3/5/24: Michael Moore DIRE Biden Warning, MSNBC Says To Scare Voters From Trump, All Demos Say Trump Policies Better Than Biden, Corporate Landlords Rent Price Collusion, SCOTUS Trump Ruling Debate, Whoopi Goldberg Meltdown, UN Report Can't Prove Sexual Assault Claims, and Local Israelis Debunk NYT

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 Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.

What do we have personal.

Indeed, we do. It is Super Tuesday.

We're going to break it all down for you, what to expect, what states are voting, how you can vote uncommitted or with another protest.

Vote if you live in a Super Tuesday state.

And we also have a few key figures who are sounding warning alarms for Joe Biden. Not that that's an unusual thing at this point, but we'll give you that as well. Speaking of Joe Biden, he gave a rare interview to the New Yorker, and we learned something about why those interviews are so rare, Some very lot going on interesting comments that many people note of so we will bring that to you. We also are following a really important story. States are starting to fight back against

But since they're getting fed.

In all of this rental information, it is effectively collusion.

So we'll give you all of those details.

Really important one for you and your life. We're also taking a look at reactions which are pouring in after that Scotus ruling we covered yesterday saying Trump can stay on the ballot, saying that that provision in the constitution, not that it doesn't necessarily apply, but it has to go through Congress.

So we will react to all of that.

Yesterday, we also got a UN report on sexual violence on October seventh.

We'll break that down for you.

Ryan's got another bombshell once again, completely undercutting that New York Times reporting on October seventh, and actually the UN report itself debunks a key narrative from that piece as well, So we'll break that down for you and we've got Congressman Rocana here in the studio to talk about Biden's Israel policy.

So a lot to get to you this morning.

Yeah, that's right. And on Thursday, we've got our live stream coming up. We've got a promotional graphic we can go and put it up there on the screen. So we will have a live stream that began shortly before. We'll do a pre show. Then we'll go into the state of the Union wall watch it together, we'll react

Like I said, I love.

A good logistic event.

Sure we are actually got Auto b the four of us spending a lot of quality time together this week, because Saga and I are also going to join Ryan only right tomorrow to react to whatever happens tonight on Super Tuesday, so look out for that as well. And speaking Super Tuesday, let's go ahead and put up on the screen the map of the states that are voting today, including my home state of Virginia. We've got, i believe, sixteen states and one territory that are voting today. This

We showed you this yesterday, but just to refresh.

This is courtesy of Eton Germentum, who did all of the work of figuring out which states allow an uncommitted vote, which ones you can write in some sort of protests vote, and those are actually counted. Some of the states you cannot vote uncommitted, but they will count blank ballots. Some states you cannot vote uncommitted. It does have right ins, but they don't actually count those right ins unless they'refore

In addition to.

The presidential contest, there is also an important race in California to replace Dianne Feinstein. California has an unusual primary system. All of the candidates, regardless of party, appear on the same ballot, and then the top two vote getters go on to run in the quote unquote general election. Adam Schiff has actually been propping up the Republican candidate to try to make sure that he is the only Democrat on the ballot come this fall. So that will be

Who would have thought Super Tuesday the more interesting story would be on the Democratic side.

It's not exactly one that we.

Would have predicted a couple of months ago, but because the Republican Convention is or at least the Republican election contest is just so basically not even in question now at this point the Democratic side, not necessarily that the result is in question, but protest vote and how both of those fit into the overall election. The number of delegates, as you said, you've got thirty five percent on the Republican side up for grabs and thirty six percent on

Exactly to win.

Apparently the earliest that that could happen is March twelfth and March nineteenth for Joe Biden, which I basically expect is going to be somewhere around there and that we can all stop this nonsense with Nikki Haley at least. But that's really what we're all looking for now, are voting patterns, the level of victory. It'll be a big question about Trump's electoral margin. Not necessarily that I think it matters as much for the general election, Crystal, but

Joe Biden.

So we can get real looks into the coalitions of the faithful that do come out for primaries and just be like, Okay, let's start to think about how.

This is really going to play out in the general election.

Yeah, it's more data, exactly, It's more information.

I guess the other thing to watch for tonight is is Nicki Haley stay in this race.

After Super Tuesday.

She had originally sort of indicated, you know, she was in it for the long haul than after the I believe one of the recent contests, maybe in Michigan.

I don't know, my memory fails me, but she.

Said, you know, she sort of committed through Super Tuesday, but not really beyond that. So I think we're on Nikki Haley dropout watch as well as we go through the Super Tuesday results and see how she fares.

I do think it'll be interesting.

You know, a lot of these states there hasn't been a whole lot of primary polling because the result is so certain on both sides of the ledger. But it will be interesting to see if that trend continues of Trump underperforming his polls, which is very different dynamic than what we used to see from Trump back in twenty sixteen and beyond. So something to watch for anyway, Like I said, more data.

Okay.

So Michael Moore, of course, famous filmmaker, has continued to push the uncommitted protests vote. He was one of the key figures helping to push that protest vote to over one hundred thousand voters in the state of Michigan. Quite an extraordinary performance for that protest movement, especially given the short amount of time and the tiny amount of money that was put behind it. He joined AMSMBC to continue to talk about why this movement is important.

Let's take a listen to that.

Do you think Donald Trump is the threat that he is and Joe Biden is gambling by aligning himself closely with Net and Yahoo at the risk of American.

Democracy, absolutely, and gambling by aligning himself with an authoritarian in Tel Aviv, somebody who who is facing a number of felonious charges, who was supposed to stay on trial this past fall, and that all got shoved aside because now there's a war.

So one thing that's been interesting here, Sager, is you have a number of people who are voting uncommitted or it's equivalent in whatever state you know that they are able to vote in. Some of them are not going to vote for Biden. They're done right there. There's an abandoned Biden movement that started in Michigan and they're like, listen, he's backing a genocide.

It's too far, it's already too late. Forget about it.

But the more sort of like liberal argument from people like Michael Moore is we're actually trying to help Joe Biden. We're trying to push him in the right direction because at the moment he's risking everything. I mean, Michael Moore is one hundred percent voting for Joe Biden in the fall right and despises Donald Trump. I think he's very clear, Yeah, he despises Donald Trump. He's going to be voting for

I'm not voting for Joe Biden and the people who are still like am but lesser evil, and I don't want Trump, et cetera.

The fact that they've been able to keep that together and keep that messaging focus for an MSNBC type audience is interesting to me.

Definitely.

You know, I think back to you weren't here for this, Ryan and I interviewed the right ceasefire guy in right, I'm sure, yeah, I mean, I encourage.

People to go watch it.

This could not be the most cookie cutter, like a Democrat Boomer At the end, he loves Biden, didn't want to vote.

For anybody else.

He literally ended our segment Crystal by saying thank you to the Capitol Police for their actions on January sixth. At first, I mean, we honestly thought he was trolling, but I was like, oh no, he's one hundred percent serious. But my point is is that, I mean, this is

Types who would come against it.

