902: Trump Secures Trade Victory

Also, the genocide and famine continue in Gaza, Epstein continues to not go away and Elissa Slotkin is grilled

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/newsflash--2206348/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:12):
Hello everyone, My name is Spalsh. Welcome to today's show.
Baby good and a long show for you as always,
so let's buckle on up on the show. Today we
are taking a look at this big new deal Trump
has signed with the European Union and why so many
in the EU, the negotiators, the politicians are on a fuilidate.
They just got rolled by Donald Trump.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Are they right?

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Are they overexaggerating or did Trump score another big trade win.
We also take a look at the Epstein scandal. Trump
continues to make comments in flaming it as more and
more details come out about his close ties to the
pedophile throughout the late nineteen nineties and early two thousands.

(00:55):
While Scubu latest from Gaza where the settler violence and
as military violence continues as Israel seems intense on only
allowing a very symbolic surface level aid to appease the
international community. Also, Melissa Slockin got interviewed by Independent media,

(01:15):
specifically the Breaking Points podcast, specifically about her support for
Israel and if she regrets any of it. At this
late date, she didn't have very many satisfying answers. Will
break down her argument and see where the Democratic Party
is at large.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
On the issue.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
It's gonna be a great show, hopefully a very informative show,
and we will have all clips as always from the
show out on YouTube. I think the latest one will
be coming out tomorrow morning, so check that all out
on the Spence Welsh's YouTube channel. We can't waste any
more time, Let's get into it. One of the policies

(01:52):
that Donald Trump has undoubtedly gotten the most heed for
it throughout his administration has been his terror policy. But
over recent days and months, things have been looking in
Trump's direction. Things have been looking up. He's been getting
more trade deals with various powers, including one big one
with the EU, and all this has led to one

(02:14):
of Trump's real biggest critics, Bill Maher, essentially saying that
at least on this he's looking pretty good so far
in terms of the economy, especially tariffs.

Speaker 3 (02:24):
Now, I remember, I, along with probably most people, were
saying at the beginning, oh, you know, by the fourth
of July, somebody had to think how the country was.
The economy was going to be tanked by then, And
I was kind of like, well, that seems right to me,
But that didn't happen. Now it could happen tomorrow. I'm

(02:46):
just saying that's reality. So let's work first from the
reality of that, not from I just hate Donald Trump,
because that's boring and doesn't get us anywhere and leads
you to dishonesty, because the truth is, I don't know
what his strategy is.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
But look, yeah, so Trump or more, they're essentially saying,
you know, things haven't crashed off of a cliff yet,
and you know, maybe we should give Trump some sort
of credit for that, which I think is a fair
point but does kind of lie the fact that Trump
didn't really have much of a strategy in the first place.

(03:23):
You know, he most of if he if the tariff
rollout of the various tariffs have gone into effect the
way Trump wanted it to go into effects without you know,
major reactions from you know, the bond market and all
sorts of market pushback, and not to mention a lot
of it getting struck down in the courts, which would
force Trump off of the kind of war path he's

(03:46):
on with regard to tariff's I think the things that
the picture would have looked a lot different right, and
the economy could have been in a much worse situation.
But he still is getting some pretty big wins here
as the US and EU agree to a trade deal.
This is how it has been summed up in the

(04:08):
Financial Times the EU, and it really it goes past
a fascinating outlook, fascinating story really of how the EU
has essentially and at least in their own opinion, capitulated
to Donald Trump on this deal, which kind of goes
to what a lot of the pro tariff people had

(04:29):
been saying on this, especially the pro tariff people critical
of the Liberation Day and all the things that Trump
had done prior to this point, which was essentially to say,
if you do this in a reasonable way, if you
don't do you know, tariff's as high as as thirty
forty fifty sixty percent, one hundred and fifty percent or
whatever tried to do on China, and you actually take

(04:51):
time to negotiate this stuff out, you will probably able
to be able to use your power to get a
lot of significant concessions and wins for the American economy,
which it seems like he has been doing here at
least the terms of the deal. We'll see how it
goes out in practice, and we'll see how much a
lot of this. You know, these European purchasing requirements actually
come to fruition. But this definitely does seem like more

(05:14):
of something that he would have wanted to do going
into the situation in the first place. And there are
some pretty crazy quotes here about this deal circulating from
the Europeans who negotiated it. Let's take a look here
in the face of Donald Trump's trade blitz, the EU
begins past the capitulation on April tenth, the sweeping Liberation

(05:34):
Day tariffs the US president had inflicted on most of
the world earlier that month. Had said financial markets into
tailspin as investor's dumped US assets over a session fears
but this all off intensifying. Trump blinked on an April ninth,
dropped the tariffs to ten percent, in which he said
was a temporary measure. But Brussels blink too. On April tenth,
it suspended its retaliatory tariffs and accepted the US offer
of talks with a knife at its throat ten percent

(05:56):
tariffs on most of its trade, along with high levees
on steel aluminum in vehicles, which are some of the
most important components for European training and You've got Germany
making all these cars, getting all this steel and manufacturing.
France is very big with agriculture, and we'll see some
of these sectors and how important they are to this
whole economy as we go through the story. Under the

(06:20):
framework deal struck by the European Commission, President Versuslow Monder
Lion and Trump at his Turnberry golf resort on Sunday,
the EUS walidy a broad based baseline US tariff of
fifteen percent, according crucially for cars, but now for steel,
which will be subject to a quota system which is
of course based on how much steel goes over from

(06:42):
the EU to the US, based on kind of historical
purchasing histories and practices. But there's a little bit of
ambiguity in that because that number has not been fully settled.
Relief among policymakers about avoiding an immediate Translantic train work
was tinged with regret.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Could the EU, the world's.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
Largest training block and supposedly in economic heavyweight, have extracted
better terms if it hadn't pulled his punches early on.
That's the question going around in the Financial Times and
in a lot of other outlets today. Essentially saying he's
the bully in the school yard, and we didn't essentially
stick together in making sure that he had had no

(07:24):
part in this and wasn't able to extract these sncessions.
That's been kind of the anonymous quoting from various EU ministers.
Those who don't hang together get hanged separately. As the
kind of the watched quote of this entire article, I
would say, and it is so indicative to something that

(07:47):
a lot of countries, especially in Europe, have failed to realize,
is that Trump is not there to respect the old
norms of the transatlantic relationship and all that. You know,
he's not playing by those same rules. He is totally
and completely in it for himself and in it for
as he keep saying, America first. And there's always gonna
be some sort of assumption, Oh, they'll back down, they'll
come to their senses. That is not going to be

(08:07):
the case. And they are not used to being in
you know, in both literally and both and figuratively, in
this kind of war path. There's war footing that they
have now found themselves in. With the benefit of the hindsight,
the EU would have been better off answering the US
vigorously in April, with a one to two combo with
China's retaliation against the US terrifigs, which left markets and

(08:28):
Trump reeling, said Rick Riquetez, now at the European Policy
Center think tank. Trump used the EU as a parasite,
feeding off lucrative American market while closing its own through
regulation and standards. The US president said the Union was
formed to screw the US and nastier than China. You

(08:49):
don't want to be nastier than China and Trump's size,
that is not good. The EU's response to his return
to power was flat footed. Monso planning beforehand by a
dedicated team which included senior trade officials led by another
BRETXIT talks veteran, Sabine Waynan's Sorry Wayans and varmer Land's
trade advisor Thomas Barrett, went up in smoke. And essentially
it was because they didn't respond soon enough to these

(09:12):
early tariffs in March, these twenty five percent tariffs on
steel aluminum in cars. What they first, we're gonna do
is often reduced the two nd billion goods deficit in
euros by buying more lequidinatural gads, weapons and other agricultural
products kind of essentially buy off the US threats of
broader trade war, and that was something that Trump essentially

(09:35):
rejected out of hand. If that failed, they would prepare
retaliation and rely to mark response to a possible trade war.
You know, sorry. Second, the second step was offer mutual
raff productions on each other's goods. If that failed, they
would prepare retaliation and rely to MIRCT response to a
possible trade war. Increasing or increasing inflation in the US

(09:57):
to force Trump to back down. But essentially they moved
so slowly that Trump had already to a certain extent
back down on some of the most damaging tariffs. You know,
by April tenth, with the really feuror from the market
and the you know, the bottom market most especially, Trump
had already back down on some of the most damaging tariffs.

(10:17):
And the moment that EU opened the kind of way
forward for talks and didn't keep that pressure going with
China and with Canada for weeks on end, you know,
from the spring into the summer and all that. That's when,
as we saw, pretty quickly, things began to go south
for the European Union. As we can see here, the

(10:39):
European Union does supply nearly a fifth of US good imports,
probably some of the most really the biggest block of
economic block or countries there as you can see on
the graph included that sends stuff into the United States
a fifth of all US goods imports, so pretty significant.

(11:00):
Any meeting of Luxembourg in April, many trade ministers were
on the warpath. Germany, France and a few others pushed
for the Commission to consult on using its new trade Bazuka,
the anti coercion instrument designed after some first term to
counter trade policy, which essentially would shut down any US
company from or make it ten times harder for any
of his company to do business within the EU, which

(11:23):
would be very, very significant. However, it was not clear
a majority of member states agreed with the threatening move.
Diplomat said Wayne told EU ambassadors who met last at
least weekly to discuss progress, to show strategic patients. And
you know, just like with the inventors of that term,
the Iranian Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, I guess

(11:45):
you could say the strategic patients was not the winning
move of the day. When the EU struck a trade
deal with Washington in May accepting Trump's ten percent baseline
tariff and encouraged those EU member states seeking a settlement,
especially Berlin. And so that was something that you know,
really did open eyes. I think it was they they

(12:06):
got ten percent. They were very, very very cow towing
shall we say, to Trump, especially with Peter Mandelsson, who
is a lot of that shall we say Epstein related
ties to to Trump and to the United States. He
was able to secure that deal when the UK struck
a trade deal that that was apparently a really big

(12:32):
turning point. Meanwhile, as if you're a tipped for tat
escalation between the US and China and an impartial detent
easing investor fears of a global trade turmoil, sock market's
reach record has despite the large triff increases and continued
uncertainty unleashed by Trump because of this kind of Trump
always chickens out mentality. Uh, Georgia Maloney of Italy and
Frederick mersh Mertz of Germany for months held onto the

(12:54):
eaves early offer to drop on touch real tariffs if
the US did the same, even though Washington had long
main clear and wanted you to lateral concessions. So essentially
concessions that the U makes that the US doesn't have
to make any kind of response concessions too, So you
were just giving stuff up. Basically, Berlin was preoccupied with
obtaining a complicated offset scheme to provide tariff relief for European,

(13:16):
in particular German car companies that manufactured and supported from
the US. While the technocrafts were boxing under Queensberry rules,
Trump was in a New York street fight. That's essentially
how it was. And really this fragmenting of everyone kind
of being out for their own interests was something that
the EU wasn't really unified, and it also allowed for

(13:39):
them to not come together, not come together for any position,
not any sort of clear response and any sort of
clear stance of saying we're going to really put the
pressure on you until we are all safe and all
of our companies were safe. You had some of the
bigger powers like France, like Italy kind of coming in
trying to sneak through the back door and saying, oh,

(14:00):
if we can just get our key companies, we can
just get our key industries really off the shopping block,
then we can come to some sort of a deal.
Then we can get a settlement Washington. They're making these deals,
they're negotiating they're not as unreasonable as we once thought.
While meanwhile, some of the smaller countries are saying, if
we all of our companies and all of our industries,

(14:22):
we won't be able to get carts for them. So
a fifteen percent tariff on our companies and our industries
is actually going to be really quite detrimental for us.
And so with that being said, you know, it came
to a point where no one was really able to
agree on anything. The negotiators continue to negotiate with the
United States without having that one clear mandate from the

(14:45):
EGO member states, and they eventually agreed to proposals that
were quite concessionary and really did give up a lot
on these fifteen percent tariffs, on the requirements for the
EU to buy more in the American markets, and the
fact that a lot of these key industries like for example, cars,

(15:06):
I think it was but cars and aluminum but not steel,
were ended up being hit by these tariffs. So it
is kind of interesting though to get this other perspective,
as the Europeans are kind of freaking out saying, oh,
we can see it at all, we can seated at all.
This is from Matt Klein in The Overshoot, who is

(15:30):
written for a ton of economic publications over the years.
He says, this whole narrative about U steam roll, that's
all over whatever, and Trump essentially is winning this trade
war uncontested. He says, this is, however, not an accurate
description of what has occurred. Leave us out the likelihood
that the tariffs imposed under the Economic Emergency International Economic

(15:53):
Emergency Powers Act of nineteen seventy seven will be ruled
illegal in the courts, in which case no one will
be paying the TERRF. The bigger problem is that the
main losers of the new deals are Americans, with foreign
foreigners collateral damage only to the extent the American purchasing
power falls. And if that American purchasing power falls for
these foreign goods, then that puts a lot of pressure

(16:14):
on the foreigners. But it also doesn't give the Americans
the best situation ever when it comes to buying you
European cars, purchasing you know, European agricultural goods, or anything
else that Europe is trying to send over to us.
In fact, is entirely possible giving difficulties substituting many specific
foreign made goods for US alternatives. The entire burden of

(16:36):
paying new taxes will fall in Americans, be a some
combination of higher private indebtedness and a wider than expected
budget deficit, with foreigners entirely unaffected. The thing to remember
is that tarifts are taxes, and it is always better
to not pay taxes if possible. The question that matters
is who is least able to avoid paying. This is
a well known problem within public finance literature, and it

(16:59):
is why there's some debate on professionals about the impacts
of taxes on corporate profits. The obvious answers that shareholders
pay the tax because there is less money available for
dividends and buybacks, but the impact could be mitigated through
higher debt issuants, in which case bondholders would pay some
of the costs. And there is the fact that the

(17:21):
higher profile taxes tend to raise hurdle rates for new investments.
So essentially there's a lot of economic jargon here, But
to make things really simple, he is essentially saying that
if America is unable to upset these losses from the US,
or sorry from very specific form made products. It will

(17:43):
be ending up a tax on the American consumer because
they'll have to pay more for these products, or they
just won't have access to them because the European companies
will stop sending them over. And you know it, that
will hurt Europeans to some degree, but in the end
not as much as the it'll end up parting Americans.
So it's gonna be very interesting to see how this

(18:04):
all plays out, and it could be really damaging for Americans,
but it could be a start of a whole new
world in terms of international trade policy in the Transatlantic relationship.
Donald Trump just cannot escape that fallout from Epstein. No
matter how much he tries to sort things out on

(18:27):
trade or anything else for that matter, he is still
being asked about this Epstein situation, and he's really not
doing that good of a job of explaining it away.
This was his trip in Scotland where he essentially said
that he never had the privilege of going to Epstein's island.

Speaker 4 (18:45):
That was it. I'm glad I did, if you want
another truth. And by the way, I never went to
the island, and Bill Clinton went there supposedly twenty eight times.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
I never went to the island.

Speaker 4 (18:58):
But Larry Summers, I hear went there.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
He was the head of Harvard.

Speaker 4 (19:01):
And many other people that are very big people. Nobody
ever talks about them.

Speaker 2 (19:05):
I never had the.

Speaker 4 (19:06):
Privilege of going to his island, and I did turn
it down, but a lot of people in Palm Beach
were invited to his island. In one of my very
good moments, I turned it down.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
Yeah, so in one of his very good, very good moments,
he turned it down. But this I think is remarkable
because we are starting to see the truth beginning to
come out.

Speaker 2 (19:27):
Right.

Speaker 1 (19:27):
So it wasn't oh I've never heard of the guy,
had nothing to do with him, you know, it's yeah,
he was around him. I turned down the trip to
the island. It was one of my good moments, which honestly,
if I was advising him, it kind of makes sense,
like that's what I would do, because obviously you've got
ties this guy. Just be like, oh, yeah, I turned
him down. But as you're gonna see, it's not all

(19:48):
that meets the eye when you know, when when it
comes to how Trump actually handled the situation. So now
here is the next clip from that same conference.

Speaker 4 (20:01):
Well, I haven't been overly interested in it. You know,
it's something it's a hoax that's been built up way
beyond proportion. I can say this, those files were run
by the worst gum on Earth.

Speaker 1 (20:13):
They were the worst gum on Earth, Comy.

Speaker 4 (20:16):
They were run by Garland, they were run by Biden
and all of the people that actually ran the government,
including the Auto pen. Those files were run for four
years by those people. If they had anything, I assume
they would have released it.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
The whole thing is a hoax.

Speaker 1 (20:35):
And this part is especially a little ridiculous because he's
essentially very ridiculous because he is saying that, oh, because
of the you know, all all the other stuff that
is about other people in these files, you know, the Clintons,
the the Bill Gates. Is that he mentions in the
Last Club, the Larry Summers of Harvard, that he mentions

(20:55):
all that stuff. Those are the people that don't like me.
That's that's real. That's but because they were running the government.
And you know, the part from you know, twenty seventeen
to twenty twenty one in which Epstein quote unquote killed himself,
that part doesn't actually matter because you know, that's when
I was running the government. And I could have done
whenever Ie wanted the files there. So he's really essentially

(21:17):
trying to have his cake and eat it too on this,
which I think is is not going to Jobe with
a lot of a lot of people, even even his
own supporters, because you know, he he is in charge
of this, the Epstein files. He came in on trying
to completely blow open, to be honest, to be the
one who was different, to resolve a lot of this stuff,

(21:39):
as as Joe Rogan says here, and he really just
didn't do it. That's just gonna hang around.

Speaker 5 (21:46):
There's a line in the sand. This one's a line
in the sand, Yeah, because this is one where there's
a lot of stuff about, you know, when we thought
Trump was gonna come in and that a lot of
things are going to be resolved. Yeah' gonna drain the swamp,
gonna figure out everything out. And when you have this
one hardcore line the sand that everybody had been talking
about forever and then they're trying to gaslight you on

(22:08):
that wall.

Speaker 1 (22:10):
Yeah, So it's it's it really is. It's it's totally
gaslighting and it's totally not It doesn't doesn't make any
sense here was probably the weirdest clip of them all.
This was Trump talking about why he ended up falling
out with Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaker 6 (22:25):
He has a certain reputation, obviously, but just curious. Were
some of the workers that were taken from you? Were
some of them young women? Were some of them young women?

Speaker 4 (22:36):
Well, I don't want to say, but everyone knows the
people that were taken, And.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
It was why don't you tell us people that work
for me as man? But that story has been pretty
well out there at the answers. Yes, they work in
the spot in the spot.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
Yeah, the people that work in the spy a great spot,
one of the best spots in the.

Speaker 7 (23:00):
World at bar A Lago, and people were the world
SPA hired by him, in other words, gone, and other
people would come and complain, this guy is taking people
from the spot.

Speaker 2 (23:13):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 4 (23:13):
And then when I heard about it, I told him,
I said, listen, we don't want you taking our people,
whether it was SPA or not SPA, I don't want
him taking people.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
And he was fine. And then not too long after.

Speaker 4 (23:26):
That he did it again and I said, out of
here stolen.

Speaker 8 (23:33):
You know, persons that include from Virginia, Effrey.

Speaker 2 (23:38):
I don't know. I think she worked at the SPA.
I think so would you look at that it was
one of the people. He stole her.

Speaker 4 (23:48):
And by the way, that she had no complaints about us,
as you know, none whatsoever.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Yeah, So this is a very weird situation here because
in the first video, Trump is just saying, yeah, but
you know, I never had the privilege of going, but
a lot of the people went, you should, you should
take a look at that. And then in the next
video he's saying, yeah, maybe in the files, but I
it was a hoax because the same people who screwed
me over with Russiagate were in control of the files,

(24:15):
even though there was also a four year period where
I was also in control of the file quote unquote
in the files, so it could be really manipulated however
I want, however they want by these people, even though
you know, again they both had clear control of the files,
and the files for all intents and purposes, are not
considered as you know, files, so to speak. And that
may not make any sense, but what pretty much every

(24:38):
intelligence person has said on this is there was no
you know, folder within the computer systems of the federal government.
Labeled Epstein files, right, there was there was nothing like that.
What there was was a you know, collection from various
investigations that the Trump minstration essentially put together. You know,
all the many, many investigations that have done in to

(25:00):
Epstein that was put together by the essentially put together
by the Trump minstration when they did this investigation, and
that was when they started to get the sense that
Trump would be in on it. So then and it
would be listed in these files a lot of times
because from what we can kind of tell to his discredit,

(25:20):
Biden didn't really do anything with regard to the Epstein files.
Trump pledges to do stuff. He compiles all these files,
and the people starting to do the files, as we
talked about over the last few weeks, when they started
flagg his name and flag of other names, they said, oh, wait,
Trump maybe in this, Maybe we should we should let
him know, maybe we should tell them about it. And
now he's saying with that second video that we played,

(25:43):
oh even if I'm in these files, they were manipulated
by my political opponents. Even though there wasn't you know,
the files so to speak. You know, there was just
the fact that he is in a bunch of these
documents over and over again, and which would have nothing
to do with whoever put these files together in the
first place, whether it be Biden Trump, or whether be

(26:04):
Biden or Comy Harris, whoever, you know, because if you're
in the file, if you're if you're cited as knowing Epstein,
you're cited as knowing Epstein in these documents. And now
he's saying, you know, uh, the main reason why I
was pissed at Epstein is not because he was sexually
abusing girls and I got wind of it. Not because
he was taking girls from my spa and sexually abusing

(26:26):
them and I got wind of it. He was saying that, oh,
he was just hiring other people. He was hiring people
like Virginia Jewfrey. He was hiring them away from my
spot in Marto Alago. Because it is true that Epstein
or sorry, Virginia Giufray worked in the Marologo spat. But
in two thousand Epstein hired Giufrey quote unquote took or

(26:48):
stole Virginia geuw Frey away from mar A Lago and
into his you know, layer in Palm Beach right down
the road. And you know, in two thousand and two,
he wasn't pissed off about it. He didn't try and
cut ties with Epstein. In two thousand and two he
gave his quote about Epstein being a terrific friend who

(27:09):
liked girls as much as he did, even some on
the younger side. That's what Trump was saying. In two
thousand and two, two years after he supposedly stopped talking
to Epstein because he took Jiufrey and other people outside
or hire them away from the monologus spot into his lair,
he was still talking to him in two two years

(27:30):
after this supposedly happened, And in two thousand and three
was the birthday book, the nice letter about may every
day be another wonderful secret. And then in two thousand
and four, that is when Trump finally ruptures with Epstein.
This is a timeline here, according to Ryan Goodman, who
is a lawyer who has been covering this stuff on Twitter.

(27:50):
So the big question is, I think this really does
kind of raise more questions than it does answers here,
because the big question here is what we're all thinking,
which was what was Trump? What did Trump know in
two thousand when Duffrey and other people were hired away.

(28:11):
This was the time where he was in his heyday
of relations with Epstein. This is when he was going
to these parties. This is when a lot of these
videos were from, when he was partying at Marolaga with
Epstein's mansion upon Beach with Epstein. And this was also
the time that he was Epstein was hiring away people
like Drew Frey from Marnologo spot that apparently pissed Trump off.
So why not mention that the sexual abuse part, the rape,

(28:34):
the child trafficking part that was so prominent in this
investigation in that quote that we just played, you know,
does is he covering something up?

Speaker 9 (28:43):
Is?

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Did he know about this the whole entire time and
not do anything about it? Is that why he's so worried?
It is very very sketchy and suspicious, and I think
the only thing we do know is that we need
to know more. So we're continuing to track the actions
of the Israeli government as they continue their genocide in Gaza.

(29:04):
We do have this kind of latest here as we
really want to cover the two main areas, which obviously
the starvation campaign and something that does not get enough
credit in not enough coverage in the Western media, which
is this really brutal campaign of settler violence in the
West Bank that we've seen unfold with the support of

(29:25):
the full support of the Israeli government over really ever
since October seventh. But this is some really shocking, just
horrific stuff. Gaza on the brink of full scale famine,
as Israel Block's crucial aid, the Israel Integrated Food Monitoring,
food Security, phase classification and Global Hunger Monitoring system was
that the worst case scenario of famine is now unfolding

(29:47):
in Gaza. As Israel Block's vital aid. This here is
from drop site News, which is you know, as always
has been great on that israe's coordinator of government activities
in the tw territories appears to be bragging about dropping
fifty two JHF eight packages on starving palest idiots. But
fifty two packages feed just one thousand and one people

(30:08):
for a single day in a population of two million,
And you can see there they have the facts breakdown
to essentially prove it. And this comes as you know,
ever since over the weekends there was this big confession,
there's this big admission from the Israelis essentially to say
that oh, you know, we realize that things are getting
really bad. Nat essentially did come out in a Hebrew

(30:31):
video and say that, oh, I was forced to do this,
I was forced to let people in, while in English
he said, oh, there's no policy of starvation in Gaza.
It's ridiculous to even suggest that there could ever be
a p a starvation policy in Gaza. Well, he essentially
has been forced by the international community in the same
way that he originally set up to gazak Emanitarian Foundation

(30:54):
as a fig leaf. As you can see from that
drop Side news article, he has now been forced to
allow both air drops and allow some trucks to come
in what really is just a photo op. You know, again,
we saw there in the video from drop site, the
tweet there from drop site about how you know this
is really a meager, meager amount of age, just a

(31:17):
thousand people in a population of two point two million
people that per day, or at least in the first
day of this quote unquote air drop operation. But then
if we scroll down here to this report from on
the ground in Gaza, is red cressing getting hammered. The
Israel has also been allowing trucks to these very specific

(31:41):
locations that Gazaan's have to walk way out of the
way for to even have a chance at accessing here.
And they really are not letting in nearly enough aid
on the truck front as well. You know, the air
drops only feeding a thousand people. The trucks are well
below the six hundred aid and food aid trucks and

(32:02):
fuel daily to meet civilians basic needs as the famine spreads.
According to you know, aid experts on the ground there,
they're saying that those trucks that are coming in are
not nearly enough and they're only being put into specific areas.
Air drop operations, it says here, according to Al Jazira,
failed to reach those in need. The office said noting
four of six air drops landed in areas or Israeli

(32:23):
military control or neighborhoods where civilians have been ordered to evacuate.
So you know, again the air drops they're going to
these locations where the Israeli military will probably shoot you
on site if you've been trying go in and get aid,
not to say that they won't at the GHF Foundation
sites or anywhere else where they're giving out aid physically
on the ground, and also when they do let in

(32:46):
legitimate aid from the World Food Program or the UN
or anything like that. They let in a fraction of
what is necessary to stop the famine. And they don't
let in the resources, the equipment. They don't allow the
hospitals to be repaired that will actually help you people
who are dealing with really acute, acute malnutrition. What we
are also paying attention to here is this from this

(33:09):
is from Basil Adra talking about auDA Hatholeen, who was
a settler or sorry, was an activist who was killed
by a settler in the West Bank in Maso Fyata area.
And Hatholeen is a big figure because he played a
big role in helping Basil Adra. And he's I forget

(33:33):
the name of his Jewish co director who put on
this documentary that won the Oscar no other lands back.
I think, whatever whatever the hell the oscars last was.
And so this guy who's a big activist played a
big role in that. As you can see here, he
shoots in the last frame of this video in a

(34:00):
very graphic scene. There you see him, they're trying to
stop him and he gets the shot off, shoots his
activists out of Huthleen in the chest and to make clear,
to underline even further the support of the Israeli government
for the settler fanatics, you know, the settlers around Levee.
You know On Levy, who is the name of the

(34:22):
settler who was originally sanctioned by the United States but
Trump took those sanctions off. The settlers call on the
IDF to arrest the family of the guy the settlers
just shot, and they do. Those settlers or that family
is still in attention. And you know on Levy, who
I guess they had to arrest for pr purposes. He's
already out on house arrest, and of course that case

(34:43):
will be swept under the rug. So we're continuing to
see starvation and these kind of photo op aid programs
of the airdrops that are not nearly enough to meet
the need. They only feed a thousand people a day
in a population of two point two million of people
who need to eat every day to fend off starvation.
And you're also letting in trucks that aren't nearly reaching

(35:06):
the needs of the population who has been fighting off
famine for you know, ever since March, for the last
three four months. And you're also seeing in on top
of the starvation in Godz that you're seeing unrestrained settler
violence completely boosted by the IDF in the West Bank.
But this comes as we're seeing Congress continuing to be

(35:29):
quiet on this except for one and this is Rashida Talib,
who had a great message towards really people who should
know better. On the democratic side.

Speaker 9 (35:41):
Out of ten Democrats support an arms embargo. So again,
no matter what weapons is, I don't care if it's
offensive or defensive, whatever you call it. Let's stop enabling
again the genocide. The excuses I've heard will never justify
these war crimes. It's pastime that my colleagues stopped making

(36:02):
excuses and listen to the majority of Americans.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
So you know, there you have it. She's coming in
very clearly. I think a lot of people are right
to read this as a bit of a response to
AOC and her ridiculous comments the other day about how, oh,
we can't you just it's okay if we send this
genocidal regime defensive weapons, that will enable it to act
more boldly and with more confidence in its genocide. Because

(36:28):
we care amorphously about protecting civilians. What does that do
to protect the civilians of Gaza if Israel can act
in whichever way it so pleases, which is exactly what
these IDF weapons do. It's it's completely ridiculous, and Rashid Tlib,
I think is very right to come out and cut
through some of the BS about this. We've seen Omar

(36:49):
do it to AOC in the past when she said
her you know, oh, Harrison Biden, they're working.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
Title see firsts far.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
She cut through that BS last time around, and now
Rashid Talib is doing that too. This comes though, as
we were seeing New York, which I think is a
pretty good, you know, encapsulation of the democratic base as
a whole. New York City's Democrats are signing with Mamdani
on Israel and net Yahoo on this.

Speaker 2 (37:15):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (37:15):
They say here, the kind of the top line factors
are if the city should enforce the arrest warrant on
net Yahoo that is literally required under national law if
he comes to New York City under international if he
comes to the US under international law, he should be
arrested on the spot for violations of international law. You know,

(37:37):
there's overwhelmingly supportive sixty three percent of primary voters supporting
Mamdani enforcing that arrest warrant on net Yahoo and very
largely agreeing with his positions on Israel. Sixty eight percent
of primary voters viewed him favorably. Seventy five percent had
a favorable view of Representative Alexandria Acasio Cortes. Meanwhile, these

(38:01):
voters were less enthusiastic when asked about their party's leadership,
which have not endorsed Mom Donnie. Fifty eight percent favorable
view of House Democratic Leader Hikiem Jeffries, and half had
one of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. The mayor of
release might play into those numbers. Fifty seven percent of
New York Democrats said they'd be less likely to support

(38:22):
any congressional candidate next year who did not endorse Mom
Donnie for mayor, and seventy two percent of candidates seventy
two percent favorite candidates excuse me who would vote to
withhold weapons to Israel. That is that is a big turn.
That is a big sign of the shift that the
Democratic Party is undergoing at this point, and it's also

(38:43):
a sign that Israeli politics or politics in the America
on Israel, are not as they once were. It used
to be that you know, you were quivering in fear
if you said anything in support of the Palace Indians
and Mom Donnie was really remarkable because he broke the
damn on this by being unapologetic in his support for

(39:03):
POWs A, not backing down when the you know, the
smear machine and you know, the smear merchants came from
him on the you know, globalizing it into faut of comments.
He was always very strong on this, and this came
as Israel continued to commit really horrific war cimes that
were obvious to everyone and anyone who had paid paid

(39:23):
attention with an honest, honest mindset, and he also spoke
about them in a way that seemed like commons that
sense to everyone. It's like, of course, we we care
about supporting a country with with equal rights, and we
don't want to support a country that doesn't have equal rights.
And it's very clear that Israel is not acting in
a way that is consistent with equal rights for all,
which is something that Americans support, especially Democrats. So to

(39:47):
see that play out and to see that Mom Nannie
in the most is the city with the highest Jewics
population in the world, tons of money dumped against him,
specifically on the basis of his pro Palestine views and
to have it essentially bounce off him like Teflon. And
in fact, I think it helped him because people viewed
him as authentic, and you know, first of all, they

(40:10):
viewed him as correct, I think on the issues, but
they also viewed him as authentic, trustworthy and coming from
outside the establishment in this position. So I think it
did help him a lot with this win. And it
really does show that the dam is breaking. It really
is breaking, I think when it comes to Palestine, and
it's a sign now, especially with the Democrats, of being

(40:30):
morally clear on what is one of the most important
issues of the moment, and also being authentic and being
an outsider things that are unquestionably an asset in today's environment.
So as the devastation and the horrifying crimes continue in
Israel and the genocide in Gaza continues, there is a

(40:54):
sense that the political wind is very slowly shifting. I
want to save this to last in our kind of
show order and really spend a lot of time on
it for a YouTube video, because I think it is
so important for some reason. You know, I don't really
know how this happened, but Alyssa Slockin democratic center, very
right wing kind of corporate democrat who has a lot
of backing from APAK and a lot of kind of

(41:15):
pro Israel groups, has been very pro Israel throughout the
entire genocidal campaign launched by the Israel government ever since
obviously October seventh, she went on Breaking Points, which is
a really wonderful independent news show with crystal Ball and
Sager and Jennie crystal Ball, great left wing journalist who
really won a lot of well deserved praise for a

(41:36):
strong interview of Slockin Today where she essentially does and
puts the slock In what so many people have wanted
the scene put to a democratic, especially democratic pro Israel person, saying,
you support all these things, you know, justice, human rights, democracy,
all that stuff you believe in America and a force
for good for the world. How have you supported this

(41:57):
genocid so frequently tied in time again over the past
you know, what was it almost two years now that
it's been going on, And she really puts it to
her here, Let's take a listen.

Speaker 8 (42:10):
Back to Israel.

Speaker 10 (42:11):
As far as I can tell, you know from your
voting record, at almost every turn you voted for a
definition of anti Semitism that would, you know, codify anti
Zionism as anti Semitism. You voted as a member of
the House to sanction the ICC for indicting Benjamin Neattanyahu,
who you just admitted is a war criminal, you know,
by your own words.

Speaker 1 (42:31):
So that kind of stuff is the sanction of the
icy C for a Democrat is utterly indefensible.

Speaker 10 (42:37):
Are you going to join Senator Angus King, Senator Bernie
Sanders and saying no more aid to this country that
is committing war crimes against innocent civilians.

Speaker 11 (42:47):
I think the first thing, if you're asking about what
to do with power, and I would I would offer
that right now, Democrats own nothing in Washington.

Speaker 8 (42:56):
So the don't play power lesson mam. They not with me.
You're a United States senator. There are things we can.

Speaker 11 (43:00):
Do in terms of who runs our foreign policy. I
just think it's interesting, right that there was a ton
of protests when Democrats were in charge.

Speaker 8 (43:07):
There was a protest in Manhattan yesterday.

Speaker 11 (43:09):
Okay, I think it's fair to say, just to be honest,
but back and forth, like the number of protests that
go on now versus before they were part.

Speaker 12 (43:18):
Of your political coalition.

Speaker 8 (43:19):
Well that's fair, obviously, I'm here.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Yeah, yeah, just so again, so slimy, just see doing
the classic things, Just like, why didn't you ever protest
when there were Republicans around with this, with this genocide?
You never protested the Republicans. You only prosed the Democrats. Yeah,
because we knew the Republicans were completely inhuman on this
and they would never care about Palestinian lives. We thought
that the party that was closest to We told, oh,

(43:44):
you know, there's so little difference really between progressives and Democrats.
They're just like us. We're all we're all playing for
the same team. We thought that Democrats like Melissa Slocken,
even though they may not agree with us on everything,
may see the humanity in Palestinian lives enough to not
sanction the goddamn ICC for doing what it's supposed to
do and stopping war criminals just because they happen to

(44:07):
stop in Israeli one and not you know, an African
one or something like that.

Speaker 10 (44:10):
I was very upset over the Biden administration policy, and
as you can tell, I'm very upset of for the
Trump administration policy.

Speaker 8 (44:16):
So let's deal not in strawmen.

Speaker 11 (44:17):
But in terms of what so the tools that I have, well,
those that we have in general, to me, the most
important thing is a pressurized campaign to get aid into
people who are starving. That to me is number the
number one, because that's the one is urgent and today
and that.

Speaker 10 (44:35):
But will you cut off aid to Israel so long
as they're committing crimes against umanaged?

Speaker 11 (44:40):
I there is a difference between a weapon to protect
a country from incoming missiles versus other type. Offensive and
defensive weapons are.

Speaker 12 (44:51):
Different, So which support offensive weapons?

Speaker 2 (44:53):
Man?

Speaker 13 (44:54):
Like, would you stop any offensive aide Israel?

Speaker 11 (44:56):
That certainly to me would be a place to look.
But I'm not going to cut off a blanket next
sale on a defensive weapon.

Speaker 8 (45:04):
I also true.

Speaker 10 (45:05):
I also reject that because, for example, if Senator Sakin,
if you were asked to support defensive weapons for Iran,
defensive weapons for Russia.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Exactly this is so well said.

Speaker 1 (45:17):
It's just like if you're trying to protect civilian lives
for the sake of protecting civilian lives a country that
you're saying is clearly and I think she said she's
come out and said this Israel's behave Benjamin Daniel who
was a working more at least she said that, and
she would presumably say, and I think this is also true.
Vladimir Putin's a war criminal, Komeni is a war criminal.
By that logic, why do we not give defensive weapons

(45:39):
to these countries because you know, we need to protect
their civilians even if their government is bad. You know,
it's the same logic. And of course, of course she
would never see, you know, respond to that positively.

Speaker 8 (45:53):
You wouldn't back that.

Speaker 11 (45:54):
No, but Iran, I mean.

Speaker 10 (45:56):
But they're defensive, They're just protecting civilians, right Wow, is
it a different.

Speaker 11 (46:00):
But because Israel being shot at? I mean, so it
is Russia shooting at Russia right now. I'm sorry. This
is the difference between allies partners and add the series.

Speaker 12 (46:12):
What are they doing right now? Which makes it an ally?

Speaker 11 (46:15):
I think allied relationships just like Lithuania right now, like
an allied relationship or a partner relationship, is a long
standing relationship of information sharing and diplomacy. And that is
to me, it's not a like every day we decide

(46:35):
Lithuania is our ally or not, we're allied or not,
and sometimes we have big breaks with allies, right sometimes
we have difficult moments with allies. Sometimes it goes the
wrong way with allies, but an a relationship is a relationship.

Speaker 8 (46:50):
Just it's hard.

Speaker 10 (46:51):
It's hard for me to understand why we should ally,
Like I'm sure you believe in like our claims to
believe in liberal human rights, Why would we would ally
with a nation that is committing a genocide and livestream?

Speaker 8 (47:01):
Can I ask literally like this?

Speaker 11 (47:02):
I think about this from the mirror image way, because
I am not I do not support the things that
Donald Trump is doing right, But I'm an American. So
do I want other countries to look at America and
be like, we don't. We can't stand Donald Trump. So
we're going to end any long standing relationship we have
with the American people. We're going to cut off any

(47:24):
support we give them on information sharing or intelligence sharing,
like we are not just our elected leaders. And I
think that's the thing that's been lost.

Speaker 8 (47:32):
Do you in the conversation?

Speaker 10 (47:34):
So bet Selhem and another Israeli human rights organization joined
the Global Consensus AMC international, some eight hundred scholars. There
was a piece from an Israeli scholar the New York.

Speaker 8 (47:45):
Times in saying, this is a genocide.

Speaker 10 (47:47):
Do you accept Even Marjorie Taylor green Astera came out
and said as a genocide, do you accept that?

Speaker 1 (47:52):
And by the way, I think also if we were
committing to her point there, if we were committing anything
like Israel's committing right now, I would hope that other
countries that are aligned with us, And because obviously it
goes beyond the elected officials of Benjamin and Yahoo. But
the fact is Israel's committing a genocide. If we were
committing anything like what Israel's committing right now, I am

(48:14):
sure as hell hope Israel would or our allies or
whoever is the United States in our situation. If we
were the Israel in this hypothetical situations, again it is
positing here, I hope they would cut off weapons to us.
I hope they would leave us out to try because
we are committing a crime against humanity here. And let's

(48:34):
see how she responds to the question Crystals about to
ask if she thinks of this is agenocide?

Speaker 10 (48:39):
If you do, I mean, what responsibility does the United
States senator have for this is a nation that you
know we send every year billions of dollars to a
to aid that you have voted for and supported. Like,
what responsibility does the United States senator have to prevent
genocide and to stop genocide that we see ongoing.

Speaker 11 (48:57):
We have a responsibility up till today to ensure that
food is getting in is that people don't starve. I
don't know that i'd use that term. What it is
using it is violating the law.

Speaker 8 (49:10):
Of ar Why don't you use the term though.

Speaker 11 (49:12):
Because I think you know it's to me it is
do I think it's ethnic cleansing, which is what I
think of genocide. I don't know if it meets that definition.

Speaker 13 (49:24):
And you say it earlier that it was ethnic cleansing.
He said that they wanted to force the I mean,
this is open from the Israeli government, like they're saying
it the national security.

Speaker 12 (49:32):
They come out and they're like, we need we don't
need shells.

Speaker 13 (49:34):
We don't need we need shells, not food, and we
need to encourage migration, like.

Speaker 11 (49:38):
They're saying, you're not going to get me to support
what the Israeli government is saying right now. I think
the point I was trying to make is it's not
just about like we have relationships with nations over time,
regardless of who their leaders are. We have really tough moments,
we have easier moments, but that doesn't So I'm not
willing to say that like I hate everything ever.

Speaker 8 (50:01):
Sure, but so even.

Speaker 10 (50:03):
If you accept that they're committing a genocide, you still
wouldn't cut off their aid.

Speaker 11 (50:07):
I think that defensive AID and offensive AI are different things.
And I think at this point, so if they're doing.

Speaker 10 (50:13):
Germany single day, it's Nazi Germany said we want defensive AID.

Speaker 8 (50:17):
I mean, it's just you.

Speaker 10 (50:18):
You have to see where they're all weapons that are
being shipped another.

Speaker 11 (50:22):
Using the weapons that they're using right now. I mean,
to be honest, if you look at what's happening on
the ground, the military part of this conflict is for
the most part over.

Speaker 12 (50:32):
What they are doing.

Speaker 11 (50:33):
What they are doing every single day years around AID.

Speaker 10 (50:36):
They are hurting the people who weren't trust trying, starving people,
just trying to get aid.

Speaker 11 (50:43):
That is not how that's not high intensity bombs. That's
not the weapons that you that we were talking about
two years ago. It's just not I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
Just like, oh yeah, we already gave them the weapons,
they already did all the killing. Sorry, I think we
can do. But also, which is it really the if
you say them up, all the points that she's made
so far in this interview slock and has She's essentially saying,
because we have a long standing relationship with Israel in
our allies, you know, they give us a lot of
intelligence sharing our YadA, YadA, YadA, we need to even

(51:15):
if they are committing you know what essentially she didn't
deny was ethnic cleansing. That she didn't deny was an
attempt to cleanse the population of Palestine of anyone who
is not Jewish, Right, she didn't deny that's not going on.
But because we have these long standing ties, we still

(51:38):
have to at least give them our defensive aid, which
clearly enables them to commit the genocide, to commit the
things that she is saying is war crimes, commit them
even more effectively. And you know, and I don't think
you know, it's good that she's coming out and saying this,
and it's good that she's being put on the record
on this, but I don't think that's a position that
you can get a lot of Democrats and honestly even

(51:59):
a lot of them Americans to rally behind.

Speaker 2 (52:02):
Like people don't.

Speaker 1 (52:04):
Want to sign up American values in the American flag
and what they think of as a country that they
get be proud to live in. Behind that kind of ideology,
It's like, yeah, they may not be perfect, but they
give us a lot of important stuff, and we still
got to give them defensive aid even as they commit

(52:24):
ethnic cleansing. I mean, I don't think that's something that
the American people are, especially having lived through it for
two years, are going to vote for and are going
to support. I think for Crystal Ball's sake, it was
great to have this interview happen. Huge kudos to her
on that, and hopefully in the future we see more

(52:48):
Democrats going on independent media answering these tough questions that
the base actually wants to have answered, and I think
it will do a lot to push the party left.
Or maybe I'm just being incredibly wishful my thinking. Either way,
it's all we have for you today. Have a great
rest of your day. We will be back on Thursday

(53:09):
and sums flash