9/30/25: Trump Bibi Gaza Deal, Gov Shutdown Imminent, Epstein Brokered Israel Security Deal, Pro Israel War To Replace Kirk

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of this show.

Speaker 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. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
show for everybody today.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
When do we have Crystal, Indeed we do.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
We're going to spend a bunch of time on this
alleged peace deal that Trump and Nana who have agreed
to sort of a take it or leave it offer
to Hamas. We're also gonna have Jeremy Scahe on to
break down Hamas's response, their view on this, what it
all means, where this all may be heading. So really
important stuff there Also today the government shuts down and
there is no deal in sight. So there's a big

(01:01):
meeting yesterday with Trump and the Democrats. We'll give you
the what they're saying coming out of that meeting and
where we think things might go with that drop site
with some really important and very insightful reporting with regard
to Jeffrey Epstein and the deals he was brokering on
behalf of Israeli intelligence services. Really fascinating stuff there. We're
also going to take a look at Brylin Hollyhand. Who

(01:24):
is this guy, where did he come from? What does
he mean for our society and for the Republican Party.
This is one soccer is particularly interested in, so I'm
curious to get his.

Speaker 3 (01:32):
That's more of an it's not a personal interest. This
is like an anthropological study study guerrilla's in the zoo
and seeing what happens, you know, it's like or like
when you remove and why exactly. It's like in Yellowstone,
you know, everyone famously talks about it's like when you
reintroduce the wolf to see what happens. So that's kind
of the way that we're looking at this. Anyway, thank

(01:54):
you to everybody who's been supporting the show. We deeply
appreciate Breakingpoints dot com if you were able to become
a member.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
We did our ama for everybody yesterday.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
Where we revealed what books we are reading, and I
ashamedly had to admit that I haven't been reading that
much because I'm so tired, and in fact, I've been
reading fiction again for the first time in a decade.
So if you want rivet and content like that, you
can sign up.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
You can also wrong with reading fiction by the way, Yeah,
size is a different.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
Part of the brain.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:22):
I resisted it for so long, but now I'm just
like I need the escape. But anyways, thank you everybody.
If you can't afford a membership, no worries, please just
go ahead and hit subscribe on the YouTube channel wherever.
If you're watching this video, hit subscribe for our channel.
If you're listening to this on a podcast, just please
go ahead and send your favorite episode to a friend
and or rate us five stars. It really helps other

(02:43):
people find the show. But with that, let's go ahead
and get to this is real deal by far, the
biggest news they came out of this yesterday joined press
conference with President Trump and with Prime Minister b b Ntagna.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Yeah that's right, So Natanyahu in town again, and we
got this announcement that there was going to be this
big press conferences to take questions.

Speaker 4 (03:00):
They didn't take questions anyway.

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Putting that aside, Trump gives a long speech announcing what
he is describing as a peace deal. Now we'll get
into the specifics of what the offer is here, but
it is a deal that was negotiated exclusively between the
United States and Israel. Cording Tomas leadership, they had not
been made aware of this quote unquote deal whatsoever. In

(03:22):
any case, let me go ahead and throw to Trump
explaining some of the details here in his perspective.

Speaker 5 (03:27):
To ensure the success of this effort, my plan calls
for the creation of a new international oversight body, the
Board of Peace. The leaders of the Arab world and
Israel and everybody involved asked me to do this, so
it would be headed by a gentleman known as President
Donald J. Trump of the United States. We're going to

(03:48):
put leaders from other countries on and leaders that are
very distinguished leaders, and we'll have a board. And one
of the people that wants to be on the board
is the UK former Prime Minister Tony Blair, good Man,
very good man, and some others, and they'll be named
over the next few days and it'll be quite the

(04:08):
board working. Everybody wants to be on it.

Speaker 6 (04:11):
Now.

Speaker 5 (04:13):
I don't know if that had anything to do. They
named me, and everybody else wanted to be on it.
A lot of our leaders are here, our great Vice President,
Susie Wiles, Steve Whitcoff, Jared Kushner, They've been so involved
in this, in this process, I don't think anybody else
could have done it, or even even come close. But

(04:33):
it's we're right there. We had big, strong talk. Nobody's
been better it is. You're No president's been better to
Israel than Donald Trump. But wait, a long strong talk
BB and I and he understands it's time. I noticed
that they have large crowds gathering in Israel all the time,
and they have my name up. They liked me for
whatever reason bybe I don't know, but they do like me.

(04:55):
She's a warrior. He doesn't know about getting back to
a normal way of life, but he is a warrior
and Israel is lucky to have him. Israel would have
my fall back into finish the job of destroying the
threat of Hamas. But I hope that we're going to

(05:16):
have a deal for peace, and if Hamas rejects the deal,
which is always possible, they're the only one left. Everyone
else has accepted it. But I have a feeling that
we're going to have a positive answer. But if not,
as you know, maybe you'd have our full backing to
do what you would have to do.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
So very important what he says there at the end
in those clips where he says, you know, basically, if
Hamas does not accept this deal, then Israel have my
full approval to basically do whatever they need to do,
so very much to take it or leave it offer.
Let's also take a listen to a little bit of
what Nanyahu had to say before we dig into some
of these specifics of this plan.

Speaker 6 (05:57):
This could be done the easy way, or it can
be done the hard way, but it will be done.
We prefer the easy way, but.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
It has to be done easy way or the hardware.
Channeling a little Brandon car there. I think it's worth
before we dive in, it's worth setting the context of,
you know the fact that the last time there was
an alleged peace deal or alleged cease fire deal coming
together from the Trump administration, there were was a gathering
of Hamas leadership in Qatar, and Israel used that opportunity

(06:29):
to try to assassinate them in Qatar, something that there
was a.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
Sort of apology allegedly apology.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
From Netnatu to the Katari's over because that created you know,
some upset and a bit of a rift there. I
believe the time before that, one of the times of
negotiation between Hamas and the United States was over the
release of the Israeli American a Don Alexander, and the
promises that were made in the context of that deal,
which was actually struck, were not upheld by the Trump administration.

(06:57):
So that's sort of the you know, the backdrop not
to mention, and we could look at other negotiations. You know,
obviously you had another diplomatic opening with the Iranians where
they were supposedly, you know, on the doorstep of some
potential deal, diplomatic breakthrough with US. That was also used
as an opportunity for the Israelis to strike Iranian leadership.
So I think it's important to have that context as

(07:18):
you think about the way that the Palestinians may be
viewing these negotiations and this take it or leave it all.

Speaker 3 (07:24):
Well, there's so much to say about it. Let's put
the map up here on the screen just to show
you all. This was released by the White House, and
for those of you who are watching, they show the
current IDF line of control. Then they have an initial
yellow line which pushes back several kilometers saying an initial
withdrawal of Ida forces which will entail a hostage release,

(07:45):
then a quote second withdrawal where the Israeli forces are
mobilized per Sandards quote set in a Trump plan, and
then finally a third and final withdrawal of a security
buffer zone. We also have a twenty two point plan
that was leased by the White House. Why don't we
go ahead and put this up here on the screen.
First and foremost are going to be the initial lines

(08:06):
here quote Gaza will be deradicalized terror frey zone that
does not pose a threat to its neighbors. Gaza will
be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza,
who have suffered more than enough. If both sides agree
to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces
will withdraw to the agreed uponline to prepare for a
hostage release. During this time, all military operations will be suspended. Quote,

(08:26):
within seventy two hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement,
all hostages alive and decease will be returned. Everybody stick
on that, because what they said is that Israel immediately
agreed to that as of what is about four pm yesterday,
three thirty pm maybe yesterday, So that's the clock is
already ticking. Some more than twelve hours have already passed.
What they continue on is that once all Israeli hostages released,

(08:48):
Israel will then release two hundred and fifty life sentenced
prisoners plus seventeen hundred Gozzins who were detained after October seventh,
including all women and children detained.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
In that context.

Speaker 3 (08:58):
For every Israeli hostage who remains are released, Israeli release
the remains of fifteen deceased Gosins. Once all hostages are returned,
Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence to decommission their
weapons will be given amnesty. This is by far maybe
one of the most important parts of the deal. They
say that members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza
will be provided safe passage to receiving countries. Finally, upon

(09:21):
acceptance of this agreement. Full aid will be immediately set
into the Gaza Strip. Aid quantities will be consistent with
what was included in January nineteen, twenty twenty five agreement
regarding Humanitarian Aid. Let's go to the next part here, please,
because we'll continue. The body will set the framework and
handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza will until
such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform

(09:42):
program as outlined in various proposals, including Trump's Peace Plan
in twenty twenty and the Saudi French proposal, can securely
and effectively take back control of Gaza. This is, by far,
I think the most important one, because what they are
saying is that it will set a framework for the
future redevelopment and governance of Gaza, which may include the
Palestinian Authority, such that it reforms to basically an Israeli

(10:04):
proposal of twenty twenty. Why does that matter, because what
it means is that in the interim, a quote Trump
economic plan to rebuild and energized Gaza will be convened
by a panel of experts who have helped burt some
of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East,
nobody's quite sure exactly what that means, and then continuing,
I'm going to skip over a few because this is

(10:24):
by far the most important and probably if this deal
were to go through, this is immediately the context which matters.
The committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and
international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international
transitional body, the quote Board of Peace, which will be
headed and shared by President Donald J. Trump, with other

(10:45):
members and heads of state to be announced, including former
Prime Minister Tony Blair. So basically Tony Blair, his name
has been floating out there for quite some time, along
with Trump, who I guess will be more of a
ceremonial figure of this Board of Peace. But this will
be the new quote governing authority over Gaza if this
were to happen. For those who are perhaps steeped in

(11:06):
a little bit of history, the last time that the
United States tried something like this, it was an abject disaster.
It was called the Coalitional Provisional Authority, which was put
into place for the governance of Iraq after we overthrew
the Saddam regime, and it ended up being the single
most disastrous decision the United States made other than invasion
in the first place, and it led to the collapse

(11:27):
of the entire society sectoria in civil war.

Speaker 1 (11:31):
And this is only that's why.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
I mean, when you look at the type of individuals involved,
the kind of the money grab that's happening, the involvement
of a guy who literally was involved with the invasion
of Iraq, Tony Blair, you should be a little bit
skeptical here. In particular, there's a lot of different ways
in which this deal could be rejected by Hamas and
or some future Palestinian authority. I mean, basically, what they're

(11:53):
telling them is you're not even going to have any
say over the future of Gaza until you reform yourselves
to whatever the.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
Israelis want you too.

Speaker 3 (12:00):
If you look at by the way, the PA has
no legitimacy right now in the eyes of even people
in the West Bank. Why would they they're basically under
you know, total Israeli subjugation from and in some cases,
I believe that they're like seen as collaborators effectively.

Speaker 2 (12:17):
In some cases, I'm broadly yeah, I sure.

Speaker 3 (12:20):
I mean, it's kind of fair to be honest, if
you're looking in terms of them of some sort of
like governing authority that is anyway represents you know, you
if you are living in the West Bank. So it's
not like that's going to be a popular way to
make over. And if anything, Israeli just want them to
become even more you know of an Israeli subset. So
this all is very sketchy. I mean, there's a couple

(12:42):
of things which I will say are not bad about it. Like,
first of all, any end of the war I think
would be good. And at this point, having spoken with
Ryan and we're gonna have Jeremy Skahillan here in a
little bit. The people there have suffered so badly and
so much they will take almost anything at this point,
and who could possibly blame them. I've seen Palestinians actually
saying this goes, hey, if they take this deal, every

(13:04):
one of you needs to shut your mouth, because you
have no idea what it's like to have hundreds of
thousands of your people killed, wounded, destroyed in all of that.
And if you were in their position, you would.

Speaker 1 (13:12):
Probably take it too.

