Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have personal indeed, we do. Let's to get to you this morning.
So a big legal decision goes in the direction of Donald Trump. We will explain what this means, but incredibly consequential decision from the Supreme Court. We also have the end of an era as Senator Mitch McConnell announces he is stepping down from leadership even as he keeps his Senate seat for now, so big ramifications there as well. Democrats and their media organs are coping and seating over the results from the Michigan primary election and the large
number of uncommitted votes, so we'll talk about that. We're also really excited to be joined live this morning by the mayor of Dearborn, who is going to react to those results and tell us where the uncommitted movement goes from here. A former Israeli Prime minister is warning that Netna who wants to drag Israel into an all out war and cause armageddon, pushing all of the Palestinians out of the West Banks, so important to listen to his warnings.
Quite noteworthy there.
RFK is saying he's on the ballot into more important states, so we'll dig into that.
Very interesting there as well.
And Wendy's is under fire for floating surge pricing, and we have some other various news about food prices that impact your wallet.
Yes, that's right, before we get to that, it is Leap Day, so happy Leap Day, our first Leap day. Actually here at breaking Points, and we've been speculating there are some people are wondering where if you sign up for a yearly membership today, who knows whenever you're going to get built sometime in the future. So anyways, you can maybe want to take advantage of that. You could roll the dice and see exactly how it plays out. Breakingpoints dot Com we want to go ahead and help
us out. We have a discount going on, so you know, you never know, you want to lock it in for the next four years. Maybe you could try it. We'll see how that works out. I genuinely have no idea how the billing system will do it. So it's one of those where maybe we're screwing ourselves.
Crystal lay as well give us sun find out, find out what happens next year.
You might as well try it, all right.
So let's get into this big Trump legal news. Let's put this up on the screen. So the Supreme Court has decided to take up this question of whether Trump has complete immunity for basically anything that he did while he was president of the United States. This is especially relevant to the January sixth related Jack Smith case. Trump's strategy all along has been to try to push these cases out as far as he can, to hopefully push
them beyond election day. On this immunity claim thing. Most of the legal scholars don't believe that he will actually win this claim. The whole game is just to delay this trial as much as possible. So let me read a little bit of what we have here. It says the Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in Special counsel Jacksmith's election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket
and further delaying his federal trial. The Court agreed to expedite the case, and.
Here arguments the week of April twenty second.
That's still a ways out though, and then the expectation is after that, even after that's resolved, even if they resolve that question in a relatively timely fashion, which would mean probably by like the end of June, you would get that decision. You're flirting with already that trial starting near election day or perhaps after election day, depending on the decisions that the judge makes. So this is incredibly
significant for Trump. Again, the expectation is it necessarily that he would win this challenge, but the very fact of buying some time here.
Is really really important.
And Sager, you know, you've got a lot of other things going on. The one case that appears to be going forward is the weekest one in New York. The try there is actually set to start pretty soon, so you've got that one. But that case is, like I said, it's the weakest case and has the least serious charges against him. So you do have that one, the Georgia one, you got the whole situation with Fanny Willis, which has really thrown that one into disarray. The Florida one, that
one is taking forever. I don't think there's any expectation that one is likely to conclude, certainly before election day. And now this one also getting pushed off. I mean, these things are really falling in his direction at this point.
I listen, whatever we said before, he's touched. He's been touched by financial man. I'm luckiest man alive because Cristal, as you said, and I confirm this, is that the trial could now start late September or October. The thing is is that there is a scenario where this is a possible own goal by Trump. Because you have a
parallel split screen going into the election. We can imagine our own show where we're going to be talking about whatever the major electoral news of the day, and then the latest news out of the trial, and obviously the trial that probably matters the most politically in terms of
its consequences for Trump. Right before the election. You could also imagine I guess, you know, several versions of October surprises like new witnesses and a delay tactic that would put this is the thing with trials and the legal system, it's incredibly slow. The judge's been in charge. One of the reasons why it's going to start so late. She has guaranteed preparation time of several months, where even if the Supreme Court case does rule on an expedited timeline,
that's what it pushes it back. But all Trump needs now at this point is one more legal maneuver to go his way, and this thing is not going to happen before the election, which you know, validates a couple of things. One is, I think the major criticism of Jack Smith and of MARYK. Garland was like, Dude, everybody told you twenty twenty three is too late because of the way our legal system, you waited for so long
to bring this case. If it does get pushed bast election day, I think that's on them, that's their fault. You know, the defense is obviously going to do everything it can. As you said, it's very unlikely that the Supreme In fact, one of the theories that I've seen about why the scotis took the case, regardless of whether they think they're trying to help Trump or not, is actually to definitively rule on presidential immunity for all times,
so we don't have this question ever. Again, they're like, no, the president's not immune ever, period, and the story decided by the High Court.
Well, it is important to emphasize how insane what Trump is actually claiming here is because again, most people think that the Supreme Court is not going to side with him, but there's no guarantees there. And basically he's arguing that not just him, but any president could commit effectively any crime when they are president of the United States, and as long as you could sort of loosely connect it to their quote unquote presidential duties.
They get off scot free.
That is a wild interpretation of the Constitution. It would be an un precedent and interpretation of the Constitution and the abilities of the president.
I mean, it really would be giving making.
Them completely above the law in effectively all instances, which is why all of the courts up to here have not only ruled against Trump on this but issued pretty scathing rulings about this. I mean, you remember last time, if people were talking about the judges were questioning his attorneys of Okay, so if you use sealed team six to execute a political opponent, you're saying, basically, there could be no accountability, there could be no criminal charges over that.
And the answer basically came back, as long as the president isn't impeached over it, then yes, they could do whatever they want.
That's an insane standard.
That's why most people think that the Supreme Court isn't going to go along with it. But we should keep in mind how wild it is that there's even a possibility that the Supreme Court could potentially agree with that. But right now, the most important consequence of this is
just a timeline. I mean, it is important what you pointed out sober that there is a possibility that this actually lands the trial in the most politically damaging moment for Trump, the time when Americans are most tuned into the presidential race, when he should be out, you know, primarily campaigning, and instead is having to go through these trial processes, new information coming out. Everybody you know glued to the TV to find out what's going on with
this election interference case. This is the one that you know speaks most directly, I think to the reasons that so many Americans dislike Trump and don't want him back in office. So listen, it's possible that it works out that way. But he also now has a chance chance to basically push all of these things off until he's potentially president of the United States again, at which time it effectively all goes well.
Well.
The other thing to remember is being on trial and being convicted are very different things. One of the things that you and I had talked about previously is there's a lot of pulling out there that shows if he's a convicted felon, that would be very likely to change
people's decision. What I have here in front of me shows that if we have and this because of the way that the judge has decided the case, Trump is owed an additional eighty two days of preparation time after the decision by the Supreme Court, depending on whenever that drops.
That's why the September October date comes into mind. Well, we doesn't you know, it doesn't take much genius to figure out that if you're the Trump team, even especially because they all think they're going to lose in the first place, push this thing out and drag it out as much as possible, so that even if the trials in full swing, you don't get a conviction or a jury deliberation until after election day, which is very early
in November. So there you go. Now you have it so that we would have some sort of insane legal poly crisis where you have a president elect former president on trial, who then has the trial, who then has
a conviction and appeals process that begins after that. You're not even assuming office but preparing to actually swear in the oath of office, which is as a whole other legal ramifications as to how exactly that might work, but that immediately comes to mind as if I'm Trump, I don't want to be convicted before what is it, November eighth,
I think is election day, So that's it. I'd be like, I'm My entire legal strategy is not even about defense on the charges, although of course we want to do that. It's let's make sure that this doesn't happen before that time. And this effect, I wouldn't say guarantees it, but it makes it very much more likely, and it makes it a lot more politically better.
It makes it possible, makes it possible. One other thing I wanted to note. There was one other piece of legal news. An Illinois judge also removed Trump from the ballot because of the insurrectionist ban. That is the case that the Supreme Court has already heard arguments in seemed very skeptical of the idea that Trump could be banned from ballots based on this clause of the Constitution, and so, like I said, they seem very skeptical, including some of
the liberal justices seem skeptical there. I guess you never know, but unlikely that that particular challenge is going to go against Trump and just take him out of the game altogether. But I did want to update on that that, you know, I think this is the third state that has decided that Trump should be removed from the ballot based on that clism.
You know.
Another reason why it was very significant is one of the legal justifications that they could have used, possibly, you know, depending on the ruling, is that if you haven't been convicted of you know, anything, insurrection behavior or whatever, they
can't be removed. Well in this trial, this is the trial that would pertain to that from a federal brand, from a federal juryist deciding whether he legally had committed crimes like this in the first place, which then means that you can't have a ruling in many of these courts to try and remove him from the ballot based on a pretextual kind of interpretation of the Constitution. So there are actually a lot of ramifications for this one.
But yeah, like you said, very in consequential Trump he's been touched by an angel.
Yeah, we'll see. I mean, like you said, I do want to it is possible that it does blow up in their face. And we're having this trial in September October, which to just be crazy, who knows. But anyway, right now he's got a chance to in spite of the fact that there are so many charges against him in so many different jurisdictions, so many different cases. You really do have to put this on Merrick Garland. It's not really Jacksmith's fault, since he was brought in kind of.