I thought it was very illuminating for me personally just to say, Okay, well that's interesting because, as you said, it's probably more Michael mooreliging. I mean, part of the reason why it's so remarkable for Michael Moore is and if people remember, he was literally on our show in what was like November of maybe October of twenty twenty talking about how Bill Barr was going to like personally go and steal ballot boxes to rig the election.

I was like, man, this is some crazy shit.

But my point just being like, this is a person who actually believes Trump is like a militant fascist who's going to overthrow the government and have a coup day Todd, if he's willing to mount a campaign against him, yeah, I would certainly take notice of that.

Well, here's the thing.

Michael Moore is actually being far more consistent with what Democrats claim they believe than the Democrats are themselves. I mean, that's what he's saying is like, you say all this rhetoric about how our literal democracy in our country is at stake on the ballot, and you are throwing you can see the electoral damage. You know, the electoral damage, and you continue to persist, why why, and so he

Let's take a listen to that.

Michigan is a purple state, and I've been saying that for a long time. We are a state that frequently votes uncommitted. President Obama got a highly got a significant I'm committed vote in two twelve.

But it is one.

Issue that needs to be paid attention to. I've got a lot of people that are hurting in my district. So first of all, I'm always the wrong person to talk to about polling because I told the world, and many of my Republican friends didn't leave me either, that Donald Trump was going to win Michigan and thus won the election in two sixteen. If you look at the polling now that we're even looking at, there have been three national polls that have showed Biden up, President Biden

Yeah, that's her take at this point.

So listen, we'll see how it all unfolds tonight, if there are any surprise performances, if there are places where you know, uncommitted or similar protest efforts have a significant result, And just once again to reiterate how widespread the problem throughout the Democratic base is for Joe Biden. You know, it was not just the college kids and the Arab Americans who had something to say through their uncommitted protests

There's been a big debate around strategy Crystal, how can the Democrats pull it out against Trump. One strategy is just to ignore the polling. The other is to look for silent indicators that may seem like things are better than they seem. But on MSNBC, what is his name, Donnie Dewish. We're not exactly sure where he came from or how it became a political analyst, but he's on Morning Joe, and nonetheless he's on the President's favorite television show.

I'm afraid, you know, I've been one of the most outspoken guy. You know, it's interesting somebody said to me, are you afraid of if he gets re elected And I hadn't thought about it, and like he's coming after Joe, He's going to come after me, he might come after you.

I mean, this is.

What people are not comprehending. And here's the campaign that Democrats need to run. And I've been thinking about this a lot. There are four people that need to step forward, Kelly, Mattis, McMaster and Millie and there needs to be a general campaign. Where are these generals who have worked with him need to turn to the American public and turn to Cameron and say, you don't understand how scary this can be.

Women.

Immigration will even get worse as it did the first time with Donald Trump. Our democracy is really, really really online here and our way of life will change.

Get people, scare the shit out of people, Scare the shit out of people.

Aspiring strategy very inspiring, Crystal, and also it's definitely like it's never been done before.

It's not like we've heard all that rhetoric all this time around.

So there's a lot going on here, but it fits with a general pan againstide the Biden administration and the Biden admin did a long profile with Evan Osno's he's a reporter over at the New Yorker, and they gave us a little preview into their electoral strategy. So let's go and start with their first one. Here's Joe Biden's last campaign. Trailing Trump in the polls and facing doubts about his age, the President of voices defiant confidence in

Back to nine to eleven.

Now, I'm just going to say I think nine to eleven was a little bit more pertinent and different in two thousand and four because we were in the middle of a mass of war in Iraq.

But maybe that's just me.

Now here's let's lay out how Donalin arrived.

At this conclusion.

Many of us, including at this desk, were poop pooing that strategy ahead of the twenty twenty two midterms. It ended up being tremendously impactful. That said, that was also a combination of abortion. We will never actually know what the real impact of stop the Steel and abortion was. I still believe that abortion was far more influential than a lot of stop the Stone.

I would have loved to be able to see an election.

Without abortion on the ballot that was purely about kind of maga kukery. Now, I'm not going to say it didn't have any impact, but I think it was relatively marginal as opposed to abortion.

That said, are you really going to bank it all on?

Frankly, what barely saved you last time from twenty twenty two and two more years removed from the date, Why do you possibly think it is as relevant as nine to eleven was in two thousand and four, when, as I said, we were still litigating at a very you know, like a real degree where our troops were dying in the middle of a war and we were still in the you know, all this morass in Afghanistan. How can you possibly think that those two are still so linked in like the American consciousness.

When people are going to go to the polls, it's March fifth.

Right now, it feels, you know, a million miles away January sixth now add several months to that for election day.

I think it's an incredibly full hearty strategy.

It just seems like there is an unbelievable amount of complacency and arrogance among the Biden people, and that they've drawn these lessons from both his ability to win the primary and the Democratic primary back in twenty twenty with a lot of assistance from you know, Obama and the.

Media and whatever.

But he was able to pull that off against the odds and people in counteramount, et cetera, et cetera. And you combine that with the over performance in the midterms. I mean, they still didn't win the House, but they did much better than the predictions. They did much better

And so I mean that's what you see from here now.

Listen, we haven't seen any affirmative We're down the State of the Union.

This week.

Maybe Biden will lay out some more affirmative, positive looking vision of what the second term would look like.

That's possible, we'll see, but he ain't done it yet.

And it's very clear that they're leaning into basically the Donnie Deutsch strategy of let's just scare the shit out of people and hope it works one more time.

Maybe it will, I don't know.

I mean, the you know, Republicans don't do themselves any favors with all of the like wacky shit that they're doing all the time, not just January six. And I think for my assessment of the midterms, it was you can't really pull apart the factors of Stop the Deal and that sort of cookery in January sixth, and abortion and the level of extremism with regard to that issue. It just made the entire party seem like they were fringe wackos. So I think it all sort of plays

You also see almost frankly delusional promises Biden.

Let's put this up there on the screen. This was what really struck me.

Whenever they asked Biden what exactly he was going to do in a second term, he says, quote, I will pass Roe versus Way a raid as the law of the land. Democrats would then need to win control of the House of Representatives and gain seats in the Senate, but he expressed confidence a few more elections like we've seen placed with states would suffice you're seeing the country changing, reiterating his position on Row, I've never been more supportive of it's my body.

I could do what I want with it.

But I have been supportive of the notion that this is probably the most rational allocation of my responsibility that all the major religions have signed on and debated over the last thousand years.

So very convoluted.

Quote frankly there from Biden almost abandoning the libertarian framing and kind of putting in his own what is it putting in his own religious interests? I guess within that, But I mean, at a baseline level, Crystal, you can't say that you're going to pass Roe versus Wade when the last time that Democrats had a filibuster proof majority and control the House of representatives under Barack Obama who also said that he would do it. They didn't do it,

He supports a filibuster.

