Krystal and Saagar discuss Graham Platner challenges Susan Collins, Ana Kasparian stuns CNN panel, alleged Israeli pedo skips court, Jeffrey Sachs dire warning on Israel.
Graham Platner: https://www.grahamforsenate.com/
Jeff Sachs: https://www.jeffsachs.org/
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 the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We are very excited to be joined this morning by
Graham Platner. He is a Democratic Senate candidate in the
state of Maine, challenging ultimately if he gets through the primary,
Susan Collins, who obviously been there for quite a while.
In addition, he is a veteran, and he is an oysterman,
and he joins us this morning. Great to meet you, Graham.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Oh, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, of course, So let's start with what made you
jump in the race.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
I mean, at his core, I really love the state
of Maine. I was born and raised here. I got
to come after here or come come home here after
my time overseas. We've got a really unique way of
life up here. I think there's a lot of kind
of hard scrabble making it work. Most people I know
have two or three jobs, lots of seasonal work, lots
(01:20):
of non traditional stuff like clamming, oyster farming, lobster fishing,
and yeah, it's just a it's a really unique place.
And it's allowed me to feel very grounded and connected
and and I love it. And right now it feels
like a lot of the the underlying structures that allowed
(01:41):
us to live the way that we do up here
are really beginning to fall apart, and us Senate race
is pretty much the uh, this is the place. This
is the way to get in the fight if I
want to really be able to fight for this place.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Yeah, and people who've been talking to the media, who've
known you for a long time have been saying they
you've been the same Graham, you know, basically your whole life.
But now you're taking that to the kind of Senate
race level. And so I want to ask about that,
but I want to preface it with a crazy story
which the audience should know. You would be maybe the
(02:15):
second bartender serving in Congress, but you would be the
first one that I knew when he was a bartender.
So Graham, for people who don't know, Graham, bartender at
the tune In, which is a bar on Pennsylvania Avenue
near the Capitol, went while he was a student at
GW which to your great credit, you didn't finish.
Speaker 7 (02:34):
Which I think is a feather.
Speaker 6 (02:35):
In your feather in your cap And while there you
worked Friday, Saturday, Sunday nights at the tune In. I
was off in there there basically every Sunday night and
some Fridays and Saturdays with some other city Washington City
Paper crew and then later Huffingham Post crew, back before
we had kids. And when you jumped in, I reached
out to Ned, who was another bartender there who had
(02:56):
gone to college with my brother and my brother and
I went to the same school.
Speaker 7 (02:59):
He was a better friend with my brother, but I
know Ned well. I was like, Ned, is this.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
The same Graham? And he's like, Graham is running for senator?
Speaker 4 (03:07):
He sure is.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
I was like, Wow, that's that's amazing. So I hope
I tipped, well, I hope I left a good impression.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
No, I remember, I have nothing but good memories. Ryan,
so excellent.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
I very I have very few memories, but so so
to the to the point of you being the same
guy your whole life. This is something I've seen people asking.
I wanted to get your, uh, your story on it,
which is, so you're you're in high school. I think
when you went and protested Bush's speech in Maine, you
went and protested the in two thousand and two and
(03:41):
the run up to the war in Iraq. You know
in your yearbook you you've got free Palestine, free Cashmere,
free Tibet. You know you're most likely to lead a revolution,
and then you enlist, and so a lot of people
have been like, why did you do that? Like you
you were kind of eyes wide open and way that
other people who enlisted weren't. And so walk us through
(04:06):
your decision to enlist out of was it right out
of high school?
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Yeah? I took a.
Speaker 5 (04:12):
Quick break to go work in the appalation, uh in
the Appalachian Mountains.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
But but yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Mean I I graduated, went into the woods for a while,
and then joined the corps.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
So well, why like, what, what.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
What drew you to that, given that you were already
a little bit skeptical about US adventurism abroad.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
Yeah, I mean it's it's really it's I think it's
it's two things on one. On one hand, there was
the you know, I've all I don't know how to
quite explain this, but I'd always wanted to take part
in something much bigger than myself. I'd always wanted to
take part in in uh In, Yeah, like big things,
Like I do believe in service. I very much believe
(04:54):
in doing what you can for your community. And you know,
the United States military service is just culturally a big
part of that. There was a draw there, But as
you mentioned, I was clearly skeptical of certain bits of
American foreign policy. And the other part of it, though,
is that like I was nineteen and I was looking
(05:16):
for an adventure, and I certainly got one. Tied into
that though, was this idea back then and I've been
mostly disabused of it by now, but this idea that
if you go out there on.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
The cutting edge.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
I joined the infantry, I was a machine gunner in
the Marine Corps. If you're out there where all the
bad things are happening if you're a decent person, if
you can maybe bring a little bit of decency into
an indecent thing. I did believe that when I was
a kid. It is true to an extent, but inside
(05:55):
of a much larger failed policy, failed strategy. You know,
it's obviously there's only so much you can do, and
I had to learn that the hard way. I yeah,
so it's my It's been funny. A lot of people
have asked me about this about my military service, and
it's kind of like how it runs up against kind
(06:15):
of my politics in some ways, and you know, to me,
it never really did. It was all kind of the
same thing. I wanted to go out there and see.
I wanted to see the reality. I didn't want to
read about it. I wanted to know if I was
going to be opinionated about things. I wanted to make
sure that I actually knew what the hell I was
talking about. And sadly, with war, you know, it's hard
(06:38):
to it's hard to just read about it and feel
like you've gotten all of the information.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
And that was one of the things that took me there.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Where were you deployed and what was that experience like
what did you learn through that experience?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Yeah, I mean I joined I joined the Corps in
early two thousand and four, and I deployed within a year.
My first deployment was the outside of Fallujah in two
thousand and five. Did that for seven months, came back
in August of five, immediately began preparing for our deployment
to Ramadi, which we went to I think five or
(07:15):
six months later. Back then, I mean home time was limited.
We were just rolling from deployment to deployment. Went to
Ramadi and six that was incredibly violent, incredibly I would
say complicated.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
It was a hard one.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
After that, we got back a number of us who'd
been around the block at that point all extended our
enlistments so we could go on a third deployment. We
felt a real sense of duty to the younger guys
who had come in and so we stuck around myself
in a number of the other NCOs for our third deployment,
which woud up being a Marine expeditionary unit. So we
wound up primarily bouncing around the Mediterranean and in the
(07:55):
Indian Ocean doing stuff in supportive of OIF, but not
go into a RAQ.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Not that time.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
And then I wound up getting out briefly, frankly, getting
kind of bored. I went to GW for a brief moment,
and all my friends were still deploying. So I re
enlisted and I tried to go back in the Corps,
but I had forearm tattoos, which at the time was
not okay, And so I wound up joining the United
(08:24):
States Army, who did not care about my forum tattoos,
and I became a I went to a long range
surveillance company. I became a reconnaissance team leader, and I
deployed Afghanistan in ten and eleven with the Army.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
So and then many.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Years later, twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, I went back to
Afghanistan as a security contractor. That was that was short lived.
My disillusionment had become quite quite pronounced at that point.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
So do you meet a lot of veterans out on
the campaign trail and like, how have they responded to
you or you know, a your criticism of the genocide
in Gaza and be more generally your criticism of a
reckless American foreign policy.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Yes, and the response is always very positive. I mean,
I look, when you've been out there and you've seen
it for what it is. When you come home and
you see like you know, you see kind of a
system that just kept on rolling along.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
You know.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
People always talk about this kind of bitterness that a
lot of combat vets feel when they come back, and
like society doesn't understand them.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
There's also an element where you come back and you
realize that you got really taken advantage of and all
of your ideals and your beliefs, your willingness to put
yourself out there, to put your life on the line,
to see your friends frankly get sacrificed, and you come
back and you realize that it was all for nothing.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
That's hard. That's an I still struggle with this.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
It's a it's an emotionally complicated situation, and a lot
of guys turned to an immense amount of sorry men
and women. I was in the infantry, so I apologize.
That's that's still a hang up of mine. A lot
of young young men and women who returned, you know,
like that you have to layer on top of all
(10:23):
of the trauma, this deep sense of like none of
it meant anything. And I know a lot of vets
who are conservative and progressive, Republican and Democrat who have
the same critique that I do that it was all
bullshit and it was all meant to make somebody else very,
(10:43):
very wealthy. And when you just say that out loud,
a ton of people understand that that's the truth because
they feel it too. And it's gotten a lot of
I think, positive response because it's just I'm just saying
stuff that everybody kind of knows already. I'm not inventing.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Anything here, Grem How much interest has there been in
your outspoken opposition to the genocide and Gaza.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
Less than I expected, I will say, I mean from
the obvious channels, you know, if that's expected. Susan Collin
said something about it, like on the second you.
Speaker 6 (11:21):
Thought you would get hit harder. You mean, yeah, right,
got it?
Speaker 5 (11:25):
And and I because I mean I was right out
the gate. I mean for me, there's no there's it's
not worth mincing words on this. You're going to have
to talk about it eventually, Like the fact that people
still try to hem and Hahn. This is both I mean,
I think I think it's morally horrific, but I mean,
on the flip side, it also doesn't make any sense
like you can't. You can't hem and haw on it,
(11:46):
and you're going to get asked about it, so you
may as well just rip the band aid off and
and just deal with the reality that we are looking at.
I do firmly believe that even within the last month,
the conversation has changed significantly. And I mean it does
seem that history is in this case, at least when
(12:09):
it comes to public perception, trending a little bit towards justice.
It's gonna be I mean, it's we will never be
forgiven for what we have helped make happen here. I
think people are starting to realize that though.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Graham, why do you think that Susan Collins has been
so uniquely difficult to supplant? You know, everybody thought she
was going to lose lot time, Poles look like she
was going to lose. Her opponent raised tens of millions
of dollars and then nothing. What is it that manors
think they're getting out of her? And do they still
feel that way? Do you think.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
So?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I mean the big question, I mean, the big answer
to this is that things have changed. You know, Susan
Collins has relied on an immense amount of Democrats in
the state of Maining to vote for over the years,
which a lot of Democrats and man were willing to do.
Myself included, I've voted for Collins in the first election
I could ever vote in. And you know, but there
(13:05):
was like this, the moderate the moderate charade. It did
last a long time, but it's gotten now. I mean, nobody,
nobody believes this. Even Republicans don't believe it. I mean,
it's nobody. Nobody thinks she really stands for anything.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
So there is.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Actually, Graham, let me actually to your point. This will
back you up. She recently went to just like a
ribbon cutting kind of thing and got protested and people
were chanting, you know what we need to do is
vote for for you. So you've clearly made quite an
impression on a lot of people in the state in
a short period time. Let's go ahead and play D
one guys.
Speaker 8 (13:41):
So you're so yeah, if you let me ce.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Celebration.
Speaker 9 (14:00):
So could you, Slim, could you please just listen for just.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
You? Your votes destroying are supreme.
Speaker 10 (14:22):
More you have towns, you.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Can't every I have a suggestion. Did you listen to
the suggestion?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Could you grim? Were you surprised at all to see that.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
I mean, I'm not.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
I mean, obviously it's quite the reaction to all of
this has been quite flattering and in many ways very surreal.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
I'm not surprised.
Speaker 5 (14:57):
I mean, Susan Collins has it held a town hall
in I think twenty five years. He is uniquely inaccessible
to her constituents, and so it does not surprise me
that at this point, when her constituents find ways to
access her, they're going to take advantage of it. So no,
I'm not I'm not surprised.
Speaker 7 (15:19):
How's the how's your fundraising?
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Ben?
Speaker 6 (15:21):
Because in Washington, you know, that's that's the thing that
people like the Democratic Extenate Committee, if they're trying to
talk to Janet Mills about whether or not she should run,
are looking at like, have you have you seen an
influx of small donors from around the country or you know,
what's what?
Speaker 7 (15:37):
Can you give us any details?
Speaker 5 (15:40):
So, uh, for the record, I just made to put
this out. I've never done this before. I have no
real benchmarks. Mostly what I say is sounds good is
because somebody who knows what they're talking about told me
this is good. We hit a million dollars today, a
small dollar donations we've taken. No, we're not taking a
(16:03):
Pac money, We're not taking corporate Pac money, We're not
taking super Pac stuff. We launched last Tuesday. So I
mean it's that that that is a pretty it's pretty
solid the we have despite that fact. And I'll just
plug this right now, Grahamfirsenate dot com. If you can
(16:24):
give even a dollar, we can use it. The we
need to raise a lot more, but we've we have
been able to I think tap into a a fundraising
mechanism that I think you know, we saw a few
years ago explode with with Bernie with AOC with a
(16:45):
lot of the kind of small dollar stuff, and it
seems in some recent races it hasn't been able to
be tapped into as much. But there's just an excitement
that I think is born from an angst and an
anger that people really did start to feel like. I
think some people started to give up, not because they're apathetic,
(17:09):
not because they don't believe, not because they're politically disengaged.
