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 Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do many things to tackle this morning.
So we've got a whole bunch.
Of Trump comments about abortion and Israel and immigrants and bloodbaths that will and we've got to break down all of these very revealing as we really turn to the general election here. Both of them have Biden and Trump of now son up their nominations and are the presumptive nominees.
So get into all of that.
We also have some Trump legal news. It seems that his luck on the legal front continues. We're now facing prospect that it is very possible he may not face any of these criminal charges in front of a jury before election day, so we'll talk about that. We also have new comments that we wanted to tell you about a friend of that Boeing whistle blower who was found dead speaking out about some of the things that that whistleblower had said to him. You will find this very
very interesting. We also have Chuck Schumer and netnya who really going to war. Schumer had called for a new government in Israel, Ntnaho responding he is very upset. We don't interfere in your politics, lol, So why should you inter fear?
And ours will break all of that down for you.
We've got some new APAC talking points that are also quite revealing that we can bring to you today as well. And this new Scotus ruling that is quite consequential about when and how public officials are allowed to block their constituents on social media. So some major First Amendment implications here be relevant for the TikTok thing as well.
Possibly, Yeah, certainly, it's going to be a lot of fun.
I'm also doing a monologue as well, talking about census data before we get to that.
For two things.
Number one is we apologize there was a major technical malfunction in our studios, so we're getting started a little bit late this morning. We preemptively apologize to our of our premium subscribers, and number two, you should go ahead and sign up for Premium today and very soon in the coming weeks, because we have a major, major announcement
that we'll be coming to all of you. Our premium members in particular are going to get a real boost and there's going to be big plans that will be announced. They will of course be the first hear about it. So Breaking Points dot com we still can have our discount going on. You can take advantage and become a premium subscriber there. But as Krystal said, it really is the official start of the general election. And I know, you know it's been happening now for a while. The
presumptive nominees. We lived through the fake primaries, but this has largely been you know, we've known where things are going. But now that it is and these two candidates have officially sewn up their nominations, we have to pay very close scrutiny to where and what they that these candidates are choosing to highlight what they're choosing to turn to, what the media is doing and all that. So first and foremost on the topic of abortion. It is going
to be the most difficult topic for Donald Trump. He's been all over the place and his positioning on the issue, and he spoke about it at length in a Fox News interview. Coming out now for a sixteen week abortion. Ban's curious to hear what Crystal thinks of this as well.
Let's hear what he had to say.
It's like fertilization. On fertilization, you so, I took the lead on that, and it's actually now our subject. It's a positive. We want to help women, and that could have been a very negative thing. We want to help women with rowe. You take a look at what was going on abortions in the seventh, eighth, and ninth month. One thing that you say is nobody want to say killing of a baby after the baby's born. That was the governor, the ex governor, last governor prior to this one.
By the way, it's good guy, the last governor of Virginia. He said, you put the baby aside and you discussed with the mother whether or not essentially you want to kill the baby. They are the radicals. There'll be a certain there's a certain spot if you look at France, if you look at different places in Europe, if you look at a lot of the civilized world, they have a period of time. But you can't go out seven
months and eight months and nine months. And if the Republicans spoke about it correctly, it never hurt me from the standpoint of elections, and it'd hurt a lot of Republicans. I think you have to have you have to have the three exceptions.
So he says we have to have the three exceptions. He's talking there about late term abortion. But really what strikes me, Crystal is still he just does not know how to position himself on the issue. He's coming out for IVF there at the top, then adopting more of a pro life talking point there about late term abortion,
coming out also for a sixteen week pan. I mean, this is just one of those where his lack of confidence on the issue is very untrump Like, and I think that shows you how difficult it's going to be for him the election.
I don't think that this is an issue problem that he can message his way out of.
He's not the.
First Republican to try this, Like, let me flip the script and talk about the areas where Democrats could be perceived as extreme on abortion. That's a playbook that's worked well for Republicans at different points in the past. I don't think it works for them now because that's just not the landscape that people are facing.
Post Row, post Dobbs.
That's not the battleground that is being fought on right now. So you can tell he looks very political, trying to search for an answer that's going to be at least acceptable to his face.
But I think at this point, you know.
Even if you had if you had pulled previously, you know, a fifteen week or a sixteen week ban, it actually would have been relatively popular with sort of like a
centrist moderate position. At this point, I think that the folks who are very concerned about the erosion of rights that has already occurred and potential additional erosion of rights, just hearing that you're open to any sort of additional restrictions and bans is is you know, a major red flag and incredibly motivating in terms of coming out and voting. So I do continue to think this is a major
problem for him. And listen, he's the guy, as he's said many times, who put these justices on the Supreme Court that you know, made the decision with regard to overturning Roe versus Wade, and that's not really something that you can run away from.
Yeah, I think that the late term abortion talking point and debate is easier whenever there's Roe versus Wade is a status quo, because then you're arguing from a position of where the status quo is and then how far things should go. That's a very different conversation than where we are right now with abortion literally illegal in several states.
And then the topics here of national bands and fear, I think honestly justified by some Democrats and other voters who are like, hey, what are they going to do whenever they have power, Like what's actually going to look like at an overall federal level, because clearly at least some of the Republicans Mike Pence and others, as to extent what they'll be influential or not have advocated for it, leave it to the states, but actually have a federal standard.
The second topic too, where Trump, again all over the place, both wants peace, wants an early end of the war, never would have had a war. Also going after the Democrats is Israel. I've been watching him flail now on a couple of topics, the abortion, it's TikTok, and is this one.
Let's take a listen to what he said on Israel.
They're very bad for Israel. The Democrats are very bad for Israel. Israel sticks with him. I guess Israel's loyal, maybe to a fault, because they stick with these guys. Biden is so bad for Israel. They should have never been attacked. If Biden were good to Israel, they wouldn't have been attacked by.
President Biden has been a strong supporter of Israel because of the terrorist attack.
If he were, If he were a supportive of Israel, the Iran nuclear deal would have never been signed and Israel would have never been attacked.
Well, Schumer is of course the top Jewish democrat in Washington, and he says that Natanyahu is too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, and that he's orchards over with his own political survival, and that that could make Israel a pariah.
Your reaction, well.
They lost a lot of people on October seventh. To people have to remember that.
People should never they've totally.
Well, I think maybe he's forgotten it. He doesn't forget it. He looks at where do I get more votes? And I guess he's seeing the Palestinians and he's seeing the marches and they are big. Then he says, I want to go that way instead of Israel. I don't know how Israel stays with these people. I just don't know.
But he obviously said I see a lot of people protesting out there, and they happen to be Palestinians or wherever from the Middle East, and he was probably shocked to see it, and all of a sudden he dumped Israel. That's what he's doing. He dumped Israel.
Well he's not walking away.
Yeah, so he dumped Israel. Later on in the interview Crystal, he does say, though, but I want peace very very quickly. He's like, we got to wrap things up. So he's trying to do the pro Israel position there. It also never would have happened under him, but some flashes of the Trump who moved the embassy to Jerusalem in that interview for sure.
Of course.
Yeah, the idea that Biden hasn't stood strongly enough with Israel is absolute lunacy. But this is the position that the Republican Party has by and large moved to. That's their criticism of Biden at this point. If you listen to Fox News or other conservative media outlets, it's that
he's abandoning them. Of course, the policy continues to be shipping arms, giving them unconditional support, drawing no real red lines, letting them do what they want, trying to pressure them into doing little pr moves so that they have more time to prosecute the war. But by and large it's just been consistent unconditional support with a little bit of rhetorical flourishes in the direction of human rights. So that's
the position Trump has landed on. I mean, the reality is that it would be hard to discern a difference between the two substantively from a policy perspective, viz A vi Israel.
You see that with Biden.
You know, he continued the Trump policy, basically continue to further the direction of normalizing relations with other Arab and Gulf states. You saw this with the Saudi Arabia normalization attempts. And the truth of the matter is that part of the context that triggered October seventh, and this is not to deny agency of Hamas, not to let them off
the hook for the horrific atrocities they committed. But part of the context was that normalization of relations that began under President Trump and was continued under President Biden, where they basically shared this perspective of we're just going to
pretend the Palestinians don't exist. We're just going to push forward and look out for everybody else's economic interest and give them those sorts of carots to just ignore the Palestinian people and allow this problem and this humanitarian crisis to fester for decades.