Speaker 3 (13:13):
An important part of the deal is that they say
that no Palestinian will be forcibly removed from the Gaza strip.
Now there are important things though, that are missing from
the deal, and that were also were made clear by
the Trump administration and might be in Yahoo not in Yahoo.
In his press conference explicitly said there can be no
Palestinian state period. So that is going to be a

(13:33):
very difficult sticking point for a lot of the West
and for the Middle Eastern nations, which would have to
involve themselves because they're declaring it at the top. Second,
although Trump said in his press conference and earlier that
he would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank
and Gaza, it is in no way present in this document,
and so as an explicit part of a so called

(13:54):
peace deal, it does not preclude a future annexation of
the West Bank and of Gaza. Of course, official annexation
is a little different than the de facto that we
already have, but that still does matter that those two
things were not put into place. And let's keep in
mind the Israeli contacts. Let's put a five please up
here on the screen. Member of the Israeli government, you know,
Finance Minister Smotriz quote set red lines for a ceasefire

(14:17):
before Bibe's visit to the United States, Hamas withdrawal no
Palestinian state. He also confirmed his red lines include the
IDF remaining in certain perimeter areas of the Gaza Strip
and a quote complete disarmament and withdrawal of Hamas. Many
of the withdrawal things that were allegedly agreed to here
by bb Net and Yahu would fly in the face
of Smotrich and in fact, news breaking overnight out of

(14:40):
Israel that they are not even going to bring this
for government approval. Amit Segal, pro Israeli journalist in Israel,
he says, in an attempt to keep Smotrich in ben Givere,
the government will not vote on the Trump plan, and
in agreement with the Americans, it was decided that will
be brought for government approval only the hostage deal itself,
which is the withdrawal and relief of the hostages in

(15:02):
exchange for the hospital, withdrawal and release of the palasing
and prisoners exchange for the hostages. The Religious Zionism Party
clarified yesterday they would leave the coalition if that plan
were brought for government approval. So that is actually the
sticking point is whether the Israeli government coalition itself can
even stand under this alleged piece deal not to mention Hamas,
and we're going to get Jeremy ska Hill's update here

(15:22):
in a little bit.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
Yeah, well, from the Israeli side, you know, the big
sticking point for the you know, Smow Church and Ben
Giverer people is that it doesn't contemplate Jewish resettlement of Gaza.
And that's what they've been dreaming of. They've been having conferences,
they've been asserting this is going to happen, that's what
they want, and so this plan doesn't explicitly at least

(15:43):
contemplate that occurring. So that's the big problem for them,
not to mention. They just you know, they enjoy continuing
the suffering, as does most of the country for that matter.
They're just to flesh out this deal and what it
really actually means. I mean, number one, as you pointed out, Sager,
not only do you have Yahoo out there just saying look,

(16:03):
there's not going to be a Palestinian state. There is
no even contemplation of a path to a Palestinian state
contained anywhere in this deal. So what you're signing up
for is endless continued subjugation by you know, it's no
longer directly Israel, but it's Israel's proxies the US and
Tony Blair, weirdly neocon were criminal from the Iraq War days.

(16:24):
Put in charge of this thing, you have a you know,
requirement that everybody laid down arms, that there's complete demilitarization,
which means any sort of armed resistance and struggle is
basically like you know, the intention is to push that
off the table.

Speaker 7 (16:40):
You know.

Speaker 2 (16:40):
On the other hand, like you said, Sager, look the
misery and the suffering is extreme, right. People want to
be able just to live, They want to be able
to eat. They don't want their children to starve to death.
The one improvement of this plan versus the things that
were being contemplated before is that they say at least
no forced displacement of Palestine. Even in that though, there

(17:02):
are question marks because you know, if you put enough
pressure on the population and make life miserable enough for
them and then open up the border, then you are
you know, they may not be literally leaving at the
barrel of the gun, but pretty much that's that's sort
of what is occurring when you put that much pressure
on a population. In addition, there's no guarantee that Israel

(17:24):
can't just go right back in, reinvade, restart the genocide
whenever they want to. So those are some of the
big I mean, sticking points is kind of to under
sell some of the problems with this plan. I mean,
we should be really clear. This is a plan that
was crafted with Israel's interest and desires of Net Naho
in mind.

Speaker 4 (17:42):
That's what it is now.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Hamas has previously accepted deals that contained a lot of
things that were meant to be poison pills, and what's
happened at that point is Net NYAHUO has gone back
and inserted more provisions to make it even more unpalatable
and make it impossible for Hama's leadership to be able
to expect except I fully expect some sort of process
like that similarly to ultimately play out here because of

(18:06):
the coalitional problems that you are that you are referencing,
we can put up a six on the screen. What
Arab leaders throughout the region have said. Foreign Ministers of
Guitar Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabian Egypt have
released the following statement response to the Gaza Plan quote.
The foreign Ministers of those countries welcome President Trump's leadership
and his sincere efforts to end the war in Gaza,

(18:27):
and assert their confidence in his ability to find a
path to peace. So sort of like vague general endorsement
of you know, the fact that he's working on this,
and then you know, also just to the point of
Netnyahu immediately trying to undercut this deal and make sure
that it could never actually be brought to fruition. He
immediately then goes and gives a Hebrew speech to you know,

(18:50):
the domestic Israeli audience, saying effectively that there is no
intention of withdrawing Israeli troops from Gaza. He says, no way.
Quote that's not happening. A little bit of a longer
quote here that came from drop site. He said, this
is a historic visit. Instead of Hamas isolating us, we
turned the tables and isolated Hamas. Now the entire world,
including the Arab and Muslim world, is pressuring Hamas except

(19:11):
the terms we set together with President Trump to release
all our hostages, both living and deceased, while the idf
remains in.

Speaker 4 (19:18):
Most of the strip.

Speaker 2 (19:19):
Who would have believed this, After all, people constantly say
the IDF should withdraw. No way, that's not happening. So
that is Netanyahu's interpretation translation of this deal for his
own Israeli domestic audience.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
Fiery, yeah, ellent, Well not a surprise. You know what
have I said here a million times Google translate. It's
your great friend in this war. And yet that is
not something that people in the White House just generally
seem to understand, or maybe they do. My personal favorite
member of time of the press conference is when Trump
said maybe we shouldn't take any questions because things are developing.

(19:53):
He said, Bibe, unless you want to take a question
from a friendly Israeli journalist, and Biebe was like, oh,
absolutely not. It's like Trump is unaware that Babe doesn't.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
Do interviews with his own press corps.

Speaker 4 (20:05):
I Actually the person he would want to take a
question is.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
Israel, because they'd be like, hey, why did you take
money from Qatar? What's up with their corruption trial? He
recently it's funny if you go to the Israeli pressed.
Times of Israel recently wrote a piece where he said,
in rare Israeli interview.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
Bbe says X, Y and C.

Speaker 3 (20:23):
So inside Israel, everybody knows he doesn't talk the press.

Speaker 4 (20:26):
Are the milk boys here?

Speaker 8 (20:27):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (20:28):
Question from can we.

Speaker 1 (20:29):
Get is new in the building? Please be here? Yeah,
he's like Steiny, is that you? Where? Where are you?
Are you somewhere out there in the audience? So yeah,
it's they wait, so no questions.

Speaker 3 (20:41):
Our press or thinks he does take a lot of
questions because he's always on Fox News. It's like the
guy's literally on Fox News more than he is on
his own channel thirteen in Israel. But hey, I guess
that tells you a lot about him, doesn't it.

Speaker 4 (20:53):
All Right, we have Jeffany's not our press corp too.

Speaker 1 (20:56):
Yeah, that's certainly correct.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
So look broadly, there's I think the deal is not
bad considering where how horrible things are in Gaza. I'm
curious to see how Maas and all of them will
handle it. Something that we talked about. Interestingly, I'm going
to ask Jeremy about in the future, and he's talked
with us in the past of the Hamas itself has
seen governance of Gaza as a problem, so they don't
necessarily think giving that up is all that consequential. It's

(21:22):
really going to be more about some of the future
sticking points about amnesty. Can you really trust that they're
going to give you amnesty? Right? Like, would you considering
how the government has conducted itself for the civilian population,
what this new coalitional authority, the Middle Eastern countries like Katar, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, the UAE that would allegedly be footing the

(21:42):
bill for a lot of this. Who else is going
to be involved? I mean, these are the actually big questions.
The war itself could be simple compared to whats And from.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
An American perspective and from an American first perspective, this
contemplates a lot of US involvement.

Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
Putting Trump in charge of the Gaza starf it's insane
with you know, Tony Blair as his underling like sort
of running the day to day. I mean, it's it's
that's a that is a wild thing. What you're what
you're asking not just from us, but you're asking from
the palaestin people is like complete center surrender is complete surrender.
It is being taken over by the American president and

(22:19):
his weird neo con Lackey. It is you know, giving
up on any sort of armed orssistance, giving up effectively
on Palestinian statehood. I mean, that's not contemplated at all
in this deal. You already have the Israeli saying, yeah,
where the IDF is going to stay in the strip,
We're not going anywhere. Yeah, So you know that's that's
the reality of what's being offered with this plan.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
That's true.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
And again I don't begrudge those people if they want
to take it, considering what they've all been through. So
with all that, let's get to Jeremy Skhill. He's the expert.
He's been working the phones and everything overnight, so let's get.

Speaker 6 (22:51):
To him.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
To further break down this deal and especially to give
us some of the perspective from the Palestinian side. We
are joined by Jeremy ska Hill, of course, co founder
of drop site News.

Speaker 4 (23:02):
Great to see Zar, good as human.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
Good to be with both of.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
You, Yeah, of course, So just give us top line
what you were hearing from Hamas and others in the
in the factions.

Speaker 4 (23:12):
Ever, on the Palestinian side.

Speaker 9 (23:14):
Well, Hamas had not been given any of the details
on this proposal. They were just reading what others were
reading over the past week or ten days. The leaks
that happened in the Hebrew media. They weren't consulted at
all about any terms of this. I mean, you had
Jared Kushner, the President's son in law, Steve whitkoff Ron Dermer,
who's nettya, who's point man and top advisor basically working

(23:36):
on this. They then brought in some Arab and Muslim countries,
and clearly you see some concessions, although a lot of
it is sort of unenforceable, that were made to Arab
and Muslim nations in order to get there buy in.
But there were no Palestinians whatsoever involved with the crafting
of what Trump says is a enduring peace plan for
the Palestinians. So the first reaction that I've heard from

(23:59):
people associated with the Palestinian resistance is, how can you
announce a plan and not have consulted with any Palestinians. Now,
while Hamas just now has formerly been given this framework,
they haven't officially taken a position out of yet. They
say they're going to do some consultations, etc. And come back.
But what I'm hearing behind the scenes from people in

(24:21):
these Palestinian resistance factions is that they view this as
a total farce, an attempt on the part of Trump
and Israel to put an international stamp, a rubber stamp
of legitimacy on what amounts to a long term Israeli
subjugation plan for the Palestinians. In the details of this plan,
if you read carefully, it links the issue of humanitarian

(24:44):
aid and other life essentials to the demilitarization and surrender
of Hamas. It also imposes on the Palestinians a foreign
led essentially kind of viceroy. It seems likely it's going
to be Tony Blae, which is quite ironic, bloody ironic,
given his role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

(25:07):
And I'm hearing comparisons of what Bush and the neocons
did when they went into Iraq where they imposed l
Paul Bremer, who cut his teeth working under Henry Kissinger
as the kind of viceroy of Iraq. So there are
and I heard you guys were talking about this earlier.
There are terms in this agreement that clearly were lifted

(25:27):
from previous frameworks that Hamas had agreed to, the framework
about aid and saying that it's going to be run
by the United Nations and the red cross. The language
about the Israelis are going to do a phased withdrawal
a significant number of Palestinians that are going to be
freed in exchange for the Israeli captives. But the devil
is in the details on that issue of the captives.

(25:49):
What it says is that within seventy two hours, the
Palestinian side has to release all Israelis living in dead
and only then will there be a release of Palestinian prisoners.
It also contemplates a total demilitarization of Gaza. Set aside
Hamas and Islamic You had for a second, what this
is saying is that Palestinians must surrender any rights to

(26:13):
defensive war against Israel. You know, these are still a
people that under international law are under occupation, and so
what this is saying is in return for ending the genocide,
you have to bend the knee. That's how Palestinians are
viewing this. The resistance on the Palestinian side is in
a very complicated position right now. There's a lot of
pressure coming from within Gaza for people who just can't

(26:35):
take it anymore. I mean, they're being exterminated, they're being starved.
So there is that level of desperation. At the same time,
I think that there is a sense that if Hamas
formally agrees to this as written, it amounts to a
surrender of the Palestinian cause of liberation. And I think
we're going to see again Hamas try to come back

(26:56):
and say, look, we agree to these things. We understand
we're going to follow some poison pills with this, but X,
Y and Z need to change. The last time they
were doing that was the last time I was on
this show, and while we were talking, Israel bombed the
Hamas negotiators as they met to discuss a plan that
Trump told them was going to be his final plan.
So I'm hearing a lot of suspicion, a lot of

(27:18):
critical feedback on this, but also a recognition that this
may be the time, the last time, that they have
to make some sort of a deal. And finally, I'll
just say, you can't get the Israeli captives freed unless
you make an agreement with Hamas and Islamic Chihad. So
if Netnyahu's plan is to say we don't care about
the twenty living Israeli captives and the twenty eight bodies

(27:41):
of the others. Then they move forward with this plan
and say it doesn't matter what Hamas says. But Israeli
society seems pretty clear that they want as many of
those captives back living as possible, and if that's the case,
you have to make an actual deal with Hamas.

Speaker 3 (27:53):
Yeah, it's such so complicated, Jeremy. One of the things
that we talked about earlier, I'd seen I was watching
box News to my own sugar in while this was
all happening, and they kept speculating. They're like, well, why
would Hamas agree to this? They would effectively have to
give up power. Something that you really enlighten me on
is that they don't necessarily want power after all of this,
is that they view governance itself as a problem. But

(28:15):
they also it's intertwined, like you said earlier, to the
very idea of Palestinian resistance. Could you break down how
Palstini Islamic Jihad, Hamas and then generally the Palestinian population
the varying different cross cuts that are all feeding into
whether they would agree to this deal.