I think there was an element of a lot of
people just looked at what's happening and started to feel
like Jesus.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
What can we do.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
And now we're talking about building working class power, we're
talking about building a movement. We're talking about, frankly, doing
what needs to be done, which is rebuilding movement politics
here in the state of Maine, and that is speaking
to people and they are getting in the fight. They're signing.
(17:41):
We have three hundred volunteer sign ups a day, which
is I mean wild death to me. I mean like
it's overwhelming and it's humbling. It's saw very strange for
me and personally because two three weeks ago I was
still very much living a very quiet life. So but
(18:03):
I think on the fundraising front, we've been able to
show that this this mechanism still works and it's still
powerful and we can still do this.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Graham, last question for me. I saw you on CNNZ.
I'm not voting for Chuck Schumer for leader. I suspect
you probably have some critiques of Hakeem Jefferies as well
a Patchikorp as Charlamage is calling him. But you know
where do you think the Democratic Party leadership went astray?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
I mean, I think it's actually pretty simple. The Democratic
Party leadership a long time ago. I'll just I'm gonna
say it's very quick. I don't actually blame many of
these people as like individuals. I think that they have
grown up in a system that showed them a way
to success that was not actually tied to reality. It
(18:52):
was tied to massive amounts of money, and in some
ways I think that because of that, like they they
almost are like emotionally and ideologically incapable of understanding the
moment that they're in. And so I mean, that doesn't
excuse anything. I'm not trying to make excuses for people,
(19:13):
but I do think that there is That's why we
need different leadership. We need leadership that does understand that
we that does understand that when they send out text
messages saying we're in a fight for our democracy, we
actually are. It's not a fundraising message, it's a legitimate
thing that is happening, and we need to be acting.
(19:35):
We need to be acting like the language we are using.
And I think the fact that our leadership has not
done that just shows that we cannot continue with this
kind of.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Leadership in the party.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
And last question for me, your campaign put out a
poll or shared a poll with the media yesterday that
they had done internally that found Janet Mills, who would
be seventy nine when she's sworn in, which would her
the oldest freshman senator in American history, which is amazing
considering how old descentdate is in general, had her neck
and neck with Susan Collins and had you up something
(20:10):
like sixteen points.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Now, Paul's and Maine have been bad in the past.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
Sarah Gideon was expected to win by LA five, so
you got to take all, take them all with the
green of salt. But when you dug into those numbers,
when it came to independence or Republicans, what jumped out
to you.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
What jumped out to me is that, like my theory
is holding true, which is that here are the state
of Maine, we have thirty percent Democrats, thirty percent Republicans,
and thirty percent unenrolled slash independent slash third party. You
need to appeal to those unenrolled and independence. You need
to appeal to those Republicans who voted for Donald Trump
(20:53):
because they wanted big structural change and what they've gotten
is just getting robbed more and they're starting to realize it.
It doesn't surprise me because my theory from the get
go has been that not only can we beat Susan Collins,
but we can crush Susan Collins if we build a
(21:13):
legitimate working class movement that's based around fixing material issues
in people's lives. It's very simple. Down here in the
real world. Pretty much everybody's got the exact same problems,
and they all pretty much blame the same people. We
just need to harness that, we need to tap into it,
and we just need to point all of that energy
in the direction it needs to be pointed, which frankly
(21:35):
is just up. We have not been doing that, and
if we do that, then we're going to win, and
we are gonna win.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, Graham, congrats on a massively successful launch. Please keep
in touch with us. We're certainly going to be following
the campaign. And it's a pleasure to speak with you today.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure, guys. I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (21:58):
And we'll see with the tune in that in the
Washington DC.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
CNN recently had Anna Kasparian of TYT on a panel
wide ranging discussions, but in particular on Israel. She just
absolutely cooked them and there was a moment that really
stood out Sager where she brings up this situation that
we've been covering and we're going to continue to cover. Actually,
in the next block of this Israeli alleged pedophile caught
(22:28):
up in an FBI sting in Las Vegas who was
allowed to post bail and flee the country, who happens
to not just be Henny Old Israeli by the way,
top aid to net Yahoo. She brings this up on
the panel and there's just basically like silence, and then
they changed the subject. Let's take a look at that.
Speaker 10 (22:45):
The problem with Trump, though, is I think crime is
the cover story.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
I think this is a power grab.
Speaker 10 (22:50):
And the reason why I say that is because look
at these specific examples of crime that he allegedly wants
to go after. I mean, just recently, his FBI did
the sting operation in Las Vegas and they managed to
catch through the sting operation, eight separate pedophiles that we're
trying to have sex with miners. Okay, one of those
(23:11):
pedophiles is an Israeli government official who his government allowed
to fly back to Israel after he had been charged
in that sting operation for using technology to lure a
minor for sex. And when it comes to the immigration issue.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
He loves to go after the.
Speaker 10 (23:29):
Undocumented immigrants, but not the employers employing the undocumented.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
That Trump you described it as a cover story, but
I think it's also worth noting.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Oh and then Abby Phillips just picks up on the
immigration point and moves on and Sager, I don't know
how much you've watched the show. I haven't watched it
a lot, but these panels are famous for, like, you know,
they're meant to be kind of a melee the crosstalk
and they're jumping on each other or whatever. I love
how she says this and everyone's just completely silent. Scott
Jennings is just sitting there stonefaced. I'm quite sure it
(24:00):
is the first time it has ever been mentioned on CNS.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Story Brok.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
I know that it is, and in fact, you know,
I mean, you know, when you're in this job. One
of the fun things is is that I talked to
some of these people behind the scenes. They all know
that it's messed up. They want to cover it. In fact,
many of them congratulated me and us on all of
our reporting around the subject, and I was like, thanks,
but you know, when are you.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Going to cover it? I was like, I'm just you know,
a YouTube guy. Silence.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Nothing they know all right, I mean, I don't know
if the order has come from the top or whatever,
but this is very like you said, the very first
mention of it on their air. I believe they it's
clear Jennings and you know what's the guy's named, Kevin
O'Leary and all that they either had heard about it
and they're totally shutting up, or they'd never heard about
it before. Both their indictments. Actually, if you ask me,
(24:46):
same with the overall news panel, and it's one of
those where guys, I mean, this is a genuine story.
It's actually a scandal, the fact that he hasn't been returned.
We'll get to it in a little bit and give
everybody an update. But I thought that broadly, I mean,
look props to her for it going on, because that
is like the only way that their viewers would ever
even be exposed to this type of information. Because one
(25:09):
thing you can say, at the very look the internet.
We've spent done a lot, almost an hour now on
the show about all the problems with that, but one
thing I generally appreciate, at the very least people who
watch the show or others, you're going to get exposed
to a lot of information. You were going to get
exposed to from not just both sides, but like even
in general, if you're on Twitter, Blue Sky, whatever, wherever
you are, like your information diet is such that you
(25:31):
probably had heard about this or you had some sort
of inkling. But that's just so not the case with
the Fox News, the CNN, or the MSNBC viewer.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
And that's why, you know, having people like Annon or at.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Least in this particular case, like that view just never
gets represented. Otherwise you're just going to get these shibble
if you know, mantras and be.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Like, well, what about the hostages? What about the hostages?
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Or you know, Israel is a right to defend itself
and a right to exist, and you're like, bro, what
are we doing here, Like it's not October twenty eighth,
two thousand, twenty three.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah, Well, I love when they have her on. She's
really excellent on these panels. They've had her on a
few times, and she's just so effective in the way
she communicates, and she's clear, she's so fierce when it
comes to Israel and just does not pull any punches
and to your point about you know, the Internet, which
is both you know, incredible promise and incredible peril. I
(26:21):
guess is sort of the theme of this show today. This
story would never have seen the light of day in
a pre online media environment. This is a purely like
internet independent media or like non traditional media. I guess
we'll say story that got picked up on and all
the reporting that has been I shouldn't say, oh, there's
(26:42):
been some local news reporting, but you know, the most
of the reporting has been like you and Village Crazy Lady,
the Twitter account online, you know, and otherwise this would
have been just completely vanished and disappeared instead. It really
is an international scale. I mean, Netanya, who's had to
address it. You've had Trump administration officials who have had
to address it, and CNN there's now enough sort of
(27:07):
there's enough problems with the mainstream press and they can
see their writings decline, and they see the writing on
the wall that they have to they feel like they
have to bring on some figures like Anna onto their
panels just to remain any sort you know, maintain any
sort of relevance and competitive you know, ability in the marketplace.
And so these things start to seep into the conversation
(27:30):
there in a way that they never would have in
a different era. So there's another moment here that I
want to play for you where Anna is going back
and forth with Scott Jennings about the you know, man
made the Israeli imposed famine in the Gaza Strip. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
About this, because this is a talking point that comes
up a lot.
Speaker 10 (27:49):
Not a talking point, it is definitely a talking point.
When you block the Gaza Strip straight, it not only
impacts the palest To news, which I know you can
care less about, but it also obviously is going to
impact the hostages they're going to starve.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
To death as well.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
You're saying Israel is starving the hostages.
Speaker 10 (28:07):
I'm saying yes, when you block three months, where do
you think they're going to get the food from?
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Max? Israel to joke and the Hamas.
Speaker 10 (28:15):
Have been Why axing the West Bank right now? Why
is Israel annexing the West Bank, which of course is
not governed by Hamas at all? Why are Israeli settlers
allowed to just run Palestinians out of their legal homes,
build thousands of illegal settlements West Bank has nothing to
do with Hamas. Why is Israel annexing? Why Why didn't
net Yahoo say that his stated goal in an interview
(28:37):
with I twenty four news and Israeli publication say that
he has a religious need to pursue the greater Israel.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I'm going to let just not answer quickly, and then
we've got to go ahead school that. Scott.
Speaker 11 (28:48):
My view is this, the hostages have been there for
almost seven hundred days. There's a reason that Hamas isn't.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Are you going to answer her question?
Speaker 12 (28:55):
I don't.
Speaker 11 (28:56):
I don't work for the Israeli government. All I really
care about is that the hostages come on home. And
I have no belief that Hamas that took the hostages,
that murdered all these people, are ever going to let
them go unless they're totally ready.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
We accept they have.
Speaker 10 (29:07):
Let them go.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Man Anna just cooked his ass in both those exchanges.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And there's really government. Brother. You got a lot of
connections there though.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
You remember during the Iran War, whenever you were down
there and an Israeli bunker.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
You can ask them if you want to. You got
you know, you got your little pin on. You know
you're in the system. You call them.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Are you sure, Are you sure you're not working for
those Reeli government, because if you're not, then maybe you
should be get collecting a check, because you're certainly doing
the dirty work for them. But again, having heard there,
those are points that very few other CNN guests would
be I'm not going to say none, but very few
would be willing to make. And you know, he just
tries to laugh off this idea. Oh, what you think
(29:46):
Israel starving the hostages? Lool, It's like, of course they are.
Of course, it's been so clear. It's really been clear
from the beginning, but it's been undeniably clear for months
at this point that not Yahu and his government they
don't care at all about the hostages. In fact, the
hostages are a problem for them because you know, when
(30:07):
they come back, and you know, when they are brought
back alive, then they're able to speak about how they
were terrified that they were going to be bombed and
murdered by their own government. So no, they don't give
a shit about the hostages. They know they're starving the hostages.
Of course they are. When you blockade the whole Gaza
strip that includes the hostages that are being held there.
(30:28):
So it's amazing to watch him have to even grapple
with that point, not to mention the point about the
West Bank. It's like, okay, well, if this is all
about Hamas, and I think this is a really important
point that needs to be made more often. If this
is just all about Hamas being bad guys, tell me
about the West Bank. Tell me about why they are
going forward with this aggressive, illegal settlement plan. Tell me
(30:49):
why all of these you know, violent settlers are attacking
and murdering Palestinians in the West Bank with the back
of the IDF, with the backing of the government. Tell
me about that. Tell me how that has anything to
do with Hamas. Because when you put all of those
pieces together, not to mention that the whole greater Israel
(31:10):
and the attacks on all of their surrounding neighbors by
and large, then you start to see the bigger picture
and the broader plan, and you can no longer stick
to your dumb ass talking points about like Hamas and
the hostages, because we are so far beyond that holding
any water. If you actually have the facts at your disposal.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Let's go to the next part here, because I do
want to give everybody an update on Tom Alexandrovitch's case.
