
Least that guy works with old dying people. So like,
if he was a friend of mine, I'd be like, yeah,
let me hear your experience in life of like dealing
with old and dying people, and then.
Speaker 4 (46:09):
You'd come on here, and say a source, like a medical.
Speaker 3 (46:11):
Source with a doctor in his field, says to me
that he has six to eight months.
Speaker 4 (46:17):
Listen, Trump was tweeting at like I think he's tweeting
at like one in the morning, just about I'll have
to go back. I want to say it was about
cracker Brough. I think we got an early morning treat
about true social postbark cracker brow Like. The guy sleeps
five hours then again he then he'll golf eighteen hoole Saturday,
golf eighteen hole Sunday. He seems to eat whatever the
(46:37):
hell he wants. So I don't know if he's in
great health or horrible health. It could be one of
the two.
Speaker 3 (46:42):
We know he will not die in his sleep because
he doesn't sleep. The odds are low, yeah, so jd vance.
I don't know if he's getting ready lasened up. I
don't know. Trump's life force is attention. So I find
it very hard to believe that whatever diseases he has
(47:04):
in his body can overcome the power of that life
force well throughout, at least until he's no longer president,
because you know, once he's back and sitting around with
like real estate guys again, then he could decline quickly,
like like when somebody leaves the Senate, it's like, uh,
(47:26):
you know how when old folks get but one of
one of the spouses dies and the other one dies
within six months. That's what happens to senators when they
leave office within six month, within six months, they just
would because they don't they're not getting that energy, that
life force anymore, which is the adulation.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
You lose your access to the adrina chrome and the
kid's blood when you leave the Senate.
Speaker 3 (47:49):
I've heard people make actual medical arguments that around this,
like life force creating sense that that some that's some
people in particular are particularly able to like stuck it up,
and Trump is definitely one of them. He's the first
president in his first term who not only did an age,
(48:11):
he left office like looking better than he came in.
So finally, maybe gravity is catching up with him, but
that gravity has a lot to work against because he
absolutely loves the spotlight and thrives in it. That like
a lizard on a rock.
Speaker 4 (48:30):
Like a lizard on a rock, let's move on to
Apac Shakur. We went from a lizard on a rock
to Apac Shakur. This is the new nickname that Hakeem
Jefferies has gotten from Charlemagne. We should just take a
look at this clip because describing it doesn't do it justice.
Let's real see one.
Speaker 5 (48:46):
I love having the speaker minority speaker haiking Jefferies because
you know, I'm a political nerd, like I love talking.
Speaker 17 (48:55):
I don't hate him. I just don't think he stands
for anything. Well, I think that he I call him
apac Well tell me.
Speaker 5 (49:02):
We did talk about messaging and I actually went to
the capitol and had a meeting with him and we
talked about messaging and how I was like the frustration
with the party is y'all have to get more gangs,
like stop going by the politics of the late two thousands,
you know, in twenty ten, and you have to like
rise to the occasion.
Speaker 4 (49:18):
And the messing. And he did.
Speaker 17 (49:19):
I saw him do more afterwards. I came as a puppet.
I came to not doing anything in structuring. Won don't
tell him to do it, and it's similar that, but
I did.
Speaker 5 (49:27):
I was very happy that he came on our little
podcast though, because we can like have these conversations and
I feel like, you know, a lot of a lot
of people don't press these folks, you know what I mean,
And we do, and we need to do that.
Speaker 3 (49:38):
We need to be pressing all of them. For people
not steeped in. There came Jeffrey's law. He loves. He
loves to rap, like he got fundraisers at major events
like he will. He will spit bars as the kids say.
Speaker 4 (49:52):
It's.
Speaker 3 (49:55):
Right, that's so bad, So I think that's going to stick.
It hurts.
Speaker 4 (50:02):
It's like when he's when some kid is at their
like middle school talent show. That's what it's like watching
Hakim Jeffries wrap.
Speaker 3 (50:09):
It's like, I'm critical of Kim Jeffries.
Speaker 4 (50:14):
You give it to him in the wrapping.
Speaker 3 (50:16):
I mean, he's not going to like get on a
label or anything, but like I think he's better than
like a bar mitzvah guy. It's a low bar, but
I think he's I got, like this is decent. Like
you know, it's not nothing original. He's just sticking to
the you know, the old beats and it's like nineties
kind of beats. But you know, I'm a nineties kid,
(50:38):
so that's true. That's all I need.