Speaker 9 (28:32):
Look, if you look at public opinion polling, not just
in Gaza, but across all of Palestine, the occupied West
Bank Jerusalem. Hamas remains a very popular political institution. Yes,
its popularity has declined, but it remains a premier player
in the life of Palestinian politics. And it was controversial
when Hamas, which started as a Islamic resistance movement in

(28:56):
the late nineteen eighties, decided to get involved with electoral politics.
I've talked with members of Hamas would say that in
retrospect that was a mistake. But the fact is that
Hamas has been the governing authority for pederer or worse
over the last two decades in Gaza, and if there
were democratic elections held tomorrow throughout Palestine, Hamas would fare
pretty well in those elections. Palestinian Islamic Jihad has never

(29:18):
gotten involved with any electoral politics organized under the framework
of the Palestinian authority, and they've always been a Palestinian
resistance movement. What Hamas and Islamic Jihad have tried to do, though,
over the course of really the past six months, but
throughout the genocide, was to say we're not going to
just unilaterally make decisions about what happens in a ceasefire agreement,

(29:40):
because it wouldn't be fair to the broader Palestinian society,
and so they've tried to pull in as many Palestinian
political groups and factions and leaders as possible, including those
that are political opponents of Hamas, prior to giving a response.
So what I think we're going to see now is
Hamas and Islamic Jihad try to gather together as many

(30:01):
political factions from Palestine as possible to offer what is
a unified response to this American and Israeli ultimatum. But
at the end of the day, Hamas, the bombing of
Hamas's headquarters in Qatar has created a real challenge for communication. Remember,
the external leadership of Hamas can make whatever declarations they wish,

(30:26):
they can sign whatever paper they wish. But if the
commanders on the ground inside of Gaza, from the Casam
Brigades or Soriyah al Kulds, the forces that are holding
the Israeli captives, the forces that have the weapons inside
of Gaza, if they don't sign off on this deal,
then it's just a piece of paper with some signatures
of people living in Doha, Egypt and Turkey. So at

(30:47):
the end of the day, what the Israelis did in
this strike was make it quite difficult for the Palestinian
side to actually mobilize everyone to get a unified answer,
it's going to happen. I'm told that they're using couriers,
but I will say I've been told by several sources
Hamas leaders, and I don't know how much this has
been reported. The Hamas leaders who survived those Israeli strikes

(31:10):
are being held in conditions that they don't have regular
access to phones, they don't have regular access to computers.
Many of them are not allowed to meet with each other.
It is extraordinarily difficult to communicate, and you know, and
I'm someone who's been communicating as a journalist with ams
for many, many months, it's very difficult right now to
communicate with them. So that also has been an impact

(31:33):
of this, and I think it was intentional.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
Yeah, I think that's a great point. Jeremy, can you
speak This relates to what you were just saying, to
the issue of trust. You know, the deal is only
as good as your faith that it's going to be
executed according to the terms. There are no guarantees that
Israel won't you know, get their hostages back and then
say no, we're not giving you your captives. That we've
been holding. No, we're just going right back to the genocide,
et cetera. So what is the sense there from the

(31:57):
Palestinian side.

Speaker 9 (31:59):
Well, look, you don't even need to ask a Palestinian.
Look what Benjamin Netanyahu did. He stands there next to Trump,
he plays his role. He says, ah, yes, we've agreed
to this plan, and then he goes and he records
a video in Hebrew, and what he says, essentially is,
we've managed to get an international stamp of legitimacy, including
an Arab stamp of legitimacy, on our agenda. No one

(32:19):
thought that this was possible. And he even said in
that statement, you know, people were saying, oh, Israel needs
to withdraw from Gaza, and that's not going to happen.
And in fact, if you look at the details of
the agreement and you look at the maps that were
produced by the Trump administration in rolling this thing out
on Monday, the maps look very similar to what Israel
has been insisting the whole time. It allows a total

(32:41):
encirclement of Gaza. It keeps Israeli forces entrenched in that
Philadelphi corridor along the border with Egypt. That would that
always has been Gaza's only gateway to the outside world
not controlled by Israel, and it says, you know that
their forces are going to remain there until standards set
by Trump for our deployment of an international force are met,

(33:02):
which raises another issue. First of all, is Israel even
going to agree to allow foreign troops from Arab nations
or Muslim nations to deploy inside of Gaza. That's a question,
even though that it's in the agreement. But secondly, are
those Arab forces do they think that they're going to
disarm Palestinian resistance groups? I mean, you're gonna have what
Amarati troops, Katari troops, Jordan, They're going to go and

(33:27):
somehow disarmed Cassam brigades. If the Palestinians are saying, no,
we won't give up our right to bear arms against
Israeli occupation, this thing is riddled with so many land mines.
And the great beneficiary of this, no matter what you know,
Trump friendly media outlets are saying or Barack revide reports
about how net and Yahoo was dragged into this, kicking
and screaming. Net and Yahoo benefits from this tremendously because

(33:51):
Trump has gotten all these Arab nations to bend the knee.
They're putting the stamp of legitimacy on it. They threw
a few chits to the Arab and Muslim countries and said,
oh yeah, we'll put some language in about eventual self
determination in statehood. But at the end of the day,
there's no enforcement mechanism, Crystal. That's the question that you're asking,
and that's what I'm hearing from Palestinian negotiators who are
going to have to deal with this thing, is this

(34:13):
is wrapped up with the veneer of legitimacy. But the
devil is in the details, and the details look very,
very favorable to Israel being able to continue the genocide,
which Netanyahu and Trumpell said they will if Hamas doesn't surrender.

Speaker 3 (34:26):
Right, And so what I was also what I pointed
out in our segment Jeremy, was not only no Palestinian
statehood mentioned, but also no annexation, you know, that was
mentioned as well. Trump has independently said I will not
allow Israel to annex the West Bank and or Gaza,
but that was not present in the details. He also
has his own coalition at home to worry about drop site.

(34:49):
We read on the show posted some Nettagnahu's comments in
Hebrew which were very different about Israeli withdrawal. Given all
of that, though, considering the sentim inside of Gaza and now,
how these Palestinian negotiators are seeing things. Are they seeing
it as even having the ability to give a counter
proposal and buy some time, or considering how things have

(35:12):
gone when they say it within seventy two hours is
are they just seeing this as a basically, like you said,
something wrapped in legitimacy that allows them to continue the war.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
What's their initial impression.

Speaker 9 (35:23):
It's a great question and it's tough to know. I
mean again, the last time they were supposedly reviewing a proposal,
there was an attempt to assassinate all of them in
previous rounds. Yes, Hamas has been able through the mediators
from Katar and Egypt to give feedback. Then the Israelis comment.
I have to say that at times, you know, with Coffin,
Trump and others have sort of said to Israel, you
should take two steps toward the Palestinian position on this

(35:45):
issue or that issue. Now typically they're just hardlining it, saying,
you know, you must accept Israel's conditions, but that's a
real question. Qatar announced, because of this sort of apology
from NETANYAHUU yesterday made from the White House, that it
was going to re enter the Fray as mediator, and
Qatar and Egypt and Turkey now is getting involved, are

(36:06):
holding consultative meetings. They say they're going to talk with Hamas.
I don't think Hamas is just going to accept this
as written. I think they're going to ask some clarifying
questions and they're going to propose some amendments. All of
the Hamas officials that have been permitted by Katar to
speak in recent days and especially last night, we're indicating
that they have a very negative view of this, that

(36:29):
they feel like this strips Palestinians of their right to
self determination. The question is, you know, is the response
going to be to kid try to kill them all again,
or is there going to be an actual negotiation. If
there isn't an actual negotiation, net NYAHUO is sentencing those
twenty living Israeli captives to death.

Speaker 2 (36:44):
Almost certainly, do you think that Israel, that Israel and
the US want Hamas to accept this deal, or do
you think that they're sort of hoping that they've created
enough poison pills in there under the veneer of legitimacy.
So when Hamas and Trump come back and say we've
got it, she's with X, Y and Z, they say, oh, well,
you can't negotiate with them.

Speaker 4 (37:02):
We've just got to continue. We have no choice.

Speaker 9 (37:05):
Net Yahoo absolutely wants Hamas to reject this, so that
he then says, well, you know, the US tried all
the Arab countries, did it. Hamas wouldn't listen to any
of them. We have no choice but to go ahead
and do that. I think that's pretty clear that that's
what Netanyahu wants. Trump is a little bit different. Remember
there's domestic politics at play here too, and some of
this has really become very accentuated since the assassination of

(37:27):
Charlie Kirk. Trump is facing a base within his Maga
movement that is starting to become very hostile toward the
US position on Israel, and I think Trump also sees
huge dollar signs. You know, there was a moment during
this this public uh you know statement with net Yahoo
on Monday at the White House, Trump kept referring to

(37:48):
Ron Drmer and talking to Trump gave this really false
history of how Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, but
he kept saying, they gave up what is the most
beautiful real estate in the entire Middle East. And in
this plan you have a neoliberal economic vision for development
in Gaza. You had Jared Kushner, who is bankrolled to
the tune of billions of dollars now in the private

(38:10):
sector by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. The Trump
family stands to benefit tremendously financially from pushing through a
privatization agenda in Gaza. So I think that there may
be a difference. Say that again as well, and yeah,
I mean so these guys, I think, are also looking

(38:30):
at it as like, Okay, Trump didn't exactly do his
Middle East riviera that he threatened in February, but I
think he sees a path to it through Jared Kushner
and other friends of his where they're going to cash
in on this. And it's no coincidence that they say, oh,
Tony Blair is going to be, you know, a major
player in this. Blair has spent his entire life since

(38:50):
leaving office as the British Prime Minister getting bankrolled for
pedaling his influence by dictators and despots around the world.
And so this whole thing I think is becoming Gaza
incorporated for Trump in his inner circle. So it might
be a case where Netanyah who wants Hamas to reject it,
where Trump legitimately wants to find a way to achieve
through diplomatic means what Israel failed to achieve militarily because

(39:14):
they didn't actually defeat Hamas on the battlefield.

Speaker 3 (39:16):
Right, Yeah, and that's the last thing here. You said
that they were effectively sentencing the hostages to death. I'm curious,
why do you see such finality we've seen, I mean
Trump from the first day he took office, release the
hostages or else. In forty eight hours nothing happens. Yeah,
I will back Israel to the full hilt. It's like,
well you already are, So what does that mean? You know,
all hell will break loose, Like if they militarily could

(39:40):
do more to Gaza, they would, but they just can't.
And so you know what, Jeremy, why do you see
it as this is the final straw and not just
another you know, step in whatever the future negotiation will be.

Speaker 9 (39:53):
What I'm what I'm saying is that if the United
States and Israel decide, Okay, Hamas is rejecting this deal,
but we're going to move forward with this plan, and
they go in and they try to deploy international forces,
and then you have sort of simultaneous operators where you
have some international forces in areas that Israel has relinquished
control to an Arab or international force, if that even happens,

(40:16):
But then you have Israel continuing to do its operations.
And what I'm saying is if they've decided that they're
done with trying to negotiate the release of the Israeli captives,
and Netanyahu says, Okay, we're going to just intensify military
operations to try to retrieve these captives. I think it's
very likely every single one of the living captives is
going to be killed either by Israel many of them

(40:37):
already have been killed by Israel, or when they attempt
to take them. The Casambragades have said they've put mechanisms
in place so that if Israel tries to rescue them
from a tunnel or from an area where they are,
that their captors could essentially kill them as Israel tries
to raid it. So that's what I mean by it.
I mean, I agree with your assessment that there's been
all these threats and it just continues on and on.

(40:59):
But I do think that this time it's Trump and
net and Yahoo are either going to just do full
blown massive invasion as we're seeing in Gaza City and
expand it out, or they're going to try to move
forward with aspects of this plan, whether or not Hamas
agrees to it, and in that case, I think the
hostages die.

Speaker 2 (41:18):
And do you think that Israel was sort of pushed
towards the scambit by some of the international pressure that
has increased recently.

Speaker 9 (41:25):
I think Trump was pushed into it by that, not
that he necessarily cares what Europe says or others, but
again Trump, remember in May, Trump took that trip we
all were on this show talking about it to the Gulf.
I think Trump legitimately sees massive dollar signs in his
relationship with all of these Arab countries, and I think
that he also is getting just fed up with having

(41:47):
to deal with Israel's war. He realizes that they're not
going to be able to win militarily on the battlefield,
and so I think he's trying to do what is
in the best interests of his family, business, his friends, business,
and politically in the United States. I think he recognizes
that the Marjorie Taylor, Green, Tucker Carlson wing of that

(42:08):
movement is gaining popularity, not losing it, and that this
is becoming a problem politically for Trump among his own base.