Late in the game. It's really more Merrick Garland's fault. I don't know.
I mean, January six was a long time ago. We all saw what happened. If you were going to put together or expect that there could be this election subversion case, you could have started that right away, and so the fact that he dially dallied for noa parent reason is really that it gave Trump an opening to potentially be able to get.
Away with all of it scott free. So we'll see how it all works out.
We'll see. Mitch McConnell, this is the biggest headline news, you know, big big deal here in Washington. One of the longest serving Senate leaders in American history, announcing that he will be retiring at the end of November. He announced sat on the Senate floor yesterday. Let's take a listen.
Believe me, I know the politics within my party at this particular moment in time. I have many faults, mister, understanding politics is not one off that's said. I believe, more Sengan than ever that America's global leadership is essential to preserving the shining City on a Hill that Ronald Reagan discussed. As long as I'm drawing breath on this earth,
I will defend American exceptionalism. So, as I've been thinking about when I would deliver some news to the Senate, I always imagined a moment when I had total clarity and peace about the sunset of my work.
Even in that clip, Crystal, he's frail man, and he's clearly not even close to what he once was.
A lot of Joe Biden vibes. They're watching Joe Biden trying to get through that.
It's you know, I'm just putting it together with this is a larger global phenomenon. It's kind of interesting to think about it in this context, which is that ten years ago there was only one the world leader of the major I think it was like G twenty countries, which was under the age of seventy. Today there's eight, eight out of ten. So ten years later, eight out of ten now of the global like people like Mody, people like Biden, I forget, so many of them are
much much older than the average president. I mean, we have to go back and think, you know that, how how much press conversation there was about sixty something year old Ronald Reagan running for president and he's a decade younger now in this case of the two people who are trying to assume that office for another four years.
And just a reminder, you know that we all probably need here about McConnell, like he's still retiring far, far too late, And don't forget he still got, you know, up until November that he wants to serve out his term. We have all of this, we could show you just to you know, we can't forget that we had a full blown meltdown on a camera. And the craziest thing is it happened twice. Not to mention, you know, the
bruised hands, which is often indication of IV. It's something that showed up on the Queen, you know, before she died very very very quickly. And when you have people who are in this state, who are so clearly frail, and you know, it's yeah, in a certain point, great, I'm glad you're going for ideological reasons and for health reasons. But he's still insisting Crystal on staying up until November. I mean, the honesty of it is the same thing with Feinstein, same thing with Biden. Where how do the
people around him tolerate this? Like, how can you allow somebody to just to continue in this job after you've suffered massive health events on camera? And by the way, don't forget the cope from the McConnell team is it's only happened twice. They just happened to only happen on camera, okay, which is like one percent of his life.
So we never got an explanation for what they still it was nonsense, which is ridiculous.
But yeah, what do you do?
You have a theory of why that is that there are so many aging world leaders, and it's not just a US phenomenon.
Yeah, I mean, look, a lot of it is demographic, which there was a huge baby boom in the nineteen forties. Baby boomers years not necessarily unique phenomenon. It's the same all across the world. So I think that they're very likely.
You know, you still have kind of the median voter theory, especially here in the West and a lot of other voluntary democracies where people who are younger in general don't engage in the political system and people who are old like to not only people like people who are their own age, but in some cases the people that they look up to, which is what will have the older boomers or the silent generation, people like Joe Biden. So I think that's a possible explanation, and it does actually
make a lot of sense. Obviously, there's a medical thing that comes in here too, you know, life expectancy, I mean life expectancy in America if you're in the top ten percent of wealth, is something like ninety two years old, which is crazy, I mean, because it averages out I think at like seventy two. But that's because if you speak, when you combine everybody, but when you look at it by wealth, like if you have money in this country,
you're going to live for a long time. So it's one of those where the life expectancy, especially among that top ten percent, has gone now so high that you know, in some cases, you know, many of these people are actually able to function much much older than they would have been able to twenty thirty years ago.
Yeah.
One thing I know you pointed to in a previous monologue that was focused on America, But I mean, what happens here has reverberations around the world is sort of like a democratic decline, Yes, you know, in terms of like small d democracy and the people actually having choice and actually being able to like have some say over who their political leadership is, and tying that to this
increasingly aged political class. And I thought that was very insightful and certainly ties into how you end up with you know, Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi and Maxine wat all these people, right, Jim cliber, I mean, all of these people are way way, way, way way past their prime. You know, there's a few
things that are noteworthy here. First of all, noteworthy that McConnell is stepping down from leadership at a time when very possible that Republicans are able to win back the majority in the Senate.
So that's noteworthy.
It's also noteworthy, you know, he's not saying he's stepping down from his Senate seat, so we can give him some kudos from stepping down for leadership. But I mean, this very old man who's freezing and having all kinds of problems on camera, and we don't know what's going on.
With his health.
It's still planning to stick around in Washington for years to come, so don't worry. I haven't seen the last of Mitch McConnell. The other thing is, I understood there's been conversation about like, oh, this is the last sort of den in of the you know, pre the old Republican order, And I understand that conversation in a sense. But first of all, a lot of that old Republican order still really runs the machinery here in Washington behind
the scenes. And second of all, you know, when push came to che Mitch McConnell and Donald when Donald Trump was present, I mean did everything that Trump wanted him to on policy, They didn't have a lot of significant divides. I know there's this idea that they're like wildly different on Ukraine, but it's not even clear to me at this point what Trump doesn't really talk about Ukraine a lot. It's not even clear to me at this point what
his Ukraine policy would actually be. So and Trump, of course, when he was in office, his signature accomplishment was a business friendly and rich people friendly tax cut. That would be something that Mitch McConnell absolutely loved and was happy to bring to the donor class. So in some ways, I think the ideological divide between them is really overstated. There's more of like a I don't know, a vibe divide between them than I think there is really truly like ideological gulf between.
It depends, because the thing is that in twenty seventeen, it genuinely was impactful to have Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell that were in charge, and the main consequence of that really is border policy and specifically the border wall. So it was a huge fight in twenty seventeen that actually culminated in the TCJA over not only building a
border wall, but something called border adjustment tax. Now to be, I highly support this tax, regardless whether it pays for a border wall not, because it's a trade adjustment in terms of goods that cross over from Mexico. The number one opponent of the BAT as it's known kind of here in DC or Walmart and all these other people that are shipping all this cheap product across the border.
It's a major consequence of NAFTA. We tried to clean up some of it in the what is it called the whatever replaced after I forget the of my head. My point is that BAT is at the feet of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. So it's not that. Yeah, you're right, the TCJA and all that definitely did pass. But there were certain bananesque type visions, like a major infrastructure package, the BAT, border wall, well, probably some immigration reform.
I can think of repeal and replace Obamacare and all of that that where you know, marginal but still important, where mcconald certainly did have a difference. Now in terms of the leadership, I do want to highlight your point. I think you are correct, and we have this up here we could put on the screen. We'll just look at who the actual Republican leadership is. A lot of people forget. You know. Number two is going to be John Thune South Dakota. He's his establishment as it gets.
I mean, he's the guy who thought Tim Scott should run for president. He's such a genius politician. John Barrasso over at Wyoming is the Senate Republican Conference Chairman, Jony Ernst, same thing, Republican Conference Committee Chairman. The Conference vice chairman is Sharing more Capito, West Virginia. And then the NRSC chairman is Steve Danes at Montana. These are all died in the world, very classic Republicans. You know, I'm off the top of my head, I can't think of a
Ukraine dissonant amongst any of those six. Now, something that has been flagged to me though by kind of some of the observers here in DC, is that a lot of this does not depend on the existing sting Senate leadership a lot of this rides on November and that map which we have here actually up on the screen and
people can see in front of you. You've got in front of you where the actual toss up states from Ohio, Montana, and Arizona, where you genuinely have no idea what will happen for the republic For the actual Senate, you know, the Senate incumbents Democrats specifically in all three of those, whether they will be flipped a Republican or Democrat. A lot of that is going to ride on the general election, on Trump and or Biden and whatever the macro kind
of determination there is. Let's say there is a Republican sweep and you've get fifty three, I could definitely see, you know, because in that case I think Trump would get elected. Then I think a more MAGA aligned figure might become the chairman of the the Senate majority leader. In that case, let's say that all three of those go d Trump gets defeated at the ballot box, then there could actually be kind of a movement against more Maga types and John Thun or Tim Scott or somebody
like that might assume the leadership. And of course in that position they would either be the leader or depending it could go fifty one like it is currently for the Democrats, it would be the minority leader. Then I would definitely see them move right back to McConnell's status, who was most comfortable blocking things from Obama than actually enacting legislation himself. Yeah, that's really his legacy, right.
I guess what I would say is this, First of all, the idea that Trump is some like dissident renegade with wildly different views than the traditional Republican conference is overstated. And second of all, the fact that the party has already completely capitulated to Donald Trump. So I guess the only way it matters on the margins is, like you know, no one's saying Mitch McConnell was a stupid man. He was very intelligent in terms of knowing how to work
the levers of power behind the scenes. I don't know if John Thune, John Barrasso, Doni Ernster, whoever might come up after him, has that same level of prowess. Of course, again, McConnell's going to be around, so they can be getting advice for him if there are as he is where they differ from Donald Trump and want to sort of
like undermine and undercut him. But you know, I just I don't know if it's as consequential at this point as you might think, because Trump already owns this Republican Party.
