INTERVIEW: Mehdi Hasan Talks 'Win Every Argument,' Israel-Hamas, Genocide, Trump, Dems, NY Mayoral Race + More

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BreakfastClubPower1051FM

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I don't know every day a wait, click your ass
up the breakfast club.

Speaker 2 (00:05):
You don't finish for y'all done morning.

Speaker 3 (00:07):
Everybody is DJ Envy Jess Hilarious, Charlamage, the guy we
are the breakfast Club. Law La Rosa is here as well.
We got a special guest in the building. Yes, indeed,
right up, broadcaster.

Speaker 4 (00:17):
MINDI Hussan, welcome, thanks for having me. How you feeling
feeling tired?

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Tired?

Speaker 1 (00:22):
So I'm not a morning person. I could never I
could never do a show called anything breakfast related.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
What are you time to usually wake up?

Speaker 1 (00:29):
I mean I wake up early. I just don't get
going til later in the day and I do my
best work.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Got you and you see the funny thing, I'm opposite
at about ten eleven. That's when my eyes start going really, really,
really low, when it's time to get take my little nap.

Speaker 5 (00:43):
I know you don't have a lot of time, so
I did a lot of questions I want to ask you.
I want to start off. In the past twenty four hours,
Israel has bombed Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar.

Speaker 2 (00:57):
No missing somebody, Tunicia, Denisa, what is that about?

Speaker 1 (01:01):
What it's about is it's one country in the Middle
East that doesn't have to abide by the rules that
everyone else follows. There is no red line. They are
if there were any other country in the Middle East,
if they were Arab country or Muslim country, we would
be calling them a rogue nation because they just bombed,
as you said, multiple sovereign countries, many of which would
not attack them. Tunisia didn't do anything to them. They
bombed the Flotillian Tunia. And that's just in the last

(01:22):
couple of days. You go back further, they've bombed Iran,
and Iraq and Yemen, Syria. So they've bombed I think
around nine different places in the Middle East over the
last year, which I can't think of any other country
in the world that has done that in modern times.

Speaker 4 (01:35):
So why why no penalty?

Speaker 2 (01:38):
I don't want to know why period.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
So why they're doing it? Know, we know, we know
why they're doing it. They currently they are run by
the most far right government in their history, which is
super belligerent, super aggressive, has people like Bizalo Smotrish, the
finance minister, who talks openly of greater Israel, wants to
have Israel with even bigger borders than the occupied territories
they have and why are they're getting away with it?
Because of our leaders in Washington, DC, where I'm based,

(02:02):
because of the President of the United States, Donald Trump,
because of Congress, and because of both parties in Congress.
That's been clear when it comes to Israel. I know,
every other issue in America is like Democrat versus Republican,
red versus Blue, not on Israel. On Israel, it's a
bipartisan consensus. Joe Biden let him do whatever he wants.
Donald Trump lets him do whatever he wants.

Speaker 5 (02:19):
Why did they The guitar thing was interesting because why
did they barbatar didn' Qatar.

Speaker 2 (02:23):
Give Trump a plane? And didn't the say they want
to invest in a trillion dollars.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
But they did give him a plane. They are doing
a golf course with Eric Trump. They are a very
close ally of the United States. They host the US
military base is in Qatar. Think about that. The United
States clearly signed off on a military strike on an
allied country where like ten thousand American troops are based,
which is kind of insane if you think about it.
No matter what you do, you can host an American

(02:48):
military base, You can give the president a plane, you
can host his family golf course, you can be really
close allies. But if Israel wants to bomb you, the
United States will let Israel bomb You think about.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
How insane do but I'm still trying to wrap my mind.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Well, they're reasoning for qata was we want to take
out the Hamas leadership, which is based in Qatar. What
they omit to mention is that the Qatar leader the
Hamas leadership in Kataka is the United States government asked
for them to be in Kada. Barack Obama in twenty
eleven said, I want you guys, I want He said,
I want you guys to host Hamas. I don't want
a musk to go to Iran. I want them to
be somewhere we can talk to them. So the Qataris
have always hosted Humas, but with US and Israeli approval,

(03:22):
they don't tell you that when they're bullshitting.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
So there is Hamas leadership in Qatar.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Yes, no one's ever hidden. That's where they negotiate. That's
where and by the way, these guys were meeting when
they were attacked to discuss a ceasefi deal, which is
another reminder that Israel and net and Yahun spokes don't
want a ceasefi. Every time there's a negotiation for a SEISFA,
they attacked the negotiators. Last year, they killed Ismail Haney,
a leader of Hamas in Tehran. The guy was in
the middle of negotiations for a ceasefire. They killed him

(03:48):
in Iran. Remember they bombed Iran the other day. One
of the people they targeted was a guy called Ali Shamkhani.
He went on NBC News just two weeks earlier and said,
I'm up for a deal with Donald Trump. We can
do a nuclear deal. They bombed him. Why would you
bomb people who are negotiating peace steals and sees flies
unless you don't want peace deals and ceespa by Whitney
want peace deal, Why wouldn't they because that constrains their vision.

(04:08):
Their vision is we should have no rules. We shouldn't
have to stop fighting for anyone else. We want to
continue the war. Matthew Miller, who was Joe Biden State
Obomba spokesman, said recently that when he was in government
he heard Netanyal who say this war will go on
for decades. So he use decades long war.

Speaker 2 (04:23):
So if Hama's leadership is there is that justify the bombing.

Speaker 1 (04:28):
No, because they're there because we wanted them there. And
you can't just bomb any sovereign country where there's people
you don't like or you're opposed to. I mean, this
is a very dangerous road we've gone down over the
last couple of years. Right, We've burned down international law,
the Geneva Conventions, all the norms and precedents. I mean,
you don't think people around the world are watching this
saying why can I do what Israel does? Like all
the the idea that We're going to go to Russia

(04:49):
and be like, you can't bomb hospitals in Ukraine. Putn't
say why is rack and bomb hospitals and bombing terrorists
in those hospitals. Like the arguments that they've deployed to
justify torture, the bombing of civilian areas that can be
replicated by every quote unquote rogue state in the world.
Why not very dangerous? Right? We spent seventy years of the
United States in the UK the way building up the international order.

(05:10):
It's all been burned down over the last two years
for one guy.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Now, now, Bin Shapiro was here earlier this week and
you hit.

Speaker 5 (05:19):
Me start laughing like that, Why you gave a BS
answer on genocide?

Speaker 2 (05:25):
Oh yeah, what exactly what you want? We have a clip.
You don't think what's happening in God is a genocide?

Speaker 4 (05:30):
Correct?

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Okay, But the world's.

Speaker 5 (05:31):
Leading association of genocide scholars has declared that Israel.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Is committing genocide and God. That based off the pure
definition of.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Well, it's not.

Speaker 6 (05:38):
Actually, if you if you read their actual study, it's
not based on the quot unquote pure definition of genocide.
They don't atually even define genocide in the document. The
question is not whether some sort of coterie of people
who call themselves experts in an issue are a quote
unquote experts on the issue. The question is whether the
definition is met. The definition of genocide is not met
in Gaza by any stretch of the imagination. And you

(05:59):
can cite to me, you know a group that I
hadn't heard of until two seconds ago, and nobody had
heard of until two seconds ago, that voted in a
particular way. That doesn't make a difference definitionally.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
So what does a genocide do?

Speaker 6 (06:09):
A genocide is the attempt to forcibly destroy an entire population,
which is not what has happened, So it's.