Speaker 1 (42:17):
Yeah, I think that's all. It's true.

Speaker 4 (42:19):
Jeez, I got bb back at the White House again.
I gotta do with this. You can't have this guy
here every other week.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
All right, Jeremy, thank you so much as always for
your in depth reporting and you know, great analysis.

Speaker 4 (42:30):
It's just absolutely invaluable.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
Thank you, Jeremy.

Speaker 9 (42:34):
Always a pleasure to come on with you guys.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
Turning now to domestic politics, the government does shut down
today at eleven fifty nine pm Eastern Time. No end
in sight now. Currently it does look like that's where
things are going. I think, of course, things could change.
There was a high stakes meeting at the White House
immediately after Prime Minister Netanyahu left. The House Democratic Majority
Leader and House Democratic Leader Chuck or it's our Senate

(43:00):
Leader Chuck Schumer came to the White House for a
quote negotiation where basically the Trump White House told them
give us whatever, give us what we want, or you're
going to shut down the government.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
The Democrats effectively said the same thing.

Speaker 3 (43:13):
Immediately afterwards, both sides kind of came to the microphone
to lay out their view of whatever, of everything that's
going on. Here was the Republican response from the Vice
President JD.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Vance. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 10 (43:24):
We just had a very frank conversation with the Senate
and House Democratic leadership. Look, the principle at stake here
is very simple. We have disagreements about tax policy, but
you don't shut that government down. We have disagreements about
healthcare policy, but you don't shut the government down. You
don't use your policy disagreements as leverage to not pay
our troops, to not have officials for services of government
actually function.

Speaker 4 (43:45):
All right, So, yeah, funny to hear Republicans tate opposition.
Now everybody, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
Everybody says it when they're in power. I don't even
know what to say.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
I'm like, yeah, okay, whatever, that's what every executive has
always said about a government shutdown, and what the opposition
has always said that is precisely the point of actually
using your leverage of power. But anyways, here was Chuck Schumer.
What he had to say in terms of what he
laid out, Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 11 (44:09):
He laid out to the President some of the consequences
of what's happening in healthcare, and by his face and
by the way he looked, I think he heard about
them for the first time. The closing of rural hospitals,
the fact that so many clinics are closing. And I
don't know if he knew this before, but the fact
that people will pay four thousand dollars more a year,

(44:32):
four hundred dollars more a month, close to five thousand
dollars more a year on their healthcare premiums if we
don't do anything and people don't know what to do.
The average working family can't afford that. I told him
how I met a mother who was crying to me
because our daughter had cancer and what has happened with
health care, with what they have done, She's gonna watch

(44:56):
her daughter suffer and maybe die. And so he seemed
to for the first time understand the magnitude of this crisis.
And we hope he'll talk to the Republican leaders and
tell them we need bipartisan input on healthcare. On recisions
into their bill. Their bill does not have these. They
never talk to us.

Speaker 12 (45:16):
Dune didn't negotiate with me, Johnson didn't negotiate with hakem
and on the key issues. The Appropriations Committee, which has
talked about three of the smaller bills, they're good bills.
They said the appropriators couldn't agree and said kick it
up to the four leaders. They still haven't talked.

Speaker 1 (45:35):
So there you go.

Speaker 3 (45:35):
The Democrats are centering here on healthcare and some of
the consequences of the one big, beautiful bill. But as
we extensively discussed yesterday, they kind of backed their way
into this. Basically, the base wants a shutdown, so they're
going to shut down. So what they did is they
pull tested their best messages and they said this is
what we're going to shut down the government about. And look,
I mean, you know, kind of smarts what the Republicans
did in twenty thirteen and elsewhere, and it does set

(45:58):
up the stakes for some sort of high stakes negotiations.
The ultimate question, though, and that's where my money was,
is will Chuck Schumer cave? And yesterday he looked pretty
close to caving. Let's put this up here on the screen,
just to give you all a little bit of a
rundown of what happened. Initially, Chuck Schumer and his team
came out and floated to the press that maybe what

(46:20):
they would do is something called a seven to ten
day CR. A CR is called a continuing resolution. What
it would have done is continue to fund the government
at the same levels for seven to ten days while
they reached some sort of negotiation. However, immediately there was
outrage from a lot of Democrats saying, oh my god,
look he's already caving. And so he came out and

(46:40):
he said, actually, I won't support a.

Speaker 1 (46:42):
Seven to ten day CR.

Speaker 3 (46:45):
He also bashed media speculation about that trial balloon, which
he literally floated himself.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
But let's all just move past that a little bit.

Speaker 3 (46:52):
The point remains that the government's probably going to shut
down as of right now. Again, we're recording this in
the morning. Things certainly could change and they cave, but
that's where things are going. So now it becomes more
of a question about the politics of it. As we
laid out extensively, the Democratic base wants to shut down.
They just want Trump to suffer. The Republican base also
kind of wants to shut down. What the Trump administration

(47:13):
is setting themselves up for is they're like, hey, great,
now we can just fire a ton of federal workers.
They have total discretionary authority. They could probably figure out
a way to keep ice in the military going. They
don't care right about government services and the rest. They're like, cool,
this is actually what.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
We want to do. We didn't even want fund the
Department of.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
Education, so it'd be kind of like a return to
Doge almost in the initial days of the administration. And
so that is kind of what I think is going
to be the bigges sticking point for a lot of
the Democrats who are institutionally in power, because you know,
they're addicted to norms and to institutions and to bureaucrats,
and so, I don't know, it's going to be an
interesting one.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
I don't know how this one's going to shake out.

Speaker 4 (47:49):
Yeah, well, there's a lot to say about it.

Speaker 2 (47:50):
So, first of all, it does feel like a bit
of a role reversal because most of the shutdown fights
have come from the Republican side, and they're the ones
who really pioneered like the bnksmanship. It used to be
just sort of automatic, like of course you fund the government.
Of course you're not going to just have the government
shut down. There was another, you know, incident in the nineties,
but by and large, it's been sort of like the
modern Republican Party that has really pioneered this kind of

(48:13):
like debt sealing and government shut down brinksmanship. And usually
it's the Democrats who are out their warning like, hey,
if you do this, you're going to have all sorts
of consequences, like things that people rely on for the
federal government that are not going to be there for them.
The longer that it goes on, the more tenuous those
services become. So it's been kind of funny to watch
like Mike Johnson go out and loud the importance of

(48:35):
the federal government and all of these government programs, and
you know, at the same time as literally today, one
hundred thousand federal government employees are resigning because of that.

Speaker 4 (48:47):
You guys remember back in the day.

Speaker 2 (48:48):
That fork in the Road email, So there was the
deal then was basically you get to not work and
get paid for a number of months. That time period
has expired, So today is the day that one hundred
thousand federal government employees are being resigning and we're essentially,
you know, sort of like pressured to leave the government.
So this has been a very radical administration in terms

(49:11):
of destruction of core government functions. That's been a lot
of what they've been about. Russ Vote, of course, as
being one of the primary architects here. Elon Musk was
the public face of it obviously with Doge, but a
lot of this work, even as Doge has faded into
the background, has continued, and Russ Vote said very clearly
like he wants to make government employees suffer. He wants

(49:32):
to put pressure on them and get them to leave
and force them out and cut their jobs and all
of that. So that has been continuing apace.

Speaker 1 (49:39):
They see it.

Speaker 2 (49:40):
People on his side see this as another excuse to
accelerate the stripping of government and the firing of government
employees that you know, they aren't particularly fond of to
begin with. So at the same time that you got
the Mike Johnson's of the world out there singing the
praise as the various federal government programs, behind the scenes,
actual w work that is being done is to gut

(50:01):
those programs and make them sort of fall apart.

Speaker 3 (50:04):
Yeah, it is kind of ironic. Yeah, because look, they
obviously want to shut down. They would love there's what
do you think, what do we know about the first
Trump administration or the second Trump administration? They love unilateral power, right, Well,
the shutdown in a lot of ways, I explained for
the Obama administration, you have almost unilateral power in how
to decide how to shut down. So, for example, you

(50:24):
get to decide who's essential and who is not. If
you're not from DC, this is a fun game where
people who are quote essential still have to come to
work whether they are being paid or not.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
But everybody's not essential. You get to hang out. A
lot of the bars around here do like shutdown happy hours.
Let's be honest.

Speaker 3 (50:40):
A lot of the federal governmentployees like it because they
get back paid, they don't have to work, And so
what happens is that it kind of becomes this great
game of the executive who do you guys to decide
and not this time around, they're like, listen, we're just
gonna fire people because the gfzis authority to basically come
in and say, well, in order to keep with the budget, etc.
That's what we're going to do. Russ vote as you
said he's the budget director. Actually went on Steve Bannon

(51:02):
showed to lay some of this out. Let's take a listen.

Speaker 7 (51:05):
I don't think anyone should be afraid of a government shutdown.
I managed it for President Trump. We made it as
painless and possible, consistent with the law.

Speaker 9 (51:13):
And it's actually what's necessary to pass.

Speaker 7 (51:15):
These bills individually is because how else are you going
to get moderates to vote for spending cuts if they're
not up against the fact that they need to pass
these things to get out of a shutdown themselves. So
I think there should be no talk about a stop
dep measure at this point. They need to be focused
squarely on moving these bills.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
So there you go.

Speaker 3 (51:36):
We're not afraid of a shutdown they're going to use.
So now it's actually a question of politics. The politics
of this initially are actually pretty interesting. Let's go ahead
and put C six please up on the screen. So
there was some initial polling that was released here that
shows with the forty eight hours to go quote, Republicans
haven't entirely won the blame game with voters. A new
Morning Console poll that was shared with Playbook reports at

(51:58):
forty five percent of voters are more likely to blame
Republicans if there's a shutdown compared to thirty two percent
blaming Democrats. That's some thirteen point margin. The split does
get wider when looking at independent voters, who would be
more likely to blame Republicans by a seventeen point margin.
This was some two thousand voters that were surveyed last week. Quote,
as is nearly always the case with shut down, all
parties will come out looking worse, at least for a

(52:20):
brief period of time, was what they said. Republicans should
also understand there is a palpable perception AMONGST voters that
their majority status in Washington renders them responsible. This is
something that Democrats always have to contend with under.

Speaker 1 (52:32):
Obama as well.

Speaker 3 (52:33):
GOP voters, they say, are more likely to blame their
own party than Democrats are. Of the people surveyed, thirty
three percent of GOP voters would blame Republicans, twenty two
percent we'll say they would blame it Democrats. Democrats say
that they have been banking their shutdown strategy on a
thesis that voters will blame the party in power. Democratic
leaders have seen a similar trend across their polling and
heard from voters on the ground. They are in charge.

(52:54):
They have the House, they have the Senate, they have
the presidency. That means that they're the ones who have
to push the government. And then finally, the Democrats finally
centered on the healthcare issue as one that is the
most poll tested for what they eventually come around to.
There's a couple of big question marks here for shutdown politics.
First is who gets the initial blame. Now, Initially, from

(53:15):
what I remember covering the first shutdown under Donald Trump
in twy and eighteen, it was kind of like relatively equal.
What eventually became a problem for Trump was a thirty
five day shutdown is even though it was the Christmas season,
people get sick of not having government services.

Speaker 1 (53:29):
And you know, the.

Speaker 3 (53:30):
Federal government is the largest employer in the United States,
which means that some two million people were going without
pay for a month, especially during the Christmas season, right,
and so it was starting to have all kinds of
problems and people were getting real sick of and that's
eventually why Trump caved. So it's actually a real question
on the Democratic side of whether they can stand up
to a different administration this time around, which is basically

(53:52):
going to use it as carte blanche to do whatever
they want. Now, the Democratic base, I think is probably
radicalized enough to say Trump is going to do whatever
he wants anyways, so don't cave. The Republican base also
is one which is like, hey, great again, we can
continue to do mass deportation and fund the military.

Speaker 1 (54:10):
We don't give a shit.

Speaker 3 (54:11):
About the Department of Education or the Department of Transportation.
The risk will be probably something external. I mean, we're
going into hurricane season, so you've got this whole National
Weather Service problem, which was already having issues going into this.
You just never know what some sort of external event
could force it, and that's when the shutdown politics can

(54:31):
become very dangerous. There's also we've always you know, people
always point to this, but it is a real risk.
Remember TSA and all these other Sometimes during shutdowns you
can actually you can have huge like airline delays, FAA
air traffic control, all kinds of crazy things can start
showing up in people's lives. In National Park Service, Obama
famously shut all the parks during the shutdown, so it

(54:53):
can start to show up in your life very quickly. Actually,
if the administration wants it to. And that's where I
just have no idea where the politics as to go.
Why would the Democrats cave? They have no incentive on
their base other than an institutional love for the bureaucrat,
or if Trump is going to try to break them,
which I would not put past the current Democratic party.
So but I guess there's a more moderate Republican faction also,

(55:15):
which is like, hey, you know a lot of normal
people like government services. A lot of people use the
government every single day, So you have no idea how
that will look like as well. The other question is
whether the Democrats will hold up troop pay.