Whether you used to be.
You know, whether you're part of the establishment or not part of the establishment or whatever, has more to do with kind of like your attitude and your vibe than it does real policy positions, as we've seen a million times, you know, and you think about like a Jim Jordan being coded as Mago and he has the most standard issue Tea Party conservative Republican views of all time. So
it becomes more about vibe and attitude. And then you know, they've already decided that there's no way they can go up against Donald Trump on anything that he actually is going to care about and actually.
Like try to fight for.
So I'm not sure in terms of what the next term looks like, if Trump ends up being present, that it's going to matter all that much.
I do think Ukraine is the one where, Look, I don't know what Trump thinks about Ukraine. I don't think he knows what he thinks about Ukraine. Yeah, depending on the day, that's McConnell had had such a deep ideological commitment at many points, being the only member of his caucus willing to try and to go past, you know what, willing to try and work with the Democrats that going away is actually genuinely impactful, where you've even had John Thune and all of them. Now again, I don't know
how it moves on the margins. Really, A lot of this depends on what the hell happens in November. A lot of it depends on, you know, what it looks like at that point. But there is an ideology, you know, on McConnell's part where I think the people who are coming up after him again depending on what actually happens with the election, where we could see some change, but don't overstate it either, you're right, which is, you know, some people think there's going to be some grand revolution. Yeah,
I don't think so. The only thing I think might change a little bit is immigration. That's the one where too, where McConnell is not as ideological on that issue is more of a gett along. He doesn't have you know, very strong views, if anything, is more of a big business type where if you had somebody's more hardline immigration. I think things could change a little bit, but I'm not sure.
I mean maybe, but I think most of the action on these things is going to be through the executive branch anyway. I mean, I don't because you're still going to have a filibuster, You're still going to have, you know, opposition in the Senate, even if they're able to narrowly
take in the majority. So I think, you know, looking at Project twenty five and these other efforts to like really figure out the limits and bounds of their power what they can do through the executive branch without having to go through the House or the Senate is probably war weary focus in terms of what's actually you have.
Just one last quick note, throw the Senate map back up there, because I just want to make clear for people that you know, it's very very close a five Please, what's going to have Who's going to have control of the Senate next time around? Basically it comes down to these three toss up states.
In order for.
Democrats to keep the majority, they'd have to win the White House and they have to hold on to these toss up states Arizona, Montana, Ohio. Now, look at that, it's not a great map, because first of all, Ohio and Montana are red states at this point, and so that is very difficult terrain. However, for whatever reason, they seem to really love John Tester up there in Montana.
He's got like a ten.
Point lead in consistently in the polls that are coming out now. Who knows, it's a long time to election day, polls can be off blah blah blah, but he seems to be holding pretty strong there. The shared Brown race in Ohio is very very close. The polling has it, you know, effectively tie. I think Brown usually has like a two point margin over his opponent who I think the Republican primary is still ongoing, so I'm not sure who he's going up against, but that one appears like
it'll be very very close. And Arizona also appears like it will be really close. Arizona of course swing state at this point. So you know, you're looking at a landscape where you'd really kind of need everything to fall in Democrats direction in order for them to hold onto the Senate.
But I mean, they have a shot at doing it.
It's not like it's preposterous to imagine that they could hold onto it.
In November twenty twenty, I'm sitting at a desk and telling you that they're gonna be two Democratic senators from Georgia. Like what do we think we've really Oh.
We were here, we were like, no way, it's not going to happen.
Anything can happen. Yeah, I really have no idea. I think we have the mayor on standby. Let's get to it.
So, as Ryan and Emily covered very able, I should say, yesterday those Michigan results for uncommitted, that protests vote very interesting, the protest vote dramatically outperforming. Can put this up on the screen. So one hundred thousand Michigan Democrats went to the polls specifically to protest Joe Biden's policy visa the Israel and their assault on the Gaza Strip. One of the local elected officials who backed this effort is the mayor of Dearborn, Abdullahamud, and actually residents of.
Dearborn, majority of them voted.
For uncommitted over Joe Biden, and Mayor Hamud joins us.
Now, great to Seezar, good Caesar having.
Of course, so just give us your first reaction to this outperformance of uncommitted.
I think as signals, you know, for me as signals, it's a sign of hope, the hope that the issue of has that the issue of Palestine is not an issue that only impacts Arabs or Muslims, but it impacts Michiganders and Americans from coast to coast.
When you have one hundred thousand.
Democrats coming out to the ballot box and casting their vote, casting the vote for a pro peace future or pro democracy future, for pro justice future, and that's the message that we were trying to send.
So, mister Mayor, I have seen some attempts by the Democratic establishment to say, hey, this is a normal ish you know, amount of the percent vote that votes uncommitted. This isn't necessarily going to be a problem for Joe Biden, regardless of whether he changes course in Israel, because you were on the ground and the uncommitted vote, I believe has now got two delegates behind you. What's your response to some of that?
You know, this is five times the number of votes that have been casted for uncommitted in the last thity presidential primaries. You know, on average, typically uncommitted we get about twenty thousand votes. This is one hundred thousand votes and ten times what we expected. Our goal was ten thousand votes and we actually ultimately received one hundred thousand votes.
You know, what I would say to.
All the pundance is you can take the calculated risk. You can dismiss the one hundred thousand people who came out and cast their ballot and wanting a president who does not back a genocide. But that is a risk that they will take, and the risk that you know, and the outcome would be the unraveling of American democracy.
And so for me, my message would be to President Biden to heed the concerns of Michiganders, to distance yourself from Benjamin Benjamintan Yahoo, the war criminal, and the tyrannical Israeli government and that's currently in place, and choose your American constituents who are asking you to withdraw that support, to stop backing a genocide, call for permanent cease fire, and restrict that military aid.
One thing I found really noteworthy, Mayor, and really important and should be concerning at least for the Biden team is that yes, in Dearborn, which is a majority of Arab American city, the vote for Uncommitted was overwhelming, but you had pretty significant support for uncommitted across all of Michigan. Yes, the college towns were the next, but there were a lot of rural areas where Uncommitted was getting more than ten percent of the vote. You had a vast range
of demographics that wanted to lodge this protest vote. And I think it's almost like a sort of racist assumption that only Arab Americans or only Muslim Americans would care about a genocide being perpetrated in our names with our tax dollars in Gaza. So I wonder if you could react to that particular part of the analysis.
I believe over seventy of the eighty three counties across Michigan had over ten percent cash their vote for Uncommitted, which really sends the message that this is not just
an Arab or a Muslim issue. I think again, we built a multiracial, multi ethnic, multi faith, multi generational coalition, and I think that's what was demonstrated at the ballot box, that there are one hundred thousand people who believe in a simple value statement that no innocent man, woman, or child should be killed, let alone should be killed utilizing US tax payer dollars. And I think that's the message that we're trying to send.
Do you have a sense of where this movement goes from here? Have organizers or local electeds in other states, especially ones who have matches coming up here on Super Tuesday next week, have they reached out to you?
So they have reached out to the organizer of the Listening to Michigan campaign. I know the state of Washington and the state of Minnesota are trying to follow suit.
There's only a handful of states.
They actually permissed the uncommitted box on the presidential primary, and so other organizers and other states are looking at alternatives.
What does that write in campaign look like? You know, we saw New Hampshire actually try to lead the way early on with a write and ceasefire initiative, which a little bit more difficult because some Secretaries of state don't actually count what was actually written in as opposed to just summing the total writings, and so each state is looking at their own unique way of how they can organize on the ground and make sure that their voices are also heard in a similar passion.
So, mister Mayer, one of the other major questions here we saw on an MSNBC focus group, for example, where you had some voters who are like, no, there's nothing he could do now at this point, President Biden to get my vote back. So I know that's not your position, but I'm curious, then, amongst your constituents, what where and how high is the bar for going from uncommitted to coming out in November affirmatively to vote for Joe Biden president of the United States.
You know, I think that's going to differ with depending on each voter that you speak to, you know, for the residents who I have, you know, for the many residents who I have who have lost loved ones, some who have lost a dozen loved ones in Avessa, some who have lost over eighty loved.
Ones in Avessa.
I don't think the concern for them is how they're going to come out and vote in November. I think some of those votes are lost and it's expected. You know, you can't have eighty of your fave members be killed and a president be silent, not even have the audacity to call for permanent ceasefire. And yet there's still to believe that you should be coming out.
A voting for them in November.
Then there's another portion of my constituency who are looking for a permanent ceasefire to be called and hopefully to be reached.
But that just opens up the door for further conversation. You know, I do not speak to a lot of my constituents who.
Want to see a Trump re elected as president. We understand what Trump stands for, we understand the rhetoric that he provides. But at the same time, although we've recognized a shift in tone, a recognition of Palestinian loss of life by our president, we have not seen a symmetry and his actions. And that's what the residents really want to see. What actions will he demonstrate, And we don't have between now and November. Nobody's waiting until October to
see what the president does. What we're hoping is that we sent a clear message at the ballot box just this week and that the actions should have been starting four months ago.