Speaker 5 (06:16):
Not the attacks on like the personal facilities needed for
like survival, like healthcare and educational institutions.

Speaker 6 (06:22):
Well, Israel has shipped in more humanitarian aid into the
Gaza Strip than literally any army to in a population
that supports the enemy in literally all of human history.
They've been shipping in about forty four hundred calories per
day per person into the Gaza Strip in the middle
of a war in which the enemy is holding actual
Israeli hostages underground, who, as we've seen from some of
the pictures, are actually starving.

Speaker 4 (06:44):
Man, he's going crazy over there.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
Cal I think you're being generous. You said he gave
you some bullshit on Genesis. He gave you bush on
the whole topic. Right. He said, we don't give them
that much money. We give them three billion a year.
We actually give them close to four billion a year,
and last year we gave them eighteen billion dollars a year.
He said, they've been shipping in age. You just played
that de clip. Israel doesn't ship in any aid. The
aid comes from everyone else. These acts like Israel's giving
the aid, it's international aid. The Israel decides to switch

(07:06):
on and off whenever it wants. But on the genocide question,
it's funny that he kind of patronizingly says, these genocides scholars,
they didn't give you the definition. You rightly said, what's
the definition? He said, forcibly destroying a whole population, that
is not the definition of genocide. The nineteen forty eight
Genocide Convention gives us the definition of genocide Article two.
It says very clearly that genocide is any of the
following acts with the intent to destroy, in whole or

(07:31):
in part, a national, religious, racial, or ethnic group, and
one of those acts killing members of the group, causing
serious bodily or mental harm to the group, inflicting conditions
of life on a group that causes physical destruction, preventing
births within that group, and taking children away from that
group and giving it to another group five conditions. Israel's
met at least four of those five conditions. By any

(07:53):
sane description of what they've done in Gaza, it is
a genocide based on those conditions. These Raelis are saying
it's a genocide. Just listen to what they say. They
say genocide or stuff all the time. And here's the
worst part. Israeli. You know, he brushes over the IAGS,
some organization I've never heard of. I'm sure they don't
care that he's never heard of them. They are the
International Associations of Genesis calls. But let me just give

(08:14):
for your listeners actual people who say it meets the definition.
People like Oma Bartov, who is the Israeli Holocaust historian.
A Brown wrote a New York Times opens it's a genocide.
Daniel Blackman, Amos Goldberg, Israeli Holocaust historians, the Hebrew University,
they say it's a genocide in Gaza, Schmal Lederman, all
these Israeli scholars, Ras Siegel, they none of them, by
the way, all of them said we didn't think it

(08:35):
was a genocide at the beginning, but we definitely think
it's a genocide. Now these are Israeli Jewish experts on
the Holocaust. They're saying it's a genocide. We're supposed to
just ignore them.

Speaker 2 (08:45):
What determines a genocide.

Speaker 5 (08:47):
The reason I asked that question is because I feel
like most war can be classified as a genocide.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
It's the intent, right, Okay, So if you expressed intent
to destroy this group because of who they are, because
they're because of their national ethnic really just racial characteristics.
That's what makes it just a war. Like the Iraqi
invasion killed maybe a million people, But most people don't
accuse George Bush of a genocide because the goal was
probably oil security, whatever you want to say. It's protecting Israel.

(09:13):
It wasn't to destroy Iraqis for being Iraqis. But here
these raely governments saying we want to destroy palestine Is,
we want to wipe out Gaza, we want to disassemble Gaza,
to quote Bizalosmotris, leave it in piles of rubble. And
it's so interesting when you talk about intent and what
makes a genocide of genocide, it's not about killings. Ben
Shapiro says that the Chinese are guilty of genocide in
Shinjang against the wigas right, and I agree with him.

(09:35):
I think it is a genocide in Hinjang. But they
haven't mass killed the Vegas. They've locked them up in camps,
they've tortured them, they've prevented them from using Muslim names,
they've broken down mosques, intend to destroy a group, but
they haven't mass killed them like in Gaza. But Ben
says it's a genocide in Hinjng. That's weird. He says
Syria is a genocide. Even the baschalasaid didn't say anything
as close to genocidal as the Israeli government. Bashar al

(09:56):
Assad killed around one to two percent of his population
for ten years. Nanya, who's killed minimum three percent of
the Gaza population in less than two years? So why
is Syria a genocide and not Gaza?

Speaker 5 (10:08):
Ben I saw a lot of Jewish I guess correspondence
on YouTube talking about the interview with Shapiro here, and
a lot of them were saying that if it was
a genocide, Israel could wipe them out in one second.
If it was actually they could just take them all
out if they wanted to put and it was like,
that's why it's not so.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Piers Morgan used to do that line on me whenever
I want on his show. He's like, well, you could
just wipe them out. They have nuclear weapons, which they
deny having, but they do. What's funny is again, Joe Biden,
the US government says that Ukraine is a genocide. Vladimir
Putin could wipe out Ukraine with a nuke tomorrow. Why
is that not a factor The Chinese have nukes, they
could wipe out the weakest. I mean, it's a dumb
argument to say you could kill everyone. We haven't. There's

(10:48):
reasons why they haven't killed everyone because they probably think
we're not at that point of impunity. Although again smoke
Trich Finance minister, what do you say. Last year he
said starve everyone in Gaza if I could, morally it's justified,
so we can't get away with it. Sadly they are
getting away with They have staved a lot of people
in Gaza, so it's a ridiculous argument. So we could
kill everyone, that's why it's not a genocide. But the
genocide definition isn't killing everyone. There are multiple genocides. As

(11:12):
I say Shinjang, people say Ukraine, the roehingas in Myanmar. Right,
that's a genocide. Most people accept that's a genocide. They
didn't kill everyone. They killed I think seventy thousand people horrible,
But they didn't kill all the roehuingas.

Speaker 4 (11:23):
They'll never get to a cease fire.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
This had never happened, not anytime soon, unfortunately. I mean,
who's going to who they're going to do? Is seas
far with that have us people? They try to kill.
Where are they going to do the cease far in
Doha that they're bombing. I mean, the Katari said yesterday
we're done, We're out of the mediation efforts, which is
exactly what these Raelies want. They don't want to see five.

Speaker 5 (11:39):
But then even when you get rid of Hamas, there's
always another organization that pops up. I feel like we've
been naming the same organization different thanks.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
Because it's not about the organization, right, It's about the conditions.
It's about There was a great cartoons, very sad cartoon
right at the beginning of the after October seventh. They said,
if your solution to Hamas is to kill my is
to kill this kid's parents, the first thing that kid
does is create Hamas two point zero. Right. It's an
insane idea that says we're gonna By the way, they
apparently killed one of the Hamas leader's sons in this attack,

(12:09):
didn't kill the actual Humus leadership, who all survived. I
believe I read that they killed one of his sons,
and his wife and kids have been killed in a
previous conflict, Like that's how you get people to the table,
Like it's insane right, you cannot do this to a people,
and a lot of Israeli generals, by the way, recognize us.
I could go on forever about how many these ragions
have come out and said this isn't working. What we
can't just kill our way to victory?

Speaker 4 (12:28):
What are you telling people in the US.

Speaker 3 (12:29):
And the reason I say that is, you know, I'm
driving into work today and my daughter is supposed to
go to the Freedom Tower tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
Right.

Speaker 4 (12:36):
But then they say on the.