Speaker 1 (55:26):
That's always a big one.

Speaker 3 (55:27):
They probably won't. Everyone almost ALWAYE funds the troops. There's
like certain things like that. The question is whether Republicans
would allow that to go through. So there's all kinds
of machinations that you mean, well, and you know.

Speaker 2 (55:37):
Who doesn't get paid it would likely be essential and
continue working but doesn't get paid would be ice.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
Oh yeah, they definitely are going to.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
Get Democrats that definitely, you know, have taken note of
the fact that the ice thugs in the street would
not be getting paid.

Speaker 3 (55:50):
Yeah, but they're going to get their back pay eventually.

Speaker 4 (55:52):
Yeah, but you know that's not fun to mister paycheck.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
No, it certainly isn't.

Speaker 3 (55:57):
Keep in mind though, that they're not going to fire
them any of these name Vanbase, we're.

Speaker 1 (56:01):
Working in the doe. You people are the ones that
are going to be out.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
On the sty They're already out, so it's not all
of them has already been broadly shut down. I mean,
but that gets to the point of, like the Democratic base,
you know, the Democratic leadership has tried to split the
difference between what they think is the most politically palatable
broad message around shutdowns, around a shutdown that puts Republicans
on the most defensive, and what the base actually wants.

(56:24):
What the base actually wants, Yes, they care about healthcare. Well,
what they really feel like is you should not be
funding a fascist government. They would like to see conditions
like the National Guard needs to be withdrawn, Ice agents
need to be required to have their faces revealed.

Speaker 4 (56:37):
And not be masked up.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
They want to see those sorts of you know, NSPM
seven needs to be rot like those sorts of checks
on the Trumpean authoritarian crackdown is what the base actually wants.

Speaker 3 (56:47):
You but that's not going to happen, right, But they're
not in power, Like it's like you lost the election,
you have a minority status, Like why were they explaining.

Speaker 1 (56:54):
What the view is that?

Speaker 4 (56:55):
So that's where the base is.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
The leadership is saying, like, we want to find the
most poll tested friendly way to go about this. That's
going to put the GOP in the most difficult position.
That's why they've settled on healthcare. There's an irony here too,
because actually Republicans in a sense would be doing themselves
some favors to just go ahead and fund the healthcare
stuff that the Democrats want, because it's a genuine political

(57:19):
problem for them that you have massive Medicaid cuts in
the big beautiful bill, You have rural hospitals, many of
them threatening threatened with closure because of the funding cuts there.
And then you have these skyrocket looming, skyrocketing premiums in
the ACA that is going to hit some twenty million
plus Americans at the end of this year. So that

(57:40):
is coming really soon before the midterm elections. So there
are a number of Republicans who look at this landscape
are like, we actually do need to do something about healthcare.

Speaker 4 (57:49):
But their argument.

Speaker 2 (57:50):
You even heard it there from Jdvans of like, oh, well,
we can negotiate for it. Outside of this, you shouldn't
be using the shutdown to get your healthcare way. But
in any case, that's what makes it a difficult political
question for them, because it is actually a problem for
them politically that people's health care costs are going to
be going up and their local rural hospitals are going
to be threatened with closure because of the actions that

(58:13):
they've taken. Now, do I think that means that Republicans
are going to like cave on the No, not at all.
But it is an intelligent place for Democrats to sort
of like place their chips. In terms of the messaging,
I think the natural landscape, the natural political landscape sort
of favors Democrats number one because they're not in power,
and number two because people associate shut down politics and

(58:34):
chaos or with the Republican side. But Republicans and Trump
are much more effective messengers, much more disciplined messengers. They
have much more backbone, they're much more clear, they're much
more willing to get I mean, they're just they're better
at this right, So that gives them. That's why it
becomes kind of a toss up who's ultimately going to
win in the battle of public opinion because Democrats have

(58:56):
some natural advantages here, but they have Chuck Schumer as
a leader who is all already his denials, notwithstanding already
trying to look for a way, an escape patch out
of this where he can look like he put up
some sort of a fight but didn't rock the boat
too much in a way that is uncomfortable.

Speaker 4 (59:14):
For him as someone who was not a boat rocker.

Speaker 3 (59:20):
Obviously I'm biased, but to me, Jeffries and Cheff Schumer
just look incredibly weak, like and I think a lot
of the Democratic but like, to me, this whole, I think.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
That's just a factual. I don't even think that's biased.
I think that's just factual.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
Well, the healthcare, the way they're talking about it, I'm like,
oh God, just shut up. You know, it just looks
like it came out of some polling memo that was
put on your desk. I don't know, I just think that.
And at the end of the day, I mean, look,
I get it. You know, they'll oh, we want to
you know, stop ice. It's like, well, you know, win
an election. It's not going to happen. So like that's
where it's It just seems that the Democratic base, I

(59:52):
don't know, I mean, in some ways it's a lot
like the Republican base back in the two thousands, where
Obama would what did he say to Eric Candor? He said,
elections f concept Quen's famously during a shutdown fight.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
In a way, that's true.

Speaker 3 (01:00:03):
It's like, dude, if you lose the election, you can't
just come around demanding that the country be run exactly
the way that you wanted to be run.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
On the other hand, they got a lot of what
they wanted out of those shutdown fights. I mean, do
you remember the whole what was it called budgets questration?
That's not what it was grand but they got, but
they got. They were out of power right in even war.
I mean they, you know, were out of power in
a more dramatic way than the Democrats even are right now,
and they still were able to, you know, effectuate some

(01:00:32):
of their goals and get some of what they wanted
by using these power politics, because the reality is Republicans
do need Democrats in order to fund the government.

Speaker 3 (01:00:42):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
The other dynamic to keep in mind here is like
you know there are some Democrats. So part of why
the reason why Schumer immediately came out after the backlash
and was like, oh, I don't want a seven to
ten day CDR wasn't because of what the base wants.
It's because there were Democrats elected democrats in the House
and in the Senate that were like, what the hell
are you doing? Absolutely not and so but you only

(01:01:07):
need seven Senate Democrats.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
To be able to pass as It's just not that many.

Speaker 4 (01:01:11):
So if you can.

Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
Make a few of them a little nervous, that's all
you really need as a Republican to be able to
ultimately get this done. So you know the fact that
Schumer's already looking for the escape patch here and trying
to figure out how to back down from the shutdown threats,
I think is very revealing, even though he's now denying
this particular mechanism is on the tape.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
It also gets to my grassroots point that I made yesterday.
I don't see like, are there groups out there calling
for a shutdown? Because not individual among these hey, right,
like during the this is the thing people need to
remember during the Obama administration, when those Republicans were going
for a shutdown. It was imagine like Fox News, you know,

(01:01:54):
the entire tea party apparatus, all of the conservative radio
hosts across the country, Eric Rush Limbaugh, all these people.
It was one message, shut it down, shut it down,
like they had the apparatus, they had the calls. I
don't see that right now. Maybe I'm biased. You know,
obviously I don't watch MSNBC. I don't engage as much.
But even the liberal pundit class I don't see in

(01:02:16):
a full throated way. I mean, we had as reclined
for example, Remember he's like, well they think shutdowns are terrible,
but you know, maybe we should shut it down to
show It's like, dude, what just say shut it down?
Like it's a much more clear message Like the pundit class,
I don't see the MSNBC class and others united in
a fervent message discipline. That's kind of why I would
put my money on the Republicans for this one, because

(01:02:37):
they're clear, They're like, look, we want to fire these people.
We're just going to fire them, and so you know,
at the end of the day, we're going to call
your bluffy people love bureaucrats so much, come and save them.
Then you know, if you want to come and fund
the government, I would probably put my money on that
as well.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
And this is where it gets back to what I
was saying about what the base actually wants them to
fight on, and so they I think you're right that
there's definitely not as much of an organized and like
like you know, the Tea Party physician was oftentimes you know,
completely unreasive.

Speaker 4 (01:03:05):
They want things like balanced.

Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
Budget amendments and we're not going to increase the deficit
or the debt whatsoever. And this is all just like
preposterous given the basic math of what was going on here.
But they they were sort of locked into a clear
goal and they had organized around it, and they had
Tea Party movements across the country and all of that.
And you're right, the similar like parallel organizations and institutions
don't exist on the Democratic side right now. And I

(01:03:29):
think that some of the energy that could be around
the shutdown fight is also undercut by the fact that
rather than the leadership going for the things that the
democratic base really wants, which is, like I said, to
stand up against some of the like authoritarian overreach, national
guard in the cities and things like that it's sort
of because it's this like poll tested healthcare thing. Again,

(01:03:51):
not to say it's not important, not to say that
people don't care at all, that's just not the thing
that is highly motivating the Democratic base right now. And
so that also SAPs some of the energy that they
could be getting from the grassroots around a strategy, whereas
if they were, you know, if they were going more
in that direction, I think you would see more of

(01:04:11):
that like organic support. The other thing I would say
is like they just didn't particularly message around.

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
This at all until like three days ago.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
So you know, that makes it difficult to rally grassroots
based support when they don't know what you want where
you are, like, there is no real there is no
leadership coming from the top of the Democratic Party for
people then to rally around.

Speaker 1 (01:04:32):
I just don't get the Democrats.

Speaker 3 (01:04:34):
I really don't, because Mitch McConnell the do It's like,
what are you guys doing? Mitch McConnell the most honest
thing he ever said, and was it two thousand and nine,
right after Obama's inauguration and they're like, are you going
to work with Obama?

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
And he's like, no, I have one job it's make
sure he doesn't get reelected. That's it. That's the whole job.
It's so that's why balance.

Speaker 3 (01:04:53):
But it's all bullshit, okay, like it was all just
wrapped up. As many Democrats said at the time, they
don't actually here about.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
Any of this. Yeah, you're right. They wanted to wound
the president.

Speaker 3 (01:05:03):
They wanted to inflict pain on the administration and to
make sure that they caved in some way so that
the Republican base could feel like they were doing something
about it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:13):
I mean, I'm not quite sure yet what the base
is so animated about. In terms of my neighborhood. The
no King signs are everywhere. That seems to be like
the uniting thing. Fine, whatever, But my point is just
when you look at Chuck Schumer and all of those people,
they don't talk that way, like you know, they're the
poll testing. They're not coming out and being like we
hate Trump, you hate Trump. We're gonna do everything in

(01:05:34):
our power to make his life hell. That seems to
be what the most that's the uniting message. Right if
you're a Democratic basis correct that you know, if you're
an anti ice poster and you're some no Kings, boomer
lady who lives in my neighborhood.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
There you go.

Speaker 3 (01:05:47):
You're together right on that one. It's the most uniting message.
And yet they're like, it's not just the poll testing.

Speaker 1 (01:05:53):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:05:53):
I just see such lack of organization. I also see
lack of stars. Where is buddhaj Edge? You know he's
doing Andrew Callahan's Patreon.

Speaker 1 (01:06:01):
You know, and the guy we don't even have to
hear what he has to say. Where is Chris Murphy.

Speaker 3 (01:06:06):
I just interviewed the guy. He hasn't made a couple
of comments. He's not an MSNBC the way that Mike
Lee and Ted Cruz were. I mean, these guys were firebrands. Emily,
by the way, did an incredible monologue with her and
I on the show about the shutdown fight, and she
pulled a bunch of clips back from twenty thirteen. Everyone
should go watch that if you're interested to mirror what
their successful playbook was and how they were able to

(01:06:28):
rise to start them. I don't see a single Democratic
senator doing any.

Speaker 4 (01:06:32):
Of that, And that's why that's a good point.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
I don't.

Speaker 4 (01:06:34):
I'm like, where a good point.

Speaker 3 (01:06:35):
Is the leadership like where even Bernie, where are you, dude?
Like you should be laying stuff out barnstorming podcast scene.
Everything should be united around this. Things are disparate, you
know he said indivisible.

Speaker 1 (01:06:47):
I didn't even know.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
I definitely knew that about the Tea Party groups. Remember
the moms again still, you know, like all moms for
whatever organization.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
I'm even blanking on the on the on these names.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
It's been so long, but I mean, the Tea Party
chapters were genuinely Your point about the stars is an
interesting one too, And this again comes from the very
poll tested like, let me figure out, let me sort
of triangulate with the best places for us to make
our stand, because then you don't have you don't necessarily

(01:07:18):
have people in the coalition, like elected leaders in the
coalition who were like, this is my thing, this is
where I'm going to make my stand, et cetera. And
so in the Tea Party era, yeah, you had you
had Ted Cruz, you had Mike Lee, you had you know,
Paul Ryan was there in the mix, Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows,
like you knew who these people were, and they were
constant hardline spokespeople rallying the troops to the cause, and yeah,

(01:07:42):
you don't have anything really approaching that on the Democratic side,
partly because it's you know, they were very unified behind
two things. One, let's just fuck up Barack Obama's presidency
and number two like this fiscal austerity thing that you know,
course ends up being nonsense, but that's what they were
all very committed to at that moment, right, And you
just don't have that same sort of direction within the

(01:08:05):
Democratic Party where the leadership is aligned with what the
base wants and is consistently messaging on you know, a
few core things that the base really wants to see
them fight on, even if they know that it's kind
of like a losing battle. They just I think you're
right that really the energy is just they want to
make things difficult for them. They want to put them

(01:08:25):
in a difficult position and you know, for their leadership
to get caught fighting, and that has yet to happen.