Have you heard from the White House or from anyone affiliated with the Biden campaign post Tuesday and do you think that they did hear that message and may change policy based on the uncommitted vote.
At this point in time, I have not heard from anybody, but what from my understanding based on the network and the relationships that we have is that it was a resounding victory that was heard across all the halls of the White House, and you know, again at this point the balls in their court.
We did what we should do.
We utilized our primary vote in the process that we have here in the Michigan to send a clear message that we will not back a president back to the genocide and that we want a president who respects and dignifies Palacitan lives.
Mayor, so grateful for your time. I know you've got a lot going on, so thank you so much for taking the time to explain all of this to our audience this morning.
Thanks for coming back, sir, of course, thank you so much for having me again.
It's our pleasure.
So as we were just discussing with the mayor, Uncommitted really outperforming expectations, sending a message to the Biden White House about their unconditional support for Israel, and we have some pretty important updates here, so put this up on the screen. Looks like Uncommitted has actually won a couple
of delegates to the Democratic Convention. They would be sort of unobligated, not obligated to any particular candidate, but you know, especially if the uncommit movement continues forward and continues to potentially grow, you could have some number in addition to these two of additional delegates going to the Democratic National Convention who have been sent there from a group of Democratic base voters who are disgusted with the Biden policy
visa the Israel. So this could end up being significant. It's certainly a huge win for this movement which just started a few weeks ago, shoestring budget, everything going against them, and yet was able to get over one hundred thousand michigan Ers Michigan Democrats to come out and vote explicitly against this presidence policy.
Saber.
One thing that's noteworthy that they talk about in that report. Super Tuesday is coming up next week on Tuesday, and eight of the states that are voting on Super Tuesday
have something akin to Uncommitted. A lot of the attention, as I'll discuss in a little bit, is going to Minnesota, both because it is also a swing state and also because it has a significant Muslim popular But as the mayor was just explaining, I mean, yes, the support for Uncommitted was highest among Arab Americans in Michigan, highest among Muslim Americans, but really cut across a lot of different
demographic groups. So I don't even think you need, you know, the specific demographics that you had in Michigan for uncommitted or it's equivalent to have a significant impact in these other states.
A couple places I'm really going to look out for in terms of the ballot. Like you said, there are several states, but I really want to see his performance in some of the more critical places where you could see signs of popular vote, like California or Colorado, where you you know, you traditionally will have Democrats that come out in force and it drives up the overall popular vote. It's very it's a good view sometimes in the primary
of overall enthusiasm. Same thing. At the same time, you know, you want to look in some of the red states not only at the Republican Party, but in terms of democratic overperformance there in terms of what that might look like. In the same thing, it's always a sign of like how enthusiastic everybody really is, like Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and some of these places so uncommitted, but overall the number two, like how much of Biden is able going to rarely
run the table. Are any of these third party candidates on others uncommitted? Some of his primary challenges Dean Phillips, Mary and Williams and no believe is now back in the race, Like, well, how's that going to fare as well? So I don't think we're going to see as strong as Biden as a lot of.
People are thinking, Yeah, No, I think there's a lot too that. It was interesting me in that article about how they got the couple of delegates and talking about what happens going forward. You got a quote from Minnesota Governor Tim Wallas, who's a Democrat. He said he expected a measure of minnesota Somali population, the largest in the country, to vote uncommitted in his state's Democratic primary on Super Tuesday.
More than eighty six thousand Somalis live in Minnesota. Walls, of course, as a major supporter of Biden's re election campaign. He said Michigan's uncommitted results were a healthy demonstration of democracy, and that sort of echoes the line that Biden took, the line that Gretchen Whitmer took. The politicians are very much trying to say they don't want to piss these people off, even more than they're already pissed off, so
they're like, this is just great democracy, thanks for coming out. However, over on the cable news networks, their apparatics were a little more aggressive in dismissing this vote, trying to undercut it, and basically coping in whatever ways they possibly could. Case in point, you had Claire mccaskell, former senator and now just all around democratic hack and corrupt former official. She came out to say, you know what, those uncommitted areas and I never really liked Joe Biden anyway, so this
really is no big deal. Let's listen to her cope on election night.
But also, Chris, we have to remember, I mean, let's look at the ann Arbor numbers. Joe Biden didn't win ann Arbor Bernie Sanders one. So some of these areas have never been Biden country. They have been really many more people that were further left.
And didn't like the idea.
Of a moderate carrying the flag of our party.
If you're the if.
You're the Democratic, if you're the elites the Democratic Party, if you're the Biden White House, how concerned are you really about this faction of uncommitted voters staying home in November.
Well, I think there's a danger on both sides here that people are going to stay home. I think you've got traditional Republicans that no way they will vote for Joe Biden, in no way they will vote for Donald Trump. So there's going to be some people that are going to hold their nose and vote, and then there's going to be people that just stay home. The question is will the Biden campaign be able? And by the way, there are no elites in our party? Yes, sorry, no elites.
I know you didn't mean that.
But the question is can Biden draw the kind of contrast around some issues like guns and abortion and frankly autocracy and what what Trump.
Is saying he's going to do.
He's going to tear up every day one dictator on day one.
You got a lot going on there.
So first of all, I just have to comment on, Oh, there's no elite within the Democratic Party, says a woman who's like multi multi multi millionaire. So is that one? But you know, you see some of the typical, you know, sort of explanations of how this is really no big deal for Biden, exemplified there by Claire mccaskell in particular, it's basically like, but Trump, once they remember this will
be in the past. They'll think about Trump, they'll think about abortion, and there's no you know, oh, the policy's going to change. It's just we think that people will get over it. And by the way, we think we could win some of Nicki Haley's Republican supporters more easily at this point. Really is what she's saying than these protest voters who are upset over our government funding and genocide.
But I really love how she's so dismissive of these parts of Michigan when again, yeah, the highest numbers came in college towns and in majority Arab American and Muslim American places like Dearborn, but you had a pretty significant vote across the entire state that you cannot just handwave way and dismiss is like all those crazy Bernie Sanders supporters. Not to mention, those crazy Bernie Sanders supporters were a
vital part of your twenty twenty election victory. They are also Democrats that you need to show up in order to succeed. So I really enjoyed all of that, and I especially love the host like grabbing on.
Oh yeah, yeah, you're right.
That's a great point, grabbing on to whatever straws they could to try to dismiss the significance of what was incredibly significant.
There are no elits in the Democratic Party is one of the most insane things. But the thing is, though, is that the actual elites in the Democratic Party do at least see some signs of panic. Here's Morning Joe for example. Let's take a.
Lesson Governor Whitmer. We had her on the show earlier this week. Acknowledged that for some in the Muslim American Arab American community in Michigan, this issue is so personal that even anticipated that in November, because they're so angry, they won't want to cast air ballot for Joe Biden.
They're not going to vote for Trump, but they.
Might find a third party candidate.
Or they might just choose to stay home.
So this is something the election team is going to have to deal with and also try to find some other paths to victory.
In the state.
Well, I mean, they need to be worried about it. They obviously need to be concerned about it. They also don't need to service these voters and stay in front of these voters between now and then it's again it's eight nine months, very long time in politics and lifetime in politics.
Wow, lifetime in politics. But you know, at the very least, I think it's one of those where Crystal they are acknowledging that things aren't necessarily good for the Democratic Party. Where look, because that's Biden's show, he doesn't have to listen. Now, at some point we'll not try sure how much has gone through. My likely analysis kind of the way they look at it is in the way that they do almost every step back, is it'll be fine because of Trump.
They really believe it. I don't think it's going to work, but that's what they believe at the White House.
Well, what was interesting to me watching the election night results, and you know, I delightedly watched CNN all night to see the way that they would cope and see over all of this. But you know, the result would have been less significant if you didn't have the mainstream organs like MSNBC and CNN really paying attention to it and really like covering it, really handing over it.
Now, there's this phenomenon.
That happens, and this is like classic sort of timeline of the cope where when the initial shock hits they can't help but me a little bit honest about this is a problem. And that's what was going on on CNN that night. But even a few hours into the coverage, they already were bringing on analysts to be like, this.
Is fine, it's no big deal.
This is barely even more votes than uncommitted even usually gets, which is just a complete lie in fabrication, by the way, But they had already moved on to trying to dismiss it and trying to pretend like this is no big deal.
But listen, the bottom line is.
You, whatever you think about what Israel's doing, a majority of Democrats think it's a genocide. A majority of Democrats think it's a genocide. Thirty more percent are not sure. So yes, that is going to have some electoral consequences when the Democratic president is shipping the weapons to be used in what a majority of the Democratic base thinks is a genocide. I mean, that is pretty much as
basic as it comes. So even if you have come up with whatever cope math you've imagined to dismiss the one hundred thousand people in Michigan as it's really no big deal, and we're going to be fine, et cetera, et cetera. That basic reality is not going anywhere, and you know it.
Is certainly possible. Listen as possible.
Michigan is the high water mark for uncommitted because of the demographic nature there, because it was you know, going alone and so there was a lot of focus and they had a little bit of time to prepare. You had Rashida to leave there, you had other local electives who decided to get behind the movement, and former Congressman Levin also getting behind the movement. Could be thus the high water mark could be that this thing continues to grow and you continue to see some results like this
in additional Super Tuesday states and beyond. We have one more for you, which is just so amazing over on CNN talking about the youths and what Biden, all the great work Biden has been doing to reach out to the youth.