Thus, how can you claim that with a straight face. There's not a single Republican in the United States Senate that would sign on to specifically Row. Now, maybe a fourteen week or whatever. Maybe I'd still doubt it, But my point is is like, this is a do and that's the only promise he's got, and it's a fake one if you know anything about how the political system is structured, I am.

Just really struck by.

I mean, listen, presidents put on all kinds of delusional promises.

That's par for the course.

I mean, I'm actually surprised they don't talk about that more. This is honestly the first time I've even really heard him mention that he hasn't even an intention of codifying Roe as the law of the land. So your point is apt that he has no actual strategy for getting that done. And part of the reason he has no strategy for getting that done. Is is evidenced in the other part of the quote where he's like, Yeah, this whole pro choice thing is not really my bag. It's

This, It's like, what are you talking about.

It's also interesting because that type of messaging might has he even then I think about it. Something I go back and watch all the time just to remind myself of a different world is Bill Clinton's acceptance speech of the nineteen ninety two Democratic Convention. It's on YouTube if anybody wants to go and watch it, and he's adamant. He says safe, legal, and rare over and over again.

It's like, bro, you know, half this country is.

You know, Christian to the point where like they don't go to church and it's mostly entirely cultural. If you were to question an articul like really jig down into their real beliefs, their agnostic at best and mostly just secular and or non believers, deeply more socially libertarian than at any time in modern history. I've never believed that safe, legal and rare is like the most popular messaging today than it was in nineteen ninety two when Bill Clinton

What a bold move. No president's ever done that before.

Yeah, he would be I believe he would be.

Trump definitely never called Larry Summers. Oh, he probably met with him. So let's Obama definitely. Obama employed Larry Summers. Bill Clinton employed Larry Summers.

George W. Bush.

I wouldn't put it past him to talk to Larry Summers. So how many presidents in a row?

Then?

Does that make that?

Doesn't make you unconventional.

That's like you know, going to a Georgetown cocktail party soliciting foreign policy advice and saying that you're going outside of the normal things.

Like dissenting voices like I don't think that's how works.

Maybe want to update the boomer press or silent generation President, I apologize, he said. Biden's other occasional calls ranged from columnist Thomas Friedman to sentiment to Republican leader Mitch McConnell. He says, that's how you pressure test decisions. What world is this if? When I connect the abortion this man is in the nineteen eighties, that's where he is.

You can't you couldn't possibly name three more staid architects of the status quo than those three men.

I mean it really like that. That's the list of people that.

Comes out of your mouth is actually quite extraordinary. And you know, Sience has come in. You replaced ron Klain. Clain had some better ties with the progressive world. He was pushing, you know, the big stimulus. At the beginning of the miministration. There was a lot more sort of connectivity with a more aggressive like SDR style, Not that he ever became anywhere close to living up to that, but that was more of the vision. Sience is this corporate establishment sold out tool.

And it's worth like two hundred million dollars.

Absolutely, And so you know there has been basically since he's come in, Biden hasn't really done anything that has been good. So that's effectively the tenure of Jeff Science. And you know that he's the one saying, oh well, Biden's douent. Grays is seeking out all these dissenting voices and pressure testing his decisions with Larry Summers, Mitch McConnell, and Thomas Friedman. It is so revealing, so revealing, and also incredibly hilarious.

Let's get to why all of this is a problem. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. This is actually seriously remarkable because it demonstrates the underlying strength that Trump has. This is more from the New York Times Sana pol They say, quote, no matter race, age, or gender, more voters say Trump's policies helped than Biden's. So do you think Joe Biden or Donald Trump's policies have helped you personally? Joe Biden eighteen percent, Trump's policies

I mean what I say maybe right.

I'm just saying like, if you have both presidents that sent out COVID jacks, I don't think that you can really ascribe that to you know, this difference. I think that a big problem for Biden is first of all, people remember things through rose color glasses, so you know, it kind of cuts against normally there's like an incumbency advantage. This is a very weird election because you basically have

I honestly think a big part of this too is people just.

They don't have any confidence that anything that has potentially improved for them, which there are you know, there is data now that say says that on some metrics, people are doing better economically than they were, say a year or two years ago, But they don't give Biden credit for that because they see that he is like old and doddering, and they have zero confidence that he's able to deliver on anything. So they're not attributing like if

So to me, that's a big part of what's going on here.

And that was one of the things that both Azer Client and Aate Silver I think pointed to in their pieces about why the Democratic Party should ditch Joe Biden. They're like, the economic numbers are improving and his approval rating is not, and that's a problem for him because that means there's basically nothing you can do to sort of get people convinced that you're good for the country because they've just decided you're too frickin' old and you can't get anything done.

Well, what really struck me, if can we put that tear sheet please back up on the screen, be five, just because I want to really point to a number. There is the hurt you personally. Do you see that one Biden's policies forty three percent say hurt me personally? Twenty five percent of Trump policy And that was pretty insane, considering this is the man who appointed Supreme Court justices on Row versus Way, and he says not made much of a difference relatively tied at thirty nine and thirty four.

By age, you actually see a huge.

Benefit to Trump amongst the forty five to sixty four demographic.

Unfortunately, by the way America, those are the people who vote.

Forty eight percent say that Trump's policies help them. Twenty one percent say that Biden's policies help them. Same amongst the boomers sixty five plus thirty eight percent versus twenty percent on Biden. So base I mean age, gender, wherever you look, you know, a huge portion of this. Also, I'm starting to think about when I look at these numbers, is I think interest rates play a big role in this.

Way that people have, you know.

I mean, if you think about that number, the forty five to sixty four, these are the four oh one K generation, you know, the four oh one K millionaires.

I mean, let's be honest.

The stock market was booming under Trump, and more so the interest rate policies, inflation and all of the basically the chaos of the last couple of years, on top of increasing borrowing costs for folks who may be putting off retirement or you know, trying to take it a loan, trying to fund a business or something like that. That is really going to screw you both at the lowest end, like a eighteen to twenty nine year old and a

I think that was a big part of it.

Yeah, huge part of it too that we see Crystal is about the flipover Nate silver Vary Astuteley.

Let's put this up there.

In his latest says Biden's problem is with swing voters, not his base. He points to that graphic that you can see in front of you for her watching. It shows us political party identification, and it actually shows the political party identification for Republicans and Democrats is near all time lows, both at twenty seven and twenty seven percent. The independent number is actually at forty three. Now, what he shows also is that amongst those independent voters, they

For Trump, not that they are undecided.

More so, only less than one percent of the people who voted for Trump are saying that.

They are willing to switch to the other side.

So huge swing voter problem there where you know, if you combine the coalitional issues plus the swing voter issues, Biden is I mean, he's looking more and more cooked by the day with all the caveats. Y.