Speaker 3 (01:08:31):
Look, I mean, you can't absolve you know, I've just
check Bernie's timeline. You don't have a single tweet about shutdown,
like what are we doing here? You know, like where
are you people? You're not on TV? Like you know,
AOC all of them. I don't know what it is.
It's like some weird norms brain virus that has infected
all of them where they've attacked the It's like it's

(01:08:53):
like they want they don't want to be called out
for hypocrisy. By the way, guys, and I don't even
think JD would care about saying this. Was tweeting about
shutdowns two years ago. It was like, why wouldn't we
use Why wouldn't we use the power that we have?

Speaker 4 (01:09:07):
How could they use the shutdown about leverage?

Speaker 3 (01:09:10):
Like there they right, nobody's gonna be like, oh, what
the hypocrisy?

Speaker 4 (01:09:14):
They're dead right, you know, everyone's ah.

Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
Get over there, right exactly. They don't care about that.
So why do you where are you?

Speaker 3 (01:09:21):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
If I was one of those, you know, boomer women
who I live around, I would be so mad all
those people right now they are what are you doing well?

Speaker 4 (01:09:31):
And that the things they are?

Speaker 2 (01:09:33):
You know, That's what's really different right now is people
really liked Nancy, Like the Democratic base she was really
liked Nancy Pelosi, you know, and and listen in her absence,
she's way better than kme Jeffrey's I can tell you
that as a strategist, as a spokesperson, as someone who
has the appearance of a spine like she was a
much more effective leader, no doubt about that. And it just,

(01:09:56):
I don't know, there was a different moment now the
there is a real sense that Democratic leadership has capitulated
that they've led them, you know, them off a cliff,
that they have decided just to like croll up and
fetal position rather than fighting, as Trump has ramped up
his attacks in a much more aggressive way than we
ever saw on Trump one point zero.

Speaker 4 (01:10:14):
And so there is a complete disgust and.

Speaker 2 (01:10:18):
Fury at Democratic leadership right now that is so different
within the Democratic base, and that is going to express
itself in some places. I don't know if it's you know,
I don't think it's going to be in the shutdown fight,
but down the road in primaries terms of.

Speaker 4 (01:10:30):
Twenty twenty eight, you know, the direction of the party.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
There is no doubt that that rage and discuss that
the Democratic base has with their own leadership is going
to be expressed and have consequences at some point, which
is why Schimmer's doing this, because he knows on some
level that their you know, their grip on the power
within their own party is at stake right now if
they don't at least appear to try to do a little.

Speaker 4 (01:10:50):
Bit of something.

Speaker 3 (01:10:51):
He's looking a lot like John Bayner to me right now.
So let's get to the Epstein story.

Speaker 6 (01:10:58):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:10:59):
I've been wanting to cover this for a while. It
is so crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:11:02):
Credit to Mortaza and Ryan over a drop site for
reporting it.

Speaker 1 (01:11:06):
Let's put this up here on the screen.

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
So I'm going to read pretty extensively from this because
it's one of the best pieces of evidence that we
have right now about Epstein's actual involvement in explicitly brokering
Israeli security agreements. So what they write here is that
Epstein quote used his political network and financial resources to
help broker a security cooperation agreement between the governments of

(01:11:29):
Israel and Mongolia, according to a trove of leaked emails
from the former Israeli Prime Minister Aud Brock. The new
set of emails between Barack and Epstein has largely been
ignored by the mainstream press, but it includes crucial new
context on Epstein's operation. Well known that Epstein had personal
ties to Israel, including Barack and Aodo Maher. But now

(01:11:49):
what these emails show that were released by a pro
Palstindian hacking group with ties to Iran. They say it
shows extensive emails from twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen intimate,
often daily correspondence between Barack and Epstein. Their conversations address
political and business strategy, as Epstein coordinated meetings for Barack
with other members of his elite circles. The article is

(01:12:10):
the first in a series that will explore his work
on behalf of Israeli military interests, particularly as it relates
to his role in the israel in the development of
israel cyber warfare industry. The rise of Israeli surveillance and
weapons industry is explicitly linked to much of the Epstein
investments which he helped broker for aid Barock. But potentially
what they see here is the most explicit use of

(01:12:33):
actual intervention for state power, and in terms of the
security agreement with Mongolia and so, I know it sounds
a little bit crazy, like how exactly did it all
come about? But what it basically gets to is that
Epstein was this critical node of power. And this is
what we focus on for quite some time. What the
emails show is that Barack even after he's out of

(01:12:54):
office and he's staying at the Epstein mansion while having
a mask on his face walking in their photograph by
the near post, and while he's receiving this money from
Epstein for his military intelligence, you know, investments, and why
he also is getting paid some what is it two
million dollars by the Leslie Wexner Foundation for two reports,
one of which he never finished, which was controlled by

(01:13:15):
the Jeffrey Epstein, by Jeffrey Epstein who was a chairman
of said foundation. While he's doing all of this in
the background, he is here setting up these daily correspondents
and meetings for Barack. Keep in mind, this is all
after Epstein is a registered sex offender, remember of the
timeline twenty thirteen to twenty sixteen, and leading eventually to
some sort of Israeli security cooperation agreement in the future. Now,

(01:13:38):
let's be clear as well, this does not say he
was explicitly an Israeli agent, and I've never actually even
said that. What I have said is that he was
a very useful individual to people in power and intelligence networks,
probably the most odd Saudi Arabia, Russia KG or whatever,
the FSB, CIA, all of these people. But you know

(01:13:59):
it was when he got in trouble for some of
his proclivities that that's when those apparatus is kind of
kicked into gear. And it's been explicitly denied now at
the highest level by you know, the former's really Prime Minister.
Enough Tolly Bennett, now the head of MOSAD, who was
recently on Barry Weiss's show, said oh, absolutely, he's never
worked for MOSAD. Never worked for Mosador. Remember, not worked

(01:14:21):
with MOSAD. Those were very different things that you could
lay out there.

Speaker 1 (01:14:25):
They can come out and deny that too.

Speaker 3 (01:14:26):
Would you believe it from the CIA if they said
something like that. So anyway, very important piece of evidence
in all of this, of course, has been completely ignored
by most of the mainstream media on this, probably because
you know, of this pro poust Indian hacking group. Who
cares where the information come from? Emails or emails? All right,
by the way, Iran, if you're listening, send it over, Okay,

(01:14:47):
all right, I'll take it from anybody as long as
it's real.

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
I don't care.

Speaker 3 (01:14:50):
Yeah, and anyway, Yeah, so a final another piece in
the puzzle that we can just put right there.

Speaker 1 (01:14:57):
We don't have all the other pieces, but the picture
is all starting to together.

Speaker 4 (01:15:00):
Yeah, I mean it's pretty extraordinary, right.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
And we knew that relationship that he had with the
Formers really was it was very close. He was they
were to gather all the time. You've got the famous
photo of him going into the mansion all masked up.
We knew they did business together, and this just sort
of flesh puts puts flesh on the bone of what
that relationship looked like.

Speaker 4 (01:15:19):
And it reminded me.

Speaker 2 (01:15:20):
Quite a bit of also the way that epstein ingratiated
himself with JP Morgan, because it was the same. You know,
he was seen as this real powerbroker where he was
bringing business to them and you know, creating meetings for them,
and then he had this network of wealthy and powerful
individuals that he was providing benefit to them also by

(01:15:42):
bringing them into these meetings with the bank. And so
when the shit hits the fan and he's a registered
sex offender and they have to decide what they're going
to do, there are a lot of people there who
also you know, some of the executives are directly in
his circle and going to the island as well. Oh no,
but he's so good for us business wise, and by
the way, since he has all of these powerful connections,
like if they're okay, if the former Prime Minister of

(01:16:04):
Israel is okay with him, like who are we to judge?

Speaker 4 (01:16:07):
So this is part of.

Speaker 2 (01:16:08):
How I mean, this really shines a light on how
he was able to operate with such total and complete
impunity in the way that he was in the highest
circles of global power, you know, both here in Israel
and other places as well. So there's another story that's
very worth keeping an eye on this week as well.
Even put D two up on the screen, which is

(01:16:29):
Supreme Court this week is considering whether they are going
to take up the Gallaine Maxwell challenge to her, you know,
to her one count of her criminal convictions for sex trafficking,
and basically her argument is, hey, that sweetheart deal that
was cut by alex Acosta back in Florida that said,

(01:16:50):
not only is this this is it for Epstein, but
also for his co conspirators named and unnamed. That applies
to me, So you shouldn't have been able to indict
and try me on this charge. And that appeal has
now gone all the way up to the Supreme Court
where they face the decision whether or not to consider
to consider that appeal. The Department of Justices position is, no,

(01:17:14):
you shouldn't take it up because there's all kinds of
other stuff going on, So we don't want you to
look at this right now. So we're waiting to see
what the Supreme Court has ultimately got to do with it.
But you know, it really exposes how just disgusting that
original deal and illegal by the way, too violated, was
found to have violated the victim's rights, that original sweetheart deal,
that it could even absolve Glaine Maxwell, who was so

(01:17:36):
complicit in all of the horrors and crimes that were
committed by Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 3 (01:17:40):
We would hope that it doesn't go through. But with this,
you know, you have no idea in some ways, and
this is going to sound insane, but there is a
legal argument to be made as horrible as the deal was. Right,
her argument is basically, hey, you gain you may be
a printed document from the United States Government, United States
of America that's said I will not prosecute you, and

(01:18:01):
you're good to go. If Epstein go ahead and pleads
guilty or whatever, to this very narrow set of charges,
which is the greatest sweetheart deal.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
She's like, you.

Speaker 3 (01:18:09):
Can't just go back on your word because some judge
in twenty eighteen said it was illegal only because you
didn't follow best practices.

Speaker 1 (01:18:16):
We held up our end of the bargain.

Speaker 3 (01:18:18):
If it's the government's fault for making the wrong deal,
and that's the I mean, that's part of the most
insane part about the seven Deal really in the in
the first place, and part of why, in my you know,
in my estimation, is one of the clearest evidences of
immense government power or some force behind the scenes doing
something to protect him. But it does also demonstrate that

(01:18:40):
for Trump and with Maxwell, there are various different avenues
which they're trying to have a release valve. Because they
had her sit down with the Deputy Attorney General, they
made sure that you know, she got all of her bs, you.

Speaker 1 (01:18:54):
Know, denials out in the open.

Speaker 3 (01:18:56):
By the way, I've already demonstrated many of the explicit
lives that she said in that transcript. Not that Todd
Blanche did anything to push back against him. But the
point remains that for Maxwell herself, what we see is
that she's scheming for two things. Both to get the
Supreme Court to try to let her out. I don't
think that's going to happen, but it is certainly possible,

(01:19:17):
though I just wouldn't necessarily bet on it. The other
is a pardon. I mean, she's already got the sweetheart.
You know, she's transferred to this federal prison, federal prison
camp in some sort of great you know, club fed
or whatever, which she's not even supposed to be, and
a lot of the victims and other people's families are
outraged at the fact that that happened, and she's on
her way to some sort of part in which could

(01:19:37):
potentially absolve Trump. The thing is, and this is what
I find sad about it. I already feel like the
energy around this is dying. I know that there are
a lot of people who are very interested in the story.
We get temporary flashes of a certain pieces of release
and all of that. But we had the Massy Rokana thing,
now we're onto the shutdown. We did the Israel security
and this is what the Trump administration was betting on.
They're like, at the end of the day, we can

(01:19:58):
survive this, and Trump if there was a long Well
Street journal piece about the whole way that this Epstein
saga developed and put Bondie allegedly and the infamous meeting
tells Trump, you know your name is in there. Not
you know, you're not implicating any wrongdoing or whatever, but
your name is in there, and you know, he kind
of freaks out about it. He starts getting upset at
why his supporters and others are.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
So obsessed with Epstein.

Speaker 3 (01:20:22):
He apparently said, Palm Beach was a very different time.

Speaker 4 (01:20:25):
Don't they understand Palm Beach in the nineties was a
different place. It's like, no, no, really, Actually.

Speaker 3 (01:20:30):
By the way, I do kind of understand that that's
the problem exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
Yeah, So I don't know. Look, we got to give
credit where it's due.