Speaker 4 (50:41):
Well, this comes out the heels of the d NC
vote and Ryan and I'm very very curious to get
your breakdown of everything that happens. So C two we
can put up the screen on the screen. This is
the d n C vote. There was an amendment at
the d n C urging the support for a recognition
of pass And as a state and then also ending
all military aid to Israel ran into some trouble. You
(51:02):
may be shocked to learn hit a few snags. Ryan,
tell us what happened.
Speaker 3 (51:06):
And speaking of APAK, Shkor will start with this DMFI.
Democratic Majority for Israel, which is an offshoot of APAK,
put out this statement because APAK is too toxic and
democratic party, so they made DMFI. They said, today the
Democratic Party sent a clear and resounding message by defeating
a reckless and divisive resolution. We stand with the people
of Israel and will continue to do so. For more
(51:28):
than seventy five years, the US Israel relationship has been
strong because it's grounded and shared values on mutual security interests.
We cannot forget how we got here. Hamas started this
war and continues to hold fifty hostages. Passing this resolution
would have been a gift to Republicans, further divided our
party and rewarded Hamas's brutality because Hamas is very closely
(51:48):
following the DNC bylaws and platform creation, no doubt, in
this critical moment, Democrats stood firm rejected this dangerous effort
and sent a message that they remain united in our
commitment to israel security and our long standing alliance. And
so the meeting began with Ken Martin, the new head
of the d n C, putting forward a resolution that
(52:15):
was as milk toast as it could be while still
being offensive to some pro Israel members of the party.
It all it said was that basically, the land of
Israel is a place where you know, two peoples have
you know, historical historical roots, which is undeniably true. Yet
(52:40):
still there is a whole strain of pro Israel argumentation
that says that Palsitians are made up and didn't don't
actually exist and didn't even exist before like the nineteen
seventies or something, even though they're mentioned in like Home
by like Homer all the way back for court of history.
(53:02):
It's obviously true. So that that passed, and it had
you know, some other like not fairly uncontroversial for the
DNC things, and that resolution and then it gets to
the one that says that there's going to be an
arms in bargo in Israel and the Democrats are going
to recognize a palace city and state. There was an
attempt to amend it to add offensive weapons right and
(53:27):
put in some other palatable things to Israel that that
was defeated, I think by a combination of the Resolutions
supporters didn't want to water it down, and the Resolutions
opponents didn't want it to be watered down out of
fear that it might pass if it was watered down then,
(53:50):
so that amendment was rejected. So it went straight with
an arms embargo, and Democrats voted it down and DMFI
celebrated so and then when they left the room, all
the reporters followed them, and the DNC staff was and
members are just livid, like, why won't you stick around
(54:12):
and follow the rest of our proceedings. Why are you
so concerned about just this one issue, which I get it,
but they're carrying out a genocide and so.
Speaker 4 (54:27):
It's interesting that they couldn't even get it amended, right,
because that's a Lyssa slot Can set literally right here
and said she would consider an offensive weapons ban.
Speaker 3 (54:36):
Yeah, and then went on to Colbert and missed the vote,
but said she would have voted for it, right, Yeah,
which anyway, It's thing is insane, like, if you think
somebody is committing a genocide, why give them any weapons whatsoever?
And if it's only about civilians, who needs the defensive
weapons more than the Palestinians. If you really want to
(55:00):
protect civilians, wouldn't you send the iron dome the Palestinians.
When was the last time anything was fired at Israel?
Speaker 4 (55:08):
It reminds me we were sitting at the DNC last year.
It just was the most obvious thing in the world
that the party should allow, just from the Beaver political
standpoint of this should allow somebody from the Free Palestine
movement to go up and speak. I mean, they have
so many speakers throughout the week they have they're just
(55:31):
doing right, random people, throwing random people out there, and
they can't give any They won't give an inch.
Speaker 3 (55:38):
They wanted a two minute, vetted speech by a Palestinian
American who serves as a Georgia lawmaker, and they wouldn't
allow it. In Saint Louis, Corey Bush, as we know,
was ousted by Wesley Bell last cycle Bush is rumored
to be looking at a rematch. Wesley Bell, as you
saw last week, had a town hall where a bunch
(56:01):
of constituents complained to him about his support for Israel's genocide.