Yeah, of course, I mean that was actually Nate silverspiece kind of irritated me because what you just said is accurate that he has problems in both of these areas, Like I don't think you can look at the disgust over the Israel policy and how dramatically opposed not just young people in these few demographic groups, but the overall majority of the of Joe Biden voters from twenty twenty disagree with him on Israel, some so strongly that they

You need those people to be willing.

To come out and vote for you and not to stay home and not to go vote for Gornell West or Jill Stein. And you also need to win independence. So it kind of irritated me how he like pitted these true groups against each other, like you have to pick one or the other. Joe Biden has problems with both. He needs to win over both, perhaps with independence.

You know.

The thing that would really you know, push them in his direction is if he had more affirmative, positive vision in terms of the economy that they actually had confidence in him delivering, which I think is a major problem for there's nothing you.

Can do about his age.

It is what it is, which is I think a big part of the reason why it's these numbers are unlikely to.

Move, I would say one of the biggest reasons.

But he also has real problems with the Democratic.

Base, and you need all of those pieces in order to win, especially given how close closely divided the country is, how close we expect this election to ultimately be. So I kind of I've actually kind of found this column irritating and annoying.

Fair enough, he's pointing to a legitimate issue. He's not pointing to all of the issues. We can all wins and losses are multifaceted. He can't point to any one thing.

The guys literally the.

Democratic president or a Democratic nominee. I mean, he eventually wins the election. Same thing in twenty twenty. Story is he's done. There's no way. All history is against him. They pulled it out. So let's not give them, you know, let's let's give him some credit for their strategy. I think a lot of it has to do with their opposing force rather than anything that they do.

They're banking on the same thing.

I would just say, first of all, it's a very very small sample size.

And number two is that that's a hell of a risk.

It's a hell of a risk because if it's just one thing goes the other way. I mean, I just always think of whenever you're trying to win anything in life, you've got to do everything, and you're humanly possible to cover all of your bases and then also hope that your opponent makes a mistake. They're very much like in our opponent is such an idiot, it'll take care of it.

Ary strategy, right exactly.

That's how you lose.

So anyway, I don't think it's going to work out for them, will say, we certainly will.

Let's move on to the next part.

There's some very inspiring story, actually some very interesting state government action against raising rent prices. So we've talked to here previously about algorithmic basically programs consortiums and companies that have been buying up real estate and that landlords can then self enter into where they can collude with each other to set rental markets and to increase aggregate prices above where normal rent inflation is.

We're now actually seeing.

A report out of the state of Arizona where the Attorney General is suing Real Page, which is a company and organization and landlords and accusing them of conspiring to illegally raise rents. We have a bit of a taste from a local news report there on the ground that we just wanted to play for all of you.

Let's take a listen.

It's a story many value renters know all too well, major spikes in their own rent.

To six and i'mlike, Okay, that's that's what it's the the next year they raise that. I think it was like two hundred dollars a month.

State Attorney General Chris Mays feels these price hikes aren't a coincidence, but possibly a conspiracy.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that people were made homeless by the scheme.

A recent lawsuit from Mazes pointing the finger at the software company real Page for collecting leasing data and using that information to collude with at least nine land order management companies, all in order to keep rent prices high and create a rental monopoly in both the Phoenix and Tucson area.

The companies were actually talking about the algorithm and how much money it was going to make them to their investors.

So what's really interesting is if you look at some of the data included, they say, according to the Attorney General's office, thirty six percent of Phoenix households are renters. They have seen a seventy six percent rent increase from twenty sixteen. Meanwhile, in Tucson, thirty seven percent of households remain renters with a thirty percent rent increase, they say.

They keep getting money from.

Everybody, but I don't know what they are doing with all that money, said one renter, who did not want to be identified. So they'd said, I would say these last two years or last two or three years, it was a headache. I mean, one of the things they're pointing to, and it's not only the large landlord organizations, but is the company itself real Page, which allows property management you know, companies and others to enter and to

What Arizona has impressed me on a couple of fronts, this being one. Another one is going after those Saudi backed firms that were buying up all the land and stuck and dry all the water, and they're buying up for pennies on the dollar a bunch of medical debt and dismissing it, discharging it so that the residents of Arizona, you know, can be a you can get some relief from this overhang and burden of medical debt, which is really interesting, which we should actually cover on another day.

At the highest possible price.

And in markets where this becomes incredibly dominant, you have this one company setting the rents for basically the entire market with disastrous results for tenants. What's interesting, too, is one of the main architects behind yield Star this isn't his first trip to the price fixing rodeo. He apparently

Specifically, the FED said.

That algorithms themselves are not illegal to use, but rather the way it was being used, with competitors knowingly combining their sensitive non public pricing and supply information in an algorithm they rely upon in making pricing decisions with the knowledge and expectation that other competitors will do the same. That signal signals to me if the Biden DOJ is paying attention to this, that they may have a bigger problem than just this Arizona tendancy.

Well, I would certainly hope.

So there's also some state by state legislation we can put C three pleas up on the screen.

The Colorado actually now has.

A bill that's just been introduced to prevent landlords from using algorithms to scent rent. They say that currently, quote, renting an apartment in Metro Denver has become so difficult for the average the average person that the state lawmakers are now trying to prevent these landlords from using the real page yield star or the yard revenue IQ to

So it really does.

Enter in the realm of collusion and takes away that, you know, kind of free market aspect of what the rental market kind of should be, which is people kind of guessing and thinking and looking.

Around their local area.

One of the strengths that people always talk about with small local landlords is that their you know, community members whatever is that they're you know, one to five properties something like that, and it's not the resources of a giant corporation, which is what you should be afraid of. But this effectively kind of makes them a lobbying block and a price fixing cartel, which is what we should

Out of you.

Yeah, well, and this goes beyond that, even because part of the allegation here is that because you have, especially in certain cities, you have the overwhelming bulk of the market participating in this scheme, they are all they are

Yeah, well, we'll see story. They're definitely very interested in. I know it impacts a lot of you guys out there. You know, rent inflation is one of the biggest drivers of overall CPI, and it's one of the problem things that has a huge issue in terms of stuck in your money away your savings rate and all that. I know, it's really really difficult out there, so we'll continue to track it. We broke down the news for everybody yesterday

So this kind of punched the ball to Congress.

The dissent came from all of the liberal justices, where the three justices said that they should have narrowly considered the Colorado question and not set a new standard.

And then Amy Coney Barrett, as I.

Understand it, yeah, didn't join the liberal dissent, but didn't join the majority opinion either.

So I don't it was.

Her thing was weird.

I don't even I don't understan but it was basically like she actually agreed with the liberals that the decision which went far too far.

But then her whole thing.

Was like, but what we really should talk about is how we came to a unanimous decision.

That's what's really important. It's like what it was weird.

You could tell she was a mom of seven, because that's like a very mom.

It was a very moment.