Speaker 3 (01:20:39):
You know, there are some people who are actually still
beating the drum. We have Marjorie Taylor Green. Let's put
this up here on the screen. She recently says, quote,
I am not suicidal. I am one of the happiest,
healthiest people you will meet. I have full faith in
God and Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. With
that said, if something happens to me, I ask you
all to find out which foreign government or powerful people
would take heinous actions and to stop information from coming out,

(01:21:01):
not only about this issue, but because of the truth
that I have been speaking.

Speaker 1 (01:21:04):
The people understand what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (01:21:06):
That was in direct reply to her support for the
Thomas Massey and Rocanna amendment to release the Epstein files.
What's also interesting is she actually gave an interview to
The New York Times, and what she discussed is that
the White House put immense pressure on her too not
to vote for that Massi and Rocanna amendment. She actually

(01:21:27):
apparently told them, at least according to her, she said,
I don't work for you. I was elected by the
people of Georgia and you don't get to tell me
what to do. And apparently Trump himself and others are
furious with her for continuing to pour gas on the fire.
It is amazing how he has effectively convinced so many
of these people that it's all quote in Epstein hoax
and anti Trump bullshit. I just it's you know again,

(01:21:49):
it's very difficult to withstand, especially from cash Ptel. We
played recently some of his more recent testimony around this
where he's like, you know, oh, he absolutely committed suicide
of review the files, but it's not like I can
show them to you, So I don't know where else
we can go from here. I like, hopefully we'll continue
to get more reporting, more email release and all that,
but notwithstanding some serious government action from the House and

(01:22:11):
oversight stuff which I'm not putting aside, it definitely still
could happen. This kind of seems like the end of
the road, which is really unfortunate.

Speaker 4 (01:22:17):
I'm not sure I'm ready to say that yet. I'll
come back to that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:21):
One note on MTG is APAC is looking a fund
a challenger to her, so, you know, and not just
over Epstein, I think more directly over her criticism of
Apack criticism of the you know, Israel first position of
this administration, calling it a genocide, et cetera. And you know,
she has been Massey will take a stand in terms
of like principled free speech things, but she has been

(01:22:43):
the one who's been She is the only Republican who
has said this is a genocide.

Speaker 4 (01:22:48):
She has been the most active.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
And you know, they know they have a problem in
the Republican base with young Republicans in particular, and that
what starts is one with Marjorie Taylor Green could easily
grow to a handful and and go from there if
they see that she's able to, you know, withstand this
challenge and get a lot of attention and publicity, by
the way, by being the sole Republican voice on this issue.
So APAC is freaked out about that and trying to

(01:23:12):
you know, use their vast treasure chest to be able
to fund a primary challenge against her.

Speaker 4 (01:23:18):
So that's something to keep an eye on. What was
the other piece we.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
Were talking about, I said, whether it's the end of
the road, Whether this is the end of the road.
So I think one of the reasons why Trump will
be very concerned if Democrats do take back the House,
which is certainly possible in the midterms. And obviously I
say he's very concerned because he's doing this whole jerrymandering thing,
he's casting down a mail in ballots. All of that

(01:23:42):
is because then they would have the power, you know,
subpoena power, and this is an area where they would
certainly focus, not you know, whether they legitimately care about her,
cared about in the past or not, this is an
area where they think they can draw political blood. Now
there's a possibility that they win the House and they
try to subpoena in these records and the federal government
is just like no, and if essentially acts like they

(01:24:06):
don't exist. I think that's Ryan raised that possibility on Fridae.
I think that's very possible as well. But you know
that continues that continues to create a political problem for Trump.
If he's actively stonewalling the Democrats in Congress over specifically
that Epstein files, that's going to be an issue for him.
And then the other thing is that you still have
Glene Maxwell out there looking for her pardon, and very possible,

(01:24:29):
if not likely, that some of the things that we
have already come out, in particular the birthday book, may
have come from her and from her associates. So if
she feels like the need to up the ante or
turn up the heat in terms of trying to get
that parton, you never know what else could be released,
what other information could be provided to the press, etc.
So I feel like it's potentially gone into hibernation. But

(01:24:51):
I don't think that this is a problem that has
been completely solved by the Trump administration, like and put
to bed for good.

Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
I would hope so. And you know, on the subpoena power.

Speaker 3 (01:24:59):
In all that what people don't understand to Ryan's point, yet,
it's very possible that they just deny it. But it's
going to cost. And what I mean by that is
attention legal fees. I mean one of the things I've
actually already seen people talking about this. If the House wins,
every single person who works for Trump is going to
be racking up some two to three hundred thousand dollars
in legal bills, every single one of them.

Speaker 1 (01:25:20):
Because they're asses.

Speaker 3 (01:25:22):
I mean, can you imagine if your doze are look,
Elon will be fine, but the rest of those guys,
like the amount of time that they're going to be
spending in transcribed interviews with the House of Oversight Committee,
What did you do with the US and the two Peace?
What did you do with the Social Security Administration?

Speaker 1 (01:25:38):
What did you do with that?

Speaker 3 (01:25:39):
You can't deny that forever, Like eventually you do actually
have to meet with the House, and you know, meet
behind our stores.

Speaker 4 (01:25:45):
You'll go to person the way that Bannon and Navarr.

Speaker 3 (01:25:47):
Well, you won't go to prison because the DJ won't
prosecute you, but you will get a criminal referral.

Speaker 4 (01:25:51):
Administration is not gonna be there for us.

Speaker 3 (01:25:53):
Well, I was gonna say, you'll get a criminal referral
maybe with no statute of limitation, and then future you
might go to prison, as you might did, as you
did early for Peter Navarro and Bannon. So yeah, it's
it's gonna be not good if you work for the administration.
I think a lot of them are starting to actually
recognize that.

Speaker 1 (01:26:09):
They're like, oh my.

Speaker 3 (01:26:09):
God, They're like, we're gonna need millions of dollars in
legal defense bills just to withstand, you know, at the
lower level, because that's a traditional strategy. That's what most
powers out of party do, is that they'll bring you in.
I mean, I mean, how long do the Bengazi Commission
last two and a half years? And imagine there's going
to be a Doge comission, there's going to be in
Epstein commission, there's going to bed I can't even remember.

Speaker 1 (01:26:30):
Your on strike Venezuela.

Speaker 3 (01:26:33):
I mean, all of these things, all that, Oh my god, Ice, yeah,
National Guard. It's it will never end. If and if
the Democrats win the Senate, good luck. I mean, you know,
shutdown is going to be at nauseum until the end
of time, which I don't think you could rule it out.
I don't think it's very likely right now, but the
House itself, you know, probably a lock. Just to demonstrate

(01:26:55):
what the difference in our politics will be. Famously, Obama
and I both wrote about what it was like to
experience whenever you were both in power but having to
deal with like an opposition to type Congress which would
constantly do this, and they said, it just sucked the lifeblood,
you know, out of your White House.

Speaker 1 (01:27:12):
And that's what Trump himself wants to avoid.

Speaker 3 (01:27:14):
Even with extraordinary power and all that, you have to
play some ball, you know, at the end of the
day with the opposition party, especially if they control the
House of Representatives, and then the number of resolutions and
other things that are all.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
Going to go through.

Speaker 3 (01:27:26):
So all of that to say is you're right, and
we could potentially see something, but it might take a
while before it all materializes.

Speaker 1 (01:27:34):
Yeah, move on to Brylin. They wanted to cover this
for a long time. It's I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:27:41):
It's like I said, it's like an anthropological experiment, and
I don't want to make too much light of it
because it is in the absence, obviously of Charlie Kirk,
who was assassinated. And within that though, what kind of
immediately became a fight within the conservative movement is like
who's going to lead Turning Point? And I don't think
it really meant Turning Point USA itself the organization because
Erica Kirk's wife has now officially taken over that, but

(01:28:05):
who will serve as a youth coalitional manager? And that
is something that I think, in retrospect was so extraordinary
about him is that he genuinely was a bridge between
Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin. There's nobody else really who
was able to do that and who was genuinely popular
with a lot of young people. Had a youth organization

(01:28:27):
he had, you know, one hundred million dollars or so
at its disdisposal. It was a genuinely extraordinary thing where
he could maintain connections with everybody in his institutional right
with power at the White House level, take calls from JD. Vans,
and then also appear on college campus tours and get
that you know, twelve hundred people or whatever to show up.
So afterwards, part of what has ignited this great influencer

(01:28:48):
war of Canda Owens and Ben Shapiro and Matt Wall
you know all these other folks, is that it's trying
to a quote, control for his legacy. And really what
that means, I think is like who speaks for the
conservative youth if they exist at all? And there was
quite a bit of speculation that what eventually would come

(01:29:09):
would be some sort of apparatus which was not nearly
as tolerant of the Tucker Carlison or Candice Owans who
are much more skeptical of Israel. Part of the reason
why I think that's very silly is that it's not
just about them personally. It's a genuine view which is
exploding in the Republican Party. Yeah, weren't you, especially among
young people. You were looking at some New York Times poll.
I'm sure they'll cover it tomorrow. But what was the

(01:29:30):
Republican numbers in there? I'm sure it wasn't. It wasn't
nearly what the boomer Republican you know, the youth Republican
numbers in there. The net positive support for Israel has
to be just devastating.

Speaker 1 (01:29:40):
It crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:41):
I don't remember all the time, my I have to look,
but it has shifted significantly, But Republicans overall are still
quite pro Israel, and they of all the groups, like
of all the partisan groups, Independence, Democrats, and Republicans, they
had actually shifted the least in terms of Israel. However,
when you're talking about because the thing that Charlie pulled
off was both making boomers in the Republican Party feel

(01:30:07):
like Republicans were reaching out to young people and to
some extent actually reaching out to young people. Now his
people to polls, like, he was actually not very popular
among young audiences, but I think among young conservatives he
was genuinely very popular. Whereas there are you know, other
figures in the Republican movement who you know, happened to

(01:30:29):
be young and claim to speak to a young audience,
but in reality they're just like making boomers feel like
Republicans have a young coalition. And so that's one of
the open questions is will First of all, I think
even the question of like, is someone going to step
into his shoes is a little bit of a flawed promise,
but that is there going to be someone who can
pull off both doing the like boomer performance and the

(01:30:53):
donor performance and have some credibility that they're truly like,
have a young base that are bringing to the table
as well. And a key part of that question is
going to be around where are they on this.

Speaker 3 (01:31:07):
It's going to be on Israel. It's also going to
be on the economic question. I will get to that
here in a little bit. But all of that is
a lead up to this new gentleman who has emerged,
Brylan Holland, who very recently went viral for trying to
quote step into Turning Point USA and their shoes of
a college campus tour.

Speaker 1 (01:31:26):
He filmed this video on board of a private jet.
Here's what he had to say.

Speaker 8 (01:31:30):
South America. Ryan Holly in Tier about thirty thousand feet up.
We are on the way to Arkansas. So everybody in
line at the University of Arkansas to kick off my
tenstoff campus tour. We are coming to you right here,
right now. Stay in line. We have gotten a third rooms.
We've sold out this campus stop three times, but we
are coming to you. We will fit you in, Students

(01:31:52):
will get priority, but we will make it happen. I
cannot be more excited. We are back, we are on
the road. We're coming to you one conversation at a time.
If you're not at the University of Arkansas, We're coming
to a campus near you, suit, so check out how
towur days. We'll see super soon.

Speaker 1 (01:32:07):
Okay, So who is this guy? I mean, look, I'm
pretty online in these circle. Yeah, I'd never heard of me.
He actually follows me so well.

Speaker 2 (01:32:16):
And I do a couple of notes, especially for people
who are just listening on the private jet in the
master's golf Hello, classic sporting the rolex.

Speaker 4 (01:32:25):
So giving man of the people vibes.

Speaker 3 (01:32:27):
If you have the gates, if you I'm from College Station, Texas,
I can I see these guys.

Speaker 1 (01:32:32):
Coming from a mile away.

Speaker 3 (01:32:33):
If you are from if you ever have been in
an sec type and well you.

Speaker 4 (01:32:37):
Were like at debate club guy too.

Speaker 3 (01:32:39):
Well yeah, but this is more of like a college
frat southern like an explicit individual and character a guy
if you will that if you've ever I mean you
went to UVA, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:32:50):
Oh yeah we had right had the time.

Speaker 1 (01:32:51):
We have plenty of.

Speaker 3 (01:32:52):
Bry's over in Virginia at the UVA campus. So my point,
and look, not the stereotype too much, but it's it's
like a little bit too perfect to see that the
private jet is purp is what really makes the entire thing.
But the point I think around mister by the way
I mispronounce his name is Hollyhand I apologize.

Speaker 1 (01:33:10):
Is just like, who is this guy?

Speaker 3 (01:33:13):
What are the type of politics that are we're going
to see here? And what people immediately started pointing to
is not to say he is an op per se,
but it's part of an example of what some sort
of future Republican stile influencer trying to speak to the
youth may look like. And in particular, they pointed here
to an interview that he gave on Fox News hours

(01:33:34):
after hours after Trump announced the death of Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 (01:33:38):
Here's what he had to say.