He told them he would talk to them after he
dealt with the media. He went and did some interviews
with the media. As he was back talking to the media,
his security then beat up a bunch of constituents. Now
he would have a new event. It's supposed the public event.
(56:21):
If you look, watch see how many people you can
count in the audience. If I'm about to show you
where he's asked about the enormous amounts of money that
he has taken, and his defense is quite remarkable. Let's
roll Wesley Bell here.
Speaker 18 (56:38):
People want to support this, support what we're doing.
Speaker 3 (56:41):
Please, Hey, we'll take.
Speaker 4 (56:42):
It because we got to get our message up.
Speaker 18 (56:45):
And the bottom line is is that in our in
our in our politics, you know that they have they're
expecting close to a like a couple billion dollars in
these elections coming out, and so that money is flowing
everywhere and until we address that issue and give campaign
finance reforms, if you want representation, that's gonna represent your district.
(57:10):
Those people can't just go in there with empty pockets
and and just hopes and dreams. We gotta understand there's
a game being played. Politics is a game that's being played.
And we can sit back and be righteous and say
now we're not gonna do it that way, and we
can keep losing, and you know what, that's what we've
been doing.
Speaker 3 (57:27):
Listen.
Speaker 4 (57:27):
We can't just sit back and just.
Speaker 18 (57:29):
Be like, oh, well, we just go just keep doing
what we're doing and now we're not gonna get involved.
Speaker 10 (57:35):
No, we can't do that.
Speaker 18 (57:37):
And so I hear what you're saying, and that's why
I stay accessible. I say, I'm gonna come out in
the community. I'm not gonna shy away from tough stuck.
Speaker 3 (57:46):
So Wesley Bell got more than twelve million dollars from
a pack to defeat Corey Bush. His diagnosis is that
Democrats are not doing better because they are too discerning
and puritanical about who they will take money from. And
if they would just take more money from more people,
Democrats wouldn't be in the bind that that they're in now.
(58:09):
If he had not taken a penny and not even
run for Congress, Saint Louis would still be represented by
Corey Bush and her quote unquote empty pockets. So I
don't quite understand what he accomplished in terms of representation
for Saint Louis by taking the money but setting that aside.
So if are democrats too discerning about who they take
money from, set your assessment.
Speaker 4 (58:30):
Yeah, clearly. I mean all that cash from Jeffrey Epstein
and Harvey Weinstein, that was just they were just being careful,
that's all you can say.
Speaker 3 (58:43):
Yeah, So thank you to Wesley Bell for being opened
about your willingness to take money from absolutely anybody.
Speaker 4 (58:52):
Oh, let's not forget Sam Bankment Freed. That was a
fun one.
Speaker 3 (58:58):
You know, it's nice. It's nice when people are upfront
about it. At least you'll take that. So if Corey
Bush does run again, that's going to cost a pack
another ten fifteen million dollars in Saint Louis. Yeah, and
maybe Bell wins, maybe he doesn't. He only won by
four percentage points, yeah, or something like that. More or
(59:18):
less than that. It was I think it was like
four thousand votes or something like that, which.
Speaker 4 (59:21):
Is actually I think remarkable given how radical compared to
the average Democrat Corey Bush.
Speaker 3 (59:27):
Yes, yeah, yes, she was the one of the first,
and she's a lead sponsor of the ceasefire resolution like
she yeah, she did. She did not back down remotely,
and so this was you know, we're you know, two
years later, she may be in a better position.
Speaker 4 (59:47):
Yeah, oh my gosh, especially because I think the climate
has changed significantly on.
Speaker 3 (59:52):
This real question and he's going to have to go
around continuing to explain how why he's taking all of
his money and he is going to have to do
better than that. But you can't do better than that,
Like that is it? Like that's like, that's that's it.
Speaker 4 (01:00:08):
It's just a behind the scenes secret Democrats are and
Republicans are not at all discerning in whose money they take. No,
that's they will take any more money.
Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
Like Corey Bush, like the justice Democrats are right now,
she doesn't have to be discerning because a pack is
not showing up and offering no money. Although, as I
reported my book Squad, you know, after AOC one, her
campaign got a call when and said, like a pack
(01:00:41):
is ready to raise two hundred thousand dollars for you
off the bat, one hundred two hundred thousand. Check the
details in the book and there's a lot more where
that came from, and we'd love to educate you on
the historic relationship between Israel and the United States, and
we believe so it was even on offer for her,
she said, no, I'm not doing that, like and and
(01:01:04):
the campaign was even a little surprised at the brazenness
of it, like you're kind of I think trained to
think it's a little more sophisticated than that.
Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
No, absolutely, not absolutely. Yahoo decided to drop by Patrick
Bett David's show, of course, and so.
Speaker 3 (01:01:26):
Tell us about who's Patrick Bett David? Like, what's his
what's his place in this ecosystem? Do we know?
Speaker 4 (01:01:32):
I mean maybe you could lump him in with the
like podcast bro category of people. Yeah, he's definitely bro coded.
He has like very lively conversations on his channel.
Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
What's Yahoo doing like milk Boys and now this? And
then he I mean it's they brought these uh weird
influencers over to like take video the.
Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
Prigger you influence. Yeah, I mean it's exactly what Yah like.
There's just from a cynical perspective, I think the Nlkboys
decision as unseerious as we all know it is, And
as cynical as we all know it is. That is
exactly what you would want to do if you are
trying to prevent losing young right wing men to the
(01:02:17):
anti Israel movements. Like, actually, exactly what you would want
to do, and you would also want to go on
Patrick but David's show, if that's what you're trying to do,
so I think strategically it's like pretty clever. How do
we think it went for him? Let's take a look.
Speaker 13 (01:02:32):
Israel owns America. You know, Israel is who makes America
do things they want him to do, whether it's through
APAC you know, whether it's through you know, funding money.
You'll typically hear this. This has been overly said the
last couple of years in a major way, and there's
a big there's a there's a community of Americans that
at this point believe that whatever Israel wants, they make
(01:02:54):
a phone call to America, America better do or else.
Speaker 3 (01:02:57):
Do you agree with that?
Speaker 10 (01:02:59):
Absolutely not. It's full of hocum. First of all, do
you know President Trump sort I've known him for many years. Okay,
you don't make him do anything. He does what he
thinks is in America's interests.
Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
I don't know.
Speaker 10 (01:03:12):
It's a good question, but you've said something about Biden
that I should just point out the facts. In fact,
President Biden supported US in the beginning of the war,
after this horrific massacre, and he came here and I
very much appreciate it. But as the war progressed in
the vilifications of Israel, the distortions on the media began
to pylon, you know, he began to take a different course.
(01:03:36):
And when we were just two thirds of the way,
three fourths of the way in Gaza, I said, we
have to go into that last position that they had
where they had organized battalions. It's in a city called Rapha,
in the southern part of the Gaza strip. And he said,
don't go there. And he said, if you do go there,
(01:03:59):
I'll smack him. Bargo on you. You know, you're fighting
a seven five war and all of a sudden you're
slapped with an embargo.
Speaker 3 (01:04:06):
What do you think? So Biden did say publicly repeatedly,
and Miller and others, Matt Miller and others State Department
spokes and said RAFA is a red line that for
many reasons it was the US policy was that RAFA
should is a red line, you do not go into Rafa.
(01:04:30):
Now for the first time we have na whose claim
of what Biden was willing to say to back up
this red line, there will be an embargo. I assume
he means arms in bargo, not not massive, not the
mass starvation of Israel. That's barbaric. Nobody should do that. Clearly,
(01:04:55):
he did not do that. Nana who called his bluff
or he we know he made a bluff of some
sort because he publicly said it's a red line. So strategically,
it seems like what who's doing there is trying to
say I'm with Trump, Biden is with Hamas and so
(01:05:20):
if you Patrick but David Viewer are with Trump, then
you're with me and and further creating adversaries out of Democrats.
But he which we just talked about Apax Corps, and
(01:05:41):
you know, the the Democratic establishment support of Israel remains
like rock solid. Nenya, who's adversarial relationship to the Democratic
Party is remains very strong. It's this it's this one
way support.
Speaker 4 (01:06:00):
Yep. That's a really interesting point because I was gonna say,
I mean, Netta Yaho can be credited with solidifying the
Republican party's magnetic relationship with Israel. It was not always
like that. If you go back to the Reagan administration,
there's a lot of support for Israel, but there's not
this deference, this reflexive deference to Israel, which is actually
(01:06:21):
really just the reflexive deference to the coud Uh. And
that's Yaho now who's led the way on that point.
And it's been whatever you say about Netta Yaho, and
you can say a lot of things about natzen Yah,
who that has been politically cynically a calculation that paid
off for him. And I think that's what you're seeing
(01:06:43):
in the Patrick back David interviews. He's continuing to try
to make that point that he is the that Israel
is the renegade actor, that that is the Maverick actor,
that is the if you're if you're an American who
wants to see this sort of global elite busted up,
you're supporting is Ill in this situation against the rest
of the world and the evil forces of the rest
(01:07:06):
of the world, the Islamists that want to take down
America for American freedom and all of that. He's trying
the same line out and it's probably the best he's got,
I mean, unfortunately for him, it's probably the best he's
got at this point.
Speaker 3 (01:07:20):
And while this is going on, the news out of
Gaza is that Israel's incursion into Gaza City is continuing,
and the reporting that we're getting from the ground there
is that it's horrific, beyond even the description of what
we've seen before previously when cities have been taken by
(01:07:40):
the IDF and destroyed. First they would take the city,
would they be completely depopulated, and then they would send
in these combat engineering units that would then detonate block
house by house, block by block until cities at complete rubble,
which has now been done to Rafa. That's not what
(01:08:01):
they're doing this time. This time they are sending in
bomb laden robots into populated city blocks and setting the
explosives off and to the point where you can see
the explosions from like miles away. You had this like
IDF linked Mosad, it's called Mosad ocent account saying that
(01:08:24):
actually that Hamas was doing this. It's like Massa doesn't
have robots. First of all, mass doesn't have explosives with
charges like that, And also why would Hamas be blowing
up like city blocks filled with people, and so they're
sending in these robots basically you know, suicide bombers, except
(01:08:45):
their robots rather than people, and then and then and
then moving in, and then clearing, and then and and
proceeding a pace. You've got close to a million people
affected by this in and around the Gaza City area
who are now being pushed further west. They're very nervous
(01:09:05):
about going south, they're telling us because if they know
or they believe that if they go south, like that's it,
like that Gaza City is over and it'll be it'll
be completely flat and completely destroyed. Saying there's very little
hamas resistance in the area in these areas, because what
are you gonna do, Like there's these robotic bomb laden
(01:09:26):
monsters are rolling in and they're just blowing up like
there's that's there's nothing you can really do as a
as a resistance force against something like that. Now, this
is happening in the context of the assassinations of all
of the journalists, who not all of them, there's you know,
many are still working, but many of the most prominent
(01:09:47):
journalists in Gaza City were killed over the last several weeks.
Conunis we had. You know, five more journalists killed the
other day, including a sixth in his tent later and
investigative list in a separate attack. So fallout from that
attack continues. And that's so let's move to that next
(01:10:08):
because we're learning two just absolutely unbelievable details about this.
And I think it's people need to retain their ability
to be shocked by this because if you if you're not,
then you're losing the moral core, your moral core, and
people want you to become numb to this stuff. And
(01:10:28):
when things that shock the conscience happen, we should still
acknowledge that they're shocking. So it goes back to this.
We could place C six here. This is a strike
that probably everybody has seen by now. That's the second
hit on this second of the double tab Master hospital.
And so they struck the hospital at ten am and
then at ten seventeen. As you can see in the
(01:10:49):
bottom corner there it says coods ten to seventeen. Ol
Kodes is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. So seventeen minutes
after the first strike, there are first responders, medics, journalists,
a medical student, a civil defense worker who rushed to
the scene, trying to save the people who'd been killed,
(01:11:11):
which included the Reuter's cameraman, because they attacked this camera,
which we'll talk about in a moment. Seventeen minutes later,
they bomb they bomb it again to kill all of
those people. So the IDF is now come out with
its own explanation for what happened. We'll get into that
in a second. What we're learning though, is that the
(01:11:33):
day before this happened, the international doctors working at Naser
Hospital were told that the next morning they would have
to go to the WHO headquarters, which is thirty minutes away,
for an in person gender violence a training. They extremely unusual,
(01:11:57):
and we'll talk and we'll talk about this as a second.
But let's see seven here.