That's so true, Like we all came together. Let's just focus on the positive here eyes.

Well, thanks boy. Yeah, usually not the right answer anyway.

So immediately though, that sparked panic and responses here in Washington. The most noteworthy was won by Congressman Jamie Raskin, who said he will immediately join with several others to introduce legislation in the House of Representatives to bar Donald Trump the ballot.

Let's take a lesson.

I am working with a number of my colleagues, including Wi Wasserman Schultz and Eric Swalwell, to revive legislation that we had to set up a process by which we could determine that someone who committed insurrection is disqualified by section three the fourteenth Amendment. And the House of Representatives already impeached Donald Trump for participating in insurrection by inciting it, so the House is already pronounced upon that.

Interesting, So Jamie Raskin has introducing the bill here obviously, he says that he's joining with who is at Eric Swollwell and a few others Tank Creases. Now this may be a hot take that people wouldn't expect this, but you know what, it's through the normal legislative channel.

I mean, first of all, it doesn't have a chance in house. It doesn't really matter.

But hey, it's keeping with the procedure that was laid out by the Supreme Court.

So I say, go for it.

Yeah, you know, I actually I saw a bunch of concerns like freaking out or maybe it was like they're just literally doing what the Supreme Court to them to do. So I didn't see why there was such a like thing about this particular as you said, I mean, listen, we should see this basically as a messaging bill.

There's no expect they don't.

Have control of the House, they don't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so this is not going anywhere anytime soon. But it was directly responsive to the you know, yeah, I saw.

Hey, thank you, Jamie Raskin. You know why you're following what the court told you to do.

Go for it. That's the democratic process.

You can introduce it in the House, you ask you debate it, they can bring it to the floor if you want, you can send it over to the Senate.

Crystal Marry, I'm sure Mike Johnson will get right on that.

So might wrong the you need two thirds as ascribed by the Amendment.

That's the only thing now, because well, I mean, this gets into the ruling itself, which in my opinion was kind of bullshit, especially this aspect of it, because okay, so they based this, you know, this reading that, oh, well, this has to go through Congress, and that's the process. They based it on the last line in the amendment, section three of the fourteenth Amendment, where it says Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove

It's not surprising to me.

It was exactly what I thought that they would do, because they're cowards and they didn't want to be the ones like responsible for upending the election whatever, and they also wanted to sort of just like settle this question.

And push it off.

And so they've made it so that even in a scenario where someone Donald Trump or someone else was actually found guilty of insurrection.

Through a jury of their peers through the.

Criminal justice system, that that doesn't count so long as they have enough of a political majority to block this sort of legislation. So No, two thirds isn't prescribed. Two thirds only has to do with removing the ban. There's literally nothing in the amendment about affirming the ban, which is, you know, part of why this went through the court system.

I'm not a legal scholar, I'm not a federal society any person, so I can only speak to the politics. But I support this one percent. And I'll tell you which is that. That was my laptop charger.

Sorry, I will say that.

It's all the question for all time, and I'm happy about that because enough of this nonsense, like we can't have competing.

Decision of insurrection and what is it and is it not?

I mean, for you know, it's a genuine democratic question, as happened after.

The Civil War.

If you go back to our original debate on the subject after the Civil War, if you serve for the Confederate States of America, you cannot serve in government unless you are removed by the unless that disability is removed as it was in eighteen seventy six record in the history I have here in front of me that you can no longer serve great It's simple. Do you serve in the Confederate States Army. Did you fight and take up rebellion against the government here? I mean, it's not

What is is riot? As an insurrection is over is it a coup d'etar the're trying to overthrow? The governments?

Are like genuine democratic questions that need to be resolved through the democratic process, either by voting or through Congress. Now is Congress, you know, broken and inefficient? Yeah, it was in eighteen seventy two too. It has been for two hundred some years. So for me, I'm happy because I'm sick of all of this like fake interpretation of the fourteenth Amendment or whatever.

Nobody knows. It's like we are none of us are lawyers or others.

The Court, i think correctly kicked it to Congress and said, you guys, figure it out.

What is insurrection? What's not insurrection?

And if you can't figure it out, then we're going to air on the side of democracy, which is what it is.

I mean, come on, these you know, these courts.

What's some freaking DC Appellate Court is going to set the stand for President of the United States.

That's nuts. That's just as nuts as the Texas.

Fifth the what's it called the Fifth Circuit that made that crazy ruling. What am I thinking about the abortion pill? Minifit press drone something like that? So whatever, all right, people can look it up. The Texas abortion judge who can just say, oh, this one abortion pill is outlawed?

That's bullshit. You can't have national policy that's like that.

So anyway, for me, you can't allow the legal system to weigh in on some high it's a highly important democratic question of who can run for president.

Of the npser.

I will remind you that states have the power and that was affirmed in this decision. Yeah, to decide who's eligible for the ballot based on all of the other constitutional requirements. So I don't really see how this is different. But I mean, listen, like I said, it's not a legal decision, it's a political decision. It's a political I support them because the decision like, oh, we're going to

They don't say that. They just talk about, okay, well.

If someone is found to an engagement insurrection is removing the ballot. Here's how you can override that through two thirds vote in Congress. So they try to use that to say, oh, well, that must mean that they meant that Congress doesn't charge the whole Well, it doesn't say that, so I mean, it's completely invented. Let's just be clear about that. It's this is the way they wanted to

Before they invented it.

So listen, like I said, am I surprised, no, because I think almost all their decisions are basically political in their interests, based on their ideology or based on their present, their desire to preserve the legitimacy of the court, et cetera. So they invented this process, and it is now what it is.

I will grant you that there is no basis for this.

Okay, there's no history with any And I am not an originals.

I am not a textualist, you know any of this.

Like also the legal Frankly, when my friends who are lawyers talk like this, my eyes completely glaze over. I can only speak to the political question. I think it was a good political decision. Obviously, I see enough why.

I just don't see why.

Go going through Congress, which is obviously I mean that's the definition of a political body. Why that's superior to going through like to saying you know, okay, it has to go through the court system and someone has to be found guilty of insurrection by a jury of their peers like it.

That's a piece where I'm like, I don't.

See why they settled on this versus you know, some other standard. Again, they just sort of invented it because at bottom, because they know this will never happen. They know that there's no chance that this Congress is going to come anywhere close to, you know, deeming that Donald Trump or anyone else for that matter, engaged in an insurrection, So they can kill the idea that this is relevant, even though if you read the plain text of this, if it applies to anyone, it applies to Donald J.

Trump.

They can avoid having to actually make a decision on whether he engaged in insurrection. They can kick the can to another body. But they can also effectively kill, you know, the possibility that this is relevant at all, but with their hands staying clean.

So that's why they do This is where I'm doing part because I don't see the clear insurrection or any of that in there at all. I think that the Amendment was written for a very specific purpose to bar people who were genuine traders who took up arms against their country in the United States Civil War, and then to make sure that they couldn't serve in government and recreate the Jim Crow South.

Oops had happened anyways, But the.

Point is is that that was the point by the radical Congress that passed the fourteenth Amendment. I think we should stay within that. I think the bar should literally be that high to ban you from office. I think you should basically have taken up arms against your country, fought and killed your own countrymen, sold them out, and literally fought for a rival army, as these Joe's gentlemen did against the Confederates. Other than that, it's up to

It doesn't say treason.

It doesn't even say it says you can have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof I mean, listen, he tried to overturn a democratic election. You know, all of the election maneuvering behind the scenes. There's a reason why even Trump's lawyers didn't try to make the case that he didn't engage in insurrection and had nothing to do with any of it.

I don't think it's dead.

I think if people want to figure out what rises to the barrier of the US Civil War, you are welcome to pass a law through Congress in which we will all commonly understand, as united people, was an act of such terrible you know, taking up arms against our government.

That we will bar you. Otherwise, leave it to the people and they can decide.

You know, if enough people agree with you on January sixth, as some did on twenty twenty two, don't vote for Trump, be my guest.

It's a free country.

I mean, that's really what it comes down to in this particular instance. And again, this is why the history of it matters. I think you're engaging in a bit

That was the actual intent of this entire thing.

So that's again where we have to kind of raise the bar to for what we assume where we should come to the point where no government or all governments representative should do their absolute best and not stand in the way of democracy and allow it to ultimately flourish for the people. And I don't think that anything Trump has done has ever risen to the level of literally taking the armor nowhere.

But nowhere in here does it say that it has to well in nor does it say like the bar is the Civil War and anything below that doesn't count doesn't say any of that. I mean, you know, they're very intentional about the way that they wrote and conceived of, you know, these various parts of the Constitution. So you know, I am very reluctant to put limits on who can run for office.

This is why I pose the term even term limits.

Like you know, I think if people want to elect some deadbeat congressman for thirty five terms and who's you know, getting wheeled in a wheelchair. Like, I think that we should have democratic mechanisms so people have better understanding of what that means. I think we should have money on a politics so there's not such an incumbency advantage of just like corporations flooding their campaign coffers so they're there forever. But I support the right of the people to vote

That's the problem. You could use that against anything a political understanding.

You could say that any Democrat who didn't vote to certify the election in twenty sixteen engage in the same sort of behavior, and I would not approached that. I want those people to run. I want the bar to be so incredibly high. If you believe that Trump is bad, then for a vote against him, you know it's your right.

As this says.

And I got to disagree on the age lines though, because it's in the Constitution in terms of how young you got to be.

So at that point, people who's to January sixth, it's fine to run for office. But if you're like, you know, twenty four or whatever, people want to vote for you, that's not okay.

Well no, I don't think it's okay.

I think it's in the Constitution and so clearly the framers or whatever you know, going to.

Spit a little bit.

Okay, but we're talking about what should be.

Oh yeah, no, I would have put it on philosophical grounds. Wouldn't support it, Yeah, I would not. That said, now, given where we are with age, it's a little bit more complicated, especially with a captured political system where we are right now. In terms of mental faculties, I mean this gets still like all basic fundamental questions like driver's licenses.

Should people who are over eighty be allowed to drive? Honestly, I think the answer should be no or use.

I think it depends on capability.

I've seen too many of these. I've seen too many.

Of these folks, eight year olds down there all right.

Listen, I think they should well, at the very least, they should be subjected to a very very strenuous test, and we as a people should be like actually accept and think about what that should look like. Basically, every year after seventy two you're asked us to go to the DMV and you need to retry. And that's the thing is that there are you know, complicated questions here also in terms of public safety and like your impact on others. Now, I generally err on the side of democracy.

For this?

It thirty five for president, which I think is actually too low.

But you think that's too low, way too high.

Yeah, I don't think it should be. I don't really think there should be anything there at all. My point is that if we're going to have that, then I don't think it's really fair at all that we don't have old ones.

I don't think we should have any of them.

I also agree with Jank that naturalized citizens should have the right to run for president the United States, and Jank's argument on it is you know, does have some legal basis, but putting aside the legal argument, because there was a court ruling that basically said naturalized citizens should have all the rights of natural born citizens and to not do so is discriminatory. So using that basis, you can then say, you know, this interpretation is you know, is illegal or unconstitutional.

But putting aside the legal.

Questions, which I'm admittedly no expert on whatsoever, I think just as a matter of principle, I do think that they should be able to run for office. I think Jank should be able to run for a president if you want so. Again, this is all just to say I am reluctant to put limits on who people can vote for and limiting their democratic choices, I think is a big promise. Part of why, you know, I have an issue with the two party system and the fact

But you know, obviously, see where where we are, we're not even disagreement. We're only an agreement on disagreement on the standard and through which the Megan is okay something that should be.

On okay debates.

Aside, there's still been quite a bit of a liberal media meltdown that we've seen. The view, of course, can always be promised to have a good reaction. Let's take a lesson welcome back.

You know, the thing that bothers me about this, and I know it's probably the right decision, but I don't like that we've normalized this man. Yeah, it has really irritated the pool atomy. Yeah, that we have normalized him and his bad behavior. I get that the law says, listen, it would be really rough and it should be the Congress that makes these decisions. And yet that's not how

But the problem is, why have we normalized?

Look, if Joe Biden had one count against him, not ninety one, he could not be the Democratic presidential candidate. If Joe Biden had committed sexual assault and we had heard him, he could not be running for president. If Joe Biden had been found liable for sexual assault to the two of eighty three million dollars, he could not be running for president. If Joe Biden had been found liable for half a million dollars for fraud, he could not be the Democratic candidate for president.

You can't you can you can always count on these ladies. Chris and I were talking while that clip was praying, and we're like, do we.

Know what trying?

I don't really totally understand that.

Totally totally indecipherable to me.

I do love her outfit, though, it's very like California vineyard energy. That's that irritates the pooh out of me. Is just just too good. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what else to say. It's just it is funny to me to see the way that these ladies react. And there was also Chris, I don't know if you saw this. There should genuinely be a little bit of

I didn't really see people predicting the Supreme Court would actually uphold it. I saw several very possible I didn't see that. But what I saw war is people basically making the case that.

They should uphold it, which is different.

I agree with you right.

Versus a prediction of what's actually going to happen. I mean, that's my position. I think they should have uphold it uppeld it. But I was under no illusion whatsoever that that would happen. But you know what I take. So first of all, let me comment on the specifics of their comments. It's interesting, Woody says, Lissa is probably the right decision. Then she goes on to make some point about the states in the Congra that I.

Didn't really get.

And then you had Anna and Navarro make a point which is partially accurate that I do think it's true Trump gets away with things that literally no other politician in curing Joe Biden with I mean, she is right that listen, Joe Biden has faced his own incredible allegations of sexual assault that should have been taken a lot more seriously at the time and should continue to be taken a lot more seriously. But if he was actually found liable for sexual assault, even in a civil case, that would.

Be a huge deal. We would never hear the end of it.

It probably would be a deal breaker for him and most other politicians. I mean, you kind of see this right now with Robert Menendez and these corruption charges which look very real. And by the way, you know, one of the guys who's accused of basically bribing him has already pled guilty, so the writing is on the wall there. But you know, he wasn't able to survive that, not even close. Even after being this new Jersey fixture for so long. He immediately plummeted to like three percent in

The legal system is not going to save them.

Yeah, Trump really is like the uber mention, like the Nietzschean uber mensh like who is immune to.

The laws of God and of man?

And look, you could take that whichever way you want. It's been deciphered ever since Nietzche wrote about it. But my point, I think that the point that you're making about the legal system is one that is beginning to real is really to hit home as well. We actually saw some of this on CNN with Larry Sabato, the Polster.

Let's take a listen to what he said, jinning up this insurrectionist like rhetoric.

Of course he does. He'll never change because it's worked for him and it may work again. You know, in the end, Jim, you can't save the people from themselves. If they're determined to reelect him after he organized that insurrection, arguably our first coup deeta, then there's nothing to stop the people from doing that. Now, in particular, the legal system may intervene, but I doubt it. He'll probably he's certainly going to be on the ballot. He's certainly going

There, you go, Chrystal, that's what, that's where, that's where.

I think, that is exactly the way that a lot of people are internalizing. And because I do think there has been quite a bit of cope and false hope and other things where people genuinely did believe that the legal system was going to save them. Keith Overman apparently being one of them. This up there just because it's funny. Can't help but take a look at what Keith has to say. He says, the Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. It's members, including Jackson, Cagan and Soda may Or have

It must be dissolved.

It's funny because there are two sides of the coin here. I think that the Larry Saboteau one is the realm of what you continue to highlight. Is this is it Now you're playing in the system. You have to beat him, You actually have to try, and all the side plots in the world they're not going to save you in a way that I think many people have come to believe actually the courts or any of these other systems would do the job for them, as opposed to the campaign that now must be undertaken.

Yeah, well, especially listen, I think Biden world continues to be extremely delusional that just you know, running against Trump is going to be enough for them to secure victory.

So let's put that aside. But the sort of like.

Liberal commentariot right now is because they've take experienced a few blows in a row or I think starting to grapple with that fact.

Now that may not be a permanent state of affairs, because we do have that.

New York criminal trial, the sort of stepchild charge is beginning. He had no offense to step children. By the way, I'm not going.

To get it like canceled for that that. You're not supposed to say that anymore.

Anyway, I want to enter the Mamala debate about Kamala whatever.

This is a whole other Well.

I thought there was a whole piece in the New York Times about the toxic nature of.

The boy mom phenomenon.

So that's another a bunch of moms like get really into being quote unquote boy moms. And this one mom apparently who has a boy and a girl, posted something that seemed to indicate that she was more into her son than and her daughter. It sparked this whole mom war situation.

Actually, I support that mom more anyway, make a mom being your whole identity, that's a.

Whole I agree with that. I wholeheartedly agree with that. Anyway.

With regards to this, I think that we may see the resurgence of some hope that the legal system is going to say the ones that criminal trial in New York starts, because you know, they just can't help themselves and there's no faith that the Biden administration, the Biden campaign is actually up to defeating this man. So they got to hang their hat on something, and I guess that's all they got, all right, guys. So a report came out yesterday that we wanted to spend some time

Before I jump in, I just want to say.

I don't enjoy nitpicking these things, whether there was no rape or some rape or systematic rape or whatever.

But the reason we do it.

Is because the atrocities that were committed on that day and the inflation and invention of additional atrocities committed on that day, have been a key part of the propaganda effort to justify now Israeli atrocities in Gaza.

Now let me also say.

Even if all of the beheaded babies and all of the things that were spread were actually true, it still wouldn't justify atrocities in response. But that's the reason why it's important to dig into these things. So in any case, I want to start by setting the context of what this report actually is and what it's not. This is the words of the woman Pamela Patton, the Secretary General's Special Representative on Sexual Violence and Conflicts. She was in

So I'm going to read from the report.

Bear with me, guys, you know, I want to read from the text so that no one can you know, so this is not being taken on a context and we can't be accused of this, but I wanted to give you a sense of some of the context here and some of the caveats that were offered.

She writes.

The national authorities face numerous challenges in the collection of evidence in pursuit of their investigations, so the crimes committed during the October seventh attacks, including challenges of course, nation and information sharing between governmental agencies, with very specific challenges

We know from other reporting.

In the New York times attempt to report all of this out, that they were unable to locate or speak with a single actual victim of October seventh attacks. They talk about the challenges of forensic evidence. There is also no forensic evidence that they were able to use in the production of this report, and so you know, very limited in terms of the actual data and evidence that.

They were able to collect.

In addition, let's go to the next here, so they said, despite concerted efforts encouraging them to come forward, the mission team was made aware of a small number of survivors who are undergoing specialized treatments, still experiencing an overwhelming level of trauma. Further, the internal displacement of several communities from the Gods of Periphery to other locations, rere lication of survivors, and the deployment of October seventh first responders from military

The information gathered by the mission.

Team was in large parts source from Israeli national institutions. This is due to the absence of UN entities operating Israel lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant UN bodies with an investigative mandate. Nevertheless, the mission team took every step in line with UN methodology to mitigate issues of source reliability before drawing conclusions in the

Yeah, I think the biggest problem that they have is circumstantial evidence, quote unquote.

That's really the thing that it relies on.

That's just I mean, imagine, would you convict somebody of rape in the United States on circumstantial evidence? Ask yourself how exactly that works. The reason this matters is, let's go back, is that if you talk to it, I've done this. If you talk to people who are in the wild, normal people who has their thoughts on the war, if the pro Israel and number two one and two things are going to talk to you about his rape and beheaded babies, and it's like, that's why you have

Island and all of that is real, then these are valiant warriors standing up and able to fight off the Russians.

If it's a World War One style attrition thing on Bachmutt, well maybe that's going to change the way that the average normy American is going to think about the battlefield.

So these stories, there is myths, these legends.

How all of them, Why and when we should litigate and be responsible around it.

That's why it comes down to. So let's just lay that out there.

For all of the you know, anti Semitism and all these other ridiculous excuses I would treat by the way, if there was a let's say I think they have claimed this mass, what is it mass sexual violence against Palisen's Maybe let's see. You know, you have every incentive in the world to lie. Got to see some evidence, got to see some first hand testimony, got to see some interviews.

And all of that.

I believe the report actually calls on the Israelis to allow that investigation also, and.

The Israelis said, now, all right, well there you go.

So my point, if we just come back to this, is I have not seen a shred of physical, real evidence about the claim of like systematic use of rapist a weapon of war.