Speaker 13 (01:33:39):
This is heartbreaking, Will, and I really hope, if anything,
that people get off the sidelines. This weekend, I'm going
to a youth rally in South Carolina, and you better
believe that I've already had my team shooting text and brown.

Speaker 9 (01:33:49):
You really need to caution this.

Speaker 13 (01:33:50):
You really need to think about not standing in the
middle of a park and speak to the next generation.
But I am more energized than ever to carry on
this torch, to carry this legacy, because that's what Charlie
would have He would have wanted us to continue to
fight the good fight, just.

Speaker 9 (01:34:02):
Like he did.

Speaker 3 (01:34:03):
So that's what we saw here. He said immediately, I'm
willing to carry on his legacy. What is kind of
interesting is that apparently there has been some controversy over
his own role with Turning Point USA. Turning Point USA
figures themselves say hey, actually we had some serious fights
over the leadership of Iron McDaniel, specifically over at the
RNC hollyand has apparently been very pro Israel. And so

(01:34:25):
that's of course what a lot of the influencer types
who we're involved in the war are pointing to. What
I kind of saw was somebody what I saw there
and I was saying this when we were preparing for
our segment, is I genuinely see this as just a
complete reversion to the mean.

Speaker 1 (01:34:42):
Of traditional GOP politics.

Speaker 3 (01:34:44):
And that's kind of what I'm curious about for what
it means in the absence of Charlie's death, Because what Charlie,
again was so effective at is he would take online
energy and he would try to channel it into the
traditional Republican apparatus. Israel perfect example, he will have somebody
on and he'll say things like I'm allowed to criticize,
I'm not allowed to criticize the Israel government more than

(01:35:05):
israelis are right, which sounds like vaguely I don't know,
like vaguely independent.

Speaker 1 (01:35:12):
I guess you would say, not as controlled.

Speaker 3 (01:35:14):
At the same time, there's just been this letter, infamous
letter talked about released by or at least purportedly sent
by Charlie Kirk to bb net Yaho.

Speaker 1 (01:35:23):
It's extremely pro Israel.

Speaker 3 (01:35:24):
And he also if you really listen to him, he
was always very pro Israel.

Speaker 1 (01:35:28):
He was a little you know he.

Speaker 2 (01:35:29):
Was, and he's like, let me help you get a
network influencer to carry the pro Israel message.

Speaker 4 (01:35:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:35:34):
At the same time you did that, he did that
focus group right where a lot of his own younger
TPUSA members were like, yeah, I'm not really down with
you know us support for Israel. He was grappling with
it because it was a genuine coalitional fight, whereas a
lot of these other people, people like Ben Shapiro, hollihand
and others, are explicitly much more pro And I think
that's why Candice Owens and many of the others are

(01:35:57):
are fighting with them over that legacy is because that
would mean that even entertaining that faction of the coalition
comes completely out of the window.

Speaker 1 (01:36:06):
And that's what most of the fights are about.

Speaker 3 (01:36:08):
And so with this guy in particular, there's a lot
of question about how does this stuff even come to be?
And what I think is fascinating here, And this genuinely
does rise the question of like, how do you how
do you even put yourself in that position of immediately
being like I'm gonna carry on his legacy, which Megan
Kelly did, Tucker Carl so many of these other people
say they'll be included. But this person who purportedly was

(01:36:30):
not even having a good relationship with TPUSA. It's like,
is this some sort of pushed thing, like, for example,
you can put this up here on the screen and
image which went very viral after mister Hollyhand himself, you know,
came to the center of attention. Look at this, you
know interest over time effectively nothing up until very recently
for supposed campus tour, etc. So again I don't know

(01:36:53):
what all of this speaks to, but anthropologically, like for
the conservative movement, first, it shows how unique Charlie Kirk
actually was in terms of his job and frankly just
being so good at what he did. But it also
just demonstrates like this this influencer who is going to
be going on campus and in which direction that that
youth conservative energy is going to go.

Speaker 1 (01:37:15):
Charlie was a person.

Speaker 3 (01:37:16):
Who could channel the Shane Gillis beer drinking watcher into
an actual apparatus of like serious politics, can Ben Shapiro
and these guys do the same?

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
I'm skeptical?

Speaker 2 (01:37:28):
Well, there also just was this sense of like what
did they like just turn these guys out in a
factory and just like oh, here's the next one.

Speaker 1 (01:37:34):
Here you go.

Speaker 4 (01:37:35):
He's going on the campus tour. He's doing the thing.

Speaker 2 (01:37:37):
I mean, there was an ick factor of like an
hour after Charlie's day's on Fox News smiling like I'm
going to carry.

Speaker 4 (01:37:43):
The torches, who are you?

Speaker 8 (01:37:45):
Like?

Speaker 1 (01:37:45):
Who are you?

Speaker 2 (01:37:46):
What are we talking about here? And then he's on
his private jen He's flying around and doing a campus tour.
He was claiming that he was affiliated. My understanding is
he was claiming there's some affiliation with TPUSA that they
had to come out and say there's no affiliation here.
So it felt very and it just felt very forced.
It felt like it came out of nowhere. No one
had ever heard of this dude. Now he's posted like, oh,
here I am Charlie. Here's some text messages with Charlie.

(01:38:08):
Like I didn't just come out of nowhere. I've been around,
I've been doing this thing, etcetera, etcetera. But you know,
it felt like there were powers that be that just
were like, Okay, we've got the next one ready to go,
and we're slotting him into place, and he's going on
the campus tour and doing the thing, and it was like,
where did this guy come from? And why are you
so keen on this guy being the guy? I think
was that was my sense as not being on the

(01:38:30):
right of some of the reaction to him, and certainly
the Israel pieces tied up in that, because again Charlie
Kirk was extremely pro Israel. We read that letter to
nana Ya, who's like, let me help you like propagandas
so let's do this thing together, warning him that you've
you've got a little bit of an issue here, like
I'm seeing it, but ultimately I'm going to be on
your side. We're going to do this propaganda thing together.

Speaker 4 (01:38:52):
Etc.

Speaker 2 (01:38:53):
But there was a sense that maybe Charlie was a
little bit up for grant that he wasn't just going
to be complete and totally endless lockstaff In the place
where that was most notable was his criticism in advance
of the Iran strike of a potential Iran strike.

Speaker 4 (01:39:09):
And you know that he was very vocal.

Speaker 2 (01:39:11):
Actually watched some of his coverage after the Iran strike happened,
and to be on it was extremely tortured. He did
not know what to say in that moment because.

Speaker 3 (01:39:21):
I mean, you guys, because story like, yeah, I've told
it to you before, here's what happened, and this has
all been reported, so I can just say JD and
the White House called him and told him to shut up,
and they were.

Speaker 1 (01:39:30):
Like, hey, dude, it's happening, so nuked.

Speaker 3 (01:39:33):
Yeah, and from this point forward, yeah, you need to
zip it because you know.

Speaker 1 (01:39:36):
That's how it goes here.

Speaker 3 (01:39:38):
Charlie allegedly went to the White House and basically asked
Trump not to do it, and Trump quote barked at
him like a dog. And that's not just from Gray
Zone and I've heard that too. My point just around
all of this is that clearly what happened is he
was upset and that was I think it was not
just personal.

Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
He at the end of the day. He had insight
into power.

Speaker 3 (01:39:57):
He could also see what was happening happening with Trump
and the people were influencing him.

Speaker 1 (01:40:02):
Those were not Charlie Kirk people.

Speaker 3 (01:40:04):
Charlie, to his great credit, actually was deeply skeptical of
a lot of the war machine and particularly a lot
of these neocons. He had a lot of beef with
Lindsay Graham and a lot of these other folks, and
he was he was afraid at the rising power levels
in the White House, and so, as you said, it
was tortured because that's why they all what did they
all land on? Remember, it was like you got to
trust the president. He has the best that's yeah, exactly,

(01:40:28):
and nonsense.

Speaker 2 (01:40:29):
He was, you know, taking like some some comments from
his audience that were all basically like what the fuck
you know, You've got a good point there, Like I
understand where you're coming from, but at the end of
the day, I don't know, what do you think? And
he'd like toss to his whoever he had in there
with him. So you could see the he understood that

(01:40:49):
there was a big divide on Israel and ancillary issues
including Iran, between the people he was supposed to be
in touch with and the direction the Trump administration was
going and that was playing out in these public ways,
and the Brylan hollyhand phenomenon feels like, yeah, any of
that reticence, we're just going to sweep that away, and

(01:41:10):
we're going to get the guy in the seat who's
just going to be like go net and Yahoo, love
the genocide, please bomb ran, mister president, and have zero
reticence about it. And I do think there's another piece
here just on like maturity. We've seen a number of
these young, you know, young either Democratic or Republican aligned

(01:41:32):
influencers who come out of the gates and they get
propped up by the parties because they're just willing to
do the talking points. And Charlie was that guy, Like
that's how he yeah, that's how he becomes this, you know,
this person that we all know is because he's just
out there relentlessly hammering like the Republican Party.

Speaker 4 (01:41:50):
Trump talking points.

Speaker 2 (01:41:51):
Well, when he died, he's thirty one years old, Like
this is now a man with a family and kids,
and at some point maybe you don't want to just
be that like, what are my talking points and let
me just recite them?

Speaker 4 (01:42:02):
Verbatim like that.

Speaker 2 (01:42:03):
Gets old and boring, and at some point you start
to go, you know, who was it that said that
he was less interested and he was sort of bored
with politics, Like I kind of took one of his friends,
I think said that he was kind of bored with politics.

Speaker 3 (01:42:14):
I don't know about that. I think he was more
with the type of politics that we're talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:42:17):
Yeah, but that's what I took from that is that
he was sort of chafing at this very confined role
that had been sketched out for him of just you're
going to toe the line and that's really all we want.

Speaker 1 (01:42:27):
Yeah, that's right. Yeah, he was not. He's certainly. I mean, look,
he was.

Speaker 3 (01:42:31):
He was in a difficult position. He was a coalitional operator.
He was both a politician and a media star, which is,
in my opinion, doesn't really mix all that well. And
that's part of why, you know, the Iran thing, you
have to be tortured a little bit, but even whenever
you have a genuinely held belief, that's part of the
issue with trying to be both. But with these guys,
they don't even pretend. I also, you know, I was

(01:42:51):
trying not to say it was an op, but it
is crazy. How does a nineteen year old get to
fly on private jet? Like, how does that even happen?

Speaker 4 (01:42:57):
I assume family people said that.

Speaker 3 (01:42:59):
I didn't know if it is actually true. He's nineteen
years old, he's flying on a private jet. What It's like,
where does this, there's this shit even come from? How
do you even get booked on Fox News?

Speaker 1 (01:43:08):
How did that happen?

Speaker 3 (01:43:09):
It's like this show or again, I never heard of this.
Now maybe that's my fault. There are a lot of
people I've never heard of, but I'm pretty tapped into
that internet wrap.

Speaker 2 (01:43:18):
Over time is that there wasn't a lot of there
before the present moment.

Speaker 3 (01:43:22):
I was like, okay, I mean it is weird, you know,
to go on Ben Shapiro and all this and to
be held up as this new star for everything. That's
my only part where I'm like, man, that really does
feel like kind of a donor push in some ways.

Speaker 1 (01:43:38):
And I wouldn't put it past them either.

Speaker 2 (01:43:39):
He's got like a conservative Pete Booda Judge vibe to him. Yeah,
like like you came out of the womb with your
little briefcase, like, you know, excited to go to the
rn C or what. I'm like, that's the vibe, and
it's just it's very I remember Steve Bannon said something
like that about Mark or Rubio once.

Speaker 4 (01:43:55):
It's like he like came out with.

Speaker 2 (01:43:56):
His briefcase and his blow dried hair, like going to
work at the RNC, and it nails. It really captures
this certain type that people just have an ick factor
with because if you've been wearing this naked political ambition
since we were like eight years old, it just is like, oh,
I don't know, I think there's something you need, something
else in your life.

Speaker 4 (01:44:15):
Embarrassing, it feels gross.

Speaker 2 (01:44:17):
It feels very strange to have someone who's been looking
at themselves in the mirror since they could remember and
thinking like that's the next senator or whatever. And he
definitely has that energy.

Speaker 1 (01:44:27):
Yeah, I think you are correct on that. So anyways,
that's a long way of saying, who is this guy?
Where did it come from? What does it mean?

Speaker 3 (01:44:34):
I'm not exactly sure, but I guess it is interesting.
Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate it.
Emily and Ryan on tomorrow, so they'll see you then.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}9/30/25: Trump Bibi Gaza Deal, Gov Shutdown Imminent, Epstein Brokered Israel Security Deal, Pro Israel War To Replace Kirk

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

9/30/25: Trump Bibi Gaza Deal, Gov Shutdown Imminent, Epstein Brokered Israel Security Deal, Pro Israel War To Replace Kirk

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark