00:00:00
Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
00:00:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
00:00:08
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
00:00:25
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
00:00:33
Speaker 3: Good morning, and welcome to Breaking Points Crystal, thanks for stepping in.
00:00:37
Speaker 4: And Ryan sped today my pleasure.
00:00:40
Speaker 5: We're mixing it up this week.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: Tomorrow I'll be me and Ryan with the Comedy Takeover, so everybody get excited for that.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: I love that we're calling at the Comedy Takeover. It's how I have always identified it in my head.
00:00:49
Speaker 4: But now that's it's official.
00:00:52
Speaker 5: We're just making a public now.
00:00:53
Speaker 4: Yes, I love it all right.
00:00:55
Speaker 3: So if you want to get the whole Gang's Friday Show experience, make sure you're subscribed over at breaking points dot com because that's where you know Soccer Pops and sometimes too. We've got Griffin most Fridays, Crystal, so we're having lots of fun. You get the second half of that show in addition to early, and actually you just get the second half of the show. Nobody else gets to see it unless your premium sits or whatever. So make sure to subscribe over there in addition to getting the show early every single day in your inbox over on breakingpoints dot com.
00:01:26
Speaker 4: Big newsweek, Crystal.
00:01:27
Speaker 3: Obviously, the UN General Assembly is going down and Donald Trump had a hell of a speech yesterday. Trumpion in all of the most predictable ways, and yet still manages at least managed to surprise me.
00:01:41
Speaker 4: I don't know about you, Christal, that was something else.
00:01:45
Speaker 2: I don't know what surprises me anymore, but yeah, it was. You know, there was there was an escalator scandal that we'll get to the bottom of as well. There was a teleprompter scandal that we can dig into. So a lot of moving pieces there. Let's say, wow, we're not moving I thought you did that earlier.
00:02:03
Speaker 3: Also, well, Crystal, maybe you should be writing jokes for Kimmel I think they might be better if you're writing.
00:02:08
Speaker 5: Jokes for Kimmel, writing Dad jokes for Ryan maybe is more.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: Like Ryan doesn't need a writer. They're all right off the dome. It's incredible what he's capable of. Jimmy Kimmel returned to the airwaves last night, although not everyone's airwaves because Sinclair and Next our affiliates are still not running Kimmel. But we have a breakdown of Kimmel's return, what he said, how the President responded, and where we go from here.
00:02:37
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris is on a book tour.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: She's a book called One hundred and seven Days Out and is basically face planting in every media appearance, major media appearance that she does. So we have some interesting updates on that front. Looking like for her, Oh.
00:02:54
Speaker 2: That's just kind of what she does, that's her thing. Doing a terrible job in interviews.
00:02:58
Speaker 3: And I'm excited for this segment and also the second we're going to do on Alexandro Kazu. Kurtz has Crystal to get some of your insights on where democrats are right now. It looks like AOC is teeming up with Kevin Newsom to take on some of the redistricting fights, so that'll be I'm eager to hear what you think of that, Crystal, because there's all kinds of stuff to dive into. Wanda Vive Rojas is joining us to discuss his new compact piece on Argentina, which is getting a US bailout as the market started to dip. We have some updates on the Mela situation and Crystal. Also some updates on from Turning Point USA World on what was going on behind the scenes as.
00:03:46
Speaker 4: It relates to Israel.
00:03:48
Speaker 3: Charlie Kirk in the weeks and months before his death.
00:03:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, very interesting revelations there from one of Charlie's closest friends and executive producer. Obviously, there's been great interest in the pressure that Charlie was under in his final months, especially after NAT and Yahoo came out and tried to claim him as his firmest and strongest constant ally and really used Charlie's legacy and molded for his own aim. So in any case, some interesting revelations there that kind of backs up some reporting from Max Plumenthal over at Gray Zone. So we'll get into all of that. I'm sure people will be quite interested.
00:04:25
Speaker 4: That's right.
00:04:26
Speaker 3: Let's start with the United Nations speech yesterday that Donald Trump gave, and also some updates on Trump and Ukraine. He sat down with Zelenski yesterday and then posted on True Social So we're going to get into all of that. But first, Christal, the way that I understood Donald Trump's spech, the way that I came to frame in my own mind I was as I was digesting it his speech, was that on the one hand, he's making this deep structural criticism of the geopolitical elite of the United Nations. He's doing it as people will hear in just one moment to their faces. And then he's also swinging for the fences and looking for a noble peace prize. So it's an interesting combination of goals. The complaint, let's go ahead and enroll this compilation of some of the big moments from the speech.
00:05:12
Speaker 6: Your countries are being ruined.
00:05:15
Speaker 7: The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders. In twenty twenty four, the UN budgeted three hundred and seventy two million dollars in cash assistance to support and estimated six hundred and twenty four thousand migrants journeying into the United States.
00:05:35
Speaker 6: I'm not mentioning names.
00:05:36
Speaker 7: I see it, and I could call every single one of them. You're destroying your countries. They're being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They've been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody's ever seen before.
00:05:51
Speaker 6: It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. Let see.
00:05:56
Speaker 7: I can tell you I'm really good at this stuff. Your countries going to hell. The American public agrees with it. I mean, I was very proud to see this morning. I have the highest poll numbers I've ever had. Part of it is because of what we've done on the border, I guess. The other part is what we've done in the economy. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated.
00:06:16
Speaker 6: On the world in my opinion.
00:06:18
Speaker 7: Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons.
00:06:32
Speaker 6: We're wrong.
00:06:34
Speaker 7: They were made by stupid people that of course their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.
00:06:46
Speaker 4: So an absolute banger. Has everyone just heard?
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, indeed telling every other country that they're destroying their countries.
00:06:52
Speaker 5: They're going to hell.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: I mean, just think about Trump's record year and what he's done to this country with one of the things we consider covering is you know, have sixty plus percent of Americans saying they're worse off this year than they were previously. Wrong track numbers are off the charts. So just in terms of the well being of Americans in the here and now, Trump's complete disasters, I don't think he's in any condition or in any position to lecture the rest of the world, not to mention the undermining of what, in my opinion, are some of the best things about America, the freedoms we enjoy, the freedom of speech, the sense that you know, the government is going to aspire to be neutral, that there's going to be representative government. And then you also have on the geopolitical space stage, which is very relevant of course at at the UN him effectively aligning the entire world against us and you know, hastening the rise of a multipolar world, which hey may actually end up being better for the world, but maybe not the best for American interests.
00:07:50
Speaker 5: So that's one thing.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: The other thing that is galling to me, Emily is the two major policy themes were around and climate change, which he considers to be a complete total hoax, and then migration. And I think you and I are probably in a different place on migration, but perhaps this part you could agree with, which I don't know if there's any country in the world that is more committed to creating migration crises than the United States of America. I mean, we are currently working with Israel to try to expel all two million Palestinians from Gaza to go somewhere else. We are threatening Venezuela right now with another regime change war. And you know, certainly the list could go on of places where we have created tumult and turmoil, and you know, the conditions for refugee crises, Syria being a key one among them, which is you know, part of what upbended European politics. I wanted to ask you too about the climate change piece. It seems to me that there was a time when Republicans were all in on climate changes a hoax. Then it felt a little bit like we better least acknowledged this is real while throwing up a million roadblocks to not do anything about it. And now we're back with Trump just full on being like, you know, this is a hoax, there's nothing to see here, and you guys are destroying your countries in service of something that's completely fake.
00:09:15
Speaker 3: I don't know if that endures beyond Trump, to be honest. I mean, it's hard to say, but when you look at the kind of next generation of Republican politicians, especially like a JD. Vance who's kind of from tech world, my assumption is that nobody is going to get on the climate change bandwagon, but will probably be a bit more I don't know, maybe nuanced is the word, because they're also tied into the business community, which has some serious, obviously serious concerns in front of them when it comes to different changes obviously that they have.
00:09:52
Speaker 4: To worry about.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: If they're you know, real estate, if they're in different businesses, it matters to them. Also on the mic point, I think that just captures Trump in a nutshell, and for me, it captures my It's a representative of my entire reaction to that speech, which is he's saying some things about the United Nations that are just like right on the money, and it's satisfying as someone on the right to see them being said to the face of the United Nations or he's like.
00:10:22
Speaker 4: At what point, what is the point of the United Nations?
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Or like what is the purpose of the United Nations?
00:10:27
Speaker 4: He's like, what do you what do.
00:10:28
Speaker 3: You guys actually do, which, again, as someone on the right, is fairly satisfying to hear that from a United States president. On the other hand, I'm just a migration issue alone. Agree with your critiques and then also agree with the critique of the United Nations, which is that they were basically complicit in a lot of the trafficking that happened. I remember years ago going through their disbursements just I don't know if it was a tip or something that led me to like going through their disbursements, but it's just an incredible amount of money that spent, you know, for example, making it easier for people to go through the dairyen gap, and it's awful what people experience going through the dairy and gap. And people ended up coming in higher numbers as the UN was stepping in more and more to provide things like debit cards and protective measures and going through some of these parts. So it's with Trump, it's this, and I think a lot of populists have this. It's it's it's funny even on the tariffs too. You look at it and you're like, well, he's at least correct about this critique that nobody else will talk about.
00:11:32
Speaker 4: He's like, nobody else would say what he's saying.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: And then it's all the way it's manifest is just like completely insane. So you get a little satisfaction out of him being like, what are you guys doing? And then on the other hand, it's like, okay, but what are you doing?
00:11:48
Speaker 5: Yeah?
00:11:49
Speaker 2: Well there was one part that was again quite galling to me on the immigration piece, because he made some comment about like, you know, will be compassion, we want to help you in your country, and I'm like, first of all, bullshit, because yeah, you're committed to waging all these regime change wars and you know Iran and Venezuela and like I said, in Gaza, and you know, not to mention his involvement the past involvement of US presidence in Syria and all of those sorts of things. But in addition, you know, it's not like I'm the biggest USAID fan, and as a leftist, I don't have my own critique of USAID. But it is also true that the destruction of that agency has created mass harm, you know, on a basic level in a lot of poor countries, which again can lead to you know, further suffering and more migration crises, if that is your concern. So I don't know, I mean, it's a fool's errand to try to ring any sort of consistency or principle from a Trumpian speech. But it was certainly, you know, it was certainly like unvarnished and insane in many ways. And like I said before, the idea that this man who has done so much much destruction to the best parts of the American project and to the you know, basic like livelihoods of millions of Americans who feel themselves slipping behind. See the you know, the jobless, the job numbers falling off, inflation coming back, the chaos and turmoil of the tariff regime, which you know, if done appropriately, it might have been helpful, but instead we're actually seeing a decline in manufacturing jobs. The idea of this man lecturing the rest of the world is so absurd to me.
00:13:28
Speaker 3: Let's get to this escalator subplot, because it's not entirely unimportant. So we can roll a two on the screen. If you're listening and you haven't seen this clip yet. As soon as Milania Trump and Donald Trump step onto the escalator, it stops. Melania Trump kind of looks around and Donald Trump kind of looks around, and finally they just start walking up the escalator. This led to all kinds of conspiracy theories. Crystal, when an escalator at a you know, major building, president of United States steps on it with timing like that goes off. I actually do kind of understand why people are asking what's going on. We could put a two B up on the screen. It was unfortunately timed with this story from the Sunday Times that said, quote to mark Trump's arrival, you and staff members have joked that they may turn off the escalators and elevators and simply tell him they ran out of money, so he has to walk up the stairs. And then, of course, the escalator actually did stop as the President and first lady walked onto it. Some people were taking this in a more serious direction and saying it could have been part of a nefarious, potential plot to hurt Trump and the First Lady in some way by causing them to stop in their tracks in a predictable way that someone could exploit the obviously, The Sunday Time says that as part of a prank, that or that it may have been part of a prank, that people were joking about whether it was part of a prank.
00:15:03
Speaker 4: Reuters had a report.
00:15:04
Speaker 3: Someone at the UN said it was because the UN spokesperson said it was a built in safety mechanism on the comb step that was triggered at the top of the escalator. They're saying by Trump's videographer who was backing up to capture them going up the escalator. Unfortunate timing that there were leaks about the potential pranks, though Crystal in the Sunday Times.
00:15:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, in the subtext is Trump knows he's so hated by so many people that it's entirely plausible that some intern was like, let me see if there's a way I can just like mildly fuck with this guy, you know, then it And then additionally, during his speech at one portion his teleprompter was not working and he said something about you know, the teleprompter operator is going to be in big trouble again.
00:15:52
Speaker 5: If this is true.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: The reporting is that it actually is like one of his staffers that's running the teleprompter, which would make sense because if it's your guy, and you understand in the speech, you know, the cadence like, you would probably want your person in there. So in any case, I don't know if there were any conspiracies.
00:16:07
Speaker 5: Afoot, but he felt that they were.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: He felt targeted and aggrieved, as he often does.
00:16:11
Speaker 3: One of the best VIEEP episodes, one of the best VIEP plot lines is when this happens to Selena Meyer and Trump handled it arguably even better. It was riffing wildly during that speech yesterday, not surprisingly, but wildly nonetheless, and it gets to Trump's this idea that maybe it was on purpose. It's sort of like Trump's central frustration with the United Nations, which is that the United States has been the single biggest funder of the United Nations for years is still US support is a significant chunk of the UN's total budget. I think it's somewhere between twenty five percent, so a quarter and a third. It's a huge chunk of the budget, and then you have them joking in the Sunday Times but just you know, flipping the switch on the ascal later.
00:16:59
Speaker 2: It illus, well, I think that's a reference to under this Trump administration, they've withheld a significant amount of funds to the tune of like billions of dollars. So that's why that's where the joke comes from, is like, oh, well, we're cash dropped because you guys aren't paying your bills. So maybe we just don't have the money to run the escalator anymore.
00:17:17
Speaker 5: That's the that's the idea there.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: Right, And so Trump sat down also with Zelenski for a conversation and then posted on True Social what seemed to many people to feel like a total one to eighty on Ukraine war policy.
00:17:32
Speaker 4: We can put a four on the screen.
00:17:34
Speaker 3: This is from Donald Trump saying, after getting to know and fully understand, I can't even read this crystalence is so it's just so I don't even know what's what's the right word for it is, it's it's so transparent. Fully understand the Ukraine Russia military and economic situation, and after seeing the economic trouble is causing Russia, I think Ukraine with the support of the European Union is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form, with time, patients and the financial support of Europe and in particular NATO. The original borders from where this war started is very much an option.
00:18:09
Speaker 4: Why not.
00:18:11
Speaker 3: He goes on to say Russia has been finding aimlessly for three and a half years. It talks more about that this caused understandably in immediate sort of chaos in the news cycles. People says it's a US policy on Ukraine completely changing, which, of course you have to read into the President of the United States, his posts and his statements on this. You can't ignore it. Chris, So my immediate reaction was A what the hell? And b that Trump is at the United Nations making this pitch that he's the big peacemaker. He's talking about how he solved all of these conflicts. That was another part of his speech. It was actually a big theme in his speech. And he's surrounded by world leaders that he wants to have the respect is not the right word.
00:18:58
Speaker 4: He wants them to sort of kissed the ring.
00:19:01
Speaker 3: And there he is frustrated that he's not able to get an end to this conflict. And decides to try a new tactic and just be like, yeah, yep, original borders. That's what we're fighting for in Ukraine. Now, everything that we've said up to this point about negotiating, Nope, we're going to stay in it until Zelenski has every inch of the original border, which is like sort of the John Bolton dream. It sounds pretty obviously to me like a transparent negotiating tactic that I.
00:19:30
Speaker 4: Compared it when we were talking yesterday.
00:19:32
Speaker 3: So when like a five year old learns how to do a high down low too slow and you've done it like twenty times with them and they still think yeah, yeah, it's just sort of felt like that.
00:19:47
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: I mean, he's been all over the place with regard to Ukraine and Russia, and you know, I think really believed that he had this special relationship with Vladimir Putin and that he could use his grand negotiating skills to come in and that this would be easy to solve. And it's anything but easy to solve, you know, it's not.
00:20:06
Speaker 5: It's not.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: An uncomplicated situation, especially you know, at this point in the conflict, so where you would have to force Ukraine to take some very significant concessions that would be ugly and that would be frankly, wildly unjust. I mean, that's just that's where we are, and he has, you know, he's not been willing to do that, and so now we're back to like the most sort of hawkish, hardline position.
00:20:33
Speaker 5: And it wasn't just this.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: There was also a joint I don't know if you call it a press conference, but a brief press avail with Stelenski himself, and Trump got asked, okay, well, if you've got NATO countries and Russia's flying drugs over them, what should they do?
00:20:48
Speaker 5: And he said, well, they should shoot him down. And even Selensky.
00:20:50
Speaker 2: Looked sort of surprised that he made that comment at that moment, because of course, of you know, if you get a NATO country dragged into this, then you have significant treaty obligations from the United States of America, which is why this is also incredibly fraud and incredibly dangerous. So I can only imagine how much Soccer is losing his mind right now about this complete and total one eighty from Trump based on some of the some of the comments that he made on the campaign trail. Though I have to say, even on the campaign trail, he was never completely consistent. But this was a major issue with the Republican base. You know, they really thought that the Biden approach to Ukraine had been a disaster. They really wanted someone to come in and force a negotiated solution on Ukraine. It seemed at the beginning after that like Oval office blow up and you know, public humiliation ritual of Zelenski, that perhaps that was direction that things are headed in. And now you've got, like I said, a complete one eighty here to the most hawkish possible position, because I assume when he says, you know, the original lines, I assume he means crimea as well, which.
00:21:54
Speaker 5: Is a wild position to take.
00:21:57
Speaker 2: And let's also be clear that, you know, if he's serious about that, and I think you're right, it's a negotiating tactic, but we also have to take you know, this president does some wild things, and we have to take him seriously at his words. At this point, what the requirement from US involvement in order to actually effectuate that outcome? It would be extraordinary, would be absolutely extraordinary at this point. Now he's right that Russia hasn't made like tremendous gains in the last little while. I wouldn't say it's a total stalemate. They have made some gains and they have more both manpower and you know, industrial capacity and resources to be able to drag this thing down and prevail in the end. But yeah, what he's floating here would be incredible escalation in terms of US involvement if he's actually serious about that outcome.
00:22:45
Speaker 3: And in a nuclear conflict. Again that it seems so ridiculous to say that, but a potential nuclear conflict and Trump one of the places he does talk more sensitively about is one of the areas in which he is I think more attuned to the general public then your average politician here in DC is that it's not a joke to mess with other nuclear powers and saying that you're gonna fight for every inch of Ukraine's original border is messing with nuclear powers and a negotiating tactic. He's he's like Jekyl and Hyde, but it's like John Bolton and Tucker Carlson. You never know exactly what you're gonna go with you One day he's like, he s sounds like Tucker and the other day he sounds like John Bolton. Obviously, I think we're you know, always rightfully cover it as his sometimes very thinly veiled negotiating methods, but it's still obviously has a serious effect. And my last takeaway before we bring the guests in is I think just wrapping a bow on all of this.
00:23:46
Speaker 4: The man really.
00:23:46
Speaker 3: Wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He really wants a Nobel Peace Prize.
00:23:50
Speaker 2: And yeah, we did the typical Trumpian thing of being like, you know, I should get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, now that I care about the awards.
00:23:57
Speaker 5: It's not about that. It's not about the people. It's about bringing peace to the people.
00:24:00
Speaker 2: And it's like, in his of course list of the conflicts that he's allegedly solved, he includes you know, Iran and Israel as if oh, they're all best friends.
00:24:09
Speaker 5: Now we're never going to have a flare up.
00:24:10
Speaker 2: Then again, even as Israel is like preparing right now to Bambaran again likely and drag us right back into this whole thing, includes in there that India Pakistan sees fire, which both Indian and Pakistan are like, bro, you had nothing to do with this. So in any case, if you're wondering how legit his claims are to be such a great peacemaker. I offer you those two examples as emblematic of the you know, of the accuracy of the speech overall, what.
00:24:38
Speaker 4: Let's get to Gaza and bring our guest.
00:24:39
Speaker 2: In fortunate to be joined this morning by Anthony Lowenstein. He's an independent journalist and filmmakers, author of the Palstain Laboratory, which I highly suggest you guys check out, and also the creator of a new Al Jazeerra documentary titled Germany's Israel Obsession. Joins us now to weigh in on Trump's UN comments with the are to Israel and a number of other relevant stories.
00:25:03
Speaker 5: It's great to.
00:25:03
Speaker 8: See Anthony, thanks so much for having me.
00:25:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, so Emily and I were just talking about Trump's big UN speech. Within that speech, he made some comments about Palestinian state recognition. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
00:25:16
Speaker 7: As everyone knows, I have also been deeply engaged in seeking a cease fire in Gaza.
00:25:22
Speaker 6: Have to get that done, have to get it done.
00:25:25
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, Hamas has repeatedly rejected reasonable offers to make peace.
00:25:30
Speaker 6: We can't forget October seventh, can we now?
00:25:34
Speaker 7: As if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.
00:25:44
Speaker 6: The rewards would be too.
00:25:46
Speaker 7: Great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities. But instead of giving in to Harmas's ransom demands, those who want peace should be united with one message, release hostages now.
00:26:02
Speaker 6: Just release the hostages now.
00:26:04
Speaker 9: But after almost two years of war, what is the result. Once again, they killed the top leados of Hamas. It works, this is a great achievement, but at the same time you have as many Hamas fighters as you had the first date, so it doesn't work to these matters of Hammas.
00:26:24
Speaker 6: Well, I have to say that I'm on the side of Israel.
00:26:26
Speaker 7: I've been on the side of Israel really my whole life, and we are going to get a solution, and it's going to be a solution.
00:26:33
Speaker 6: Hopefully that's good for everybody. But it's time to stove.
00:26:37
Speaker 2: So a lot that was interesting there, Anthony, What did you make of President Trump's comments with regard to Palestinian state recognitions.
00:26:44
Speaker 5: Of course comes.
00:26:44
Speaker 2: After UK, Canada, Australia and other countries have announced they are going to recognize a Palestinian state, and I think there's a bit of a divide, at least on the left of how significant this is, whether this is just like in basically an ass cover and move that makes it seem like you doing something without actually doing the hard things of like arms, embargo or you know, sanctions or cutting tridize those sorts of things. So what did you make of the president's comments and what do you make of the reality of Palestinian state recognition.
00:27:12
Speaker 8: Look, in some ways, what Trump is saying is reiterating what the US has felt for a long time. I mean, yes, Biden, at least on paper, supported a two state solution, whereas Trump and his administration do not, which mirrors what Netta Yahu and his government believes, which is no two state solution, no Palestinian state. But at the same time, I'm very much in the camp of saying that all these Western states that have recognized Palestine this week and have done so in some ways for years in the past, to say it's symbolic, I think would be too kind. You can all, on the one hand, talk about recognizing Palestine as a state and the belief that you should acknowledge that Palestinians have a right to self determination, while at the same time still funding and backing and arming the oppressor Israel, which the UK does, and France does, and Australia does, and Canada does. They are still sending weapons and weapons parts to Israel two years into this genocide. And one of the conditions that President Macron of France said in the last twenty four hours around Palestine wars, I think two things, mainly, one, Humas can't be part of any future government and two it must be demilitarized. And I do not know any state in recent history. The two most recent states that have existed and been born was South Sudan in twenty eleven and East Timor in about twenty years ago, twenty three years ago. Now, the idea that you would say to those states you can be demilitarized, you must be demilitarized, is a non starter. I mean, it's an absurd situation because if you demilitarize, what that means is in this case, Israel would control your land, sea, in air borders. The occupation therefore continues in a different form. And secondly, this is no love for Hummas, but the idea that you are telling Palestinians that essentially you cannot vote for this party. You have to vote for who the corrupt Palestine authority. Who a Palestinians supposed to vote for? Is it up to them or is it up to outsiders? So most Palestinians I know, in Gars of the West Bank and in the diaspora saying, yes, we welcome that the West sees us as humans, I guess. But after, as I think, many people have said, what are you recognizing? Are you recognizing a Mahmuda bas the late eighties corrupt dictator of the Palestine authority as the leader of his future Palestine, who, by the way he's celebrated in the last twenty four hours, is happening stuck in Romolah because the US won't give him a visa almost comically really, But ultimately it comes to the same point that what is there a Palestine to recognize? Gaza no longer exists, it has gone, and the West Bank, I fear, is going in the same way. So unless, unless, and until Western states, including the US, but the US arguably is too far gone on this question, U and others Europe, Australia and my country want to actually see a resolution of this conflict. You cannot do so by simply issuing a speech at the UN. We are so far beyond that. And it's finally on this point, I think it's worth saying that Western States routinely bring up a two state solution when there is a so called problem in the Israel Palestine conflict, when there is a perceived need to announce something different, to sort of break the algorithm, so to speak. And yes, obviously what's happened in Gaza in the last two years is an unprecedented scale, far greater than anything in Palestine's history. But I don't think Kissed Arma or Mark Khni or Australian Prime Minister around in Albanesi actually thinks that by announcing recognition it's going to change anything on the ground because they're not willing to take any steps to make it happen. It's lip service at best, and that's being polite.
00:30:57
Speaker 3: So obviously Israel understands the scale are high going into the UN this week, with Nacron and others pushing as they are, So I want to get your take on this story in the New York Times. This is a six A lot of theories here as to what's going on, but the headline is cash of devices capable of crashing cell network is found near un Just from the lead I'm going to read quote, the Secret Service found and seized an illicit network of sophisticated equipment in the New York region that was capable of shutting down the cellular network as foreign leaders prepared to gather nearby for the annual UN General Assembly, the agency announced on Tuesday. Officials said the anonymous communications network, which included more than one hundred thousand simcards and three hundred servers, could interfere with emergency response services and could be used to conduct encryptic communication. When official said the network was capable of sending thirty million text messages per minute anonymously, the official said the agency had never been seen before. I had never before seen such an extensive operation. There's no specific info that the network posts a threat to the conference itself.
00:32:00
Speaker 4: They go on to.
00:32:01
Speaker 3: Say, so this obviously has sparked many many theories, and particularly people are appointing to Israel being behind this operation.
00:32:13
Speaker 4: What do you make of the story?
00:32:14
Speaker 3: I mean, that's sort of one of the things people should know about what you've done with the Palistine Laboratory is that this is you've studied, and you've studied how Israel has studied the attack capabilities and places like this or in ways like this.
00:32:30
Speaker 4: So what did you make of the story?
00:32:32
Speaker 8: I think there's two ways to see this. One the only likely states who would be doing this in my view and experience, is Israel or maybe China. I don't think it's necessarily Israel, and it may well be. And there's a history, including in the last ten years, have a lot of evidence of Israel bugging for example, Boris Johnson's residents. He's talked about this in these autobiography the former British Prime Minister. During the first Trump administration, there was likely evidence, well not likely, there was evidence that Israel was potentially bugging the Trump White House when Netanyahu had visited the White House. And one thing that people often don't understand about the US Israel relationship is that actually, yes, they're seen as best of friends, but they actually also don't trust each other. And what I mean by that is that both countries have literally hundreds and hundreds of intelligence officers every day spying on the other, listening to communication. I mean this has been known for years that Belly gets talked about in the press, but it's a statement of.
00:33:31
Speaker 6: Fact, so yes.
00:33:33
Speaker 8: And in fact, one of the interesting revelations of Edward Snowden's documents when he released those in twenty thirteen was that he showed that we often are told in the West that our greatest enemies are Russia and China. And yes, they spil in America, to be sure, but one of the greatest threats that is perceived by the American intelligence agencies was Israel, because they were so obsessed with spying on every detail. And of course the Americans know this and israelis know this. So look this latest event, Emily. I don't know who it is, of course, beyond what the story in the New York Times said, and obviously what information the authorities wanted to release, but the likely culprits to me Israel or China. China has a reason to do so as well. Of course, they have a long history of spying and bugging in the US, but so does Israel. And I would say, as I said, that the US Israel relationship is BFFs on paper, but actually profoundly dysfunctional behind the scenes.
00:34:28
Speaker 4: And there's a lot of paranoia right now.
00:34:30
Speaker 3: I think is really saying about how much support they have in the Trump administration, which.
00:34:34
Speaker 8: Actionally, yeah, there's a lot of paranoid And on the one hand, you could say it's bizarre that there is that paranoid because they clearly are getting everything they wanted, as was happening under Biden. But they Israel and Israeli, I guess spokespeople in the US, they see what is happening within the Republican Party. Put aside, the Democrats to Democrats obviously are increasingly least in the base, very much against Israel, where the leadership is still very much seemingly insupportive Israel in general. It's not quite as black and white as that, as you guys know well. But on the Republican side, yes, Trump and Marco Rubio and everything are one hundred and ten percent behind Israel, so we're told. But clearly in the Republican right and the Maga rite there is a growing split. It's hard to see how that plays out politically yet at this point, but it is clearly happening, and that does worry rightly the Israelis. So yes, they would have definite cause to do this, but of course if it was found out to be Israel. What would the so called punishment be is Netiania who likely to lose his access to the on suite bathroom at the White House. No, I mean this is the reality, right, this is the relationship. It's dysfunctional. And if Netania who one day no longer is prime Minister of Israel, which will happen the likely successors to him in Israel Naftali Bennett or ye Lapid or Benny Gan someone like that, and a lot of these issues, believe me, are not much different to Netanyahu.
00:35:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's something and we've tried to highlight as well, because there's I think a lot of wish casting from American politics, especially American liberals, that it's just not Yahoo. We've just got to get him out of there and then everything will be fine and different, et cetera. And there's just very there's just no evidence for that. I wanted to talk to you too about this, this documentary that you just made for Al Jazeera. We can put the thumbnail up on the screen here, and I found this absolutely fascinating. The topic is fascinating. You are Australian, but your family's originally from Germany, so you've close, you know, personal ties to the country, and I'm not sure I really internalized how much the ethos of never again and the knowledge that the you know, the German people had perpetrated the Holocaust, how much that is a cornerstone of sort of like modern German identity.
00:36:50
Speaker 5: And then your documentary.
00:36:51
Speaker 2: Talks about the way that this has been bastardized in order to effectively criminalize any sort of pro Palestinian support, which obviously is ironic because now, because there is such desperation about avoiding charges of anti Semitism in Germany, you have the German government complicit in another genocide here with regard to Palestine. So talk a little bit about what drew you to the topic and the way that this cultural identity has played out within Germany.
00:37:23
Speaker 8: One thing that most people maybe don't realize is that Germany is the second biggest provider weapons to Israel after the US. The US is number one, to be sure Underbiden or Trump, but Germany second, and that accelerated after October seven. So you're right that there is this sense within Germany which didn't exist straight after World War Two, but certainly the last thirty forty years that we as a German people need to commemorate and atone essentially for the crimes of our ancestors. And I on paper haven't no problem with that. I mean, Germany committed one of the ultimate crimes, the genocide of course of Jews and millions and millions of others of course. But the way that manifests itself today, and this was beginning long before October seven, but it's accelerated since, is this belief amongst the vast bulk of the German political elite and media elite, and a size le proportioned of the German public, both in the East former East Germany and the West, that they have a historical responsibility to support Israel no matter what. Now, this was a view, as I said, long before October seven, but it's got stronger sinins. So what that means practically, I'm believing that, for example, pro Palestine protests have to be crushed hugely violently. People who say from the river to the sea Palestine should be free are literally charged and brought before court. If an individual tries to make a comparison between the Nazi Holocaust and what Israel's doing in Gaza, you are apparently disparaging their so called original Holocaust, and therefore you might be charged. There have been huge amounts of Palestinians who have been deported in Arabs for that matter, who have not been violent, who are not terrorists, who are simply expressing a critical view of Israel. And the impact of that practically on arguably the most powerful country in Europe, the most powerful economy has been for years, although it's in a bit of a bad shape these days economically, is to actually empower the far right, the AfD, which is now the largest opposition party in the country. And you have someone in the film Iras Heifetz, who's a Jewish Israeli born German citizen, who basically says, I'm paraphrasing what she says that Israel has become the washing machine for the far right, and what that means is which is happening in the US, across Europe as well. It's not unique to Germany, but it's happening, is that when someone in the far right says, I love Israel or I love Jews, you can't accuse me of anti Semitism. I love the world's only Jewish state. And the AfD in Germany is doing that very successfully and whitewashing their own record, which historically has been often tied to neo Nazism. And today they are supported, according to the polls, by around twenty five percent of the German population. Now they're not in government, yes, but potentially years to come they will be. And I guess part of the reason to make this film I made it with the British filmmaker Dan Davies. I also made The Palestine Laboratory with Eldersira earlier this year. Was in some ways most people I spoke to about this question had no idea of what was happening in Germany. We're very well aware of the massive repression ticket since Trump has returned to the White House, of crushing pro Palestine speech, trying to poor people Machmud Khalil, amongst many many others. But what's happening in Germany the heart of Europe is actually remarkably similar. It's remarkably similar, different, but similar. And I am born in Australia, but I'm a German citizen, so I wouldn't say I feel particularly German per se, but I at the same time feel the reason I got a passport fifteen or so year years ago was for those who are unaware. After the war World War II, Germany allowed Jews whose citizenship was removed because the Nazis didn't recognize Jewish citizens could have reinstated essentially, and many many Jews for about half a century mostly refused to do that, including my parents basically saying, why would I want to be a German citizen after what Germany did to us, which I understood.
00:41:23
Speaker 6: In the last twenty twenty.
00:41:24
Speaker 8: Five years, many Jews around the world have changed their opinion and have now because they want to have an EU passport for whatever reason may be. But the idea somehow that Germany says they are doing this in the name of me as a Jew to support Israel and critically apparently makes Germany a good global citizen despite the fact, as you said, that they are now backing arming a genocide an Israeli state that is proudly I would argue genocidal. So the film I supposed tries to uncover that investigate that, and it came out about two weeks ago, just had amazing global response, I think because most people just don't know what is happening in a country which is in the center of Europe with huge amounts of influence, and what's happening in Germany is happening elsewhere US growing parts of Europe, France, England. And then we finish on this point we talk about at the end of the film that what's happening in Germany's mirrored elsewhere. Just this year, the UK has prescribed as a terrorist organization a group called Palestine Action, which is a non violence group trying to stop Israel's genocide, but also the complicity of Israeli arms companies in the Israeli occupation. The idea that that is a terrorist organization is absurd, and yet Kirstariner's government has prescribed that as a terrorist organization, meaning that if you are in London, for example, or Birmingham, wherever you may be, and you hold a sign and you say I support Palestine Action, you will be arrested and charged. And so this obsessive desire in so many Western countries to protect Israel at the expense of their own countries democracy should really disturb us all a lot and.
00:43:09
Speaker 4: A point that you're making heroes, I can also massively.
00:43:12
Speaker 8: Backfire, well massively backfire to those I think who are saying, I guess it depends backfire for whom right. I mean. In Germany, for example, we have some people talking about this idea that you as a journalist one doesn't want to predict the future because we're often wrong. But the direction that Germany appears to be heading on at the moment is moving towards a far more anti Islam, anti immigration, anti multiculturalism, blindly pro Israel direction. And whether that is the AfD being in power in the coming years or someone like the AfD, I mean, it's worth saying, as some viewers of Breaking Points of Course will know, is that Elon Musk is a massive fan of the AfD. During the German election earlier this year, he was very keen support the AfD. I think he said, and I'm paraphrasing here something like only AfD can save Germany. Now his focus wasn't nothing so much on Israel. Who is more, the fact that the AfD is talking about is basically urging or encouraging the idea or would force faculty immigrants who have arrived to be sent back to their supposed home countries. And that's of course what's happening increasing the US and certain other Western States. So I would argue it's massively backfiring on Germany because German identity, you would think, historically correctly, is based on both a combination of guilt acknowledgment learning from that history. And I still say to this day that Germany, unlike virtually any other European nation, who are often very complicit with Nazis, collaborated with them, has done a lot of atoning and I welcome that. But the question is in what service for whom? And when Germany is supporting in Israeli state uncritically when they are committing genocide, I say, you are learning little to nothing from history, and that's a pretty worrying conclusion.
00:45:13
Speaker 4: Answer.
00:45:13
Speaker 2: My last question for you is we actually see Israel dividing the right in the US, especially among young people. You mentioned some of this before. I know you're familiar with the Poles in those dynamics as well. Yes, dividing the far right. You know, if you look at Stephen Miller very pro Israel, if you look at a Nick Fuenttes very anti Israel. Are those dynamics playing out in Germany as well?
00:45:36
Speaker 8: With AfD largely not yet? And in short, there is I mean the irony of course with all this is that those on the far ride don't like Jews. They've never liked Jews, they still don't like Jews. So yes, the AfD. I'm not saying everyone who supports the AfD is racist, that would not be true. But there is a deep antipathy within I think the AfD and much of the German far right and frankly right wing in idealizing Israel. And this is something I've talked about for a long time that for many people on the right and the far right. I understand there's a split in parts of the US, and in some ways I welcome that, but for many on the right and the far right, Israel is their model. It's their ethno nationalist wet dream. That is the nation they want to be like. Not Jewish, of course, but Christian, a Christian nationalist, fundamental est state. And only has to look at, for example, a lot of the language around the Charlie Kirk funeral a few days ago that was a hard line Christian nationalist agenda, petrifying to someone like me who's a secular atheist Jew, to put it mildly, and I see in Germany a real almost a combination of growing numbers of young Germans resent the fact that they're told they should be feeling guilty for their past, for what their ancestors did in World War Two, manifests itself now in a hard line far right, anti immigration, anti Islam, pro Israel agenda. Despite the fact that me and those people don't like Jews both can exist.
00:47:11
Speaker 6: You can be an.
00:47:12
Speaker 8: Anti Semite and love Israel. And what's so disturbing about that is Israel itself is welcoming that support. You've had In the last year alone, the Israeli government since the genocide, began organizing far right conferences in Jerusalem for some of these European far right leaders. You've had Israeli government ministers going to these far right conferences in Europe.
00:47:37
Speaker 6: Now, if you're a.
00:47:38
Speaker 8: Sane Jew, sane person, you don't welcome the love of the far right because historically, you know, they don't like us for a range of reasons. So the idea that Israel, as a increasingly theocratic far right nation welcomes and embraces a far right agenda both within its own borders and elsewhere, says all you need to know. I think about where Israel as a country is going, which is in my view, increasingly likely to be theocretic, proudly theocretic.
00:48:10
Speaker 5: Anthony.
00:48:11
Speaker 2: Tell people where they can watch this, this documentary.
00:48:14
Speaker 8: So Jermy's Israel Obsession is on YouTube if you just put that in Google. It is on on the Olviazira website. If you google that, you'll find lots of entries. It's available. Go watch it. It's it'll hopefully shock you in a good way, and it'll shock you in a way that makes you open your eyes.
00:48:33
Speaker 2: Do you think, Yeah, it illuminates things in a way that's important. I certainly got a lot on watching it and highly recommend Atie. Thank you so much for your work and it's great to see as always.
00:48:43
Speaker 8: Thank you so much, guys, both of you. I appreciate it. Thank you.
00:48:49
Speaker 3: So.
00:48:49
Speaker 2: Jimmy Kimmel was back last night after being pulled from the air by Disney under pressure from the Trump administration. At least he was back on most ABC broadcast around the country. Next Doer and Sinclair did decide to continue to preempt his program, and we'll get to that in a minute. Let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say about his suspension.
00:49:11
Speaker 10: We supported our show, cared enough to do something about it, to make your voices heard so that mine could be heard. I will never forget it.
00:49:18
Speaker 2: And maybe maybe most.
00:49:23
Speaker 10: Of all, I want to thank that people who don't support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs. Anyway, I've been hearing a lot about what I need to say and do tonight, and the truth is, I don't think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me. If you don't, you don't. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind. But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human, and that is you understand that it was never my intention to make light of.
00:49:51
Speaker 6: The murder of a young man.
00:49:54
Speaker 4: I don't. I don't think there's only he's running about it.
00:50:01
Speaker 10: I posted a message on Instagram of the daves killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it.
00:50:08
Speaker 4: I still do.
00:50:09
Speaker 10: Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual that was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make but I understand that to some that felt either ill timed or unclear, or maybe both. And for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there was a good chance I'd have felt the same way.
00:50:33
Speaker 4: This show.
00:50:34
Speaker 10: This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.
00:50:42
Speaker 2: So you hear his voice quavering with emotion there where he's talking about you know, he never intended to make light of the killing of Charlie Kirk.
00:50:51
Speaker 5: I think a lot.
00:50:52
Speaker 2: I don't want to speak for the you know, the right I'll let you say what you made of it, Emily. I think there were skepticism about the sincerity of this sort of pseudo apology, but.
00:51:03
Speaker 5: You know it would.
00:51:04
Speaker 2: I'm sure this was all a very upsetting and traumatic event for Jimmy Kimmel, and I think we've seen the way that even people who don't like Charlie Kirk, really disagree with Charlie Kirk, but who were in the public eye were somewhat traumatized by his you know, violent murder, you know, effectively live streamed murder, because Kimmel talks about how he faces threats as well, so you can't help but think about your own mortality and you know the reality of the dangerous situation that you yourself may be in as well.
00:51:36
Speaker 3: It was interesting that Kimmel was emotional and not completely doing a sort of smug victory lap, which he's want to do. I think he probably handled it as best he could, walking the line between keeping the sort of left happy, keeping the middle America happy, and trying to throw a bone to the right without looking like from his perspective, he folded entirely to the administration, because obviously that's not in any way what he wants to do. I think Kimball is such a frustrating case. I mean, he did not apologize for this is where, for example, turning Point USA, Andrew Colbett came out and said not good enough. Didn't apologize for fundamentally saying something that was incorrect. And there are polls that show a lot of people think, for example, Tyler Robinson was a griper, was a far right type of guy, and so fully understand why many of my friends on the writer are furious about somebody who has a public public good like the airwaves making equip that implies this was a Trump supporter who killed Charlie Kirk. But Kimba is sort of he's frustrating. He's become like this performative and sort of self sad by type of anti Trump comedian in a way that's like hurt his comedy and like softened his edges and gets cringey.
00:53:07
Speaker 4: Sometimes.
00:53:08
Speaker 3: He also was like happy about Roseanne firing whatever else. But that's where we should bring in Next Star Sinclair and then Joe Rogan so we can put B two on the screen. Next Star and Sinclair did not air this, as Crystal mentioned earlier, So that's a good chunk of affiliates around the country who have more probably my assumption would be in many cases more pro Kirk audience audiences and some of these local networks or these communities who have some of their own pressures to deal with, and obviously Next Star it is what would be. We would be remiss if we didn't mention that they have a merger they're trying to get through with Tegna that's going to come in front of Brendan Cars FCC the not too distant future. So let's roll how Joe Rogan reacted to the pressures that befell ABC from the Trump administration.
00:54:11
Speaker 4: B three.
00:54:12
Speaker 11: First of all, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved ever in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's fucking crazy.
00:54:21
Speaker 4: Crazy.
00:54:22
Speaker 11: Now, if the problem is the companies, if they're being pressured by the government, So if that's real, and if people on the right are like, yeah, go get them, Oh my god, you're crazy. You're crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you. You don't think that the fucking globalist lizard people who run the world are sitting here going great, what do we got three years?
00:54:46
Speaker 6: We'll wake this out, We'll wake this out. Yeah.
00:54:49
Speaker 11: Let them say the government should be involved in censoring people's speech.
00:54:53
Speaker 6: Yeah yeah, let them support that.
00:54:55
Speaker 11: Let these fucking dumbasses because Jimmy Kimmel's a leftist. Let these dumb asses think it's a good idea and we should celebrate.
00:55:04
Speaker 3: So, Chris, So, the reason I wanted to toss to that just now is I obviously completely agree that the government shouldn't be in a position at all to say what's in a comedian's monologue.
00:55:14
Speaker 4: That's obviously the way the FCC is set up.
00:55:16
Speaker 3: And Brendan Carr told me not too long ago that he thinks it's possible the entire law should just be changed. I think it's it's you know, I'm sympathetic to the argument that you just abolished the FCC, but that's a more radical proposal. What's interesting about what Rogan just said is I can hear my friends on the right in their head saying, yeah, okay, what is the FCC going to do? Cancel a conservative late night host? There's not a single conservative.
00:55:45
Speaker 4: Late night house.
00:55:46
Speaker 3: What are they going to do to the right that could possibly make these networks more biased in or what are they going to do to the right, given how these networks are already so biased against the left, and they're.
00:56:02
Speaker 5: Coming for Sidney Sweeney, Emily.
00:56:04
Speaker 3: They're coming for Sidney Sweeney obviously, Like I just have this, like gross, I feel gross anytime the government is threatening journalists, right comedians. So I'm not I can't get on that bandwagon, though most of my friends on the right are on that bandwagon. They're like, well what the okay, great, yeah, what do you mean they're going to like we're not afraid of the FCC because all of these networks are already downplaying conservative voices. That's a taste of what people would say in response to Rogan there.
00:56:31
Speaker 2: Well, the thing is like, the FCC is not really the thing here because this is coming down from Trump himself, who threatened Kimmel after Colbert got fired.
00:56:44
Speaker 5: Who I think we do.
00:56:45
Speaker 2: We have Trump's truth B six we can put up on the screen where he's continuing to threaten Kimmel and say he should still be canceled. And so it's not like, you know, it'd be one thing if this was some narrow FCC like we're going to apply the law differently, which of course they are. You know, Brendan Carr is threatening that as well. But what you're talking about with the Trump administration is a whole of government weaponization. And you know, as you mentioned before, Next Star and Sinclair, which also preempted Kimmel shows, they both are lobbying the government for different things. You know, they both are our lobbying to get their business needs meant. And in Next Star's case this merger approved, Disney also has business before the government. So you know, from a dollars and cents perspective, I think the reason Jimmy Kimmel is back on air is because there was enough of a public and artist backlash that they decided that as a business decision, it was more risky to keep him off than to bring him back on come what may from the Trump administration. So, you know, I don't think this was like a principal decision. I don't think that, you know, I don't think these capitalist organizations make principal decisions. They make decisions based on what they perceive, at least their bottom line to be, and there was enough of an outcry and enough people who canceled their Disney Plus subscriptions that they thought, we got a bit of a problem here, we better bring him back. So, you know, to your point about oh, well, what could the liberals do to us if they got back in power, I think it is where I disagree with Rogan's point is, I don't know if we're going to get any sort of Democrat who would be accrossive enough to do this sort of retaliation. I also don't think that the Supreme Court would go along with the same things from a democratic president that they go along with from a Republican president.
00:58:46
Speaker 5: I mean did have someone.
00:58:48
Speaker 4: They rejected Merthy b v.
00:58:50
Speaker 3: Missouri, which was the challenge on Biden ear a pressure on social media companies.
00:58:55
Speaker 2: And I'm speaking more broadly though of I mean, first of all, that was a different situation because you and have such a direct and overt threat. It was implicit. But I'm speaking of, you know, the shadow docket. Basically, the Trump administration this time around has gotten everything they want from this court. And I don't think that it's based on principle. I think it's based on like number one, they want to void a direct conflict with you know, with Trump, who has made it pretty plain that he's open to just ignoring Supreme Court decisions. They don't want to destroy the court. And number two, you know, to a certain extent, they're just like on board with the agenda.
00:59:29
Speaker 5: So I don't know that.
00:59:30
Speaker 2: A democratic president would likely weaponize the whole of federal government the way that Trump has been willing to. But yeah, I guess it's good for the right to be afraid that that would be one of the things that would happen. Well, but if he did, I mean, listen, Fox News is the thing that exists. It is the largest cable news network. It is extraordinarily powerful in terms of it's you know, its reach and its influence on the overall national conversation. They can really set the agenda in a lot of ways, and there's a lot of connectivity betwe Fox News and the rest of the conservative media apparatus. Since this isn't really about the FCC because it's cable versus broadcast, of course, there's ways that future democratic administration could go after Fox News and try to make them pay for supporting a Republican agenda. You know, I don't think that that's the direction that the country should go in. And the fact that Trump immediately just like comes out and threatens Kimmel again is basically an admission that this was not about Disney making a business decision. This was them caving to the authoritarian demands of the Trump administration. And the only reason he's back is because of the level of pushback that they received.
01:00:41
Speaker 3: Well, I was also going to say the potential CBS Free Press merger, that's clearly like a downstream consequence of the broader vibe shift narrative where you have some of these I was talking about this in the context of Kimmel last week is like the market is catching up to Kimmel and Colbert to some extent, Like there are structural conversations to be had about people who are making shows that are getting just a fraction of the viewership they used to get with a lot of the same overhead. So Kimmel mentioned there are hundreds of people that work on you know, these shows between him Colbert, like that's those hundreds of jobs.
01:01:21
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, man, that's hundreds of jobs. That's a lot of money.
01:01:25
Speaker 3: And you know, it's it's not quite trickling into social media in ways that are super profitable for these companies as linear television starts to decline. So in some sense, yes, the market is catching up with these guys in a business sense, but also in a content sense that you know what they're what they're offering. I mean, these late night hosts are having like Gavin Newsome and Adam schiff On. It's this like super niche content for us, as I always describe it, resistant resistance wine moms uh.
01:01:55
Speaker 4: And there's like not.
01:01:57
Speaker 3: The same amount of money in that as there was you know, Hay for Love and I Love Him Jay Leno in nineteen ninety six, it's just totally different games. So in some sense, the market is catching up with them, and in some sense, these companies are starting to realize that they've maybe ignored a swath of the country and that they could make money off that swath of the country.
01:02:19
Speaker 4: And Crystal.
01:02:20
Speaker 3: If there is a CBS Free Press merger and you start to see some more right leaning content at a place like CBS, then yeah, actually there could be potential for adem who will talk about this later in the show. To your point, if they have the Stones, but if a DEM wanted to mess with them, I mean, maybe that's coming for Sherry Redstone.
01:02:44
Speaker 2: M Yeah, it's it's possible. It's possible. I'll believe it. I'll believe the DEM with the Stones when I see it. They have not emerged yet, but yeah, I mean you have that, you have the Ellison Family also potentially buying CS then and HBO and Comedy Central. You've got obviously TikTok coming under the you know already has an idea of Sensor involved and is likely to be also you know, Ellison Family plus Fox News. So you've got Twitter obviously already owned by Elon Musk. So there's a lot of conservative media apparatus that is already out there, and that is you know, going to that Trump is trying to consolidate right now as we speak. And so the goal, the overall plan is, Okay, I'm going to consolidate ownership of as many media properties in my ally's hands, which is a large chunk of the media space. And the fact that you've had so much consolidation and media makes this much easier for an authoritarian like Trump to be able to effectuate. So you've got a large chunk in the hands of his allies effectively him, and then you have another chunk that you are using the you're weaponizing the government to try to coerce and keep them in line. Now Kimmel has been brought back, but a message has been sent. And we covered how last week the view, which was set in the sights of Brennan Carr, called them explicitly as the next target, how they were too cowardly to say anything about this. In the first days after Kimmel was taken off the air, they did break their silence, I think again because the audience was like, what the hell is like?
01:04:27
Speaker 5: How cowardly are you?
01:04:29
Speaker 2: Like? What you're not going to say anything. Now they claimed, oh, we were waiting to see if Jimmy Kimmel was going to say anything. Both they were just afraid and then when they saw the backlash, they realized they couldn't get away with not saying anything. But anyway, the point, the point I'm trying to make here is that many people, whether they realize it or not, journalists, comedians, podcasters, whoever, they will think about this episode when they're writing their monologues or crafting their commentary or riffing on cable news networks. They will think about what happened here. They will again could be without even realizing it, they'll trim their sales a little bit to not provoke that ire of Trump World and create a big problem for themselves and their employers, because no one should have any confidence that their employers are going to stand up for them in this fight with the Trump administration. They're not your best hope, is you know, the like the grassroots backlash is kind of your best hope. But you have to be a Jimmy Kimmel level national figure, prominent national figure to expect that that is going to be there for you as well. So in any case, even with Kimmel, at least for now back in the air again, you still have this, you know, this conflict between ABC and Disney and now these affiliates Next Star and Sineclair. So it's not like the problem has completely gone away. But even with him back on the air, a message has been sent and you know, a chilling effect when you add this to the previous actions taken by the Trump administration as well.
01:06:03
Speaker 3: Kimmel rounded out his response with a bit where Robert de Niro is the new FCC commissioner, And what's a couple of takeaways for that. I mean, first of all, you could have read Trump's truth social like in the voice of Roy Cone, and actually believe that roy Cone wrote it. That's what it sounded like. He says, last time I went after them, they gave me sixteen million dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers. You could absolutely do that, and you would be like, oh, yes, this is a mafia boss, but it's of course the president of the United States, and so on the one hand, they're also going to like Kimmel didn't really pull any punches. I don't think Kimmel or Colbert will really pull any punches. As long as Colbert is on the air, I don't think seth Meyer's going to pull any punches. And so if what they think about going forward is like jokes that are based on false information that are going to needlessly inflame a big portion of the country, then I think that's a good thing. If it does end up censoring any like just left of center criticism of Donald Trump, that's a bad thing. So it's just one of these I don't know, it's one of these stories that is.
01:07:23
Speaker 4: I don't know about you, Crystal. It just for me, it's so annoying.
01:07:26
Speaker 3: Again, we were talking about this with the UN where it's like Trump has as someone on the right, Oh sorry, I just touched my microphone, but as somebody on the right like Trump often will have this like directionally correct approach to like, for example, the problems at the UN, and then he just like talks like he's a mafia boss, like he's Robert de Niro in a Mafia movie, or literally like he's Roy Kohene and you're like, oh my gosh, like do you have to do it this way?
01:07:55
Speaker 4: But he does.
01:07:56
Speaker 2: You don't think there's anything directionally correct though about like answoring comedians monologue.
01:08:01
Speaker 3: And look about pushing back on what Kimmel said at a like about that potentially being a MAGA shooter after it.
01:08:08
Speaker 5: Was sure take issue with it.
01:08:09
Speaker 2: I mean I personally, I don't have a problem with what Kimmel said, because I think the point he was trying to make is they're like doing everything to make it like this had nothing to do with us, right, And that's true, Like everybody was doing that, you know Ryan a minute and openly that he's like hoping that it wasn't a left wing shar will. It turned out that, you know, based on what we know in Tyler, seems like he was motivated by LGBTQ issues in particular. Again at least based on what we know at this point. But like that wasn't even the major crux of the joke. The major crux of the joke was poking fun at Trump because he didn't give a shit that Charlie Kirk died. Like that Charlie Kirk was murdered. He gets asked about it and he's like, oh, yeah, I'm doing great. Take a look at my construction. Like that was actually like the real joke that was going on here. So personally, I would have loved to see Jimmy Kimmel wore defiant versus emotional. And the reporting is that that was his original instinct in the face of the backlash, and that was part of what made ABC Disney feel like, Okay, well, we have the present coming after us, with the FCC commissioner coming after us, and Jimmy is unre repentant and not willing to go out here and grovel, so I guess we're gonna have to pull him off the air. So in any case, like you know, Trump, he literally said that people should not be allowed to criticize him like that is his view. His genuine view is that the media should genuflect, that they should be just like his cabinet and constantly praise his greatness, and that anything outside of that should be basically illegal and barred and taken off the air. So, you know, while there are other areas where I agree with you, Trump will be like on terras right, Trump will be directionally correct about or have make some point about the way the previous system has failed, and then come up with the scheme that makes everything way worse.
01:09:54
Speaker 5: On this one, I don't. I don't see that. I don't.
01:09:57
Speaker 2: There's nothing about this to me that is directionally correct whatsoever. And you know, if Jimmy Kimmel sucks so bad and his ratings are so bad and it's so expensive and whatever, guess what, you don't have to do anything like that. Business decision is going to be made at some point. You I mean, you're right, these are dinosaur business models. There's no world in which two hundred people working on a single show, which I think is the number that I heard for Jimmy Kimmel, is going to sustain long into the future. That's just not the world we live in now with totally fragmented media diets. So you know, if you hate Jimmy Kimmel, that problem was going to solve itself ultimately because the United States did not need to weigh in.
01:10:39
Speaker 3: It's the exact same thing with Colbert, and weighing in changes the news cycle in a way where it's like, you know, people are like, oh, Trump got Colbert cansl was like, actually, probably Colbert got Colbert canceled by making.
01:10:51
Speaker 4: Millions of dollars a year.
01:10:52
Speaker 3: But obviously, now these companies can use their decisions as opportunities to like suck up to the administration and be like, hey, we because Trump in his We'll move on after this. But in his post, he said that ABC told the White House. This is actually very interesting. Uh he said ABC told the White House that Kimmel had been canceled.
01:11:09
Speaker 2: He says, yes, the White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled.
01:11:14
Speaker 5: Because it might be a lie. Trump does make shit up, so I.
01:11:17
Speaker 3: Totally or someone lied to him, someone misstarted on the phone call. And because it sounds like they told quote the White House, not him. So he then posted in the UK taking this victory lap about the cancelation of Jimmy Kimble on the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, and that was never the case. It was always said it was an indefinite suspension after the news broke. But that's actually pretty interesting and does speak to how these companies are probably using their business decisions in conversations with the administration, uh, to say, hey, we we're getting ridical Beart, we're getting rid of Kimmel, like we're we're doing the thing. So nothing to ignore on that front. Let's go ahead and move on to Kamala Harris's book tour.
01:11:57
Speaker 4: Chris, I can't believe I'm saying those.
01:11:59
Speaker 3: Words and September of twenty twenty five, let alone showing the clips that we're about to show, because Kamala Harris fully unreconstructed?
01:12:09
Speaker 4: Is that fair to say, Crystal?
01:12:11
Speaker 5: It seems fair, I would say so, it seems fair.
01:12:14
Speaker 3: The book is called one hundred and seven Days. She has been on Good Morning America, The View and Rachel Maddow to sell this book, which came out yesterday, and it's going exactly how you would expect.
01:12:29
Speaker 4: So let's roll see one.
01:12:31
Speaker 12: My concern about him running for reelection was completely separate from my admiration and knowledge about his capacity to serve as president of the United States, which was consistent and never waivered.
01:12:45
Speaker 13: Well, when we sit here to athlete sit here today, do you think he would have been up for running the country for four more years?
01:12:51
Speaker 4: I here's the distinction that I make.
01:12:53
Speaker 12: It's and having had the experience myself, it is one thing to have the capacity to govern. It is another thing to go through an election for president of the United States. And by the way, another piece of what is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race. It is the closest presidential race in the twenty first century in terms of the outcome.
01:13:18
Speaker 14: Wow, you know, say that again, because he likes to say over and over again, he's got a mandate and well.
01:13:25
Speaker 12: And that's part of why I wrote this book, because history will talk about this race.
01:13:31
Speaker 4: It is part of American history.
01:13:34
Speaker 12: I didn't fully appreciate how much people wanted to know there was a difference between me and President Biden.
01:13:44
Speaker 4: I thought it was.
01:13:45
Speaker 12: Obvious, and I didn't want to offer a difference in a way that would be received or suggested to be a criticism.
01:13:54
Speaker 4: And in.
01:13:57
Speaker 14: During your appearance and you write about it, you say, every thing about my appearance on the View was going well until it wasn't. And if you recall, you were here twenty eight days before the election, and I asked you if there was anything you would have done differently than President Biden during the past four years, and you said, quote, there is not a thing that comes to mind.
01:14:21
Speaker 4: End quote.
01:14:22
Speaker 14: You're right, you had no idea. You just pull the pin on a hand grenade. In the moment I knew the Trump campaign weaponized your answer against you. My question, and some including James Carville and Jake Tapper point to that answer as a turning point in your candidacy. Do you think that moment tip the election no.
01:14:47
Speaker 3: Good because Sonny doesn't want to take the blank? Chrysl I'm so excited to get your response to Kamala Harris answering some pretty softball questions, if I may say so, about out why she let Joe Biden run and how she ended up kind of well, not that it was her choice to let Joe Biden run, but why she covered for Joe Biden and how she responded to that in the book, and then how she ultimately ended up losing to Donald Trump.
01:15:17
Speaker 2: I haven't read the book full Disclosure, so but I mean, I might write it does seem like there's some somewhat interesting stuff in there. To be honest with you, the book is a little bit more candid than I expected it to be. But then in these public media appearances, she's doing the same old, same old, like let me try to split the difference, let me try to make everybody happy, which just ends up making literally no one happy. The choice of venue is also worth noting, like, if you want to be new and improved, Kamala Harris improved to the world, you're a different candidate than you, a different person than they thought that you were. Don't just do a view and Rachel Matta like, go into Linestone, take some risks.
01:15:57
Speaker 5: Like go on with Joe.
01:15:59
Speaker 2: Imagine she did them Joe Rogan podcast A long last Yeah about that, that would be interesting, right, But it's just I mean, in a sense, I sort of feel bad for because I feel like, I don't know, she walks herself into this life where she's questing after ambition and power, and she clearly doesn't really care about any particular issues in a way that's like motivating for her. Is deeply uncomfortable in these situations, constantly trying to find the right answer, like the correct answer versus what she actually thinks. And then you just end up with this pathetic display where you have to say you didn't realize people wanted you to be different than Joe Biden and you thought it would be obvious, which to me is like a to me, that's a gesture towards her identity that she just thought like, well, I'm a black woman, of course I'm different from Joe Biden. It's like, no, that's not what we're talking about. Here, you are his vice president. You have stood there and backed his every decision. People wanted to know they're not happy with how things are going, Yes, they want to know how you're different, what you think went wrong, why they should put their trust in you to create a different outcome than what they're experiencing right now. And then you know, I've also seen some of the discussion around what she had to say about Gaza. Allegedly privately she was urging Biden to be more compassionate, blah blah blah, And it's like, okay, but when it actually mattered, when you were in a position of power, you did nothing to change anything, right, And now we're supposed to believe after the fact that, oh, you were genuinely you were being courageous behind the scenes. Like I'm sorry, no one should buy that, No one should believe that whatsoever.
01:17:45
Speaker 3: She is the I feel like the physical embodiment of a lot of the Democratic Party's problems, Like it's illustrated in this one woman so perfectly. Let's get more into the identity conversation because she One of the big revelations in the book is that she her first choice to add to vice president. The vice presidential ticket was actually Pete boota judge, and not Tim Wallas, but she believed that as a black woman married to a Jewish man, adding a gay vice presidential candidate to the ticket would have been too much of a risk. Now, Rachel Maddow confreditor about this, it was maybe the most uncomfortable moment in a pretty, I don't know, friendly interview.
01:18:29
Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and rule C three.
01:18:31
Speaker 15: If his reaction to that, since this part of the book has come out, if you've had any reflection on that, or I guess, I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate on that a little bit. It's hard to hear with you running, as you know, you're the first woman elected vice president, you're a black woman and a South Asian woman elected that high office, very nearly elected president, to say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because he was gay.
01:18:57
Speaker 13: It's hard to hear.
01:18:58
Speaker 12: No, no, no, that's not what I said that. That's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in one hundred and seven days in one of the most hotly contested elections, for president United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor to be a black woman running for president United States and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, But I also realized it would be a real risk no matter how.
01:19:47
Speaker 16: You know.
01:19:47
Speaker 12: I've been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So it wasn't about it wasn't about it right, So it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part. But short we had such a short period of time and the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant, and I think America is and would be ready for that. But at when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go, you know, And maybe I was being too cautious, you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made.
01:20:39
Speaker 3: I like how powerful she thought it was that she was saying she believes Pete Buddha Judge is a phenomenal public servant. As though that's some really important line coming from her.
01:20:52
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris, I mean, where do you start with this, like, on one level, it gives me flashbacks to the Bernie Elizabeth Warren you're a secret sexist because you told me like women can't be president or something like that conversation, which you know, it appears what Bernie was actually saying was like, Listen, sexism is a real thing. Trump will try to weaponize it. Not like I think I'm sexist and I don't think you should be president, and so Matt out being you know, high dudgeon about an analysis of Listen, it's still you know, it's a lot to have a black woman and a gay guy on the ticket, and we know what Trump will do with that and whatever is annoying to me. Then it's annoying to me that Kamala doesn't stand on business. Like if that's what you thought and that was your analysis, Like girl, you put it in the book. This is actually I'm sure you've had this experience too, where authors will say something provocative and then you go to interview about them about it and they add like a thousand caveats and you're like, dude, you wrote it, like say it with your chest, explain why you felt that way, rather than trying to like run away from it and be all scared, where it just comes off as weakness.
01:22:02
Speaker 5: So that's number two.
01:22:04
Speaker 2: Number three, the problem with Pete Bootage is not that it's he's gay, it's that he sucks.
01:22:09
Speaker 4: It's that his.
01:22:09
Speaker 2: Neoliberal shill who stands for nothing, who black people can't stand right, Like, that's the problem with Pee Bootajie. Okay, now she doesn't have that problem with him, but that's the actual issue with him. Number four, I think Pete should feel lucky that he dodged this bullet of being not being happy to be associated with this, you know, terrible campaign which ended in disaster in my opinion, for the country and the world.
01:22:35
Speaker 5: So there's that as well. So there's just there's a lot.
01:22:38
Speaker 2: Of different layers going on here with this Pete bootaj Judge commentary.
01:22:44
Speaker 5: And you know the.
01:22:46
Speaker 2: Last piece, well, there's two other pieces on the question of is the country you're writer for like a black woman and a gay man. Would that have been too much to ask to ask the country to endure? Listen, I'm not one who says that sexism didn't play any role in this campaign. I think it did. I think that that was part of Trump ran this very campy Man campaign. Remember the way that the Madison Square Garden rally was like he leaned into this kind of gender dividean ripping off a shirt at the RNC exactly. So that was that was there, right And I think there's a lot of hostility towards women right now in general. I genuinely feel that coming from like you know, the red pill and the manisphere and whatever, like guys can't get ahead and it's because of these damn women who are keeping them down and nagging them, and they need to be put in their place. Like there is an energy of that right now. That is.
01:23:39
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:23:39
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm trying to kind of work on myself emily, like the self hating thing, but anyway, I'll get there.
01:23:44
Speaker 3: But imagine powerful Saga could be without you nagging him.
01:23:50
Speaker 2: I'm sure he feels that way some days. He definitely feels so. In any case, so that was definitely an energy. I think that was you know, I think that played into her loss. I'm not going to say the only fact, but I definitely think that was a factor in her loss as well. There may have been an argument for actually sort of leaning into that, like heightening the contradictions I think it was maybe who was it somebody was arguing for putting another woman on the ticket, like Aggretcha Whitmer or something like that, and actually leaning into it and making the contrast ex was not being afraid of it, not trying to do You're like, I'm actually the one who prosecuted transnational gangs is going to be bigger and badder and tougher than you are, because no one was going to buy that. So you know, I'm not saying a gay man is equivalent to a woman, but if you're like doing the whole we're going to be historic. I don't think that him being a gay man was really the challenge here, and then yeah.
01:24:45
Speaker 5: I'll I'll just leave it there.
01:24:47
Speaker 2: There's other things I could say, but you know, the bottom line is that Kamala is still this person who doesn't really believe anything, isn't really ready to stand on business, on literally anything, wilt under the slightest criticism, is constantly trying to please absolutely everyone in a way that is just going to please absolutely no one.
01:25:10
Speaker 3: So I'm shocked to hear you say that, because if we put C four on the screen, the book actually opens with a Kendrick Lamar quote that I feel really captures the energy of Kamala Harris. I got loyalty, got royalty inside my dna. I was born like this. That is actually at the intro of the book. So, Chris, I'm confused to hear you say that she's not standing on business and that she's timid and seems ambivalent on some of the key issues because she was born like this and royalty is in her DNA, and she listens to rap music, so I assume she's a very badass woman despite the actually no, because of the pantsuits.
01:25:53
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I've said this very after I did my feminist tirade. I'll say the very unfeminist thing of like this lady loves gig like she should do a cooking show. She'd be so much happier. She's so much more like when you see her in the kitchen, she's in her element. So the headline of the segment is I believe Kamala Harris should be back.
01:26:14
Speaker 4: In the kitchen crystal Ball, Comma, lets you come back to me.
01:26:17
Speaker 3: That's the headline. Literally, that is the headline. Oh we'll see I hope that is literally the headline. Now, Josh Shapiro is obviously getting in on the fund.
01:26:27
Speaker 4: So here's see five. We'll put this on the screen.
01:26:29
Speaker 3: Governor Josh Shapiro Pennsylvania seem more interested in defining the role for himself than helping her win. And Kamala Harris recounted how Shapiro was questioning an eight about the pieces.
01:26:38
Speaker 4: Of art he could use to decorate the vice president.
01:26:40
Speaker 2: My God, I believe this about him. By the way, I think this is true.
01:26:43
Speaker 3: Touching some strays in the otherwise very I don't know, gentle memoir might be one way to put it. Let's go ahead and listen to Shapiro responding six.
01:26:55
Speaker 13: I mean, look, I haven't read the former vice president's book, and she's going to have to. She's going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly. I can tell you that I wasn't in the room, but when I was confronted with engagement with the former president. In looking at it simply from the perspective of how's he doing in Pennsylvania, could he win Pennsylvania? Because I think, Steven, you understand, if you can't win pennsylvania's pretty darn hard to win. The national election, and I was very vocal with him privately, and extremely vocal with his staff about my concerns about his fitness to be able to run for another term. I was direct with them. I told them my concerns, I told them my worries. I told them what I was seeing in the polls. I think it seemed to me that maybe his staff wasn't counseling him with all the information that we knew on the ground here in Pennsylvania that frankly, they should have shared with the president.
01:27:57
Speaker 2: Convince it, Crystal, you're read in a vote for Shiman. And I'm not a Shapiro fan. I believe the anecdote that he was. There was some reporting to this effect at the time that he was very entitled and more like asking Kamala, like asserting what he wanted the role to be and assuming he had the job before even you know, going through the auditions, and there was a bit of a like personality clash between them, and that's why she ultimately goes with Tim Walls like. I think that that is probably accurate based on my vibes of Josh Shapiro. And you know, I am incredibly biased against anyone who does the fake Obama impression when they're giving public speeches, of which she is certainly guilty. But just to wrap it all up in this Kamala book thing, you know, one of the things that she keeps going back to and again, having not read the book, but judging by the title and the excerpts that I've seen and analysis that I've seen, and Kamala herself and how she's representing it, her big overarching excuse is just like, look, y'all, we just didn't have that much time. We didn't have enough time. If we'd had more time, I could have made the case better. I could have done this. I could have done that. It would have I've somehow magically made the situation better. It's unknowable, but based on what we actually saw and experienced, she was doing better earlier in the campaign when there was just excitement about someone different, when she was leaning more into some of the populist elements like the price gouging, when they were letting Tim Walls be more like do his weird critique, which seemed to land better than the more grandiose like he's a fascist critiquem though he is a fascist. But the you know, the like these guys are weirdos and they're freaks, and like fringe characters actually seem to land better with the public. So I don't see any evidence that more time would have benefited Kamala Harris. If anything, what we've seen from Kama Harris's political career is actually the more that people have a chance to sit with the reality of her versus the idea of her or the resume of her, the more they're like, not sure that this is the direction that they want to go in that they want to go in politically. So I from that perspective, it seems to me that the central premise and framing of the book, that it was too short a time period to succeed, is false or at least unsupported.
01:30:07
Speaker 3: This is incontrovertible based on the polling data. If you believe it, this is incontrovertible. Kamala Harris enters the twenty twenty primary with a lot of money and very splashy media coverage and declines to the point where she can't make it to the Iowa CAUCUSUS drops out literally before twenty twenty in December of twenty nineteen, because the more people see of Kamala Harris. The less people are interested in actually voting for Kamala Harris. She becomes vice president and has a very steadily historically negative favorability rating. You could go ahead and look at Real Clear Politics's average of her when she hits the campaign trail after taking the torch from Biden. Is she does get a very real honeymoon period where her popularity reverses again, and then around late September October it just crashes.
01:31:00
Speaker 4: Has been going in the opposite direction ever since.
01:31:02
Speaker 3: So what Crystal just said is completely supported by the data when it comes to Kamala Harris, which should throw a real wrench into whatever political future she thinks she has. She might have been butted off as a long term California senator. Speaking of California, though, let's wrap up the segment with c Sevenvin Newsom. This is apparently Kamala Harris wrote that she called Gavin Newsom for an endorsement after Biden's exit, but he brushed her off of the short text that read quote hiking will call back, and that was it never heard anything else from Gavin Newsom, which is Crystal, hiking will call back. That is how I plan to respond when you guys asked me to do something that I don't want to do in the future, hiking will call back fill.
01:31:46
Speaker 5: In for me. Oh sorry, hiking, get back to you.
01:31:49
Speaker 4: Hiking.
01:31:49
Speaker 3: Well, it's like the Mark Sanford excuse he was hiking the Appalachian Trails.
01:31:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, Well, I mean, I'm sure someone who's steeped in California politics can tell us more about the Gavin Kamala likely like rivalry. They probably like low key hate each other more than they even hate Republicans or whatever, if I had to guess. And so Gavin also is a finger in the wind kind of a guy. So if it was you know, at that moment it was unclear what was going to happen, you had probably maybe Pelosi in his ear who wanted to have a different process play out and actually have some sort of a you know, like short primary or DNC convention floor fight or something else play out, And so he just decided, like, I'm gonna absent myself from this because there's no place that I deemed to be politically safe yes to land here.
01:32:40
Speaker 3: Ultimately, it's like Taylor Swift, like, I'd very much like to be excluded from this narrative. We're ready long in today's show, so make sure you subscribe over at Breakingpoints dot com and watch the Friday show. We're going to talk about AOC and more on Gavin Newsom. Actually a potential team up in the works with AOC and Cavin Newsom and numbers looking really great if she wanted to make her own presidential run in twenty twenty eight, So we're gonna do that in the Friday show. Make sure to tune in then and you can get the full version of it over at Breakingpoints dot com. Let's go ahead, Crystal and move on to Argentina and bring in our guests. Wan Da vid Rojas, it looks like the United States is going to bail out Javier Milae and the Argentinian economy amid a slump in their market. So wan Da vid Rojas, writer at Compact, who has a new story on us, a great news story on this with the headline Trouble and Libertarian Paradise over at comput over at Compact, joins us now one, thanks for being.
01:33:41
Speaker 17: Here, Thanks for having me on guys.
01:33:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's a little bit of news actually on this front. Just before we were recording with you one. This morning we heard more from Scott Bessett about what this potential bailout. We can put the first hair sheet up on the screen that's been publicly in the works that we've been brought in on over the last couple of days, is going to what that's actually going to look like. This is a great financial times rundown of what actually happened. It starts by saying, quote, less than six months ago, US Treasury Secretary Scott best was in Buenos Aires congratulating President Javier Mila for bringing America Argentina back from the precipice, as the libertarian secured more than forty billion dollars and loans from the IMF and multilateral lenders to bolster his government. Now, with political and economic missteps sparking panic in Argentina's markets, the South American nation is once again on the brink, and the Trump administration is preparing to bail out its ideological ally. So one tell us what we learned this morning from Scott Bessett about what that bailout is going to look like.
01:34:39
Speaker 17: Yeah, Bestin announced this morning that the Treasury is going to provide a twenty billion dollar swap line to Argentina's central bank. Basically, Argentina central bank will get a loan in dollars that they will have to pay back to the United States, which is extremely important because last week they spent over a billion of the twenty billion they have left in their foreign reserves defending the paeso because it lost like a third of its value in the past month.
01:35:11
Speaker 2: So let's actually back up on that note and explain what is the crisis that they're facing right now and what triggered this moment where they're in need potentially of a US bailout.
01:35:23
Speaker 17: Yeah, so, over the past fifty years, really the one constant of all of Argentina's economic problems is the dollar. For our purposes, specifically, the fact that the peso, Argentina's currency is pegged to the dollar. What that means is that the government sets a margin within which the paco will float relative to the dollar around like one thousand something paysos too for every dollar, And the problem with this is that you become completely beholden to the whims of investors that can be extremely fickle, and also the amount of dollars that your central bank has in its foreign reserves. Because that's how you maintain that conversion between those two currents. And if there's some kind of panic like what just happened, you need to spend all of your foreign reserves in order to keep that value of your of the paso. And so Miday, when he came in, said, okay, I'm gonna fix this. I'm gonna through libertarianism, I'm gonna get government out of the way. I'm gonna get rid of this peg, and everything is gonna be great. So he took off this in December of twenty twenty three, uh, and did exactly that. He'd massively devalue the paeso. It lost like fifty percent of its value overnight, and this caused inflation to skyrocket, went from like one hundred and fifty percent till like three hundred percent. And this makes perfect sense because if your currency loses a ton of it it's it's buying power overnight, well, then prices are gonna shoot up. And so he said, whoops, Okay, what do I do now? People elected me to control inflation. Okay, So he did exactly what his predecessor, we're doing. He restored the peg to the peso, and this worked. The pas over the course of the next few months, in twenty twenty four, recovered and even exceeded its previous peak. See the problem with the the you know, pegging your currency of the dollar in the case of Argenta, a country like Argentina where your currency has zero credibility, is that it's just extremely overvalued relative to its actual worth and the broader value of your economy. So anyway, you know, Melay, inflation started to go down, and Mela says, oh, see, this is because libertarianism works. We can talk about that. There's some details in whether or not some of what he's done austerity wise, it could be would have been worth it in the long run. But anyway, inflation by the end of twenty twenty four fell from yeah, like three hundred percent to around thirty percent. Then in twenty twenty five he started to have a couple of setbacks. There was this big corruption scandal with his sister who's also his chief of staff. There were recordings suggesting that she was taking bribes. The Congress passed spending increases that he vetoed, and then Congress overrode his veto. And then what really set things off was that a week ago Buenos Aires, the country's most important province, held provincial elections where Malay's party got destroyed, lost by like thirteen points something like that. And this really caused investors of panic because they saw it as a sign that the opposition parentists that are left wing were going to take control of the Congress next month in midterm elections. And so this caused, in Malay's words, a full market panic and the pay so yeah, like I said, lost like a third of its value. The Central Bank spent a billion dollars in just three days and it only has it purportedly only has twenty billion dollars left in reserve, which is really the exact amount that the IMF gave Argentina in January. Argentina is the single largest recipient of IMF loans in history. I saw something that in the past thirty years, of the two hundred billion dollars that Argentina at the IMF has given out, Argentina has gotten a third of that. So it's really crazy.
01:39:05
Speaker 3: Wow, let's take a listen. I want to get your reaction to this. Actually one to what Donald Trump said about Melay while he was in New York for the nation's General Assembly and to.
01:39:15
Speaker 18: The people of Argentina.
01:39:17
Speaker 6: We're back at him one hundred percent.
01:39:19
Speaker 18: We think he's done a fantastic job. He, like us, inherited a mess and what he's done to fix it is good. And Scott is working with their country so that they can get good dead and all of the things that you need to make Argentina grant again. So it's an honor for me to endorse and the president and the future president of Argentina. Thank you, thank you very much, thank you very much.
01:39:43
Speaker 3: As you so, he's sitting astride Mela there alongside Scott Lessons and Marco Rubio. Now, one an interesting question, based on everything you've just said, is to what extent the uncertainty that Melee has faced in twenty twenty five is downstream of some of the uncertainty that Donald Trump has injected into the global economy from his economic policies. Is there a kind of circular way that Trump is bailing out Melee from a situation that that he in some sense stoked in the Argentinian economy? Am I sounding crazy? Is there a connection there at all?
01:40:22
Speaker 17: You know what, I hadn't thought about that. It's a good question. I guess, yeah, maybe a dollar a bit more skittish that they than they would be otherwise, but I would say that generally that's not the case. There is one thing that did uh like when in MINEI took power in twenty twenty three. One thing is that that's when the Fed raised interest rates and Argentina has unfortunately way too much of its debt in dollars. Again, there's is this circular problem with the dollar, uh, And so when interest rates go up, well, interest payments on your debt also go up, and that caused Argentina's debt to skyrocket. So and that, honestly, I would say, is a big part of what got me lay elected.
01:41:05
Speaker 2: Interesting, could you tell me a little bit more. First of all, I wanted to opine on how the support of Malay just reveals how content free trump Ism is, because it's not like, allegedly they are not ideologically the same, but since Malay will be a good little boy and do whatever the US wants him to, then he gets, you know, favorite status regardless of his because I think there's a lazy assumption that they're sort of like closely ideologically aligned and on some levels, yes, but I'm sure you could lay out even better than I could, like on a lot of levels. No, but I was also curious what did happen in that Buenos Aire's election. Was it surprising that his party suffered such a defeat, What are people reading into, like the message that is being sent by voters, and what are they unhappy with? You know under Malay? Sorry, remind me that the first part of the question just that you can way in on the second part. The first part was how Trump and lay are not the second part is just about the Buenos Aires elections.
01:42:08
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, right right? So yeah, I mean.
01:42:13
Speaker 17: Trump really, what Trump is is like a Gilded Age Republican kind of like it's protectionism abroad and free marketeerism at home. Uh and Malay is just the free marketeerism everywhere. So Trump is a huge protectionist, you know the tariffs hall that Melea hates tariffs. So in that way, they're extremely different. But uh yeah, as far as like Doge and you know, the deregulation all of that, uh yeah, they're pretty simpatico. And uh really I actually do see a lot of this. Well, you know, on the one hand, Trump he really just loves anyone who says good things about him. But on the other hand, geopolitically, and it's not really that Argentina like actually offers any like I call.
01:42:54
Speaker 4: It moral support.
01:42:56
Speaker 17: Uh, Milay really has prostly prostrated himself before, like Washington, and he supports all of our foreign wars Ukraine, Israel, and also what we're doing now in Venezuela, and you know, the sanctions regime against Cuba, Nicaraguay.
01:43:11
Speaker 10: Et cetera.
01:43:13
Speaker 17: As far as that election in Buenos Aireas to be fair, Buenos Aidas is a bastion of Paranism, the opposition, and so he was expected to lose there, but not by as much as he did, lost by like thirteen points, and the polls showed him as being more competitive, and now he started to slide in these midterm elections. His party has a minority in both chambers of Congress, though there's like a couple of other parties that are kind of allied with him. But the yeah, the fear, like I said now, is that the Parentists will be able to take back control. As far as what the broader population thinks, all things considered, Milai's approval writing is still pretty good, though his disapproval has gone up a lot. And the thing is the austerity, his austerity region has caused this horrible economic depression in the country. Is something like forty percent of the country is living in poverty. On the other hand, you can make the case that he has managed to bring down some of Argentina's debt, which is really out of control before he took office. So I'm not sympathetic to Meley or libertarianism, but you know, I'm trying to give you the other side. But you know, people are just kind of saying it's like, okay, inflation is going to come down some although you know, it's misleading how the financial press reports this because they've like to cite the monthly figure of inflation that's gone down to like two percent, is stagnated at two percent for a while now. And the thing is, for instance, here in the US, when we talk about monthly inflation, we're still talking about monthly inflation with respect to the annual figure. So if you look at annual inflation in Argentina, it's still at like thirty percent, which is what it was in like twenty twenty one under the previous government, and it's still pretty bad. So people want to see results. They still kind of give him the benefit of the doubt because they were promised like a V shaped recovery, that things would get worse and then get better. And the opposition. There's kind of a similar situation here with the Democrats their soul searching. There's like different wings that are like fighting each other, and we could talk about that. It's interesting.
01:45:15
Speaker 3: Well, the last question for me, actually it is just what might this do to the situation in Argentina? Sort of like the obvious question on the table is how does a US bailout? It's sort of funny to talk about a libertarian experiment being bailed out by the United States. I mean, it's it's obviously not funny.
01:45:31
Speaker 5: And the IMF yeah, and the IMI yes, I was thinking that too.
01:45:35
Speaker 4: It's just amusing.
01:45:36
Speaker 3: But what could what can we see in the months to come with this this bailout, as it will influence the Argentinian economy.
01:45:47
Speaker 17: So it seems that it'll keep them aflow. Markets have rallied and yeah, those dollars really will be vital for the central bank and also paying back Argentina's debts. There's a broader conversation like if we go back further, because they first started paying the dollar to the peso in the nineties, and Argentina just has these recurring crises. If we go back further, the issue is also that they take on too much debt in dollars, and that's a huge problem. If you borrow in your own currency, you can get way more in debt than otherwise.
01:46:19
Speaker 4: Just look at us.
01:46:19
Speaker 17: We have this huge national debt, but thankfully it's in our own currency, which also happens to be the world's reserve currency, which means that countries like Argentina need it to stay afloat. But so Argentina, like they get they amass so much debt in dollars, they're just you know, hostage to what the Fed does. If they raise interest rates, their debt explodes. If investors pull their money, they have a currency crisis, and they end up just kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They'll get one IMF loan to pay back another IMF loan. They'll get a billion dollars from Qatar to pay back the IMF. They'll get twenty billion from Trump to pay back the IMF. So it's a I mean, yeah, probably we'll eventually see some sort of collapse. But this really was vital, like there was not even that there was a risk the country was gonna spiral into an inflationary chaos again if Trump had an energy.
01:47:15
Speaker 2: Well, we definitely recommend everyone go and read your piece over at Compact Meg. We'll put the link in the description and as always want great to have your insights.
01:47:25
Speaker 5: Really useful. Thanks guys, Thank you, Yeah, our pleasure.
01:47:32
Speaker 3: We're continuing to learn more about what may have gone on behind the scenes with Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk, in addition to the group's donors or potential donors hopeful donors in the background when it came to Charlie Kirk bringing people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith into some events speaking out more publicly about the crackdown on free speech when it came to discussing matters related to is Real. Because one of Charlie's closest friends, Andrew Corvett, executive producer of his show High Up at Churning Point USA, went on Alex Clark's program Culture Apothecary yesterday to go into some of the background information and try to debunk some conspiracy theories tell the truth about what was happening in this conversation with Alex and he did get into what was happening. And I just want to say before we roll the clip. F three, this is the tear sheet from the Gray Zone. This is the Gray Zone story that was trying to say people close to Charlie Kirk were people close to Charlie Kirk heard that a top pro Israel Turning Point USA donor, as the Gray Zone piece puts it, quote, terminated support for the group in the days before his death. So with that in mind, this is a story that came out in recent days. Here's how Colsette addressed questions about potential pressure from donors.
01:49:06
Speaker 4: F one.
01:49:07
Speaker 16: Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. I like them more than I like Kamas. I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti semi because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti American, right, But why do I have more freedom to do, you know that, and not criticize a foreign government. And he was really upset that there was this sort of clamp down on the freedom of expression, the freedom of ideas, free speech when it came to a foreign government with Tucker for example. Yeah, I mean we took some pushback, We lost some donors. And what's interesting is it wasn't necessarily Jewish donors, although there was. That's a misconception about turning points funding base, by the way, is you know, it's not a whole lot of Jewish donors.
01:49:58
Speaker 4: It's just not.
01:49:59
Speaker 16: We never you know, there was always I saw the comments online like oh the Jewish shekels or something like that. I mean, it's all this gross stuff. It just wasn't true and it isn't true. But we did lose, you know, one in particular towards the end that was frustrating. Charlie was a friend of the Jewish people and a friend of Israel. Did he have opinions about the prosecution of the war about He thought their pr was abysmal, thought they were doing more harm than good in many ways for their own cause. So all of those things were true, and he was upset that he couldn't express those things freely without all of this pressure coming down on the organization. But he has a lot of great Jewish friends, and you know, and some people that maybe some not so good ones, right, But I think there's just it's just a nuanced thing.
01:50:49
Speaker 5: Was Charlie offered one hundred and fifty million dollars from Israel?
01:50:52
Speaker 16: As far as I know, no.
01:50:53
Speaker 5: I had never heard anything like that. Everyone I've asked has said the same.
01:50:56
Speaker 16: And by the way, just for what it's worth, it doesn't matter the amount that we have been coming down. We would have said no because there's evidence turning point does not. Charlie would not accept foreign money exactly. We only took American money. There was money sent to us, like practically in multiple instances. They're trying to cram it down our bank account, and we said no. We canceled like money wires and things on foreign money. I have I remember moments we'd be at like an event, you know, and some foreign people would come up and like demand a meeting or try and get a meeting with Charlie, and Charlie look at me and go deal with them, get rid of.
01:51:32
Speaker 3: Them, and crystal this Basically, he says in that clip, everyone just heard one in particular, referring to one donor in particular, and the Gray Zone story is about a particular donor. It's about Robert Shillman, who was super supportive of Charlie Kirk for a long time, and I would guess that's who Colvette was alluding to in his conversation with with Alex Clark. At sure, it certainly sounds like it, but whether or not it's showman, it confirmed the thrust of what's been reported in recent days, what people have said, they've heard, just that Kirk was under enormous pressure for as Corvett says, they're speaking out against the public relations that Israel had in the free speech crackdown that Israel had. He said he had opinions unquote the prosecution of the war. Heard a little bit about that from Kirk towards the end of his life. Certainly nothing that was a criticism as harsh as you know you would hear from Tucker Carlson, for example.
01:52:36
Speaker 2: Right.
01:52:36
Speaker 3: But yeah, this is basically a confirmation which we almost don't even know, we don't almost don't even need, because Charlie had that appearance with Megan Kelly, I think this was in early August, where he was openly talking about the pressures he was under, the pressures that he was facing. But now I think we can say confidently that turning point us they did actually lose a donor, a big donor over this.
01:53:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, and according to Colvett, you know that one he said one in particular that was very frustrating. But he did say originally, you know, after that there were donors that they lost over having Tucker and having Dave Smith, et cetera. And it's also this is a small point, but I mean it's also interesting his note of like, hey, we don't actually it wasn't actually a lot of Jewish donors, which why you know, I think it's very important people be precise in their language how they speak about these things, because actually the strongest pro Zionist constituency in the US is not Jewish people. It's evangelical Christians. So it would be no surprise to me that some of the people who pulled support over just the platforming of Tucker Carlson were not Jewish. Very possible that they were, you know, Evangelical Christians or others too, just are you know, closely Trump aligned, et cetera.
01:53:52
Speaker 5: That's why you know, I like framing this.
01:53:54
Speaker 2: Story as everybody versus the Jews is actually anti Semitic and is also not accurate in terms of the reality of the political dynamics that play out here with regard to the US's on equivocal and constant support for Israel. But you know, in a lot of ways, he did confirm at least this report from UH from the Gray Zone and Max Plumenthal, And as you said, it also confirms what was already leaking out to the public. No one should be under the illusion that Charlie Kirk was anything but you know, relatively and consistently pro Israel. But I also get the sense in Emily you probably attract this more closely than I have. Like I can just imagine Charlie Kirk became this you know, activist at a very young age, and you know, his role was backing up the administration, providing you know, the talking points that would back up the administration's line, backing up Trump whatever. And now he's a thirty one year old man, and perhaps he didn't want that relationship just to be okay, whatever Trump says, I'm going to back up he want. He maybe was chafing at that role a bit. We know the reporting about how he obviously publicly was opposing a strike on Iran, and that he tried to raise those concerns with Trump and was really you know, berated for that in particular. And so I don't think it would be a surprise that, at this age and at his level of maturity is like a full grown man with kids and a family and a wife and all of those sorts of things, that he would be starting to sort of chafe in this role and asking questions about like, Okay, well, I can criticize the US, but I can't criticize Israel, and by the way, Israelis can criticize Israel, but I can't. You know, don't have the same freedom here and come under all this insane pressure if I don't even say anything, I just have someone on stage who says something they disagree with. I don't think that's a surprising development that he was starting to feel very restricted and constrained in that role.
01:55:53
Speaker 3: No, because again he's a member of the younger cohort of conservatives where we've seen significant shifts in polling, and if you grow up after the or in the time of the global War on Terror post nine to eleven, you probably do have a very different opinion. Your opinion on the country has been forged at a time where if you if you were previously supportive and then start asking questions. And I'm speaking this as somebody who was sort of on a similar arc with Charlie, and I mentioned this on the Show with Ryan last week. But for all of the differences that Charlie and I had over the years, I'm after he started speaking out about the free speech stuff. In particular, I had meant to send him a note, and I was going to send him a note and was trying to be like trying to not make it look like it was fake or anything like that, because I genuinely appreciated what he was doing and obviously never got the chance to do that. Because there are so many of us that have just you know, with I think especially some of it is the fracturing in media and everyone's kind of media bubbles pop. I've talked a lot about this on the show and my own experience going along that arc, but I think a lot of people are in a similar position and then being told you can't even ask questions, which is what he did at turning Point when he hosted a debate between his friend Josh Hammer and Dave Smith. I mean, just insane that you get keyt for hosting a debate and remaining consistent on the question of free speech. And I just want to read one more portion here from the Gray Zone story because it's remarkable for me as somebody in conservative movement world goes to a lot of these chicken dinners. They report, and some of this is source to a TPUSA insider, but they report The Gray Zone was informed that Shilman announced the termination of contributions to TPUSA during a private dinner of another organization he funds, the American Freedom Alliance, according to an attendee of the event, which was held in la on September sixth, so not back in the summer. September sixth, Shilman stated that he would be ending his donations to Kirk diverting them instead to reliably proclude laclude anti Islam groups like the AFA, so the American Freedom Alliance. That is remarkable. I have never seen anything like that at a conservative movement event. I've never seen anything like a donor coming out at a dinner a banquet and publicly announcing that they are routing money they put into another organization that they enthusiastically supported for years. Making a public announcement like that yes, it's a private dinner, but you're doing it in front of people in the public sphere. Right, You're out in Los Angeles at a banquet. That is remarkable. That is unheard of as far as I'm concerned, I've been around a lot of these events. I've never ever heard of anything like that happening. So these pressures were not just in the background. This is some serious, serious stuff. And something Alex Clark mentioned during the podcast conversation, which I listened to all of it was very interesting is that she had really Charlie had recently told her, Wow, this infighting on the right.
01:59:03
Speaker 4: Over Israel, this is this is real.
01:59:05
Speaker 3: These are these are real divisions, right, this is a real problem. And they didn't get to continue the conversation, but basically they had had that discussion, uh, that Charlie didn't think it was sort of a sideshow, but that this was genuinely a problem facing the right.
01:59:18
Speaker 4: And you can see why when.
01:59:19
Speaker 3: You have a like a long time donor talking trash about your organization because of it's hosting a debate on Israel. I mean, this is like, this is crazy, crazy stuff.
01:59:34
Speaker 2: Well, and the context there that you're gesturing towards is that everyone else in the room would have already been read in on this controversy, or he would have been aware of it, would have been applauding, like, yes, you should be pulling your funding from TPUSA, How brave of you, Thank you for funneling your dollars into consistently pro the code outfits, et cetera. So this wasn't, as you said, something that was on the back burner. This was very much foreground for this group, at least of you know, significant Republican donors who all would have been aware of this controversy and aware of the ways that Charlie the Kirk had apparently strayed from the pro Israel just like pro Netna no matter what line.
02:00:18
Speaker 5: And I do think it's just worth noting.
02:00:20
Speaker 2: Like, like Colvett said, Charlie, if you listen to him, he was very pro Israel, right, he said things that about I mean, he supported the genocide, like, he said things I found to be morally outrageous about all of this. And yet the very fact that he would even have someone with the different view at the conference was like they just they they are so sensitive to any break from the one hundred percent we're on board with everyone everything. We will never breathe a voice of criticism. Yes, our enemies all need to be crushed and never heard from again. If you deviate even one inch from that, even if you're Charlie Kirk, they will threaten you, they'll pull your your funding, you know, and like make an example of all of those sorts of things. And so I think it's a really important glimpse of the pressures that are brought to bear on all sorts of people, especially I think right now people are on the right. I think they feel like the Democrats, you know, the activists and the Democratic Party are kind of buying large loss, although I think at the elite, at the politician level, that sort of pressure is still applied. But it's just an interesting autopsy of what it looks like to be inside the belly of the beast and the way that they bring pressure to bear on you that may not be, you know, obvious if you're just looking at it from the outside. The last thing we wanted to highlight here was just a kind of eyebrow raising comment that was also made by Corvette about the how they were able to work with their tech partners to identify hundreds of thousands of cell phones that came to attend Charlie Kirk's memorial service.
02:01:59
Speaker 5: Let's go and take a look this.
02:02:00
Speaker 16: And by the way, I'm gonna break a little bit of news on your program, Jesse, are partners that do sort of geotagging with devices. They told us that they tracked over two hundred and seventy seven thousand devices in the vicinity of State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
02:02:18
Speaker 5: Two and seventy seven thousand.
02:02:21
Speaker 16: So that just gives you an idea of the scale of humanity.
02:02:24
Speaker 5: I would like to know more about that, Emily.
02:02:26
Speaker 3: I am curious sort of there are places that you can go to get that information. I mean, that is an insane turnout, like just we're talking like Billy Graham level event, if not more. That happened in Arizona on Sunday. So I get why that is a stunning number. I am curious where that ever comes from.
02:02:52
Speaker 2: Who are the tech who are the tech partners. Let's know more about what you're doing with that information. I mean, it's also just a commentary on how comfy he thinks society is at this point with just this kind of surveillance tech being used all the time by private actors, by the government, et cetera, that this is something to brag about on Fox News.
02:03:12
Speaker 3: Well, and I mean, I'm sure that they're like mostly interesting getting the number out there. But this was a thing about January sixth, if you remember, Crystal Google basically turned over I mean, a lot of data was turned over to Track and the right was really upset about this, and I think understandably so, and some actually civil libertarian civil libertarians more on the left were upset about it too, because the way, without warrants, through various loopholes, the government was able to get this information on everybody who was near the capital was insane.
02:03:43
Speaker 4: And so yeah, there are all kinds of ways to do this.
02:03:46
Speaker 3: Two really quick points just to wrap this all up. One, the people who are closest to Trump know that Trump respects you more if you when you are sort of honest, that meaning like you're not pulling your punches in public. He loves the sort of fealty and loyalty that he gets from his cabinet, of course, because he knows that they have to support him at every step of the way. But he doesn't respect the people who act as Pravda. He's nice to them, right, but he doesn't respect them. But the people who are closest to Donald Trump know that it's okay to come and do what Tucker and Charlie apparently did, which was ahead of the iron strike, go and say, hey, here's what I'm thinking, I don't know about this. That's I think reflective indicative of Charlie Kirk being someone who is really in the Trump inner circle. And secondly, one of the other things coll That said on that podcast is that Charlie had started to get bored with politics and was more interested than IDAs very interesting because I think he was leaning into this media, this media role as someone who's a commentator, not quite a journalist, but somebody who's a broadcaster and you know, like one of his heroes, a Dennis Praeger or a RUSHLMBA who's like talking through the news instead of kind of doing organizing and activism. And I think, you know, we may have seen a very different direction or more of this from Charlie Kirk.
02:05:20
Speaker 4: Now Crystal Joe Rogan went into some of the.
02:05:23
Speaker 3: Theories about what may have happened with the assassin. I don't think there's any evidence of while we're talking about you know, Israel, Obviously people have tied this into the various conspiracy theories about this assassination, having still some big questions.
02:05:38
Speaker 4: That are are unanswered.
02:05:40
Speaker 3: I'm not on the Israel de a bandwagon, but it's also worth talking about what was happening behind the scenes with donors because it tells us so much, as you said, about what's happening inside of the right right now.
02:05:55
Speaker 5: Yeah, it does.
02:05:55
Speaker 2: And also when Natanyahu immediately comes out inserts himself into our politics and claims Charlie as you know, his own, I think that's something that needs to be discussed, and it fits with you know, my view that is, I guess somewhat controversial that it's important if you have a public figure who's killed or who dies, to try to assess accurately who they were, what they stood for, what they believed, what they said, even when those things are are uncomfortable. So there's there's a lot of reasons I think to be interested in the story and find it very important for American politics outside of a you know, conspiracy that that Israel had automotive in Israel?
02:06:36
Speaker 4: Did it?
02:06:37
Speaker 2: Did Israel have a I don't know, maybe, but did they do it at this point, there's no evidence to support that.
02:06:43
Speaker 3: Right, Well, we were or as this is a girl show, everybody knows we went long.
02:06:49
Speaker 4: We could have gone longer.
02:06:50
Speaker 3: We even cut a segment that we moved to the Friday show because, as Crystal said during one of the breaks, quote, women be talking.
02:07:00
Speaker 4: It's not exactly what you did.
02:07:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the sanitized version of what I said.
02:07:04
Speaker 5: Yes, that's right.
02:07:06
Speaker 2: Well, it's always fun to hang out with you, Emily and I enjoyed it very much. To tomorrow, like I said, it'll be me and Ryan for the comedy takeover. So all sorts of flavors of show going on this week.
02:07:16
Speaker 4: Love it.
02:07:16
Speaker 3: It's like Baskin Robbins thirty two flavors. Great stuff. Well, thanks everyone for tuning in. Thank you Crystal for joining us this Wednesday. I'm looking forward to the comedy takeover. Maybe you guys will get it in undertime. I don't know, we'll see.
02:07:30
Speaker 4: I'll be watching. I'll be timing you guys with my stop watch.
02:07:32
Speaker 3: Ryan.
02:07:32
Speaker 5: Can Loki be a talker too?
02:07:34
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, but in the most going, But you don't want him to stop, right, like he's.
02:07:39
Speaker 5: I'm not complaining, I'm just giving a fact. Yeah.
02:07:42
Speaker 3: All right, well, looking forward to that tomorrow. Thanks for tuning in everyone, Crystal and Ryan will see you in just a bit on Thursday.
Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
00:00:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of the show.
00:00:08
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
00:00:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
00:00:25
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
00:00:33
Speaker 3: Good morning, and welcome to Breaking Points Crystal, thanks for stepping in.
00:00:37
Speaker 4: And Ryan sped today my pleasure.
00:00:40
Speaker 5: We're mixing it up this week.
00:00:41
Speaker 2: Tomorrow I'll be me and Ryan with the Comedy Takeover, so everybody get excited for that.
00:00:45
Speaker 3: I love that we're calling at the Comedy Takeover. It's how I have always identified it in my head.
00:00:49
Speaker 4: But now that's it's official.
00:00:52
Speaker 5: We're just making a public now.
00:00:53
Speaker 4: Yes, I love it all right.
00:00:55
Speaker 3: So if you want to get the whole Gang's Friday Show experience, make sure you're subscribed over at breaking points dot com because that's where you know Soccer Pops and sometimes too. We've got Griffin most Fridays, Crystal, so we're having lots of fun. You get the second half of that show in addition to early, and actually you just get the second half of the show. Nobody else gets to see it unless your premium sits or whatever. So make sure to subscribe over there in addition to getting the show early every single day in your inbox over on breakingpoints dot com.
00:01:26
Speaker 4: Big newsweek, Crystal.
00:01:27
Speaker 3: Obviously, the UN General Assembly is going down and Donald Trump had a hell of a speech yesterday. Trumpion in all of the most predictable ways, and yet still manages at least managed to surprise me.
00:01:41
Speaker 4: I don't know about you, Christal, that was something else.
00:01:45
Speaker 2: I don't know what surprises me anymore, but yeah, it was. You know, there was there was an escalator scandal that we'll get to the bottom of as well. There was a teleprompter scandal that we can dig into. So a lot of moving pieces there. Let's say, wow, we're not moving I thought you did that earlier.
00:02:03
Speaker 3: Also, well, Crystal, maybe you should be writing jokes for Kimmel I think they might be better if you're writing.
00:02:08
Speaker 5: Jokes for Kimmel, writing Dad jokes for Ryan maybe is more.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: Like Ryan doesn't need a writer. They're all right off the dome. It's incredible what he's capable of. Jimmy Kimmel returned to the airwaves last night, although not everyone's airwaves because Sinclair and Next our affiliates are still not running Kimmel. But we have a breakdown of Kimmel's return, what he said, how the President responded, and where we go from here.
00:02:37
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris is on a book tour.
00:02:39
Speaker 3: She's a book called One hundred and seven Days Out and is basically face planting in every media appearance, major media appearance that she does. So we have some interesting updates on that front. Looking like for her, Oh.
00:02:54
Speaker 2: That's just kind of what she does, that's her thing. Doing a terrible job in interviews.
00:02:58
Speaker 3: And I'm excited for this segment and also the second we're going to do on Alexandro Kazu. Kurtz has Crystal to get some of your insights on where democrats are right now. It looks like AOC is teeming up with Kevin Newsom to take on some of the redistricting fights, so that'll be I'm eager to hear what you think of that, Crystal, because there's all kinds of stuff to dive into. Wanda Vive Rojas is joining us to discuss his new compact piece on Argentina, which is getting a US bailout as the market started to dip. We have some updates on the Mela situation and Crystal. Also some updates on from Turning Point USA World on what was going on behind the scenes as.
00:03:46
Speaker 4: It relates to Israel.
00:03:48
Speaker 3: Charlie Kirk in the weeks and months before his death.
00:03:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, very interesting revelations there from one of Charlie's closest friends and executive producer. Obviously, there's been great interest in the pressure that Charlie was under in his final months, especially after NAT and Yahoo came out and tried to claim him as his firmest and strongest constant ally and really used Charlie's legacy and molded for his own aim. So in any case, some interesting revelations there that kind of backs up some reporting from Max Plumenthal over at Gray Zone. So we'll get into all of that. I'm sure people will be quite interested.
00:04:25
Speaker 4: That's right.
00:04:26
Speaker 3: Let's start with the United Nations speech yesterday that Donald Trump gave, and also some updates on Trump and Ukraine. He sat down with Zelenski yesterday and then posted on True Social So we're going to get into all of that. But first, Christal, the way that I understood Donald Trump's spech, the way that I came to frame in my own mind I was as I was digesting it his speech, was that on the one hand, he's making this deep structural criticism of the geopolitical elite of the United Nations. He's doing it as people will hear in just one moment to their faces. And then he's also swinging for the fences and looking for a noble peace prize. So it's an interesting combination of goals. The complaint, let's go ahead and enroll this compilation of some of the big moments from the speech.
00:05:12
Speaker 6: Your countries are being ruined.
00:05:15
Speaker 7: The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders. In twenty twenty four, the UN budgeted three hundred and seventy two million dollars in cash assistance to support and estimated six hundred and twenty four thousand migrants journeying into the United States.
00:05:35
Speaker 6: I'm not mentioning names.
00:05:36
Speaker 7: I see it, and I could call every single one of them. You're destroying your countries. They're being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They've been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody's ever seen before.
00:05:51
Speaker 6: It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. Let see.
00:05:56
Speaker 7: I can tell you I'm really good at this stuff. Your countries going to hell. The American public agrees with it. I mean, I was very proud to see this morning. I have the highest poll numbers I've ever had. Part of it is because of what we've done on the border, I guess. The other part is what we've done in the economy. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated.
00:06:16
Speaker 6: On the world in my opinion.
00:06:18
Speaker 7: Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons.
00:06:32
Speaker 6: We're wrong.
00:06:34
Speaker 7: They were made by stupid people that of course their country's fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.
00:06:46
Speaker 4: So an absolute banger. Has everyone just heard?
00:06:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, indeed telling every other country that they're destroying their countries.
00:06:52
Speaker 5: They're going to hell.
00:06:53
Speaker 2: I mean, just think about Trump's record year and what he's done to this country with one of the things we consider covering is you know, have sixty plus percent of Americans saying they're worse off this year than they were previously. Wrong track numbers are off the charts. So just in terms of the well being of Americans in the here and now, Trump's complete disasters, I don't think he's in any condition or in any position to lecture the rest of the world, not to mention the undermining of what, in my opinion, are some of the best things about America, the freedoms we enjoy, the freedom of speech, the sense that you know, the government is going to aspire to be neutral, that there's going to be representative government. And then you also have on the geopolitical space stage, which is very relevant of course at at the UN him effectively aligning the entire world against us and you know, hastening the rise of a multipolar world, which hey may actually end up being better for the world, but maybe not the best for American interests.
00:07:50
Speaker 5: So that's one thing.
00:07:51
Speaker 2: The other thing that is galling to me, Emily is the two major policy themes were around and climate change, which he considers to be a complete total hoax, and then migration. And I think you and I are probably in a different place on migration, but perhaps this part you could agree with, which I don't know if there's any country in the world that is more committed to creating migration crises than the United States of America. I mean, we are currently working with Israel to try to expel all two million Palestinians from Gaza to go somewhere else. We are threatening Venezuela right now with another regime change war. And you know, certainly the list could go on of places where we have created tumult and turmoil, and you know, the conditions for refugee crises, Syria being a key one among them, which is you know, part of what upbended European politics. I wanted to ask you too about the climate change piece. It seems to me that there was a time when Republicans were all in on climate changes a hoax. Then it felt a little bit like we better least acknowledged this is real while throwing up a million roadblocks to not do anything about it. And now we're back with Trump just full on being like, you know, this is a hoax, there's nothing to see here, and you guys are destroying your countries in service of something that's completely fake.
00:09:15
Speaker 3: I don't know if that endures beyond Trump, to be honest. I mean, it's hard to say, but when you look at the kind of next generation of Republican politicians, especially like a JD. Vance who's kind of from tech world, my assumption is that nobody is going to get on the climate change bandwagon, but will probably be a bit more I don't know, maybe nuanced is the word, because they're also tied into the business community, which has some serious, obviously serious concerns in front of them when it comes to different changes obviously that they have.
00:09:52
Speaker 4: To worry about.
00:09:53
Speaker 3: If they're you know, real estate, if they're in different businesses, it matters to them. Also on the mic point, I think that just captures Trump in a nutshell, and for me, it captures my It's a representative of my entire reaction to that speech, which is he's saying some things about the United Nations that are just like right on the money, and it's satisfying as someone on the right to see them being said to the face of the United Nations or he's like.
00:10:22
Speaker 4: At what point, what is the point of the United Nations?
00:10:25
Speaker 3: Or like what is the purpose of the United Nations?
00:10:27
Speaker 4: He's like, what do you what do.
00:10:28
Speaker 3: You guys actually do, which, again, as someone on the right, is fairly satisfying to hear that from a United States president. On the other hand, I'm just a migration issue alone. Agree with your critiques and then also agree with the critique of the United Nations, which is that they were basically complicit in a lot of the trafficking that happened. I remember years ago going through their disbursements just I don't know if it was a tip or something that led me to like going through their disbursements, but it's just an incredible amount of money that spent, you know, for example, making it easier for people to go through the dairyen gap, and it's awful what people experience going through the dairy and gap. And people ended up coming in higher numbers as the UN was stepping in more and more to provide things like debit cards and protective measures and going through some of these parts. So it's with Trump, it's this, and I think a lot of populists have this. It's it's it's funny even on the tariffs too. You look at it and you're like, well, he's at least correct about this critique that nobody else will talk about.
00:11:32
Speaker 4: He's like, nobody else would say what he's saying.
00:11:35
Speaker 3: And then it's all the way it's manifest is just like completely insane. So you get a little satisfaction out of him being like, what are you guys doing? And then on the other hand, it's like, okay, but what are you doing?
00:11:48
Speaker 5: Yeah?
00:11:49
Speaker 2: Well there was one part that was again quite galling to me on the immigration piece, because he made some comment about like, you know, will be compassion, we want to help you in your country, and I'm like, first of all, bullshit, because yeah, you're committed to waging all these regime change wars and you know Iran and Venezuela and like I said, in Gaza, and you know, not to mention his involvement the past involvement of US presidence in Syria and all of those sorts of things. But in addition, you know, it's not like I'm the biggest USAID fan, and as a leftist, I don't have my own critique of USAID. But it is also true that the destruction of that agency has created mass harm, you know, on a basic level in a lot of poor countries, which again can lead to you know, further suffering and more migration crises, if that is your concern. So I don't know, I mean, it's a fool's errand to try to ring any sort of consistency or principle from a Trumpian speech. But it was certainly, you know, it was certainly like unvarnished and insane in many ways. And like I said before, the idea that this man who has done so much much destruction to the best parts of the American project and to the you know, basic like livelihoods of millions of Americans who feel themselves slipping behind. See the you know, the jobless, the job numbers falling off, inflation coming back, the chaos and turmoil of the tariff regime, which you know, if done appropriately, it might have been helpful, but instead we're actually seeing a decline in manufacturing jobs. The idea of this man lecturing the rest of the world is so absurd to me.
00:13:28
Speaker 3: Let's get to this escalator subplot, because it's not entirely unimportant. So we can roll a two on the screen. If you're listening and you haven't seen this clip yet. As soon as Milania Trump and Donald Trump step onto the escalator, it stops. Melania Trump kind of looks around and Donald Trump kind of looks around, and finally they just start walking up the escalator. This led to all kinds of conspiracy theories. Crystal, when an escalator at a you know, major building, president of United States steps on it with timing like that goes off. I actually do kind of understand why people are asking what's going on. We could put a two B up on the screen. It was unfortunately timed with this story from the Sunday Times that said, quote to mark Trump's arrival, you and staff members have joked that they may turn off the escalators and elevators and simply tell him they ran out of money, so he has to walk up the stairs. And then, of course, the escalator actually did stop as the President and first lady walked onto it. Some people were taking this in a more serious direction and saying it could have been part of a nefarious, potential plot to hurt Trump and the First Lady in some way by causing them to stop in their tracks in a predictable way that someone could exploit the obviously, The Sunday Time says that as part of a prank, that or that it may have been part of a prank, that people were joking about whether it was part of a prank.
00:15:03
Speaker 4: Reuters had a report.
00:15:04
Speaker 3: Someone at the UN said it was because the UN spokesperson said it was a built in safety mechanism on the comb step that was triggered at the top of the escalator. They're saying by Trump's videographer who was backing up to capture them going up the escalator. Unfortunate timing that there were leaks about the potential pranks, though Crystal in the Sunday Times.
00:15:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, in the subtext is Trump knows he's so hated by so many people that it's entirely plausible that some intern was like, let me see if there's a way I can just like mildly fuck with this guy, you know, then it And then additionally, during his speech at one portion his teleprompter was not working and he said something about you know, the teleprompter operator is going to be in big trouble again.
00:15:52
Speaker 5: If this is true.
00:15:53
Speaker 2: The reporting is that it actually is like one of his staffers that's running the teleprompter, which would make sense because if it's your guy, and you understand in the speech, you know, the cadence like, you would probably want your person in there. So in any case, I don't know if there were any conspiracies.
00:16:07
Speaker 5: Afoot, but he felt that they were.
00:16:08
Speaker 2: He felt targeted and aggrieved, as he often does.
00:16:11
Speaker 3: One of the best VIEEP episodes, one of the best VIEP plot lines is when this happens to Selena Meyer and Trump handled it arguably even better. It was riffing wildly during that speech yesterday, not surprisingly, but wildly nonetheless, and it gets to Trump's this idea that maybe it was on purpose. It's sort of like Trump's central frustration with the United Nations, which is that the United States has been the single biggest funder of the United Nations for years is still US support is a significant chunk of the UN's total budget. I think it's somewhere between twenty five percent, so a quarter and a third. It's a huge chunk of the budget, and then you have them joking in the Sunday Times but just you know, flipping the switch on the ascal later.
00:16:59
Speaker 2: It illus, well, I think that's a reference to under this Trump administration, they've withheld a significant amount of funds to the tune of like billions of dollars. So that's why that's where the joke comes from, is like, oh, well, we're cash dropped because you guys aren't paying your bills. So maybe we just don't have the money to run the escalator anymore.
00:17:17
Speaker 5: That's the that's the idea there.
00:17:20
Speaker 3: Right, And so Trump sat down also with Zelenski for a conversation and then posted on True Social what seemed to many people to feel like a total one to eighty on Ukraine war policy.
00:17:32
Speaker 4: We can put a four on the screen.
00:17:34
Speaker 3: This is from Donald Trump saying, after getting to know and fully understand, I can't even read this crystalence is so it's just so I don't even know what's what's the right word for it is, it's it's so transparent. Fully understand the Ukraine Russia military and economic situation, and after seeing the economic trouble is causing Russia, I think Ukraine with the support of the European Union is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form, with time, patients and the financial support of Europe and in particular NATO. The original borders from where this war started is very much an option.
00:18:09
Speaker 4: Why not.
00:18:11
Speaker 3: He goes on to say Russia has been finding aimlessly for three and a half years. It talks more about that this caused understandably in immediate sort of chaos in the news cycles. People says it's a US policy on Ukraine completely changing, which, of course you have to read into the President of the United States, his posts and his statements on this. You can't ignore it. Chris, So my immediate reaction was A what the hell? And b that Trump is at the United Nations making this pitch that he's the big peacemaker. He's talking about how he solved all of these conflicts. That was another part of his speech. It was actually a big theme in his speech. And he's surrounded by world leaders that he wants to have the respect is not the right word.
00:18:58
Speaker 4: He wants them to sort of kissed the ring.
00:19:01
Speaker 3: And there he is frustrated that he's not able to get an end to this conflict. And decides to try a new tactic and just be like, yeah, yep, original borders. That's what we're fighting for in Ukraine. Now, everything that we've said up to this point about negotiating, Nope, we're going to stay in it until Zelenski has every inch of the original border, which is like sort of the John Bolton dream. It sounds pretty obviously to me like a transparent negotiating tactic that I.
00:19:30
Speaker 4: Compared it when we were talking yesterday.
00:19:32
Speaker 3: So when like a five year old learns how to do a high down low too slow and you've done it like twenty times with them and they still think yeah, yeah, it's just sort of felt like that.
00:19:47
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:19:47
Speaker 2: I mean, he's been all over the place with regard to Ukraine and Russia, and you know, I think really believed that he had this special relationship with Vladimir Putin and that he could use his grand negotiating skills to come in and that this would be easy to solve. And it's anything but easy to solve, you know, it's not.
00:20:06
Speaker 5: It's not.
00:20:07
Speaker 2: An uncomplicated situation, especially you know, at this point in the conflict, so where you would have to force Ukraine to take some very significant concessions that would be ugly and that would be frankly, wildly unjust. I mean, that's just that's where we are, and he has, you know, he's not been willing to do that, and so now we're back to like the most sort of hawkish, hardline position.
00:20:33
Speaker 5: And it wasn't just this.
00:20:34
Speaker 2: There was also a joint I don't know if you call it a press conference, but a brief press avail with Stelenski himself, and Trump got asked, okay, well, if you've got NATO countries and Russia's flying drugs over them, what should they do?
00:20:48
Speaker 5: And he said, well, they should shoot him down. And even Selensky.
00:20:50
Speaker 2: Looked sort of surprised that he made that comment at that moment, because of course, of you know, if you get a NATO country dragged into this, then you have significant treaty obligations from the United States of America, which is why this is also incredibly fraud and incredibly dangerous. So I can only imagine how much Soccer is losing his mind right now about this complete and total one eighty from Trump based on some of the some of the comments that he made on the campaign trail. Though I have to say, even on the campaign trail, he was never completely consistent. But this was a major issue with the Republican base. You know, they really thought that the Biden approach to Ukraine had been a disaster. They really wanted someone to come in and force a negotiated solution on Ukraine. It seemed at the beginning after that like Oval office blow up and you know, public humiliation ritual of Zelenski, that perhaps that was direction that things are headed in. And now you've got, like I said, a complete one eighty here to the most hawkish possible position, because I assume when he says, you know, the original lines, I assume he means crimea as well, which.
00:21:54
Speaker 5: Is a wild position to take.
00:21:57
Speaker 2: And let's also be clear that, you know, if he's serious about that, and I think you're right, it's a negotiating tactic, but we also have to take you know, this president does some wild things, and we have to take him seriously at his words. At this point, what the requirement from US involvement in order to actually effectuate that outcome? It would be extraordinary, would be absolutely extraordinary at this point. Now he's right that Russia hasn't made like tremendous gains in the last little while. I wouldn't say it's a total stalemate. They have made some gains and they have more both manpower and you know, industrial capacity and resources to be able to drag this thing down and prevail in the end. But yeah, what he's floating here would be incredible escalation in terms of US involvement if he's actually serious about that outcome.
00:22:45
Speaker 3: And in a nuclear conflict. Again that it seems so ridiculous to say that, but a potential nuclear conflict and Trump one of the places he does talk more sensitively about is one of the areas in which he is I think more attuned to the general public then your average politician here in DC is that it's not a joke to mess with other nuclear powers and saying that you're gonna fight for every inch of Ukraine's original border is messing with nuclear powers and a negotiating tactic. He's he's like Jekyl and Hyde, but it's like John Bolton and Tucker Carlson. You never know exactly what you're gonna go with you One day he's like, he s sounds like Tucker and the other day he sounds like John Bolton. Obviously, I think we're you know, always rightfully cover it as his sometimes very thinly veiled negotiating methods, but it's still obviously has a serious effect. And my last takeaway before we bring the guests in is I think just wrapping a bow on all of this.
00:23:46
Speaker 4: The man really.
00:23:46
Speaker 3: Wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He really wants a Nobel Peace Prize.
00:23:50
Speaker 2: And yeah, we did the typical Trumpian thing of being like, you know, I should get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, now that I care about the awards.
00:23:57
Speaker 5: It's not about that. It's not about the people. It's about bringing peace to the people.
00:24:00
Speaker 2: And it's like, in his of course list of the conflicts that he's allegedly solved, he includes you know, Iran and Israel as if oh, they're all best friends.
00:24:09
Speaker 5: Now we're never going to have a flare up.
00:24:10
Speaker 2: Then again, even as Israel is like preparing right now to Bambaran again likely and drag us right back into this whole thing, includes in there that India Pakistan sees fire, which both Indian and Pakistan are like, bro, you had nothing to do with this. So in any case, if you're wondering how legit his claims are to be such a great peacemaker. I offer you those two examples as emblematic of the you know, of the accuracy of the speech overall, what.
00:24:38
Speaker 4: Let's get to Gaza and bring our guest.
00:24:39
Speaker 2: In fortunate to be joined this morning by Anthony Lowenstein. He's an independent journalist and filmmakers, author of the Palstain Laboratory, which I highly suggest you guys check out, and also the creator of a new Al Jazeerra documentary titled Germany's Israel Obsession. Joins us now to weigh in on Trump's UN comments with the are to Israel and a number of other relevant stories.
00:25:03
Speaker 5: It's great to.
00:25:03
Speaker 8: See Anthony, thanks so much for having me.
00:25:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, so Emily and I were just talking about Trump's big UN speech. Within that speech, he made some comments about Palestinian state recognition. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
00:25:16
Speaker 7: As everyone knows, I have also been deeply engaged in seeking a cease fire in Gaza.
00:25:22
Speaker 6: Have to get that done, have to get it done.
00:25:25
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, Hamas has repeatedly rejected reasonable offers to make peace.
00:25:30
Speaker 6: We can't forget October seventh, can we now?
00:25:34
Speaker 7: As if to encourage continued conflict, some of this body seeking to unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state.
00:25:44
Speaker 6: The rewards would be too.
00:25:46
Speaker 7: Great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities. But instead of giving in to Harmas's ransom demands, those who want peace should be united with one message, release hostages now.
00:26:02
Speaker 6: Just release the hostages now.
00:26:04
Speaker 9: But after almost two years of war, what is the result. Once again, they killed the top leados of Hamas. It works, this is a great achievement, but at the same time you have as many Hamas fighters as you had the first date, so it doesn't work to these matters of Hammas.
00:26:24
Speaker 6: Well, I have to say that I'm on the side of Israel.
00:26:26
Speaker 7: I've been on the side of Israel really my whole life, and we are going to get a solution, and it's going to be a solution.
00:26:33
Speaker 6: Hopefully that's good for everybody. But it's time to stove.
00:26:37
Speaker 2: So a lot that was interesting there, Anthony, What did you make of President Trump's comments with regard to Palestinian state recognitions.
00:26:44
Speaker 5: Of course comes.
00:26:44
Speaker 2: After UK, Canada, Australia and other countries have announced they are going to recognize a Palestinian state, and I think there's a bit of a divide, at least on the left of how significant this is, whether this is just like in basically an ass cover and move that makes it seem like you doing something without actually doing the hard things of like arms, embargo or you know, sanctions or cutting tridize those sorts of things. So what did you make of the president's comments and what do you make of the reality of Palestinian state recognition.
00:27:12
Speaker 8: Look, in some ways, what Trump is saying is reiterating what the US has felt for a long time. I mean, yes, Biden, at least on paper, supported a two state solution, whereas Trump and his administration do not, which mirrors what Netta Yahu and his government believes, which is no two state solution, no Palestinian state. But at the same time, I'm very much in the camp of saying that all these Western states that have recognized Palestine this week and have done so in some ways for years in the past, to say it's symbolic, I think would be too kind. You can all, on the one hand, talk about recognizing Palestine as a state and the belief that you should acknowledge that Palestinians have a right to self determination, while at the same time still funding and backing and arming the oppressor Israel, which the UK does, and France does, and Australia does, and Canada does. They are still sending weapons and weapons parts to Israel two years into this genocide. And one of the conditions that President Macron of France said in the last twenty four hours around Palestine wars, I think two things, mainly, one, Humas can't be part of any future government and two it must be demilitarized. And I do not know any state in recent history. The two most recent states that have existed and been born was South Sudan in twenty eleven and East Timor in about twenty years ago, twenty three years ago. Now, the idea that you would say to those states you can be demilitarized, you must be demilitarized, is a non starter. I mean, it's an absurd situation because if you demilitarize, what that means is in this case, Israel would control your land, sea, in air borders. The occupation therefore continues in a different form. And secondly, this is no love for Hummas, but the idea that you are telling Palestinians that essentially you cannot vote for this party. You have to vote for who the corrupt Palestine authority. Who a Palestinians supposed to vote for? Is it up to them or is it up to outsiders? So most Palestinians I know, in Gars of the West Bank and in the diaspora saying, yes, we welcome that the West sees us as humans, I guess. But after, as I think, many people have said, what are you recognizing? Are you recognizing a Mahmuda bas the late eighties corrupt dictator of the Palestine authority as the leader of his future Palestine, who, by the way he's celebrated in the last twenty four hours, is happening stuck in Romolah because the US won't give him a visa almost comically really, But ultimately it comes to the same point that what is there a Palestine to recognize? Gaza no longer exists, it has gone, and the West Bank, I fear, is going in the same way. So unless, unless, and until Western states, including the US, but the US arguably is too far gone on this question, U and others Europe, Australia and my country want to actually see a resolution of this conflict. You cannot do so by simply issuing a speech at the UN. We are so far beyond that. And it's finally on this point, I think it's worth saying that Western States routinely bring up a two state solution when there is a so called problem in the Israel Palestine conflict, when there is a perceived need to announce something different, to sort of break the algorithm, so to speak. And yes, obviously what's happened in Gaza in the last two years is an unprecedented scale, far greater than anything in Palestine's history. But I don't think Kissed Arma or Mark Khni or Australian Prime Minister around in Albanesi actually thinks that by announcing recognition it's going to change anything on the ground because they're not willing to take any steps to make it happen. It's lip service at best, and that's being polite.
00:30:57
Speaker 3: So obviously Israel understands the scale are high going into the UN this week, with Nacron and others pushing as they are, So I want to get your take on this story in the New York Times. This is a six A lot of theories here as to what's going on, but the headline is cash of devices capable of crashing cell network is found near un Just from the lead I'm going to read quote, the Secret Service found and seized an illicit network of sophisticated equipment in the New York region that was capable of shutting down the cellular network as foreign leaders prepared to gather nearby for the annual UN General Assembly, the agency announced on Tuesday. Officials said the anonymous communications network, which included more than one hundred thousand simcards and three hundred servers, could interfere with emergency response services and could be used to conduct encryptic communication. When official said the network was capable of sending thirty million text messages per minute anonymously, the official said the agency had never been seen before. I had never before seen such an extensive operation. There's no specific info that the network posts a threat to the conference itself.
00:32:00
Speaker 4: They go on to.
00:32:01
Speaker 3: Say, so this obviously has sparked many many theories, and particularly people are appointing to Israel being behind this operation.
00:32:13
Speaker 4: What do you make of the story?
00:32:14
Speaker 3: I mean, that's sort of one of the things people should know about what you've done with the Palistine Laboratory is that this is you've studied, and you've studied how Israel has studied the attack capabilities and places like this or in ways like this.
00:32:30
Speaker 4: So what did you make of the story?
00:32:32
Speaker 8: I think there's two ways to see this. One the only likely states who would be doing this in my view and experience, is Israel or maybe China. I don't think it's necessarily Israel, and it may well be. And there's a history, including in the last ten years, have a lot of evidence of Israel bugging for example, Boris Johnson's residents. He's talked about this in these autobiography the former British Prime Minister. During the first Trump administration, there was likely evidence, well not likely, there was evidence that Israel was potentially bugging the Trump White House when Netanyahu had visited the White House. And one thing that people often don't understand about the US Israel relationship is that actually, yes, they're seen as best of friends, but they actually also don't trust each other. And what I mean by that is that both countries have literally hundreds and hundreds of intelligence officers every day spying on the other, listening to communication. I mean this has been known for years that Belly gets talked about in the press, but it's a statement of.
00:33:31
Speaker 6: Fact, so yes.
00:33:33
Speaker 8: And in fact, one of the interesting revelations of Edward Snowden's documents when he released those in twenty thirteen was that he showed that we often are told in the West that our greatest enemies are Russia and China. And yes, they spil in America, to be sure, but one of the greatest threats that is perceived by the American intelligence agencies was Israel, because they were so obsessed with spying on every detail. And of course the Americans know this and israelis know this. So look this latest event, Emily. I don't know who it is, of course, beyond what the story in the New York Times said, and obviously what information the authorities wanted to release, but the likely culprits to me Israel or China. China has a reason to do so as well. Of course, they have a long history of spying and bugging in the US, but so does Israel. And I would say, as I said, that the US Israel relationship is BFFs on paper, but actually profoundly dysfunctional behind the scenes.
00:34:28
Speaker 4: And there's a lot of paranoia right now.
00:34:30
Speaker 3: I think is really saying about how much support they have in the Trump administration, which.
00:34:34
Speaker 8: Actionally, yeah, there's a lot of paranoid And on the one hand, you could say it's bizarre that there is that paranoid because they clearly are getting everything they wanted, as was happening under Biden. But they Israel and Israeli, I guess spokespeople in the US, they see what is happening within the Republican Party. Put aside, the Democrats to Democrats obviously are increasingly least in the base, very much against Israel, where the leadership is still very much seemingly insupportive Israel in general. It's not quite as black and white as that, as you guys know well. But on the Republican side, yes, Trump and Marco Rubio and everything are one hundred and ten percent behind Israel, so we're told. But clearly in the Republican right and the Maga rite there is a growing split. It's hard to see how that plays out politically yet at this point, but it is clearly happening, and that does worry rightly the Israelis. So yes, they would have definite cause to do this, but of course if it was found out to be Israel. What would the so called punishment be is Netiania who likely to lose his access to the on suite bathroom at the White House. No, I mean this is the reality, right, this is the relationship. It's dysfunctional. And if Netania who one day no longer is prime Minister of Israel, which will happen the likely successors to him in Israel Naftali Bennett or ye Lapid or Benny Gan someone like that, and a lot of these issues, believe me, are not much different to Netanyahu.
00:35:59
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's something and we've tried to highlight as well, because there's I think a lot of wish casting from American politics, especially American liberals, that it's just not Yahoo. We've just got to get him out of there and then everything will be fine and different, et cetera. And there's just very there's just no evidence for that. I wanted to talk to you too about this, this documentary that you just made for Al Jazeera. We can put the thumbnail up on the screen here, and I found this absolutely fascinating. The topic is fascinating. You are Australian, but your family's originally from Germany, so you've close, you know, personal ties to the country, and I'm not sure I really internalized how much the ethos of never again and the knowledge that the you know, the German people had perpetrated the Holocaust, how much that is a cornerstone of sort of like modern German identity.
00:36:50
Speaker 5: And then your documentary.
00:36:51
Speaker 2: Talks about the way that this has been bastardized in order to effectively criminalize any sort of pro Palestinian support, which obviously is ironic because now, because there is such desperation about avoiding charges of anti Semitism in Germany, you have the German government complicit in another genocide here with regard to Palestine. So talk a little bit about what drew you to the topic and the way that this cultural identity has played out within Germany.
00:37:23
Speaker 8: One thing that most people maybe don't realize is that Germany is the second biggest provider weapons to Israel after the US. The US is number one, to be sure Underbiden or Trump, but Germany second, and that accelerated after October seven. So you're right that there is this sense within Germany which didn't exist straight after World War Two, but certainly the last thirty forty years that we as a German people need to commemorate and atone essentially for the crimes of our ancestors. And I on paper haven't no problem with that. I mean, Germany committed one of the ultimate crimes, the genocide of course of Jews and millions and millions of others of course. But the way that manifests itself today, and this was beginning long before October seven, but it's accelerated since, is this belief amongst the vast bulk of the German political elite and media elite, and a size le proportioned of the German public, both in the East former East Germany and the West, that they have a historical responsibility to support Israel no matter what. Now, this was a view, as I said, long before October seven, but it's got stronger sinins. So what that means practically, I'm believing that, for example, pro Palestine protests have to be crushed hugely violently. People who say from the river to the sea Palestine should be free are literally charged and brought before court. If an individual tries to make a comparison between the Nazi Holocaust and what Israel's doing in Gaza, you are apparently disparaging their so called original Holocaust, and therefore you might be charged. There have been huge amounts of Palestinians who have been deported in Arabs for that matter, who have not been violent, who are not terrorists, who are simply expressing a critical view of Israel. And the impact of that practically on arguably the most powerful country in Europe, the most powerful economy has been for years, although it's in a bit of a bad shape these days economically, is to actually empower the far right, the AfD, which is now the largest opposition party in the country. And you have someone in the film Iras Heifetz, who's a Jewish Israeli born German citizen, who basically says, I'm paraphrasing what she says that Israel has become the washing machine for the far right, and what that means is which is happening in the US, across Europe as well. It's not unique to Germany, but it's happening, is that when someone in the far right says, I love Israel or I love Jews, you can't accuse me of anti Semitism. I love the world's only Jewish state. And the AfD in Germany is doing that very successfully and whitewashing their own record, which historically has been often tied to neo Nazism. And today they are supported, according to the polls, by around twenty five percent of the German population. Now they're not in government, yes, but potentially years to come they will be. And I guess part of the reason to make this film I made it with the British filmmaker Dan Davies. I also made The Palestine Laboratory with Eldersira earlier this year. Was in some ways most people I spoke to about this question had no idea of what was happening in Germany. We're very well aware of the massive repression ticket since Trump has returned to the White House, of crushing pro Palestine speech, trying to poor people Machmud Khalil, amongst many many others. But what's happening in Germany the heart of Europe is actually remarkably similar. It's remarkably similar, different, but similar. And I am born in Australia, but I'm a German citizen, so I wouldn't say I feel particularly German per se, but I at the same time feel the reason I got a passport fifteen or so year years ago was for those who are unaware. After the war World War II, Germany allowed Jews whose citizenship was removed because the Nazis didn't recognize Jewish citizens could have reinstated essentially, and many many Jews for about half a century mostly refused to do that, including my parents basically saying, why would I want to be a German citizen after what Germany did to us, which I understood.
00:41:23
Speaker 6: In the last twenty twenty.
00:41:24
Speaker 8: Five years, many Jews around the world have changed their opinion and have now because they want to have an EU passport for whatever reason may be. But the idea somehow that Germany says they are doing this in the name of me as a Jew to support Israel and critically apparently makes Germany a good global citizen despite the fact, as you said, that they are now backing arming a genocide an Israeli state that is proudly I would argue genocidal. So the film I supposed tries to uncover that investigate that, and it came out about two weeks ago, just had amazing global response, I think because most people just don't know what is happening in a country which is in the center of Europe with huge amounts of influence, and what's happening in Germany is happening elsewhere US growing parts of Europe, France, England. And then we finish on this point we talk about at the end of the film that what's happening in Germany's mirrored elsewhere. Just this year, the UK has prescribed as a terrorist organization a group called Palestine Action, which is a non violence group trying to stop Israel's genocide, but also the complicity of Israeli arms companies in the Israeli occupation. The idea that that is a terrorist organization is absurd, and yet Kirstariner's government has prescribed that as a terrorist organization, meaning that if you are in London, for example, or Birmingham, wherever you may be, and you hold a sign and you say I support Palestine Action, you will be arrested and charged. And so this obsessive desire in so many Western countries to protect Israel at the expense of their own countries democracy should really disturb us all a lot and.
00:43:09
Speaker 4: A point that you're making heroes, I can also massively.
00:43:12
Speaker 8: Backfire, well massively backfire to those I think who are saying, I guess it depends backfire for whom right. I mean. In Germany, for example, we have some people talking about this idea that you as a journalist one doesn't want to predict the future because we're often wrong. But the direction that Germany appears to be heading on at the moment is moving towards a far more anti Islam, anti immigration, anti multiculturalism, blindly pro Israel direction. And whether that is the AfD being in power in the coming years or someone like the AfD, I mean, it's worth saying, as some viewers of Breaking Points of Course will know, is that Elon Musk is a massive fan of the AfD. During the German election earlier this year, he was very keen support the AfD. I think he said, and I'm paraphrasing here something like only AfD can save Germany. Now his focus wasn't nothing so much on Israel. Who is more, the fact that the AfD is talking about is basically urging or encouraging the idea or would force faculty immigrants who have arrived to be sent back to their supposed home countries. And that's of course what's happening increasing the US and certain other Western States. So I would argue it's massively backfiring on Germany because German identity, you would think, historically correctly, is based on both a combination of guilt acknowledgment learning from that history. And I still say to this day that Germany, unlike virtually any other European nation, who are often very complicit with Nazis, collaborated with them, has done a lot of atoning and I welcome that. But the question is in what service for whom? And when Germany is supporting in Israeli state uncritically when they are committing genocide, I say, you are learning little to nothing from history, and that's a pretty worrying conclusion.
00:45:13
Speaker 4: Answer.
00:45:13
Speaker 2: My last question for you is we actually see Israel dividing the right in the US, especially among young people. You mentioned some of this before. I know you're familiar with the Poles in those dynamics as well. Yes, dividing the far right. You know, if you look at Stephen Miller very pro Israel, if you look at a Nick Fuenttes very anti Israel. Are those dynamics playing out in Germany as well?
00:45:36
Speaker 8: With AfD largely not yet? And in short, there is I mean the irony of course with all this is that those on the far ride don't like Jews. They've never liked Jews, they still don't like Jews. So yes, the AfD. I'm not saying everyone who supports the AfD is racist, that would not be true. But there is a deep antipathy within I think the AfD and much of the German far right and frankly right wing in idealizing Israel. And this is something I've talked about for a long time that for many people on the right and the far right. I understand there's a split in parts of the US, and in some ways I welcome that, but for many on the right and the far right, Israel is their model. It's their ethno nationalist wet dream. That is the nation they want to be like. Not Jewish, of course, but Christian, a Christian nationalist, fundamental est state. And only has to look at, for example, a lot of the language around the Charlie Kirk funeral a few days ago that was a hard line Christian nationalist agenda, petrifying to someone like me who's a secular atheist Jew, to put it mildly, and I see in Germany a real almost a combination of growing numbers of young Germans resent the fact that they're told they should be feeling guilty for their past, for what their ancestors did in World War Two, manifests itself now in a hard line far right, anti immigration, anti Islam, pro Israel agenda. Despite the fact that me and those people don't like Jews both can exist.
00:47:11
Speaker 6: You can be an.
00:47:12
Speaker 8: Anti Semite and love Israel. And what's so disturbing about that is Israel itself is welcoming that support. You've had In the last year alone, the Israeli government since the genocide, began organizing far right conferences in Jerusalem for some of these European far right leaders. You've had Israeli government ministers going to these far right conferences in Europe.
00:47:37
Speaker 6: Now, if you're a.
00:47:38
Speaker 8: Sane Jew, sane person, you don't welcome the love of the far right because historically, you know, they don't like us for a range of reasons. So the idea that Israel, as a increasingly theocratic far right nation welcomes and embraces a far right agenda both within its own borders and elsewhere, says all you need to know. I think about where Israel as a country is going, which is in my view, increasingly likely to be theocretic, proudly theocretic.
00:48:10
Speaker 5: Anthony.
00:48:11
Speaker 2: Tell people where they can watch this, this documentary.
00:48:14
Speaker 8: So Jermy's Israel Obsession is on YouTube if you just put that in Google. It is on on the Olviazira website. If you google that, you'll find lots of entries. It's available. Go watch it. It's it'll hopefully shock you in a good way, and it'll shock you in a way that makes you open your eyes.
00:48:33
Speaker 2: Do you think, Yeah, it illuminates things in a way that's important. I certainly got a lot on watching it and highly recommend Atie. Thank you so much for your work and it's great to see as always.
00:48:43
Speaker 8: Thank you so much, guys, both of you. I appreciate it. Thank you.
00:48:49
Speaker 3: So.
00:48:49
Speaker 2: Jimmy Kimmel was back last night after being pulled from the air by Disney under pressure from the Trump administration. At least he was back on most ABC broadcast around the country. Next Doer and Sinclair did decide to continue to preempt his program, and we'll get to that in a minute. Let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say about his suspension.
00:49:11
Speaker 10: We supported our show, cared enough to do something about it, to make your voices heard so that mine could be heard. I will never forget it.
00:49:18
Speaker 2: And maybe maybe most.
00:49:23
Speaker 10: Of all, I want to thank that people who don't support my show and what I believe, but support my right to share those beliefs. Anyway, I've been hearing a lot about what I need to say and do tonight, and the truth is, I don't think what I have to say is going to make much of a difference. If you like me, you like me. If you don't, you don't. I have no illusions about changing anyone's mind. But I do want to make something clear because it's important to me as a human, and that is you understand that it was never my intention to make light of.
00:49:51
Speaker 6: The murder of a young man.
00:49:54
Speaker 4: I don't. I don't think there's only he's running about it.
00:50:01
Speaker 10: I posted a message on Instagram of the daves killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion, and I meant it.
00:50:08
Speaker 4: I still do.
00:50:09
Speaker 10: Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual that was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make but I understand that to some that felt either ill timed or unclear, or maybe both. And for those who think I did point a finger, I get why you're upset. If the situation was reversed, there was a good chance I'd have felt the same way.
00:50:33
Speaker 4: This show.
00:50:34
Speaker 10: This show is not important. What is important is that we get to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this.
00:50:42
Speaker 2: So you hear his voice quavering with emotion there where he's talking about you know, he never intended to make light of the killing of Charlie Kirk.
00:50:51
Speaker 5: I think a lot.
00:50:52
Speaker 2: I don't want to speak for the you know, the right I'll let you say what you made of it, Emily. I think there were skepticism about the sincerity of this sort of pseudo apology, but.
00:51:03
Speaker 5: You know it would.
00:51:04
Speaker 2: I'm sure this was all a very upsetting and traumatic event for Jimmy Kimmel, and I think we've seen the way that even people who don't like Charlie Kirk, really disagree with Charlie Kirk, but who were in the public eye were somewhat traumatized by his you know, violent murder, you know, effectively live streamed murder, because Kimmel talks about how he faces threats as well, so you can't help but think about your own mortality and you know the reality of the dangerous situation that you yourself may be in as well.
00:51:36
Speaker 3: It was interesting that Kimmel was emotional and not completely doing a sort of smug victory lap, which he's want to do. I think he probably handled it as best he could, walking the line between keeping the sort of left happy, keeping the middle America happy, and trying to throw a bone to the right without looking like from his perspective, he folded entirely to the administration, because obviously that's not in any way what he wants to do. I think Kimball is such a frustrating case. I mean, he did not apologize for this is where, for example, turning Point USA, Andrew Colbett came out and said not good enough. Didn't apologize for fundamentally saying something that was incorrect. And there are polls that show a lot of people think, for example, Tyler Robinson was a griper, was a far right type of guy, and so fully understand why many of my friends on the writer are furious about somebody who has a public public good like the airwaves making equip that implies this was a Trump supporter who killed Charlie Kirk. But Kimba is sort of he's frustrating. He's become like this performative and sort of self sad by type of anti Trump comedian in a way that's like hurt his comedy and like softened his edges and gets cringey.
00:53:07
Speaker 4: Sometimes.
00:53:08
Speaker 3: He also was like happy about Roseanne firing whatever else. But that's where we should bring in Next Star Sinclair and then Joe Rogan so we can put B two on the screen. Next Star and Sinclair did not air this, as Crystal mentioned earlier, So that's a good chunk of affiliates around the country who have more probably my assumption would be in many cases more pro Kirk audience audiences and some of these local networks or these communities who have some of their own pressures to deal with, and obviously Next Star it is what would be. We would be remiss if we didn't mention that they have a merger they're trying to get through with Tegna that's going to come in front of Brendan Cars FCC the not too distant future. So let's roll how Joe Rogan reacted to the pressures that befell ABC from the Trump administration.
00:54:11
Speaker 4: B three.
00:54:12
Speaker 11: First of all, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved ever in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's fucking crazy.
00:54:21
Speaker 4: Crazy.
00:54:22
Speaker 11: Now, if the problem is the companies, if they're being pressured by the government, So if that's real, and if people on the right are like, yeah, go get them, Oh my god, you're crazy. You're crazy for supporting this because this will be used on you. You don't think that the fucking globalist lizard people who run the world are sitting here going great, what do we got three years?
00:54:46
Speaker 6: We'll wake this out, We'll wake this out. Yeah.
00:54:49
Speaker 11: Let them say the government should be involved in censoring people's speech.
00:54:53
Speaker 6: Yeah yeah, let them support that.
00:54:55
Speaker 11: Let these fucking dumbasses because Jimmy Kimmel's a leftist. Let these dumb asses think it's a good idea and we should celebrate.
00:55:04
Speaker 3: So, Chris, So, the reason I wanted to toss to that just now is I obviously completely agree that the government shouldn't be in a position at all to say what's in a comedian's monologue.
00:55:14
Speaker 4: That's obviously the way the FCC is set up.
00:55:16
Speaker 3: And Brendan Carr told me not too long ago that he thinks it's possible the entire law should just be changed. I think it's it's you know, I'm sympathetic to the argument that you just abolished the FCC, but that's a more radical proposal. What's interesting about what Rogan just said is I can hear my friends on the right in their head saying, yeah, okay, what is the FCC going to do? Cancel a conservative late night host? There's not a single conservative.
00:55:45
Speaker 4: Late night house.
00:55:46
Speaker 3: What are they going to do to the right that could possibly make these networks more biased in or what are they going to do to the right, given how these networks are already so biased against the left, and they're.
00:56:02
Speaker 5: Coming for Sidney Sweeney, Emily.
00:56:04
Speaker 3: They're coming for Sidney Sweeney obviously, Like I just have this, like gross, I feel gross anytime the government is threatening journalists, right comedians. So I'm not I can't get on that bandwagon, though most of my friends on the right are on that bandwagon. They're like, well what the okay, great, yeah, what do you mean they're going to like we're not afraid of the FCC because all of these networks are already downplaying conservative voices. That's a taste of what people would say in response to Rogan there.
00:56:31
Speaker 2: Well, the thing is like, the FCC is not really the thing here because this is coming down from Trump himself, who threatened Kimmel after Colbert got fired.
00:56:44
Speaker 5: Who I think we do.
00:56:45
Speaker 2: We have Trump's truth B six we can put up on the screen where he's continuing to threaten Kimmel and say he should still be canceled. And so it's not like, you know, it'd be one thing if this was some narrow FCC like we're going to apply the law differently, which of course they are. You know, Brendan Carr is threatening that as well. But what you're talking about with the Trump administration is a whole of government weaponization. And you know, as you mentioned before, Next Star and Sinclair, which also preempted Kimmel shows, they both are lobbying the government for different things. You know, they both are our lobbying to get their business needs meant. And in Next Star's case this merger approved, Disney also has business before the government. So you know, from a dollars and cents perspective, I think the reason Jimmy Kimmel is back on air is because there was enough of a public and artist backlash that they decided that as a business decision, it was more risky to keep him off than to bring him back on come what may from the Trump administration. So, you know, I don't think this was like a principal decision. I don't think that, you know, I don't think these capitalist organizations make principal decisions. They make decisions based on what they perceive, at least their bottom line to be, and there was enough of an outcry and enough people who canceled their Disney Plus subscriptions that they thought, we got a bit of a problem here, we better bring him back. So, you know, to your point about oh, well, what could the liberals do to us if they got back in power, I think it is where I disagree with Rogan's point is, I don't know if we're going to get any sort of Democrat who would be accrossive enough to do this sort of retaliation. I also don't think that the Supreme Court would go along with the same things from a democratic president that they go along with from a Republican president.
00:58:46
Speaker 5: I mean did have someone.
00:58:48
Speaker 4: They rejected Merthy b v.
00:58:50
Speaker 3: Missouri, which was the challenge on Biden ear a pressure on social media companies.
00:58:55
Speaker 2: And I'm speaking more broadly though of I mean, first of all, that was a different situation because you and have such a direct and overt threat. It was implicit. But I'm speaking of, you know, the shadow docket. Basically, the Trump administration this time around has gotten everything they want from this court. And I don't think that it's based on principle. I think it's based on like number one, they want to void a direct conflict with you know, with Trump, who has made it pretty plain that he's open to just ignoring Supreme Court decisions. They don't want to destroy the court. And number two, you know, to a certain extent, they're just like on board with the agenda.
00:59:29
Speaker 5: So I don't know that.
00:59:30
Speaker 2: A democratic president would likely weaponize the whole of federal government the way that Trump has been willing to. But yeah, I guess it's good for the right to be afraid that that would be one of the things that would happen. Well, but if he did, I mean, listen, Fox News is the thing that exists. It is the largest cable news network. It is extraordinarily powerful in terms of it's you know, its reach and its influence on the overall national conversation. They can really set the agenda in a lot of ways, and there's a lot of connectivity betwe Fox News and the rest of the conservative media apparatus. Since this isn't really about the FCC because it's cable versus broadcast, of course, there's ways that future democratic administration could go after Fox News and try to make them pay for supporting a Republican agenda. You know, I don't think that that's the direction that the country should go in. And the fact that Trump immediately just like comes out and threatens Kimmel again is basically an admission that this was not about Disney making a business decision. This was them caving to the authoritarian demands of the Trump administration. And the only reason he's back is because of the level of pushback that they received.
01:00:41
Speaker 3: Well, I was also going to say the potential CBS Free Press merger, that's clearly like a downstream consequence of the broader vibe shift narrative where you have some of these I was talking about this in the context of Kimmel last week is like the market is catching up to Kimmel and Colbert to some extent, Like there are structural conversations to be had about people who are making shows that are getting just a fraction of the viewership they used to get with a lot of the same overhead. So Kimmel mentioned there are hundreds of people that work on you know, these shows between him Colbert, like that's those hundreds of jobs.
01:01:21
Speaker 4: Like, yeah, man, that's hundreds of jobs. That's a lot of money.
01:01:25
Speaker 3: And you know, it's it's not quite trickling into social media in ways that are super profitable for these companies as linear television starts to decline. So in some sense, yes, the market is catching up with these guys in a business sense, but also in a content sense that you know what they're what they're offering. I mean, these late night hosts are having like Gavin Newsome and Adam schiff On. It's this like super niche content for us, as I always describe it, resistant resistance wine moms uh.
01:01:55
Speaker 4: And there's like not.
01:01:57
Speaker 3: The same amount of money in that as there was you know, Hay for Love and I Love Him Jay Leno in nineteen ninety six, it's just totally different games. So in some sense, the market is catching up with them, and in some sense, these companies are starting to realize that they've maybe ignored a swath of the country and that they could make money off that swath of the country.
01:02:19
Speaker 4: And Crystal.
01:02:20
Speaker 3: If there is a CBS Free Press merger and you start to see some more right leaning content at a place like CBS, then yeah, actually there could be potential for adem who will talk about this later in the show. To your point, if they have the Stones, but if a DEM wanted to mess with them, I mean, maybe that's coming for Sherry Redstone.
01:02:44
Speaker 2: M Yeah, it's it's possible. It's possible. I'll believe it. I'll believe the DEM with the Stones when I see it. They have not emerged yet, but yeah, I mean you have that, you have the Ellison Family also potentially buying CS then and HBO and Comedy Central. You've got obviously TikTok coming under the you know already has an idea of Sensor involved and is likely to be also you know, Ellison Family plus Fox News. So you've got Twitter obviously already owned by Elon Musk. So there's a lot of conservative media apparatus that is already out there, and that is you know, going to that Trump is trying to consolidate right now as we speak. And so the goal, the overall plan is, Okay, I'm going to consolidate ownership of as many media properties in my ally's hands, which is a large chunk of the media space. And the fact that you've had so much consolidation and media makes this much easier for an authoritarian like Trump to be able to effectuate. So you've got a large chunk in the hands of his allies effectively him, and then you have another chunk that you are using the you're weaponizing the government to try to coerce and keep them in line. Now Kimmel has been brought back, but a message has been sent. And we covered how last week the view, which was set in the sights of Brennan Carr, called them explicitly as the next target, how they were too cowardly to say anything about this. In the first days after Kimmel was taken off the air, they did break their silence, I think again because the audience was like, what the hell is like?
01:04:27
Speaker 5: How cowardly are you?
01:04:29
Speaker 2: Like? What you're not going to say anything. Now they claimed, oh, we were waiting to see if Jimmy Kimmel was going to say anything. Both they were just afraid and then when they saw the backlash, they realized they couldn't get away with not saying anything. But anyway, the point, the point I'm trying to make here is that many people, whether they realize it or not, journalists, comedians, podcasters, whoever, they will think about this episode when they're writing their monologues or crafting their commentary or riffing on cable news networks. They will think about what happened here. They will again could be without even realizing it, they'll trim their sales a little bit to not provoke that ire of Trump World and create a big problem for themselves and their employers, because no one should have any confidence that their employers are going to stand up for them in this fight with the Trump administration. They're not your best hope, is you know, the like the grassroots backlash is kind of your best hope. But you have to be a Jimmy Kimmel level national figure, prominent national figure to expect that that is going to be there for you as well. So in any case, even with Kimmel, at least for now back in the air again, you still have this, you know, this conflict between ABC and Disney and now these affiliates Next Star and Sineclair. So it's not like the problem has completely gone away. But even with him back on the air, a message has been sent and you know, a chilling effect when you add this to the previous actions taken by the Trump administration as well.
01:06:03
Speaker 3: Kimmel rounded out his response with a bit where Robert de Niro is the new FCC commissioner, And what's a couple of takeaways for that. I mean, first of all, you could have read Trump's truth social like in the voice of Roy Cone, and actually believe that roy Cone wrote it. That's what it sounded like. He says, last time I went after them, they gave me sixteen million dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers. You could absolutely do that, and you would be like, oh, yes, this is a mafia boss, but it's of course the president of the United States, and so on the one hand, they're also going to like Kimmel didn't really pull any punches. I don't think Kimmel or Colbert will really pull any punches. As long as Colbert is on the air, I don't think seth Meyer's going to pull any punches. And so if what they think about going forward is like jokes that are based on false information that are going to needlessly inflame a big portion of the country, then I think that's a good thing. If it does end up censoring any like just left of center criticism of Donald Trump, that's a bad thing. So it's just one of these I don't know, it's one of these stories that is.
01:07:23
Speaker 4: I don't know about you, Crystal. It just for me, it's so annoying.
01:07:26
Speaker 3: Again, we were talking about this with the UN where it's like Trump has as someone on the right, Oh sorry, I just touched my microphone, but as somebody on the right like Trump often will have this like directionally correct approach to like, for example, the problems at the UN, and then he just like talks like he's a mafia boss, like he's Robert de Niro in a Mafia movie, or literally like he's Roy Kohene and you're like, oh my gosh, like do you have to do it this way?
01:07:55
Speaker 4: But he does.
01:07:56
Speaker 2: You don't think there's anything directionally correct though about like answoring comedians monologue.
01:08:01
Speaker 3: And look about pushing back on what Kimmel said at a like about that potentially being a MAGA shooter after it.
01:08:08
Speaker 5: Was sure take issue with it.
01:08:09
Speaker 2: I mean I personally, I don't have a problem with what Kimmel said, because I think the point he was trying to make is they're like doing everything to make it like this had nothing to do with us, right, And that's true, Like everybody was doing that, you know Ryan a minute and openly that he's like hoping that it wasn't a left wing shar will. It turned out that, you know, based on what we know in Tyler, seems like he was motivated by LGBTQ issues in particular. Again at least based on what we know at this point. But like that wasn't even the major crux of the joke. The major crux of the joke was poking fun at Trump because he didn't give a shit that Charlie Kirk died. Like that Charlie Kirk was murdered. He gets asked about it and he's like, oh, yeah, I'm doing great. Take a look at my construction. Like that was actually like the real joke that was going on here. So personally, I would have loved to see Jimmy Kimmel wore defiant versus emotional. And the reporting is that that was his original instinct in the face of the backlash, and that was part of what made ABC Disney feel like, Okay, well, we have the present coming after us, with the FCC commissioner coming after us, and Jimmy is unre repentant and not willing to go out here and grovel, so I guess we're gonna have to pull him off the air. So in any case, like you know, Trump, he literally said that people should not be allowed to criticize him like that is his view. His genuine view is that the media should genuflect, that they should be just like his cabinet and constantly praise his greatness, and that anything outside of that should be basically illegal and barred and taken off the air. So, you know, while there are other areas where I agree with you, Trump will be like on terras right, Trump will be directionally correct about or have make some point about the way the previous system has failed, and then come up with the scheme that makes everything way worse.
01:09:54
Speaker 5: On this one, I don't. I don't see that. I don't.
01:09:57
Speaker 2: There's nothing about this to me that is directionally correct whatsoever. And you know, if Jimmy Kimmel sucks so bad and his ratings are so bad and it's so expensive and whatever, guess what, you don't have to do anything like that. Business decision is going to be made at some point. You I mean, you're right, these are dinosaur business models. There's no world in which two hundred people working on a single show, which I think is the number that I heard for Jimmy Kimmel, is going to sustain long into the future. That's just not the world we live in now with totally fragmented media diets. So you know, if you hate Jimmy Kimmel, that problem was going to solve itself ultimately because the United States did not need to weigh in.
01:10:39
Speaker 3: It's the exact same thing with Colbert, and weighing in changes the news cycle in a way where it's like, you know, people are like, oh, Trump got Colbert cansl was like, actually, probably Colbert got Colbert canceled by making.
01:10:51
Speaker 4: Millions of dollars a year.
01:10:52
Speaker 3: But obviously, now these companies can use their decisions as opportunities to like suck up to the administration and be like, hey, we because Trump in his We'll move on after this. But in his post, he said that ABC told the White House. This is actually very interesting. Uh he said ABC told the White House that Kimmel had been canceled.
01:11:09
Speaker 2: He says, yes, the White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled.
01:11:14
Speaker 5: Because it might be a lie. Trump does make shit up, so I.
01:11:17
Speaker 3: Totally or someone lied to him, someone misstarted on the phone call. And because it sounds like they told quote the White House, not him. So he then posted in the UK taking this victory lap about the cancelation of Jimmy Kimble on the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, and that was never the case. It was always said it was an indefinite suspension after the news broke. But that's actually pretty interesting and does speak to how these companies are probably using their business decisions in conversations with the administration, uh, to say, hey, we we're getting ridical Beart, we're getting rid of Kimmel, like we're we're doing the thing. So nothing to ignore on that front. Let's go ahead and move on to Kamala Harris's book tour.
01:11:57
Speaker 4: Chris, I can't believe I'm saying those.
01:11:59
Speaker 3: Words and September of twenty twenty five, let alone showing the clips that we're about to show, because Kamala Harris fully unreconstructed?
01:12:09
Speaker 4: Is that fair to say, Crystal?
01:12:11
Speaker 5: It seems fair, I would say so, it seems fair.
01:12:14
Speaker 3: The book is called one hundred and seven Days. She has been on Good Morning America, The View and Rachel Maddow to sell this book, which came out yesterday, and it's going exactly how you would expect.
01:12:29
Speaker 4: So let's roll see one.
01:12:31
Speaker 12: My concern about him running for reelection was completely separate from my admiration and knowledge about his capacity to serve as president of the United States, which was consistent and never waivered.
01:12:45
Speaker 13: Well, when we sit here to athlete sit here today, do you think he would have been up for running the country for four more years?
01:12:51
Speaker 4: I here's the distinction that I make.
01:12:53
Speaker 12: It's and having had the experience myself, it is one thing to have the capacity to govern. It is another thing to go through an election for president of the United States. And by the way, another piece of what is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race. It is the closest presidential race in the twenty first century in terms of the outcome.
01:13:18
Speaker 14: Wow, you know, say that again, because he likes to say over and over again, he's got a mandate and well.
01:13:25
Speaker 12: And that's part of why I wrote this book, because history will talk about this race.
01:13:31
Speaker 4: It is part of American history.
01:13:34
Speaker 12: I didn't fully appreciate how much people wanted to know there was a difference between me and President Biden.
01:13:44
Speaker 4: I thought it was.
01:13:45
Speaker 12: Obvious, and I didn't want to offer a difference in a way that would be received or suggested to be a criticism.
01:13:54
Speaker 4: And in.
01:13:57
Speaker 14: During your appearance and you write about it, you say, every thing about my appearance on the View was going well until it wasn't. And if you recall, you were here twenty eight days before the election, and I asked you if there was anything you would have done differently than President Biden during the past four years, and you said, quote, there is not a thing that comes to mind.
01:14:21
Speaker 4: End quote.
01:14:22
Speaker 14: You're right, you had no idea. You just pull the pin on a hand grenade. In the moment I knew the Trump campaign weaponized your answer against you. My question, and some including James Carville and Jake Tapper point to that answer as a turning point in your candidacy. Do you think that moment tip the election no.
01:14:47
Speaker 3: Good because Sonny doesn't want to take the blank? Chrysl I'm so excited to get your response to Kamala Harris answering some pretty softball questions, if I may say so, about out why she let Joe Biden run and how she ended up kind of well, not that it was her choice to let Joe Biden run, but why she covered for Joe Biden and how she responded to that in the book, and then how she ultimately ended up losing to Donald Trump.
01:15:17
Speaker 2: I haven't read the book full Disclosure, so but I mean, I might write it does seem like there's some somewhat interesting stuff in there. To be honest with you, the book is a little bit more candid than I expected it to be. But then in these public media appearances, she's doing the same old, same old, like let me try to split the difference, let me try to make everybody happy, which just ends up making literally no one happy. The choice of venue is also worth noting, like, if you want to be new and improved, Kamala Harris improved to the world, you're a different candidate than you, a different person than they thought that you were. Don't just do a view and Rachel Matta like, go into Linestone, take some risks.
01:15:57
Speaker 5: Like go on with Joe.
01:15:59
Speaker 2: Imagine she did them Joe Rogan podcast A long last Yeah about that, that would be interesting, right, But it's just I mean, in a sense, I sort of feel bad for because I feel like, I don't know, she walks herself into this life where she's questing after ambition and power, and she clearly doesn't really care about any particular issues in a way that's like motivating for her. Is deeply uncomfortable in these situations, constantly trying to find the right answer, like the correct answer versus what she actually thinks. And then you just end up with this pathetic display where you have to say you didn't realize people wanted you to be different than Joe Biden and you thought it would be obvious, which to me is like a to me, that's a gesture towards her identity that she just thought like, well, I'm a black woman, of course I'm different from Joe Biden. It's like, no, that's not what we're talking about. Here, you are his vice president. You have stood there and backed his every decision. People wanted to know they're not happy with how things are going, Yes, they want to know how you're different, what you think went wrong, why they should put their trust in you to create a different outcome than what they're experiencing right now. And then you know, I've also seen some of the discussion around what she had to say about Gaza. Allegedly privately she was urging Biden to be more compassionate, blah blah blah, And it's like, okay, but when it actually mattered, when you were in a position of power, you did nothing to change anything, right, And now we're supposed to believe after the fact that, oh, you were genuinely you were being courageous behind the scenes. Like I'm sorry, no one should buy that, No one should believe that whatsoever.
01:17:45
Speaker 3: She is the I feel like the physical embodiment of a lot of the Democratic Party's problems, Like it's illustrated in this one woman so perfectly. Let's get more into the identity conversation because she One of the big revelations in the book is that she her first choice to add to vice president. The vice presidential ticket was actually Pete boota judge, and not Tim Wallas, but she believed that as a black woman married to a Jewish man, adding a gay vice presidential candidate to the ticket would have been too much of a risk. Now, Rachel Maddow confreditor about this, it was maybe the most uncomfortable moment in a pretty, I don't know, friendly interview.
01:18:29
Speaker 4: Let's go ahead and rule C three.
01:18:31
Speaker 15: If his reaction to that, since this part of the book has come out, if you've had any reflection on that, or I guess, I guess I'd ask you to just elaborate on that a little bit. It's hard to hear with you running, as you know, you're the first woman elected vice president, you're a black woman and a South Asian woman elected that high office, very nearly elected president, to say that he couldn't be on the ticket effectively because he was gay.
01:18:57
Speaker 13: It's hard to hear.
01:18:58
Speaker 12: No, no, no, that's not what I said that. That's that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay. My point, as I write in the book, is that I was clear that in one hundred and seven days in one of the most hotly contested elections, for president United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor to be a black woman running for president United States and as a vice presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, But I also realized it would be a real risk no matter how.
01:19:47
Speaker 16: You know.
01:19:47
Speaker 12: I've been an advocate and an ally of the LGBT community my entire life. So it wasn't about it wasn't about it right, So it wasn't about any any prejudice on my part. But short we had such a short period of time and the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant, and I think America is and would be ready for that. But at when I had to make that decision with two weeks to go, you know, And maybe I was being too cautious, you know, I'll let our friends, we should all talk about that. Maybe I was, but that's the decision I made.
01:20:39
Speaker 3: I like how powerful she thought it was that she was saying she believes Pete Buddha Judge is a phenomenal public servant. As though that's some really important line coming from her.
01:20:52
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris, I mean, where do you start with this, like, on one level, it gives me flashbacks to the Bernie Elizabeth Warren you're a secret sexist because you told me like women can't be president or something like that conversation, which you know, it appears what Bernie was actually saying was like, Listen, sexism is a real thing. Trump will try to weaponize it. Not like I think I'm sexist and I don't think you should be president, and so Matt out being you know, high dudgeon about an analysis of Listen, it's still you know, it's a lot to have a black woman and a gay guy on the ticket, and we know what Trump will do with that and whatever is annoying to me. Then it's annoying to me that Kamala doesn't stand on business. Like if that's what you thought and that was your analysis, Like girl, you put it in the book. This is actually I'm sure you've had this experience too, where authors will say something provocative and then you go to interview about them about it and they add like a thousand caveats and you're like, dude, you wrote it, like say it with your chest, explain why you felt that way, rather than trying to like run away from it and be all scared, where it just comes off as weakness.
01:22:02
Speaker 5: So that's number two.
01:22:04
Speaker 2: Number three, the problem with Pete Bootage is not that it's he's gay, it's that he sucks.
01:22:09
Speaker 4: It's that his.
01:22:09
Speaker 2: Neoliberal shill who stands for nothing, who black people can't stand right, Like, that's the problem with Pee Bootajie. Okay, now she doesn't have that problem with him, but that's the actual issue with him. Number four, I think Pete should feel lucky that he dodged this bullet of being not being happy to be associated with this, you know, terrible campaign which ended in disaster in my opinion, for the country and the world.
01:22:35
Speaker 5: So there's that as well. So there's just there's a lot.
01:22:38
Speaker 2: Of different layers going on here with this Pete bootaj Judge commentary.
01:22:44
Speaker 5: And you know the.
01:22:46
Speaker 2: Last piece, well, there's two other pieces on the question of is the country you're writer for like a black woman and a gay man. Would that have been too much to ask to ask the country to endure? Listen, I'm not one who says that sexism didn't play any role in this campaign. I think it did. I think that that was part of Trump ran this very campy Man campaign. Remember the way that the Madison Square Garden rally was like he leaned into this kind of gender dividean ripping off a shirt at the RNC exactly. So that was that was there, right And I think there's a lot of hostility towards women right now in general. I genuinely feel that coming from like you know, the red pill and the manisphere and whatever, like guys can't get ahead and it's because of these damn women who are keeping them down and nagging them, and they need to be put in their place. Like there is an energy of that right now. That is.
01:23:39
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:23:39
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm trying to kind of work on myself emily, like the self hating thing, but anyway, I'll get there.
01:23:44
Speaker 3: But imagine powerful Saga could be without you nagging him.
01:23:50
Speaker 2: I'm sure he feels that way some days. He definitely feels so. In any case, so that was definitely an energy. I think that was you know, I think that played into her loss. I'm not going to say the only fact, but I definitely think that was a factor in her loss as well. There may have been an argument for actually sort of leaning into that, like heightening the contradictions I think it was maybe who was it somebody was arguing for putting another woman on the ticket, like Aggretcha Whitmer or something like that, and actually leaning into it and making the contrast ex was not being afraid of it, not trying to do You're like, I'm actually the one who prosecuted transnational gangs is going to be bigger and badder and tougher than you are, because no one was going to buy that. So you know, I'm not saying a gay man is equivalent to a woman, but if you're like doing the whole we're going to be historic. I don't think that him being a gay man was really the challenge here, and then yeah.
01:24:45
Speaker 5: I'll I'll just leave it there.
01:24:47
Speaker 2: There's other things I could say, but you know, the bottom line is that Kamala is still this person who doesn't really believe anything, isn't really ready to stand on business, on literally anything, wilt under the slightest criticism, is constantly trying to please absolutely everyone in a way that is just going to please absolutely no one.
01:25:10
Speaker 3: So I'm shocked to hear you say that, because if we put C four on the screen, the book actually opens with a Kendrick Lamar quote that I feel really captures the energy of Kamala Harris. I got loyalty, got royalty inside my dna. I was born like this. That is actually at the intro of the book. So, Chris, I'm confused to hear you say that she's not standing on business and that she's timid and seems ambivalent on some of the key issues because she was born like this and royalty is in her DNA, and she listens to rap music, so I assume she's a very badass woman despite the actually no, because of the pantsuits.
01:25:53
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I've said this very after I did my feminist tirade. I'll say the very unfeminist thing of like this lady loves gig like she should do a cooking show. She'd be so much happier. She's so much more like when you see her in the kitchen, she's in her element. So the headline of the segment is I believe Kamala Harris should be back.
01:26:14
Speaker 4: In the kitchen crystal Ball, Comma, lets you come back to me.
01:26:17
Speaker 3: That's the headline. Literally, that is the headline. Oh we'll see I hope that is literally the headline. Now, Josh Shapiro is obviously getting in on the fund.
01:26:27
Speaker 4: So here's see five. We'll put this on the screen.
01:26:29
Speaker 3: Governor Josh Shapiro Pennsylvania seem more interested in defining the role for himself than helping her win. And Kamala Harris recounted how Shapiro was questioning an eight about the pieces.
01:26:38
Speaker 4: Of art he could use to decorate the vice president.
01:26:40
Speaker 2: My God, I believe this about him. By the way, I think this is true.
01:26:43
Speaker 3: Touching some strays in the otherwise very I don't know, gentle memoir might be one way to put it. Let's go ahead and listen to Shapiro responding six.
01:26:55
Speaker 13: I mean, look, I haven't read the former vice president's book, and she's going to have to. She's going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly. I can tell you that I wasn't in the room, but when I was confronted with engagement with the former president. In looking at it simply from the perspective of how's he doing in Pennsylvania, could he win Pennsylvania? Because I think, Steven, you understand, if you can't win pennsylvania's pretty darn hard to win. The national election, and I was very vocal with him privately, and extremely vocal with his staff about my concerns about his fitness to be able to run for another term. I was direct with them. I told them my concerns, I told them my worries. I told them what I was seeing in the polls. I think it seemed to me that maybe his staff wasn't counseling him with all the information that we knew on the ground here in Pennsylvania that frankly, they should have shared with the president.
01:27:57
Speaker 2: Convince it, Crystal, you're read in a vote for Shiman. And I'm not a Shapiro fan. I believe the anecdote that he was. There was some reporting to this effect at the time that he was very entitled and more like asking Kamala, like asserting what he wanted the role to be and assuming he had the job before even you know, going through the auditions, and there was a bit of a like personality clash between them, and that's why she ultimately goes with Tim Walls like. I think that that is probably accurate based on my vibes of Josh Shapiro. And you know, I am incredibly biased against anyone who does the fake Obama impression when they're giving public speeches, of which she is certainly guilty. But just to wrap it all up in this Kamala book thing, you know, one of the things that she keeps going back to and again, having not read the book, but judging by the title and the excerpts that I've seen and analysis that I've seen, and Kamala herself and how she's representing it, her big overarching excuse is just like, look, y'all, we just didn't have that much time. We didn't have enough time. If we'd had more time, I could have made the case better. I could have done this. I could have done that. It would have I've somehow magically made the situation better. It's unknowable, but based on what we actually saw and experienced, she was doing better earlier in the campaign when there was just excitement about someone different, when she was leaning more into some of the populist elements like the price gouging, when they were letting Tim Walls be more like do his weird critique, which seemed to land better than the more grandiose like he's a fascist critiquem though he is a fascist. But the you know, the like these guys are weirdos and they're freaks, and like fringe characters actually seem to land better with the public. So I don't see any evidence that more time would have benefited Kamala Harris. If anything, what we've seen from Kama Harris's political career is actually the more that people have a chance to sit with the reality of her versus the idea of her or the resume of her, the more they're like, not sure that this is the direction that they want to go in that they want to go in politically. So I from that perspective, it seems to me that the central premise and framing of the book, that it was too short a time period to succeed, is false or at least unsupported.
01:30:07
Speaker 3: This is incontrovertible based on the polling data. If you believe it, this is incontrovertible. Kamala Harris enters the twenty twenty primary with a lot of money and very splashy media coverage and declines to the point where she can't make it to the Iowa CAUCUSUS drops out literally before twenty twenty in December of twenty nineteen, because the more people see of Kamala Harris. The less people are interested in actually voting for Kamala Harris. She becomes vice president and has a very steadily historically negative favorability rating. You could go ahead and look at Real Clear Politics's average of her when she hits the campaign trail after taking the torch from Biden. Is she does get a very real honeymoon period where her popularity reverses again, and then around late September October it just crashes.
01:31:00
Speaker 4: Has been going in the opposite direction ever since.
01:31:02
Speaker 3: So what Crystal just said is completely supported by the data when it comes to Kamala Harris, which should throw a real wrench into whatever political future she thinks she has. She might have been butted off as a long term California senator. Speaking of California, though, let's wrap up the segment with c Sevenvin Newsom. This is apparently Kamala Harris wrote that she called Gavin Newsom for an endorsement after Biden's exit, but he brushed her off of the short text that read quote hiking will call back, and that was it never heard anything else from Gavin Newsom, which is Crystal, hiking will call back. That is how I plan to respond when you guys asked me to do something that I don't want to do in the future, hiking will call back fill.
01:31:46
Speaker 5: In for me. Oh sorry, hiking, get back to you.
01:31:49
Speaker 4: Hiking.
01:31:49
Speaker 3: Well, it's like the Mark Sanford excuse he was hiking the Appalachian Trails.
01:31:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, Well, I mean, I'm sure someone who's steeped in California politics can tell us more about the Gavin Kamala likely like rivalry. They probably like low key hate each other more than they even hate Republicans or whatever, if I had to guess. And so Gavin also is a finger in the wind kind of a guy. So if it was you know, at that moment it was unclear what was going to happen, you had probably maybe Pelosi in his ear who wanted to have a different process play out and actually have some sort of a you know, like short primary or DNC convention floor fight or something else play out, And so he just decided, like, I'm gonna absent myself from this because there's no place that I deemed to be politically safe yes to land here.
01:32:40
Speaker 3: Ultimately, it's like Taylor Swift, like, I'd very much like to be excluded from this narrative. We're ready long in today's show, so make sure you subscribe over at Breakingpoints dot com and watch the Friday show. We're going to talk about AOC and more on Gavin Newsom. Actually a potential team up in the works with AOC and Cavin Newsom and numbers looking really great if she wanted to make her own presidential run in twenty twenty eight, So we're gonna do that in the Friday show. Make sure to tune in then and you can get the full version of it over at Breakingpoints dot com. Let's go ahead, Crystal and move on to Argentina and bring in our guests. Wan Da vid Rojas, it looks like the United States is going to bail out Javier Milae and the Argentinian economy amid a slump in their market. So wan Da vid Rojas, writer at Compact, who has a new story on us, a great news story on this with the headline Trouble and Libertarian Paradise over at comput over at Compact, joins us now one, thanks for being.
01:33:41
Speaker 17: Here, Thanks for having me on guys.
01:33:43
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's a little bit of news actually on this front. Just before we were recording with you one. This morning we heard more from Scott Bessett about what this potential bailout. We can put the first hair sheet up on the screen that's been publicly in the works that we've been brought in on over the last couple of days, is going to what that's actually going to look like. This is a great financial times rundown of what actually happened. It starts by saying, quote, less than six months ago, US Treasury Secretary Scott best was in Buenos Aires congratulating President Javier Mila for bringing America Argentina back from the precipice, as the libertarian secured more than forty billion dollars and loans from the IMF and multilateral lenders to bolster his government. Now, with political and economic missteps sparking panic in Argentina's markets, the South American nation is once again on the brink, and the Trump administration is preparing to bail out its ideological ally. So one tell us what we learned this morning from Scott Bessett about what that bailout is going to look like.
01:34:39
Speaker 17: Yeah, Bestin announced this morning that the Treasury is going to provide a twenty billion dollar swap line to Argentina's central bank. Basically, Argentina central bank will get a loan in dollars that they will have to pay back to the United States, which is extremely important because last week they spent over a billion of the twenty billion they have left in their foreign reserves defending the paeso because it lost like a third of its value in the past month.
01:35:11
Speaker 2: So let's actually back up on that note and explain what is the crisis that they're facing right now and what triggered this moment where they're in need potentially of a US bailout.
01:35:23
Speaker 17: Yeah, so, over the past fifty years, really the one constant of all of Argentina's economic problems is the dollar. For our purposes, specifically, the fact that the peso, Argentina's currency is pegged to the dollar. What that means is that the government sets a margin within which the paco will float relative to the dollar around like one thousand something paysos too for every dollar, And the problem with this is that you become completely beholden to the whims of investors that can be extremely fickle, and also the amount of dollars that your central bank has in its foreign reserves. Because that's how you maintain that conversion between those two currents. And if there's some kind of panic like what just happened, you need to spend all of your foreign reserves in order to keep that value of your of the paso. And so Miday, when he came in, said, okay, I'm gonna fix this. I'm gonna through libertarianism, I'm gonna get government out of the way. I'm gonna get rid of this peg, and everything is gonna be great. So he took off this in December of twenty twenty three, uh, and did exactly that. He'd massively devalue the paeso. It lost like fifty percent of its value overnight, and this caused inflation to skyrocket, went from like one hundred and fifty percent till like three hundred percent. And this makes perfect sense because if your currency loses a ton of it it's it's buying power overnight, well, then prices are gonna shoot up. And so he said, whoops, Okay, what do I do now? People elected me to control inflation. Okay, So he did exactly what his predecessor, we're doing. He restored the peg to the peso, and this worked. The pas over the course of the next few months, in twenty twenty four, recovered and even exceeded its previous peak. See the problem with the the you know, pegging your currency of the dollar in the case of Argenta, a country like Argentina where your currency has zero credibility, is that it's just extremely overvalued relative to its actual worth and the broader value of your economy. So anyway, you know, Melay, inflation started to go down, and Mela says, oh, see, this is because libertarianism works. We can talk about that. There's some details in whether or not some of what he's done austerity wise, it could be would have been worth it in the long run. But anyway, inflation by the end of twenty twenty four fell from yeah, like three hundred percent to around thirty percent. Then in twenty twenty five he started to have a couple of setbacks. There was this big corruption scandal with his sister who's also his chief of staff. There were recordings suggesting that she was taking bribes. The Congress passed spending increases that he vetoed, and then Congress overrode his veto. And then what really set things off was that a week ago Buenos Aires, the country's most important province, held provincial elections where Malay's party got destroyed, lost by like thirteen points something like that. And this really caused investors of panic because they saw it as a sign that the opposition parentists that are left wing were going to take control of the Congress next month in midterm elections. And so this caused, in Malay's words, a full market panic and the pay so yeah, like I said, lost like a third of its value. The Central Bank spent a billion dollars in just three days and it only has it purportedly only has twenty billion dollars left in reserve, which is really the exact amount that the IMF gave Argentina in January. Argentina is the single largest recipient of IMF loans in history. I saw something that in the past thirty years, of the two hundred billion dollars that Argentina at the IMF has given out, Argentina has gotten a third of that. So it's really crazy.
01:39:05
Speaker 3: Wow, let's take a listen. I want to get your reaction to this. Actually one to what Donald Trump said about Melay while he was in New York for the nation's General Assembly and to.
01:39:15
Speaker 18: The people of Argentina.
01:39:17
Speaker 6: We're back at him one hundred percent.
01:39:19
Speaker 18: We think he's done a fantastic job. He, like us, inherited a mess and what he's done to fix it is good. And Scott is working with their country so that they can get good dead and all of the things that you need to make Argentina grant again. So it's an honor for me to endorse and the president and the future president of Argentina. Thank you, thank you very much, thank you very much.
01:39:43
Speaker 3: As you so, he's sitting astride Mela there alongside Scott Lessons and Marco Rubio. Now, one an interesting question, based on everything you've just said, is to what extent the uncertainty that Melee has faced in twenty twenty five is downstream of some of the uncertainty that Donald Trump has injected into the global economy from his economic policies. Is there a kind of circular way that Trump is bailing out Melee from a situation that that he in some sense stoked in the Argentinian economy? Am I sounding crazy? Is there a connection there at all?
01:40:22
Speaker 17: You know what, I hadn't thought about that. It's a good question. I guess, yeah, maybe a dollar a bit more skittish that they than they would be otherwise, but I would say that generally that's not the case. There is one thing that did uh like when in MINEI took power in twenty twenty three. One thing is that that's when the Fed raised interest rates and Argentina has unfortunately way too much of its debt in dollars. Again, there's is this circular problem with the dollar, uh, And so when interest rates go up, well, interest payments on your debt also go up, and that caused Argentina's debt to skyrocket. So and that, honestly, I would say, is a big part of what got me lay elected.
01:41:05
Speaker 2: Interesting, could you tell me a little bit more. First of all, I wanted to opine on how the support of Malay just reveals how content free trump Ism is, because it's not like, allegedly they are not ideologically the same, but since Malay will be a good little boy and do whatever the US wants him to, then he gets, you know, favorite status regardless of his because I think there's a lazy assumption that they're sort of like closely ideologically aligned and on some levels, yes, but I'm sure you could lay out even better than I could, like on a lot of levels. No, but I was also curious what did happen in that Buenos Aire's election. Was it surprising that his party suffered such a defeat, What are people reading into, like the message that is being sent by voters, and what are they unhappy with? You know under Malay? Sorry, remind me that the first part of the question just that you can way in on the second part. The first part was how Trump and lay are not the second part is just about the Buenos Aires elections.
01:42:08
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, right right? So yeah, I mean.
01:42:13
Speaker 17: Trump really, what Trump is is like a Gilded Age Republican kind of like it's protectionism abroad and free marketeerism at home. Uh and Malay is just the free marketeerism everywhere. So Trump is a huge protectionist, you know the tariffs hall that Melea hates tariffs. So in that way, they're extremely different. But uh yeah, as far as like Doge and you know, the deregulation all of that, uh yeah, they're pretty simpatico. And uh really I actually do see a lot of this. Well, you know, on the one hand, Trump he really just loves anyone who says good things about him. But on the other hand, geopolitically, and it's not really that Argentina like actually offers any like I call.
01:42:54
Speaker 4: It moral support.
01:42:56
Speaker 17: Uh, Milay really has prostly prostrated himself before, like Washington, and he supports all of our foreign wars Ukraine, Israel, and also what we're doing now in Venezuela, and you know, the sanctions regime against Cuba, Nicaraguay.
01:43:11
Speaker 10: Et cetera.
01:43:13
Speaker 17: As far as that election in Buenos Aireas to be fair, Buenos Aidas is a bastion of Paranism, the opposition, and so he was expected to lose there, but not by as much as he did, lost by like thirteen points, and the polls showed him as being more competitive, and now he started to slide in these midterm elections. His party has a minority in both chambers of Congress, though there's like a couple of other parties that are kind of allied with him. But the yeah, the fear, like I said now, is that the Parentists will be able to take back control. As far as what the broader population thinks, all things considered, Milai's approval writing is still pretty good, though his disapproval has gone up a lot. And the thing is the austerity, his austerity region has caused this horrible economic depression in the country. Is something like forty percent of the country is living in poverty. On the other hand, you can make the case that he has managed to bring down some of Argentina's debt, which is really out of control before he took office. So I'm not sympathetic to Meley or libertarianism, but you know, I'm trying to give you the other side. But you know, people are just kind of saying it's like, okay, inflation is going to come down some although you know, it's misleading how the financial press reports this because they've like to cite the monthly figure of inflation that's gone down to like two percent, is stagnated at two percent for a while now. And the thing is, for instance, here in the US, when we talk about monthly inflation, we're still talking about monthly inflation with respect to the annual figure. So if you look at annual inflation in Argentina, it's still at like thirty percent, which is what it was in like twenty twenty one under the previous government, and it's still pretty bad. So people want to see results. They still kind of give him the benefit of the doubt because they were promised like a V shaped recovery, that things would get worse and then get better. And the opposition. There's kind of a similar situation here with the Democrats their soul searching. There's like different wings that are like fighting each other, and we could talk about that. It's interesting.
01:45:15
Speaker 3: Well, the last question for me, actually it is just what might this do to the situation in Argentina? Sort of like the obvious question on the table is how does a US bailout? It's sort of funny to talk about a libertarian experiment being bailed out by the United States. I mean, it's it's obviously not funny.
01:45:31
Speaker 5: And the IMF yeah, and the IMI yes, I was thinking that too.
01:45:35
Speaker 4: It's just amusing.
01:45:36
Speaker 3: But what could what can we see in the months to come with this this bailout, as it will influence the Argentinian economy.
01:45:47
Speaker 17: So it seems that it'll keep them aflow. Markets have rallied and yeah, those dollars really will be vital for the central bank and also paying back Argentina's debts. There's a broader conversation like if we go back further, because they first started paying the dollar to the peso in the nineties, and Argentina just has these recurring crises. If we go back further, the issue is also that they take on too much debt in dollars, and that's a huge problem. If you borrow in your own currency, you can get way more in debt than otherwise.
01:46:19
Speaker 4: Just look at us.
01:46:19
Speaker 17: We have this huge national debt, but thankfully it's in our own currency, which also happens to be the world's reserve currency, which means that countries like Argentina need it to stay afloat. But so Argentina, like they get they amass so much debt in dollars, they're just you know, hostage to what the Fed does. If they raise interest rates, their debt explodes. If investors pull their money, they have a currency crisis, and they end up just kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. They'll get one IMF loan to pay back another IMF loan. They'll get a billion dollars from Qatar to pay back the IMF. They'll get twenty billion from Trump to pay back the IMF. So it's a I mean, yeah, probably we'll eventually see some sort of collapse. But this really was vital, like there was not even that there was a risk the country was gonna spiral into an inflationary chaos again if Trump had an energy.
01:47:15
Speaker 2: Well, we definitely recommend everyone go and read your piece over at Compact Meg. We'll put the link in the description and as always want great to have your insights.
01:47:25
Speaker 5: Really useful. Thanks guys, Thank you, Yeah, our pleasure.
01:47:32
Speaker 3: We're continuing to learn more about what may have gone on behind the scenes with Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk, in addition to the group's donors or potential donors hopeful donors in the background when it came to Charlie Kirk bringing people like Tucker Carlson and Dave Smith into some events speaking out more publicly about the crackdown on free speech when it came to discussing matters related to is Real. Because one of Charlie's closest friends, Andrew Corvett, executive producer of his show High Up at Churning Point USA, went on Alex Clark's program Culture Apothecary yesterday to go into some of the background information and try to debunk some conspiracy theories tell the truth about what was happening in this conversation with Alex and he did get into what was happening. And I just want to say before we roll the clip. F three, this is the tear sheet from the Gray Zone. This is the Gray Zone story that was trying to say people close to Charlie Kirk were people close to Charlie Kirk heard that a top pro Israel Turning Point USA donor, as the Gray Zone piece puts it, quote, terminated support for the group in the days before his death. So with that in mind, this is a story that came out in recent days. Here's how Colsette addressed questions about potential pressure from donors.
01:49:06
Speaker 4: F one.
01:49:07
Speaker 16: Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. I like them more than I like Kamas. I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti semi because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti American, right, But why do I have more freedom to do, you know that, and not criticize a foreign government. And he was really upset that there was this sort of clamp down on the freedom of expression, the freedom of ideas, free speech when it came to a foreign government with Tucker for example. Yeah, I mean we took some pushback, We lost some donors. And what's interesting is it wasn't necessarily Jewish donors, although there was. That's a misconception about turning points funding base, by the way, is you know, it's not a whole lot of Jewish donors.
01:49:58
Speaker 4: It's just not.
01:49:59
Speaker 16: We never you know, there was always I saw the comments online like oh the Jewish shekels or something like that. I mean, it's all this gross stuff. It just wasn't true and it isn't true. But we did lose, you know, one in particular towards the end that was frustrating. Charlie was a friend of the Jewish people and a friend of Israel. Did he have opinions about the prosecution of the war about He thought their pr was abysmal, thought they were doing more harm than good in many ways for their own cause. So all of those things were true, and he was upset that he couldn't express those things freely without all of this pressure coming down on the organization. But he has a lot of great Jewish friends, and you know, and some people that maybe some not so good ones, right, But I think there's just it's just a nuanced thing.
01:50:49
Speaker 5: Was Charlie offered one hundred and fifty million dollars from Israel?
01:50:52
Speaker 16: As far as I know, no.
01:50:53
Speaker 5: I had never heard anything like that. Everyone I've asked has said the same.
01:50:56
Speaker 16: And by the way, just for what it's worth, it doesn't matter the amount that we have been coming down. We would have said no because there's evidence turning point does not. Charlie would not accept foreign money exactly. We only took American money. There was money sent to us, like practically in multiple instances. They're trying to cram it down our bank account, and we said no. We canceled like money wires and things on foreign money. I have I remember moments we'd be at like an event, you know, and some foreign people would come up and like demand a meeting or try and get a meeting with Charlie, and Charlie look at me and go deal with them, get rid of.
01:51:32
Speaker 3: Them, and crystal this Basically, he says in that clip, everyone just heard one in particular, referring to one donor in particular, and the Gray Zone story is about a particular donor. It's about Robert Shillman, who was super supportive of Charlie Kirk for a long time, and I would guess that's who Colvette was alluding to in his conversation with with Alex Clark. At sure, it certainly sounds like it, but whether or not it's showman, it confirmed the thrust of what's been reported in recent days, what people have said, they've heard, just that Kirk was under enormous pressure for as Corvett says, they're speaking out against the public relations that Israel had in the free speech crackdown that Israel had. He said he had opinions unquote the prosecution of the war. Heard a little bit about that from Kirk towards the end of his life. Certainly nothing that was a criticism as harsh as you know you would hear from Tucker Carlson, for example.
01:52:36
Speaker 2: Right.
01:52:36
Speaker 3: But yeah, this is basically a confirmation which we almost don't even know, we don't almost don't even need, because Charlie had that appearance with Megan Kelly, I think this was in early August, where he was openly talking about the pressures he was under, the pressures that he was facing. But now I think we can say confidently that turning point us they did actually lose a donor, a big donor over this.
01:53:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, and according to Colvett, you know that one he said one in particular that was very frustrating. But he did say originally, you know, after that there were donors that they lost over having Tucker and having Dave Smith, et cetera. And it's also this is a small point, but I mean it's also interesting his note of like, hey, we don't actually it wasn't actually a lot of Jewish donors, which why you know, I think it's very important people be precise in their language how they speak about these things, because actually the strongest pro Zionist constituency in the US is not Jewish people. It's evangelical Christians. So it would be no surprise to me that some of the people who pulled support over just the platforming of Tucker Carlson were not Jewish. Very possible that they were, you know, Evangelical Christians or others too, just are you know, closely Trump aligned, et cetera.
01:53:52
Speaker 5: That's why you know, I like framing this.
01:53:54
Speaker 2: Story as everybody versus the Jews is actually anti Semitic and is also not accurate in terms of the reality of the political dynamics that play out here with regard to the US's on equivocal and constant support for Israel. But you know, in a lot of ways, he did confirm at least this report from UH from the Gray Zone and Max Plumenthal, And as you said, it also confirms what was already leaking out to the public. No one should be under the illusion that Charlie Kirk was anything but you know, relatively and consistently pro Israel. But I also get the sense in Emily you probably attract this more closely than I have. Like I can just imagine Charlie Kirk became this you know, activist at a very young age, and you know, his role was backing up the administration, providing you know, the talking points that would back up the administration's line, backing up Trump whatever. And now he's a thirty one year old man, and perhaps he didn't want that relationship just to be okay, whatever Trump says, I'm going to back up he want. He maybe was chafing at that role a bit. We know the reporting about how he obviously publicly was opposing a strike on Iran, and that he tried to raise those concerns with Trump and was really you know, berated for that in particular. And so I don't think it would be a surprise that, at this age and at his level of maturity is like a full grown man with kids and a family and a wife and all of those sorts of things, that he would be starting to sort of chafe in this role and asking questions about like, Okay, well, I can criticize the US, but I can't criticize Israel, and by the way, Israelis can criticize Israel, but I can't. You know, don't have the same freedom here and come under all this insane pressure if I don't even say anything, I just have someone on stage who says something they disagree with. I don't think that's a surprising development that he was starting to feel very restricted and constrained in that role.
01:55:53
Speaker 3: No, because again he's a member of the younger cohort of conservatives where we've seen significant shifts in polling, and if you grow up after the or in the time of the global War on Terror post nine to eleven, you probably do have a very different opinion. Your opinion on the country has been forged at a time where if you if you were previously supportive and then start asking questions. And I'm speaking this as somebody who was sort of on a similar arc with Charlie, and I mentioned this on the Show with Ryan last week. But for all of the differences that Charlie and I had over the years, I'm after he started speaking out about the free speech stuff. In particular, I had meant to send him a note, and I was going to send him a note and was trying to be like trying to not make it look like it was fake or anything like that, because I genuinely appreciated what he was doing and obviously never got the chance to do that. Because there are so many of us that have just you know, with I think especially some of it is the fracturing in media and everyone's kind of media bubbles pop. I've talked a lot about this on the show and my own experience going along that arc, but I think a lot of people are in a similar position and then being told you can't even ask questions, which is what he did at turning Point when he hosted a debate between his friend Josh Hammer and Dave Smith. I mean, just insane that you get keyt for hosting a debate and remaining consistent on the question of free speech. And I just want to read one more portion here from the Gray Zone story because it's remarkable for me as somebody in conservative movement world goes to a lot of these chicken dinners. They report, and some of this is source to a TPUSA insider, but they report The Gray Zone was informed that Shilman announced the termination of contributions to TPUSA during a private dinner of another organization he funds, the American Freedom Alliance, according to an attendee of the event, which was held in la on September sixth, so not back in the summer. September sixth, Shilman stated that he would be ending his donations to Kirk diverting them instead to reliably proclude laclude anti Islam groups like the AFA, so the American Freedom Alliance. That is remarkable. I have never seen anything like that at a conservative movement event. I've never seen anything like a donor coming out at a dinner a banquet and publicly announcing that they are routing money they put into another organization that they enthusiastically supported for years. Making a public announcement like that yes, it's a private dinner, but you're doing it in front of people in the public sphere. Right, You're out in Los Angeles at a banquet. That is remarkable. That is unheard of as far as I'm concerned, I've been around a lot of these events. I've never ever heard of anything like that happening. So these pressures were not just in the background. This is some serious, serious stuff. And something Alex Clark mentioned during the podcast conversation, which I listened to all of it was very interesting is that she had really Charlie had recently told her, Wow, this infighting on the right.
01:59:03
Speaker 4: Over Israel, this is this is real.
01:59:05
Speaker 3: These are these are real divisions, right, this is a real problem. And they didn't get to continue the conversation, but basically they had had that discussion, uh, that Charlie didn't think it was sort of a sideshow, but that this was genuinely a problem facing the right.
01:59:18
Speaker 4: And you can see why when.
01:59:19
Speaker 3: You have a like a long time donor talking trash about your organization because of it's hosting a debate on Israel. I mean, this is like, this is crazy, crazy stuff.
01:59:34
Speaker 2: Well, and the context there that you're gesturing towards is that everyone else in the room would have already been read in on this controversy, or he would have been aware of it, would have been applauding, like, yes, you should be pulling your funding from TPUSA, How brave of you, Thank you for funneling your dollars into consistently pro the code outfits, et cetera. So this wasn't, as you said, something that was on the back burner. This was very much foreground for this group, at least of you know, significant Republican donors who all would have been aware of this controversy and aware of the ways that Charlie the Kirk had apparently strayed from the pro Israel just like pro Netna no matter what line.
02:00:18
Speaker 5: And I do think it's just worth noting.
02:00:20
Speaker 2: Like, like Colvett said, Charlie, if you listen to him, he was very pro Israel, right, he said things that about I mean, he supported the genocide, like, he said things I found to be morally outrageous about all of this. And yet the very fact that he would even have someone with the different view at the conference was like they just they they are so sensitive to any break from the one hundred percent we're on board with everyone everything. We will never breathe a voice of criticism. Yes, our enemies all need to be crushed and never heard from again. If you deviate even one inch from that, even if you're Charlie Kirk, they will threaten you, they'll pull your your funding, you know, and like make an example of all of those sorts of things. And so I think it's a really important glimpse of the pressures that are brought to bear on all sorts of people, especially I think right now people are on the right. I think they feel like the Democrats, you know, the activists and the Democratic Party are kind of buying large loss, although I think at the elite, at the politician level, that sort of pressure is still applied. But it's just an interesting autopsy of what it looks like to be inside the belly of the beast and the way that they bring pressure to bear on you that may not be, you know, obvious if you're just looking at it from the outside. The last thing we wanted to highlight here was just a kind of eyebrow raising comment that was also made by Corvette about the how they were able to work with their tech partners to identify hundreds of thousands of cell phones that came to attend Charlie Kirk's memorial service.
02:01:59
Speaker 5: Let's go and take a look this.
02:02:00
Speaker 16: And by the way, I'm gonna break a little bit of news on your program, Jesse, are partners that do sort of geotagging with devices. They told us that they tracked over two hundred and seventy seven thousand devices in the vicinity of State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
02:02:18
Speaker 5: Two and seventy seven thousand.
02:02:21
Speaker 16: So that just gives you an idea of the scale of humanity.
02:02:24
Speaker 5: I would like to know more about that, Emily.
02:02:26
Speaker 3: I am curious sort of there are places that you can go to get that information. I mean, that is an insane turnout, like just we're talking like Billy Graham level event, if not more. That happened in Arizona on Sunday. So I get why that is a stunning number. I am curious where that ever comes from.
02:02:52
Speaker 2: Who are the tech who are the tech partners. Let's know more about what you're doing with that information. I mean, it's also just a commentary on how comfy he thinks society is at this point with just this kind of surveillance tech being used all the time by private actors, by the government, et cetera, that this is something to brag about on Fox News.
02:03:12
Speaker 3: Well, and I mean, I'm sure that they're like mostly interesting getting the number out there. But this was a thing about January sixth, if you remember, Crystal Google basically turned over I mean, a lot of data was turned over to Track and the right was really upset about this, and I think understandably so, and some actually civil libertarian civil libertarians more on the left were upset about it too, because the way, without warrants, through various loopholes, the government was able to get this information on everybody who was near the capital was insane.
02:03:43
Speaker 4: And so yeah, there are all kinds of ways to do this.
02:03:46
Speaker 3: Two really quick points just to wrap this all up. One, the people who are closest to Trump know that Trump respects you more if you when you are sort of honest, that meaning like you're not pulling your punches in public. He loves the sort of fealty and loyalty that he gets from his cabinet, of course, because he knows that they have to support him at every step of the way. But he doesn't respect the people who act as Pravda. He's nice to them, right, but he doesn't respect them. But the people who are closest to Donald Trump know that it's okay to come and do what Tucker and Charlie apparently did, which was ahead of the iron strike, go and say, hey, here's what I'm thinking, I don't know about this. That's I think reflective indicative of Charlie Kirk being someone who is really in the Trump inner circle. And secondly, one of the other things coll That said on that podcast is that Charlie had started to get bored with politics and was more interested than IDAs very interesting because I think he was leaning into this media, this media role as someone who's a commentator, not quite a journalist, but somebody who's a broadcaster and you know, like one of his heroes, a Dennis Praeger or a RUSHLMBA who's like talking through the news instead of kind of doing organizing and activism. And I think, you know, we may have seen a very different direction or more of this from Charlie Kirk.
02:05:20
Speaker 4: Now Crystal Joe Rogan went into some of the.
02:05:23
Speaker 3: Theories about what may have happened with the assassin. I don't think there's any evidence of while we're talking about you know, Israel, Obviously people have tied this into the various conspiracy theories about this assassination, having still some big questions.
02:05:38
Speaker 4: That are are unanswered.
02:05:40
Speaker 3: I'm not on the Israel de a bandwagon, but it's also worth talking about what was happening behind the scenes with donors because it tells us so much, as you said, about what's happening inside of the right right now.
02:05:55
Speaker 5: Yeah, it does.
02:05:55
Speaker 2: And also when Natanyahu immediately comes out inserts himself into our politics and claims Charlie as you know, his own, I think that's something that needs to be discussed, and it fits with you know, my view that is, I guess somewhat controversial that it's important if you have a public figure who's killed or who dies, to try to assess accurately who they were, what they stood for, what they believed, what they said, even when those things are are uncomfortable. So there's there's a lot of reasons I think to be interested in the story and find it very important for American politics outside of a you know, conspiracy that that Israel had automotive in Israel?
02:06:36
Speaker 4: Did it?
02:06:37
Speaker 2: Did Israel have a I don't know, maybe, but did they do it at this point, there's no evidence to support that.
02:06:43
Speaker 3: Right, Well, we were or as this is a girl show, everybody knows we went long.
02:06:49
Speaker 4: We could have gone longer.
02:06:50
Speaker 3: We even cut a segment that we moved to the Friday show because, as Crystal said during one of the breaks, quote, women be talking.
02:07:00
Speaker 4: It's not exactly what you did.
02:07:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the sanitized version of what I said.
02:07:04
Speaker 5: Yes, that's right.
02:07:06
Speaker 2: Well, it's always fun to hang out with you, Emily and I enjoyed it very much. To tomorrow, like I said, it'll be me and Ryan for the comedy takeover. So all sorts of flavors of show going on this week.
02:07:16
Speaker 4: Love it.
02:07:16
Speaker 3: It's like Baskin Robbins thirty two flavors. Great stuff. Well, thanks everyone for tuning in. Thank you Crystal for joining us this Wednesday. I'm looking forward to the comedy takeover. Maybe you guys will get it in undertime. I don't know, we'll see.
02:07:30
Speaker 4: I'll be watching. I'll be timing you guys with my stop watch.
02:07:32
Speaker 3: Ryan.
02:07:32
Speaker 5: Can Loki be a talker too?
02:07:34
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, but in the most going, But you don't want him to stop, right, like he's.
02:07:39
Speaker 5: I'm not complaining, I'm just giving a fact. Yeah.
02:07:42
Speaker 3: All right, well, looking forward to that tomorrow. Thanks for tuning in everyone, Crystal and Ryan will see you in just a bit on Thursday.