Speaker 3 (12:37):
News, you know, we've gotten threats on all the bridges
in New York and also the Freedom Tower. So what
do you tell the people in here? They'd say, you
know what, that has nothing to do with me. Why
am I worried about it? Why am I concerned? Why
should they be concerned to.

Speaker 4 (12:48):
Worried about it?

Speaker 2 (12:48):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (12:48):
Many reasons. I mean, first, we should be concerned as
human being. Of course, what is happening in Gaza is
the greatest tragedy of our lifetime. I was a guy
who marched against the Iraq war. I thought it was
a horror show. I thought we would never see anything
as bad as a rock in my lifetime. Again, Gaza
makes Iraq look like a walk in the Park, like
the tragedy in Gaza should affect us all as human beings.
The biggest cohort of child amputees anywhere on planet Earth,
a child killed every hour every day for the last

(13:11):
two years, according to Save the Children. So it's a
human tragedy, but also from a self interested point of view.
Two reasons. One, it's our money doing the bombing, right,
it's our We paid for those bombs that killed those
kids in hospitals and schools and refugee camps and churches
and mosques and graveyards. We paid for that, right. Why
the hell are we paying for this stuff? Did anyone
ask the American people? All the polls show the American
public are against this war. Eight percent of Democrats support

(13:32):
what Israel is doing in Gaza. Ninety percent of Democrats
in Congress support what is doing. Complete disconnect. Our democracy
is broken. That's number one. And number two again self interest. Right,
you don't think that some of these terrorist groups, militant
groups are going to take out their anger on the Americans,
I mean, our country back this stuff we're complicit in.
The US Intelligence has said since day one, we're going

(13:53):
to see an increase in terrort threats against our country
because of what Israel's doing in Gaza. So there's a selfish,
self interested reason, there's a financial reason, but above all
us the moral reason.

Speaker 5 (14:00):
I love what you said the first reason as human beings,
because that's a conversation I was happening with Ben. That's
conversation I had with other people. Whether you call it
a war or whether you call it a genocide, can
we agree that watching all these civilian casualties, watching all
these kids getting killed is wrong?

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Can we start there?

Speaker 1 (14:15):
And I think what they've done is they've they've got
the talking point down so much you can't even did
you see the interview that Adam Friedland with Richie tore
my guy?

Speaker 2 (14:22):
That was disgusting.

Speaker 1 (14:23):
I mean, he's just he's crying. True, He's like people
are dying. And Richie's like, it's how masters to blame?
They've just robotically they they have just got this talking
But if your response to someone telling you that a
bunch of kids got killed in the school scale a
master is to blame, that's your instant knee jer response.
What kind of human being are you? I think we're
seeing a lot of sociopaths, but expose themselves in recent How.

Speaker 7 (14:44):
Do you make people care about actual people and conditions
then if people have these things drilled into Because even
when we were talking to Bean Shapiro, that was one
of my things that I kind of got, is that
he's used to talking about things in a certain way
that's so indefinite and it's not certain things aren't just
like black and white.

Speaker 4 (14:58):
What he tas the emotion out of it.

Speaker 1 (15:00):
Yeah, but like and.

Speaker 7 (15:01):
Not just depending on him, because that happens all across
like everywhere you watch these talking heads. How do you
get people to go back to the human part of
it when you're talking about something like that.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
It's both a simple and a complicated answer. The simple
answer is we got to tell their stories. The complicated
answer is they've made it hard to tell their stories, right.
They have killed Palestinian journalists on the ground who are
telling stories about what's happening around them. They've killed them
with their families. They've prevented foreign journalists from going into Gaza.
They've killed doctors who work in Palestine. They've prevented foreign
doctors again from going back into Gaza. So they don't

(15:34):
want eyewitnesses to their crimes. And therefore we can't tell
the stories. I don't know how many of you saw
the Guardian story yesterday where a sniper and it's very
simper from Napersville, Illinois, goes to join the Israeli military
and is shooting family members one after another. And when
he's he was interviewed by someone pretending to be a journalist, sorry,
pretending not to be a journalist. He didn't realize he
was talking to a journalists and he says, you know,

(15:54):
I kill this guy, and his brother came to get
the body. I shot him too, and he goes, I
don't know why he wanted the corps. Why was he
obsessed with getting that corpse. I mean, it's cold, but
those stories have to be told, right. And by the way,
that was two brothers who were killed, neither of whom
were Haamas medicines. The soldier says, they just crossed an
invisible line. They didn't know they weren't supposed to go
down that road, so I shot them right. And by

(16:14):
the way, when we talk about Palestinians, they're so dehumanized.
The only way sometimes we can get people to listen
to as we say, look how many children they killed?
Look how many women they killed. I'm sorry, the men
aren't all guilty of a crime either Palestinian. A young
Palestinian man trying to go to school or work who
gets killed, he automatically gets designated, or terrorists because he's
a combat age man. No, they've killed many, many innocent
young men. By the way, the father also went to

(16:35):
get his two sons bodies. They shot him too. So
this is these are the stories we have to tell
because Americans. I believe that Americans are fundamentally good people,
and I believe Americans don't want this happening in their name.
They just don't know a lot of them.

Speaker 5 (16:46):
I think we don't want our tax VID dollars going
towards it, and I think we're just desensitized the war.

Speaker 2 (16:50):
That's why I think during the violence in general, in
this in general, but that's why I.

Speaker 5 (16:53):
Think during the Vietnam War was so impactful when they
were able to show the images of what was happening,
because you know, you might hear two three million people
get killed, which is ridiculous, but when you see it
and realize, oh, you are just regular civilians, or even
the words we use when they would say insurgents like
insurgents in Iraq got killed.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
Like it's like, you know, we dehumanize people.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
And everything becomes hamas. Right I did. I did a
list for sea for my drugs about a year ago.
Like everyone and everything that is hamassd. Now like anyone
who said it, you're a hammasd. You and Hammas Save
the children, ox Fam Hammas, like charities Hammas. Any foreign
government that says anything about is Hammas. I interviewed Miss
Rachel like YouTube child star, She's she's Hammas. Everyone is hamas,

(17:35):
Like it is ridiculous. Right If Miss Rachel is Hamas,
then you've lost the argument your book.

Speaker 2 (17:43):
I haven't got a chance to redtaiate. You just gave
it to me this one. But win the art of
debating every persuading and argument.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
That's the stupid cover that makes you look it's actually
win every argument with the way it's it looks like that.
That's one of the funny things.

Speaker 5 (17:55):
Okay, I don't want to argue and I don't want
to win argument.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
I just want to learn. Yeah, so why do you
think arguing is the I mean, you end up doing
it anyway, but.

Speaker 1 (18:05):
Yeah, yeah, you end up doing it anyway. So that's
one thing you can't avoid. It is one thing I say,
whether you want to avoid an argument, you can't. Therefore
you should be equipped for It's a book. It's a
very practical book about skills, debating skills and arguing skills.
But also I do think arguing gets a bad rap, right.
There's bad faith argument, people who argue for the sake
of arguing, people who argue without really believing what they're saying.
A lot of cable news talking heads that have given

(18:25):
argument a bad rap. But argument fundamentally, intrinsically is about
disagreeing in good faith, trying to come to a conclusion.
I would argue that you can't find the truth unless
you have a back and forth. We don't want to
live in echo chambers where everyone agrees with each other
all the time. We should have healthy debate, productive debate.
That is how people discover truth new ideas. I do

(18:45):
think democracy requires healthy debate and argument. Going back to
ancient Greece, you're having people have at flesh out the issues,
but it has to be done in good faith. What
we've done in the US, especially and especially in our
cable news world. I'm an XMSNBC host We have a
lot of bad faith argument, a lot of fake debates,
and I think that's undermined. And this book is about saying,
you know what, arguing can be fun. People who do

(19:06):
debate club in high school kids love some kids love
doing that because it can be so pure and so
raw and so authentic. But we've lost that. Our media
has killed what was good faith debate and argument, and
this book is an attempt to try and bring it back.