Can we go ahead and put this up there please
on the screen. Media was allowed in the courtroom yesterday
where some extraordinary stuff happened. So basically, as I'd said before, yesterday,
Alexandrovitch had a court appearance basically to respond about the
(31:53):
criminal complaint that was just recently filed against him regarding
this case where he effectively got caught in an FBI
joint operation with the local police department where they posed
as a fifteen year old girl online and which he
showed up basically to meet with her with the intent
to have sex with her.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
Basically admitted it.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
He waived his Miranda rights ur in questioning as you
can all see in the arrest reports which I exclusively
reported over here. Well since then, after he fled the
country some twenty days ago after being caught up in
this sting, he has hired the literally the most powerful
lawyer in the state of Nevada, and there was a
showdown between that lawyer and the judge.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
So yesterday his lawyer, David.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Chesnoff quote told the court that on Wednesday, his top client,
he told his client not to attend the meeting. Quote
he was instructed by me that he did not have
to be there. The judge very quickly shuts down. David
Chesnoff says that suspects released on bond have to quote
make every court appearance. I am looking at his bond
(32:55):
documents to indicate court appearance that he was ordered to appear.
Was today request without anything before the court to wave
his appearance today is hereby denied. What eventually came after
some back and forth with the judge is that Alexandrovitch
will be due for a virtual appearance next week in court.
Apparently that's the compromise. But remember all of this is
(33:16):
about the showdown between whether he is ever going to
return to the United States, because one of the things
that Chesnoff actually said is that the state attorney and
him had quote come to some sort of an agreement.
That's what he alluded to from the reporting here in
the story. And the judge was like, I don't care
what kind of agreement you have going on with the state.
(33:38):
I'm the judge overseeing this case. This guy has got
to appear in my courtroom. So that's the only update
that we have so far. But already we're seeing the
signs of some sort basically a corrupt bargain. Okay, most
powerful lawyer in the state of Nevada who donated to
the state's attorney. This is a verifiable fact.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
You can go and look.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
It was actually a scandal in Vegas back in twenty
twenty one. They called it paid to play Justice, where
they had somebody like this, the high, high powered lawyer who,
by the way, went and quote volunteered at a hospital
in Israel actor October seventh, got an award for being
a friend to the Jewish people, you know, a hog
like by his own account in the Las Vegas Review Journal,
(34:20):
which is owned by Miriam Adelson, the most powerful pro
Israel donor in the United States who's written pro Israel
puff pieces about this lawyer. So let's start with that
he's hired by this guy Tom Alexandrovitch. You know, by
the way, I'd love to know who's paying his bills.
And I have sent those questions over to the chestnut's
office and they have not returned any of my calls
(34:41):
or my request for comment. Just so people understand. But
in the courtroom, it's clear that the judge wants Alexandrovitch
to appear. He has now agreed to appear virtually. But
the question around this is about the conditions of release,
because previously the cope from the pro Alexander's side was
he was bailed out, which you are allowed to after
(35:03):
twenty twenty bail reform laws in Nevada, without ever appearing
before judge. That's why there was the open question why
was he allowed to leave? It's like because you can
just post bail and get out of there. Well, what's
now clear is with the filing of the criminal complaint
and now having to appear before the judge, this is
when the type of restrictions that could typically be imposed
on an individual for potentially leaving the country, that is when.
(35:27):
But the complicating factor is he's not here in the
United States of America. He's in Israel, and so it
very out much opens a question as to whether the
state's attorney and the lawyer have reached some sort of
agreement and plea, which will very likely, in my opinion,
lead to probation. The reason why I'm saying that is
that an interview that the state attorney actually gave to
(35:50):
the Las Vegas Reviewed Journal, he floated that yes, well,
technically is punishable by one to ten years in prison.
Probation is also an option, and he said something like, well,
I don't really know anything about extradition. I presume that
we have extradition treaties. So I dug into that the
extradition treaty that we have with Israel is one of
the most insane things I've ever seen. Prior to nineteen
(36:12):
ninety nine, they just didn't They did not extradite anybody anybody.
What happened is that a seventeen year old murdered another
kid actually nearby from here in Maryland. His father was Israeli.
They flew to Israel. They fled to Israel. This guy
butchered this other person. The Israelis, because they wouldn't extradite him,
(36:34):
came up with some novel solution after crazy diplomatic pressure
from the Clinton administration, where they would try him for
the crime and he would serve out a sentence there.
But after that they were like, look, this is done.
We have to have something done and dusted. In the
interim period, there's been a number of cases where high
profile pedophiles here in the United States flee to Israel.
And because they're Jewish, they can claim the right of
return in Israeli citizenship and they can fight extradition in
(36:57):
Israeli court.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Chrystal.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
The most recent example I've found of a prolific pedophile
charged here in America was it took eleven years to
go through the Israeli justice system before he was returned
to the United States to face trial. Eleven years. Even
that sham extradition treaty that we have with Israel basically
gives defendants in Israel the right to drag this out
(37:21):
out in Israeli court for as long as humanly possible.
And that's in the case of somebody who was an
American citizen. In this case, we have somebody who is
an Israeli government official. So it is a major question
where without massive diplomatic pressure from the United States, I
don't think we will ever see.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
This guy again on u It's territory.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
That's my own personal speculation, but all of the facts
currently indicate that with the sham extradition treaty that we
have with Israel, it's effectively not one.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
It basically it might as well not exist.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
Because eleven years of dragging through justice, especially in a
case like this one to ten, what's a prosecutor to say,
is it really worth the millions of dollars, you know,
to try and fight all his case or should we
just give him a slap on the risk in probation
that's most likely, you know, affected what's going to happen,
And what everyone needs to pay attention to is let's
compare his sentence or his eventual outcome to what happens
(38:12):
to the seven other individuals who were all caught up
in this.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
One of them was a pastor by the way, Just so.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
Yeah, we're disgusting, absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
I mean, there's not even words for that.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
But the point just broadly about the justice is that
all of those people had criminal complaints filed against them
almost immediately after the case was made public. Alexandrovitch's criminal
complaint was not fired up until a couple of days ago,
almost a week long delay. There's still a major I
haven't gotten my hands on that yet. It's still inside
(38:42):
of the court. If anybody has access to it, please
send it to me. But my point just broadly is
that the special treatment that this guy has gotten already
is crazy. Fled to Israel now his lawyer is saying, well,
I told him and he didn't have to show up.
You know, I've got some deal with the state's attorney.
So everything here stinks. It's thinks to high having it
and you know, all of the just the fact that
(39:03):
he's gone, it almost ties the hands of our justice
system at this point.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Yeah. Well, and it's crazy too because in those you know,
interview notes that you were able to obtain, he's in
there like I got to catch my flight. It's not
that he hit it. He's like, I've got a flight.
I'm going to get out of here in just a
few days. And still he's allowed to allowed to leave.
I think, last note on this and then I know, soccer,
you've got a run, so we'll let you go. We
have another piece on Epstein that we'll kick to the
(39:28):
Friday show that's also very interesting. They released a bunch
of emails between him and a former Israeli Prime minister,
Aho Brocks. So you definitely want to you definitely want
to be there Friday to take a listen to that.
But just as a reminder to everyone, when this all unfolded,
Netanyahu and his government just utterly and completely lied, like
(39:49):
provably lied about it. Now they were like, oh, there
was some issue, and then he returned. They did not
admit that he was arrested. They certainly didn't admit that
this was in the context of an FBI sting to
catch pedophiles who are pursuing, you know what they thought
to be young girls for sex online. So just one
(40:11):
more indication of how they will lie about absolutely anything,
even when they know that the information is going to
come out and going to be made public. So to me,
that's also just an extraordinary piece of this and this
guy's position in Israel. He's in charge of like cybersecurity
kind of stuff, and he's out there serving the Internet
allegedly for young girls to exploit.
Speaker 3 (40:33):
He created their cyber iron dome. He is the head
that was this head of the cyber division. I mean
remember in the notes I released, he was like, Hey,
by the way, I'm meeting with the NSA tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (40:46):
You know.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
He was like, I was like, oh, okay, got it,
I'm here for a black cat hacking conference.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
The information that he likely has access to on can
you imagine the number of people probably you at this point, Soger,
I mean, you know that's part of what makes the story.
I think that's the other reason why mainstream media has
no interest in touching this one.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Hey Tom, bring it on, brother, all right, okay, right,
I don't know. I mean, at a certain point, it's
like people need to stand up and to speak out.
It's the worst type of crime that you can commit
in my opinion. And yeah, I mean the fact that
he's currently he's on the glide path to slap on
the wrist and everybody in Nevada just wants this case
(41:34):
to go away.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Props to the judge at.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
The very least for saying no, no, no, no, no, that's
not how this works over here. So you know, who
knows she has to get reelected, wouldn't want to be
wouldn't want to be her because I'm sure some anonymous
donation is going to come in for some election that
like six hundred people vote in and miraculously, you know something,
a nice big check will hit for the opponent. But
that's the way that our system works. All right, we
(41:56):
got Jeffrey Stack standing by. Let's get to it. Thanks, guys.
I'm sorry that you know, things are a bit disjoined today.
Just I said, personal matter came up. I got to
head out a little bit early, but thank you Crystal
as well for holding down the ford.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
Yeah, of course, And guys, we are going to take
Labor Day off, so we'll be back soccer and I'd
be back on Tuesday. And with that we'll get to
Jeffrey Sachs to talk about the very latest with regard
to Israel and Gaza. We are very fortunate to be
joined this morning by economists and professor at Clemia University,
Jeffrey Sachs. Great to have you again, sir, Thank you,
(42:28):
wonderful to be with you, of course. So let's go on,
guys and put this first element up on the screen. Screen.
Axios got this scoop that apparently now we've got Tony
Blair and Jared Kushner involved in some sort of Trump
Gaza quote unquote post war plans. There is a meeting
(42:48):
which is set to occur with regard to this as well.
What did you make of this?
Speaker 12 (42:53):
Well, who knows what to make of anything? When Blair,
Kushner and Trump get together, that is really a holy alliance.
But this is not the way to any solution right now.
The way to a solution lies in immediately ending the
(43:15):
genocide that's underway, the mass starvation that's underway, which the
US again denied yesterday in the UN Security Council, which
Israel has denied, but which the whole world sees before
our eyes, that at least half a million people are
being starved to death right now before our eyes. And
(43:39):
so this has nothing to do with Kushner and Blair.
This has to do with the ending a genocide. It
has to do with the creating a state of Palestine immediately,
and it has to do with this absolutely fascist government
in Israel being stopped by the United Nations.
Speaker 6 (44:04):
As somebody who follows Global South politics pretty closely, including
you know, Russia and China, India as well, India's separate
case here, When is the world going to do anything
about what's happening in Gaza? I think the UN obviously
(44:26):
has the United States sitting on the Security Council and
will veto it, but it feels like there's been very
little pressure brought to bear from the Global South. And
South Africa obviously took Israel to the ICC and was joined,
you know, at some significant risk by a number of
(44:47):
other countries from.
Speaker 7 (44:47):
The Global South. But that's about it.
Speaker 6 (44:50):
Like is there no countervailing force that exists on a
kind of just moral and ethical level willing to push
back against this genocide? And other where is it If
the Chinese and the Russians don't see it in their
specific national interests, are they okay to just sit back
and allow a genocide to unfold? Is that the realist
(45:12):
politics that we live in. Am I too naive to
expect that. I'm like, there's got to be somebody who's
going to do something about this, but there isn't.
Speaker 7 (45:21):
Like what if I can from.
Speaker 4 (45:23):
I think that there are.
Speaker 12 (45:26):
Probably three arenas that we should consider. First is the
battlefield itself, where Israel is mass murdering the Palestinian people.
I don't expect any of the regional powers to land
troops or to be in a direct war over this issue.
(45:50):
So I don't expect Russia or China or any of
the Arab countries to land troops and open a war
with Israel. The second area is on the diplomatic front.
Every single day there is a worldwide condemnation of Israel,
(46:11):
some of which gets reported in the US, most of
which does not. The Security Council meeting yesterday was an
overwhelming condemnation of Israel's genocide and starvation, but it doesn't
get even mentioned. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation had a
meeting in Jedda on August twenty fifth condemning this. That's
(46:36):
fifty seven Muslim majority countries. The Bricks condemned this routinely. China, Russia, Brazil,
India condemned this routinely. It doesn't get picked up, so
they don't intervene on the battlefield. But they are not
(46:56):
sitting back or complacent or winking at Israel, but they
don't do more, let's say, than condemnation. The third would
be an increasing set of measures that I think should
be taken. I think Israel is courting suspension from the
(47:19):
UN General Assembly. I would recommend it because I believe
that this is a completely lawless, murderous, genocidal regime. I
don't think there's any other country in the world remotely
doing what Israel is doing in terms of the violence
and the mass murder and the mass starvation. So there
(47:40):
could be Israel suspension from the UN.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
This was.
Speaker 12 (47:46):
At least raised at the OIC meeting. There could be
a break of diplomatic relations, which I think should be
in the cards, there could be a suspension or end
of the so called Abraham Accords. Remember, of course, I
think everyone knows the US military is all over the
(48:07):
Middle East. In a way, the Middle Eastern countries often
feel more like occupied countries than they do with sovereigns.
