Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 4/10/26: Trump Trashes Tucker, Mearsheimer Calls For Trump Surrender, Slotkin Lashes Out, Melania Epstein

Transcript

4/10/26: Trump Trashes Tucker, Mearsheimer Calls For Trump Surrender, Slotkin Lashes Out, Melania Epstein · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
0:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
0:05
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
0:07
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
0:08
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
0:10
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
0:13
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
0:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
0:17
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
0:19
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
0:23
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
0:25
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
0:27
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
0:29
Speaker 1: dot com.
0:31
Speaker 3: Good morning everyone, Happy Friday. How's everybody doing today?
0:35
Speaker 2: So far, so good?
0:36
Speaker 4: All right, well, let's keep it good. We've got a
0:38
Speaker 4: big show.
0:39
Speaker 3: We've got some war updates surrounding the ceasefire or non
0:43
Speaker 3: ceasefire in Lebanon, and then we'll be joined by Professor
0:46
Speaker 3: John Meherscheimer to get his take on this next.
0:49
Speaker 4: Phase of the war. We've also got.
0:51
Speaker 3: Milania Trump coming out and talking about Jeffrey Epstein. We're
0:56
Speaker 3: going to be analyzing theorizing why she chose this moment
1:01
Speaker 3: to talk about Epstein. And then finally we've got a
1:04
Speaker 3: lot of updates around Apak Democrats, Alissa Slockin doing a
1:10
Speaker 3: town hall that got a little testy, and a little
1:13
Speaker 3: bit from our friends in the Free Press who did
1:17
Speaker 3: a little bit of a reporting on doctor Abdul l
1:20
Speaker 3: Sayed and Hassan Piker in Michigan quotes. I'll call reporting, Crystal,
1:26
Speaker 3: will call it something else. But first let's get started
1:30
Speaker 3: with the latest Crystal. We've got some new Trump troops
1:34
Speaker 3: here that I'll pull up on screen. Let's start with
1:38
Speaker 3: this first one here about the straight Why don't you
1:42
Speaker 3: read this one.
1:42
Speaker 4: Out for us?
1:44
Speaker 2: So we've got Trump here. He's been, I mean, as
1:46
Speaker 2: per usual, sort of crashing out on true social But anyway,
1:49
Speaker 2: he says, Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable,
1:52
Speaker 2: some would say, of allowing oil to go through the
1:54
Speaker 2: street of horn moves. That is not the agreement we
1:56
Speaker 2: have President Donald J. Trump. This reminds me very much
2:00
Speaker 2: of when my son was three years old and he
2:02
Speaker 2: was playing Uno for the first time, and he had
2:04
Speaker 2: his whole plan of like how he was going to
2:06
Speaker 2: finish it out, and then someone screwed it up and
2:08
Speaker 2: he just completely crashed down and was like, that wasn't
2:10
Speaker 2: the plan.
2:12
Speaker 5: So the agreement we had.
2:14
Speaker 2: The same energy as my son when he was three
2:17
Speaker 2: years old. Anyway. Uh, the context here, of course, is
2:21
Speaker 2: that as part of the original sort of ceasefire understanding,
2:27
Speaker 2: the idea was Iran would allow some oil tankers through
2:30
Speaker 2: the strait and Ryan you can speak to whether there
2:32
Speaker 2: was an understanding of is a toll going to be charged,
2:35
Speaker 2: is not going to be charged. It seems to me
2:36
Speaker 2: like those details were left sort of ambiguous. Iron certainly
2:39
Speaker 2: thought we're going to keep charging this toll because of
2:40
Speaker 2: course we're going to Meanwhile, Uh, what was very clear
2:45
Speaker 2: was the understanding from Iran and the US and the
2:48
Speaker 2: Pakistani government which helped to facilitate this whole you know,
2:52
Speaker 2: ceasefire so that these talks could occur, that Lebanon was
2:55
Speaker 2: including it included in this deal. Well, Israel, wanting to
2:59
Speaker 2: continue their mass murder and ethnic cleansing and Lebanon and
3:02
Speaker 2: also wanting to undermine any potential deal, not only continued
3:06
Speaker 2: their invasion and bombardment in Lebanon, but they escalated it.
3:09
Speaker 2: So Iran understandably said that was not part of the deal.
3:13
Speaker 2: We've been very clear from the start, the Lebanon would
3:16
Speaker 2: be included, and so as a consequence, we are not
3:19
Speaker 2: opening the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, there was more
3:22
Speaker 2: traffic going through the strait prior to these talks than
3:26
Speaker 2: there is now. So that is the context here for Trump,
3:30
Speaker 2: you know, yelling over true social and thinking that you know,
3:33
Speaker 2: berating the Iranians this time is going to effectuate some
3:36
Speaker 2: sort of an outcome rather than just being impotent as
3:39
Speaker 2: it has been the whole time.
3:40
Speaker 6: Yeah, and my understanding is they allowed two Iraqi flagged
3:44
Speaker 6: ships to move through the strait in the immediate aftermath
3:48
Speaker 6: of the ceasefire, but then Israel carried out a series
3:50
Speaker 6: of massacres in Lebanon and they closed the straight again.
3:53
Speaker 6: But yes, to your point, they were always clear, well
3:57
Speaker 6: they were ambiguous, but clear that they were going to
4:00
Speaker 6: charge a toll for the strait. What they were saying
4:03
Speaker 6: is that they were going to set up a legal
4:06
Speaker 6: mechanism in coordination with Oman to allow passage of ships
4:13
Speaker 6: through the strait. Anybody with any sense reading that is like, oh,
4:16
Speaker 6: so they're saying they're in control of it. They're they're
4:18
Speaker 6: probably going to put a toll on it. As it's
4:20
Speaker 6: going through since they were doing that already and they
4:22
Speaker 6: haven't said that they would lift the toll. But it's
4:24
Speaker 6: open like a lot of other waterways like the Suez Canal,
4:29
Speaker 6: it's open. You got to pay to get through. And
4:32
Speaker 6: they're like, like, that's how it's going to go for us.
4:34
Speaker 6: But yes, the Pakistan situation is just comical because the
4:40
Speaker 6: US asked Pakistan to be the mediators. The US helped
4:44
Speaker 6: Pakistan craft the document. The document explicitly includes Lebanon, and
4:50
Speaker 6: then according to the reporting that we have now from
4:53
Speaker 6: CBS News, I think it is actually it was a
4:55
Speaker 6: call from Netan Yahoo to Trump where Trump was like, Okay,
4:58
Speaker 6: go ahead, you can do Lebanon. So that's what happened.
5:01
Speaker 6: That doesn't change the deal, Like they broke the deal.
5:06
Speaker 6: The deal as Trump understood it, as Iran understood it,
5:09
Speaker 6: as it was explained publicly, included Lebanon.
5:13
Speaker 2: Well, let's look as the tweet drafted by the Americans
5:17
Speaker 2: stated for the Pakistani Prime Minister, Lebanon has included. Iran
5:22
Speaker 2: has always been very clear about that, and so yeah,
5:25
Speaker 2: I mean it's look, it's yet another example of perplexing
5:29
Speaker 2: behavior from this president in particular of why are you
5:33
Speaker 2: going to potentially blow up? We have new reporting from
5:36
Speaker 2: the Financial Times this morning that Trump has been seeking
5:38
Speaker 2: a ceasefire for weeks at this point, been trying to
5:40
Speaker 2: back channel something to the Iranians, and the Iranians were
5:43
Speaker 2: very resistant, and in fact, even up to this point
5:47
Speaker 2: that they were having trouble getting the IERGC on board
5:50
Speaker 2: with this, and that was part of the delay. And
5:52
Speaker 2: so they were finally able to kind of get the
5:54
Speaker 2: IERGC to go along with at least some sort of
5:57
Speaker 2: talks here. But in any case, Trump, you know, by
6:01
Speaker 2: letting net Yahu continue to do whatever he wants to
6:03
Speaker 2: do in Lebanon potentially from the jump destroying his possibility
6:07
Speaker 2: of securing a deal. Now, I don't think that the
6:09
Speaker 2: possibilities are completely dead and gone. Obviously there are diplomatic
6:13
Speaker 2: talks happening in Islamabad this weekend. We'll see what's come
6:17
Speaker 2: out of that, what will come out of that, but
6:19
Speaker 2: it makes it much more difficult to envision them coming
6:22
Speaker 2: to some sort of terms in the near term.
6:25
Speaker 6: And not I almost get tired of this, but Jeremy's
6:28
Speaker 6: reporting being validated again that that reporting that you're referring
6:32
Speaker 6: there they're saying that. You know, in March they were
6:35
Speaker 6: desperately trying to reach out to get talks going to
6:39
Speaker 6: end this end this war. Jeremy reported March sixteenth. You
6:42
Speaker 6: know that wit Cough was relentlessly texting him right, being
6:48
Speaker 6: left on read, trying to get them back to the
6:49
Speaker 6: table and yeah, being left on red. And that had
6:52
Speaker 6: been going on for several days before Jeremy reported it.
6:55
Speaker 6: There were these furious denials, if you remember, Axios reported
6:59
Speaker 6: that in fact, according to Israelian American sources, it was
7:02
Speaker 6: the Iranians that were begging for the ceasefire, and that
7:06
Speaker 6: it was actually Witcough that was not responding to them
7:09
Speaker 6: because you know, there were winning Now the reporting is
7:15
Speaker 6: crystal clear that was a lie. The US was begging
7:18
Speaker 6: for the ceasefire. Iran was ignoring them. Again knowable things
7:22
Speaker 6: too for Breaking Point viewers and Drop site readers, but
7:25
Speaker 6: apparently not to anybody else.
7:27
Speaker 7: Mm hmmm.
7:28
Speaker 3: And so, Emily, I'd like your reaction to this latest
7:31
Speaker 3: Nan Yahoo clip here where he talks about the ceasefire
7:34
Speaker 3: and Lebanon.
7:35
Speaker 8: If I want to tell you there is no cease
7:37
Speaker 8: fire in Lebanon. We are continuing to strike as the
7:40
Speaker 8: law with force, and we will not stop until we
7:43
Speaker 8: restore your security.
7:45
Speaker 6: He said, there is no ceasefire in Lebanon. We will
7:48
Speaker 6: continue to strike Lebanon with maximum ferocity or somewhere like that.
7:54
Speaker 9: Uh.
7:54
Speaker 6: And he finishes, you know, until your security has been restored.
7:58
Speaker 6: Which is an interesting phrase, is what he's speaking in
8:02
Speaker 6: Hebrew to the Israeli public, what security? Like, what is
8:05
Speaker 6: the what is the year during which he would point
8:10
Speaker 6: back since nineteen forty eight and say this is the security,
8:13
Speaker 6: Like there has been war an occupation every day since
8:17
Speaker 6: nineteen forty eight, so like it's even a fantasy that
8:20
Speaker 6: there's some restoration of security. But what he's saying is
8:23
Speaker 6: we're doing war. We're doing war. Don't worry about it,
8:27
Speaker 6: like we're not. Yes, we hear Trump, we hear Iron
8:30
Speaker 6: this Lombad talks we're doing war.
8:33
Speaker 5: Well, it's actually sort of perfect that it was a
8:35
Speaker 5: Hebrew language message, because the English messages are the ones
8:39
Speaker 5: that should be more pro Trump, obviously, and in this
8:43
Speaker 5: case there was clearly clearly disagreement. Then Trump was strong
8:48
Speaker 5: armed once again into accepting the Nets and Yahoo line
8:52
Speaker 5: about what was going to happen during the ceasefire period,
8:55
Speaker 5: and I just think back to yesterday overnight. Jd. Vance
8:58
Speaker 5: was in Europe, he was in Hungary, and he called it, Well,
9:01
Speaker 5: this wasn't yesterday, it must have been tuesday. He called
9:03
Speaker 5: the ceasefire fragile, like it was first reaction basically we
9:06
Speaker 5: had from the administration because Jdbans wasn't hungry, and he
9:09
Speaker 5: referred to it as a fragile deal. And not only
9:13
Speaker 5: was it fragile, it was unclear, like it was fragile
9:17
Speaker 5: because nobody actually knew. I can't think of a precedent
9:21
Speaker 5: for this. I was trying to think this morning when
9:24
Speaker 5: this ever happened in modern history where you have modern
9:26
Speaker 5: technology and we're not sending carrier pigeons back and forth
9:29
Speaker 5: to try to make deals, And I can't think of
9:31
Speaker 5: a precedent for this. Maybe some like Saga out there
9:34
Speaker 5: is going to send me an obscure, nerdy example.
9:37
Speaker 6: But well, actually, curiously or interestingly, the agreement with Hamas
9:44
Speaker 6: played out in a similar way, like if you read
9:47
Speaker 6: what Hamas agreed to, and you read the phase one,
9:50
Speaker 6: Phase two, et c. And then you look at the
9:53
Speaker 6: way that Israel and the United States later described it
9:56
Speaker 6: and tried to implement it.
9:57
Speaker 7: It's night and day. So this is act.
10:00
Speaker 5: It's part of the course of the Trumpet ministry.
10:02
Speaker 6: And also you can look at Oslo where they're like,
10:04
Speaker 6: we're not going to do settlements, and then immediately they're
10:06
Speaker 6: doing settlements, but the others say, we wouldn't do settlements. Really,
10:10
Speaker 6: that's what everybody understood. Well, difference here settlements it was
10:16
Speaker 6: kind of implied, but.
10:17
Speaker 7: Clearly you're going to do them.
10:19
Speaker 2: The difference here, of course versus the Hamas Agreement is
10:23
Speaker 2: that Iran is vastly more powerful and has incredible leverage.
10:27
Speaker 2: I mean, I was talking to Murtaza yesterday Ryan and
10:31
Speaker 2: he was saying, you know, because we were speculating about
10:33
Speaker 2: will Iran now raised to nuclear weapon? What is the
10:36
Speaker 2: logic there? He's like, you know, in a sense, they've
10:38
Speaker 2: demonstrated they already have a nuclear weapon with their ability
10:41
Speaker 2: to close the straight of hor Moose, which I thought
10:42
Speaker 2: was a fantastic point.
10:44
Speaker 7: I totally agree with that.
10:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have that is there. You know, we think
10:47
Speaker 2: of nuclear weapon as like, okay, that will be deterrence.
10:50
Speaker 2: That is their deterrence that they have now established, and
10:53
Speaker 2: that is a game changer in terms of how every
10:56
Speaker 2: other country has to react to them. And basically, if
11:00
Speaker 2: there was some military option for us to reopen the
11:04
Speaker 2: straight of horror moves, we would be doing it that
11:07
Speaker 2: didn't come at some catastrophic level of cost, And even
11:11
Speaker 2: at a catastrophic level of cost, it's not clear to
11:13
Speaker 2: me that you're going to be able to take it
11:15
Speaker 2: and be able to hold it. So that that is,
11:18
Speaker 2: you know, a new reality that Iran has now established
11:23
Speaker 2: that they go into these negotiations with, and so you know,
11:27
Speaker 2: you have a really a landscape where everything for Trump
11:31
Speaker 2: is a terrible a terrible choice, which is why it's
11:34
Speaker 2: hard to predict exactly how this is going to go
11:37
Speaker 2: and what the timeline is. But I think we I
11:39
Speaker 2: think just when sorry when thought final thought here, Emily,
11:42
Speaker 2: I think though that we are getting a glimpse of
11:44
Speaker 2: not when this will war will come to a close,
11:48
Speaker 2: but what it will look like. Because we now have
11:51
Speaker 2: the outlines of the sorts of demands that Iran is
11:54
Speaker 2: able to make and able to command. So it's possible
11:57
Speaker 2: Trump decides he wants to go back and have some
11:59
Speaker 2: more pain and oil prices to go up and disrupt
12:01
Speaker 2: the global economy and cause a global depression and risk
12:03
Speaker 2: more American service members. That is certainly possible. The timeline
12:07
Speaker 2: is unclear, but in terms of the outlines of what
12:09
Speaker 2: our resolution is going to have to look like, I
12:13
Speaker 2: think we're starting to get clarity on what that is,
12:15
Speaker 2: and it involves a new status quo for the Strait
12:17
Speaker 2: of Hormoves.
12:18
Speaker 5: I was actually just going to add exactly on that
12:20
Speaker 5: point that right now, reportedly Trump is saying this nine
12:22
Speaker 5: hundred pounds of a rich enriched uranium, which he referred
12:25
Speaker 5: to as like the nuclear dust, that's what he wants
12:29
Speaker 5: to put on the table. But the Iranians now have
12:32
Speaker 5: the Straight of Hormuz and Trump wants that to be
12:36
Speaker 5: some type of joint venture. I mean, it is utterly
12:38
Speaker 5: unacceptable for Trump to end the war in a place
12:41
Speaker 5: where the Strait of horm Moves is not the status
12:44
Speaker 5: quo that it was before the war, and instead there
12:47
Speaker 5: you have their Iranians collecting tolls that allow them to
12:50
Speaker 5: rebuild their weapons supply to race to a nuclear weapon.
12:55
Speaker 5: Even if I mean, to your point, Cristol, to MOS's point,
12:59
Speaker 5: even if they say they're not going to do that
13:02
Speaker 5: right now, have you incentivized them, of course to race,
13:05
Speaker 5: some of them to want to demand quicker development of
13:09
Speaker 5: nuclear weapons capacity, and so none of the math, like
13:14
Speaker 5: the bartering math makes sense for Trump, none of it.
13:18
Speaker 2: But continuing the war also doesn't make sense for Trump, right, Yeah,
13:21
Speaker 2: and that's you know, that's the bind that he got
13:24
Speaker 2: himself into by deciding to pursue this absolutely for the
13:28
Speaker 2: US catastrophic war.
13:30
Speaker 3: And speaking of bartering math, Mac, I wanted to throw
13:34
Speaker 3: this one to you. Apparently the White House has warned
13:38
Speaker 3: their aids about betting on this war. This is White
13:43
Speaker 3: House aids got an email last month telling them not
13:45
Speaker 3: to place bets on prediction markets. Multiple sources told CBS News.
13:49
Speaker 3: Press reports had raised concerns about government officials using non
13:53
Speaker 3: public info to place wagers on Callshee and polymarkets. At
13:56
Speaker 3: the email, the warning reminded staff that as a criminal
13:59
Speaker 3: of and is also prohibited by government ethics regulations. All
14:04
Speaker 3: White House employees are reminded the misuse of non public
14:06
Speaker 3: information by government employees for financial benefit is a very
14:10
Speaker 3: serious offense and will not be tolerated. So, Mac, do
14:13
Speaker 3: you have to shelve some of your bets you're inside
14:15
Speaker 3: or intel?
14:16
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I mean stolen valid. Wall Street Journal.
14:19
Speaker 4: Had this first. Sorry, we gotta throw it, we gotta
14:23
Speaker 4: give it up to big fill here.
14:25
Speaker 9: Yeah.
14:26
Speaker 10: Yeah, I mean, it's just it's wild, like the levels
14:29
Speaker 10: of just deep rot and corruption that have become baseline,
14:32
Speaker 10: especially when you're talking about like day trading on outcomes
14:37
Speaker 10: of warm This is something we saw not just with Iran.
14:39
Speaker 10: I'm like, oh, is the US going to use ground troops?
14:41
Speaker 10: But we've seen this in Ukraine on like the specific
14:45
Speaker 10: lines on the territorial gains that Russia Ukraine might make.
14:48
Speaker 10: Like it's a level of like disgust that I haven't
14:53
Speaker 10: felt in a long time. And these are, you know,
14:55
Speaker 10: not small wagers people are making. I'll see every couple
14:58
Speaker 10: of days an account has dropped like hundreds of thousands
15:01
Speaker 10: of dollars in bets on you know, whether or not
15:03
Speaker 10: We're going to use ground troops or there will be
15:04
Speaker 10: a ceasefire, Israel's going to bomb Lebanon today or whatever else.
15:07
Speaker 7: So I don't know.
15:08
Speaker 10: I mean, it's wild, but this is sort of the
15:11
Speaker 10: new normal that I feel like the Trump administration has
15:13
Speaker 10: has set up for us.
15:17
Speaker 2: Two of the negotiators, Wikoff and Kushner, are deeply invested
15:22
Speaker 2: like directly invested in the Middle East and stand a
15:25
Speaker 2: benefit from However, you know, this war is concluded and
15:30
Speaker 2: what that all looks like, and they're just you know,
15:32
Speaker 2: that's just the norm. And Kushner is not even part
15:36
Speaker 2: of the government technically, is he is? He has he
15:38
Speaker 2: gotten like some special government employment. No, he's just like
15:40
Speaker 2: a private citizen relative of Trump who has massive investments
15:45
Speaker 2: and has gotten you know, already effectively like bought off
15:48
Speaker 2: by the Saudis through their intervention into his fun The
15:52
Speaker 2: amounts of money here, the level of corruption is just astonishing.
15:56
Speaker 2: So I mean, since I look at this and they're
15:58
Speaker 2: sending this email out to like low level staffers, stop
16:01
Speaker 2: insider trading, you know who's so I guess only if
16:04
Speaker 2: you're at the very top you get to it's only
16:05
Speaker 2: Kushner who can get yeah, your business deals in public
16:08
Speaker 2: and cash in on your position. So, I mean, the
16:11
Speaker 2: rot is just so thorough throughout this entire it's everything
16:15
Speaker 2: is a grift.
16:15
Speaker 10: It's also wild just looking at like from an Iranian perspective,
16:19
Speaker 10: these are the guys who you were expected to negotiate
16:22
Speaker 10: before this war started, like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
16:26
Speaker 10: These like corrupt real estate guys who know nothing about
16:30
Speaker 10: like the particulars of nuclear and Richmond or any of
16:33
Speaker 10: the other technical details of what Iran was conceding on
16:36
Speaker 10: in the days leading up to this war. Like these
16:38
Speaker 10: are the two clowns who also, as you pointed out, Crystal,
16:40
Speaker 10: have billions and billions of dollars collectively tied up in
16:44
Speaker 10: the Gulf countries. And they're both deeply you know, proud
16:48
Speaker 10: Zionists and tied in with Israel as well. Like the
16:50
Speaker 10: fact that we put these guys forward as some sort
16:54
Speaker 10: of serious negotiators is a joke.
16:59
Speaker 3: Well, Ryan, I'd want to just tackle one last thing
17:02
Speaker 3: going on in terms of all the money, you know,
17:04
Speaker 3: money in the Middle East. Right now, there's an attack
17:07
Speaker 3: the drop site reporter on on a Saudi Arabian pipeline.
17:11
Speaker 3: I don't know if you saw this, but let me
17:14
Speaker 3: throw this up on the screen. There confirmed strike on
17:17
Speaker 3: Saudi Arabia's East West pipeline has knocked out seven hundred
17:21
Speaker 3: thousand barrels per day, about ten percent of its seven
17:25
Speaker 3: million bpd maximum capacity, hitting the kingdom's only bypass to
17:29
Speaker 3: the Strait over Horn Moos. Yeah, what is your reaction
17:33
Speaker 3: to this, and what is Saudi Arabia's reaction ben panic?
17:37
Speaker 6: I mean, they can you know, you can fix a pipeline,
17:41
Speaker 6: but the East West pipeline is the vehicle that Saudi
17:45
Speaker 6: Arabia has been using to try to up its export
17:48
Speaker 6: capacity to make up for what can't get out through
17:53
Speaker 6: through the Strait of Horn Moves. And there's been you know,
17:56
Speaker 6: there have been some oil analysts who have said, yeah, like, okay,
17:59
Speaker 6: this is this is bad in general for Saudi Arabia
18:02
Speaker 6: and in a lot of ways, but they're getting so
18:04
Speaker 6: much more per barrel that despite the fact that they're
18:08
Speaker 6: exporting less, they're actually coming out. Okay, that was before
18:12
Speaker 6: a lot of their infrastructure got wrecked, and also before
18:15
Speaker 6: this seven hundred thousand barrels or were taken off taken
18:19
Speaker 6: off line. So it depends on how quickly they can
18:21
Speaker 6: get this you know, back up and moving it. Also,
18:25
Speaker 6: you know, it also shows how uh kind of simple
18:28
Speaker 6: it is to sever these arteries.
18:31
Speaker 2: Right, I wanted to ask you. Obviously, the last several
18:35
Speaker 2: diplomatic alleged diplomatic efforts from the US resulted in US
18:40
Speaker 2: using that diplomacy as a ruse to start wars and
18:43
Speaker 2: an attack Oran. Uh, is it possible that that is
18:47
Speaker 2: the same game that's being played here as well, that
18:49
Speaker 2: it's another that it's another ruse to sort of distract
18:53
Speaker 2: them while some other operation unfolds, because, Uh, they have
18:58
Speaker 2: continued to rush more military assets to the region. Obviously,
19:02
Speaker 2: the Iranians are concerned about this. They had to have
19:04
Speaker 2: Pakistani fighter jets escort their diplomats to this meeting, that's
19:08
Speaker 2: how concerned they were about the possibility of either the
19:12
Speaker 2: US or Israel assassinating them when they're en route. So
19:16
Speaker 2: do you think that that's a possibility here that needs
19:19
Speaker 2: to be contemplated as well?
19:21
Speaker 6: Yes, And what's new is that it is being very
19:24
Speaker 6: explicitly and outfront contemplated by the Iranians, Like according to
19:29
Speaker 6: Jeremy's reporting, that is their running assumption, Like their baseline
19:34
Speaker 6: assumption is that this is a ruse, and then they
19:36
Speaker 6: should not and cannot trust it. But that because they
19:41
Speaker 6: mentioned the ten point plan that they proposed as the
19:44
Speaker 6: basis for negotiations, they're willing to go through the motions
19:48
Speaker 6: and that if it turns out that the US is serious,
19:51
Speaker 6: they're willing to reach a permanent deal.
19:54
Speaker 7: But their assumption is that it's a scam, it's a setup.
19:58
Speaker 6: They're going to try to kill the negotiators, kill the
20:01
Speaker 6: kill the leadership, and then you know, relaunch a war.
20:04
Speaker 6: And I think they some elements of the Iranian leadership
20:08
Speaker 6: I kind of hope that's wrong. I think other elements
20:10
Speaker 6: of it hope that that's correct, because there's a significant
20:14
Speaker 6: faction within the IRGC. It appears that wants this to
20:18
Speaker 6: continue because they think they haven't quite extracted enough pain
20:24
Speaker 6: to make this something that the West doesn't want to
20:27
Speaker 6: do again, you know, for decades, and I think Israel
20:31
Speaker 6: continuing to bomb Lebanon is kind of fortifying their position. Yeah,
20:35
Speaker 6: so I looked obviously we didn't we didn't deter them
20:39
Speaker 6: from war in the future, because we didn't even deter
20:41
Speaker 6: them from doing war on Wednesday.
20:44
Speaker 2: And that will and that will impact also what the negotiators,
20:48
Speaker 2: the Iranian negotiators are able to agree to, because they
20:51
Speaker 2: know they have to be able to justify it not
20:54
Speaker 2: just to the IERGC, but to a population that is
20:56
Speaker 2: going to have a much more sort of hardline logic
20:59
Speaker 2: at this point as well, since they've been able to
21:01
Speaker 2: achieve more with you know, through over warfare, aggressive warfare
21:06
Speaker 2: than they ever were able to achieve through attempts at
21:09
Speaker 2: diplomatic negotiations. And that's just the sad reality.
21:12
Speaker 10: Yeah, And to that same point, we had multiple Trump
21:15
Speaker 10: true social statements over the last couple of days that
21:17
Speaker 10: we're keeping troops in the region. He's literally said they're restocking,
21:20
Speaker 10: they're resupplying. So you know, if they are going to
21:22
Speaker 10: start this back up again, it could be under that
21:24
Speaker 10: same sort of pretense that we've seen before. I'm also curious, Ryan,
21:28
Speaker 10: maybe you have some insight in terms of from Iran's perspective,
21:32
Speaker 10: like what would have been the incentive for them to
21:36
Speaker 10: enter into these conversations or to continue them right now.
21:38
Speaker 10: Because the first truth social that we got from Donald
21:42
Speaker 10: Trump said the ten point plan that we received from
21:45
Speaker 10: Iran is going to be the basis for negotiations moving forward.
21:50
Speaker 10: Then the next day we had Caroline Levitt come out
21:52
Speaker 10: and say, no, no, no, that plan was a complete joke.
21:55
Speaker 10: We threw it in the trash. So like, if you're Iran,
21:58
Speaker 10: are you viewing that as Okay, this is maybe just
22:00
Speaker 10: Trump posturing, This is bluster. He wants to just look
22:03
Speaker 10: like he's succeeding and we know what we're actually negotiating
22:06
Speaker 10: behind the scenes, or like why even entertain these negotiations
22:10
Speaker 10: if it if the Trump administration is saying no, no, no,
22:13
Speaker 10: the thing would we based the entirety of this plan
22:16
Speaker 10: on we actually threw in the trash.
22:18
Speaker 6: Yeah, what what Jeremy Soars were telling was that it
22:20
Speaker 6: was his mentioning of the ten point plan that that
22:23
Speaker 6: got them to agree to it, and that they understands,
22:26
Speaker 6: as you said, that everything after that is just is
22:30
Speaker 6: just flailing. Because they also recognize that this is the
22:35
Speaker 6: most powerful country maybe in the history of the world
22:39
Speaker 6: negotiating its defeat against a modest power, and that's going
22:45
Speaker 6: to require all sorts of gymnastics to to kind of
22:52
Speaker 6: cover up the obvious humiliation of it. And so they
22:55
Speaker 6: they are they're you know, they're they're smart cats, Like
22:57
Speaker 6: they understand that they know that there's going to be
23:02
Speaker 6: contortions between now and because like like Trump's contortions are
23:07
Speaker 6: going to be more kind of ridiculous than anybody else's.
23:11
Speaker 6: But think about it, like you just can't message that
23:15
Speaker 6: white is black or black is white without looking ridiculous, right,
23:18
Speaker 6: And so it's going to be it's gonna be a
23:20
Speaker 6: challenge r S smart.
23:22
Speaker 5: Cats as.
23:26
Speaker 2: Appearance traumatic entrance.
23:30
Speaker 6: Emily, we are about to get to professors in for
23:33
Speaker 6: Iran and all these Chinese videos too.
23:37
Speaker 4: Maybe an appearance in the next lego video from Salem.
23:41
Speaker 4: But uh, Emily, we have one.
23:43
Speaker 3: Last truth to get to before Professor John Meherscheimer. Here, I,
23:47
Speaker 3: of course I'm speaking about Trump calling out Tucker, Megan Kelly,
23:54
Speaker 3: and Alex Jones. This is I'm sure, yeah, the whole's true.
24:00
Speaker 3: This is way too long to read, so I'll just
24:02
Speaker 3: read a sentence or two here, But it says I
24:05
Speaker 3: know why Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candice Owens, and Alex
24:07
Speaker 3: Jones have all been fighting me for years, especially by
24:10
Speaker 3: the fact for years, especially by the fact that they
24:12
Speaker 3: think it's wonderful for Iran, the number one state sponsor
24:15
Speaker 3: of parent have a nuclear weapon.
24:17
Speaker 4: Because they have one thing in common.
24:19
Speaker 3: Low IQ's they're stupid people. They know it, their families
24:22
Speaker 3: know it, and everyone else knows it too. Look at
24:25
Speaker 3: their past, look at the record. They don't have what
24:26
Speaker 3: it takes, and they never did. They've all been thrown
24:28
Speaker 3: off by television, lost their shows and aren't even invited
24:31
Speaker 3: on TV because nobody cares about them. They're nutjobs, troublemakers
24:35
Speaker 3: and will say anything necessary for some free and cheap publicity.
24:40
Speaker 3: Your reaction, M it's so funny.
24:43
Speaker 5: You missed the funniest part of it, which is that
24:45
Speaker 5: he corrects Candice Owens on Brigitte Macron not only being
24:49
Speaker 5: a woman, but being a very beautiful or.
24:52
Speaker 2: More beautiful, a more beautiful woman than Candace and Cadace
24:56
Speaker 2: Trump Trump full woke on this one.
24:59
Speaker 5: It's also so funny that his standard for what counts
25:03
Speaker 5: as legitimacy is always television, like whether you are invited
25:07
Speaker 5: on television? Like just fantastic, I do think, like, on
25:10
Speaker 5: a serious note, it should remind us that those are
25:12
Speaker 5: the obstacles people who break with the administration over this
25:17
Speaker 5: ridiculous war find themselves up against. And I mean, it's
25:21
Speaker 5: it's easy to laugh at it because this is exactly
25:23
Speaker 5: what you would expect from Donald Trump. But it's not
25:25
Speaker 5: just Trump. I'm sure it's like Trump allies, So I
25:27
Speaker 5: know it's Trump allies who you know privately publicly will
25:32
Speaker 5: try to shame anybody who breaks with them on this
25:34
Speaker 5: ridiculous war because they're insecure about it. They know it's
25:37
Speaker 5: unpopular and the remixes have been absolute fire if you
25:41
Speaker 5: haven't heard them, knowing I don't.
25:53
Speaker 2: We also got word that Tim Poole is still on
25:57
Speaker 2: the good list though we apparently got a call from
25:59
Speaker 2: Trump before Trump posted this truth to tell him what
26:01
Speaker 2: a good friend he is.
26:02
Speaker 7: But did you see what Tim.
26:03
Speaker 10: Poole said afterwards? He's trolling. He's trolling though, who Tim Poole? Yeah,
26:09
Speaker 10: he's trying to farm engagement. So he's like pretending to
26:12
Speaker 10: be critical of Trump right now.
26:13
Speaker 7: Yeah, he's need to know.
26:15
Speaker 4: No, he can't trust his Twitter feed.
26:18
Speaker 6: Temple who you cannot trust? Who do do anything other
26:22
Speaker 6: than just entertainment? And uh oh, I said this is
26:29
Speaker 6: trolling where he says that does it?
26:30
Speaker 7: I am done? This was the last straw. I'm so angry.
26:33
Speaker 6: Yeah, because it's crass and scene and he's responding to
26:37
Speaker 6: so emily like literally though other than Tim Pole, who
26:41
Speaker 6: who like serious?
26:42
Speaker 7: Question? Who does Trump have left?
26:45
Speaker 5: Fox Snapiro?
26:46
Speaker 7: So Fox Shapiro, Shapiro's nude Max right.
26:49
Speaker 5: Fox News? I'm sure news Max has been pretty supportive
26:51
Speaker 5: of it. Yeah, that's the thing.
26:54
Speaker 3: Walsh, Walsh is out, No Walsh's out, he's arguing with
26:59
Speaker 3: his wire homies, and then Shapiro is apparently bleeding tens
27:03
Speaker 3: of thousands of subscribers.
27:05
Speaker 7: Hero Fox News and what purchases Fox News have left Trump?
27:11
Speaker 2: Trump with the boomers huge? Yeah, still huge?
27:15
Speaker 7: So Trump and yeah, the boomers are now seventy five plus.
27:19
Speaker 2: But I mean, look, Gen X is actually the most
27:22
Speaker 2: pro Trump generation generation for him, we.
27:25
Speaker 7: Don't have power or or we don't have any numbers either.
27:28
Speaker 7: Nobody cares.
27:29
Speaker 6: That's the worst sign for him yet. Generation that's useful
27:34
Speaker 6: to you politically.
27:37
Speaker 4: Is Professor John Meherscheimer. Is he Gen X or Boomer?
27:42
Speaker 7: He's a boomer?
27:43
Speaker 3: Well, then we'll see. Well, let's why don't we bring
27:45
Speaker 3: him in right now? We'll see where he lands with
27:48
Speaker 3: all this stuff. Crystal, why don't you introduce the professor here?
27:51
Speaker 4: When I bring him in.
27:54
Speaker 2: We are very fortunate to be joined this morning by
27:57
Speaker 2: Professor John Meherscheimer of the University of Chicago. Great to
27:59
Speaker 2: see against her, glad to be here. So just off
28:04
Speaker 2: the top, you know, what is your expectations for what
28:06
Speaker 2: might come out of these diplomatic meetings in Islamabad this weekend?
28:11
Speaker 9: Well, I mean It's important to realize that all we're
28:14
Speaker 9: trying to do at this point is get the ceasefire
28:17
Speaker 9: in place, and once that happens, then we'll have the
28:20
Speaker 9: serious negotiations. And the mere fact that we're having so
28:26
Speaker 9: much trouble getting the ceasefire in place makes one wonder
28:31
Speaker 9: where the negotiations are going to lead, even if they're
28:35
Speaker 9: going to get started. It seems clear to me that
28:40
Speaker 9: the Iranians will not engage in serious negotiations regarding the ceasefire.
28:48
Speaker 9: They may, you know, talk, but they're not going to
28:51
Speaker 9: engage in serious negotiations regarding the ceasefire until Iran excuse me,
28:58
Speaker 9: until Israel stops striking at has Blah. It's just that simple.
29:05
Speaker 9: And Israel has, or at least it thinks it has,
29:08
Speaker 9: a vested interest in continuing to target has Belah, all
29:14
Speaker 9: for the purposes of undermining the ceasefire and in turn
29:18
Speaker 9: undermining negotiations. So I think the sixty four thousand dollars
29:23
Speaker 9: question is whether the United States, which is desperate to
29:26
Speaker 9: end this war, will be so desperate that it will
29:29
Speaker 9: be willing to lean on net Nyahu in a really
29:34
Speaker 9: big way and get him to stop attacking has Belah
29:39
Speaker 9: in Lebanon. But until that happens, this is going nowhere.
29:43
Speaker 6: Now if the opposite happens and Nennyahu insists on continuing
29:48
Speaker 6: to attack has Belah and it brings the United States
29:52
Speaker 6: back into war, what are the consequences of that for
29:57
Speaker 6: the US is relationship? And as somebody who's studied the
30:00
Speaker 6: Israel lobby longer than by most of us have even
30:03
Speaker 6: been alive, like, would what would a breakup between the
30:07
Speaker 6: American people, the American public, and the idea of supporting
30:12
Speaker 6: Israel do to the US Israel relationship?
30:15
Speaker 7: What is there? Does that matter at all?
30:18
Speaker 10: Sure?
30:19
Speaker 9: I mean huge damage has already been done, because it's
30:23
Speaker 9: very clear, In fact, it becomes clearer by the day
30:28
Speaker 9: that the Israelis bamboozled us into this war, that they
30:33
Speaker 9: led Trump to decide to attack on February twenty eighth,
30:38
Speaker 9: and it's clearly a failed war. I mean, this was
30:42
Speaker 9: a catastrophic bunder on our part and the Israelis are
30:46
Speaker 9: responsible for that. So what Trump is now trying to
30:49
Speaker 9: do is shut the war down. And what are the
30:51
Speaker 9: Israelis doing? The Israelis are doing everything they can to
30:55
Speaker 9: prevent us from shutting the war down and to make
30:58
Speaker 9: it go on.
31:01
Speaker 4: This is going to do further.
31:02
Speaker 9: Damage to Israel's reputation in the United States. And the
31:07
Speaker 9: problem that the Israelis face is that we have this
31:12
Speaker 9: alternative media sphere now, and of course your show is
31:16
Speaker 9: a perfect example of that, where people talk about what
31:21
Speaker 9: Israel is up to and what the US Israeli relationship
31:26
Speaker 9: has resulted in, and so forth and so on in
31:29
Speaker 9: ways that it do enormous damage to Israel and the
31:33
Speaker 9: US Israeli relationship because people get to see the basic
31:37
Speaker 9: facts that didn't used to be the case before we
31:41
Speaker 9: had this alternative media sphere. So this is doing enormous
31:47
Speaker 9: damage to Israel's reputation in the United States. It's making
31:51
Speaker 9: the Lobby's job in the United States much more difficult
31:56
Speaker 9: than it ever was. Is I like to say, when
31:58
Speaker 9: Steve and I wrote the original article on the Lobby
32:01
Speaker 9: in two thousand and six, and then we wrote the
32:03
Speaker 9: book in two thousand and seven, I don't think either
32:06
Speaker 9: one of us ever imagined that we would be at
32:09
Speaker 9: the point we are now at today. The lobby has
32:13
Speaker 9: been so badly wounded. The US Israeli relationship is really
32:17
Speaker 9: in tatters. At least in the public mind, and I
32:22
Speaker 9: think moving forward, the situation only gets worse because Israel
32:26
Speaker 9: will behave in crazier and crazier ways, and more and
32:30
Speaker 9: more Americans will realize that, and they'll be well aware
32:34
Speaker 9: of what this escapade in Iran has led to.
32:39
Speaker 10: I'm curious, sorry, Emily, I'm curious what you make of
32:42
Speaker 10: the landscape of leverage going into these talks that the
32:46
Speaker 10: US administration has Trump obviously claiming that Iran has been
32:49
Speaker 10: completely decimated, defeated, they have no military, etc. You know,
32:54
Speaker 10: Iran in the meantime still retains the capacity to strike
32:56
Speaker 10: at israel US assets in the region, controlling the straight
32:59
Speaker 10: off wour moves.
33:00
Speaker 7: Who do you think has.
33:01
Speaker 10: More leverage going into this Where do you see these
33:03
Speaker 10: talks potentially going in terms of any sort of framework
33:06
Speaker 10: for a possible deal.
33:08
Speaker 9: Yeah, that is an enormously important question that you just asked.
33:13
Speaker 9: And my view has long been that Iran has a
33:18
Speaker 9: vested interest in prolonging the war, or, to put it
33:22
Speaker 9: in different terms, prolonging the closing of the strait. The
33:30
Speaker 9: fact is that what is happening here is that the
33:35
Speaker 9: situation in the international economy is getting worse and worse
33:39
Speaker 9: by the day, and as almost everybody knows, if you
33:43
Speaker 9: project out two or three months where the Strait remains closed,
33:49
Speaker 9: the damage to the world economy will be enormous. This
33:53
Speaker 9: means that the longer the Strait is closed, the more
33:57
Speaker 9: leverage the Iranians have over Donald Trump. Trump, on the
34:02
Speaker 9: other hand, has a profound interest in ending this war
34:06
Speaker 9: as quickly as possible to make sure that the damage
34:11
Speaker 9: is limited. And just to go back to what happened
34:16
Speaker 9: on Monday with Trump's two tweets, the one in the
34:22
Speaker 9: morning where he threatened to wipe Iran off the face
34:27
Speaker 9: of the earth and make it so that Iran could
34:30
Speaker 9: never come back from the dead. I mean, this is
34:33
Speaker 9: a genocidal threat of the first order. As almost everybody knows,
34:37
Speaker 9: the idea that an American president was making a threat
34:40
Speaker 9: of that sort would have been unthinkable before the morning
34:45
Speaker 9: of April sixth. But anyway, that shows his desperation. Then
34:50
Speaker 9: what happens is at the end of the day, at
34:54
Speaker 9: the end of the working day, he issues another tweet
34:58
Speaker 9: and he says we're going to not attack, and we're
35:03
Speaker 9: going to start negotiations, and there's going to be a ceasefire.
35:07
Speaker 9: And what's truly remarkable about the second tweet that night
35:12
Speaker 9: is he says that we accept the Iranians' ten point plan.
35:18
Speaker 9: You remember, there are two plans on the table. One
35:22
Speaker 9: is the American plan, which is the fifteen point plan,
35:26
Speaker 9: and that has all the maximalist demands of the United
35:30
Speaker 9: States and Israel. And then there's the ten point plan,
35:33
Speaker 9: which is the Iranian plan, which has their demands, which
35:37
Speaker 9: are maximalist Iranian demands, and he says that it is
35:45
Speaker 9: the ten point plan. He says in the tweet that
35:48
Speaker 9: evening is a workable basis for negotiation, not the fifteen
35:53
Speaker 9: point plan, the ten point plan. This is remarkable, and
35:57
Speaker 9: then he says furthermore in the tweet that almost all
36:01
Speaker 9: of the points of contention between the two sides have
36:04
Speaker 9: been worked out. If you think about what he said
36:08
Speaker 9: that morning, that's desperation. And then if you think about
36:12
Speaker 9: what he said that evening, the concessions that he's willing
36:16
Speaker 9: to make are really quite remarkable. And what's going on
36:20
Speaker 9: here is that behind closed doors, they're in deep panic mode.
36:24
Speaker 9: They understand full well that the international economy might go
36:28
Speaker 9: off a cliff if they don't shut this one down.
36:31
Speaker 9: Immediately and then begin to repair the damage and do
36:35
Speaker 9: everything possible to return to something approximating the status quo ante.
36:39
Speaker 9: They understand this, so we're desperate. But of course, if
36:42
Speaker 9: you flip back to the other side, the Iranians, this
36:45
Speaker 9: all tells you the Iranians are in the driver's seat
36:48
Speaker 9: and they have a vested interest in prolonging this. So
36:52
Speaker 9: if I were playing Iran's hand, I might sit down
36:55
Speaker 9: today in Islamabad, but I would say, listen, folks, we're
37:00
Speaker 9: not getting to cease fire until Israel stops pounding. Has
37:06
Speaker 9: be loot, and it's up to you, the United States,
37:09
Speaker 9: to decide whether or not you want to take the
37:14
Speaker 9: international economy off a cliff, or whether you want to
37:17
Speaker 9: appease Prime Minister Nan Yaho.
37:20
Speaker 5: It's your choice, or whether that's where we are do
37:24
Speaker 5: ground troops, because that's really the only other option. That's
37:28
Speaker 5: what I was going to ask, Professor is Donald Trump
37:30
Speaker 5: now talking about the nuclear dust as he calls it,
37:32
Speaker 5: the hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium, and the Iranians have,
37:37
Speaker 5: as we were just discussing, leverage in the form of
37:39
Speaker 5: the Strait of Hormuz. So for Israel, as they pressure
37:44
Speaker 5: Trump over the negotiations. Iranians are reportedly considering whether to
37:49
Speaker 5: even show up as the Lebanon bombing continues. But let's
37:52
Speaker 5: say that happens they do show up, What on earth
37:57
Speaker 5: would an off ramp for Trump look like? That all
38:00
Speaker 5: so would involve getting thatsan Yahoo on board with it.
38:04
Speaker 5: That doesn't involve either going back to war with ground
38:08
Speaker 5: troops or Iran operating a toll system in the Strait
38:12
Speaker 5: of Hoar Moves and dealing with the enriched uranium quote
38:16
Speaker 5: nuclear dust that he's talking about. I mean, it just
38:19
Speaker 5: I can't conceive of what that might look like. And
38:23
Speaker 5: I think this is what you're speaking to. But if
38:25
Speaker 5: they try to push on the hundreds of pounds of
38:27
Speaker 5: enriched uranium, what leverage exists possibly for them to barter?
38:33
Speaker 9: Well, first of all, they have no leverage.
38:37
Speaker 7: We have no leverage.
38:39
Speaker 9: You raise the possibility of ground troops. We have seven
38:45
Speaker 9: thousand combat troops in the region. There's all this talk
38:48
Speaker 9: about fifty thousand troops in the region. Almost all those
38:52
Speaker 9: troops are not combat troops. And you can't go to
38:55
Speaker 9: war on the ground against Iran with anything. You've got
39:01
Speaker 9: seven thousand combat troops five thousand of them are on
39:05
Speaker 9: giant ships that can't get close to the coast of Iran.
39:09
Speaker 9: How are you going to offload those troops and the
39:11
Speaker 9: two thousand paratroopers and the eighty second Airborne up against
39:15
Speaker 9: a million man army. This is not a serious option.
39:19
Speaker 9: There is no ground option. I mean, you want to
39:21
Speaker 9: think about where we are militarily in this situation. First
39:28
Speaker 9: of all, we have thirteen bases, thirteen major bases in
39:33
Speaker 9: the region. According to the New York Times, all thirteen
39:36
Speaker 9: of those bases are either destroyed or badly damaged. We
39:41
Speaker 9: have a huge naval armada in the region. That naval
39:45
Speaker 9: armada cannot get close to the coasts of Iran, much
39:50
Speaker 9: less the Strait of Hormuz, so it's parked way out
39:54
Speaker 9: in the ocean, far away from Iran. Then there's the
39:58
Speaker 9: Air Force. In this rescue mission that just took place
40:02
Speaker 9: where they got the second pilot. We lost more aircraft
40:09
Speaker 9: that day than we have lost in any single day
40:14
Speaker 9: since the Vietnam War. This was just to rescue one
40:19
Speaker 9: down the pilot. We lost more aircraft that one day
40:23
Speaker 9: than we have lost any day since the Vietnam War.
40:27
Speaker 9: Then there's the whole business of our missile inventory. We're
40:32
Speaker 9: running out of defensive missiles, We're running out of high
40:36
Speaker 9: end munitions. We have interest all around the world, especially
40:40
Speaker 9: in East Asia, and we're using up this rather small
40:44
Speaker 9: inventory of boutique weapons that we have. Where does that
40:49
Speaker 9: leave us? And then there's the question of our allies.
40:52
Speaker 9: We can't protect their allies. In fact, we've turned our
40:55
Speaker 9: allies these are the GCC states, the Gulf States into
41:00
Speaker 9: giant magnets for Iranian drones and Iranian ballistic missiles. Our
41:08
Speaker 9: military performance here has been abysmal, the idea that we
41:13
Speaker 9: have a military option. So this gets to your question,
41:19
Speaker 9: what's the ourf ramp here. There's only one our ramp here,
41:22
Speaker 9: and that's surrender. And what the actual terms of the
41:27
Speaker 9: surrender are have to be worked out. But this is
41:29
Speaker 9: what President Trump said in his tweet on Monday night.
41:34
Speaker 9: He said, we accept the ten point plan as a
41:39
Speaker 9: workable basis. Go read the ten point plan. It's all
41:42
Speaker 9: the maximalist demands. Furthermore, with regard to net Yahoo, net
41:48
Speaker 9: Yahoo doesn't want tole it the ceasefire come into place,
41:53
Speaker 9: and he certainly doesn't want to see an end to
41:55
Speaker 9: the war because this will be a catastrophic defeat for Israel.
42:00
Speaker 9: As big as the feat as it will be for
42:02
Speaker 9: Donald Trump, he will be a far worse defeat for
42:05
Speaker 9: Israel and especially for Prime Minister Nat Yahoo. So he's
42:08
Speaker 9: working over time to undermine the cease fire and prevent negotiations.
42:13
Speaker 9: And the sixty four thousand dollars question is whether or
42:16
Speaker 9: not Trump is willing to lean on net Yahoo to
42:22
Speaker 9: get a cease fire. And then he's going to have
42:24
Speaker 9: to lean on net and Yaho, and he's going to
42:27
Speaker 9: have to work against the lobby to negotiate a settlement.
42:31
Speaker 9: You want to remember getting Look at all the trouble
42:33
Speaker 9: we're having getting a cease fire, you can imagine how
42:36
Speaker 9: much difficulty Trump is going to have trying to negotiate
42:40
Speaker 9: a settlement that reflects the fact that we lost this war.
42:44
Speaker 4: But that's where we are.
42:48
Speaker 6: I wanted to add one point real quickly to your
42:51
Speaker 6: observation about the dwindling missile ballistic missile interceptors. I had
42:55
Speaker 6: a piece yesterday with my colleague Martazi saying over at
42:58
Speaker 6: drop site yesterday there it is Griffin or whoever pulled
43:03
Speaker 6: that up. Can you scroll down a little bit because
43:05
Speaker 6: there's a really in mac. Yeah, there's a really interesting
43:07
Speaker 6: line in here that I thought is relevant to the
43:09
Speaker 6: US Israeli relationship.
43:11
Speaker 7: So right there, right there. So the White House referred questions.
43:15
Speaker 6: So what we reported is that they are, according to
43:18
Speaker 6: a Trump administration official, the Israelis are down to double
43:22
Speaker 6: digit ballistic missile interceptors and are now relying almost exclusively
43:26
Speaker 6: on the navy US Navy to prevent missile attacks and
43:30
Speaker 6: are letting a lot more strikes go through just because
43:33
Speaker 6: they have to. But the White House referred questions about
43:36
Speaker 6: the dwindling stockpile to the Israeli military. Quote, refer you
43:41
Speaker 6: to the IDF, said a White House spokesperson. Now, so
43:45
Speaker 6: I went to the IDF and they said, we're looking
43:48
Speaker 6: into it, and they kept for hours, We're looking into
43:50
Speaker 6: We're looking at like they were going to go count
43:52
Speaker 6: them and come back to me and.
43:53
Speaker 7: Give me a number.
43:55
Speaker 6: They eventually didn't have a fulsome comment. If they provide one,
43:58
Speaker 6: we'll add it to the article. But I thought that
44:00
Speaker 6: was such an interesting dynamic to go to the White
44:02
Speaker 6: House and say, you know, we're told by an official
44:06
Speaker 6: at the White House that the Israelis are almost out
44:08
Speaker 6: of ballistic missile interceptors.
44:09
Speaker 7: And they say, go ask the IDF about that.
44:14
Speaker 9: I don't know what to say. It is just kind
44:16
Speaker 9: of hard to believe. But you know, here's a couple points, Ryan,
44:21
Speaker 9: and you know this issue better than I do. But
44:23
Speaker 9: the Israelis say in their press that eighty percent of
44:28
Speaker 9: the ballistic missiles coming from Iran are getting through. This
44:33
Speaker 9: is truly remarkable. Eighty percent of the missiles are getting through,
44:36
Speaker 9: and they are running out of defensive missiles, and this
44:41
Speaker 9: is hardly surprising. If we go back to last year,
44:44
Speaker 9: you remember the twelve day war. That war ended in
44:49
Speaker 9: good part because Netanyao, who asked Trump to stop it,
44:52
Speaker 9: because the Israelis there were running out of defensive missiles.
44:56
Speaker 9: And this war has gone on, you know, well beyond
45:00
Speaker 9: twelve days, and it's hardly surprising that they're running out
45:04
Speaker 9: of defensive missiles. And by the way, we are as well.
45:08
Speaker 9: And to make matters worse, we have pulled THAD missiles
45:12
Speaker 9: and Patriot missiles, as you well know, out of East Asia.
45:16
Speaker 9: In fact, that marine expeditionary unit, the first one to
45:20
Speaker 9: arrive in the Gulf, came out of Japan. What this
45:24
Speaker 9: means is that the United States, which has been trying
45:26
Speaker 9: to pivot to Asia to contain China, is a result
45:30
Speaker 9: of this war, is pivoting away from Asia. Just think
45:34
Speaker 9: about that we are pivoting away from Asia. Think about
45:38
Speaker 9: what that means for our allies. Furthermore, just think about
45:41
Speaker 9: Trump's behavior since this war started on February twenty eighth.
45:45
Speaker 9: I guess one could argue his behavior even before the
45:48
Speaker 9: war started. But what is this signal to our allies
45:51
Speaker 9: in East Asia? If you're Taiwan, if you're South Korea,
45:56
Speaker 9: if you're Japan, can you depend on the United States anymore?
46:00
Speaker 9: I mean, it's not only the fact that they're pivoting away,
46:03
Speaker 9: it's just the basic judgment of the Trump administration. This
46:07
Speaker 9: looks like the gang that can't shoot straight. And that's
46:12
Speaker 9: not overstating the case. In fact, if anything, it's understating
46:15
Speaker 9: the case. It's just truly remarkable how incompetent these people are.
46:20
Speaker 9: And just to go back to Monday. Here we are
46:24
Speaker 9: Monday morning, you know, threatening genocide against Iran, and then
46:28
Speaker 9: at the end of the day do a one hundred
46:31
Speaker 9: and eighty degree turn and basically saying, well, accept most
46:38
Speaker 9: of Iran's demands. Just it's remarkable where we are.
46:43
Speaker 3: Well, let's talk about the Asian allies for a second.
46:47
Speaker 3: I wanted to throw up from our other host who
46:49
Speaker 3: couldn't be here, Sagar, who had some thoughts on this.
46:53
Speaker 3: He says, Meanwhile, actually important US allies Japan and Australia
46:57
Speaker 3: warn of a security vacuum in the Indo Pacific after
47:00
Speaker 3: the Iran War.
47:01
Speaker 4: And then more, South.
47:03
Speaker 3: Korea is dispatching a special envoy to Iran immediately to
47:07
Speaker 3: negotiate passage through her moves. Direct bi lateral negotiations outside
47:11
Speaker 3: of US channels equals more breakdown in the US as
47:14
Speaker 3: a guaranteur of the Allied order. What is your reaction
47:18
Speaker 3: to that? And then, more specifically to the Taiwan question.
47:23
Speaker 3: Does this sort of put the Taiwan question to bed?
47:27
Speaker 3: And are we going to see movement from China and
47:29
Speaker 3: Taiwan into some sort of reunification process as an outcome
47:34
Speaker 3: of this war?
47:35
Speaker 9: Well, just start with South Korea. I was on South
47:41
Speaker 9: Korean public television the other day, and I spent a
47:45
Speaker 9: lot of time sort of preparing myself for that conversation.
47:50
Speaker 9: And if you look at the South Korean situation in
47:53
Speaker 9: a very important way, the fact that we're pivoting away
47:57
Speaker 9: from East Asia matters less then the economic damage that
48:02
Speaker 9: is being done and might be done to South Korea
48:07
Speaker 9: if this war is not shut down. It's very clear
48:12
Speaker 9: that South Korea is being hurt badly by this war.
48:17
Speaker 9: A huge amount of its imported oil, which it's heavily
48:20
Speaker 9: dependent on, doesn't have oil of its own, comes through
48:23
Speaker 9: the Gulf, and they're in desperate straits, and the agricultural
48:28
Speaker 9: consequences if this just not to be underestimated. So countries
48:33
Speaker 9: like South Korea and other countries in East Asia. India
48:36
Speaker 9: is another example, Indonesia's another example. The Philippines is another example.
48:41
Speaker 9: These are countries that feel like they're close to the precipice,
48:45
Speaker 9: not militarily, economically, and something has to be done to
48:50
Speaker 9: end this war. And again, this in part, maybe in
48:54
Speaker 9: good part, explains why President Trump is in deep panic
48:57
Speaker 9: mode because he understands this as well well, because he's
49:01
Speaker 9: certainly hearing from these countries. So let's just put aside
49:04
Speaker 9: the whole business of pivoting away from East Asia. The
49:09
Speaker 9: economic consequences of this are being felt in East Asia
49:14
Speaker 9: in a really profound way, and that's what explains the
49:18
Speaker 9: South Koreans talking to the Iranians about getting permission to
49:22
Speaker 9: send ships headed for South Korea through the strait. Then
49:28
Speaker 9: there's the military dimension, and this brings in places like
49:34
Speaker 9: Taiwan as well as South Korea and Japan. First of all,
49:37
Speaker 9: if you're South Korean Japan, how do you think about
49:39
Speaker 9: getting nuclear weapons at this point in time? Isn't the
49:42
Speaker 9: main lesson of this whole war that you better have
49:46
Speaker 9: a nuclear deterrent of your own, whether you were Iran,
49:49
Speaker 9: South Korea or Japan.
49:56
Speaker 2: Water to turrent well, and I wanted to ask you
49:59
Speaker 2: so you said earlier that effectively the only off ramp
50:02
Speaker 2: for Trump is surrender, and I agree with that. I
50:04
Speaker 2: don't see any other option. And so, whether it's now
50:07
Speaker 2: or a month from now, or two months from now
50:09
Speaker 2: or a year from now, we are very likely to
50:12
Speaker 2: end up with something like the Iranian ten points becoming
50:16
Speaker 2: a new reality, including a new status quo with regard
50:20
Speaker 2: to the Strait of Hormuz. How does that change the world?
50:23
Speaker 2: How does that change the US is standing in the world?
50:24
Speaker 2: How does that change the is Raley standing in the world? China? Like,
50:27
Speaker 2: what does the world look like if we end up
50:30
Speaker 2: with Iran as this now emerging fourth power, tremendously frankly
50:35
Speaker 2: wealthy from the tolls they'll be able to charge, and
50:38
Speaker 2: having demonstrated this incredible deterrent ability through their control of
50:43
Speaker 2: the Strait of Hormuz, and.
50:44
Speaker 9: I'd toss in Russia as well, Professor Well, the Russians
50:48
Speaker 9: have obviously benefited enormously from this, at least in terms
50:51
Speaker 9: of the war in Ukraine. I mean, the amount of
50:54
Speaker 9: weaponry that we can give to Ukraine is going to
50:58
Speaker 9: be much less as this war. And furthermore, Putin has
51:02
Speaker 9: benefited in the short term economically. I would say that
51:06
Speaker 9: I think from China's point of view and from Russia's
51:10
Speaker 9: point of view, the short term effects of this war
51:14
Speaker 9: are all positive for sure, But neither one of those
51:19
Speaker 9: countries has any interest whatsoever and seeing the international economy
51:24
Speaker 9: go off a cliff, and I believe that this is
51:26
Speaker 9: the principal reason the Chinese have been putting pressure on
51:29
Speaker 9: the Iranians to go to Islamabad and try to negotiate
51:33
Speaker 9: a settlement to this war. The Chinese do not want
51:36
Speaker 9: this war to go on and on, nor do the Russians,
51:39
Speaker 9: because it could crash the international economy. We could have
51:42
Speaker 9: a worldwide depression that looks worse than what happened in
51:46
Speaker 9: the nineteen twenties. That's what we're talking about here. So
51:50
Speaker 9: I think in the short term this is good for
51:53
Speaker 9: the Russians, good for the Chinese, but they understand in
51:56
Speaker 9: the long term that's not the case.
52:01
Speaker 2: What was your question, Crystal, We was asking about if
52:04
Speaker 2: we have a final settlement along the lines of the
52:07
Speaker 2: Iranian ten points, including a new status quo in the
52:10
Speaker 2: in the Strait of Removes, how does that change the world.
52:14
Speaker 9: Well, let me just say one thing you do not
52:17
Speaker 9: want to talk about Iran as if it's going to
52:20
Speaker 9: emerge is a new great power from this conflict. We
52:24
Speaker 9: did enormous damage to the Iranian economy before February twenty eighth,
52:30
Speaker 9: and we have done enormous damage to Iran, to its
52:35
Speaker 9: infrastructure since February twenty eighth, and it's going to take
52:40
Speaker 9: them many, many years and many billions of dollars to
52:45
Speaker 9: begin to recover. So this is a country that is
52:49
Speaker 9: in many ways in terrible shape. They have two great
52:53
Speaker 9: levers though, that give them huge influence in the region
52:59
Speaker 9: and in the world. One is they control the Strait
53:01
Speaker 9: of Hormuz and number two, they have a huge inventory
53:05
Speaker 9: of ballistic missiles, both short range and long range. They
53:09
Speaker 9: have a huge inventory of cruise missiles and an even
53:12
Speaker 9: bigger inventory of drones, and they can use those weapons
53:17
Speaker 9: very effectively. So there's no question that the Iranians are
53:21
Speaker 9: going to come out of this war having more leverage
53:26
Speaker 9: over politics in the region and around the world once
53:31
Speaker 9: the conflict ends. But it's very difficult to say at
53:35
Speaker 9: this point in time how the war will finally end.
53:40
Speaker 9: In other words, if you look at the ten point
53:42
Speaker 9: plan and you look at the ten demands that the
53:46
Speaker 9: Iranians have made, how many of those are the Americans
53:51
Speaker 9: going to accept? For example, the Iranians demand that the
53:55
Speaker 9: United States leave the region, that we get out of
53:59
Speaker 9: the region with our military forces. Are we going to
54:02
Speaker 9: do that? If we don't do that, how do we
54:05
Speaker 9: think about those thirteen bases? Do we go back to
54:09
Speaker 9: those thirteen bases and rebuild them? Will the Gulf states
54:13
Speaker 9: that hosted those bases allow us to do that. These
54:17
Speaker 9: are all open questions and they have huge consequences for
54:22
Speaker 9: what the architecture, the security architecture in the region looks like.
54:26
Speaker 9: So I think one thing that is clear is that
54:29
Speaker 9: Iran will be more powerful for sure after February twenty
54:33
Speaker 9: eighth than it was before. I think it's also clear
54:37
Speaker 9: that relations between the GCC countries and the United States
54:41
Speaker 9: will never be the same, and we will not have
54:45
Speaker 9: a close alliance with them in the future the way
54:48
Speaker 9: we have had in the past. And I think as
54:50
Speaker 9: far as Israel is concerned, this is just another major
54:57
Speaker 9: defeat for Israel. The the most interesting aspects of how
55:02
Speaker 9: the mainstream media reports Israel's actions in these various wars
55:10
Speaker 9: is that they're always portrayed as great victories. Israel's always
55:14
Speaker 9: seen as doing very well. Their situation is seen to
55:18
Speaker 9: be constantly improving, and so forth and so on. They're
55:21
Speaker 9: remaking the Middle East. I think this is fundamentally wrong.
55:29
Speaker 9: First of all, with regard to Hesbelah, they have not
55:32
Speaker 9: defeated Hesbelah. Hesbelah has beaten them up badly in southern Lebanon.
55:38
Speaker 9: They were talking about going all the way up to
55:40
Speaker 9: the Latani River and controlling all of southern Lebanon up
55:44
Speaker 9: to the Latani River. This is the Israelis, but the
55:48
Speaker 9: IDEF has had a devil of a time fighting with Hesbelah,
55:52
Speaker 9: and Hesbela has actually been winning, and the Israelis have
55:55
Speaker 9: retreated to a narrow buffer zone on the northern border
56:00
Speaker 9: of Israel. And in terms of the bombing, they can
56:05
Speaker 9: bomb Beirut, they can bomb Tehran, but it doesn't ever
56:11
Speaker 9: lead to anything positive. And I believe the principal reason
56:15
Speaker 9: that the Israelis are interested in negotiations now with the
56:20
Speaker 9: Lebanese government is they want the Lebanese government to disarm
56:24
Speaker 9: has Blah because they can't. The Israelis can't disarm has Blah.
56:29
Speaker 9: So in terms of the war against Hasbolah, they have
56:32
Speaker 9: not won. Against Iran. This is a colossal defeat for Israel.
56:38
Speaker 9: With regard to Gaza, they have not defeated Hamas. Hamas
56:43
Speaker 9: still is there. It is still fighting. With regard to
56:48
Speaker 9: the Huthis, they're still there and they'll grow more powerful
56:51
Speaker 9: over time. With regard to Iranian nuclear weapons or Iranian
56:57
Speaker 9: Iranian nuclear enrichment capability that you know, that's all still
57:04
Speaker 9: on the table. So the Israelis are in deep trouble.
57:09
Speaker 9: And furthermore, they've poisoned their relationship with the United States
57:13
Speaker 9: where this all ends up. As we were talking about
57:15
Speaker 9: at the beginning of the show is hard to say,
57:17
Speaker 9: but there's no question that there has been a significant
57:20
Speaker 9: deterioration in US Israeli relations. So I think that the
57:26
Speaker 9: idea that Israel is going to come out of this
57:28
Speaker 9: is the dominant force in the region is simply wrong.
57:32
Speaker 9: Israel has been badly damaged and it has no real
57:37
Speaker 9: strategy available for fixing the situation. So I don't know
57:41
Speaker 9: the specifics of how this plays itself out because I
57:44
Speaker 9: don't know what the end of the negotiation process will
57:47
Speaker 9: look like. But I think there's no question that our
57:50
Speaker 9: influence in the region is going to go down, Israel's
57:53
Speaker 9: influence is going to go down, and Irans is going
57:55
Speaker 9: to go up. But again, I don't think you want
57:57
Speaker 9: to overestimate the position that Iran is in simply because
58:03
Speaker 9: of the huge amount of damage that we've done to
58:06
Speaker 9: that country.
58:07
Speaker 3: Well, Professor, this has been illuminating, and I did just
58:10
Speaker 3: want to flag on your way out that the President
58:14
Speaker 3: in recent Truth seems to agree with you. Recent Truth
58:17
Speaker 3: posted this morning World's most powerful reset President DJT, So
58:24
Speaker 3: it seems like he acres to the professor.
58:29
Speaker 9: I don't know whether I should be happy about that.
58:31
Speaker 5: Or not.
58:34
Speaker 4: Sign of the Times.
58:35
Speaker 9: I guess yeah, to sign at the Times.
58:40
Speaker 3: Well, thank you so much for professor for joining us.
58:42
Speaker 3: Any final words before you leave.
58:45
Speaker 9: No, I just hope we get a cease fire and
58:47
Speaker 9: then I hope they reach a quick conclusion to the
58:50
Speaker 9: negotiations so we can put this war behind us. I
58:53
Speaker 9: mean when I think about all the damage that's being
58:56
Speaker 9: done around the world. Also, it would be really wonderful
59:00
Speaker 9: if somehow we could lean on the Israelis to stop
59:03
Speaker 9: running around the Middle East murdering people. It's truly amazing
59:07
Speaker 9: the number of people that the Israelis, often in cohoots
59:13
Speaker 9: with us, end up destroying huge chunks of countries like
59:19
Speaker 9: Lebanon and Iran and killing huge numbers of people. It
59:23
Speaker 9: would be really wonderful if we could put an end
59:25
Speaker 9: to all of this and create some sort of peace
59:31
Speaker 9: in the Middle East for the foreseeable future.
59:34
Speaker 3: All right, Well, on that note, thank you so much, Professor.
59:37
Speaker 3: I'm sure that we will be asking for more from
59:40
Speaker 3: you very soon, and until then, enjoy the rest of
59:43
Speaker 3: your weekend.
59:43
Speaker 7: Thank you.
59:45
Speaker 9: You too as well, and thank you very much for
59:47
Speaker 9: having me on the Show's always our pleasure.
59:50
Speaker 7: Thanks professor.
59:53
Speaker 3: All right, welcome to the liberated second half of the
59:57
Speaker 3: Friday Show. That Ryan berated he stormed the steel and
1:00:03
Speaker 3: has that.
1:00:05
Speaker 2: Free the second half of the Friday Show.
1:00:07
Speaker 4: Mm hmmm, that's right.
1:00:09
Speaker 5: So sounded so. Ryan posted this clip also on Instagram Ryan,
1:00:14
Speaker 5: which was impressive, but Julian that oh good, okay, soccer
1:00:19
Speaker 5: sounded like gritted teeth. He was announcing this through gritted teeth. Place.
1:00:26
Speaker 4: Now someone's got to make around here.
1:00:30
Speaker 3: And you know, Soger, if you want to make decisions
1:00:33
Speaker 3: on the Friday Show, you're you're welcome to join any time.
1:00:36
Speaker 2: Until that, Yeah, I just like how I I hadn't
1:00:40
Speaker 2: even been like read in on that this was a
1:00:43
Speaker 2: possibility before Ryan just announced it on you guys show.
1:00:48
Speaker 5: That it was.
1:00:49
Speaker 9: It was.
1:00:50
Speaker 10: It was floated on one of our production calls as
1:00:52
Speaker 10: a hypothetical, and I was like, oh, Ryan already said
1:00:54
Speaker 10: that this morning, So it's it's happening.
1:00:56
Speaker 2: It's done.
1:00:59
Speaker 5: Learned, he's learned. He is like Benjamin netsa Yahoo. He
1:01:02
Speaker 5: has learned a dangerous lesson about how to negotiate.
1:01:06
Speaker 2: On the ground.
1:01:07
Speaker 7: I think it's the truth.
1:01:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, you just create facts on the ground and then
1:01:10
Speaker 2: it is and it is what it is. But anyway,
1:01:12
Speaker 2: we're grateful to be able too, glad to be able
1:01:14
Speaker 2: to share the entire Friday show with the whole world.
1:01:17
Speaker 3: So absolutely, And on that note, why don't we get
1:01:21
Speaker 3: to a little bit of Crystal's best friend, Alissa Slotkin,
1:01:26
Speaker 3: who has been, you know, doing town halls, potentially gearing
1:01:30
Speaker 3: up for a twenty twenty eight run, And there has
1:01:33
Speaker 3: been a tense town hall between a few people and Alyssa,
1:01:37
Speaker 3: And I'm going to play both of these videos back
1:01:40
Speaker 3: to back to get the full experience and then Crystal's reaction.
1:01:43
Speaker 3: So why don't we start with the first one here?
1:01:46
Speaker 11: Going back to what was said over here, you have
1:01:49
Speaker 11: not taken money from APAK, but pro Israel lobbies and
1:01:53
Speaker 11: their donors have spent four point five million dollars on
1:01:56
Speaker 11: your campaigns. But I do have a question un really
1:02:00
Speaker 11: to that. I just wanted to add that. So I'm
1:02:03
Speaker 11: curious why left leaning media, but I guess mainstream media
1:02:09
Speaker 11: and establishment democrats are spending energy attacking influencers like Hassan
1:02:17
Speaker 11: Piker as has been in the news lately, and why
1:02:21
Speaker 11: the democratic establishment is just like immune to criticizing democratic
1:02:28
Speaker 11: leadership like Haikim Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer, who are some
1:02:32
Speaker 11: of the main drivers in the reason that the Democratic
1:02:35
Speaker 11: Party is that it's lowest approval rating in history.
1:02:38
Speaker 2: Well, a couple of things.
1:02:39
Speaker 12: First, just to correct the record, and I'm not sure
1:02:42
Speaker 12: what you're referring to on not a peck, but the
1:02:45
Speaker 12: Israel lobby. If you're equating Israel lobby to Jews, I
1:02:49
Speaker 12: got a problem with that, and that just like you
1:02:52
Speaker 12: wouldn't say, you know the Iranian that you know Iranians.
1:02:57
Speaker 12: Whatever happens the Iranian government does is what Iranian Americans believe.
1:03:02
Speaker 12: I think it's really important, especially now, to make a
1:03:05
Speaker 12: distinction between it Israeli government and the choices that they're
1:03:09
Speaker 12: making and the average Jew.
1:03:10
Speaker 5: Okay, and you're the only one, so there's not a
1:03:14
Speaker 5: distinction in that back and forth.
1:03:17
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is the that's the first one. And now
1:03:19
Speaker 3: I'd like to present the follow up. This was a
1:03:22
Speaker 3: second questioner that came right after that. Gentleman there, let's
1:03:25
Speaker 3: take a listen.
1:03:26
Speaker 5: There was no indication that he was conflating those two.
1:03:28
Speaker 2: Just no, no, not at all, quite the opposite.
1:03:31
Speaker 13: First off, I wanted to say I found your response
1:03:34
Speaker 13: to the gentleman in front of me, offensively bad faith
1:03:37
Speaker 13: to conflate support for Israel while they are committing genocide,
1:03:42
Speaker 13: and while they just had a terror attack on Lebanon
1:03:44
Speaker 13: yesterday killing almost three hundred people.
1:03:47
Speaker 7: To conflate that with the Jewish identity.
1:03:49
Speaker 13: That is what anti Semitism looks like. But my question
1:03:52
Speaker 13: is I am so tired of the Democratic Party villainizing
1:03:56
Speaker 13: the left, villainizing progressives. And we've seen it here where
1:03:59
Speaker 13: they've tried to push away progressive voices. How can we
1:04:02
Speaker 13: empower those progressive voices? If you said you want to
1:04:05
Speaker 13: be a big tent right now, that you're not growing
1:04:08
Speaker 13: the tent, you're moving the tent away from its pace.
1:04:11
Speaker 5: Okay, let's start.
1:04:13
Speaker 12: I'll go round, or maybe I'll start with you and
1:04:14
Speaker 12: come back. So what I take issue with is someone
1:04:20
Speaker 12: saying that I took four point five million dollars from
1:04:24
Speaker 12: the pro Israel lobby.
1:04:26
Speaker 2: That's not apac I don't know what that is.
1:04:29
Speaker 12: But if that's counting Jewish donors and saying Jewish donors
1:04:32
Speaker 12: are somehow the same as pro Israel lobby, I got
1:04:35
Speaker 12: a problem with that, and not just as an elected official,
1:04:37
Speaker 12: as a Jew, so I have no problem standing by
1:04:40
Speaker 12: that statement in terms of the progressive wing of the party. Look,
1:04:46
Speaker 12: I don't think there's anyone shoving anyone.
1:04:49
Speaker 10: Look at the.
1:04:49
Speaker 12: Election like in New York City.
1:04:51
Speaker 2: Wow, I mean all I can say is good luck
1:04:54
Speaker 2: with your twenty twenty eight run, lady, Like if you're
1:04:57
Speaker 2: already this fragile and lashing out like that at very
1:05:03
Speaker 2: basic and obvious questions where the Democratic base at this
1:05:06
Speaker 2: point is overwhelmingly anti Israel, anti apac, they are going
1:05:12
Speaker 2: to be asking you about where you stand on these
1:05:14
Speaker 2: issues repeatedly, and if all you can do is immediately
1:05:20
Speaker 2: reach for insinuating that they're anti Semites for even asking
1:05:24
Speaker 2: about it, like this is just this is not going
1:05:26
Speaker 2: to work. This is mostly for you whatsoever, And.
1:05:29
Speaker 5: In the most like theatrical, sanctimonious way that doesn't even
1:05:34
Speaker 5: give off a like ounce of authenticity or sincerity, that
1:05:39
Speaker 5: like it's it's just going to the old talking points
1:05:43
Speaker 5: without ever appearing to have engaged in the recent discussion.
1:05:47
Speaker 5: You would think after her breaking points appearance, the Senator
1:05:51
Speaker 5: would have tried to like really understand in good faith
1:05:54
Speaker 5: where people were coming from on this and it honestly
1:05:56
Speaker 5: from that exchange looks like she's not familiar with the
1:06:00
Speaker 5: discourse and has just reflexively retreated to the old talking points.
1:06:06
Speaker 2: No, I think she's familiar with the discourse. I mean
1:06:09
Speaker 2: what's interesting to me is when she asked she she
1:06:11
Speaker 2: wanted to come on Breaking points, right, she reached out
1:06:13
Speaker 2: to us. We're like, great, let's have you on, and
1:06:15
Speaker 2: we had that whole exchange. My impression in that exchange
1:06:19
Speaker 2: is she had realized that her lockstep pro Israel stance
1:06:23
Speaker 2: was now anathema to the base, and she was trying
1:06:26
Speaker 2: to workshop some sort of a middle ground thing. And effectively,
1:06:30
Speaker 2: there is no way to either you are, you know,
1:06:34
Speaker 2: supporting arms to a country that's funding aid that's committing
1:06:37
Speaker 2: a genocide.
1:06:38
Speaker 10: Or you're not.
1:06:38
Speaker 2: There's really not a middle ground that you can sort
1:06:41
Speaker 2: of carve ount there. And so what I get from
1:06:43
Speaker 2: it Ryan is that she's sort of realized that and
1:06:46
Speaker 2: has decided, well, I'm gonna I'm going to be more
1:06:48
Speaker 2: hardline Prosionist. And I don't know how these twenty twenty
1:06:54
Speaker 2: eight contenders are so incredibly delusional to think that there's
1:06:57
Speaker 2: a lane for that that exists within the Democratic But
1:07:01
Speaker 2: there's just not. If you look at the numbers. And
1:07:03
Speaker 2: one other thing to add to this is there was
1:07:05
Speaker 2: a resolution being put forward at the DNC to you know,
1:07:09
Speaker 2: to go after directly go after a pack and condemn
1:07:12
Speaker 2: a pack and you know, say we shouldn't take a
1:07:14
Speaker 2: pac money, and that got shot down. Reportedly there were
1:07:17
Speaker 2: two twenty twenty eight contenders who intervened to make sure
1:07:22
Speaker 2: that that resolution was ultimately spiked. And as I went
1:07:25
Speaker 2: through the list of like who could it be, it
1:07:27
Speaker 2: is shocking to me how many It's basically like almost
1:07:31
Speaker 2: any of them with you know, except for like Rocanna
1:07:35
Speaker 2: and AOC that would be potential suspects for getting involved
1:07:39
Speaker 2: to spike the anti apack resolution at the DNC.
1:07:42
Speaker 7: So so this figure seems to be coming from Track
1:07:45
Speaker 7: a Pack.
1:07:46
Speaker 6: And I've been going back and forth a bunch with
1:07:48
Speaker 6: track APAC about their methodology because now that they're becoming,
1:07:52
Speaker 6: you know, a significant part of the conversation, I've been
1:07:55
Speaker 6: telling them, like, you need to tighten up and be
1:07:58
Speaker 6: clear about what you're what you're saying here, and they
1:08:01
Speaker 6: actually they're telling me that they're actually they're doing that,
1:08:03
Speaker 6: They're they're working on that. And so they delineated some
1:08:06
Speaker 6: of the money here, So she's twenty one, twenty two,
1:08:09
Speaker 6: fourteen thousand. Now California Jewish Democrats. This they got dunked
1:08:13
Speaker 6: on because it's like, this is her exact point and
1:08:16
Speaker 6: two hundred and fifty dollars Is that a typo? But
1:08:19
Speaker 6: California Jewish Democrats, Isn't this her point that you're flagging
1:08:23
Speaker 6: Jewish Democrats and calling them apacs out?
1:08:25
Speaker 7: No, this organization used to used to.
1:08:28
Speaker 6: Be called something like California Jewish Democrats for a pack
1:08:31
Speaker 6: and or for Israel and dropped just dropped the name.
1:08:35
Speaker 6: But they should be clear about this knowing that they're
1:08:37
Speaker 6: under fire here DMFI four k Joint action committees. So
1:08:43
Speaker 6: J Street two hundred and eighty thousand pro Israel America
1:08:47
Speaker 6: is kind of to the right of a pack and
1:08:48
Speaker 6: knack pack. I think they're kind of a little bit
1:08:50
Speaker 6: more to the right of a pack. But that's only
1:08:53
Speaker 6: a few hundred thousand here to get to the four million.
1:08:57
Speaker 6: You need this one down here. Lobby donors four million,
1:09:01
Speaker 6: So that's a key question. What do they mean by
1:09:03
Speaker 6: lobby donors. My understanding is they mean people who have
1:09:06
Speaker 6: donated to J Street or APAC, which will include a
1:09:12
Speaker 6: lot of evangelical Christians, but can also slot into Slotkin's argument. So, like,
1:09:20
Speaker 6: is it if it's true that you're saying anybody who
1:09:23
Speaker 6: donated to j Street at any point is then forever
1:09:27
Speaker 6: going to be considered Israel lobby, Like you got to
1:09:30
Speaker 6: be clear about that and let people decide whether or
1:09:32
Speaker 6: not they want to factor that in.
1:09:35
Speaker 7: That's that's that's my view.
1:09:37
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, in fairness though, I mean, Ryan, you can
1:09:40
Speaker 2: you can tell me if I'm wrong about this. But
1:09:42
Speaker 2: one of the strategies that APAC has been using since
1:09:44
Speaker 2: they recognize they're so toxic now in democratic primary races
1:09:48
Speaker 2: in particular, is rather than having people donate through APAC,
1:09:51
Speaker 2: they have people donate separately individually who are known APAC donors. So,
1:09:56
Speaker 2: I mean, it is a tricky It is tricky how
1:09:58
Speaker 2: to characterize that, how to get the right group here
1:10:02
Speaker 2: identified and there.
1:10:03
Speaker 6: So there's a and there's a super pack that has
1:10:07
Speaker 6: been getting in to kind of fight against a pack.
1:10:10
Speaker 6: And what what they've been trying to do is develop
1:10:12
Speaker 6: this algorithm to to try to find those donors. And
1:10:16
Speaker 6: because some some somebody might just give to Jay Street
1:10:19
Speaker 6: and not be part of like a big kind of
1:10:22
Speaker 6: a pack conspiracy. But you're right, a PAC does do that,
1:10:26
Speaker 6: and so what they've been trying to do is say, okay,
1:10:29
Speaker 6: if on the same day and and because of like
1:10:32
Speaker 6: basically AI and Claude and others like, it's it's easier
1:10:35
Speaker 6: to start figuring this stuff out. Okay, on the if
1:10:37
Speaker 6: if you in the same cycle gave to like Steve Scalise,
1:10:44
Speaker 6: Alyssa Slock you.
1:10:45
Speaker 7: Know you know, or like.
1:10:47
Speaker 6: You know, Haley Stevens or like any like these these
1:10:50
Speaker 6: like clear people that like a PACK is directing money
1:10:53
Speaker 6: to it isn't actually slot him. But let's so let's
1:10:55
Speaker 6: say he gave to Haley Stevens some other a PAC
1:10:58
Speaker 6: candidate and then also Scalise like and all of your
1:11:01
Speaker 6: donations are like all of these top APAC people. It's like, okay,
1:11:05
Speaker 6: we're tagging you as somebody who is clearly like part
1:11:09
Speaker 6: of this network.
1:11:10
Speaker 7: Because you're right, APAC does this.
1:11:11
Speaker 6: They have these private links where they will send out
1:11:15
Speaker 6: an email to like thousands of people saying here's a
1:11:17
Speaker 6: private link. We're not endorsing this person publicly, but we
1:11:21
Speaker 6: suggest that you do so that you give them the
1:11:24
Speaker 6: max donation and for transparency, you want the public to
1:11:29
Speaker 6: know that this that they're trying to evade public disclosure.
1:11:35
Speaker 6: So you so you now track a pack is like
1:11:39
Speaker 6: two people or three people or something.
1:11:41
Speaker 7: They don't have.
1:11:41
Speaker 6: They don't have that put together yet, and I think
1:11:44
Speaker 6: they can get there, but until they do, it's going
1:11:47
Speaker 6: to be it's it's going to leave some kind of
1:11:49
Speaker 6: gray area, which then is going to allow slot Can
1:11:53
Speaker 6: to be like, oh, you're just saying that I'm getting
1:11:55
Speaker 6: money from Jews, right.
1:11:56
Speaker 2: But you know, for her to say, like if she
1:11:59
Speaker 2: was talking to the track APAC people and she had
1:12:02
Speaker 2: that response and disagreeing with them on their methodology, it's
1:12:05
Speaker 2: one thing you have multi there were I think three
1:12:08
Speaker 2: different constituents here that asked her similar questions and to
1:12:13
Speaker 2: take them in the most bad faith and assuming that
1:12:16
Speaker 2: they are intentionally lumping in every Jewish person who's ever
1:12:20
Speaker 2: donated to her and making this blanket statement, I mean,
1:12:24
Speaker 2: not only is it, it's so it's really really gross
1:12:28
Speaker 2: to throw around claims of bigotry that are unfounded. That
1:12:33
Speaker 2: is a very aggressive thing to do. And so you're
1:12:37
Speaker 2: insinuating that you know, these people who want to know
1:12:40
Speaker 2: about where you stand and why you stand. There to
1:12:43
Speaker 2: immediately hurll that accusation is just really gross. And also,
1:12:47
Speaker 2: you know, for her from a political standpoint, I think
1:12:50
Speaker 2: it's a very bad look because she just comes off
1:12:53
Speaker 2: super defensive and super fragile about again a question that
1:12:58
Speaker 2: she has to have anticipated receiving, because she's a smart person.
1:13:02
Speaker 2: She's you know, I definitely came you know, away from
1:13:05
Speaker 2: that with from Mike exchange with her. She's a very
1:13:07
Speaker 2: intelligent person and she knows where the polls are, she
1:13:11
Speaker 2: knows what kind of question she's going to get, and
1:13:13
Speaker 2: this is the best that you can come up with.
1:13:16
Speaker 2: You know, it's not I don't think politically it looks
1:13:19
Speaker 2: very good.
1:13:19
Speaker 9: For her.
1:13:21
Speaker 7: Real quickly, Yeah, I totally agree with that.
1:13:23
Speaker 6: And in track APAX defense, it is one hundred percent
1:13:26
Speaker 6: true that APAC tries very hard to hide its involvement
1:13:32
Speaker 6: in supporting these candidates, Like that is a fact, and
1:13:35
Speaker 6: so that if you want to expose their involvement, then
1:13:39
Speaker 6: you have to go figuring out how they're moving their
1:13:42
Speaker 6: money through and if they make if they make one
1:13:46
Speaker 6: mistake on that, you can't say, oh, the entire thing
1:13:49
Speaker 6: is you know, bigoted and can be dismissed. It's like
1:13:53
Speaker 6: APAC APAK has set up this trap by being so
1:13:57
Speaker 6: secretive about its money. If APAC would just do what
1:14:00
Speaker 6: every other lobby does and say, we support this person
1:14:04
Speaker 6: because they support our values and we're proud to endorse them.
1:14:08
Speaker 6: If they would just do that, we wouldn't need any
1:14:11
Speaker 6: of this. Well, they do it after theate with and
1:14:14
Speaker 6: actually this.
1:14:15
Speaker 7: Has been a decent place to talk about the polling
1:14:17
Speaker 7: if you want to.
1:14:18
Speaker 5: Well, if you do, I just want to make a
1:14:20
Speaker 5: quick point. There's gonna be interesting in this that she's
1:14:24
Speaker 5: trying to be this third way type candidate on culture
1:14:28
Speaker 5: war issues where she's trying to kind of reject the
1:14:31
Speaker 5: peak woke Democratic Party.
1:14:34
Speaker 4: It's trying to be normal.
1:14:35
Speaker 5: Yeah. Right, But what's so interesting about that is one
1:14:38
Speaker 5: of the big lessons, and like we talked about this
1:14:41
Speaker 5: during that time period, one of the big lessons is
1:14:43
Speaker 5: that it's very alienating and defensive when you use lump
1:14:48
Speaker 5: definition inflation terms of bigotry and assume that somebody who
1:14:53
Speaker 5: disagrees with you on a policy question is necessarily categorically
1:14:58
Speaker 5: a bigot. That was a huge problem for Democrats during
1:15:02
Speaker 5: the like twenty twenty era. It did alienate a lot
1:15:06
Speaker 5: of voters like there's polling on that's that was a
1:15:08
Speaker 5: real thing. And now to see her try to be
1:15:11
Speaker 5: someone who rejects that framework of the binary you're either
1:15:15
Speaker 5: with us or you're a bigot. She's doing it to
1:15:19
Speaker 5: her own voters once again because they don't agree with
1:15:22
Speaker 5: her on a policy question.
1:15:24
Speaker 2: Well, and the Hassan thing fits in that with that too,
1:15:26
Speaker 2: because she would have been one of the I don't
1:15:27
Speaker 2: know if she specifically said this, but she would be
1:15:29
Speaker 2: the type to be the accomplis should have gone on
1:15:30
Speaker 2: a rogue and we need to meet people where they're
1:15:32
Speaker 2: at blah blah blah. And then it's like, Okay, Hassan
1:15:34
Speaker 2: Piker absolutely not.
1:15:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well she said she said on Bill Maher
1:15:38
Speaker 3: we need to be alpha again, we need male alpha
1:15:42
Speaker 3: energy again, but not Hassan.
1:15:44
Speaker 9: Yeah.
1:15:44
Speaker 10: Well, two quick things I'll add on that before we
1:15:46
Speaker 10: get to the polling. Number One, it's incredible to hear
1:15:49
Speaker 10: from somebody like Alyssa Slodkin this, you know, attacking the
1:15:53
Speaker 10: conflation of the Jewish people with the state of Israel,
1:15:56
Speaker 10: when the biggest perpetrator of that conflation has been the
1:16:00
Speaker 10: Israeli government and the US government by extension of some
1:16:03
Speaker 10: of the most hardcore pro Israel politicians in this country
1:16:06
Speaker 10: constantly conflating the actions of the Israeli government with the
1:16:09
Speaker 10: Jewish people as in its entirety. So, you know, I
1:16:13
Speaker 10: think there has been some element of an increase in
1:16:14
Speaker 10: anti Semitism because of this intentional effort to confuse people
1:16:18
Speaker 10: as to that. And ironically, it's the left. It is
1:16:21
Speaker 10: the most hardcore pro Palestine people, the most hardcore Israel critics,
1:16:25
Speaker 10: who are constantly making an explicit effort to draw that
1:16:29
Speaker 10: distinction and say, no, no, no, we're not talking about
1:16:31
Speaker 10: Jewish people as a whole. We're talking about the Israeli government.
1:16:35
Speaker 10: So I found that to be incredible there. And then
1:16:38
Speaker 10: point number two that I think it's important for us
1:16:40
Speaker 10: to keep in mind is like the Israel lobby stuff
1:16:43
Speaker 10: is an important lit mis test because I think people
1:16:46
Speaker 10: just get the feeling that if you're willing to openly
1:16:49
Speaker 10: take this money, you're kind of just admitting this baseline
1:16:52
Speaker 10: level of corruption that you're going to be engaging in
1:16:55
Speaker 10: as an elected representative. But the more important thing to me,
1:16:58
Speaker 10: at least is the policy. It's are you going to
1:17:01
Speaker 10: cut off weaponshipments to Israel? Are you willing to sanction Israel.
1:17:04
Speaker 10: What how do you view the US Israeli relationship moving forward,
1:17:08
Speaker 10: Because you may have some pro Israel Democrats who say, oh,
1:17:11
Speaker 10: I'm not taking a PAC money or I'm not taking
1:17:13
Speaker 10: any sort of pro Israel money, and then their position
1:17:15
Speaker 10: on Israel is still horrendous from any you know, left
1:17:18
Speaker 10: wing perspectives. So we got to like be specific about
1:17:21
Speaker 10: exactly what they're actually running on. So Ryan, we've got
1:17:26
Speaker 10: your poll in here, I'm going to pull up and
1:17:28
Speaker 10: gri Griffin, let me let me actually pull it up
1:17:29
Speaker 10: because I have a sepal one that has the cross
1:17:31
Speaker 10: tabs with ages that I think you'll like. So so
1:17:35
Speaker 10: to Max's point, we actually so we we actually pulled
1:17:38
Speaker 10: this this specific question. So we Zteo and Dropsite went
1:17:45
Speaker 10: out into the field in Michigan with with a poll
1:17:51
Speaker 10: and we did the top lines.
1:17:53
Speaker 7: I think it was we'll look at it. We can
1:17:54
Speaker 7: look at it exactly, but I think it was.
1:17:57
Speaker 6: Twenty two twenty two twenty one at that, you know,
1:18:00
Speaker 6: between the three candidates and with El sayahed like one
1:18:03
Speaker 6: point behind the other two, or it was twenty three
1:18:06
Speaker 6: twenty three, twenty two. Either way, it's like a dead heat.
1:18:10
Speaker 6: But to what we asked some interesting questions, as we do.
1:18:13
Speaker 6: We asked about Hassan Piker. But hold that for one second.
1:18:19
Speaker 6: So to max point. I asked this question because I
1:18:22
Speaker 6: wanted to get I wanted to see where this is
1:18:24
Speaker 6: Democratic primary voters in Michigan, and I wanted to test
1:18:28
Speaker 6: max proposition here. So we said, so, do you agree
1:18:32
Speaker 6: or disagree with the following statement? If a candidate is
1:18:35
Speaker 6: not willing to stand up to APAC, I am less
1:18:37
Speaker 6: likely to trust them to stand up for Michigan ers
1:18:40
Speaker 6: on other issues and across the board.
1:18:44
Speaker 7: So if you look down here to agree at.
1:18:45
Speaker 6: The bottom across the board, the minimum is kind of
1:18:50
Speaker 6: plus forty and that's moderates. So moderate Democrats vote likely
1:18:56
Speaker 6: voters in the in the primary by a fifty five
1:19:00
Speaker 6: to fifteen margin, with the rest saying they don't know
1:19:05
Speaker 6: say that yes, it is a proxy to them for
1:19:10
Speaker 6: whether they will stand up for other things. Obviously under
1:19:14
Speaker 6: forty five people under forty five, it's plus fifty four.
1:19:18
Speaker 6: Overall the top line plus forty nine, So sixty two
1:19:23
Speaker 6: percent of Democratic primary voters in Michigan say that how
1:19:28
Speaker 6: you stand up when it comes to APAC determines for
1:19:33
Speaker 6: them whether or not you're going to fight for them
1:19:34
Speaker 6: on other issues.
1:19:36
Speaker 2: And this is she's the most interesting sorry real quick.
1:19:39
Speaker 2: The most interesting thing though from that crosstab to me, though,
1:19:42
Speaker 2: Ryan is where you have you ask people, Okay, you know,
1:19:44
Speaker 2: if it's the elsiaed voter, how do they feel about
1:19:47
Speaker 2: it Versus McMorrow versus Stevens, And I think people mostly know,
1:19:50
Speaker 2: but Elsaia it is the like Bernie Left candidate. Moorrow
1:19:53
Speaker 2: you can kind of think of like Elizabeth Warren. She's
1:19:56
Speaker 2: trying to be the Goldilocks candidate, and then Stevens is
1:19:58
Speaker 2: like the Chuck Schumer picked candidate. And you know mcmarrow
1:20:03
Speaker 2: has been trying to again find this middle ground on
1:20:07
Speaker 2: Israel and use language that signals she's with the base
1:20:10
Speaker 2: but not totally go in there. And she has thrown
1:20:13
Speaker 2: in on the side of Hassan Piker is a line
1:20:16
Speaker 2: too far, and kind of affiliated herself more with the
1:20:20
Speaker 2: Stevens Schumer side of the equation. And so if you
1:20:23
Speaker 2: look at these numbers here, you see for the alsaiaed
1:20:26
Speaker 2: voters ninety one. Well it's plus ninety one for yeah, no,
1:20:31
Speaker 2: if you are not going to stand up to APAG
1:20:33
Speaker 2: like I want nothing to do with you, and McMorrow
1:20:35
Speaker 2: and Stevens interestingly are at the same level of only
1:20:38
Speaker 2: plus thirty three. So you can see that already mcmarrow
1:20:42
Speaker 2: is being more associated by the electorate with the you know,
1:20:46
Speaker 2: more pro Israel promar pro Zionist side, even though she's
1:20:50
Speaker 2: tried to kind of split the difference here. That's very
1:20:52
Speaker 2: interesting to see.
1:20:53
Speaker 7: Yeah.
1:20:53
Speaker 10: Well, one other thing I was just going to add
1:20:55
Speaker 10: on to that is I think it's you know, incredible
1:20:58
Speaker 10: that people like you know, Slot can frame themselves as
1:21:02
Speaker 10: the moderates on this question when according to their own
1:21:05
Speaker 10: base of voters, they're actually the extremists on this question.
1:21:09
Speaker 7: They're in the minority when it comes to this.
1:21:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, ay, the fringe absolutely.
1:21:15
Speaker 7: So here's a related question.
1:21:19
Speaker 6: The lower actions that a candidate could take for each
1:21:22
Speaker 6: police say, if the act would make you more or
1:21:24
Speaker 6: less likely to support the candidate receives political donations from
1:21:29
Speaker 6: APAC and other pro Israel groups. So you can just
1:21:32
Speaker 6: see the blood bath at the bottom there with the
1:21:37
Speaker 6: more more likely negative means they're less you know, you see.
1:21:44
Speaker 6: So it's it's weird like the way it phrases, but
1:21:47
Speaker 6: the negative means they don't they don't like this. So
1:21:50
Speaker 6: if you yeah, if you look at Stevens, people are
1:21:53
Speaker 6: twenty six percent less likely to support or forty nine
1:21:58
Speaker 6: percent less like twenty six percent forty nine to twenty three.
1:22:01
Speaker 7: You guys see it.
1:22:02
Speaker 6: People are less likely to support Steven's Steven's voters by
1:22:06
Speaker 6: forty nine to twenty three if she takes a PAC money.
1:22:10
Speaker 6: So that's Steven's own voters. For mc morro, it's sixty
1:22:14
Speaker 6: five to eight. So if mc morro starts to be
1:22:17
Speaker 6: seen as the candidate who is taking a PAC money
1:22:23
Speaker 6: or is supported by or a pack aligned, yeah, then
1:22:26
Speaker 6: now for SIAT is eighty six to one.
1:22:28
Speaker 2: I like imagine being I know exactly imagining the person
1:22:31
Speaker 2: who's like, I love a pack and I'm voting for
1:22:34
Speaker 2: Abdula science.
1:22:35
Speaker 7: That person is not paying attention to the poll and
1:22:38
Speaker 7: it's just like just going through it.
1:22:41
Speaker 6: Do you want let's without the Hassan we got we
1:22:44
Speaker 6: got some Hassan questions here, the like most people don't
1:22:49
Speaker 6: know who Hassan is.
1:22:50
Speaker 7: Like, that's that's the that's the takeaway from this.
1:22:54
Speaker 6: Now when it comes to people under forty five years old,
1:23:00
Speaker 6: you've got.
1:23:03
Speaker 7: Only eighteen.
1:23:04
Speaker 6: Uh, here we go under forty five new new or
1:23:09
Speaker 6: we're like most familiar with him obviously, so the question
1:23:15
Speaker 6: you know they should have should he do the event
1:23:17
Speaker 6: with Hassan Piker?
1:23:19
Speaker 7: Plus ten is what it comes out to prove. Thirty
1:23:23
Speaker 7: percent disapprove. The rest don't know.
1:23:27
Speaker 6: But when it comes to people under forty five, it's
1:23:30
Speaker 6: a it's plus eighteen.
1:23:32
Speaker 9: Uh.
1:23:32
Speaker 6: The only people who really don't like it are Stevens voters,
1:23:37
Speaker 6: So he disapproved by twenty seven points.
1:23:40
Speaker 7: Moderates basically fifty fifty moderate destiny viewers.
1:23:44
Speaker 6: Moderates are are eleven points underwater McMorrow, interestingly, who kicked
1:23:50
Speaker 6: this off her people approve of it by a plus
1:23:53
Speaker 6: three margin.
1:23:55
Speaker 7: Inter you guys will like this, and well, we ask people.
1:23:59
Speaker 6: Where they get their news, and actually people are still
1:24:03
Speaker 6: pretty heavily getting their news. Who are primary voters like
1:24:06
Speaker 6: from like CNN and doesn't now, but look at look
1:24:12
Speaker 6: at breaking points to tao drops that we said, we
1:24:15
Speaker 6: asked them about independent news outlets like the Teo Drop
1:24:17
Speaker 6: site news and breaking points for people under forty five.
1:24:22
Speaker 7: Whereas that twenty four percent.
1:24:24
Speaker 2: So that's pretty good, that's pretty good.
1:24:27
Speaker 7: It's creeping up.
1:24:27
Speaker 6: So thirteen percent overall of Democratic primary voters answered yes
1:24:33
Speaker 6: to independent news.
1:24:34
Speaker 2: Now, and it's third of ELSAIAED voters.
1:24:38
Speaker 6: Yeah, which makes sense. And three percent of Steven's voters
1:24:41
Speaker 6: are watching this show. Wow, y hey, ladies sitting there sleeving.
1:24:50
Speaker 6: But now, if you add in YouTube, YouTube is twenty
1:24:53
Speaker 6: seven percent interestingly tied with Facebook and podcasts twenty two percent,
1:24:58
Speaker 6: Instagram nineteen blue Sky not doing so great down here
1:25:02
Speaker 6: at seven.
1:25:05
Speaker 7: And did you find that?
1:25:07
Speaker 2: Did you find ELSAIAED voters tended to be the youngest
1:25:10
Speaker 2: of the you know, the three candidates. Let's see that
1:25:13
Speaker 2: would also correlate with the you know, more independent media watchers.
1:25:18
Speaker 6: Yeah, let's see. Okay, abdila al sayad so favorable or unfavorable?
1:25:25
Speaker 6: So under forty five plus forty one, so certainly his
1:25:30
Speaker 6: highest favorability rating is among those. Stevens is just plus
1:25:35
Speaker 6: four with people under forty five. See how mcmorro's doing,
1:25:41
Speaker 6: Memoris plus two with people under forty five. Oh, here's
1:25:44
Speaker 6: a son, here's a son. Piker haven't heard enough to say, Okay, yeah,
1:25:49
Speaker 6: here's the number. So for people under forty five, fifty
1:25:53
Speaker 6: eight percent don't really have an opinion on Piker uh,
1:25:57
Speaker 6: so forty two percent due which is the highest number
1:26:00
Speaker 6: or overall eighty percent of primary voters are just like
1:26:05
Speaker 6: I don't know, Like, so with all this focus on this,
1:26:08
Speaker 6: most people are basically like, I don't even know who
1:26:10
Speaker 6: you're talking about?
1:26:11
Speaker 4: Right right?
1:26:11
Speaker 6: Yes, even Google SAD voters. Fifty four percent of l
1:26:15
Speaker 6: side voters are like, what are you talking about now?
1:26:18
Speaker 10: So I think we can pull out of this, Ryan.
1:26:20
Speaker 10: But one final question that I had I noticed on
1:26:23
Speaker 10: the far right with the initial undecideds on most of
1:26:26
Speaker 10: these questions, it seems like it's like very aggressively splitting
1:26:30
Speaker 10: in the I don't want to vote for somebody who
1:26:32
Speaker 10: takes Israel lobby money. You know, with the election being
1:26:35
Speaker 10: as close as as it is, where do you think
1:26:37
Speaker 10: it's going to go into the future. Do you think
1:26:38
Speaker 10: that'll have a major impact or it's one side thing
1:26:41
Speaker 10: or before I pull last thing. So yeah, it's twenty
1:26:43
Speaker 10: two to twenty two. So Stevens twenty three, mcmorro twenty two,
1:26:48
Speaker 10: el Side twenty two is what our polling is showing.
1:26:51
Speaker 10: But this is really interesting, and don't tell Schumer this,
1:26:55
Speaker 10: but this is why Schumer is now signaling that he
1:26:57
Speaker 10: wants Stevens to drop out. That's how I'm perceiving the
1:27:00
Speaker 10: signals coming out of DC. Who's your second choice?
1:27:04
Speaker 6: McMorrow is the second choice of thirty eight percent of people,
1:27:08
Speaker 6: whereas Elside is only the second choice thirteen percent and
1:27:13
Speaker 6: Stevens is twenty two And so head to head against
1:27:18
Speaker 6: el Side and McMorrow, mcmorro' is up eight points over
1:27:21
Speaker 6: el Siad And so you started to see Schumer. And
1:27:25
Speaker 6: Schumer's so unpopular that he can't even say this publicly,
1:27:29
Speaker 6: but there's been there's been like reporting that Schumer is
1:27:32
Speaker 6: okay with mcmorro now recognizing that Stephen The only way
1:27:37
Speaker 6: Elsiat can win is if Steven stays in.
1:27:40
Speaker 7: That's Schumer's view.
1:27:42
Speaker 2: That's probably why McMorrow has decided to take this stance
1:27:45
Speaker 2: on Hasan Piker et cetera, et cetera right to make
1:27:47
Speaker 2: herself palatable to the Chuck Schumer's of the world, So
1:27:51
Speaker 2: you know sort of.
1:27:52
Speaker 7: See her path like she has to knock Steven Stephens out.
1:27:56
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, let's let's see a clip from this.
1:27:59
Speaker 3: In FA miss Abdullah El Sayed and Hassan Piker town
1:28:04
Speaker 3: hall meet up where one Free press enterprising journalist known
1:28:08
Speaker 3: as Olivia Reinold asked Abdul a question.
1:28:12
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen.
1:28:14
Speaker 5: We're gonna take you two more questions. We're I'm sorry,
1:28:16
Speaker 5: We're gonna have to move on to the person. I'm sorry,
1:28:19
Speaker 5: Olivia as the Jewish Olivia.
1:28:21
Speaker 4: So I'd love to take the question.
1:28:22
Speaker 2: I'd love to take a question.
1:28:23
Speaker 10: Actually you what do you mean by your say?
1:28:27
Speaker 13: I feel if you can to find the question, I'm
1:28:28
Speaker 13: not going to answer your question.
1:28:31
Speaker 5: We're gonna move on to the expert.
1:28:32
Speaker 4: All right.
1:28:33
Speaker 3: So that was the video that went around the world. Uh,
1:28:37
Speaker 3: and then Olivia Olivia video Yes. But then Olivia went
1:28:45
Speaker 3: on to UH do a write up of her experience there,
1:28:51
Speaker 3: she says Abdullah al Sayed, who is Muslim, walks a
1:28:54
Speaker 3: fine line on the Jewish state. On Tuesday night, he
1:28:57
Speaker 3: told the crowd, as he does often, that his problem
1:28:59
Speaker 3: is not with Jews. So then later that night, in
1:29:03
Speaker 3: a makeshift spin room, assettled by the campaign, he rebuffed
1:29:06
Speaker 3: my question whether he believes in Israel's right to exist
1:29:08
Speaker 3: as a Jewish state. What do you mean by a
1:29:10
Speaker 3: Jewish state? He retorted, narrowing his eyes. If you can't
1:29:15
Speaker 3: answer that question, I'm not going to answer it. For
1:29:18
Speaker 3: someone who often waves around his respect for Judaism, he
1:29:21
Speaker 3: seemed unaware of something elementary. Judaism is not only a religion,
1:29:25
Speaker 3: but a people with a long standing connection to Israel
1:29:28
Speaker 3: that runs through its prayers, traditions, and histories.
1:29:32
Speaker 4: Which some people said was not the quote.
1:29:35
Speaker 2: Well, okay, so just all it's not the quote.
1:29:38
Speaker 7: That's not what he said.
1:29:40
Speaker 2: I do think they ultimately under pressure corrected it to
1:29:42
Speaker 2: at least say the correct quote. But there were many
1:29:47
Speaker 2: zumans of Abdul's eyes at that moment.
1:29:50
Speaker 5: And where he narrowed them.
1:29:52
Speaker 2: Did not Mostly I think he may have blinked, but
1:29:56
Speaker 2: we don't typically call it narrowing of the eyes. But anyway,
1:29:58
Speaker 2: narrowing of the eyes stayed in. And I mean, can
1:30:01
Speaker 2: you imagine if someone wrote an article about Olivia rein
1:30:06
Speaker 2: Gold or we started this segment Olivia rhin Gold, who
1:30:10
Speaker 2: is a Jew blah.
1:30:15
Speaker 7: October, Yes, did she actually convert? Or like what's going on?
1:30:19
Speaker 4: She's working on it. There's a lot of paperwork.
1:30:22
Speaker 2: You get my point? When the paper works in like
1:30:25
Speaker 2: so we can properly characterize your religions, and that's apparently
1:30:28
Speaker 2: an important part.
1:30:30
Speaker 7: She's understanding that her dad was Jewish and a mom isn't,
1:30:34
Speaker 7: so she's not Jewish, like that's her.
1:30:36
Speaker 2: Well, I mean some reform congregations would say she is whatever. Anyway, Yes,
1:30:42
Speaker 2: I believe she sees herself as Jewish, and I would
1:30:44
Speaker 2: like to honor that. But can you imagine the freak
1:30:47
Speaker 2: out if she started the segment by saying, you know,
1:30:49
Speaker 2: Olivia rein Gold, a Jew did ex ra y or Z.
1:30:53
Speaker 2: It's very obviously racist. It's also weird. Imagine if someone
1:30:56
Speaker 2: talked about me and was like Crystal Ball, who is agnostic,
1:31:00
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera, Like why do I do why
1:31:02
Speaker 2: do we mean?
1:31:03
Speaker 7: Sell that a woman?
1:31:05
Speaker 2: I mean, it's very obvious what she's doing here. She
1:31:07
Speaker 2: wants to make him sound sinister. She wants to make
1:31:09
Speaker 2: him sound anti Semitic, even though he did nothing wrong
1:31:12
Speaker 2: and in fact that question. Then he asked her, that's
1:31:14
Speaker 2: a great question, what do you mean by a Jewish state?
1:31:17
Speaker 2: And she fumbles around before he says, okay, Well, if
1:31:20
Speaker 2: you can't define it, then I'm not going to answer
1:31:22
Speaker 2: the question. It's giving very much. Tucker, when he was
1:31:27
Speaker 2: interviewed by I think the lady at the economist, and
1:31:30
Speaker 2: she said, do you know, do you believe Israel has
1:31:32
Speaker 2: a right to exist? And he said, well, what do
1:31:34
Speaker 2: you mean by that? And she couldn't answer the question
1:31:37
Speaker 2: of what she meant by that. And the problem for
1:31:39
Speaker 2: someone like Olivia answering that question is that if you
1:31:44
Speaker 2: answer it honestly, what you're laying out as an ethnosupremacist,
1:31:47
Speaker 2: apartheid state and it clashes very obviously with liberal values.
1:31:52
Speaker 2: This is why Zorn's answer of I support Israel as
1:31:55
Speaker 2: a state with equal rights is so brilliant and devastating
1:31:58
Speaker 2: because it showed, like, how can you object to that?
1:32:01
Speaker 2: If you object to that, you're rejecting like the most
1:32:04
Speaker 2: obvious basic principles of liberalism. So that's why it was
1:32:09
Speaker 2: such an intelligent question on his part is that, okay,
1:32:11
Speaker 2: well clarify what do you mean by a Jewish state?
1:32:14
Speaker 2: Because if you just mean a state where you know,
1:32:15
Speaker 2: Jewish people have the same rights as Muslim people or
1:32:18
Speaker 2: anyone else, then sure, fine. But the problem is that's
1:32:21
Speaker 2: not what she means, and she has never explained what
1:32:23
Speaker 2: she actually means by that.
1:32:26
Speaker 5: It's like if we were doing a segment on driving
1:32:31
Speaker 5: and identified Crystal as a woman a woman, no, but
1:32:37
Speaker 5: really like it's just like nobody, yes, yes, but no,
1:32:43
Speaker 5: I agree. I think that her response in the piece
1:32:48
Speaker 5: to what appears to be not even the accurate quote
1:32:52
Speaker 5: is so patronizing and it it's patronizing to the point
1:32:58
Speaker 5: where it's out of touch with the reality that again,
1:33:02
Speaker 5: if you engaged in good faith with Abdua s a Ed,
1:33:05
Speaker 5: you would obviously not think that about him, because he's
1:33:10
Speaker 5: She even says in the piece, he like, what does
1:33:13
Speaker 5: she say hand waves about how he understands Judaism and
1:33:15
Speaker 5: respects Judaism. Obviously he understands all of that. So either
1:33:22
Speaker 5: you're not understanding his position or you're taking a cheap shot.
1:33:29
Speaker 7: Mm hmmm.
1:33:29
Speaker 4: Yeah.
1:33:30
Speaker 10: And Olivia also seems to be sort of like a
1:33:31
Speaker 10: Hassan Piker stalker, which is weird and I think, like
1:33:35
Speaker 10: in a broader sense, like they're making and this goes
1:33:39
Speaker 10: for like Dana Bash on CNN and Jake Tapper and
1:33:41
Speaker 10: all these other people who've been doing relentless segments on
1:33:43
Speaker 10: Hassan recently. It's like, as Griffin pointed out, the Google
1:33:46
Speaker 10: searches for Hassan Piker are skyrocketing. He's probably gaining more
1:33:50
Speaker 10: subs now than he has in a long time. Like
1:33:52
Speaker 10: they're making him to be a king maker when he
1:33:55
Speaker 10: really just like wasn't before. Like maybe some influence with
1:33:58
Speaker 10: you know, some degree of young people around the fringes.
1:34:00
Speaker 10: But I think at the end of the day, for
1:34:03
Speaker 10: a huge bulk of the Democratic Party that is critical
1:34:06
Speaker 10: of Israel, that is, you know, against the Israel lobby
1:34:09
Speaker 10: and whatever else, it's like you're kind of just showing them, Oh, hey, look,
1:34:12
Speaker 10: here's a political commentator over here. Here's a candidate who
1:34:17
Speaker 10: agrees with you on these questions. So they're just going
1:34:20
Speaker 10: to end up like it's going to backfire, and they're
1:34:22
Speaker 10: just gonna end up pushing more and more people, you know,
1:34:24
Speaker 10: towards these spaces they want them to avoid.
1:34:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, and Olivia like if she is desperate to find
1:34:31
Speaker 3: people running for office that are anti Semitic, there's plenty
1:34:35
Speaker 3: of options for her to find those people. One that
1:34:38
Speaker 3: I actually just searched her Twitter for James Fishback running
1:34:42
Speaker 3: in Florida. I did a quick search on Olivia's Twitter
1:34:46
Speaker 3: to see what she said about James Fishback, and I
1:34:50
Speaker 3: was only able to find a few positive replies to
1:34:53
Speaker 3: James Fishback, including this one where she says December thirty one,
1:34:58
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, Ah, thank you you for sharing.
1:35:00
Speaker 4: You're the incredible one.
1:35:03
Speaker 5: That's that's back before James fishbacks his chance, which happened
1:35:09
Speaker 5: in like the last six months.
1:35:11
Speaker 3: Well absolutely nowhere he was an update frasing Barry.
1:35:17
Speaker 2: Before you realized he was being fed goyslop. That's prior
1:35:23
Speaker 2: to that.
1:35:25
Speaker 3: Yes, So anyways, i'd love an update or like a
1:35:28
Speaker 3: follow up on the fishback campaign. If we're rooting out
1:35:32
Speaker 3: anti Semitism in the candidate's running.
1:35:35
Speaker 5: That is almost certainly coming.
1:35:40
Speaker 3: All right, Well, we got a big final segment that
1:35:43
Speaker 3: we have to get to that crossed all of our
1:35:46
Speaker 3: desks late afternoon yesterday. And of course I'm speaking about
1:35:50
Speaker 3: Mulania Trump, who came out to speak about Epstein.
1:35:54
Speaker 4: Why don't we take a listen.
1:35:56
Speaker 14: The lies linking me with the disgraceful Efrey Epstein need
1:36:02
Speaker 14: to end today. The individuals lying about me are devoid
1:36:09
Speaker 14: of ethical standards, humility, and respect. I do not object
1:36:16
Speaker 14: to their ignorance, but rather I reject their mean spirited
1:36:22
Speaker 14: attempts to defame my reputation. I never be in friends
1:36:28
Speaker 14: with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same
1:36:34
Speaker 14: parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in
1:36:40
Speaker 14: social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.
1:36:48
Speaker 14: To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein
1:36:53
Speaker 14: or his accomplice Maxwell. My email replied to Maxwell cannot
1:37:01
Speaker 14: be categorist as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite
1:37:09
Speaker 14: reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than
1:37:15
Speaker 14: a tribal note. I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did
1:37:23
Speaker 14: not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband
1:37:28
Speaker 14: by chance at the New York City party in nineteen
1:37:31
Speaker 14: ninety eight.
1:37:33
Speaker 5: It's the best part.
1:37:34
Speaker 14: This initial accounter with my husband is documented in a
1:37:38
Speaker 14: detail in my book Millennia.
1:37:42
Speaker 5: For which we all have copies of, also referring to
1:37:47
Speaker 5: your husband as Donald Trump like Christal's like. You can
1:37:52
Speaker 5: read about my initial meeting with my husband Kyle Kalinski
1:37:56
Speaker 5: in my.
1:37:57
Speaker 2: Book Crystal Crystal. Yes, I mean it's really the it's
1:38:01
Speaker 2: literally the meme where it's like no, one, absolutely no, Melania.
1:38:06
Speaker 2: I was not friends Whichevery Epstein. I barely knew the guy.
1:38:09
Speaker 2: It's like, yeah, tell me.
1:38:12
Speaker 5: Okay, because they're they're competing theories, and I'm not like
1:38:15
Speaker 5: one hundred percent sure of this, but Trump told ms
1:38:18
Speaker 5: Now that he did not know this was going to happen.
1:38:21
Speaker 5: So a debate whether or not that's true. My theory
1:38:24
Speaker 5: is that Milania Trump spent January and February seething over
1:38:30
Speaker 5: the allegations that she because she is in emails with
1:38:34
Speaker 5: Gilaine Maxwell, she has this what she characterized as a
1:38:38
Speaker 5: reply appears to actually have been an email to Gallaine Maxwell,
1:38:42
Speaker 5: which I have pulled up here, where she says something
1:38:47
Speaker 5: like looking forward to Yeah, here's the email. She says
1:38:51
Speaker 5: something to the extent of like G addresses her as G.
1:38:55
Speaker 5: It's almost certainly Glaine Maxwell. It's a someone based in
1:39:02
Speaker 5: New York named Glaine. Says, nice story about JE and
1:39:06
Speaker 5: NY mag. You look great on the picture. I know
1:39:10
Speaker 5: you are very busy flying all over the world. How
1:39:12
Speaker 5: is Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give
1:39:14
Speaker 5: me a call when you are back in n Why.
1:39:15
Speaker 5: Have a great time, Love Milania, and then Maxwell replies,
1:39:20
Speaker 5: sweet Pee, thanks for your message. Actually plans changed again
1:39:23
Speaker 5: and now I'm on my way back to NY. I
1:39:25
Speaker 5: leave again on Friday. So I still do not think
1:39:26
Speaker 5: I have time to see you. Sadly, I will try
1:39:28
Speaker 5: and call, though. The implication here is that they had
1:39:32
Speaker 5: a close enough relationship where Maxwell's referring to her sweet Pea,
1:39:35
Speaker 5: She's referring to Glaane as g The dates do match
1:39:40
Speaker 5: that New York mag story on Jeffrey Epstein, and they
1:39:44
Speaker 5: are have a relationship where they call each other. So
1:39:47
Speaker 5: that's what was revealed. I think Malania spent January and
1:39:50
Speaker 5: February being upset because her reputation is getting dragged through
1:39:55
Speaker 5: the mud, but reasonably so, given these emails back and
1:39:58
Speaker 5: forth with Maxwell, and then her husband launched a war.
1:40:01
Speaker 5: Before she could launch a response to Epstein. She was told,
1:40:06
Speaker 5: there's no way that you can address this when we're
1:40:08
Speaker 5: at war, but as soon as there's a ceasefire, you can, literally,
1:40:12
Speaker 5: like the next day, she comes out out of nowhere
1:40:15
Speaker 5: and gets it done as quickly as possible in case
1:40:18
Speaker 5: the ceasefire falls apart.
1:40:20
Speaker 2: This is my fieu. It's just so weird because no
1:40:22
Speaker 2: one was thinking about her, that the Epstein coverage was
1:40:25
Speaker 2: successfully buried by the war, and then you just come out.
1:40:28
Speaker 2: I'll show you what the sort of dominant internet theory
1:40:31
Speaker 2: is right now. So this requires a little bit of bagstery,
1:40:34
Speaker 2: of course. Obviously Milania, you know, it's from eastern Europe.
1:40:37
Speaker 2: She was brought to the US. She came as a model,
1:40:40
Speaker 2: and so in this very close Trump friend who's a
1:40:44
Speaker 2: formal modeling agent named Pallo Zampoli, is the guy who
1:40:48
Speaker 2: helped her secure her visa to be able to come
1:40:51
Speaker 2: and stay in the US. Well, this guy is actually
1:40:54
Speaker 2: now in the administration, and he asked Ice to arrest
1:41:01
Speaker 2: his former Brazilian girlfriend, who also was you know, a
1:41:04
Speaker 2: model and potentially also underrated, potentially when she was first
1:41:09
Speaker 2: in this whole network. But anyway, she's the father of
1:41:12
Speaker 2: their teenage son, and he asked Ice to arrest her. Well,
1:41:16
Speaker 2: she is now apparently she's out on Twitter leg I
1:41:19
Speaker 2: will I know everything about Donald and Milania. I'm gonna spill.
1:41:23
Speaker 2: I'm going to ruin everything. I have nothing left to lose.
1:41:26
Speaker 2: And it just came out that she apparently recorded an
1:41:29
Speaker 2: interview with a Spanish language channel that is set to
1:41:33
Speaker 2: air this weekend. So maybe that's what is going on here,
1:41:38
Speaker 2: because she certainly has been going out there and saying
1:41:40
Speaker 2: that she has the goods that she's gonna spill the tea,
1:41:43
Speaker 2: et cetera. Because of course, what people think when they
1:41:45
Speaker 2: see this thing from Milania is like, what is she
1:41:47
Speaker 2: trying to get ahead of here? Because none of us
1:41:49
Speaker 2: were thinking about you or talking about you in this
1:41:51
Speaker 2: way at all, girls, So what is up with this?
1:41:55
Speaker 2: And you know, I mean that's the most obvious explanation,
1:41:57
Speaker 2: is that there's some story or some develop that's about
1:42:01
Speaker 2: to happen that she wanted to get out there in
1:42:03
Speaker 2: front of. I guess everyone agrees.
1:42:11
Speaker 5: It's just like nobody knows because it's out an absolutely
1:42:15
Speaker 5: left field.
1:42:16
Speaker 10: I'm just loving this like circular, like little spiral that
1:42:19
Speaker 10: we're in of like distract from the Epstein files by
1:42:22
Speaker 10: going to war with Iran and then distract from the
1:42:23
Speaker 10: war with Iran with the Epstein files, so we might
1:42:28
Speaker 10: who knows where are we going to go to war next?
1:42:30
Speaker 2: But way back with Iran again, we always get back
1:42:33
Speaker 2: in that one any any second that could happen, that
1:42:35
Speaker 2: could be happening right now as we're speaking.
1:42:37
Speaker 5: So I don't know.
1:42:37
Speaker 2: I mean, it does just remind I guess too of
1:42:41
Speaker 2: what I mean. The Trump administration is just a mess.
1:42:45
Speaker 2: Trump is truly, it's disaster on all fronts because even okay,
1:42:50
Speaker 2: let's say that he agrees to the Iranian surrender conditions.
1:42:54
Speaker 2: I mean, that is a devastating well, he's going to
1:42:56
Speaker 2: have a very hard time selling that as victory to anyone,
1:42:58
Speaker 2: including his own baby, let alone the world. So you've
1:43:01
Speaker 2: got that mess, and then it freeze everybody up, you know,
1:43:04
Speaker 2: Ryan and Code to get back on the the Epstein
1:43:06
Speaker 2: files reporting, which was already an utter disaster for him,
1:43:09
Speaker 2: And we just had numbers that came out this morning,
1:43:11
Speaker 2: a very hot inflation reading, so prices going back up.
1:43:15
Speaker 2: Of course, gas prices are extremely high. The economy is
1:43:18
Speaker 2: very shaky, shaky, the AI bubble seems on the verge
1:43:21
Speaker 2: of collapse, and you know, midterm elections around the corner
1:43:24
Speaker 2: that are likely to deal a devastating blow. So little
1:43:27
Speaker 2: reminder of just how bad the whole landscape is for
1:43:31
Speaker 2: this administration at this point.
1:43:32
Speaker 7: It's a golden age, that's what it really do.
1:43:36
Speaker 3: We want to play that video you sent me, Crystal.
1:43:38
Speaker 3: It's a little long. I'm not really sure that's okay.
1:43:41
Speaker 2: I think it was. It was that guy Pallo, the
1:43:44
Speaker 2: modeling agent, saying that, you know, talking about that relationship
1:43:48
Speaker 2: and saying that he was the one who introduced Milania
1:43:51
Speaker 2: to Trump, because you know, I mean the.
1:43:56
Speaker 5: Malania.
1:43:57
Speaker 2: Well, and here's the other thing is that's right exactly.
1:44:01
Speaker 2: And then the other thing is there's allegations that have
1:44:05
Speaker 2: been made by Michael Wolfe that Milania has threatened to
1:44:08
Speaker 2: sue him over, including that Epstein had had a relationship
1:44:13
Speaker 2: with Milania prior to Trump, and that Trump and Milania.
1:44:18
Speaker 2: This again is his allegations and food over it. So
1:44:22
Speaker 2: I am not saying that this is what happened, but
1:44:24
Speaker 2: he claims that they had sex for the first time
1:44:26
Speaker 2: on his plane and that there was obviously like deep
1:44:29
Speaker 2: entanglement there. And this whole modeling world is so incredibly
1:44:35
Speaker 2: disgusting and was rampantly used for human trafficking, and that's
1:44:39
Speaker 2: that's well documented. And so the you know, the Trump
1:44:43
Speaker 2: and Epstein and John Casablancas and this Pallo guy like
1:44:46
Speaker 2: all in that cesspool of a world is you know,
1:44:51
Speaker 2: is obviously very noteworthy as well.
1:44:53
Speaker 7: Yep.
1:44:54
Speaker 3: Well, on that note, it's been a jam pack show.
1:44:57
Speaker 3: But I will not not do some AMA questions here
1:45:01
Speaker 3: at the end. Let's hit a few right off the
1:45:03
Speaker 3: bat rapid fire here to take us out on this Friday.
1:45:07
Speaker 3: This one is to Emily from nelso oh sorry, this
1:45:11
Speaker 3: is from Emily from sebas One oh one for Emily.
1:45:14
Speaker 3: With the rise of Catholicism and younger generations and the
1:45:16
Speaker 3: growing dissatisfaction with the Iran War, will Zionist evangelicals denominations
1:45:24
Speaker 3: decline in membership and power in politics?
1:45:28
Speaker 5: I mean, I think actually it's sort of the inverse
1:45:31
Speaker 5: in that what would be called dispensationalism, So this idea
1:45:38
Speaker 5: that biblical Israel and the modern nation state of Israel
1:45:43
Speaker 5: are interchangeable, that you have to read that into prophecies
1:45:47
Speaker 5: and scripture. I think that's actually just declining among evangelical
1:45:54
Speaker 5: voters who previously had been attached to that and a
1:45:59
Speaker 5: very particular political Zionism because of it. I think, you know,
1:46:03
Speaker 5: it's just like younger people gen z evangelicals have i think,
1:46:08
Speaker 5: really moved away from it. So it's not so much
1:46:10
Speaker 5: that the denominations are declining. Catholicism is actually continuing to decline.
1:46:16
Speaker 5: They're more younger Catholics. Like, there's obviously something going on,
1:46:18
Speaker 5: but it's declining in the United States. So actually, I
1:46:22
Speaker 5: think what's really happening is it's not so much the
1:46:25
Speaker 5: denomination or it's not so much that the evangelical churches
1:46:29
Speaker 5: are losing members or anything like that, so much as
1:46:32
Speaker 5: it is the members are less likely to be dispensationalists
1:46:36
Speaker 5: the younger they are.
1:46:38
Speaker 4: Gotcha, all right?
1:46:39
Speaker 3: This next one is for Crystal from Jacob rp Two
1:46:43
Speaker 3: seventy three. Crystal, do you think if Israel does deploy
1:46:46
Speaker 3: a nuclear bomb that Trump will have the guts to
1:46:48
Speaker 3: do anything about it? Do you think his need to
1:46:50
Speaker 3: protect himself from getting exposed will outweigh the ethical obligation
1:46:55
Speaker 3: to permanently restrain Israel.
1:46:58
Speaker 2: I don't see any evidence of Trump branding in Israel
1:47:00
Speaker 2: at this point, so not very not very hopeful in
1:47:03
Speaker 2: that regard. I mean, but look, his options, you know,
1:47:07
Speaker 2: whether a nuclear weapon is deployed or not, are all
1:47:10
Speaker 2: impossible for him. So you know, it's hard to see
1:47:12
Speaker 2: him standing up to Israel. It's also hard for to
1:47:15
Speaker 2: see him staying in a war that's destroying the entire
1:47:17
Speaker 2: economy and entire global economy. It's hard to see him
1:47:21
Speaker 2: accepting the Iranian surrender demands. It's just all of these
1:47:24
Speaker 2: things are going to be very painful for him. So
1:47:27
Speaker 2: you know, your guess is as good as mine. Which
1:47:30
Speaker 2: of the extremely painful for Donald Trump options he's going
1:47:33
Speaker 2: to choose at this point?
1:47:34
Speaker 3: All right, This next one is for Ryan, more of
1:47:37
Speaker 3: a statement, but you can still react to it. From
1:47:41
Speaker 3: Nick Strickland, you guys should start a new segment called
1:47:45
Speaker 3: Ryan's Message to the White House, where Ryan directly addresses
1:47:49
Speaker 3: Trump plus his ADMIN and maybe offers advice.
1:47:51
Speaker 4: We will all pretend like it doesn't have an effect.
1:47:56
Speaker 6: Stutt already working. I'm here to starve the country. Yeah,
1:48:03
Speaker 6: very nice, very nice. And I thought this one the
1:48:05
Speaker 6: MAC the final one today. This is from Hamster wheel
1:48:10
Speaker 6: a m A question. Are you aware, either through your
1:48:13
Speaker 6: own analysis or via told top down, when a news
1:48:16
Speaker 6: story seems to be a limited hangout? Could the fine
1:48:20
Speaker 6: BP crew speak to the concept of limited hangout? Do
1:48:24
Speaker 6: all breaking stories go through this process or is it
1:48:27
Speaker 6: just Epstein?
1:48:29
Speaker 5: Usually when I see the byline Natasha.
1:48:30
Speaker 4: Bertrand yeah, Emily, you have takes on this.
1:48:35
Speaker 2: Mac.
1:48:35
Speaker 4: Do you have any do go for it?
1:48:36
Speaker 9: Emily?
1:48:37
Speaker 5: No, no, no, I just often the byline and the sourcing.
1:48:40
Speaker 5: But that's probably what you were going to say, Mac.
1:48:42
Speaker 6: Yeah, mm hmm, all night question. I mean we got
1:48:48
Speaker 6: to tell people what the concept is if they don't know.
1:48:50
Speaker 6: Everyone's at a different stage of their life's journey. Limited
1:48:54
Speaker 6: hangout means you're you have an enormous amount of stuff
1:48:58
Speaker 6: that you're hiding and you put a tiny piece out
1:49:01
Speaker 6: of it to try to kind of settle the issue
1:49:04
Speaker 6: and get people to move on.
1:49:07
Speaker 2: So, like the Epstein file release is kind of the
1:49:09
Speaker 2: definition of a limited hangout, and we know that it
1:49:12
Speaker 2: is because there's some millions more. We don't even know
1:49:15
Speaker 2: how much files that are being hidden, but they're like
1:49:17
Speaker 2: here public files.
1:49:21
Speaker 7: They stop talking about it.
1:49:23
Speaker 2: That is like definitionally limited hangout. And but that's you know,
1:49:27
Speaker 2: a common technique that's used like information you know, operation kind.
1:49:31
Speaker 7: Of and the feature of it is to put people
1:49:34
Speaker 7: in in the wrong direction.
1:49:36
Speaker 6: Well, you put a little bit of it about that
1:49:38
Speaker 6: seems to implicate somebody over here, when actually the real
1:49:42
Speaker 6: thing is over here. So you get some of the information,
1:49:45
Speaker 6: but you get everybody chasing the wrong lazy yeah.
1:49:48
Speaker 2: Or it's like, you know, you take a little bit
1:49:50
Speaker 2: of damage, but to avoid the more you.
1:49:52
Speaker 7: Know, significant something's going on.
1:49:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, So and that gives credibility to the idea
1:49:58
Speaker 2: of people have gotten the truth, and really the thing
1:50:00
Speaker 2: that would be more devastating is still being hit. Right.
1:50:03
Speaker 6: Trump's attempt to be like, yeah, this was actually all
1:50:05
Speaker 6: just Bill Clinton and Democrats is a good example, like
1:50:10
Speaker 6: all right, fine, you got me, I'll give you the
1:50:12
Speaker 6: information on Epstein.
1:50:14
Speaker 3: It was the Democrats. Okay, not to share that, but
1:50:19
Speaker 3: you've forced it out of me, gotcha? All right, Mac,
1:50:22
Speaker 3: Maybe this will be one that you have something more
1:50:24
Speaker 3: to say about. Patrick Mulligan says, hello, everyone. It is
1:50:27
Speaker 3: good to be able to criticize friends and allies in
1:50:30
Speaker 3: that spirit. What is your most serious criticism of Hassan?
1:50:34
Speaker 3: Do you have any Hassan Piker criticisms? I mean, yeah,
1:50:38
Speaker 3: I don't think the word like perfectly in line on everything.
1:50:45
Speaker 3: I don't know, I mean nothing crazy. I feel like
1:50:47
Speaker 3: he can have some cringe takes some times. I feel
1:50:51
Speaker 3: like he gets involved in some of the drama stuff
1:50:54
Speaker 3: and some of the sort of like slop stuff a
1:50:56
Speaker 3: lot more than I would personally.
1:50:59
Speaker 7: But you know, maybe that's more his wheelhouse.
1:51:02
Speaker 10: Like he has a lot of people who find him
1:51:03
Speaker 10: through those kinds of avenues, and he does a lot
1:51:05
Speaker 10: of content outside of just like strict news coverage or
1:51:08
Speaker 10: political commentary or whatever.
1:51:10
Speaker 3: But yeah, yeah, when you stream for eight hours a day,
1:51:13
Speaker 3: you're probably gonna say some things you regret.
1:51:18
Speaker 2: And get into the delve into some drama, and yeah,
1:51:20
Speaker 2: you got a lot of time in that eight hours
1:51:22
Speaker 2: to explore all facets of our universe.
1:51:24
Speaker 3: We get in enough trouble in two hours, so I
1:51:27
Speaker 3: can't imagine eight that's gonna do it for us this Friday.
1:51:30
Speaker 4: Thank you everyone.
1:51:32
Speaker 3: Welcome to the new ring of the Freedom, Freedom Rings,
1:51:35
Speaker 3: Freedom Free Friday Show, Comrade Ryan, Welcome to all.
1:51:40
Speaker 2: The Hailey Stevens voters who absolutely hated watching us. Did
1:51:43
Speaker 2: it anyway?
1:51:45
Speaker 3: We tip our hat to you, and of course, if
1:51:49
Speaker 3: anything major breaking happens over the weekend, we will be
1:51:52
Speaker 3: unlike keeping our eyes wide open for anything that occurs
1:51:57
Speaker 3: over the weekend, and if not, we'll see you on Monday. Goodbye, everybody,