Speaker 5 (19:18):
How do you know when you're in one? How do
you know when you're in a healthy debate, a good
faith debate.

Speaker 1 (19:22):
That's a good question. It's hard sometimes I realize halfway through.
I did the Jubilee debate onto, which was insane. I
went into that obviously I knew there were going to
be some bad faith people. I didn't realize all of
them would be insane, Like I went with like notes
and facts and figures, like traditional all of it was
a waste of time, Like these people are not interested
in that stuff. So sometimes you kind of realize it
in the middle of it. You know, the Supreme Court

(19:44):
was once as how do you know, how do you
define porn? And they're like, you know it when you
see it? Right when you're in the debate and you
know there's a bad I've interviewed people that I realize
I've interview like leading politicians from our government foreign governments,
and halfway through you realize that this guy is just
not interested, just pure bullshit.

Speaker 5 (20:00):
Yeah, I think the twenty of you one, that's just entertainment.
It can't be in good face because it's literally designed.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
To be say that. But what's interesting that I'm gonna
sad part is that. But if you watch all the
right wingers who went on it, if you watch Jordan
Peterson or Candice Owens when they go on it, they
get a bunch of like well meaning, really earnest young
liberals who are like, ah, but mister Peterson, what do
you think about that? You know, this argument against God?
Like I go on it and I'm like, get out
of our country, and I.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
Feel like I feel like I'm fascist.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
I'm a fascist. Yeah, I'm a fascist. So I think
I do think like there is a real asymmetry in
our politics right now, which is where like there are
a lot of liberals leftist who do want to have
like a really earnest argument about policy, Like how do
we get Medicare for all. And on the other side,
there's like how do we get rid of all the
black and brown people? And it's not the same thing.
I know the media loves to treat It's like both sides,
the far left and the far right. The far left

(20:48):
once universal healthcare, the far right wants Nazism. That's not
the same thing.

Speaker 3 (20:52):
Yeah, when you jump into those debates, you know, there's
so much misinformation out there. They really believe some of
the stuff sometimes and some of the times. Which makes
it horrible is these news programs report misinformation like it's right.
So how do you debate somebody that is getting misinformation
that believes they are totally right.

Speaker 4 (21:09):
We see it all the time. We see it pay
all the time as well.

Speaker 1 (21:10):
So here's my thing. When I debate a lot of
those people, I'm not trying to change their minds. I'm
trying to change the audience. I'm always got my eye
on the third agent in the room or not in
the room at home, watching on YouTube, and I think
sometimes we get lost and like, I'm going to change
your mind when I go on with some of these
freaks and ghouls on Piers Morgan Show to comeing to
defend the genocide. I'm not trying to change their mind.
I'm not going to change the mind of someone who's

(21:31):
defending a genocide two years in right, that person is
a lost cause morally and politically. What I'm trying to
do is get some people in the middle who may
have accidentally come across this show or debate while while
they were surfing on YouTube, and maybe they're open minded
to say, oh, I didn't know that. I didn't hear
that particular argument. I never heard the humanization of these people.
I just see as insurgents or militant or terrorists. So
my goal is always and the first chapter of my

(21:53):
book is win over an audience. The audience is key.
It's not about you and the other person. It is
about the watching audience. Because I want to change people minds.
That's what I do want to do. Otherwise, just as
you say, it's just entertainment if you're not actually having in.

Speaker 5 (22:04):
A different perspective than I think a lot of people,
because I think a lot of people do focus on
the audience, but they focus on the audience because they
want an amn corner, as opposed they're actually trying to
teach them.

Speaker 1 (22:12):
Yeah, and I find that sometimes boring. I go to
events and the whole audience agrees with me. It's nice,
it's good for the ego. Everyone's aplouting everything, but it's not.
I much prefer having an audience. That's what That's why
I do. People like, why do you go on Piers
Morgan show?

Speaker 2 (22:23):
It's this.

Speaker 1 (22:23):
I was like, whether you like it or not, you
reach a huge audience and people who don't agree with
you around the world, and that is an opportunity. Now
there's a there's a line like I don't I don't.
I know you go on Fox. I don't go on Fox.
I wouldn't go on because though the.

Speaker 5 (22:36):
Reason I think you should is that I think, look,
look how effective President Obama was when he went on there.
Think about how effective Stewart was when he goes on,
and think about GAVI people many you absolutely no.

Speaker 4 (22:47):
I'll tell you why.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
I'll tell you why.

Speaker 7 (22:48):
I come, you do the you believe, but not go
on Fox?

Speaker 1 (22:51):
I mean, would I do the jubilee again? Though? That's
the issue. So so the thing is that jubilate. I
have a I have a basic standard, which is like
you asked about debating, and how do you know about
like I won't debate white supremacy. People say, oh, you
should interview Marjorie Taylor Green. I'm like, the woman is
you know, she's she thinks the rothschild lasers, calls fires like,
she's she has weird QAnon conspiracy theories. She's an anti vaxer.

(23:11):
She's a climate denier. Like I don't think there is
value in debating holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, election denies.
It's just pointless, right, I'm not going to debate is
up down, it's cold, hot? Is black? White? I just
don't think there's Invalua.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
You've never been in a.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
I'm a loyal Korean barbershop down. I've had these debates.
I'm just saying they're not valuable. I try and avoid them.
But going on Fox, for example, I get the I
get the argument what democrats make like we should go
and reach a new audience. Bernie does a lot of Fox.
The problem is the Fox model is not built around
it simply, it's built around entertainment, as you say. And also,

(23:49):
I do think Fox is an irredeemable company in the
sense that it is a force for evil in this
world in terms of spreading racism and misogyny and election
denial and climate denier, and I just think me going
on there. I know this sounds silly because it's a huge,
big Fox a little old Mardy hasn't. But I don't
want to go on and legitimize them. I know that
sounds old fashioned quaint, but I feel like if I
go on there, then I'm treating it like a legitimate

(24:11):
news outlet. I don't even call it Fox News. I
call it Fox. It's not a news outlet. I mean
they paid billions of doll they pay one hundreds of
million dollars in settlement to dominion. They are a propaganda
outlet for the Republican Party and for Maga. So for me,
I just don't see the value by the way that
people who go on you can go on and do
a great job on Lara Trump. Problem me is for
the next twenty three hours, they undermine everything you said
in that one hour, So it doesn't really have an

(24:31):
enduring factor, which is why when you poll Fox viewers
they are so misinformed no matter how many Charlemain's, Pete
Buddha Judges or Bernies go on.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
But then when I'm out in the street.

Speaker 5 (24:40):
I see the real reaction to you know what I mean,
I don't see the propaganda that's being pushed. Are a
message or native they're trying to push actual people come
up to me and be like, hey man, I'm a
lot farther right than you, but I appreciate a lot.

Speaker 2 (24:53):
Of the things that you say.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
That's fair.