They worry that if they are too vocal, the United
States will do something overthrow their regimes, fo men to unrest,
do the things that the United States covert operations do
(48:29):
for a living. So I think that there is some
trepidation there. But the fact of the matter is both
the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and
most other groups in the world, and I would say
the UN General Assembly more than one hundred and eighty
of the one hundred and ninety three countries are openly aghassed.
(48:52):
But I think stronger measures are needed right now. And
these are measures that might be blocked if it's through
the UN, but could be taken by dozens or well
over one hundred countries on their own, breaking diplomatic relations,
putting on boycotts and sanctions. Israel is completely out of control.
(49:14):
Mass starvation is not an acceptable policy for the world.
It should not be tolerated one moment longer.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
And what do you make of the American politics. There's
just a poll that came out yesterday. I want to
have an element for a but, and I don't know
if you saw it or not, but seventy seven percent
of Democratic voters say this is a genocide, you know,
I mean, it's an overwhelming consensus among the Democratic base,
and yet you only have a handful of Democrats who
are willing to say it. The leadership of the Democratic
Party had Kee Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer and the like
(49:47):
are still very much, you know, anything for Israel and
whatever APAC wants us to do. And look, I don't
expect these people to be moral actors, but you would
think at some point there would be a political calculation,
like a cynical politic calculation that occurs. And it's genuinely
perplexing to me at this point that that hasn't happened. Obviously,
(50:07):
understand you the money of APAC and their affiliates Democratic
majority for Israel, et cetera, But it still doesn't seem
like that would be sufficient to keep them from seizing
what is a genuine, wide open, obvious political imperative and
political opening in the landscape. What is your assessment of
what keeps these politicians so tied to the status quo
(50:31):
with regard to, you know, Israel and their commitment to
allowing Israel and facilitating Israel's commitment to this genocide.
Speaker 12 (50:39):
This is an excellent and very important question, and it
starts with the fact that in foreign policy, public opinion
plays almost no role in the United States in general.
That's true across wars, that's true across almost all of
the issues that we have.
Speaker 4 (51:00):
A foreign policy.
Speaker 12 (51:02):
This is an executive branch, largely covert. It's very heavily
CIA and national security driven rather than any publicly driven
decision making.
Speaker 4 (51:20):
Congress is pretty.
Speaker 12 (51:21):
Much useless across the board in foreign policy and has
been for a long time. Of course, the Congress is
suborned by the military industrial complex to begin with, by
the military contractors. And then there are the specific issues
(51:41):
of Israel, so you mentioned, of course the biggest one,
which is the Zionist lobby Apak and others. There's just
a tremendous amount buying of votes and corruption and threats
against individual congressman. I'm sure that the Epstein files play
(52:05):
some role in this Epstein was a Masad agent, and
there's no doubt that there's blackmail involved in this in
some way or another that we don't fully know. The
CIA Mosad relationship dates back many, many decades. Mosad does
(52:27):
murders on behalf of the CIA. They deeply share intelligence.
The CIA is the single most powerful agent of our
foreign policy. And so this is not only the Israel
lobby because after all, by the way, the Jewish community
is profoundly unhappy with what's happening. Of course, there are
(52:49):
Jews that support Israel, but there's a vast community of
Jews that is completely aghast and disgusted and also reviled
at what Israel is doing. Because Israel claims to do
it in the name of world jewelry, that is an obscenity.
(53:12):
I would say, Israel is doing it in the face
of opposition of world Jewelry. So this is another element
the CIA Mossad lincolns that go quite strongly. They are
very powerful in Silicon Valley right now. Palanteer is the
(53:34):
AI murder inc Company of the world. It does the targeting.
We know that Microsoft and many other companies are deeply
involved with Israel. There's a lot of money in all
of this. The Israeli stock market has been up during
this war, so there's a lot of corruption, blackmail, campaign finance,
(53:58):
a deep STATEI Mosad relations. But I have to tell you,
saying all of that, it's still shocking. It's still shocking
because we don't have genocides before our eyes this way,
all recorded, day by day, all with the thank you
of the Israeli ministers Smotrich and Ben Gavier, every day
(54:23):
explaining that it's the genocide, making no bones about it,
being very explicit about it.
Speaker 4 (54:29):
So your question.
Speaker 12 (54:31):
Hangs there even after all of the explanations. It is
a puzzle. How corrupt can America be? We're plumbing new
depths basically.
Speaker 7 (54:43):
Jerlie, while we have you, I wanted to.
Speaker 6 (54:46):
Ask you about the newest piece from you that I
read that may not be the most recent piece that
you wrote, but called a new foreign policy for Europe
in the Horizons magazine, taking a look at the historical
relationship between Europe and Russia and envisioning a new kind
of path out that doesn't involve Europe constantly invading Russia,
and then at the same time having this fear that
(55:10):
Russia's going to invade them. Can you talk a little
bit about what do you lay out this vision that
you presented here and what's been the reaction to it?
Speaker 12 (55:20):
Basically Russia for more than two hundred years, going back
to Napoleon, certainly including Hitler, including the remilitarization of Germany
by the United States after World War Two, in the
years immediately following Nazism, and by the way, bringing a
lot of Nazis to leadership of West Germany, including the
(55:44):
new intelligence agencies led by the chief Nazi intelligence official
for Hitler for Eastern Europe Galen.
Speaker 4 (55:53):
The Russian said, what are you doing? You know again, we.
Speaker 12 (55:57):
Just lost twenty seven million people. The Western idea going
back absolutely to Napoleon in his invasion in eighteen twelve,
going to Palmerston and Napoleon three and there invasion of
Russia in eighteen fifty three, going to Germany's attack and
(56:24):
war on Russia in August nineteen fourteen, going to Hitler's
invasion in nineteen forty one, and then going to the
creation of this military machine of Germany.
Speaker 4 (56:38):
After World War Two.
Speaker 12 (56:40):
There's never been an honest moment of discussion about what
a real security arrangement in Europe would be that respects
Russia's security as well as Europe's Western europe security. Russia
is to an important extent Europe, but I'm talking about
the non Russian western part of Europe, and that's what
(57:02):
has been needed all along. But the United States has refused.
The British, which ran the world up until basically World
War Two, were completely Rusophobic from the eighteen forties onward,
and then the United States took over in nineteen forty five,
and our goal from nineteen forty five onward was first
(57:27):
to defeat the Soviet Union. And then I watched with
my own eyes in shock by the way, after nineteen
ninety one that our goal continued to be even after
the Soviet Union was over, Communism was over, and so
forth our goal continued to be, now we defeat and
divide Russia.
Speaker 4 (57:45):
Well.
Speaker 12 (57:46):
Eventually, after so much provocation, with the US being the
major impetus to a coup in Ukraine and twenty fourteen expanding,
NATO dissing a peace agreement called the MINS two Agreement
(58:06):
in twenty fifteen and so forth, eventually it came to
full scale war. And then when it did in February
twenty two, after maybe you could say one hundred and
eighty years of provocation, or maybe you could just say
thirty years of provocation, or maybe you could say eight
years of provocation from the Maidan Kup. Then we said,
you see Russia unprovoked expansionism. It's unbelievable how primitive this
(58:32):
discussion is. I once counted between February twenty twenty two
and February twenty twenty three, I had an assistant count
the number of times that the New York Times used
the word unprovoked to characterize the Ukraine War. And it
was twenty six times that we were able to count
(58:55):
that in the opinion pages of the New York Times.
So basically, there's a propaganda war. Now Europe is so
devoid of sense and diplomacy. Trump, this is not exactly,
mister diplomat. There's just confusion, and the war will continue
(59:19):
until the confusion is sorted out. So what I've been
saying to the Europeans who don't like my saying it,
but I'm going to keep saying it, is they need
diplomacy with Russia, not through the White House. They don't
have to meet Zelensky, who rules by martial law. In
a complete contradiction to the real interests of Ukraine and
(59:44):
to the public opinion in Ukraine, which wants this war
to end because they're suffering in Ukraine. The Europeans meet
with Zelenski a thousand times, but they don't meet with
Putin once, and this is what passed in this pathetic
way for foreign policy right now, So my article is
(01:00:07):
do something different. Talk directly with your counterparts. Understand that
there are real security issues that need to be solved.
One other thing I might add, which is almost never
mentioned but absolutely at the top of mind for Russia
for more than twenty years, is that in two thousand
(01:00:27):
and two, the United States unilaterally abandoned the Anti Ballistic
Missile Treaty. From Russia's point of view, that was a
threat of a decapitation strike by the United States, because
the idea of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty was to
prevent a decapitation strike by making it plain that there
(01:00:48):
would be a credible deterrent a second strike. But with
the anti ballistic missiles, a decapitation strike becomes a possibility.
So the russ said, after two thousand and two, you
have completely destabilized the nuclear Arms Control Framework. It's in
that context that the United States was pushing missile systems
(01:01:13):
in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These agias
anti ballistic missile systems overthrew the government in Ukraine, built
a one million person man army in Ukraine under Trump,
by the way, he calls himself the man a piece.
He armed Ukraine in the first term to a million
(01:01:36):
man army, the biggest army in Europe. And then in
twenty nineteen, Trump walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty,
basically destroying the nuclear arms control framework while also pushing
missile systems and US military bases up to Russia. Knows
(01:02:01):
this is why we're in such a dangerous, unstable mode,
and there's such lack of clarity and honesty for one
moment in any of this. Trump, by the way, one
of many many weaknesses, but one of his great weaknesses
is the confusion of speaking truthfully to the American people
(01:02:24):
in a speech, for example, which he never gives, versus
a truth social post with eight exclamation points in capital letters,
which is not the same thing as trying to explain
what is happening and how we get out of this
he probably doesn't have the capacity to do what needs
(01:02:46):
to be done just at an individual level. But we
lack any clear understanding, and that's why there is so
much instability, and Washington is is completely incoherent because there
is no clarity of policy from one moment to the next.
Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
Professor, last question for me. Let's say, you know, going
back to Israel and Gaza. Let's say the world does
nothing and this final solution is allowed to just unfold.
What does that mean for the future of the world.
Speaker 12 (01:03:28):
The world is in the most dangerous state since the
end of World War Two, and the doomsday clock, which
portrays how close we are to armageddon, puts the clock
at eighty nine seconds to midnight, the closest that it's
been since the clock was unveiled in nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
We have no rules of the road.
Speaker 12 (01:03:55):
Right now, we have no clarity, we have no consistency
of policy, and Western values has been exposed to mean
open genocide. So I would say that we're in an
extraordinarily dangerous world. And Trump, who in his delusion calls
(01:04:19):
himself a president of peace, is complicit in an open
genocide that the world sees. And I travel all over
the world all the time. Everybody knows. Everybody knows what's
happening right now, and this is a tremendous, tremendous risk
(01:04:43):
to global security and to any place of the United
States in the international system which is being squandered. I
think it's also a fundamental risk to Israel's survival. Israel
banks in higherly on the United States for its survival
(01:05:03):
because virtually every other country in the world is a
gas at the crimes that Israel is committing, and because
as you pointed out, the American people are also aghast.
It's a pretty pretty slender and fragile thing to depend
on the United States when public opinion is against you
(01:05:27):
as your sole source for survival. So I think Israel
has put itself at absolutely mortal risk. Of course, it's
mass murdering the Palestinian So I'm not expressing that in sympathy.
I'm just stating a fact that this is wildly against
Israel's security interests.
Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Well, Professor Sachs, is always a privilege to get to
speak with you. Thank you so much for spending some
time with us.
Speaker 4 (01:05:51):
A pleasure to be with you. Likewise, thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
All right, guys, thank you so much for watching today, Ryan,
thank you for jumping in last minute, hanging out out
with me for a few of these blocks.
Speaker 7 (01:06:01):
Yeah, my pleasure. Always happy to hop on for a
soccer crisis moment.
Speaker 6 (01:06:06):
Did you say anything crazy that we need to that
we need to clean up by the way, need to.
Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
Talk me to talk shit about while he's not here.
I don't think so. I think we kept it on
the rails more or less for today. Hope you got tomorrow, Yeah, exactly,
Friday Share tomorrow, and then long weekend. We are going
to take Monday off, so everybody enjoyed that, and then
Soger and I will be back here Tuesday. Everybody have
(01:06:32):
a great day and we'll see you soon.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
We are very excited to be joined this morning by
Graham Platner. He is a Democratic Senate candidate in the
state of Maine, challenging ultimately if he gets through the primary,
Susan Collins, who obviously been there for quite a while.
In addition, he is a veteran, and he is an oysterman,
and he joins us this morning. Great to meet you, Graham.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Oh, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, of course, So let's start with what made you
jump in the race.
Speaker 5 (00:58):
I mean, at his core, I really love the state
of Maine. I was born and raised here. I got
to come after here or come come home here after
my time overseas. We've got a really unique way of
life up here. I think there's a lot of kind
of hard scrabble making it work. Most people I know
have two or three jobs, lots of seasonal work, lots
(01:20):
of non traditional stuff like clamming, oyster farming, lobster fishing,
and yeah, it's just a it's a really unique place.
And it's allowed me to feel very grounded and connected
and and I love it. And right now it feels
like a lot of the the underlying structures that allowed
(01:41):
us to live the way that we do up here
are really beginning to fall apart, and us Senate race
is pretty much the uh, this is the place. This
is the way to get in the fight if I
want to really be able to fight for this place.
Speaker 6 (01:54):
Yeah, and people who've been talking to the media, who've
known you for a long time have been saying they
you've been the same Graham, you know, basically your whole life.
But now you're taking that to the kind of Senate
race level. And so I want to ask about that,
but I want to preface it with a crazy story
which the audience should know. You would be maybe the
(02:15):
second bartender serving in Congress, but you would be the
first one that I knew when he was a bartender.
So Graham, for people who don't know, Graham, bartender at
the tune In, which is a bar on Pennsylvania Avenue
near the Capitol, went while he was a student at
GW which to your great credit, you didn't finish.
Speaker 7 (02:34):
Which I think is a feather.
Speaker 6 (02:35):
In your feather in your cap And while there you
worked Friday, Saturday, Sunday nights at the tune In. I
was off in there there basically every Sunday night and
some Fridays and Saturdays with some other city Washington City
Paper crew and then later Huffingham Post crew, back before
we had kids. And when you jumped in, I reached
out to Ned, who was another bartender there who had
(02:56):
gone to college with my brother and my brother and
I went to the same school.
Speaker 7 (02:59):
He was a better friend with my brother, but I
know Ned well. I was like, Ned, is this.
Speaker 6 (03:03):
The same Graham? And he's like, Graham is running for senator?
Speaker 4 (03:07):
He sure is.
Speaker 6 (03:10):
I was like, Wow, that's that's amazing. So I hope
I tipped, well, I hope I left a good impression.
Speaker 4 (03:16):
No, I remember, I have nothing but good memories. Ryan,
so excellent.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
I very I have very few memories, but so so
to the to the point of you being the same
guy your whole life. This is something I've seen people asking.
I wanted to get your, uh, your story on it,
which is, so you're you're in high school. I think
when you went and protested Bush's speech in Maine, you
went and protested the in two thousand and two and
(03:41):
the run up to the war in Iraq. You know
in your yearbook you you've got free Palestine, free Cashmere,
free Tibet. You know you're most likely to lead a revolution,
and then you enlist, and so a lot of people
have been like, why did you do that? Like you
you were kind of eyes wide open and way that
other people who enlisted weren't. And so walk us through
(04:06):
your decision to enlist out of was it right out
of high school?
Speaker 4 (04:11):
Yeah? I took a.
Speaker 5 (04:12):
Quick break to go work in the appalation, uh in
the Appalachian Mountains.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
But but yeah, I.
Speaker 5 (04:17):
Mean I I graduated, went into the woods for a while,
and then joined the corps.
Speaker 7 (04:21):
So well, why like, what, what.
Speaker 6 (04:25):
What drew you to that, given that you were already
a little bit skeptical about US adventurism abroad.
Speaker 5 (04:32):
Yeah, I mean it's it's really it's I think it's
it's two things on one. On one hand, there was
the you know, I've all I don't know how to
quite explain this, but I'd always wanted to take part
in something much bigger than myself. I'd always wanted to
take part in in uh In, Yeah, like big things,
Like I do believe in service. I very much believe
(04:54):
in doing what you can for your community. And you know,
the United States military service is just culturally a big
part of that. There was a draw there, But as
you mentioned, I was clearly skeptical of certain bits of
American foreign policy. And the other part of it, though,
is that like I was nineteen and I was looking
(05:16):
for an adventure, and I certainly got one. Tied into
that though, was this idea back then and I've been
mostly disabused of it by now, but this idea that
if you go out there on.
Speaker 4 (05:29):
The cutting edge.
Speaker 5 (05:30):
I joined the infantry, I was a machine gunner in
the Marine Corps. If you're out there where all the
bad things are happening if you're a decent person, if
you can maybe bring a little bit of decency into
an indecent thing. I did believe that when I was
a kid. It is true to an extent, but inside
(05:55):
of a much larger failed policy, failed strategy. You know,
it's obviously there's only so much you can do, and
I had to learn that the hard way. I yeah,
so it's my It's been funny. A lot of people
have asked me about this about my military service, and
it's kind of like how it runs up against kind
(06:15):
of my politics in some ways, and you know, to me,
it never really did. It was all kind of the
same thing. I wanted to go out there and see.
I wanted to see the reality. I didn't want to
read about it. I wanted to know if I was
going to be opinionated about things. I wanted to make
sure that I actually knew what the hell I was
talking about. And sadly, with war, you know, it's hard
(06:38):
to it's hard to just read about it and feel
like you've gotten all of the information.
Speaker 4 (06:44):
And that was one of the things that took me there.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
Where were you deployed and what was that experience like
what did you learn through that experience?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
Yeah, I mean I joined I joined the Corps in
early two thousand and four, and I deployed within a year.
My first deployment was the outside of Fallujah in two
thousand and five. Did that for seven months, came back
in August of five, immediately began preparing for our deployment
to Ramadi, which we went to I think five or
(07:15):
six months later. Back then, I mean home time was limited.
We were just rolling from deployment to deployment. Went to
Ramadi and six that was incredibly violent, incredibly I would
say complicated.
Speaker 4 (07:29):
It was a hard one.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
After that, we got back a number of us who'd
been around the block at that point all extended our
enlistments so we could go on a third deployment. We
felt a real sense of duty to the younger guys
who had come in and so we stuck around myself
in a number of the other NCOs for our third deployment,
which woud up being a Marine expeditionary unit. So we
wound up primarily bouncing around the Mediterranean and in the
(07:55):
Indian Ocean doing stuff in supportive of OIF, but not
go into a RAQ.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Not that time.
Speaker 5 (08:03):
And then I wound up getting out briefly, frankly, getting
kind of bored. I went to GW for a brief moment,
and all my friends were still deploying. So I re
enlisted and I tried to go back in the Corps,
but I had forearm tattoos, which at the time was
not okay, And so I wound up joining the United
(08:24):
States Army, who did not care about my forum tattoos,
and I became a I went to a long range
surveillance company. I became a reconnaissance team leader, and I
deployed Afghanistan in ten and eleven with the Army.
Speaker 4 (08:36):
So and then many.
Speaker 5 (08:38):
Years later, twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, I went back to
Afghanistan as a security contractor. That was that was short lived.
My disillusionment had become quite quite pronounced at that point.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
So do you meet a lot of veterans out on
the campaign trail and like, how have they responded to
you or you know, a your criticism of the genocide
in Gaza and be more generally your criticism of a
reckless American foreign policy.
Speaker 5 (09:11):
Yes, and the response is always very positive. I mean,
I look, when you've been out there and you've seen
it for what it is. When you come home and
you see like you know, you see kind of a
system that just kept on rolling along.
Speaker 4 (09:28):
You know.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
People always talk about this kind of bitterness that a
lot of combat vets feel when they come back, and
like society doesn't understand them.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
That's true.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
There's also an element where you come back and you
realize that you got really taken advantage of and all
of your ideals and your beliefs, your willingness to put
yourself out there, to put your life on the line,
to see your friends frankly get sacrificed, and you come
back and you realize that it was all for nothing.
Speaker 4 (09:59):
That's hard. That's an I still struggle with this.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
It's a it's an emotionally complicated situation, and a lot
of guys turned to an immense amount of sorry men
and women. I was in the infantry, so I apologize.
That's that's still a hang up of mine. A lot
of young young men and women who returned, you know,
like that you have to layer on top of all
(10:23):
of the trauma, this deep sense of like none of
it meant anything. And I know a lot of vets
who are conservative and progressive, Republican and Democrat who have
the same critique that I do that it was all
bullshit and it was all meant to make somebody else very,
(10:43):
very wealthy. And when you just say that out loud,
a ton of people understand that that's the truth because
they feel it too. And it's gotten a lot of
I think, positive response because it's just I'm just saying
stuff that everybody kind of knows already. I'm not inventing.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Anything here, Grem How much interest has there been in
your outspoken opposition to the genocide and Gaza.
Speaker 5 (11:12):
Less than I expected, I will say, I mean from
the obvious channels, you know, if that's expected. Susan Collin
said something about it, like on the second you.
Speaker 6 (11:21):
Thought you would get hit harder. You mean, yeah, right,
got it?
Speaker 5 (11:25):
And and I because I mean I was right out
the gate. I mean for me, there's no there's it's
not worth mincing words on this. You're going to have
to talk about it eventually, Like the fact that people
still try to hem and Hahn. This is both I mean,
I think I think it's morally horrific, but I mean,
on the flip side, it also doesn't make any sense
like you can't. You can't hem and haw on it,
(11:46):
and you're going to get asked about it, so you
may as well just rip the band aid off and
and just deal with the reality that we are looking at.
I do firmly believe that even within the last month,
the conversation has changed significantly. And I mean it does
seem that history is in this case, at least when
(12:09):
it comes to public perception, trending a little bit towards justice.
It's gonna be I mean, it's we will never be
forgiven for what we have helped make happen here. I
think people are starting to realize that though.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Graham, why do you think that Susan Collins has been
so uniquely difficult to supplant? You know, everybody thought she
was going to lose lot time, Poles look like she
was going to lose. Her opponent raised tens of millions
of dollars and then nothing. What is it that manors
think they're getting out of her? And do they still
feel that way? Do you think.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
So?
Speaker 5 (12:44):
I mean the big question, I mean, the big answer
to this is that things have changed. You know, Susan
Collins has relied on an immense amount of Democrats in
the state of Maining to vote for over the years,
which a lot of Democrats and man were willing to do.
Myself included, I've voted for Collins in the first election
I could ever vote in. And you know, but there
(13:05):
was like this, the moderate the moderate charade. It did
last a long time, but it's gotten now. I mean, nobody,
nobody believes this. Even Republicans don't believe it. I mean,
it's nobody. Nobody thinks she really stands for anything.
Speaker 4 (13:20):
So there is.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Actually, Graham, let me actually to your point. This will
back you up. She recently went to just like a
ribbon cutting kind of thing and got protested and people
were chanting, you know what we need to do is
vote for for you. So you've clearly made quite an
impression on a lot of people in the state in
a short period time. Let's go ahead and play D
one guys.
Speaker 8 (13:41):
So you're so yeah, if you let me ce.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Celebration.
Speaker 9 (14:00):
So could you, Slim, could you please just listen for just.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
You? Your votes destroying are supreme.
Speaker 10 (14:22):
More you have towns, you.
Speaker 8 (14:32):
Can't every I have a suggestion. Did you listen to
the suggestion?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Could you grim? Were you surprised at all to see that.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
I mean, I'm not.
Speaker 5 (14:49):
I mean, obviously it's quite the reaction to all of
this has been quite flattering and in many ways very surreal.
Speaker 4 (14:57):
I'm not surprised.
Speaker 5 (14:57):
I mean, Susan Collins has it held a town hall
in I think twenty five years. He is uniquely inaccessible
to her constituents, and so it does not surprise me
that at this point, when her constituents find ways to
access her, they're going to take advantage of it. So no,
I'm not I'm not surprised.
Speaker 7 (15:19):
How's the how's your fundraising?
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Ben?
Speaker 6 (15:21):
Because in Washington, you know, that's that's the thing that
people like the Democratic Extenate Committee, if they're trying to
talk to Janet Mills about whether or not she should run,
are looking at like, have you have you seen an
influx of small donors from around the country or you know,
what's what?
Speaker 7 (15:37):
Can you give us any details?
Speaker 5 (15:40):
So, uh, for the record, I just made to put
this out. I've never done this before. I have no
real benchmarks. Mostly what I say is sounds good is
because somebody who knows what they're talking about told me
this is good. We hit a million dollars today, a
small dollar donations we've taken. No, we're not taking a
(16:03):
Pac money, We're not taking corporate Pac money, We're not
taking super Pac stuff. We launched last Tuesday. So I
mean it's that that that is a pretty it's pretty
solid the we have despite that fact. And I'll just
plug this right now, Grahamfirsenate dot com. If you can
(16:24):
give even a dollar, we can use it. The we
need to raise a lot more, but we've we have
been able to I think tap into a a fundraising
mechanism that I think you know, we saw a few
years ago explode with with Bernie with AOC with a
(16:45):
lot of the kind of small dollar stuff, and it
seems in some recent races it hasn't been able to
be tapped into as much. But there's just an excitement
that I think is born from an angst and an
anger that people really did start to feel like. I
think some people started to give up, not because they're apathetic,
(17:09):
not because they don't believe, not because they're politically disengaged.
I think there was an element of a lot of
people just looked at what's happening and started to feel
like Jesus.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
What can we do.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
And now we're talking about building working class power, we're
talking about building a movement. We're talking about, frankly, doing
what needs to be done, which is rebuilding movement politics
here in the state of Maine, and that is speaking
to people and they are getting in the fight. They're signing.
(17:41):
We have three hundred volunteer sign ups a day, which
is I mean wild death to me. I mean like
it's overwhelming and it's humbling. It's saw very strange for
me and personally because two three weeks ago I was
still very much living a very quiet life. So but
(18:03):
I think on the fundraising front, we've been able to
show that this this mechanism still works and it's still
powerful and we can still do this.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
Graham, last question for me. I saw you on CNNZ.
I'm not voting for Chuck Schumer for leader. I suspect
you probably have some critiques of Hakeem Jefferies as well
a Patchikorp as Charlamage is calling him. But you know
where do you think the Democratic Party leadership went astray?
Speaker 5 (18:30):
I mean, I think it's actually pretty simple. The Democratic
Party leadership a long time ago. I'll just I'm gonna
say it's very quick. I don't actually blame many of
these people as like individuals. I think that they have
grown up in a system that showed them a way
to success that was not actually tied to reality. It
(18:52):
was tied to massive amounts of money, and in some
ways I think that because of that, like they they
almost are like emotionally and ideologically incapable of understanding the
moment that they're in. And so I mean, that doesn't
excuse anything. I'm not trying to make excuses for people,
(19:13):
but I do think that there is That's why we
need different leadership. We need leadership that does understand that
we that does understand that when they send out text
messages saying we're in a fight for our democracy, we
actually are. It's not a fundraising message, it's a legitimate
thing that is happening, and we need to be acting.
(19:35):
We need to be acting like the language we are using.
And I think the fact that our leadership has not
done that just shows that we cannot continue with this
kind of.
Speaker 4 (19:46):
Leadership in the party.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
And last question for me, your campaign put out a
poll or shared a poll with the media yesterday that
they had done internally that found Janet Mills, who would
be seventy nine when she's sworn in, which would her
the oldest freshman senator in American history, which is amazing
considering how old descentdate is in general, had her neck
and neck with Susan Collins and had you up something
(20:10):
like sixteen points.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
Now, Paul's and Maine have been bad in the past.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
Sarah Gideon was expected to win by LA five, so
you got to take all, take them all with the
green of salt. But when you dug into those numbers,
when it came to independence or Republicans, what jumped out
to you.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
What jumped out to me is that, like my theory
is holding true, which is that here are the state
of Maine, we have thirty percent Democrats, thirty percent Republicans,
and thirty percent unenrolled slash independent slash third party. You
need to appeal to those unenrolled and independence. You need
to appeal to those Republicans who voted for Donald Trump
(20:53):
because they wanted big structural change and what they've gotten
is just getting robbed more and they're starting to realize it.
It doesn't surprise me because my theory from the get
go has been that not only can we beat Susan Collins,
but we can crush Susan Collins if we build a
(21:13):
legitimate working class movement that's based around fixing material issues
in people's lives. It's very simple. Down here in the
real world. Pretty much everybody's got the exact same problems,
and they all pretty much blame the same people. We
just need to harness that, we need to tap into it,
and we just need to point all of that energy
in the direction it needs to be pointed, which frankly
(21:35):
is just up. We have not been doing that, and
if we do that, then we're going to win, and
we are gonna win.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
Well, Graham, congrats on a massively successful launch. Please keep
in touch with us. We're certainly going to be following
the campaign. And it's a pleasure to speak with you today.
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure, guys. I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (21:58):
And we'll see with the tune in that in the
Washington DC.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
CNN recently had Anna Kasparian of TYT on a panel
wide ranging discussions, but in particular on Israel. She just
absolutely cooked them and there was a moment that really
stood out Sager where she brings up this situation that
we've been covering and we're going to continue to cover. Actually,
in the next block of this Israeli alleged pedophile caught
(22:28):
up in an FBI sting in Las Vegas who was
allowed to post bail and flee the country, who happens
to not just be Henny Old Israeli by the way,
top aid to net Yahoo. She brings this up on
the panel and there's just basically like silence, and then
they changed the subject. Let's take a look at that.
Speaker 10 (22:45):
The problem with Trump, though, is I think crime is
the cover story.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
I think this is a power grab.
Speaker 10 (22:50):
And the reason why I say that is because look
at these specific examples of crime that he allegedly wants
to go after. I mean, just recently, his FBI did
the sting operation in Las Vegas and they managed to
catch through the sting operation, eight separate pedophiles that we're
trying to have sex with miners. Okay, one of those
(23:11):
pedophiles is an Israeli government official who his government allowed
to fly back to Israel after he had been charged
in that sting operation for using technology to lure a
minor for sex. And when it comes to the immigration issue.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
He loves to go after the.
Speaker 10 (23:29):
Undocumented immigrants, but not the employers employing the undocumented.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
That Trump you described it as a cover story, but
I think it's also worth noting.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Oh and then Abby Phillips just picks up on the
immigration point and moves on and Sager, I don't know
how much you've watched the show. I haven't watched it
a lot, but these panels are famous for, like, you know,
they're meant to be kind of a melee the crosstalk
and they're jumping on each other or whatever. I love
how she says this and everyone's just completely silent. Scott
Jennings is just sitting there stonefaced. I'm quite sure it
(24:00):
is the first time it has ever been mentioned on CNS.
Speaker 1 (24:03):
Story Brok.
Speaker 3 (24:04):
I know that it is, and in fact, you know,
I mean, you know, when you're in this job. One
of the fun things is is that I talked to
some of these people behind the scenes. They all know
that it's messed up. They want to cover it. In fact,
many of them congratulated me and us on all of
our reporting around the subject, and I was like, thanks,
but you know, when are you.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Going to cover it? I was like, I'm just you know,
a YouTube guy. Silence.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
Nothing they know all right, I mean, I don't know
if the order has come from the top or whatever,
but this is very like you said, the very first
mention of it on their air. I believe they it's
clear Jennings and you know what's the guy's named, Kevin
O'Leary and all that they either had heard about it
and they're totally shutting up, or they'd never heard about
it before. Both their indictments. Actually, if you ask me,
(24:46):
same with the overall news panel, and it's one of
those where guys, I mean, this is a genuine story.
It's actually a scandal, the fact that he hasn't been returned.
We'll get to it in a little bit and give
everybody an update. But I thought that broadly, I mean,
look props to her for it going on, because that
is like the only way that their viewers would ever
even be exposed to this type of information. Because one
(25:09):
thing you can say, at the very look the internet.
We've spent done a lot, almost an hour now on
the show about all the problems with that, but one
thing I generally appreciate, at the very least people who
watch the show or others, you're going to get exposed
to a lot of information. You were going to get
exposed to from not just both sides, but like even
in general, if you're on Twitter, Blue Sky, whatever, wherever
you are, like your information diet is such that you
(25:31):
probably had heard about this or you had some sort
of inkling. But that's just so not the case with
the Fox News, the CNN, or the MSNBC viewer.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
And that's why, you know, having people like Annon or at.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Least in this particular case, like that view just never
gets represented. Otherwise you're just going to get these shibble
if you know, mantras and be.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Like, well, what about the hostages? What about the hostages?
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Or you know, Israel is a right to defend itself
and a right to exist, and you're like, bro, what
are we doing here, Like it's not October twenty eighth,
two thousand, twenty three.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
Yeah, Well, I love when they have her on. She's
really excellent on these panels. They've had her on a
few times, and she's just so effective in the way
she communicates, and she's clear, she's so fierce when it
comes to Israel and just does not pull any punches
and to your point about you know, the Internet, which
is both you know, incredible promise and incredible peril. I
(26:21):
guess is sort of the theme of this show today. This
story would never have seen the light of day in
a pre online media environment. This is a purely like
internet independent media or like non traditional media. I guess
we'll say story that got picked up on and all
the reporting that has been I shouldn't say, oh, there's
(26:42):
been some local news reporting, but you know, the most
of the reporting has been like you and Village Crazy Lady,
the Twitter account online, you know, and otherwise this would
have been just completely vanished and disappeared instead. It really
is an international scale. I mean, Netanya, who's had to
address it. You've had Trump administration officials who have had
to address it, and CNN there's now enough sort of
(27:07):
there's enough problems with the mainstream press and they can
see their writings decline, and they see the writing on
the wall that they have to they feel like they
have to bring on some figures like Anna onto their
panels just to remain any sort you know, maintain any
sort of relevance and competitive you know, ability in the marketplace.
And so these things start to seep into the conversation
(27:30):
there in a way that they never would have in
a different era. So there's another moment here that I
want to play for you where Anna is going back
and forth with Scott Jennings about the you know, man
made the Israeli imposed famine in the Gaza Strip. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
About this, because this is a talking point that comes
up a lot.
Speaker 10 (27:49):
Not a talking point, it is definitely a talking point.
When you block the Gaza Strip straight, it not only
impacts the palest To news, which I know you can
care less about, but it also obviously is going to
impact the hostages they're going to starve.
Speaker 2 (28:04):
To death as well.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
You're saying Israel is starving the hostages.
Speaker 10 (28:07):
I'm saying yes, when you block three months, where do
you think they're going to get the food from?
Speaker 1 (28:12):
Max? Israel to joke and the Hamas.
Speaker 10 (28:15):
Have been Why axing the West Bank right now? Why
is Israel annexing the West Bank, which of course is
not governed by Hamas at all? Why are Israeli settlers
allowed to just run Palestinians out of their legal homes,
build thousands of illegal settlements West Bank has nothing to
do with Hamas. Why is Israel annexing? Why Why didn't
net Yahoo say that his stated goal in an interview
(28:37):
with I twenty four news and Israeli publication say that
he has a religious need to pursue the greater Israel.
Speaker 1 (28:46):
I'm going to let just not answer quickly, and then
we've got to go ahead school that. Scott.
Speaker 11 (28:48):
My view is this, the hostages have been there for
almost seven hundred days. There's a reason that Hamas isn't.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Are you going to answer her question?
Speaker 12 (28:55):
I don't.
Speaker 11 (28:56):
I don't work for the Israeli government. All I really
care about is that the hostages come on home. And
I have no belief that Hamas that took the hostages,
that murdered all these people, are ever going to let
them go unless they're totally ready.
Speaker 1 (29:06):
We accept they have.
Speaker 10 (29:07):
Let them go.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Man Anna just cooked his ass in both those exchanges.
Speaker 1 (29:12):
And there's really government. Brother. You got a lot of
connections there though.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
You remember during the Iran War, whenever you were down
there and an Israeli bunker.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
You can ask them if you want to. You got
you know, you got your little pin on. You know
you're in the system. You call them.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
Are you sure, Are you sure you're not working for
those Reeli government, because if you're not, then maybe you
should be get collecting a check, because you're certainly doing
the dirty work for them. But again, having heard there,
those are points that very few other CNN guests would
be I'm not going to say none, but very few
would be willing to make. And you know, he just
tries to laugh off this idea. Oh, what you think
(29:46):
Israel starving the hostages? Lool, It's like, of course they are.
Of course, it's been so clear. It's really been clear
from the beginning, but it's been undeniably clear for months
at this point that not Yahu and his government they
don't care at all about the hostages. In fact, the
hostages are a problem for them because you know, when
(30:07):
they come back, and you know, when they are brought
back alive, then they're able to speak about how they
were terrified that they were going to be bombed and
murdered by their own government. So no, they don't give
a shit about the hostages. They know they're starving the hostages.
Of course they are. When you blockade the whole Gaza
strip that includes the hostages that are being held there.
(30:28):
So it's amazing to watch him have to even grapple
with that point, not to mention the point about the
West Bank. It's like, okay, well, if this is all
about Hamas, and I think this is a really important
point that needs to be made more often. If this
is just all about Hamas being bad guys, tell me
about the West Bank. Tell me about why they are
going forward with this aggressive, illegal settlement plan. Tell me
(30:49):
why all of these you know, violent settlers are attacking
and murdering Palestinians in the West Bank with the back
of the IDF, with the backing of the government. Tell
me about that. Tell me how that has anything to
do with Hamas. Because when you put all of those
pieces together, not to mention that the whole greater Israel
(31:10):
and the attacks on all of their surrounding neighbors by
and large, then you start to see the bigger picture
and the broader plan, and you can no longer stick
to your dumb ass talking points about like Hamas and
the hostages, because we are so far beyond that holding
any water. If you actually have the facts at your disposal.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Let's go to the next part here, because I do
want to give everybody an update on Tom Alexandrovitch's case.
Can we go ahead and put this up there please
on the screen. Media was allowed in the courtroom yesterday
where some extraordinary stuff happened. So basically, as I'd said before, yesterday,
Alexandrovitch had a court appearance basically to respond about the
(31:53):
criminal complaint that was just recently filed against him regarding
this case where he effectively got caught in an FBI
joint operation with the local police department where they posed
as a fifteen year old girl online and which he
showed up basically to meet with her with the intent
to have sex with her.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
Basically admitted it.
Speaker 3 (32:12):
He waived his Miranda rights ur in questioning as you
can all see in the arrest reports which I exclusively
reported over here. Well since then, after he fled the
country some twenty days ago after being caught up in
this sting, he has hired the literally the most powerful
lawyer in the state of Nevada, and there was a
showdown between that lawyer and the judge.
Speaker 1 (32:33):
So yesterday his lawyer, David.
Speaker 3 (32:34):
Chesnoff quote told the court that on Wednesday, his top client,
he told his client not to attend the meeting. Quote
he was instructed by me that he did not have
to be there. The judge very quickly shuts down. David
Chesnoff says that suspects released on bond have to quote
make every court appearance. I am looking at his bond
(32:55):
documents to indicate court appearance that he was ordered to appear.
Was today request without anything before the court to wave
his appearance today is hereby denied. What eventually came after
some back and forth with the judge is that Alexandrovitch
will be due for a virtual appearance next week in court.
Apparently that's the compromise. But remember all of this is
(33:16):
about the showdown between whether he is ever going to
return to the United States, because one of the things
that Chesnoff actually said is that the state attorney and
him had quote come to some sort of an agreement.
That's what he alluded to from the reporting here in
the story. And the judge was like, I don't care
what kind of agreement you have going on with the state.
(33:38):
I'm the judge overseeing this case. This guy has got
to appear in my courtroom. So that's the only update
that we have so far. But already we're seeing the
signs of some sort basically a corrupt bargain. Okay, most
powerful lawyer in the state of Nevada who donated to
the state's attorney. This is a verifiable fact.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
You can go and look.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
It was actually a scandal in Vegas back in twenty
twenty one. They called it paid to play Justice, where
they had somebody like this, the high, high powered lawyer who,
by the way, went and quote volunteered at a hospital
in Israel actor October seventh, got an award for being
a friend to the Jewish people, you know, a hog
like by his own account in the Las Vegas Review Journal,
(34:20):
which is owned by Miriam Adelson, the most powerful pro
Israel donor in the United States who's written pro Israel
puff pieces about this lawyer. So let's start with that
he's hired by this guy Tom Alexandrovitch. You know, by
the way, I'd love to know who's paying his bills.
And I have sent those questions over to the chestnut's
office and they have not returned any of my calls
(34:41):
or my request for comment. Just so people understand. But
in the courtroom, it's clear that the judge wants Alexandrovitch
to appear. He has now agreed to appear virtually. But
the question around this is about the conditions of release,
because previously the cope from the pro Alexander's side was
he was bailed out, which you are allowed to after
(35:03):
twenty twenty bail reform laws in Nevada, without ever appearing
before judge. That's why there was the open question why
was he allowed to leave? It's like because you can
just post bail and get out of there. Well, what's
now clear is with the filing of the criminal complaint
and now having to appear before the judge, this is
when the type of restrictions that could typically be imposed
on an individual for potentially leaving the country, that is when.
(35:27):
But the complicating factor is he's not here in the
United States of America. He's in Israel, and so it
very out much opens a question as to whether the
state's attorney and the lawyer have reached some sort of
agreement and plea, which will very likely, in my opinion,
lead to probation. The reason why I'm saying that is
that an interview that the state attorney actually gave to
(35:50):
the Las Vegas Reviewed Journal, he floated that yes, well,
technically is punishable by one to ten years in prison.
Probation is also an option, and he said something like, well,
I don't really know anything about extradition. I presume that
we have extradition treaties. So I dug into that the
extradition treaty that we have with Israel is one of
the most insane things I've ever seen. Prior to nineteen
(36:12):
ninety nine, they just didn't They did not extradite anybody anybody.
What happened is that a seventeen year old murdered another
kid actually nearby from here in Maryland. His father was Israeli.
They flew to Israel. They fled to Israel. This guy
butchered this other person. The Israelis, because they wouldn't extradite him,
(36:34):
came up with some novel solution after crazy diplomatic pressure
from the Clinton administration, where they would try him for
the crime and he would serve out a sentence there.
But after that they were like, look, this is done.
We have to have something done and dusted. In the
interim period, there's been a number of cases where high
profile pedophiles here in the United States flee to Israel.
And because they're Jewish, they can claim the right of
return in Israeli citizenship and they can fight extradition in
(36:57):
Israeli court.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
Chrystal.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
The most recent example I've found of a prolific pedophile
charged here in America was it took eleven years to
go through the Israeli justice system before he was returned
to the United States to face trial. Eleven years. Even
that sham extradition treaty that we have with Israel basically
gives defendants in Israel the right to drag this out
(37:21):
out in Israeli court for as long as humanly possible.
And that's in the case of somebody who was an
American citizen. In this case, we have somebody who is
an Israeli government official. So it is a major question
where without massive diplomatic pressure from the United States, I
don't think we will ever see.
Speaker 1 (37:40):
This guy again on u It's territory.
Speaker 3 (37:42):
That's my own personal speculation, but all of the facts
currently indicate that with the sham extradition treaty that we
have with Israel, it's effectively not one.
Speaker 1 (37:50):
It basically it might as well not exist.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
Because eleven years of dragging through justice, especially in a
case like this one to ten, what's a prosecutor to say,
is it really worth the millions of dollars, you know,
to try and fight all his case or should we
just give him a slap on the risk in probation
that's most likely, you know, affected what's going to happen,
And what everyone needs to pay attention to is let's
compare his sentence or his eventual outcome to what happens
(38:12):
to the seven other individuals who were all caught up
in this.
Speaker 1 (38:15):
One of them was a pastor by the way, Just so.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
Yeah, we're disgusting, absolutely disgusting.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
I mean, there's not even words for that.
Speaker 3 (38:22):
But the point just broadly about the justice is that
all of those people had criminal complaints filed against them
almost immediately after the case was made public. Alexandrovitch's criminal
complaint was not fired up until a couple of days ago,
almost a week long delay. There's still a major I
haven't gotten my hands on that yet. It's still inside
(38:42):
of the court. If anybody has access to it, please
send it to me. But my point just broadly is
that the special treatment that this guy has gotten already
is crazy. Fled to Israel now his lawyer is saying, well,
I told him and he didn't have to show up.
You know, I've got some deal with the state's attorney.
So everything here stinks. It's thinks to high having it
and you know, all of the just the fact that
(39:03):
he's gone, it almost ties the hands of our justice
system at this point.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Yeah. Well, and it's crazy too because in those you know,
interview notes that you were able to obtain, he's in
there like I got to catch my flight. It's not
that he hit it. He's like, I've got a flight.
I'm going to get out of here in just a
few days. And still he's allowed to allowed to leave.
I think, last note on this and then I know, soccer,
you've got a run, so we'll let you go. We
have another piece on Epstein that we'll kick to the
(39:28):
Friday show that's also very interesting. They released a bunch
of emails between him and a former Israeli Prime minister,
Aho Brocks. So you definitely want to you definitely want
to be there Friday to take a listen to that.
But just as a reminder to everyone, when this all unfolded,
Netanyahu and his government just utterly and completely lied, like
(39:49):
provably lied about it. Now they were like, oh, there
was some issue, and then he returned. They did not
admit that he was arrested. They certainly didn't admit that
this was in the context of an FBI sting to
catch pedophiles who are pursuing, you know what they thought
to be young girls for sex online. So just one
(40:11):
more indication of how they will lie about absolutely anything,
even when they know that the information is going to
come out and going to be made public. So to me,
that's also just an extraordinary piece of this and this
guy's position in Israel. He's in charge of like cybersecurity
kind of stuff, and he's out there serving the Internet
allegedly for young girls to exploit.
Speaker 3 (40:33):
He created their cyber iron dome. He is the head
that was this head of the cyber division. I mean
remember in the notes I released, he was like, Hey,
by the way, I'm meeting with the NSA tomorrow.
Speaker 4 (40:46):
You know.
Speaker 3 (40:46):
He was like, I was like, oh, okay, got it,
I'm here for a black cat hacking conference.
Speaker 2 (40:53):
The information that he likely has access to on can
you imagine the number of people probably you at this point, Soger,
I mean, you know that's part of what makes the story.
I think that's the other reason why mainstream media has
no interest in touching this one.
Speaker 3 (41:10):
Hey Tom, bring it on, brother, all right, okay, right,
I don't know. I mean, at a certain point, it's
like people need to stand up and to speak out.
It's the worst type of crime that you can commit
in my opinion. And yeah, I mean the fact that
he's currently he's on the glide path to slap on
the wrist and everybody in Nevada just wants this case
(41:34):
to go away.
Speaker 1 (41:34):
Props to the judge at.
Speaker 3 (41:35):
The very least for saying no, no, no, no, no, that's
not how this works over here. So you know, who
knows she has to get reelected, wouldn't want to be
wouldn't want to be her because I'm sure some anonymous
donation is going to come in for some election that
like six hundred people vote in and miraculously, you know something,
a nice big check will hit for the opponent. But
that's the way that our system works. All right, we
(41:56):
got Jeffrey Stack standing by. Let's get to it. Thanks, guys.
I'm sorry that you know, things are a bit disjoined today.
Just I said, personal matter came up. I got to
head out a little bit early, but thank you Crystal
as well for holding down the ford.
Speaker 2 (42:06):
Yeah, of course, And guys, we are going to take
Labor Day off, so we'll be back soccer and I'd
be back on Tuesday. And with that we'll get to
Jeffrey Sachs to talk about the very latest with regard
to Israel and Gaza. We are very fortunate to be
joined this morning by economists and professor at Clemia University,
Jeffrey Sachs. Great to have you again, sir, Thank you,
(42:28):
wonderful to be with you, of course. So let's go on,
guys and put this first element up on the screen. Screen.
Axios got this scoop that apparently now we've got Tony
Blair and Jared Kushner involved in some sort of Trump
Gaza quote unquote post war plans. There is a meeting
(42:48):
which is set to occur with regard to this as well.
What did you make of this?
Speaker 12 (42:53):
Well, who knows what to make of anything? When Blair,
Kushner and Trump get together, that is really a holy alliance.
But this is not the way to any solution right now.
The way to a solution lies in immediately ending the
(43:15):
genocide that's underway, the mass starvation that's underway, which the
US again denied yesterday in the UN Security Council, which
Israel has denied, but which the whole world sees before
our eyes, that at least half a million people are
being starved to death right now before our eyes. And
(43:39):
so this has nothing to do with Kushner and Blair.
This has to do with the ending a genocide. It
has to do with the creating a state of Palestine immediately,
and it has to do with this absolutely fascist government
in Israel being stopped by the United Nations.
Speaker 6 (44:04):
As somebody who follows Global South politics pretty closely, including
you know, Russia and China, India as well, India's separate
case here, When is the world going to do anything
about what's happening in Gaza? I think the UN obviously
(44:26):
has the United States sitting on the Security Council and
will veto it, but it feels like there's been very
little pressure brought to bear from the Global South. And
South Africa obviously took Israel to the ICC and was joined,
you know, at some significant risk by a number of
(44:47):
other countries from.
Speaker 7 (44:47):
The Global South. But that's about it.
Speaker 6 (44:50):
Like is there no countervailing force that exists on a
kind of just moral and ethical level willing to push
back against this genocide? And other where is it If
the Chinese and the Russians don't see it in their
specific national interests, are they okay to just sit back
and allow a genocide to unfold? Is that the realist
(45:12):
politics that we live in. Am I too naive to
expect that. I'm like, there's got to be somebody who's
going to do something about this, but there isn't.
Speaker 7 (45:21):
Like what if I can from.
Speaker 4 (45:23):
I think that there are.
Speaker 12 (45:26):
Probably three arenas that we should consider. First is the
battlefield itself, where Israel is mass murdering the Palestinian people.
I don't expect any of the regional powers to land
troops or to be in a direct war over this issue.
(45:50):
So I don't expect Russia or China or any of
the Arab countries to land troops and open a war
with Israel. The second area is on the diplomatic front.
Every single day there is a worldwide condemnation of Israel,
(46:11):
some of which gets reported in the US, most of
which does not. The Security Council meeting yesterday was an
overwhelming condemnation of Israel's genocide and starvation, but it doesn't
get even mentioned. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation had a
meeting in Jedda on August twenty fifth condemning this. That's
(46:36):
fifty seven Muslim majority countries. The Bricks condemned this routinely. China, Russia, Brazil,
India condemned this routinely. It doesn't get picked up, so
they don't intervene on the battlefield. But they are not
(46:56):
sitting back or complacent or winking at Israel, but they
don't do more, let's say, than condemnation. The third would
be an increasing set of measures that I think should
be taken. I think Israel is courting suspension from the
(47:19):
UN General Assembly. I would recommend it because I believe
that this is a completely lawless, murderous, genocidal regime. I
don't think there's any other country in the world remotely
doing what Israel is doing in terms of the violence
and the mass murder and the mass starvation. So there
(47:40):
could be Israel suspension from the UN.