And October seventh was.
Appears to have been an almost direct response to that direction, in that sense that the door was completely closing on any sort of dignity or self realization for the Palestinians.
Yeah, it's interesting too, because watching him, he is often sliding back and forth. He actually gave him recent comments on TikTok as well, where he's like, well, as long as we also forced Facebook to sell, then yeah we should allow that. I was like, wait, what, you just
came out against it and now you're here. He really is torn from what I can tell, where he's always trying to look at where things are moving for his own coalition, how to keep it together on Israel, It's obvious you know where he is and pretty much has
been there for the whole time. A lot of people were coping during the previous administration saying that it was all Jared and you know, it was always very clear that I think Trump himself he doesn't care necessarily, but he thinks that there's obviously.
Quite a lot of political benefit.
I think you'll obviously be rewarded for it as well in terms of APAC donations, and perhaps the Republican Jewish Coalition as well, which has been very, very influential at least so far post October seventh.
The final part that we did want to come to, though, was Mike Pence.
And this is the big question is how many people who did previously support Trump and who are willing to vote for him even serve with him now in the Pence cap category. Are they going to stick with him in the general election. I mean, I vote for Biden, but they may not vote for Trump either. So Pence at least trying to stake out a position here saying that he will not endorse the forem president take a listen to the reasons why.
Well, Martha, I appreciate the question, and it should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year. Look, I'm incredibly proud of the record of our administration. It was a conservative record that made America more prosperous, more secure, and saw conservatives appointed to
our course in a more peaceful world. But that being said, during my presidential campaign, I made it clear that there were profound differences between me and President Trump on a range of issues, and not just our difference on my constitutional duties that I exercised on January the sixth. I mean, as I have watched his candidacy unfold, I've seen him walking away from our commitment to confronting the national debt. I've seen him starting to shy away from a commitment
to the sanctity of human life. And this last week is his reversal on getting tough on China and supporting our administration's effort to force a sale of bite Dad's TikTok.
Why do you think he did that?
Why do you think he had that reversal on that before we go there?
Well, I can't I can't speculate on it. What I can tell you is is that in each of these cases, Donald Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years.
Yeah.
So it's because he's not too pro life and he's not too pro band TikTok. This is always the thing, you know with Mike Pence, where look his constituency and his support within the Republican Party. He didn't even make it really to any real primary. But but I do have to wonder, Christal, I'm curious what you think is this going to be an important enough, you know effect in the overall election. There are at least thirty some percent of those Nikki Haley people who still came out
to vote for her, So who knows. I mean, I always have to remember that, because this is all a game of margins, that these people who are upset about Gaza, these people who are upset here Republicans about Trump, they really could be the deciding voter. It's really about who you know and what and where and in particularly in which states.
Yeah, we'll see, I mean, in theory, in a normal political world, with any other political figure, your former vice president coming.
Out and say he's crazy.
I am not endorsing you. I don't think you should be president again. It should be an earthquake, right, it should be incredibly consequential. Do I think that this is incredibly consequential?
No?
I do not, and I mean listen, I don't want to parse whatever he's got his reasons, but it also feels very dishonest to me. Donald Trump is not significantly different today than he was when you ran with him in twenty sixteen or when you ran with him in twenty twenty. He's the same dude, right, He's you know, predominantly just did the bidding of the established conservative think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, whatever was sort of cued up for him,
Incredibly erratic off and all over the place. In terms of what he says he wants from a policy perspective, you can point to little issues where he said something different in the past and says something different now, like TikTok is a prime example. But fundamentally he's the same dude. The reality is he wanted you basically dead on January sixth, and that's a reasonable reason for explaining why you might not support him in the future.
I think that if he.
Was more direct and honest about that, I would have a bit more respect for him. Like I said, I think it's entirely reasonable to feel like the guy who was cool with supporters running around the Capitol and saying hang you while your family was there and in danger too, by the like, I think it would be fine for him.
To explain it that way.
But in his mind, I believe this is more a rationalization for himself than it is for the American people, because he has to explain to himself why he was the loyal foot soldier for all those years, even though Donald Trump was the same dishonest, you know, politically expedient man who had many principles that were always in conflict with the you know terrain that Mike Pence had staked down as this sort of like very traditional Reagan style conservative.
So I personally think this cope is more for his benefit than the American people.
Do I think that the.
Overwhelming number of former Trump officials who have come out against him, do I think that has an electoral impact. It's my personal view that probably the kind of like suburban college educated types who would be turned off by Trump and the way he is and the people who react against him. I feel like that realignment has already occurred, but it's a question mark, and there are some warning signs for him in the primary results, and we're going
to talk about his legal troubles. Things seem to the ball seemed to be balancing in his direction, but that continues to be a cloud that hangs over him, which could you know, further depress the number of people who are willing to stick with him and willing to embrace his chaos after all of these years.
Yeah, I think that's well said. I think you're right. I mean, obviously it is personal.
He has to come up with his what conservative reason or whatever for not endorsing him, But it all comes back in terms of the realignment. It probably is, you know, baked in already, and then it's just a question of, like the margin, whether Trump Act can have some turnout.
Let's go to the next part here.
As we said, it is the official start of the twenty twenty four race, which means it is also the official start of Trump said X news cycle. One of the things that he said was definitely headline worthy. The other one was twisted and turned into a little bit we put those two together so we can react.
Let's take a listen.
If I had pretty that we're teeming with MS thirteen and all sorts of people that they've got to take care of for the next fifty years, right, young people, they're in jail for years. If you call them people, I don't know if you're call them people. In some cases, they're not people in my opinion, But I'm not allowed to say that because the radical left says that's a terrible thing to say. They say you have to vote against them because did you hear what he said about humanity.
I've seen the humanity, and these humanity. These are bad. These are animals, okay, and we have to stop it. We can't have another lake. And we have so many people, we have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They're sending their prisoners to see us. They're sending and they're bringing them right to the border and they're dropping them off and we're allowing them to come in. And these are tougher than anybody we've got in the country.
These are hardened criminals. Mexico has taken over a period of thirty years, thirty four percent of the automobile manufacturing business in our country, think of it went to Mexico. China now is building a couple of massive plants where they're going to build the cars in Mexico. And think they think that they're going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let
me tell you something to China. If you're listening, Presidency, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way ideal those big monster car manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans and
you're going to sell the cars US. Now, We're going to put a one hundred percent tariff in every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those because if I get elected, Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a blood bath for the whole that's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a blood bath for the country. That'll be the least of it.
All right, So, Christal, those were the two controversial things that Trump said. One of them he's actually said before. He said, I remember who he said it whenever he's president. The other about the bloodbath comment, though this is how some of our media out let's cover it. Let's go and put these up there on the screen. Here's the major takeaways. At least CNN ironically did end up writing
it correctly. They say Trump warns about blood bath for the auto industry and the country if he loses the election. That's actually accurate Politico, though, Trump says country faces bloodbath if what Biden wins. In November New York Times, Trump says non migrants are not people and then predicts a bloodbath if he loses. NBC News, Trump says there will
be a bloodbath if he loses the election. Bloodbath now being seized upon, even though it was clear, you know, if you watch it, it's obviously in the context of the US auto industry. Even the New York Times only half of their headline correct. And you know, Ryan mcgraham
made a point on whenever he was following this. Trump, prior to going on stage, had talked about how he wants all of his people to snap to attention the way that they do in North Korea with Kim Jong un, and Ryan was like, guys, he says enough actually crazy shit that you don't need to invent news cycles about the things that he said to go after. But they were so desperate, you know, for the blood bath comment.
That's how I feel about it as well. I mean, if you listen to the whole context, he throws in that thing at the end of leg and that'd be the least of it, you know, which kind of like muddles the comments and gives them a little bit of something to stand on of legs.
He's talking about the country as all.
But obviously, if you're an ordinary person, you're reading those headlines, you hear Trump, you know, says it's going to be a bloodbath if he loses. You're thinking about January sixth, you're thinking about political violence. You're not assuming that he was, you know, building up to this with this whole long rant about the auto industry and China taking our jobs,
et cetera. So I do think that's very misleading. And you know, we played the comments that he just said about immigrants, which are horrifying and disgusting on their own. So when you mess around with the other comments that he made and you muddle, intentionally muddle the meaning of them, it gives you less credibility to talk about the things that he says that, in my opinion, really should be
out of bounds, and just to address that drive. And I do think that watching what's unfolding and Gaza has made me perhaps more sensitive to this type of directly dehumanizing language than perhaps I would be otherwise, because we can see in real time what the potential atrocities and results and horrors that unfold when you, you know, routinely dehumanize
a group of people. But you know it's fine, as we do to have an argument about what the appropriate immigration policy should be and what that should look like.
You shouldn't have to lie to.
Do that, which he is lying when he talks about, oh, they're emptying their prisons and paints the entire immigrant migrant population as a bunch of criminals and lunatics. The overwhelm majority of people who are coming here, they're fleeing violence, they're coming for economic reasons against You can debate how many of those individuals have legitimate asylum claims and how many should be let in what we should do, but you shouldn't have to rely on lies to make the case.
And also you shouldn't have to rely on stoking false fears of this existential threat of you know, this overwhelming wave of criminal migrants in order to make your case either. And so I do think that that is disgusting. I think it's condemnable, and I think it's dangerous.
I think it's fair for you to say that.
I look, and I'm not going to defend what he said, but I will at least like the political point.
What Trump's genius is always is he says the most outrageous thing, and he gets people to say, no, no, no, no, actually, some criminals are whatever, you know.
And then now you're actually talking within the frame of migrant criminality and or the murder as you said of Lake and Riley, which is what he was trying to raise.
I agree with you.
I personally would like it if people debated things the way that we do here and we can talk about it in a respectful manner. But that's not how politics works, right, you know, Everything is about seizing upon the most outrageous and extreme example and using that in order to cast
your enemy. So I mean, personally, what I do think at least is again I'm not defending it, but I can only analyze in the politics of this is that if you have a media outrage people being like, hey, Trump says like migrants are not people, people are gonna be like, well, hold on a second. You know, if you watch the clip we're talking here about people who are MS thirteen gang members, how you can again, you can go and you can analyze and the number of
people who actually do commit crime or whatever. But you know, in general, people do feel a certain different way about people who are here illegally committing crime versus legal citizens, because people are illegally shouldn't.
Have been here in the first place. And in general, I think I.
Would say probably to his political benefit given the way that people feel about the immigration crisis, regardless of whether you think, well, he's.
Telling you to that, that's why he does it. That's why he does it.
I'm not talking about the political benefit or optics or whether it's good for him or bad for him. I'm talking about the morality of it. And you know, I
do think it's absolutely condemnable. You know, he catches you in a trap because, on the one hand, if you ignore the things that he is saying, right, if you then that sort of rhetoric and you know, really disgusting, dehumanizing rhetoric becomes normalized and almost accepted if you cover it and you talk about it, and you say this is condemnable and we should in fact condemn it, and this shouldn't you know, listen, you have your first speech,
First Amendment speech rights, but you know it's decent moral people. We shouldn't be in the business of dehumanizing immigrants. We shouldn't be in the business, as he's also done, of dehumanizing like leftists as vermin. We shouldn't be talking about immigrants using Nazi language, which he doubled down again when that Howard Kurtz interview that we played part of saying yes, you know, they're poisoning the blood of the country, that
we shouldn't be doing that. Then you are sort of playing on his turf because now, oh, what are we talking.
We're talking about immigration, and.
That's the issue where he's strong and where Biden's approval ratings are the lowest. So he does politically catch you in a trap, which, yeah, you're right, that's exactly why he does it. But you also can't ignore the fact that he has some you know, really hard line immigration restrictionists in his circle, and that some of the policies that he implemented last time around, you know which some of them which, by the way, Biden continued, but he is he is at least positioning himself to be even
more hardline this time. So it is legitimate to talk about the way the rhetoric informs the actual policy decisions as well. But I mean, you're right, Soccer, it is definitely like a well laid political trap, and that's precisely why he does it.
There's no doubt about it.
Yeah, I remember watching it because it was there was some meaning. I think it was something about MS thirteen. This is the first time I ever did the animal's comment. It was in front of Nancy Pelosi. It sparked this whole thing, and I just remember, like, man, they fall, They go for it every time. In terms of how it generally works out for him on this one, we
will see that. By the way, it's possible why that's why the Biden administration decided to seize not necessarily on the migrant comment, but on the quote unquote bloodbath thing, to try and turn it into a thing. Here is a perfect example of how the media ran with it.
We have Jensaki, the former Press secretary, on our new MSNBC show, with the Biden campaigns communications director, both of them trying to turn the blood bath thing into a conversation around political violence, which is definitely ground where they have benefited in the past.
Here's what they had to say.
What I heard was a continuation of the same rhetoric, the same endorsement of political violence that we've seen from Donald Trump four years. As you pointed out, it goes even farther back, right. This is the same guy who, after Nazis marched on Charlottesville and killed a woman, said there were very fine people on both sides. Is the same guy who in twenty twenty told the Proud Boys, a white supremacist group, to stand back and stand by.
And now every single day on the stump, he is championing and praising the insurrectionists who he encouraged to violently storm the Capitol and an attempt to overthrow our democracy. So it's not simply one comment. This is exactly who Donald Trump is, and this is exactly the threat that he poses to our democracy every single day. I think the problem for Trump, though, is that the American people saw what happened on January sixth, and they've responded consistently since.
Right.
They responded in twenty twenty Twomocrats had the most successful midterm cycle for democratic incumbent since FDR. They continued to respond last year in states like Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia and the fall elections then, and they're continuing to respond right now. That's why we're on our front foot heading into this general election because the American people fundamentally understand a what Joe Biden has done to fight on behalf of the American people over the course of the last
three years. But they see every single day now the threat that Donald Trump poses if he's able to regain power. He is talking every single day about tearing down the fabric of our democracy and enacting political revenge if he's able to serve on a dictator on day one, as he is promising to do so.
That was Michael Tyler.
He's the communications director very much trying to turn the blood back, the blood bath thing into a major story. So any and final thoughts here, Crystal in terms of the media handling and all this, well, just.
To reiterate, I mean, Trump does talk all the time about how he's going to pardon the people that were there on January says, who we're convicted of crimes or whatever. Really, you don't have to invent a context that didn't exist for the bloodbath comments in order to make the case that he's making there, and it undercuts your credibility in the long run.
Okay, let's move on to the legal part then.
Yeah, so a few key developments that continue to benefit Donald Trump in his push to not necessarily beat the charges against him, but just delay them until after the election, which has always been his goal. So first we have an update out of Georgio. He can put this up
on the screen. So we recall there were a lot of questions about potential conflict of interest after it was revealed that Fanny Willis was having a personal relationship with Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had a point in, who had also been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in the context of this prosecution.
So basically what a judge.
Found here was that the evidence presented did not fully meet the bar of a conflict of interest, but said, nevertheless, and this is you know, my layman's version or re of what he had to say, This looks bad enough that one of y'all needs to go. So Nathan Wade has now resigned, allowing the Fulton County DA Fanny Willis to move ahead with this Trump case. This resignation came hours after a judge rule that either he or District Attorney Fanny Willis had to withdraw from the prosecution of
Trump to move forward. Wade tendered his resignation in a letter to Willis. It is still possible to see my cat in the background. Both the animals are in here, so this could get a little wild, but it is still possible that the Trump side could appeal, so this
could get dragged down either even further. Given sager how bad this all looked, this is perhaps the best result that Fanny Willis could have expected at this point that they wouldn't fully rule that it was completely a conflict of interest that they would allow it to continue if you just have one or the other of them resigned, so that is you know, indeed where we are with this.
But again calls into question when this trial is going to get going, when this is going to get moved forward, and is yet another delay in a key case for him.
Yes, as you said, so the Trump team can still decide whether to appeal this decision or not.
It's probably for the benefit.
I think that mister Wade has gone big question though about whether and what happened to some of that money that he was paid by the state, nearly seven hundred or so thousand dollars, and then the reimbursement questions that
surround Fanny Willis herself. Nonetheless, I can't help but think you know this is going to be I mean, let's say it does go to trial, and assuming it will go to trial, at least sometime before the election, you were going to hear quite a bit about this from the defense in terms of their argument about political prosecution.
And I don't think you can at least deny that, you know, in terms of what was going on behind the scenes there with her own personal affairs and conduct, isn't at least going to factor into the public and then the private case where Trump and his lawyers would make to a jury about why there should be some
reasonable doubt into why he was being prosecuted. Another thing that happened while you were gone, Crystal, I'm not sure if you saw is that the legal charges had been dropped or had been forced out by the judge, specifically relating to that Jeff phone call, which is the most memorable part. Now, remember the lawyers in the DA's office said that they were going to regrant jury those charges to try and reissue them to fall within the scope
of RICO and of the case. But a point that Ryan and I were trying to make is that if you couple this, you have the appeals and then you have the regrand jury process that they all have to go through. This is months and months and months on end, which gets us to the question, and I think a reasonable question at this point is this thing even going to go to trial before November. I honestly, I would probably at this point bet money against it, just because, look,
you do have the former president. You have all these crazy legal questions that have to get resolved at the Supreme Court, where even when they're on an expedited timeline, it takes forever. Here we have this state law case which is a total mess now gone awry, with her own personal conduct and with all the appellate and the money that they are able to throw at this, they're going to try and drag it as long as possible, and I honestly think they'll probably.
Be victorious at least in pushing this particular case, which at.
The beginning was the strongest against him, one of the very strongest actual election cases, not the document's case that was against Trump that.
He was facing.
It caused some of the biggest legal hurdles for him because it's a state case.
So I mean there's two pieces there.
At number one, he can't if he is elected president just you know, pardon himself for these charges.
Because of state. And second, because.
States are by and large passed.
With running elections.
The fact that this was a state criminal charges gave it some strength where some of the federal charges, especially with regard to January sixth, the Jacksmith prosecution there, you know, it is a little more of a novel interpretation of the law, etc. But I agree with you at this point the layser stacking up entirely possible that this one doesn't go to trial before November, and the case in New York with regards to hush money has now also been delayed.
AND's put this up on the screen. So this is weird.
There was apparently this like last minute massive document jump, one hundred thousand pages of records that just came into play here, and so even the prosecution said, we got to delay this thing at least thirty days. So you can see the New York Times headline here, judge delays Trump's Manhattan trail until at least mid April. The judge scheduled hearing from March twenty fifth, the day the trial had been scheduled again to consider Donald Trump's requests to
further delay or dismiss the case. There's a lot of questions here about why these documents were so late in coming. These tens of thousands of pages of documents came from federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York in twenty eighteen. They had investigated the same hush money situation with regards to Michael Cohen. That was the investigation that led to his guilty please, so they had all this
relevant stuff. I don't know why it took so long for it to be requested or turned over, et cetera. But you know, this case, which is the weakest I think most people agree, of the cases, and has the lowest level of charges felony charge associated with it, it looked like it was going to be the first one to go. It looked like that was going to start imminently. And now big question Marcus, so whether when that one
begins as well. So even this what's been called like the stepchild case, even this one has now been significantly pushed back and don't know when it's going to start.
Yeah, it's so ridiculous.
I mean, with all of these cases, it's just the validation. This is where I almost am sympathetic to the resistance libs who are screaming at Merret Garland.
They're like, why don't you indict him?
I'm like, look, and I have the boast world, world, why didn't you indict him? Why didn't you indict him in twenty twenty one, that's when it was on the public's mind. That's when you can resolve this question. They didn't resolve that. Whether they waited for three years even file charges, and even when remember whenever those charges were filed.
I think you can even go back and look, some of us, I know, we even mentioned that, we're like, hey, these cases take a long time, Like it's a big question mark whether you're going to get this stuff before the court in November, you're going to prosecute a president, specifically the Jack Smith case for example, right, that has all these crazy constitutional questions about presidential immunity and what does it mean.
Already had two Supreme Court cases on that question.
We're going to have even more likely in the future. Not to mention Appella cases. Even though there is a conviction here in Georgia, it was the same thing they took forever. That's where I have to come back to the grand jury thing. I mean, do you remember Christal when we played the four women of that grand jury?
That was like a year ago.
That's how long ago that the grand jury process had taken. We're still not at a point where the case is even thinking about going to trial anytime in the interim, and now you have this stormy Daniels like you know, the hush money case, same thing, they're running into legal troubles.
It really does validate a lot of the early criticisms there where if they were going to charge them, they should have a long time ago, because now not only does it look political because it is, but then you know, in terms of the legal timeline, you've set this country up for a nightmare. What the hell are we going to do when this man goes if he is elected president elect of the United States and his ass is on trial, what.
Are we going to do? I mean, it will be madness, literal madness.
If he's about to go and take the oath of office coming from a damn courtroom, or if he's in handcuffs.
I mean, at this point you're just looking at chaos because now, at the earliest you could actually have some of these cases unfolding right as people are literally voting. So I mean, the delay in pointing Jack Smith to me is the most mind boggling. I also don't understand why this Georgia prosecution took so long to spin up, but you know, state bureaucracy, whatever, who knows why it took so long, But that one did as well. And then with Jack Smith, you know, on the January sixth stuff,
we all saw it happen. If you thought there were criminal charges, you should have got right on that. The document's case a little more understandable because that one was unfolding and they had to wait for him to commit the crimes and refuse to comply and you know, obstract
et cetera. Before you could put that case together, but it does give credence both to you know, those who said, listen, you should have gone after him from the jump, and I think also those who say you were waiting to see if he was going to run, and then once he did, that's when you're like, all right, well, then we got to slap the charges on you that it was like a very directly political decision, which it's hard to explain the delay without assuming that that was at
least part of the calculation that was going on. So just to you know, put put a pin on or underscore some of the comments you were making about the various cases, we pulled this article. You can put this up on the screen about the way that delays are racking up in all of the different cases. So you've got they say neither of Trump's two federal prosecutions in Florida and DC are guaranteed for trial this year, in part because of his efforts to all the procceins. Well,
of course he's going to do that. That's obvious, right, that's his right to do it too. By the way, Georgia election interference trial has not been scheduled. That case was rocked Friday by judges ruling, prompting and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade to step aside.
That's what we're just discussing. Trump's trial in Florida.
That's the document's case had been set for May twentieth, but it's been clear for months that date would not hold, as the judge has waged multiple challenges to the indictment of various evidentiary disputes.
That's the judge, Aileen Cannon.
Who seems to be sort of most favorable towards him, most inclined to hear him out and accede to his wishes with regards to delays, they say, we very much believe a trial that takes place before the election is a mistake and should not happen. That's the Trump team. The easy solution is to start this trial after the election.
That's the case they're making there. Trump's DC case, those are the ones involving allegations he plotted it over from the twenty twenty election had been seen as the most likely one to reach trial first, but that is no longer the case. US District Judge Tanya Chutkin had scheduled to trial from March fourth, but that was upended by Trump appeal contending he was immune from prosecution for official acts.
Take it in the White House.
That is the piece at the Supreme Court has said they are going to take up now. They're going to take that up on a somewhat expedited timeline, but that is still going to take some significant time. We don't know exactly how much to resolve. And then it will take a further amount of time after that, as the judge has indicated.
To go ahead and schedule the trial start date.
So you know, in every single instance, he seems to be having a lot of success in pushing these trial dates back and back and back. And I guess it shouldn't be surprised, just knowing the way that our justice system works like.
It's not speedy, it does take time.
There are a lot of appeals, There are a lot of objections you can throw up if you want to muck up the works, and you know, push things off and push things off and push things off. There are a lot of avenues, especially if you're a former president with you know, a large amount of money to throw at these legal challenges. There are a lot of avenues you can pursue to try to push things off into the future.
So it's what it looks like right now.
And I do think that perhaps Democrats are starting to reckon with the fact that these prosecutions are not going to save them. They're not going to be the silver bullet that perhaps some of them may have imagined that they're going to have to actually defeat Donald Trump, and so they're seizing on bloodbath comments and whatnot.
To try to make that case.
Let me tell you DEM's bloodbaths and legal it ain't going to save you. At the same time, wanted to give everybody an update on the Boeing whistleblower situation. We brought everybody the news previously that the major Boeing whistleblower in the midst of an investigation into the company, had been found dead in an alleged suicide. We are now getting some information though, to possibly expand this into a criminal investigation. Let's put this up there on the screen.
According to the Boeing whistleblower, a close family friend of the job of John Barnett said that he predicted that he would wind up dead and that a story would surface that he had killed himself. At the time, he told his friend not to believe it. He says, quote she says, quote I know he did not commit suicide. There is no way, and that he had told her
allegedly quote if anything happens, it is not suicide. She says that she has known him for a long time over the years, get togethers, etcetera, etcetera, for more than thirty years, that she had followed his career, and that one day, whenever he needed help and he came to see her, they had talked specifically about his upcoming deposition in Charleston where he was found dead, and said that she after he had filed an extremely damaging complaint, he
had specifically raised the possibility that he could have been murdered. So this is pretty extraordinary testimony there, Crystal. And this has expanded into major inquiry across the nation as we've seen a spate of more recent incidents with Boeing. Would just our team put together graphic, let's put it up there on the screen. I mean, this is donning. This
is just in the last few months. So it started January fifth, after the Alaska Airlines door plug blew out, but even just look at you know, the last week or week and a half or so on March fourth, United Airlines an engine burst into flame right after takeoff from Houston, forcing an emergency landing.
All of these involved going.
By the way.
March seventh, a tire fell off Fromancis and San Francisco International Airport and returned to the San Francisco Airport. March eighth, a plane rolled off the taxiway into the grass during its landing. March eleventh, there was a midair hydraulic leak which forced takeoff come back to Sydney. March eleventh, there was a major incident where a number of passengers were injured.
Latamp Airlines where there was a nose dive in the movement of a flight deck seat, and then on March thirteenth, a tire blew out taking off from DFW Airport.
Now, some of these.
May appear more routine, and maybe they're just getting increased scrutiny, but nonetheless the scrutiny is well deserved because of the current criminal investigation into Bone and now the death of this whistleblower who we played previously video of him noting all of the problems inside of the Boeing company that led to the quality setbacks. Not only that we saw in the previous investigation, but now the current investigation to what the hell happened with the last airlines Crystal.
It's mighty convenient for Boeing that this man is dead.
That's true.
That's all I'll say.
Mighty convenient for them because think of how much they have to lose. And John Barnett was very credible. In fact, some of the previous allegations that he had made had been backed up by investigations. For example, he had said that sometimes they would pull hearts that had been deemed nonconforming, you know, that were defective in some way.
They would pull parts off.
Of the scrap heap, and they would install them, and lo and behold. When they did an investigation, Boeing was unable to locate dozens of non conforming arts.
That are supposed to be specifically tracked.
For exactly this reason, we're now seeing with regard to the incident of the door plug coming out mid air and endangering the lives of every single person on board that plane. Oh, the surveillance footage of you know, the maintenance that occurred on that is gone.
It's been taped over.
And oh, somehow we can't locate the records about the maintenance that happened with that door plug. So this is an incredibly preperious moment for Boeing, for their executives, for everyone who has been involved in recent decision making. And you know, some of those problems are becoming increasingly manifest from a business perspective, put this up on the screensat where you really flag this as quite significant. United has said, hey, we're out stop making these max tens.
We don't want them right now.
The plane maker has agreed to build mac nines instead. The airline confirms it's in talks to substitute some Airbus A three twenty one's instead. So I mean this is quickly escalating into a It's already a massive issue for them.
And because John Barnett had such specific knowledge, because he had worked there for so many years, because some of his claims had already checked out, I think he in particular was a real problem for them, And there needs to be a fulsome and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.
Yeah, and this also what jumps out to mean from reading about Barnett is he loved the company and he worked there for a long time. He was a whistleblower because he was so upset at the cost cutting maneuvers that were taking place that he felt was undermining safety for the aircraft and for their customers and ultimately for passengers. And we know, let's not a RaSE too. This is
becoming a major business problem already. The United Airlines CEO has had to issue like auneral call to all passengers.
He's like, don't worry.
I know we've had a lot of problems recently. Everything's going to be okay. Don't worry about it. Even if you're flying on a Boeing aircraft, everything will be fine.
I personally am seen.
I've had friends who've been flying on the seven thirty seven Max, nines and tens and you know, posting on Instagram being like, that's it, everybody, I'll see you later.
I guess this is my last flight.
I mean, this has really entered into the public consciousness and to the flying public, where previously, I mean, who the hellill even knew. Most people don't even know what type about aircraft that they're stepping onto. They just get on the plane and they go where they're supposed to. Anytime you're entering that way in a negative association is really terrible for your company.
The other thing I want to come.
Back to is that what this is again is exposed, which we talked about previously, is exactly what Barnett warned about, which is that the Boeing pursuit of shareholder profit has dramatically undermined the performance at a hardware level of the company. Is that they sold off Spirit Aerosystems, which is the supplier that made that door plug. Here's that there was a problem both on the Spirit aero System's side and
on the Boeing side in terms of quality checks. We've had a complete lack of government regulation where Boeing is allowed to self certify its own planes for safety, which is insane.
I mean, how can you possibly have assistems like this? You know, we were.
Thinking Christal, We were like, hey, has the Secretary of Transportation, Pete budage Edge, you know, said or done anything about this beyond the cursory No, not really, So where the hell is Pete?
That's another big question too.
That's a constant question for me. He's in power, which is very unfortunate. That's where he is. I also have to highlight this psychotic really truly sociopathic headline from the New York Times about this whole situation. Listen to this is from January thirtieth. But nonetheless, I wanted to highlight the way that these things are thought of. Boeing faces tricky balance between safety and financial performance.
Tricky balance, right, do we keep people alive or do we maximize our shareholder returns? I don't know, so hard to say. It's a tricky balance that we have to strike.
And of course, the unfortunate reality soccers we see that they were not striking that balance at all. They were moving explicitly in the direction of financial performance. That's how a nicky Haley gets on the board there. You know, Boeing moved a significant part of its airline assembly to South Carolina because of their you know, their right to work status and the fact that they were so anti labor. That was a big part of drawing them to the state.
That is where John Burnett worked and you know, was observing these failures in terms of safety and making sure that every plane was assembled incredibly precisely, in making sure that it was really safe. And then you're right to point too, also, this isn't this is a Boeing issue. Of course, it is an industry wide issue in a lot of ways, and it is a government regulatory issue because you can't let the fox guard the Henhouse. And that's exactly what it happened here over years and for
bipartisan administrations. Trump did push through some a further FAA deregulation, but this has been a trend multi decades in the making.
It is you're right, absolutely insane.
That Boeing would be able to self certify the safety of their planes. But that's precisely the way that many of these agencies have the direction that many of these agencies have gone over the neoliberal era where they outsource expertise. They no longer have either the funding or the technical know how to really do these functions themselves, and so they just assume industry is going to be honest, with sometimes completely catastrophic consequences.
That's right.
So huge developments with regards to a war really now between BB Netanyahu of Israel and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Schumer had suggested in comments that will show you a portion of in a moment that there should be a new government in Israel, really condemning BB and citing him directly as an obstacle to peace. Bob do take too kindly to this, but he was pressed on those comments on CNN over the weekend.
Let's take a listen to this exchange.
That's what I really want to focus on here is Senator Schumer not calling to sort of topple the government, but specifically says, when the war winds down, will you commit to calling new elections? That's my question, will.
You Donna two thirds? First of all, what you said is wrong. The vast majority of Israelis oppose early elections until the war doesn't end. We've just had many polls on that. Look a lot of the polls are you know are twist L.
Twelve says Channel twelve says sixty percent of Israelis, but actions.
Show that's not.
No.
I'm afraid that they asked them the question do you supported during the war and they said no.
That's not what he's calling for new elections when the war winds down.
Well, we'll see when we win the war. And until we win the war, I think Israelis understand that if we were to have elections now before the war is won. Resoundedly one, we would have at least six months of national paralysis, which means we would lose the war. If we don't win the war, we lose the war, and that would be not only a defeat for Israel, but a defeat for America too, because our victory is your victory. We're fighting these barbarians.
Commit to new elections when the war wint down.
That everything that we hold dear together.
Will you commit to new elections?
I think that's something for the Israeli public to decide.
And the reason why the world is shifting in public sentiment is the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Organizations call what they are seeing near famine in Gaza. So why won't you allow more food trucks to drive through the border crossings into Gaza to feed starving civilians while you continue to take out the terrorists in hamas.
Well. Our policy is to do exactly that, and in fact, we've been abled our policies do not to have famine, but to have the entry of humanitarian support as needed and as much as is needed.
He is such an incredible liar there in that last part. I mean, we've seen that babies and young children are literally starving to death. The toll as we know is now in the dozens. We know there are AID trucks lined up. We know even standard Democratic senators like Chris van Holland are calling out Israel for blocking aid. And also, by the way, Van Holland just in some pretty noteworthy comments said it was absolute nonsense the attacks on UNRA, which is the primary aid organization.
On the ground.
But to get back to the Schumer comments, let me play you a little bit of what Chuck Schumer had said on the floor and what was a very lengthy speech, and then I'll react to what he said and to Bebe's response to that, Let's take a listen to Chuck Schumann.
Five months into this conflict, it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask must we change course at this critical juncture. I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision making process about the future of Israel at a time when so many Israelis have lost their confidence in the vision and direction of their government.
I also believe a majority of the Israeli public will recognize the need for change, and I believe that holding a new election once the war starts to wind down would give Israelis an opportunity to express their vision for the post war future.
Of course, the.
United States cannot dictate the outcome of an election, nor should we try. That is for the Israeli public to decide, so Sager.
On the one hand, it's very noteworthy for Chuck Schumer.
I believe he is the.
Most powerful Jewish person in DC elected official in DC, long time staunch pro Israel. You know, he even was against the Obama nuclear deal. For example, he didn't criticize BIB when BB came and gave that speech over the objections of Democrats sort of undermining the Obama administration with
regard to their Ronnie and nuclear deal. So it is no doubt extraordinarily noteworthy for him to come out so directly against BB, to cite him as a primary obstacle to peace, to call for new elections after the war.
That is a significant and noteworthy shift from Chuck Schumer that I think both reflects the horror of the undeniable humanitarian crisis that is unfolding, and in particular the massive political pressure that has been applied to Democrats to the Biden administration, and also the fact that Listen a majority of Jewish Americans want to cease fire. An overwhelming majority of Israelis do want Netnaho gone and think very poorly of him.
On the other hand, it continues.
To be very convenient for Biden and Schumer and other liberal Zionists to just point to Netna who, like, all the problem is just you know, a few bad apples, and if we just got a you know, more quote unquote moderate government in there, everything would be better, everything would be different.
It's also very convenient to.
Just give a speech rather than using the incredible, you know, tools of policy, money and diplomatic leverage in order to actually compel different behavior from the Israeli government. The last thing, and I'll say here is you know, in some ways
I'm curious your thoughts on this Sagur. In some ways this really plays into Phoebe's hands because even his you know, potential opposition, Benny Gama, distance himself from these comments because he can go out there and say what he did to Dana Bash even though you know, we laugh at the idea that Israel doesn't try to meddle in our politics, but hey, we're a sovereign country, Like, who are you to tell us what we need to do and how we need to run our government into medal in our
domestic political affairs. So those are some of my thoughts.
What was your reaction, Yeah, I mean I actually think that well, first of all, yeah, I think you're correct in terms of the domestic side. In terms of whether this is actually going to change anything, No, I mean what exactly is happening. Nothing in terms of actual effect on the Netsannahu government in terms of change of policy. That said, in Tel Aviv, I would hope that this actually is a wake up call.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
For example, Barakravid, reporting from Israel, quote Senate Majority leader Truck Shumer speech calling for a new government landed like an earthquake, delivering a huge shock to the already tense
US Israel relationship. He says, specifically, in points to the fact that since Schumer is understood in Israel as one of the great friends of the country, that for him to call for a change in government with seismic But what you pointed to is very important about Benny, about Gans as well, distancing himself from the comments, and former Prime Minister Nef Tally Bennett as well, is that The fact is is that they are all trying to preserve their ability to operate in the way that they whatever
they want with us backing. So they're rhetorically trying to shift to this idea of like, hey, how dare you tell us what to do? And it's like, well, you know, if we gave you no money, then maybe you would have a point. But whenever, we're the guarantee of your security and have been now for decades, and we sell you the vast majority of your weapons, And where.
Was iron doome invented? Actually?
Oh right, Okay, well then no, it is a little bit different, and maybe we can and we should tell you what to do. That's kind of where I take issue with where it is politically.
I think you're right.
I think this will become the mainstream position of the Democratic Party is like, well BB himself has to go. I do want to say. I mean, it's not like a change in government. I'm not saying everything would change, but I think some things would change. I think if gance was you know, for example, I've said this before, I do think a ceasefire would be more likely because you wouldn't necessarily have the same political incentive that BB
does to have the war going. I think actually, perhaps most importantly for our purposes, the idea of an expanded war in Lebanon would at least be likely dramatically reduced because there is no direct political incentive at least to continue the war after.
Any operations in Gaza.
So I wouldn't say that there aren't very very big substantive changes that would come as a result. And the problem though is that if we still ultimately are not going to reach for any leverage, then you can rhetorically be against the BB government, but he'll still support the BB government and he's not going to voluntarily resign anytime soon. If anything, the longer that this goes, the better off it is for him. And that dynamic, I mean, I don't know that there is much we can do about
that without actually conditioning and changing AID. And when both Schumer and Biden have said that that's off the table, than the de facto is basically the same one as Trump, where we just support the government.
Yeah, that's that's exactly right.
I don't want to say that nothing would change if you had Benny Gantz running the government, you'd probably have a different coalition. As you said, you know, may not include Ben Gevere or Smotrich some of the most you know, absolute genocidal psychomaniacs that exists. But we also have to reckon with the fact that this war and the way that it has been prosecuted, in all of its horror and brutality, is very popular domestically in Israel. Phoebe's not popular,
you know. When he tries to act like he is and like people want him to be there and they
don't want elections, that's a lie. And Dana Bash did a good job of catching him in that particular lie, both in saying you're misquoting what Schumer or misunderstanding what Schumer was saying because he specifically said after the war, and also you're you know, misrepresenting what the people of your own country want, because there is an overwhelming majority that wants new elections after the war is through, and there's a good number that want those elections to occur now.
But it's not because they think the war has been too brutal. There is some dissent with regard to prioritizing quote unquote destroying Hamas, which we know is impossible and is you know, fanciful and was always wishful thinking from the beginning and the release of the hostages. So there,
you know, there are tensions there. And perhaps if you had a Gance who was in charge of the government, had a different coalition, he would be more sympathetic to the hostage families and their allies who prioritize cease fire in order to obtain the release of the hostages over
continuing the absolute annihilation of the Gaza strip. But what these comments don't reckon with is number one, the fact that we have massive power that we're choosing not to use instead just using these you know, rhetorical flourishes or these leaks to the press or whatever to signal large displeasure while not actually doing anything about it. And number two the fact that yeah, domestically in Israel, the war, the prosecution of the war, brutality of the war, the
complete annihilation. We know the numbers. It is overwhelmingly popular. So to just pin the way this has gone down on bib in his right wing government, it's very convenient, and I think it allows Democrats a talking point to posture like they care about the humanitarian crisis and they really care about what's happening to civilians in Gaza while
not actually doing anything that will change the results. I also want to dig further into this umbrage that bib at Al are taking at the idea, Oh, how dare you meddle in our domestic political polity, our domestic politics.
We would never do that to you.
Let's take a listen to this is an Israeli government spokesperson Tahl Heinrich making that case to Newsmax.
Let's take a listen to what she has to say.
I'll address what Schumor said there at these statements.
You know, Israel is a sovereign country.
Word democracy, this concept where the citizens choose.
Who leads them the government.
And right now, in case someone hasn't noticed, we have a unity government in place. We don't intervene in American politics, and we expect to be treated with the same respect. The unity government and the war cabinet that we have in place. Right now, then the Prime Minister who leads them really represent what the overwhelming majority of Israelis want to see, and that is a total victory over Hamas. We want to see all hostages back home. We want
to see the elimination of this terrorist organization. We want to make sure that Goadza will never ever pose a terror threat to us again. You'll remember very well that right after nine to eleven, when Osama bin Laden and radical Islamist attack the United States, the civilized world closed ranks and rallied behind the United States and President George W.
Bush.
Back then, he said, it's either you're with us or you're with a terrorists. Twenty years later, we asked the same question.
I love how she sites that favorably as an example. You know, like we didn't say you should have new elections. Well maybe you should have. Maybe you should have said, well, what you're doing is insane.
Yeah, you're right. I mean, by the way, Bebe was a staunch advocate of the war in Iraq. A lot of people forget that.
He testified before Congress Act by how we would be greeted as liberators and all that. Of course, because he wants to get us involved in the region, and he wanted us to fight Iran on their behalf. So he's always thinking like fifteen steps ahead. Yes, the idea that these people don't medical on our elections is insane. This is what always drives me crazy about the Israel exception.
You know, I know a lot of people who have worked or let's just say, come into contact with the US intelligence agencies, and what they are always briefed on is they're like, listen, in terms of counterintelligence threats, the number one most sophisticated spy agency in Washington is the Mosad.
But they never say it publicly. They're always warned.
They're like, hey, you know, pretty girls approaching you in bars and all that. It's not just a Russian phenomenon. It's not just a Chinese phenomenon. It's an Israeli phenomena in terms of being spied on. In terms of spyware. We know about Pegasus, we know about Mosad infiltration into our own government. Don't forget and look past that entire
Jonathan Pollard incident. But the problem I always find is, you know, we have a huge intelligence penetration in this country of let's say Chinese assets, Russian assets, and these are front page news. I mean recently, there are multiple incidents of Chinese Chinese spies that were working on their
behalf either in AI companies, US military. But then whenever it comes to people who are Israeli spies, we had that man Jonathan Pollard, who several presidents considered pardoning because of pressure from the Israeli government, and then after he was released from prison, he's greeted like a hero in Israel and nobody in America. You know, it says anything, even though in terms of the crime, it's exactly the same.
So the idea that they.
Don't spy on us, that they don't infiltrate us, that they don't meddle in our politics is ludicrous. None of this is anti Semitic. It is just an acknowledgement of reality. You could say it about any other country that has
this amount of foreign influence. And yet you know, they try and use that exception, and they're kind of policing of rhetoric to quash a lot of what we're talking about here, Crystal, and to pass you know, things like those BDS legislations or anti Semitism definitions in the state of South Dakota. I don't believe we ever put that in the show because we had so much going on.
I mean, that's a perfect example of like when their ambassadors are literally campaigning at state by state level for BDS legislation which is infringing on the state on the speech of US citizens. How can you not call that meddling in our POWERY imagine if we were going some Israeli prefecture, I don't know what they call it down there, but state, province, whatever, and we're like trying to advocate for local legislation, they would lose it.
And you know we should too. Yeah.
Yeah, you are more free in America to criticize our own government, as you should be, than you are to criticize the Israeli government. Yes, it's insane, I mean literally codified. And now, especially in South Dakota, they've codified this definition of anti Semitism which includes all sorts of things that are just criticism of the Israeli government. So a Twitter user put together some of the examples of israel influence in American politics. We can put these up on the screen.
This is Asaul Rod who pulled these together. She says, quote, we don't intervene in American politics. And here are the headlines. Quote Republicans invite net Yahoo to address Congress as part of spurning of Obama. Israel's aggressive spying in the US mostly hushed up to your point, Sager John Kerry reminds Congress NETANYAHUO advised US to invade Rock. Oh really, and pro Israel lobbying group APAC secretly pouring millions into defeating
progressive Democrats. I believe bb was just featured in a political ad and a Florida campaign. I think I saw a headline something like that. But speaking to APAC specifically, we can put this up on the screen from the American Prospect, they just had this big conference right outside of DC National Harbor, same place that they had the c Pack conference, and American Prospect was able to get in and get their hands on the talking points that APAK was pushing and handing out, and you know, it's
pretty astonishing. So first of all, there were massive attendants from a high level American political officials along with BB net Yahoo himself, and Israeli Ambassador of the US Michael Herzog. According to a speaker list, the entire Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress all delivered remarks, including Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Kim Jeffries, Mike Johnson, John Fetterman, and Tim Burschett were
both in attendance, among other representatives. They go on to say the documents reveal a pack's legislative strategy and the talking points that we use to support an unconditional fourteen billion dollar military funding package that has thus far been
held up. They also include numerous positions on aspects of the US response to the war that have not previously been made public, from abolishing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Newer East that's unrap to opposing recent restrictions imposed by the Biden administration on Israeli settlers, no mention of a two state solution, surprise, surprise.
They also touted their prowess to members as dollar for dollar, the largest contributor to candidates in the twenty twenty two midterm elections. In fact, I think sagre that they cited some of Ryan Grimm's critical reporting of them to prove just how impactful and influential they have been in these election cycles, which I think is pretty undeniable. And they also had a list of lies for people to spread
about what's unfolding on the ground in Gaza. In particular, they told members of Congress that quote, Israel is not blocking the delivery of aid to Gaza out and out reply, and that reports that people are starving in Gaza are false.
We've all seen the pictures. We've all seen the pictures, and we know that our own government has resorted to these ridiculous, inadequate boondoggles of dropping aid which by the way, killed some Palestinian civilians and building this temporary court pier situation, ridiculous expensive, you know, boondoggles that are going to take that's going to take a while to even come into play. Why because Israel won't just let in the hundreds of
AID trucks that are masked at its border. So that's a little bit of what the Israel lobby is up to here just outside of our nation's capital.
Yeah, it's genuinely amusing for them to claim there that they don't meddle in other people's politics, when, as I said, they are one of the biggest meddlers in our own politics and in terms.
But I mean, look, you have to give it to them.
It does work, and they still have the ability to compel all of those bipartisan politicians to come to their summit. I definitely think, of course, in the long run, I think that they're standing in the US and the change in politics here is something they will have to reckon with but in the interim it is paying dividends for them in their war.
So look what canntinue to see and look at it.
Next part that we want to go to is about the Supreme Court, and this is a pretty impactful ruling we wanted to cover and to actually give people some more insight as there's a number of cases coming down the pipeline now, specifically about social media, about digital rights and democracies, something I really welcome this in particular, let's
put this up there on the screen. Was a ruling that came across the wire on Friday where the Supreme Court laid out a new test for determining when actions taken by government employees on social media, such as posting messages, deleting comments, or blocking users, constitutes an official business versus their personal conduct. So what they have decided is that public officials can reconsipts the rules on when public officials
can block certain social media users. And what they find specifically is that they have to protect freedom of speech and this specifically also want to retain First Amendment rights for private citizens to be able to engage with their constituents. This particularly came as a result of this case of a Michigan man his name is Kevin Linke, after comments that he had posted to a sport manager's support Huron City manager's Facebook page, which were deleted and his access
to the page was blocked entirely. He had criticized the handling of the COVID nineteen pandemic. The person who blocked him said that his personal account, that his account was personal, and that COVID was not.
Part of his officials duties.
So what they basically ruled, Crystal, and they have come to is that blocking your own constituents is therefore a violation of your public duties. But there are some narrow rules as to where they are set, and I really welcome some of these changes as to how exactly these people who try and mix their public and private life and their accounts and all of that can actually interact with the rest of us when they are imbued with public responsibilities.
Yeah, so it seems like there's still going to be more suits in this direction and more finding of exactly where the line is, because it is a kind of a tricky question. You know, if you've gotten Instagram, that's ninety five percent your dog and your kids, and occasionally you post like a government press release, is that a is that public? Is it your private personal? How do
you find where the line is? But I think the fundamental insight here is that these platforms are a critical part of the you know, the digital town square, if you want to call it. That there are huge First Amendment implications in terms of how people are allowed to conduct themselves on the platform, and that public officials have a responsibility, in accordance with the First Amendment to make sure that their own constituents aren't blocked from accessing these
official government communications. So I believe the ruling was unanimous. I think it's you know, important. I wonder, and I
genuinely wonder. There's a question mark for me whether it could have some implications for the debate and discussion that's going on with regard to TikTok, because part of the question there is also a First Amendment question some legal analysts saying that depending on how this is described and depending on how the government, if a band were to go into effect, how that would be effectuated, that it could also come under legal scrutiny because of First Amendment questions,
And so to me, it seems significant that the Supreme Court is directly acknowledging that these are important First Amendment concerns that are being considered with regards to social media platforms in particular.
Yeah, Like I said, the crux of the matter really comes down to allowing suits to go through whenever constituents specifically are then blocked by their public officials allowing and
setting those rules. What's important also about what you raised, and actually maybe we can cover this later on in the week, is specifically about these First Amendment protections, because what we're really talking about our digital rights is that our digital extension of our current life in the town square that's all been litigated over the last two hundred
years and applying it to this. For example, there's actually a very important Supreme Court case that is going before the Court today around the Biden administration contacting social media companies and alleging that misinformation this was around vaccines that
was occurring on the platform. The plaintiffs start bringing a case saying that that was a direct violation of free speech and was specifically meddling in the speech of US citizens by advocating for this, especially when it was an official position of the White House, and will remember that infamous Jensaki comment that if you're blocked from one place
and you should be blocked everywhere. That could then set up the rules for where the government is even allowed to interact with these social media companies.
Sotting you put all these kind of.
Things together, what I think is important is that it really just gets to the idea that we do have rights as citizens on these companies, that the companies themselves
are now it's being taken out of their house. It never really should have been there in the first place, and it has then entering the public sphere to which we can have a commonly held understanding that is not just up to some idiot in Menlo Park, and so what I am allowed to say and not and especially when we're interacting here when you think about it too, in the COVID context, this is a man who is under a lockdown, who is protesting against his government's handling,
specifically local government's handling of the COVID pandemic. Well, he was under a lockdown, so how else was he allowed to make his speech hurt? He's not like he couldn't go out into a public without a mask, and actually say something. So that's when it becomes really critical for the ability to voice dissent. And that's where I think a lot of this comes down to. I also would be remiss if we didn't mention our own Ryan Grimm.
Let's put this up there on the screen. We were all trying to determine whether we're blocked by public officials. We're not actually sure because you never necessarily know who you're blocked by unless you go and look. But Ryan is actually blocked by Congressman Richie Torres. So as he says here, yo, Richie Torres, a Supreme court says this
is unconstitutional. Not quite, although we would definitely support We would definitely support a lawsuit there if it were to go through, to try and force Richiet Torres to unblock him and then deal with Ryan's some critical questions.
Anything else you want to say on this, Yeah.
Ritchie Torurus is kind of notorious for blocking anyone who criticizes, so no surprise, Ryan is not a constituent of Richie Torres. I have no doubt that Richie Torres has plenty of his own constituents blocked, so he may want to look into that before he faces a lawsuit. Given this new precedent, I just want to say, on a practical note for Twitter users out there, I never block anyone. If someone's annoying me, I just mute them. It's such a much
better function. They don't know they're muted. You know, you don't give them that like ego boost of realizing that they got under your skin enough that you actually blocked them. So I guess we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court hearings on whether muting your constituents is also a violation of the first event.
Yeah, you know, that's a great point.
Actually, here I'm trying to see if I've ever blocked anyone, so according to yeah, no, I have not blocked anybody, according to my according to my Twitter blocked accounts. As you said, if I click on muted accounts, there's a hell of a lot of accounts of people.
Who I have muted.
Mostly people will wait, please debate me or somebody who's annoying. But that's it. So I agree with you. Public officials establish a Crystal and Sager standard.
Just mute them.
Then you don't even have to interact with them, and they can waste their life, you know, replying to you and trying to ruin that, you know, trying to poison your headspace, and you won't even know about it.
So anyways, there you.
Go, All right, saga, what are you looking at?
COVID has had many long lasting impacts on American society that we haven't yet fully grappled with, from learning loss as a result of school closures to the enduring effect of hybrid work with white collar workers. But my personal favorite subject really is the vast internal migration that has taken place in the US over the last three years, which is going to completely redefine the America of the future.
From our coatomy are demographics and our electoral map, every new release of census data tells us that a vast internal migration not seen since the days of World War II is taking place with really not that much paying attention at the national level. New really released data from the Census Bureau at a county by county level presents a stunning picture of how people with the ability and means are fleeing.
Different parts of the country.
For others, of the top ten counties in the United States that experience annual numeric growth in twenty twenty three, a stunning eight are in the state of Texas.
The other two are Arizona and Florida.
Especially noteworthy is that the Arizona county is Maricopa, which was the largest and so critical in the last election. In Florida's Polpe County ranked at number five. Where are these people coming from? It's also a clear though when you take a look at where the largest outflows are happening. The county which lost the single most amount of people in twenty twenty three was Los Angeles County in California, followed up quickly by Kings Queens and Bronx County in
New York State, and then Cook County in Illinois. In other words, La New York City, Metro Chicago, Philadelphia County the city of Philadelphia next on the list at number four, then Wayne County, Michigan where Detroit was finally San Diego.
Are you sensing a theme.
You got major cities that have high levels of crime, housing affordability, and in metropolitan areas that are losing hundreds of thousands of people now on top of the hundreds of thousands already lost. That confirms the twenty twenty one to twenty twenty two trend of net migration loss from the northeast and the Midwest, with people heading in droves to the south and the west. The overall migration center
of the gravity. Center of gravity of this country is rapidly moving away from the coast and much more into the heartland, into the sun belt. Specifically, Florida has experienced stunning growth. The Census actually says ninety six percent of Florida's sixty seven counties had population growth in just one year from twenty twenty two to twenty twenty three. Similar percentages actually experience in Idaho and in the state of Tennessee.
Population loss from major metropolitan areas to Florida and Texas plus smaller states like Idaho and Tennessee is significantly changing already the politics in those states.
We've seen this happen.
For example, in the state of Georgia, you hat a former red state that is now fully purple, showing major metro growth in the city of Atlanta. Florida and Texas remain solidly read but with very different red coalitions of voters that are delivering these victories. And same thing in Arizona, which has become fully purple. What really I see from the map is not just a rejection of the ultra blue metropolis model, but it is one of hope that
I always try and highlight in these monologues. A lot of this just comes down to the cost of living, housing, and accessibility to.
The American dream.
I don't think it's an accident when you overlay a housing heat map on the most expensive places to live in the US, they almost exactly one to one match up with the places that are losing the most amount of people. Cost of living is a math problem that people are not willing to put up with anymore, especially in places where much of their quality of life was
eroded by crime. The story of just simply being able to live and be safe is so basic that should be accessible to everyone, Which is where I'm really going to end this on the same note I always do. I'm genuinely happy for friends and others who have been able to leave major cities for the Sun Belt or for the West and.
They have a better life. We also can't forget.
About the people who are already there, or those who are just too poor or who lack flexibility to move. The single best policy we can't pursue is optionality.
And affordability.
It's the best way to ensure that those who don't want to stay are priced out of their own homes, and those who want to leave can do so without it being zero sum for where they're going. The current Hodgepod system is unfortunately not working for everyone as it should.
People often think that policies of the past, like vast migration under the Home Seat Act and Western expansion is no longer possible, but the complete and the rapid shift already and where people are living just with flexible and hybrid work shows that, combined with technological change, a potentially even bigger shift inward and downward is in America's future. I know I do this monologuvery so x months Crystal, but I mean, and.
If you want to hear my reaction to Cyber's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at Breakingpoints dot Com.
Thank you guys so much for watching. I know we had some technical difficulties, et cetera. We'll make sure everything is set and ready to go for tomorrow. We appreciate you sign up if you haven't otherwise, we'll see you on Tuesday.