What do they even want from him? Anyway?
This guy's is the sixth element in the block.
Let's take a look.
But it was also the college counties like around ann Arbor that you had high numbers of people voting uncommitted. What can President Biden do in terms of outreach to younger voters.
That he hasn't done already.
I mean, he's already forgiven all the student debt that he can. He's already showing up on Seth Meyers in TikTok. How does he reach the younger crowd?
I'm already on TikTok.
He's already done a single TikTok and he went on Seth Myers. Don't think young people love Seth Myers. The student debt thing is also bullshit because obviously they could do.
A lot more on student debt. But he's doing this, you know, a.
Little pitoy efforts, which I do appreciates better than nothing. But yeah, I love how they're just so exactly what do these young people want.
It's like, well, maybe they want.
Our taxpayer dollars to not go to fund bombing babies in Gaza as a start. Perhaps that is even more important to them then the theoretical possibility that maybe some of their student debt will be slightly alleviated.
The other funny thing about the Seth Myers interview we have this we can put up there on the screen, is that actually from media? I please? Is that the Monday night and Interview with the President actually brought in eight hundred and fifty thousand average total viewers, but only one hundred and eighty one thousand in the twenty five to fifty four age demographic, which is a thirty two percent drop compared to the exact same day in the
last year. Now, maybe that's just because the show has a completely declining viewership, and you know, again just to think regardless for network television, but then to think even lower for one hundred and eighty thousand the key demo, I mean, I don't have to say it, but like very very basic YouTube people can surpass that dramatically with a median video, I would say, as opposed to whatever
the hell they're throwing out. But even amongst you know, going on Seth Myers, it's like, clearly, if you think that's the way to reach young people, then you are living in the year like nineteen ninety two, which hey, maybe Biden actually is you know, yeah he is.
I mean Cethlier's himself is fifty years old. God, I would loved and I would love to it. I mean, I'm sure the average age of his audience is probably like.
I mean, yeah, you could see the map yeah, I mean eight hundred fifty thousand people are watching. One hundred and eighty thousand of them are in that down twenty five to fifty four. Let's assume that the vast majority are not going to be below the K demo, and they're going to be above it than the vast majority people are watching. You are old. It makes sense. I'm actually reading a book right now about the history of
Late Night. It's very interesting. I mean, so much of this happened before, Like I was in Boorn, but the wars between Jay Leno and David Letterman and Letterman. At one time, Letterman and Arsenio Hall were considered like peep for our age. People were like, they're young and they're hip, and we're staying up late to smoke pot and watch David Letterman at twelve thirty. And I was like, is this really my age lived at that time? Because that
is lame as hell? But hey, I mean in a you know, in a note cable world news.
No, what else are you gonna do?
What else are you going to do?
It's like pre John Stewart.
Yeah, and you know, I mean pre everything. He didn't even have cable television in some cases, this was the very very early days of all of that. But he seems to think like it's like I said, literally nineteen ninety two, that was the case for Letterman. He brings in the youths. They really love David Letterman in his impish style.
You know.
For me, I'm like Lutman's such a boomer. I can't imagine watching it some people.
Listen, it was a different moment, you know, there was fewer options.
He had to be there, et cetera.
But yeah, just I mean, I also want John Bourbon is a nice guy.
But this is just hilarious. Now, what more do they want from Joe Biden? Anyway?
He even went on seth Meyers and put out a TikTok? Isn't that enough for these young people? Don't think so, guys, Let's go and move on to some breaking news, very disturbing coming out of Israel this morning. Let's go ahead and put this first element up on the screen, guys. So, the reports are that at least one hundred and four Palestinians who were waiting for food aid were killed and seven hundred and sixty wounded after being shot at by
Israeli forces in Gaza. This is obviously horrifying news. We know the levels of starvation and desperation that have become completely endemic in the Gaza Strip. There is not a person there who is not undergoing severe food shortages.
And having to go without meals. Nutrition.
Malnutrition is now extraordinarily widespread and pervasive among young people. So you have a huge number of people waiting for and attempting to get food off of these aid trucks and Israeli forces, according to Al Jazeera and other reports, shooting dead at least one hundred and four Palestinians waiting for food aid and wounding at least seven hundred and sixty.
Now the IDF has responded, we can go ahead and show this video that they put out, and I will go ahead and tell you what they are claiming happened, which is at odds with other evidence and reports from on the ground. They say early this morning, during the entry of humanitarian aid trucks into the Northern Gaza Strip, Gozen residents surrounded the trucks and looted the supplies being delivered.
During the incident, dozens of Gozen's were injured as a result of pushing and trampling the incident is under review. As I said, this accounting by the IDF of claiming that the injuries were sustained by desperate Palestinians looting and trampling over one another is undercut by additional video from the scene. This is courtesy of Al Jazeera, where you can actually hear the IDF gunfire surrounding this food truck and resulting in the deaths of many Palestinians.
Let's take a listen go wrong.
So Soger, obviously, you know you have an incredibly desperate people literally starving to death in certain instances, trying to get whatever food they can. Food truck deliveries have been further curtailed and limited, especially as the Israeli government has allowed those protests to continue which have been blocking aid going into the strip. The ic J ruling they actually demanded that Israel increased humanitarian supplies, they have gone in
the opposite direction. And so now, especially in northern Gaza, you have just an absolute desperation. And you also have prior reports too of the IDF firing on these aid convoys. So this is not even the first time that it's happened, but it appears to be the time that has had the mooth, terrific and deadly results.
I mean, regardless of whether they were fired on or whether they died in the trampling incident, as Israel's claimed, it's obviously a result of the same net effect situation. Although we should say CNN, Al Jazeer and others are
all reporting that they weren't fired upon now. But one of the things that's noteworthy to me is I'm actually for the first time seeing bubbling up criticism in the Israeli Pressed, and they're specifically actually pointing to a major warning that came from the Biden administration just earlier this week, which told them that quote, Gaza is turning into Mogadishu.
And that's really all I could think about watching that video is you literally look at a swarm of people who are going to the food because several things, you know, one of the first and foremost is that demonstrates the
massive security vacuum inside of the strip. So if we have no hamas or at the very diminished mas and we have basically complete chaos and then highly highly you know, constricted amounts of food, it's going to be doggy dog I mean, I've seen reports of what is it, you know, hundreds of dollars to be able to eye a single plate of food. Is we have malnutrition conditions that are sweeping the entire place. This is a preview of the
full on future. And this actually the death toll remaining so high natural causes of people starving to death, malnutrition and others. This is why you know, the thirty thousand some people who have been confirmed now dead after the war. It's only likely to go way higher and exponential in the coming months if these conditions don't change at all,
specifically with the food aid. And I also think that this is the humanitarian disaster where everyone kept saying, They're like, oh, why isn't it come yet, and it's like, well, it takes a long time to starve to death actually, And one of the things that you could see is that what it's only been one hundred and fifty days or so, we are now full onto that phase of the Iraq you know style thing where now you've got looting, now
you've got full on security back. Arguably, they had more of a security force in Baghdad post US invasion than Gaza does right now. So just imagine, you know, where things can get worse. And I think this actually could have a significant impact in terms of just visibility for US policymakers and others to try and to change their direction because it's undeniable. You can look at that video.
Regardless the idea of sitting there trampling each other to death or whether they were fired on, obviously there's a substante difference. It's like, well, you're the ones creating the condition, so they got to change.
They're on you.
Yeah, either way, yeah, literally on either way.
What Haratz is reporting is that soldiers shot towards the legs of those in the crowd who began advancing towards them. That's what they're saying. As I you know, we played that video. You can hear the shots. Clearly the idea
was firing on all most people. So there was, you know, possibly a stampede to start with, because you have this mass caged in, desperate, absolutely desperate population, starving to death, and then you add into that the idea firing upon them and the result is over one hundred Palestinians now dead. And yeah, regardless of how many were stampeded, whether it was because of the desperate whether it was directly shots
fired or some mix of all of that. Ultimately, fully the responsibility of these rallies who have created these desperate conditions in Gaza, and speaking to that, we're learning more this week about how horrifying those conditions are. You do have people, specifically babies, who are beginning to die of starvation. We can put this up on the screen. We talked a little bit about this before, but you had two children who just passed away in Al Shifa Hospital as
a result of malnutrition. This is per the Ministry of Health. They say the number of victims of starvation among children and this has been primarily infants, I believe has risen to six. We know that you have a huge proportion of children who are facing acute malnutrition. You have a significant percentage that are suffering from severe wasting. I mean, their lives are literally in danger simply because of the
lack of food, the lack of water. We can put some of these images up on the screen of one of the infants that sadly passed because of acute malnutrition. We showed you one another one earlier this week. So this is where we are. We are already past that tipping point where now we have people and babies specifically
literally dying of starvation. And you understand the desperate circumstances that Palestines are facing, particularly in Northern Gaza, where there has been you know, almost no very limited food deliveries.
There's very little that gets past Rafa, where you know, you have one point three million Palestinines were clustered also in abhorrent humanitarian conditions, you know, also with a lot of social breakdown that we've showed you before, but very little gets beyond Rafa, and so Northern Gaza is in the most critical condition in terms of malnutrition, and it's just it's just horrifying. I mean, it's just absolutely tragic all the way around.