Speaker 5 (24:54):
You know, do you think mainstreaming journalism in the US
have gotten too cozy with power?

Speaker 1 (25:00):
I would dispute the premise of your question. Gotten too
cozy with pot It's always it's always been cozy. When
was it not cozy with Powell? Right now, we're in
a different situation, which is we have media outlets joining
up with a fascistic government. That's a whole different ballgame.
But in general, the US media has always been too
cozy with power, never really taken an adversarial position against
people in power. Journalism should be adversarial. Journalism should be

(25:23):
challenging the people in power. It should be you know,
you know, what's the line afflicting the comfortable and comforting
the afflicted. And we've really not done that in the US.
When I moved here in twenty sixteen, one of the
reasons people got to know me was because I do
tough interviews and people were saying to me on the street, like,
you're that guy who did that interview Eric Prince, I
can't believe out. And then I went to MSNBC and
I started doing those interviews and luckily some other people

(25:45):
started following me. And now I think interviewing has improved
a bit on cable, but in general, for example, we
don't do tough interviews in this country with people in power.
It is. You watch some of the Sunday Morning interviews,
it's very, very friendly. Like I saw one the other
day where Marco Rubio just said some absolute bs and
Margaret Brennan said thank you for joining us, and it's like,
where's the follow up? So I do think that is
a problem, especially our interviews on not Adversaria.

Speaker 5 (26:07):
Now I'm going to ask you a question. I thought
I knew the answer to how do we break this
cycle today? And the reason I say I thought I
knew the answer to it is because I thought that
these new media outlets, you know, the things that the
stuff that was popping up on YouTube, I thought they
were going to break this cycle. But it seems like
a lot of them are causing up the power as well.

Speaker 1 (26:25):
That's interesting, So not us, not zeteo. We're not cozy
up to power either side. Obviously we're very critical of
the publican body, but we're also critical of the Democratic
Party as well when when we need to be. I think, yeah,
a lot of the quote unquote independent outlets are not
that independent. You took at someone like Tucker Carlson. I
saw him on the Piers Morgan Show talking at Piers
Morgan again to me name checks of peers. He was

(26:45):
on the show this week and I heard him say,
you know, I do like Donald Trump. I campaigned for him.
I don't think journalist should be campaigning for politicians. I
just don't think that's our role if you call yourself
a journalist. I mean, everyone knows my preference is an election.
I don't want Donald Trump to be president. I didn't
want him to win last year. But I didn't go
out and like do events for Kamala Harris. That would
be insane. So I think, you know, that's a real
problem that a lot of people on the right, obviously,

(27:06):
I mean Epstein. The Epstein story is the classic example.
It was independent quote unquote media that led that story
even more than Fox. It was the right wing YouTubers
and podcasters that really pushed Epstein, Epstein, Nepstey Nepstein. And
then they got those stupid files and they waved them
outside the White House. And then it turns out there
are you know, the Epstein files are not out, they
haven't been released, they're never going to be released. And
these guys just went silent. They were like, we trust

(27:27):
the president. I mean, i'magine saying that. First of all,
no journalist should ever say we trust the president any president. Certainly,
you should never trust a man who lies with every breath.

Speaker 7 (27:37):
What do you think will emerge as like the leading
place in media because it's not cable news anymore, YouTube
and online It's like you got to know who you
listening to, whether it's factual information?

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yeah, Like what will be that one?

Speaker 7 (27:49):
Like go to here's where we know we can trust
that will emerge out of all of this mess, I.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
Mean the shameless small business and me, says Zeteo, come
to my media side. But the serious answer is, I
don't think we can predict. I think anyone who tells
you they know what the media looks like in three, four,
five years time is either a liar or a four.
I mean, none of us could have even seen where
we are today three or four years ago. I don't
think if you'd said before the twenty twenty four election
that the big question is going to be did Kamala
Harris go on Rogan? If you'd said that in twenty twenty,

(28:16):
people are laughed in your face. If you'd said ten
years ago, the guy from Home alone two would be
president the United States, people are laughed in your face.
So I don't think anyone can predict where it's going.
What I can say is, obviously YouTube is a dominant
force right now. I mean that Jubilee is a classic
example of that. You talk about people, the number of
young people. I was on a college campus last night.
All the college students had really never seen me in
anything except Jubilee. They're like, you're the guy from that

(28:37):
circled debate. So that the YouTube power, especially for young people,
is massive. Obviously that's a problem because it's owned by Google,
and Google has its own agenda, which ain't always great
when it comes to misinformation. You just saw the heads
of Google and Microsoft and Facebook and Meta all sitting
around the table with Donald Trump lavishing praise on him
just the other night. So it's not great that these
big tech corporations control so much of our discourse, but

(29:00):
that's the world we're in right now.

Speaker 2 (29:01):
I definitely want the record to show that.

Speaker 5 (29:02):
In February twenty twenty four, I absolutely told the Vice
President she needs to go on Rogan and she needs
to start going on Fox News. Yeah, because my thinking was,
Joe Biden is not going to win this election in
November unless you start getting out more in the forefront
and showing people who you are, so at least they
feel like, well, maybe I can vote for her on
the ticket. This is the way before she even became
a nomineer. And this was February twenty twenty four.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
Have you seen the extract in The Atlantic today from
my did I was glad and she's saying that she's
basically saying what you'll say. She's like, I tried to
get out there. They should have realized that putting me
out that would help them look like they've got a
succession plan, that they have confidence in me, and they didn't. Right,
They've no daylight, no daylight. And she, by the way,
she I need to read the whole thing. I need
to read a whole book. But like she has done, so,
why she didn't just say, oh, get lost, I'm doing

(29:45):
my thing.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
I can't wait to read it.

Speaker 5 (29:46):
I'm want to read you something from that expert that
came exert excerpt that came out to day, She says,
I gave a strong speech on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Desperate people have been shot when they formed a food truck,
and I spoke of families reduced to eating leaves or
animal feed, women prematurely giving birth with a little or
non medical care, and children dying.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
From malnutrition and dehydration.

Speaker 5 (30:04):
I reiterated mass grand support for Israel security and called
on her master release the hostages and accept the ceasefire agreement.
Then on the table, I also called on Israel for
greater access to aid. It was a speech that had
been vetted and approved by the White House in the
National Security Council, and went viral, and the West Wing
was displeased. I was castigated for apparently delivering it too well,
what do you think when you hear that? So?

Speaker 1 (30:24):
I think two things. Number one, I think the Joe
Biden administration will forever be complicit in a genocide. The
genocide would not have happened had Biden not hugged Netnaho clothes,
given him pretty much everything he wanted. We rightly castigate
Trump right now, but we have to remember this began
on Joe Biden's watch. At any time, he could have
pulled the plug on the whole thing. He could have
called net Neon to end it now it's over. He
did not do that. He had multiple opportunities. Did not

(30:47):
do that. Harris. Here's a second point. I think Harris
would have been better on Gaza than Biden. I think
Harris definitely would have been better on Gaza than Trump.
But it's very hard to persuade people, especially my Palestinian friends,
will say, no way. She was up to it, up
to a neck in it with Biden. I do think
that like that speech and other little things she did
were signals that she would be better on it. I
had people in the White House who were on her
side were telling me at the time, Harris is definitely

(31:09):
better than Biden. Although the bar is low, it's not
hard to be better than Biden on Gaza. The problem
is she didn't do it right. She didn't take that
opportunity and she, you know, will never know. Right, it's
one of the great counterfactionals. Would Israel be bombing Katar
and Iran and ethnic cleansing now if Kamala Harris's president,
will never know because she didn't take the opportunity to,

(31:29):
you know, politely throw Joe Biden under the bus. She
went on the view for me the day I knew
she lost that election. When she went on the view
and they say, what would you do differently to Joe
Biden and she says nothing. I'm not even saying Gaza.
I'm not even saying she should have come out and
been like, I'm going to recognize a Palestinian state and
I'm gonna stop just anything, healthcare, the economy, immigration, nothing right.

(31:50):
It's a change election. People want change. People aren't happy
with all the polling told us. People were dissatisfied with
the economy, dissatisfied with dirt correctory. You come in and
you go, I'm gonna take it from Joe Biden, but
it's going to be the same. That is insanity. Whoever
is advising I should never work in politics again. I
know they're all trying to rehabilitate their careers. That was
an insane electoral strategy.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
I agree.

Speaker 5 (32:09):
It's my opinion that I don't know what's gonna happen
for her in the future.

Speaker 2 (32:14):
But what I like about what she's writing in his book.

Speaker 5 (32:17):
To your point, I've been saying it over and over,
whoever is going to lead the Democratic Party in the future.

Speaker 2 (32:21):
You have to throw the Biden administration under the bus.

Speaker 1 (32:23):
I have to. I think you have to throw all
of the buggest Democrats.

Speaker 2 (32:27):
The whole region.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
I mean, we're talking about Epstein right now. I mean
Bill Clinton, Bill Clint's in the book right He's in
the birthday book. Gilaine was all the family events, hanging
out with Chelsea unrest. I mean, let all of them
got to go again. I mean Donald Trump won in
twenty sixteen when he took on the entire Republican establishment.
Let's not forget how he won in twenty sixteen. I
was I remember watching a debate. I was sitting on

(32:49):
my couch, right. He is a debate in twenty fifteen,
and he goes on TV and he says, he says
to Jeb Bush. He goes, well, the Twin Towns came
down under your brother. Oh, he didn't do. He didn't
just say that Republican grand Instead of getting booed, he
gets booed by a few people, crowd cheer, his pollingd
goes up. Right, he throws the Bushes under the bus,
happily blames them for Iraq nine to eleven, even though
Trump supported the war. But he throws them all under

(33:10):
the bus. Right, you have to be able to the
Democratic Convention last year had Clinton and Obama and Hillary
still speaking. Get rid of these people. People are done,
whether you think they were good or bad presidents, and
they all had pros and cons Clinton, Obama, Biden, they
all did good things and bad things. Move on. You've
got to be forward looking. We're here in New York.
You're a candidate who's forward looking. Stop living in the past.
Why is Bill Clinton, a man who hasn't been president

(33:32):
for twenty five years, speaking at the DNC.

Speaker 5 (33:34):
What do you think about the mayor race in New York?
Hold on, before we get did that. What you said
is so profound. Just now I'm gonna tell you why
twenty sixteen, that's exactly what Trump did. But Trump was
also an outsider. We know nobody in the Democratic Party.

Speaker 2 (33:45):
Is going to do that. I love a lot of
these Peoplespiro.

Speaker 1 (33:48):
I like, what was more, they all have redlines. They're
not people they weren't criticized.

Speaker 5 (33:52):
Yeah, that's why it has to be somebody like a
John Stewart. It has to be an outsider. I agree,
you're the only ones that's going to throw them under the.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
Bus outside of or kind of fresh blood to go
back to a mum Dani who is within the party
but has the guts to take on the establishment. I
mean John Stewart. Obviously, you and I are big fans
of John Stewart and running. I wrote a piece saying
he should throw his hat in the ring. I'm not
saying he's going to be the best president or he
should be president. I'm saying the Democratic president your primary
debates could do with the John Stewart on stage throwing
some fireworks and hand grenades in Now.

Speaker 4 (34:20):
What do you think about the mayor race in New
York City.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
I think it's great. I'm loving it.

Speaker 3 (34:24):
I'm happy Trump's about the They say Trump's going to
pull in Adams so it's a little easier.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the poll league
that came out this week, if you add up Adams,
Sleewer and Cuomo, they do have a marginal lead on
mum Daney. Clearly Mumdaney's benefiting from a divided opposition, But
I think that's very simplistic to suggest that all of
the people who support those candidates would immediately go to
another candidate. There are a lot of people who support
Adams and Sleewa, I'm sure, who look at Quomo and
be like, if our guys not on the race, we're

(34:51):
back in m Nania. We're staying at home. Right, This
idea that Cuomo will automatically command support from the other
I mean, Zora Mumdaney is both a once in a
generation political talent terms of his communication skills, in terms
of his policy platform, in terms of his charisma. He's
once in a generation like Obama ESQ, no doubt about that,
even his enemies conceived that. But at the same time,
he's also benefited. He's a lucky candidate in that he

(35:11):
has his opposition divided between three people, two of whom
are clearly freaks. And I'm not talking about Curtis Leewer.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
I don't know if he's the once in a lifetime
generational talent. I think that he's just speaking to common
sense issues. When he's walking around saying, you know, New
York is too affordable.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
And he's talking about sanity.

Speaker 1 (35:30):
Has he saying that?

Speaker 2 (35:31):
He's just saying it.

Speaker 1 (35:32):
He's saying in a way that resonates. He's I know
he has a great I know the people on his team.
He has a great social media team, and they make
the snazzy videos. But you could take a bunch. You
could take one hundred random house democrats, one hundred random
house democrats, pick them out of a hat and put
them in those videos, and those videos wouldn't work. The
videos are brilliantly made. But it's Zoran's face, it's Zoran's voice,
it's his natural humor, it's his charisma, it's his ability

(35:55):
to reach people. He's got that big smile. Don't underestimate
the power of that big smile. He's Muslim like me,
so unfortunately I don't have that big smile, so I
have resting, angry Muslim face.

Speaker 2 (36:04):
So I can't he why in his work and if
he sold such such.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
A great I do like I do political annosis. You
can tell me why he's wrapped him like I'm telling
you as a politician, if he was not born in Uganda,
the morning after he wins that Maryrial race, he would
be the top of that twenty twenty eight primary field
that we talk about. People would immediately say he's the
guy who should be president.

Speaker 5 (36:26):
Yes, I think you know, it's interesting because I always
say progressives and liberals cannibalize themselves.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
Because they want purity.

Speaker 5 (36:35):
And I see people getting upset with him because he
was on our sharp and and he said he would
he will discourage the globalized then into FIDA phrase, and
people are like, oh.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
See, he's already shi down. He's already you know town
in Israel.

Speaker 5 (36:52):
It's just like you're in New York City. You need
some Jewish people to vote for you. You didn't do.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
That well with black people.

Speaker 5 (36:57):
You're gonna need them as well. Why would you not
understand the politics of there?

Speaker 2 (37:01):
Yeah, I believe you believed that.