Speaker 4 (47:44):
This was.
Speaker 12 (47:46):
At least raised at the OIC meeting. There could be
a break of diplomatic relations, which I think should be
in the cards, there could be a suspension or end
of the so called Abraham Accords. Remember, of course, I
think everyone knows the US military is all over the
(48:07):
Middle East. In a way, the Middle Eastern countries often
feel more like occupied countries than they do with sovereigns.
They worry that if they are too vocal, the United
States will do something overthrow their regimes, fo men to unrest,
do the things that the United States covert operations do
(48:29):
for a living. So I think that there is some
trepidation there. But the fact of the matter is both
the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and
most other groups in the world, and I would say
the UN General Assembly more than one hundred and eighty
of the one hundred and ninety three countries are openly aghassed.
(48:52):
But I think stronger measures are needed right now. And
these are measures that might be blocked if it's through
the UN, but could be taken by dozens or well
over one hundred countries on their own, breaking diplomatic relations,
putting on boycotts and sanctions. Israel is completely out of control.
(49:14):
Mass starvation is not an acceptable policy for the world.
It should not be tolerated one moment longer.
Speaker 2 (49:24):
And what do you make of the American politics. There's
just a poll that came out yesterday. I want to
have an element for a but, and I don't know
if you saw it or not, but seventy seven percent
of Democratic voters say this is a genocide, you know,
I mean, it's an overwhelming consensus among the Democratic base,
and yet you only have a handful of Democrats who
are willing to say it. The leadership of the Democratic
Party had Kee Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer and the like
(49:47):
are still very much, you know, anything for Israel and
whatever APAC wants us to do. And look, I don't
expect these people to be moral actors, but you would
think at some point there would be a political calculation,
like a cynical politic calculation that occurs. And it's genuinely
perplexing to me at this point that that hasn't happened. Obviously,
(50:07):
understand you the money of APAC and their affiliates Democratic
majority for Israel, et cetera, But it still doesn't seem
like that would be sufficient to keep them from seizing
what is a genuine, wide open, obvious political imperative and
political opening in the landscape. What is your assessment of
what keeps these politicians so tied to the status quo
(50:31):
with regard to, you know, Israel and their commitment to
allowing Israel and facilitating Israel's commitment to this genocide.
Speaker 12 (50:39):
This is an excellent and very important question, and it
starts with the fact that in foreign policy, public opinion
plays almost no role in the United States in general.
That's true across wars, that's true across almost all of
the issues that we have.
Speaker 4 (51:00):
A foreign policy.
Speaker 12 (51:02):
This is an executive branch, largely covert. It's very heavily
CIA and national security driven rather than any publicly driven
decision making.
Speaker 4 (51:20):
Congress is pretty.
Speaker 12 (51:21):
Much useless across the board in foreign policy and has
been for a long time. Of course, the Congress is
suborned by the military industrial complex to begin with, by
the military contractors. And then there are the specific issues
(51:41):
of Israel, so you mentioned, of course the biggest one,
which is the Zionist lobby Apak and others. There's just
a tremendous amount buying of votes and corruption and threats
against individual congressman. I'm sure that the Epstein files play
(52:05):
some role in this Epstein was a Masad agent, and
there's no doubt that there's blackmail involved in this in
some way or another that we don't fully know. The
CIA Mosad relationship dates back many, many decades. Mosad does
(52:27):
murders on behalf of the CIA. They deeply share intelligence.
The CIA is the single most powerful agent of our
foreign policy. And so this is not only the Israel
lobby because after all, by the way, the Jewish community
is profoundly unhappy with what's happening. Of course, there are
(52:49):
Jews that support Israel, but there's a vast community of
Jews that is completely aghast and disgusted and also reviled
at what Israel is doing. Because Israel claims to do
it in the name of world jewelry, that is an obscenity.
(53:12):
I would say, Israel is doing it in the face
of opposition of world Jewelry. So this is another element
the CIA Mossad lincolns that go quite strongly. They are
very powerful in Silicon Valley right now. Palanteer is the
(53:34):
AI murder inc Company of the world. It does the targeting.
We know that Microsoft and many other companies are deeply
involved with Israel. There's a lot of money in all
of this. The Israeli stock market has been up during
this war, so there's a lot of corruption, blackmail, campaign finance,
(53:58):
a deep STATEI Mosad relations. But I have to tell you,
saying all of that, it's still shocking. It's still shocking
because we don't have genocides before our eyes this way,
all recorded, day by day, all with the thank you
of the Israeli ministers Smotrich and Ben Gavier, every day
(54:23):
explaining that it's the genocide, making no bones about it,
being very explicit about it.
Speaker 4 (54:29):
So your question.
Speaker 12 (54:31):
Hangs there even after all of the explanations. It is
a puzzle. How corrupt can America be? We're plumbing new
depths basically.
Speaker 7 (54:43):
Jerlie, while we have you, I wanted to.
Speaker 6 (54:46):
Ask you about the newest piece from you that I
read that may not be the most recent piece that
you wrote, but called a new foreign policy for Europe
in the Horizons magazine, taking a look at the historical
relationship between Europe and Russia and envisioning a new kind
of path out that doesn't involve Europe constantly invading Russia,
and then at the same time having this fear that
(55:10):
Russia's going to invade them. Can you talk a little
bit about what do you lay out this vision that
you presented here and what's been the reaction to it?
Speaker 12 (55:20):
Basically Russia for more than two hundred years, going back
to Napoleon, certainly including Hitler, including the remilitarization of Germany
by the United States after World War Two, in the
years immediately following Nazism, and by the way, bringing a
lot of Nazis to leadership of West Germany, including the
(55:44):
new intelligence agencies led by the chief Nazi intelligence official
for Hitler for Eastern Europe Galen.
Speaker 4 (55:53):
The Russian said, what are you doing? You know again, we.
Speaker 12 (55:57):
Just lost twenty seven million people. The Western idea going
back absolutely to Napoleon in his invasion in eighteen twelve,
going to Palmerston and Napoleon three and there invasion of
Russia in eighteen fifty three, going to Germany's attack and
(56:24):
war on Russia in August nineteen fourteen, going to Hitler's
invasion in nineteen forty one, and then going to the
creation of this military machine of Germany.
Speaker 4 (56:38):
After World War Two.
Speaker 12 (56:40):
There's never been an honest moment of discussion about what
a real security arrangement in Europe would be that respects
Russia's security as well as Europe's Western europe security. Russia
is to an important extent Europe, but I'm talking about
the non Russian western part of Europe, and that's what
(57:02):
has been needed all along. But the United States has refused.
The British, which ran the world up until basically World
War Two, were completely Rusophobic from the eighteen forties onward,
and then the United States took over in nineteen forty five,
and our goal from nineteen forty five onward was first
(57:27):
to defeat the Soviet Union. And then I watched with
my own eyes in shock by the way, after nineteen
ninety one that our goal continued to be even after
the Soviet Union was over, Communism was over, and so
forth our goal continued to be, now we defeat and
divide Russia.
Speaker 4 (57:45):
Well.
Speaker 12 (57:46):
Eventually, after so much provocation, with the US being the
major impetus to a coup in Ukraine and twenty fourteen expanding,
NATO dissing a peace agreement called the MINS two Agreement
(58:06):
in twenty fifteen and so forth, eventually it came to
full scale war. And then when it did in February
twenty two, after maybe you could say one hundred and
eighty years of provocation, or maybe you could just say
thirty years of provocation, or maybe you could say eight
years of provocation from the Maidan Kup. Then we said,
you see Russia unprovoked expansionism. It's unbelievable how primitive this
(58:32):
discussion is. I once counted between February twenty twenty two
and February twenty twenty three, I had an assistant count
the number of times that the New York Times used
the word unprovoked to characterize the Ukraine War. And it
was twenty six times that we were able to count
(58:55):
that in the opinion pages of the New York Times.
So basically, there's a propaganda war. Now Europe is so
devoid of sense and diplomacy. Trump, this is not exactly,
mister diplomat. There's just confusion, and the war will continue
(59:19):
until the confusion is sorted out. So what I've been
saying to the Europeans who don't like my saying it,
but I'm going to keep saying it, is they need
diplomacy with Russia, not through the White House. They don't
have to meet Zelensky, who rules by martial law. In
a complete contradiction to the real interests of Ukraine and
(59:44):
to the public opinion in Ukraine, which wants this war
to end because they're suffering in Ukraine. The Europeans meet
with Zelenski a thousand times, but they don't meet with
Putin once, and this is what passed in this pathetic
way for foreign policy right now, So my article is
(01:00:07):
do something different. Talk directly with your counterparts. Understand that
there are real security issues that need to be solved.
One other thing I might add, which is almost never
mentioned but absolutely at the top of mind for Russia
for more than twenty years, is that in two thousand
(01:00:27):
and two, the United States unilaterally abandoned the Anti Ballistic
Missile Treaty. From Russia's point of view, that was a
threat of a decapitation strike by the United States, because
the idea of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty was to
prevent a decapitation strike by making it plain that there
(01:00:48):
would be a credible deterrent a second strike. But with
the anti ballistic missiles, a decapitation strike becomes a possibility.
So the russ said, after two thousand and two, you
have completely destabilized the nuclear Arms Control Framework. It's in
that context that the United States was pushing missile systems
(01:01:13):
in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. These agias
anti ballistic missile systems overthrew the government in Ukraine, built
a one million person man army in Ukraine under Trump,
by the way, he calls himself the man a piece.
He armed Ukraine in the first term to a million
(01:01:36):
man army, the biggest army in Europe. And then in
twenty nineteen, Trump walked out of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty,
basically destroying the nuclear arms control framework while also pushing
missile systems and US military bases up to Russia. Knows
(01:02:01):
this is why we're in such a dangerous, unstable mode,
and there's such lack of clarity and honesty for one
moment in any of this. Trump, by the way, one
of many many weaknesses, but one of his great weaknesses
is the confusion of speaking truthfully to the American people
(01:02:24):
in a speech, for example, which he never gives, versus
a truth social post with eight exclamation points in capital letters,
which is not the same thing as trying to explain
what is happening and how we get out of this
he probably doesn't have the capacity to do what needs
(01:02:46):
to be done just at an individual level. But we
lack any clear understanding, and that's why there is so
much instability, and Washington is is completely incoherent because there
is no clarity of policy from one moment to the next.
Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
Professor, last question for me. Let's say, you know, going
back to Israel and Gaza. Let's say the world does
nothing and this final solution is allowed to just unfold.
What does that mean for the future of the world.
Speaker 12 (01:03:28):
The world is in the most dangerous state since the
end of World War Two, and the doomsday clock, which
portrays how close we are to armageddon, puts the clock
at eighty nine seconds to midnight, the closest that it's
been since the clock was unveiled in nineteen forty seven.
Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
We have no rules of the road.
Speaker 12 (01:03:55):
Right now, we have no clarity, we have no consistency
of policy, and Western values has been exposed to mean
open genocide. So I would say that we're in an
extraordinarily dangerous world. And Trump, who in his delusion calls
(01:04:19):
himself a president of peace, is complicit in an open
genocide that the world sees. And I travel all over
the world all the time. Everybody knows. Everybody knows what's
happening right now, and this is a tremendous, tremendous risk
(01:04:43):
to global security and to any place of the United
States in the international system which is being squandered. I
think it's also a fundamental risk to Israel's survival. Israel
banks in higherly on the United States for its survival
(01:05:03):
because virtually every other country in the world is a
gas at the crimes that Israel is committing, and because
as you pointed out, the American people are also aghast.
It's a pretty pretty slender and fragile thing to depend
on the United States when public opinion is against you
(01:05:27):
as your sole source for survival. So I think Israel
has put itself at absolutely mortal risk. Of course, it's
mass murdering the Palestinian So I'm not expressing that in sympathy.
I'm just stating a fact that this is wildly against
Israel's security interests.
Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
Well, Professor Sachs, is always a privilege to get to
speak with you. Thank you so much for spending some
time with us.
Speaker 4 (01:05:51):
A pleasure to be with you. Likewise, thank you.
Speaker 2 (01:05:54):
All right, guys, thank you so much for watching today, Ryan,
thank you for jumping in last minute, hanging out out
with me for a few of these blocks.
Speaker 7 (01:06:01):
Yeah, my pleasure. Always happy to hop on for a
soccer crisis moment.
Speaker 6 (01:06:06):
Did you say anything crazy that we need to that
we need to clean up by the way, need to.
Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
Talk me to talk shit about while he's not here.
I don't think so. I think we kept it on
the rails more or less for today. Hope you got tomorrow, Yeah, exactly,
Friday Share tomorrow, and then long weekend. We are going
to take Monday off, so everybody enjoyed that, and then
Soger and I will be back here Tuesday. Everybody have
(01:06:32):
a great day and we'll see you soon.
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.