Yeah, I love, like I said, I think it's only unfortunately very likely to increase Mugadishu like conditions or you know, that's exactly what created that full on civil war. I mean, Somalia still has not recovered from them. It has been over thirty some years since black Hawk down. So there you go. You can see where if there's a vacuum that's created and there's a full blown crisis, it also will lead to a lot of different downstream very scary conditions. It's funny,
you know. I was reading in the axios about some of the ways that Israel has claimed that they can establish security on the strip without Hamas, like, oh, we'll partner with the clans who were like opposed to them, and the US is like, well, they don't have any power and a lot of them hate you just as much, so why would they partner with you. It's one of those where the population too Now at this point, they will follow if you can get food in there, they
will follow anybody. That's the exact same scenario that we saw play out during the Iraq war. Oh you're Isis, but as long as you can feed me, cool, okay, you know. And it's one of those where this is a this is gonna be a real problem, I think, And this is a real validator, you know, of a lot of the critiques of the way that they have run the war, and it's one of those where you know, they incidents like this, this is exactly what sets the world on fire.
How do you argue at this point that this is not collective punishment? I mean, how do you even argue that at this point, Remember we showed you the images these protesters who are blocking food aid coming in being allowed to continue for weeks and weeks at this point, right inside Israel, right with bouncy castles and festive rave like out dancing with flags and you know, setting up cotton candy stands and whatever for the kids, bouncy castles to block food aid, to starve these people to death,
and the IDF and the Israeli police force just sitting.
Back and letting it happen.
Meanwhile, protesters in Tel Aviv who are trying to get hostages to release and are in favor of a ceasefire, they're getting their heads cracked and sprayed with water cannons. Okay, so you tell me what the explicit policy of the Israeli government is. There has been a dramatic decline in food trucks and humanitarian aid allowed into the Strip, even
after the ICJ said you're plausibly committing a genocide. This is I mean, there's just no words for what is being done to all of these people, whether they loved Hamas or hated Hamas or were indifferent to Hamas, just ordinary Palestinians who are trying to live their lives, babies who barely even had a chance to live who are now dying of starvation in the hospitals for lack of milk or food, or because their stomachs can't handle the
donkey feed that they've had to resort to feeding their children, or the leafy weeds basically that they're scrounging for around the Gaza strip. And you've got protesters with bouncy castles that are making sure that food aid doesn't get in, and then when it does, of course it's swarmed, and it appears the IDF fires on these people, and now more than hundred Palestinians are dead, and close to a thousand.
It appears in There's no words. There's no words.
Part of how this has been allowed to persist for this long is because they have partners in propaganda among many media outlets. We brought you earlier this week the story of Not Schwartz and The New York Times and the story they put out about alleged systematic rapes by Hamas on October seventh. That story had already fallen apart
even by their own fact checkers. They could not put out an episode of The Daily based on this bombshell supposedly investigation that they put together that was bylined by three different individuals, so even their own fact checkers were not willing to stand by this report sufficiently to put
it in their premiere podcast. Then we learned, as I detailed earlier this week, that A. Not Schwartz, one of the co authors of this piece, literally had never worked in journalism, had not a single byline prior to joining The New York Times in November gets put on this incredibly fraught, sensitive investigation. We also learned that prior to her time, on October seventh, just before she joined The Times, she was liking on social media overtly genocidal posts calling
for Gaza to be turned into a quote slaughter house. Okay, that post that she liked was so genocidal actually showed up in the South Africa ICJ filing alleging that Israel is in fact committing genocide. Well, now we have a report from Ryan Grimm and some of his colleagues there at the intercept that looks into how Not ended up in this piece, how this investigation unfolded, and it is really quite something. Let's go and put this up on
the screen. So the headline here from Jeremy Skhill, Ryan Grimm and Daniel Boguslaw quite a powerhouse of byline there between the hammer and the anvil, the story behind the New York Times.
October seventh expose.
So a lot of this comes from both talking to people inside the Times. A lot of other reporters at the Times are utterly disgusted with the way that this all went down.
And then part of it was Sager.
They got their hands on a Hebrew language interview that a knot was able to do, and so they have in her own words, the way that she conducted this quote unquote investigation.
So here's a quote from her.
She apparently she herself was a little wary of being put on this and felt herself to be unqualified, but nevertheless persisted, She says, quote victims of sexual assault are women who have experienced something and then to come and sit in front of such a woman, who am I anyway?
I have no qualifications in terms of reporting about the internal turmoil at the New York Times, Ryan says the fear among Times staffers who've been critical of the paper's Gaza coverage is that Schwartz will become a scapegoat for what is a much deeper failure. She may harbor animosity toward Palestinians, lacked the experience with investigative journalism, and feel conflicting pressures between being a supporter of Israel's war effort
and a Times reporter. But Schwartz did not commission herself and her nephew. By the way, that's the other piece of this is the third author of this piece was a relative of hers who was almost similarly dis unqualified for any sort of reporting of this level. So she did not commission herself and her nephew. Senior leadership at the New York Times did. Schwartz said as much in
an interview with Israeli Army Radio on December thirty. First quote, the New York Times said let's do an investigation into sexual violence. It was more a case of them having a convinced means, she said, her host cutter off. It was a proposal of the New York Times, the entire thing, And she goes on to insist that.
Yes, it was.
If you read through this piece, Ryan tracks again through the narration of a not about how she conducted this investigation, how it was very much a hunt for justifying a conclusion they had already come to. They wanted to find the evidence that systematic rape was used as a weapon of war on October seventh, and so she went out and effectively scoured the country, talking to you know, people at hospitals, at crisis centers, anyone she could try to
find to justify the conclusion she had already come to. Ultimately, and this is why the fact check fell apart, and
why the peace itself came under such scrutiny. Ultimately, she ends up relying on the testimony of some of these ZAKA volunteers who were that was the group that invented the forty beheaded babies hoax, and a number of others, and the testimony of another individual who similarly has been proven to have invented falsehoods to justify the barberism of the Israeli assault on Gaza, and so and even you know, the one witness that she gets, he changed his stories
multiple times. She ended up violating what was the one thing that Jeffrey Gettlman, the lead author on this report, had told her that you have to have multiple sources to go with the word of this one eye witness. And so, you know, the whole thing is just an absolute mess. And her lack of qualifications here are still
the most head scratching thing I can imagine. The last thing that I'll mention here put this next piece up on the screen from set Squirrel, who really, by the way, total credit to this account, who did all of the initial digging to uncover her lack of experience, her previous social media history, etc. Really set off a firestorm. So
her nephew. Annat's nephew was the third author of this piece, Adam Sella, who also had apparently only written a couple of prior articles on the subject of food and cooking, to be their lead on the ground reporter on this extraordinarily sensitive piece. The first name on the byline Gettleman. He's the one that I played you the other day who said that I'm not really evidence. Isn't really what I'm doing here, I'm just looking to tell the tell
the stories. Apparently he was very little involved in the actual investigation on the ground. It was mostly Adam and a not who are wildly inexperienced. And then you end up with what is it, absolute scandal and melt down happening at the Times right now?
Yeah, I mean, well, I read the report and it's like you know, you know, usually when there's this is why it's so difficult when there's what you sound like a monster when you're like questioning claims of widespread rape or whatever. But yeah, look been questioning it since Rolling Stone article came out, so it might as well continue to do it. But I read this and it's like, well, I called all eleven hospitals and they said that they didn't exist. I mean, in my head, it's like, do
you even need to keep hunting? Then if we're talking about the claim of widespread and again, I mean, why does this any of it matter? Because these are indelible stories. They get lodged in the mind in which if you ask people on the street, they say it's probably true. And it's one of those where it gets used as justification then for some of the actions by or disproportionate use of force or whatever, you know, by Israeli forces. If we were ask people inside Israeli, probably the too.
And it also traces back really to this. I mean, this is the other thing where I almost you know, you again you want to scoff a little bit when you want to look back at every time where rape was actually widespread, you don't have to go looking for it. Okay, go ask anybody in the Congo or go you know, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where rape genuinely was used as a weapon of war. Go look at the Soviet invasion of Berlin. Like, you don't have to look
for it, they will tell you. And the evidence of it all shows up nine months later, and it's horrific. And it's in terms of the things that happened at that time. It's like, if it really was that widespread, then you wouldn't have to even go coax, like what was it? A single individuals and anonymous and then claim doesn't work out. It's like the entire thing, it's just it's just look, you know, October seven was bad enough. Why don't we have to go looking for bogeymen that
don't exist? You know, a bunch of people were killed, including kids. Enough, that's it, Like what why? But I mean I think we know why for media purposes and others, And I think that's kind of what I think. That is really what is disturbing about this entire thing.
Yeah, there were horrific atrocities that were committed by Hamas against innocent Israelis on October seventh.
There is no doubt about that.
That is crystal clure on video, crystal clear, right. And I'm not saying there was no rape on that day, but that's not the claim that has been made. The claim is that it was used systematically as a weapon of war, and they just were not able to find the evidence that came anywhere close to backing up that assertion. And at every turn when they run into a roadblock, you know, oh, all the hospitals say that they didn't find it. It's well, well, they probably killed all the
women that they raped. Well, okay, what about forensic evidence from you know, the bodies of the women who were slaughdered on that day. Well, you know, there's because of Jewish custom, they were buried quickly, so we didn't collect any of that forensic evidence.