Speaker 1 (37:03):
No, there is politics to that. I would point out,
by the way that even before he shifted a little
bit on this position, he was already leading with Jewish
voters in New York. The BS smear campaigns were not working, right.
You had the ADLs and the Bill Ackmans and the
Donald Trump say this guy's an anti semi but Jewish
New Yorkers are too smart for that. They're like, no,
he's ulf proferred candidate. He has a double digit leader
amongs Jewish Newyorkers. So I don't think he actually does
need to shift on this. But if he is shifting

(37:24):
on it, fine on the language, I think we got
to look first of all, you're right, the purity tests
are pointless here. The choices between him and Andrew Cromo,
The choices between Zoron Mundani, a man who came on
my show a year ago when he was pulling at
one percent, and he said, if Benjamin Netnio comes to
New York, I'll arrest him because there's aar restaurant out
from the ICC. That's one choice. The other choices Andrew Cromo,
a man who said, hey, mister Neto, can I represent

(37:44):
you at the International Criminal I'll be your lawyer to
defend your war crimes. That is the choice fundamentally on Israel.
If Israel is your issue, and you're voting on that,
even though the mayor of New Yor doesn't control forign policy,
if that is your big issue, there's no choice right,
it's it's the guy who said he arrested. That's the
guy who said I'll be Net' lawyer. There's no starker
choice that. But look, you're right. The problem is there's
a lot of people in the activist class which is

(38:06):
which does And I get it. I understand it's a
very emotive issue. People don't want to feel like they're
being thrown under the bus. I understand why a lot
of activists upset with the change because there has been
the smear that if you say river to the Sea Palestine,
will you're genocidal. That's not at all what people mean
by that. But I think you're right the big picture.
You're right. Like the right looks for the right looks
for converts, the left looks for traders. That has always

(38:28):
been the case in my lifetime. The left are the
masters of circular firing squads. We turn on each other
much quicker than we turn on our actual opponents, and
that's always been a problem. That's not new. So do
you depressing? But it's not new?

Speaker 2 (38:39):
So knowing that, do you like his chances? Yes, okay,
I do.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Like his chances, and I wish I wish if slash
when he wins he was able to run for president,
but we have an amendment to the constitution that says
you can't. Although if Donald Trump can run for a
third term, I'm dade he should run.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Fact like that. I don't even know why we're even
in a team that conversation.

Speaker 1 (38:57):
About unfortunately, because he keeps saying it.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
Donald Trump runs for a third term is over. Maydy.
I know, like we're I know, not going to be
a free and fair election. I know we would be
fooled even.

Speaker 1 (39:07):
I don't think there will be an election now. He
wouldn't run an election. He would simply cancel the elections,
saying national emergency. He's already floated this, but you saw
them sitting with Zelenski saying, oh so you don't have
elections because you're in a warrant emergency. Oh so if
I had that here, we would be able not to
have thet He's already thinking that. With Trump, he's always
part trolling, part joking, but part serious. And Steve Bannon,

(39:27):
by the way, who was a very serious figure, has
been very open about the fact that they are working
on a plan to keep him an office beyond twenty
twenty eight.

Speaker 2 (39:32):
Do you believe in Democrats moving forward.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
The big de Democratic Party the whole have not under
the leadership of the current folks. No, I've openly said
that Hakeem Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer should go. They need
to stand down. They are not as you as you
called him. Apak Shakor is not the man for this moment.
They are ludicrous in their interventions. They both keep saying, oh,
we need a strongly worded letter like this is not

(39:57):
that they literally I'm not even making that up. That's
not me being sarcastic. They've actually on the record saying
the age of DC did a really good letter. Chuck
Schumer was like, I wrote a really good letter about Harvard, Like,
this is not the time for letters right American democracies
on the line. We may not have a free and
fair election in twenty twenty eight, and these two guys
are pining for a golden age of bipartisan politics that
never existed and certainly doesn't exist right now. We need

(40:18):
people who are going to fight. And I say this
not as a big de Democrat. I'm not a Democrat,
a small de Democrat, someone who believes in democracy wants
my kids to grow up. In a democratic America, we
only have two parties, so the opposition party has to
do the fighting for us. These people don't fight. Nobody
believes that Chuck Schuman, Hakem Jeffreys are fighters. But there
are other Democrats who can. Just as you say, they're
too scared to challenge.

Speaker 7 (40:38):
Who are the people that become like the voice or
like the you know, like you have like people that
you point today.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
They do have a fight, They do have the fight.
There are Democrats who fight, so I I mean, there
are there are obvious people like the aocs of this world,
the Ilhanomas, the Rashida Tilab's, and the squad who are
very outspoken. But there are other people. There's Jasmin Crockett's
got a big following now. She's been very outspoken from
Texas in the Senate. There's people like Chris van Holland
and Maryland who went to El Salvador when apparently Kim

(41:03):
Jeffreys was telling don't go to El Salvador, it's unpopular issue.
Chris Van Holand went to El Salvador and got kill
mart Obrigo Garcia back. He came back because the people
like Chris van Holland going out there and picking that fight.
So I think there are Democrats who are willing to
speak out on some issues. Jamie Raskin is always very
strong unconstitutional issues. There are a bunch of them, but
they just don't have leadership roles because Democrats are in
this kind of Why Chuck Schumer lost the Senate, he

(41:26):
should have resigned the next day. Like, you lose an election,
you should stand down. We live in a country where
you lose an election on the Democratic side, you don't
stand down. On the Republican side, you say you wont
like we need to get back to you lose, you quit,
you move on with your life, build a library or
whatever it is. These we have a gerontocracy in this country,
or a bunch of old people who do not want
to give up ower.

Speaker 5 (41:45):
How detrimental do you think it's going to be if
Chuck Schumer, Hakim Jeffries just refuse the indoors Mundani and
then like he loses, How.

Speaker 2 (41:55):
Detrimental do you think it's going to be in the whole.

Speaker 1 (41:57):
Oh, it would be so bad. Yeah, it will be
so bad. I mean AOC made this point this week,
and I've made this point before. Kim Jeffries is on
the record. You can pull up his Twitter right now,
there's a tweet still. He didn't even delete the tweet
where he's like, vote blue no matter who. He's one
of those guys vote blue no matter who. Apparently there
was an asterisk that we didn't see that says vote
blue no matter who. Unless you're progressive, then we'd how
to vote for you. That's the kind that's the kind

(42:17):
of nonsense that they're pushing out. So I think it's
gonna hurt them. Right in twenty twenty eight, Let's say
we get a centrist candidate and Democrats say we've got
to stop Trump or Vans or whoever it is, got
to get behind the candidate. You may not like all
of Gavin Newsom's politics or JB. Pritzkill, got to get
behind him. And I get that argument. You got to
get behind the guy who's opposing the fascists. A lot
of people on the left are gonna say, are you joking?
Are you kidding me? Where was this in New York?
When did you get behind it? They're doing huge long

(42:39):
term damage to their ability to energize and get their
base out because they're basically saying, now you don't have
to vote for every Democratic candidate. Now we were just kidding.
If you want, we can all withhold on nominations. When
you see Jillibrand and Hokal and Jeffrees and schumer Ian,
this is their state, this is their city. To not
endorse your own candidate in your own city when you
want a landslide is insane. People can see how hypocritical

(43:01):
you are. And by the way, on Jeffreys, just one
quick thing, they may win back the House next year.
I'm not saying that Jeffries is so bad he's going
to stop the winning at the House. I think they
might win back the House because the anti Trump wave
is so strong. They'll win it back in spite of Jeffries,
not because of Jefferies. But then you have another problem.
Then you have Speaker Haquem Jeffries. Democrats have some power.
What are they gonna do with that? Does he have
a vision to create some resistance, to throw some sand