So my opinion it probably just didn't happen. We'll see.

But based upon all of this, Sheryl Sandberg's involvement, and you know, with the documentary, et cetera, they are trying to will this into existence to justify the emotional you know, guard rails so people can put up about the way that the war has been conducted.

And I think we should call that like we see it.

I don't have a particular dog or anything, and that I honestly don't feel particularly passionate, you know, about some of this, But it's like the evidence and everything that we've gone through the debunking of the New York Times report itself in the un The reason why all of the attention and all this focuses is on this is

You know again what was happening.

It was immediate, there was physical evidence, there was video evidence in all of this, the level of parsing.

And all of this that has happened. I'm not going to say nobody, you know, was attacked.

It would be I think you've said this, It would be crazy if somebody, if nobody was attacked, right, right, But in terms of the campaign that they are alleging.

Yeah, I don't think that had happened.

And I don't really know why they even have to do this, because fifteen hundred people or whatever were killed, or however many, I don't know what the twelve actually number, twelve or twelve hundred whoever.

Whatever the real number is.

Whatever, it is a lot of people who were innocents were slaughtered on that day for no reason. That's enough, and it should be. But you know, they're the ones who are trying to make it get into a thing. The media too, in particular, So if they're going to play that game, then you know, we gotta parse every single claim too.

Yeah, and I would I would encourage people to actually read this report because the media presentation of the report does not include a lot of the layers of caveats and limitations that were laying out.

For you basically what the report says. I mean to echo what she said.

I do find it extraordinary that at this point, if there actually was systematic rape, not some amount, but systematic rape as a weapon of war, that we don't have one single survivor, we don't have one single instance of forensic evidence at this point.

Now, I find I find that extraordinary.

Israel is very interested in getting this story out, you know, they've made a concerted pr effort. That's part of what that New York Times piece was all about. You had not Schwartz herself talking about, how, you know, pushing someone to cooperate with them in that reporting by saying this is important for Israeli haspara in other words, propaganda. So this is a very important part of the narrative to

They were looking at, you know.

Things like women, photographs of women who were unclothed from the waist down, things like that which are suggestive but not conclusive. They also talk in this report about how some of the initial reports coming out from first responders and paramedics on the scene, the reason that they assumed that sexual assault must have occurred to whatever victim they were looking at is because they were untrained in some

Oh read it for yourself. You know it's free.

You can literally go and read it any time you want. Nothing that we're saying here is like cherry picked. As you said, you put a lot of effort into pulling all of the quotes, and if you want to go check the work, be my guest. You know there's a link right out there you could google you and report. You can read the full thing, et cetera, because none of the stories that I even read that looked at even close to a job of what you just laid out, which is it makes sense, it takes a long time.

Yes, indeed, all right, so let's talk about this specific instance that this report says was unfounded, which is with regards to often repeated media claims of multiple rapes at Kibbutz Beery. So this is significant because in the New York Times now you know, discredited and very controversial piece Screams without Words, which we have been covering here, which Ryan Iss team at the Intercept and other reporters in c squorel have been doing a great.

Job breaking down.

They talked about three specific instances of rape. One was the woman Galubdush, the so called woman in the black dress. We've already talked about how her family immediately came out after the story and said, no, we don't agree. We have actual evidence in the other direction that she wasn't really we had no idea that this was what you were even talking to us about, and you need to stop lying. So that one fell apart, the other two

Able to ascertain.

The mission team conducted a visit to Kibbutz Biory and was able to determine that at least two allegations of sexual violence widely repeated in the media were unfounded due to either new superseding information or.

Inconsistency in the facts gathered.

They go on to say these included a highly publicized allegation of a pregnant woman who's wo had reportedly been ripped open before being killed with her feet is stabbed while still inside her. Other allegations, including of objects intentionally inserted into female genital organs, could not be verified by the mission team do in Part two limited and low quality imagery, So they say, the often repeated allegations of sexual violence you know that the media has been talking

They said in their write up of the UN report.

That two specific allegations of sexual violence in Kibbitzpiury that were widely repeated by the media were unfounded. First responders told the Times they had found bodies of women with signs of sexual assault, aught those to kibbutzm But the Times in its report didn't refer to these specific allegations that the un said were unfounded. So that's their defense is like, oh, well, they looked into some other stuff. The stuff we reported is different from what they looked into.

We can put this up on the screen.

They went back to talk to the folks at Kibbutzpiri to see what they had to say about all of and lo and behold, the spokesperson for that Kibbutz rejects the story in The New York Times and says, and I quote they were not sexually abused me. Read a little bit from Ryan's article. He says the Times article described three alleged victims of sexual assault, for whom it reported specific biographical information. One, as I said before, is known as the woman in the black dress, gal Abdush.

So that's where we are, Cyber.

I think that's all you that you really need to know. Crystal, that's that's wild. I would courage again people go read for themselves.

If the Kibbitz woman, if what if the Kibbutz seem.

Or whatever the ones to say it's not true, They've got no reason in the world to lie.

Yeah, so listen to them, you know.

And again this is why these claims a bear scrutiny, and I think it's shameful.

Honestly. The New York Times ran it.

Yeah, and she even said that she believes that sexual violence was widespread on October seventh, So she believes right the Israeli narrative that that is the case. So you know, she's not some like you know, she's bought into the overall picture. But with the specifics regarding these two girls, that New York Times report was based on the word of one paramedic, which again goes against their own reporting guidelines.

That they're supposed to have two sources.

They are sticking to their story even though the Kibbutz itself is saying this did not happen. All of these details are inaccurate, and you know, there were questions about this story that were raised even before The Times put out their piece, and yet they neglected to provide their readers with the conflicting accounts that had already been published.

Part of why they're.

Leaking to Ryan and others is because they're so discussed and disturbed by the incredible breach of journalistic duty here and by the undercutting of the Times reputation.

It really is extraordinary.

Every single piece that drops just you know, it's just incredible. This has been It's so radicalizing for me to see the way that this was all just invented.

You know, my bed is Crystal. I think they're going to win a Pulitzer Prize for the story.

Well, I actually think I actually think that's part of why they're sticking by it, because exactly they published this right at the end of the year to make sure it got in under the deadline for awards like the Pulitzer. It's part of their you know, award winning submission or whatever. And so if they were to retract it, what does it mean for the award they already won for this quote unquote reporting, What.

Does it mean for that?

What does it mean for their Pulitzer prospects, et cetera. So I actually do think that's a part of the reason why they're going so hard instant but and that is it's just such an embarrassment. It's just such a complete embarrassment for them all.

Guys.

Congressman's running a little behind schedule, busy man that he is, so I'm gonna go ahead and film the interview with him. We'll post it later today, but wanted to get the show out to all of you. Remember, Soccer and I will be joining Emily and Ryan tomorrow for Counterpoints, so we will see you there.