Well what about you know, we went to.
Talk to these crisis workers, you know, and they won't tell us anything either. Well, it's probably just because they want to protect their patients.
Et cetera.
There was like they set off with, we have come to this conclusion that this happened, and now we're going to try to backfill in the evidence. And they have this line in Ryan's piece at the intercept, he says, at every turn, when the New York Times reporters ran an obstacle obstacles confirming tips, they turned to anonymous Israeli officials, not the most credible sources or witnesses who had already
been interviewed repeatedly in the press. By the way, those witnesses again were caught shifting their stories depending on what outlet they were talking to and what day it was. Months after setting off on their assignment, the reporters found themselves exactly where they had begun, relying overwhelmingly on the
word of Israeli officials, soldiers and Zoka workers. Again, that's the group that fabricated forty beheaded babies and a bunch of the other things that have been completely disproven to substantiate their claim that more than thirty bodies of women and girls were discovered with signs of sexual abuse. On the Channel twelve podcast, Sports said, the last remaining piece you need for the story was a solid number from these really authorities about any possible survivors of sexual violence.
We have four, and we can stand behind that number. She said she was told by the Ministry of Welfare and social affairs.
No details were provided.
The Time story ultimately reported there were at least three women and one man who were sexually assaulted and survived, apparently again just based on the word of Israeli officials. There was one particularly revealing anecdote here that I just
think really gives away the game. So in that Times piece they sent her a lot of their storytelling around the family of a woman who was murdered on October seventh named gal Abdush, and they claimed in the piece that she had been raped, that her body wore the signs of having been raped. There had been some video that circulated of her that where she had, you know, after she'd been slaughtered, she didn't have pants on, and so that's basically what they were basing all of this on.
And a third of the Time.
Story details this story of what they're calling the quote woman in the black dress. Well, after the report comes out, the family is furious because the Times reporters they're saying, you never.
Told us this was about rape.
You just said this was about October seventh, and remembering golf, they actually have phone messages that they believe, you know, undercut the idea that there was time for her to have been raped. Her family came out aggressively and said this is a lie. You know, the media needs to stop spreading this, etc. So that really fell apart. But Gal comes up in Ryan's piece here as well, where that video of her that they needed to make central
to the piece. The person who was the owner of that video didn't really want to cooperate with them, and the owner says that they called me. That would be Adam, and Anon called me again and again and explained how important getting that video is for Israeli hasbara, which is
their term for propaganda. So a New York Times suppose a journalist telling this person, you have to cooperate with us, not because it's in the interest of journalism and exposing the truth and the story that we'll know, because this will serve the interest of Israeli government propaganda. That is as much of a clear cut admission of what was going on here as you could possibly get.
You know.
The Times is in their comment to Ryan here standing by the story and not put out a statement this morning. She says, I'm thankful to the New York Times for standing behind the important stories we have published. The Times and just stand behind me, but also behind many women whose stories need to be told. The recent attacks against me will not deter me from continuing my work. And
she's got in there. A screenshot of Times International editor Phil Pan saying in a statement to Ryan and the Interstep that he stands by.
The work quote. Ms.
Schwartz was part of a rigorous reporting and editing process. She made valuable contributions. We saw no evidence of bias in her work. We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team's investigation. But as we have said, her likes of official of a defensive and opinionated social media posts predating her work with US are unacceptable as a reminder and not liked genocidal posts and one's calling for propaganda to be used to conflate
Hamas with isis. She also backed the Beheaded Babies hoax in her social media posts. She had never worked as a journalist before, she was like a small time film maker and previously had served in the IDF in an intelligence unit.
So there you go. Extraordinary, extraordinary situation.
All right, we got two quick stories that we want to touch on. Let's move on. This is very political consequences kind of bringing it back here, let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. Some major news from the American Values twenty twenty four pack, which is supporting RFK Junior. The number of signatures collected in the state of Georgia and in the state of Arizona now passed the threshold that will be putting RFK Junior's
name on the ballot as an independent. That is very significant because obviously those are two of the most important states for the Biden electoral College victory back in twenty twenty, where a matter of only twenty thousand votes literally combined in both states would have swung everything combined some of the chaos that we're seeing right now with uncommitted and all of that, and he is in very very serious trouble. Not to mention though, that RFK Junior proven to draw
some votes away from Trump as well. Same time, look at Michigan where we just had that primary. He's about seventy six percent of the way there, likely probably even more after the chaos that's been happening twenty two, six hundred and seventy one. In the state of South Carolina, he looks to be about sixty percent the other updates that they have are Maryland and Massachusetts coming soon. I believe in the state of Virginia that is being launched
soon as well. So RFK Junior did make a commitment on the show. He said he's going to be on all fifty states. We'll see. I think that's incredibly difficult. But Crystal, if his goal is at the least make a statement in battleground states Georgia and Arizona, is enough. I mean, that's enough already to be able to draw enough enough votes in order to significantly change things. Let's put the next one, please up on the screen just
soever you can see. They have a New York Times Ciena poll that they flashed that shows Biden at thirty three percent, Trump at thirty three percent, Kennedy at twenty six percent. So right up there, you know, shouting distance of these candidates.
Not as specifically in Arizona.
Exactly specifically in Arizona. I mean, that is an extraordinary amount. Doesn't necessarily fit with what we've seen in some others. Let's go to the next one that actually shows every major battleground state and it includes not only Trump, but it includes Biden. RFK Junior Cornell West and Jill Stein,
so like a five way matchup some of them. Noteworthy ones that I see is that the Trump name is winning in all of them, so that kind of matters between Nevada and North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Nevada or sorry, Michigan, Arizona and Wisconsin, and the margin of victory very much. There includes some problems for Biden that we can see directly amongst Kennedy pulling anywhere between five to eight percent between all of these. So if we think about the
variable results, it obviously kind of makes sense. People is probably still getting to know you know, RFK Junior and others. But Crystal, if he's able to get ballot access, especially in some of these battle rounds, we already know he's going to be a very consequential player. That's it, no question about it.
Yeah, even if the results do look more like that. A second group of polls, which I think is probably more realistic, just because we know third party support usually declines as you get towards election day and people sort of sit with, Okay, well it's going to be one of these dud dudes. So you know, I don't want to quote unquote throw my vote away is how a lot of people think of it come to election day.
But even if we're talking about six percentage points, who that six percentage points comes from predominantly could be the difference maker.
In these key states.
So yeah, if you are going to be on the ballot, even in Georgia and Arizona, that could be a significant problem. Now, I do think if he only able to achieve ballot access in a handful of states, that is going to significantly diminish his support because people will be able to see like, oh, well, you know, this guy's not even the ballot most places.
I don't really want to you know, I don't see he.
Doesn't have a shot to win, Like it's basically impossible for him to be able to win.
So I'm not sure if I'm gonna stick with him.
But there's enough people who are so upset with these other two choices that I think they'll be willing to vote for him, regardless of whether they really believe that he's got a path to victory, just as a protest more than anything. Same with Cornell West and Jill Stein, I think there are significantly more questions about whether Cornell West will be on the ballot in these states versus Jill Stein, who with the Green Party should have pretty
significant ballot access. So you know, there's it's very, very significant that even if it's only a handful of swing states, that he could be on the ballot in some of these places.
It's interesting to me too, you know. And every time he sticks to this just basic like some of the basics of politics, things that people all think I find that, you know, I A'll see it organically everywhere. So for example, after mccone'll stepped down, he just says, Mitch McConnell's serve forty years. Part of public service is knowing when to
usher in a new generation. It's time to promote leaders in DC who don't contract a count out of military contractors or pushes deeper into foreign policy contract you know, it's like we need representation to will prioritize American wellness over everyone else. Yeah, it definitely does sound a little bit like a politician. But that's a very popular sentiment, right. It's one of those where people hate, you know, especially
Trump and Biden. They hate the agism, yeah, RFGU or sorry, they hate their age and with RFK, yeah, he's only seventy something years he's seventy years old, but he just looks a hell of a lot younger compared to these other two geriatrics who are in the chair, So I could see it being potent. So anyway, we're going to continue to cover the ballot access just because eighty is
going to be so consequential in the election. And if he continues to be able to get on the ground in the ballots in these battleground stay specifically, then you know, regardless you know, of whether he is on the ballot now nationally or not, it's going to have some impact, as you said, even if it's three, six, eight or whatever percent, so very very impactful. Finally, let's put this up there for our fund segment. This is this is well. I guess it could be fun, particularly which way that
you want to construe it. Wendy's under major fire for floating then retracting, but also still kind of sticking to what they are calling their dynamic pricing strategy aka surge pricing. This all goes back to two weeks ago. The CEO of Wendy's Who's New, Kirk Tanner, said that Wendy's quote would begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing as
early as next year. To do so, Wendy's has already invested twenty million dollars to roll out AI enabled digital menu boards in their restaurants and add ten million dollars through the effort globally. What this will entail basically after they showed is akin to the Uber surge pricing strategy Crystal, where dynamic pricing is code for when there's a lot of people in the restaurant, you drive the price up, and when there's not a lot of people in the restaurant,
you drive the price down. Now, it's one of those I think it makes sense for Uber drivers. But whenever we're talking about food, really what that means is just because of the constraints of a lot of people's lives, that whenever is most convenient or after work or for dinner, whenever people are going out to eat fast food, that is when it's actually going to cost the most, whenever
you're trying to go to Wendy's. And it's pretty dystopian because AI, it's not even a human based model, it's an AI based model to figure out whenever the most people are in the restaurant to try and squeeze as many dollars out of what is already the most successible dining option for the vast majority of Americans. Okay, if a Michelin Star restaurant does this whatever, right, mostly people
can't afford it. But Wendy's Burger King, you know, McDonald's, this is where most people actually do we go out to eat you for a restaurant or to take a break, and they don't want to cook any food. I wouldn't recommend it from a health perspective, but hey, Wendy is actually pretty good, and it's one of those where you can just see how this is the latest strategy squeeze every single dime there is of disposable income out of American's pockets.