(43:23):
in the wheels and the gears. No, I don't think
he does. Is he gonna hold hearings? Is he gonna
go after Trump's corruption? Is he gonna call is he
going to be an actual insurgent speaker. I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (43:32):
I don't like people who say, well, just wait till
I get in a position. When I get in a position,
I'm gonna show you.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
I'm show me down. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (43:38):
That's in an era where misinformation spreads fast and in
fact that I know, you gotta go. How do you balance, okay,
how do you balance calling out lies in real time
without giving those live more actions.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
Oh, that is the existential question of our time for journalists.
I'm so glad you asked that question because I've struggled
with that. I know you have everyone in my industry
to struggle with this. When Donald Trump comes along and says,
like the twenty twenty eight thing, right, how do we
talk about twenty twenty eight without normalizing it. The more
we talk about it, the more we're like, oh, maybe
he can run. Like Trump knows how to plant ideas
of people's minds, how to lay the groundwork, plant the

(44:12):
seeds for his bs. And it's a real problem. So
when you're trying to all the studies show when you
try and fact check someone or say this is a lie,
what you said was false, a lot of people just
hear the lie. They don't hear the correction, so it
is a problem. So there is a guy called George
Lacoff who is a cognitive psychologist, I think is his
title at Berkeley, wrote a lot of books called Don't

(44:34):
Think of an Elephant and other so he used to
be very popular in the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi used
to get advice from him. He said early on in
the Trump era that you've got to respond with what's
called a truth sandwich. Right, if you're confronted with someone
lying all the time, you've got to tell the truth,
say what the truth is first, then rebut the lie,
then say the truth again. Right. The lie has to
be enveloped in truth, otherwise people will only ever hear

(44:54):
the lie. So it takes more time, it takes more effort,
and obviously we live in a world of hot takes
and cable news and people up against ad breaks, so
it becomes hard for journalists to do that. But that
is really the only demonstrable, proven way of really rebutting
this stuff.

Speaker 7 (45:06):
But how impactful is that in reality? Because even if
you do the sandwich, whatever outlet is going to grab
what's in the middle, because that's what people You know,
what I mean like that that's what get.

Speaker 1 (45:16):
People and that's it. And then that leads us to
the question of which is are there more outlets grabbing
the lie or more outlets grabbing the truth? And that
comes back to a wide discussion about what does our
media landscape look like? Right now? We have CBS News
basically becoming an extension of the Donald Trump administration. They've
just appointed an ombudsman who is a Trump donor, pro
Israel guy was nominated for He's going to be the

(45:36):
guy in charge of CBS news standards. Fantastic, Goodbye CBS,
goodbye sixty minutes. So the media landscape is heading in
a very right wing direction, which makes independent media so important,
right that is the only option now because the corporations
are not coming to save us. This idea that you know,
I worked at MSNBC. I loved every minute of it.
But MSNBC, which is now called MS now I think
it's rebranded, is not coming to save you, right, None

(45:57):
of the corporate media outlets are coming to save you.
No matter what good journalism they may or may not do,
they are not coming to save you because fundamentally, a
lot of their owners, a lot of the c suites
have already bent the kne to Trump, and therefore independent
journalism becomes so important. Where are you getting your news
on substack or on YouTube or on social media? Where
are you going? Gas is a classic example of that.
If you had just followed mainstream media the last two years,

(46:19):
you wouldn't actually know what's going on. If you're on Instagram,
for example, and I say, this is no fan of
Mark Zuckerberg, But with that Instagram the Palestinian struggle in
Gaza would not be known to the extent it is today.
People like Motas Palestinian photograph fifteen million followers and Instagram.
He got out the images in the very early days
of kids being bombed having their heads blown off, right,
that was so important for people to see raw uncensored,

(46:39):
not having to wait for the nightly news with all
the censored footage, they were able to see it themselves
from Palestinians on the ground. So I do think it
matters where you go to get your information, and we
do need to support independent journals for people watching and listening.
When I say support, that means you've got to pay
for it. Like I know, we live in a country
where we want everything for free, especially young people. But
a free press isn't free. It costs money to hire
reporters and do fact checks, have lawyers to protect you

(47:01):
from BS defamation suits. All of that cost money.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
I got two more questions. You keep seeing you left MSNBC.
I don't know why. I thought that you got fired
because of your stance on Gather.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
So my shows were canceled. I had two shows on
MSNBC and on Peacock, and my shows were canceled. There
was a lot of coverage about why that was. They
said to me, you can stay on as a guest
host or on a analyst, and I said thanks, but
no thanks. Because it was twenty twenty four, I had
a feeling it was going to be a big year
with a genocide and an election with a fascist, and
I felt like I needed to be someone where could

(47:32):
have my voice out there, completely unfiltered, uncensored, uncontrolled. And
therefore it was a no brainer that not only was
I going to leave MSNBC, I wasn't going to go
to another publication or outlaw. I was going to start
my own thing because I just wanted to be able
to have that free voice.

Speaker 2 (47:43):
And it was because you were speaking loudly about Gaza
and what Israel was doing.

Speaker 5 (47:47):
Togather, you'd have to ask MSNBC, No, you talk about
you did launch your own show, your own network.

Speaker 2 (47:55):
What's the name of it again, the tail?

Speaker 5 (47:57):
What has that experience taught you about independence, sustainability, and
just the future of news media in general.

Speaker 1 (48:04):
I think what it's taught me is there is nothing
that substitutes for authenticity. And you guys know that sitting
around this table. You know that from talking to your listeners,
meeting people on the street. We've grown very fast touch
would I mean, we have half a million subscribers on subject.
We have one point two million subscribers on YouTube. That's
in just a year and a half. And that is
because people wanted to hear authentic coverage. They wanted to

(48:25):
hear my voice, or not just my voice, but some
of our reporters and contributors. We've got people like Naomi
Klein and Greta Tunberg and Basa Musa and other people contributing.
And I think people want to hear that. They don't
want to hear people who are self censoring, who are
checking themselves, who are looking over their shoulder at a
c suite or a standards department or lawyers. I think
they want to see people who are speaking truthfully about
the fascist threat at home and the genocidal threat abroad.

(48:48):
They want to have a relationship with the people they
follow and understand that they are putting their faith in
those people, that group, that company to give them the truth.
To go back to your question, where can they find?
And I think that's back I've gotten. And the sustainability
issue is we've proved we're sustainable. We're a year and
a half in. We are doing very well. We just
hired two new political reporters from Rolling Stone. We're expanding

(49:09):
our team. I have fifteen full time employees now another
half a dozen contractors, so we're growing. I'm amazed. I
can't run a bath like the idea that I was
going to run a company. Friends of mine are like,
you're crazy. What the hell are you doing. You can't
run anything. I said, I know, But here we are
eighteen months later. We are running a successful progressive independent
media company which is growing by the day. And I
think that's taught me that there is a huge people.

(49:30):
People are interested in long form journalist, people are interested
in subs that they just want quick, hot takes on
I don't believe that. That's not true. I think people
are interested in That's why you're doing this show. That's
why I'm doing what I do.

Speaker 3 (49:39):
All right, Well out the book, win every argument, the
art of debating, persuading and public speaking.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
And thank you for joining scrouted in network.

Speaker 1 (49:48):
Thank you so much as a tail dot com And
don't be a stranger man.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
Pull up anytime you want.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
Whenever I'm in New York. I'll drop your life.

Speaker 4 (49:53):
Meddi Hassan is the breakfast Club, Good Morning every day.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
A week ago.

Speaker 4 (49:59):
Up this club. You're finished for yar dumb