Speaker 12 (01:12:02):
I was just listening to your reporter saying that Natanyajo says,
this is a tragic mishap. This is absolutely untrue. This
is strategic and intentional. The foreign aid workers, the foreign
doctors that are actually in the hospital were asked to
leave before this airstrike, and so that is not a mishap.
That is absolutely deliberate. This is not the first time
Israel has struck a hospital.
Speaker 4 (01:12:23):
You know, you hearing from your contacts on the ground.
Speaker 13 (01:12:25):
The foreign doctors working in Nasa Hospital were given the
heads up to evacuate Nasa Hospital before striking.
Speaker 12 (01:12:33):
Absolutely, they were told some arbitrary reason that they had
to leave and they weren't allowed to come back until
the next day. So this is this is not an accident.
Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
Now to travel from Naza Hospital and Kanye's to the
who that travel would have to be coordinated with Kogat,
which is the Israeli agency that makes sure that they
know who's moving where and if they see convoy moving
and it is an unapproved convoy, they will strike it
with a drone. And so the hospitals always coordinate their movement.
(01:13:07):
Who coordinates this movement with Israel at dropsite We confirmed
directly with a person on the ground there that this
that what doctor said maybe side there said, did in
fact occur. There are another interview was done by I
believe it's a nurse. With times of Times of London,
we can roll C eight.
Speaker 19 (01:13:27):
There are other engo's that do you enter the hospital
that were also attending the mandatory meeting, but they don't
sleep in the corridors.
Speaker 3 (01:13:41):
Okay, so how many of them were you approximately at
this mandatory training, and you've already said it's pretty unusual
for you to have this sort of mandatory training.
Speaker 1 (01:13:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 19 (01:13:52):
It was about fifteen of us that were there, and
the training was in what Amanda, The training was at
the baby how sin it was training for gender based violence?
Speaker 3 (01:14:05):
Was it strange to you? Is this normal to receive
this type of training?
Speaker 19 (01:14:12):
Yeah, And my prior times of volunteering internationally, we usually
get all the information prior to our starts. The fact
that they're now introducing this gender based violence lecture halfway
through my rotation was also interesting is they mandated that
one of our other volunteers who's planning to exit tomorrow
(01:14:34):
to also attend, So it was mandated for volunteers who
really weren't going to have any physical interaction with patients.
Also the fact that we inquired about other ways to
attend the lecture remotely and it was completely turned down.
So far, us as a group, our NGO have discussed
(01:14:56):
amongst ourselves and we're all in consensus that this was
a fishing expedition like this, This didn't seem right, This
didn't sit right with any of us.
Speaker 4 (01:15:05):
In our gut, we knew something was not right.
Speaker 19 (01:15:10):
And so we inquired with our lead coordinator to investigate
this with the Delilah Show to give us more answers
as to who ordered them to have us leave.
Speaker 3 (01:15:23):
So, at a bare minimum, we know that the Israelian
military knew that all of the international doctors and nurses
were out of nas Or hospital when they attacked the hospital.
That's at a minimum. The questions that remain to be
answered are who insisted to the who that these nurses
(01:15:46):
and doctors go in person at this time. Why didn't
they do this beforehand? Why did they have to do
this in person? Like who made that demand? One of
the internet as I don't know if she said it
in this clip or not. One of the international doctors
was leaving the next morning or later that day or something.
(01:16:07):
So it's like and try to get out of it,
like I only need this gender based training, Like I'm leaving.
They're like, nope, you also must attend every single person
because if you're going to do a double tap strike
in a hospital, you're going to kill a lot of
medical staff because if you hit what they hit the
(01:16:28):
fourth floor right near the intensive care unit. And so
one of the doctors who was killed is a he's
a resident who's a third year medical student. He rushed
to the scene. American, European, Malaysian all you know, these
other doctors who were at Nasser Hospital would have rushed
(01:16:48):
to the scene. It was seen a terrible carnage, trying
to treat people as quickly as possible. And then when
you double tap it, you would have killed those Americans
and Europeans and Malaysians or else is there? So at
a minimum we know that that was not a risk
that they faced with this double tap strike.
Speaker 4 (01:17:06):
So then also we have now c ten we can
put on the screen. This was the headline in the
New York Times just yesterday saying Israel says it attacked
Gaza Hospital to destroy camera placed by Hamas and Ryan.
You posted this by saying, compare to this honest and
pressed reporting from New York Times as Eric Toler and
(01:17:27):
others with the headline that The New York Times put
on his article absolute night and day. The journalists find
the idea flat out lied. The editors then write a
headline that pretends the idea of claim is serious and
includes their slenders claim that six of those killed were militants.
Speaker 7 (01:17:42):
Right.
Speaker 3 (01:17:42):
Yeah, and for contacts and credit there. We put up
C eleven as well, the first person, the first reporter
to observe this, and Eric Toler in his thread credited
units to RAWI, who drops that contributor who's done incredible work.
He's the guy who is constantly doing investigations into the
war crimes committed by Israeli force is using their own
(01:18:04):
TikTok and Instagram and Facebook confessions that they post. What
he observed is that on Channel twelve a right wing
ocent enthusiasts, as Unice calls him. Here, you know these
guys who go on Twitter and look at satellite images
and say, oh, look look what I found here.
Speaker 4 (01:18:25):
Toller is a beling cat guy.
Speaker 3 (01:18:27):
Toller is a former biling cat guy who now does
this exact thing ocent for the New York Times. You geolocate,
you look at satellite image on this day compared to
this day, and you can try to figure out what happens.
Is very valuable. It's an incredible skill if you're good
at an incredibly dangerous if you're not. We reported earlier,
remember that that the US used some ocent advice from
(01:18:50):
amateurs and Yemen and killed dozens of innocent people. So
this guy, he claimed on Channel twelve to have identified
a Hamas camera. And you know there's a there are
cranks all over Twitter and all over YouTube and everywhere else.
(01:19:12):
It's it shouldn't be a crime to be a crank.
But according to this crank, he was involved with the strike.
He was online with them. He's said, he's he's. He
is now saying publicly to Israeli media that he was
(01:19:32):
helping to guide the missile, and Israel is still saying
it was the second shot was a tank shell. There
are photos of a missile approaching the hospital, precision guided missile,
and that he was guiding it. He said. He points
to this white towel covering the camera, which is his
evidence that it's a hidden camera. Use your use your
(01:19:55):
brain for a second. A black camera sitting out in
the sun is going to overheat. You put a white
towel over it. If you're Hamas, is that how you
hide a camera by putting a white towel over it
the fourth floor of a hospital where all the media work.
Now what we also know is whose camera this was.
(01:20:17):
This was a Reuter's camera, So we can put up
C twelve. So Reuter's cameraman was killed immediately and their
camera was struck. And so the IDF then comes out
and does not give any explanation for the second half
of the double tap, but they say that they're now
(01:20:40):
official story is that they identified a quote hamas camera
and moved to eliminated if we can put up the
Reuter's headlined, So the Reuter's camera man was killed in
this attack on a Reuter's camera. In the article at self,
(01:21:01):
there's a picture of the Reuter's camera that was destroyed
with a live view backpack. A live view backpack is
only used for broadcasting. You've probably used them maybe back
way in the day, like.
Speaker 4 (01:21:12):
Yeah, you see them at any precedent, Yeah right.
Speaker 3 (01:21:16):
It's for broadcasting. It is not for communication. It's not
it's not for secret communication with militants. You need you
need like a broadcast license. You need to be working
with a broadcaster like or to with like a YouTube
channel or something.
Speaker 4 (01:21:29):
Yeah right. It's not just like a streaming kit.
Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
Right, But it's not for communication one to one.
Speaker 4 (01:21:40):
It's a broadcast, like the broadcast of the broadcast.
Speaker 3 (01:21:43):
Word yeah yeah. And so they have a picture in
the Reuters article of the live view backpack that was
hit by the shelf. Reuter's headline is initial inquiry says
Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that killed journalists,
and says by Reuters interesting, there's no byline, which usually
in the newsroom when there's no byline, no whoever was
(01:22:05):
forced to write the story refused to put their name
on it. So they killed a Reuter's cameraman and then
said he was and then said it was Hamas. They
didn't say he was mossed. They said camera was Hamas.