It's just amazing how these people will say these things in public and not even think.
About the fact that, like, we can hear you.
On these earnings calls, and you know, you have no perception of how people are going to take your idea of like we're going to use AI to gouge you
as much as we possibly can. And it fits not just with like the uber serge pricing, which even at times I mean they've got in trouble for that at times too, when there's been like well, and also there have been times when they have been like a mass shooting or a natural disaster or something, people trying to flee the scene and they're charging two hundred dollars or whatever to be able.
To escape to safety. So they've even.
Come under fire for surge pricing, even though that's been sort of like accepted in their there have been other instances too of airlines trying to do this where they've come under fire as well. So you know, this doesn't go over well oftentimes with consumers when you try to do this. But yeah, they'll just admit, like we're going to use technology to price gouge you as much as possible.
It reminds me of the Kellogg's CEO oh yeah, that we had on the other day that was like, we're going to push cereal for dinner and even CNBC hosts was like, I'm not sure that that's really appropriate, and he just leaned into it and he was like, no, I think it's a great idea and we're seeing this market share and blah blah blah. They're so disconnected that they have no idea, the way that their words are
ultimately going to land. We saw this also with all of the there are a bunch of CEOs that, you know, especially at the peak of inflation, we're just out and out talking about greedflation and how they could use the excuse of inflation to continue to hike up prices. So this whole inflation situation was no big deal for them, and they could still have maximum profit margins. So they'll just admit it out in the open what.
They're up to.
Now, their backlash to this was so significant that they had to completely disavow it. First, they came out with a sort of like, you know, statement justifying it, saying, oh, this is being misconstrued, et cetera, et cetera. But they finally were first forced to specifically disavow surge pricing, saying, quote, we didn't use that phrase, nor do we plan to implement that practice.
So apparently the public backlash at least in the short term worked here for it.
Yes see, right, because even if they're offering let's say, like deals at certain times that don't exist at other times, there's still some other sketchest and I would not put it past them in terms of what they're actually trying to do. We also wanted to highlight insane corruption story out of the state of California, and let's put this up there on the screen, which has they said, like pay hire a minimum wage unless you're friends with Gavin Newsom,
which is a great headline. Basically, California has a minimum wage for fast food restaurants. It's about to go into effect, twenty dollars per hour. We're like, oh, okay, interesting, well, except that the law has quote an exception for chains that bake bread and sell it as a standalone item. Interesting. So it turns out there's only one franchise in the state that qualifies, and it's Panera Bread, who has a franchisee in California who is one of the closest friends
to California Governor Gavin Newsom. His name is Greg Flynn. Quote, the largest restaurant franchise franchisee in the US, if not the world, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Newsom election. Not only that has a business connection with Gavinusom going back to twenty fourteen when he personally bought a piece of property that was managed by Gavin Newsom's
hospitality company. And it says that the bread exemption is so narrowly tailored that it doesn't even include crystal bagels or croissants, meaning Panera is the only chain by the largest number in California that will benefit from this exemption. So he basically raised prices, minimum wage prices for McDonald's, for all these other places. Yeah, and had a specific carve out written just for freaking Panera bread.
Okay, incredible, that's nuts now, of course they Oh no, we had nothing to do.
With this is a corruption.
Come on, give me another explanation. Explain how this makes any sense outside of just out and out direct corruption.
And it's far from.
The first time that Gavin Newsom has caved to his big donors in the state, whether it is you know, the Hollywood donors and siding with them on a variety of things, or the tech donors. He sided with them specifically over some labor pushes, in particular with regard to automated driving in the truck industry as one example. He's the one who really was behind the scenes making sure
that single payer health care never came up. He's got a bunch of like health insurance donors, he's got to worry about their So ultimately, when it comes down to it, when you ask, like what is Gavin Newsom's ideology, this is it. He will do enough to like pain himself in the progressive of banner or wave that flag or whatever. But if those values come in conflict with the donor class, he's with the donor class every single time, every day
of the week. So it's an amazing example just to give people back to I think we cover this here at the time. It's actually quite incredible what they've done in California. It's not an out and out minimum wage law. This was the result of a sectoral bargaining process, which is something that is done in a lot of other countries and done in a limited extent here, sort of
like in the auto industry with the Big three. But the idea is that you have the s board that represents the fast food chains and only applies to large fast food chains. We're not talking about little mom and
pop whatever, large fast food chains. Workers, labor unions like all the stakeholders, and they negotiate this deal, and the benefit of sectual bargaining is then you have uniform standards across the industry, you have a mechanism by which workers interests can be represented so that you have a genuine given take here, which you know is a really good thing and very beneficial I think for everybody involved, because also if you're those restaurants, then that means there's an
even playing field, right, you know, your competitors are also having to pay those additional labor costs, and so it sort of makes things even across the board unless you have a gigantic carve out.
And that's why it's so wildly unfair.
Is now Panera alone gets this huge competitive advantage because they can like undercut and pay their workers less and not have to abide by the other safety standards. It's not just the labor costs. There's all, you know, additional safety standards and requirements here and probably scheduling requirements, et cetera that they also get to not have to participate in.
So just wild wild corruption out in the open.
Year mickisiders sol guess what Panera average salary for an associate is in state of California right now? Eleven bucks an hour eleven seventy an hour, So everybody else has got to almost double what Panera gets to pay. You're not gonna tell me. That's a huge advantage, a multi billion dollar advantage at scale. Also specifically for this one dude, apparently actually President Biden planning on bringing some of this up in the State of the Union. Let's put it
up there. Biden targeting a new economic villain, which is shrink flation. You actually saw some of that, and they didn't do an interview, but they've sent out to surrogate before the Super Bowl to talk about how the snacks were getting more expensive.
This is the thing you do, like a TikTok on it too or something. Yeah, apparently this is why the young people love Joe bioens White Peo.
He goes on Seth.
Myers, He's like, my scoops of ice cream are big enough. More's that's his version of it. But this is something that an actually intelligent politician would look, you know, and be focusing and hammering on because grocery prices are up some nineteen or so percent over the last five years. One of the segments that we did Crystal and actually I was talking to someone at the Wall Street Journal.
One of the biggest stories that they have done in months is that food story that we covered here on our show about how food is now taking up more percentage of your income. Apparently that went viral amongst people in a way that they very rarely see you over like a trade business publication. It makes sense to me because it's something that really affects people. But this is
one where everybody can personally feel it. It is so deeply you know, it's so deeply felt when every single time they have to go to the grocery store or whenever you open up piece of package, you remember exactly what it used to look like and what it looks like more. But all of it just fits with, you know, more hyper optimization, more just in time, and more squeezing money out of every single one of us as much as these people can.
Yeah, that's right, And I also can't help but note that you know a lot of people on the left and economists on the left, and by the way, I mean CEOs, as I mentioned before, we're out and out admitting this have been pointing to gre inflation as a significant component of inflation, not saying that was the only
thing going on, but as a significant component. And we're basically completely laughed at and dismissed early on, and now you have even administration economists who are like, wait a second, food production costs have gone down by way more than actual.
Costs for you at the grocery store.
And all of these companies are continuing to make massive, in some instances, record breaking profit margins. So what is that they are just gouging you because they have the excuse to do it and they think they can get away with it. And shrinkflation is part of one of those strategies where it's like, we're not going to jack up the price. We're going to keep the price where it is. You're just going to get less for your dollar.
You're going to get fewer oreos in the package, fewer wheat thins in the package, whatever, and we're just going to hope that you don't notice. Those are the sort of tricks that they've been engaged in which go way beyond so their costs have gone down, but they're not passing that on to you, and these are some of the mechanisms that they've used to do it. I mean, it's pathetic that has taken him this long to pay
attention to this and really embrace it. And you know, reportedly that's going to be in the state of the union or whatever. But it really is utterly pathetic that has taken this long for him to realize that corporate greed is a thing and that this is a significant part of what is going on for consumers.
Absolutely all right, we had a great show for everybody today. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If there's anything breaking over the weekend, we will bring it to you. Otherwise, thank you to everybody who's been signing up breakingpoints dot com. As we said, who knows what will happen on the leap here. Maybe if you sign up you won't get charged again for another four years. I have no idea, I can't make any promises. We'll see you guys later