And Reuters is willing to call itself Hamas because Israel
(01:22:25):
says so, knowing full well that it was their camera
and their cameraman that they attacked. Again, the headline initial
Inquiry says Hamas camera was target of Israeli strike that
killed journalists. And nowhere in the article do they even
say that that's not true. What they do say is
that their camera operator was killed and that their camera
(01:22:48):
was hit. But they don't even connect the dots that
that's the camera they're referring to. I don't know what
more capitulation you could have than to literally call yourself
Hamas as Reuters it's like a and to do that
in the wake of their colleague being killed. It's truly startling.
(01:23:11):
A Reuters photographer resign in protest over this I saw
yesterday or the day before. So, like I said, I
think we need to maintain our capacity to be shocked
by this stuff, because if this isn't shocking to us,
(01:23:32):
then then and then it just becomes normalized and they
won't even bother offering explanations.
Speaker 4 (01:23:40):
Meanwhile, as he was before, he was going on the
Patrick Bett David podcast, Designahoo was posting C nine that
Free Press video discussing how they wrote the article. This
is getting really made that Crystal and Sager talked about
yesterday because they went after you Crystal and Sager by England.
Speaker 3 (01:24:01):
Did you feel left out?
Speaker 4 (01:24:02):
Of course I felt left out. I mean, you know,
I like to be part of greup activities, but they
went after you guys for questioning the article. And then
Natanyahu actually posted in solidarity with the Free Press, basically
the video where they talked about the process of developing
the article.
Speaker 3 (01:24:19):
Yeah, he posted facts Matter. And in one of the
clips here and this is the one we just had
up there, Olivia Ryan Gold is citing the case of
most debs and this is what they This is what
the Free Press itself put in their video. They write
or they quote. The fourteen year old boy was featured
(01:24:42):
in the same CNN story as another child quote suffering
from malnourishment scare quotes. The original caption didn't mention that
last May he sustained a traumatic head injury amid what
s HMS News Agency, a Gaza based outlet, called quote
in Israeli shell explosion. So, according to the Free Press,
(01:25:06):
CNN is being unfair to Israel because they said that
a fourteen year old boy is suffering from malnourishment without
in the caption mentioning that he'd also had part of
his skull blown out by an Israeli shell. And Benjamin Nenyah,
who is so proud of this reporting from Olivia Ryangold
(01:25:29):
and the Free Press that he shared it with facts matter.
Speaker 4 (01:25:33):
So in that editorial, one of the things the Free
Press cited in defense of that article was that Washington
Post other outlets added corrections, which really weren't corrections so
much as they were updates to the stories.
Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
Update the fourteen year old suffering from malnourishment also has
a traumatic brain injury, and that's exactly, okay, thank you,
that's useful information.
Speaker 4 (01:25:55):
That is fine, right, And that's where they're like, yeah,
that's where it's like, yep, this is absolutely correct. That
the context is important, and in some cases the context
is even more devastating to the narrative that you know,
this is all okay, that this isn't you know, some
(01:26:16):
deeply serious concern because like when you when you zoom
into the con to the context, you realize, oh, this
kid had his head blowed off, right, or you realize
this is a condition because someone was malnourished in the womb.
This is a condition because someone like the nobody objects
to the context, and I actually think that's the Washington
(01:26:37):
Post and whoever else. Updating their story proves that nobody objects.
Speaker 3 (01:26:40):
To the full context, right, And nobody would object to
this reporting from the Free Press if they didn't follow
it immediately with Israel's opponents are saying that these are
the average representatives of people in Gaza, and they're using
them to tell you that there's a fan and when
in fact, there is not a famine there. Certainly there're
(01:27:03):
suffering in God's but there's no famine. So they are
very clear about the purpose of their context that they're adding.
They think that what they're doing is complicating the question
and letting people know that actually it's not as bad
as people want you to believe. That's what they're saying.
The context they're adding does not actually make their case.
Speaker 7 (01:27:25):
And so.
Speaker 3 (01:27:27):
If they're actually genuinely curious about why people are objecting
to their reporting, that's why. It's because their conclusion, which
clearly they started with before they did the reporting, Their
conclusion is incorrect. Also, they keep citing cerebral palsy and
all these other maladies that are not fatal in children.
(01:27:50):
So the fact that they're dying with these pre existing
conditions is not the point that you think it is.
The point is too treat these conditions, not to malnourish
them such that they die with them, and then point
to those conditions as some type of excuse for Israel
(01:28:10):
to continue with its genocide
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.