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. Say extra amazing. Ryan is here, the Bro Show, first Bro Show of the Locals era. It's great to road, my friend. Thank you for so much for joining us. Crystal, is that what is it her? It's a fifth grade school event.
That's all I know.
Family comes first here over at Breaking Points. All right, let's go ahead and turn to my camera and let's see these topics. This is a very difficult part of the job. I really don't know how she does it. We're going to talk about the political fallout here in Washington over those ICC arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders. Some major freak out by the Biden administration.
By Prime Minister Sonyahu and others. Our own Ryan grim Here was at the State Department briefing yesterday, going toe to toe with State Department spokesperson Matt Miller. That's going to be interesting. We're going to talk about the Trump trial. Trump star witness Michael Cohen admitting to stealing some fifty thousand dollars on the stand, arguably more a worse crime than what Trump is actually being put on trial for.
We're going to talk about the debates, Donald Trump saying he wants a drug test for Joe Biden ahead of the debates. I would stipulate a drug test for all candidates who are involved in We're going to talk about the Congo. Luckily we have got coup expert Ryan grim here. There is some wild stuff going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a full on coup attempt that failed, but it appears that some Americans were involved, maybe some three letter agencies.
We'll get into that.
And then Jerry Seinfeld going at it with some protesters at one of his most recent shows, making headlines. And finally Bill aal Hamoud, he was in recently in a meeting with Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln going to hear from him about what was said in that meeting and some political follow out. But before we get to that, Ryan, thank you by the way for saying you told our audience they were going to be underwhelmed, and you could not be more wrong.
Yeah, they were blown away.
Okay, So first of all, thank you to everybody for all of the excitement over the switch.
We very very much appreciate it.
It's just amazing watching everybody's comments flood in on the locals page. So that's been awesome. We've gotten a lot of comments. We're very proud of the boomers, our boomer audience. By the way, you guys keep saying this is seamless. I'm amazed by.
Will you want a switch to be underwhelming? That's what you Yeah, you're right, you don't want wanted to just move? Yes, samless transition.
So as we continue to remind everybody, you have an email in your inbox which will give you your login credentials used to literally click in, sign in and you'll get access to your premium subscription over at Locals. We know that there were some technical issues yesterday, but it's going to be a lot smoother today. Just bear with us, you know, it is obviously a new thing. Just continue to check your inbox for the links to the show. For any issues big and small, can access my account?
Something's not working properly? How do I connect X, Y or Z support At locals dot com, we have concier service set up for all of you. Any issues, Like we said, big or small, there's going to be a link down in the description.
Just make sure if you have any questions about your account. Now.
And I did it, okay, and I am I am in spirit a boomer uh huh.
And it took me like thirty seconds.
Yeah.
So Crystal's parents both did it. They're both in their late seventies and eighties. My mom is in her sixties and she said it took her like fifteen seconds. So we're actually really really pleased with how this has been.
The app is really amazing now video qualities exactly. Video quality is fantastic. That's one of the major things.
So okay, now, the last question we continue to get, just to clear up any confusion, Can I still watch or listen to the show the way that I always did?
Yes?
The answer is yes. That is, if you are a premium subscriber, check your inbox. Well you have to switch the account. Yeah, you just have to switch you account.
That's it.
So, like, can I still listen to the show on Spotify or Apple via my premium think yes, absolutely, don't worry about it. There's gonna be instructions in your email. All of that is being sorted out. Same with the full show, same with everything. Just check your email. Everything here is additive. There's nothing that is great.
Everything up here stays the same exactly, just moving from one back end to another thing.
And so if you're over here, you just got to move over here and it's still going.
To come right.
It's like a flower exact season here. We're just we're adding new branches to the show. We've got some exclusive content that will drop soon in Rumble. You guys can check that out. We have a Rumble channel. First video on Rumble got over one hundred thousand views. We're pretty happy about that. We're only adding things here and no stubs quen dropping our YouTube views either.
Now, this is very important.
You have until the end of the week to switch your account over to locals or you're gonna lose access to your premium features. And we don't want that to happen, So please, guys, just go ahead. We've had I think a pretty decent chunk already have done it in the first twenty four hours, which thank you guys so much.
You know, we were really worried about that.
We have a week long transition, so just go ahead and take care of it now so you don't have to worry about it anymore. All right, that's all the administrative stuff out of the way there, Ryan, and let's actually get started here with the ICC and the fallout.
So President Joe Biden, we got to give people a second to pause.
Oh okay, pause, Oh yeah, okay, pause, and then go he okay, thank you. See you're even better at this than I am. Okay, now we're back here. We're doing the ICC.
What are we doing?
President Joe Biden speaking out very forcefully against the ICC or rest warrants issued against the Israeli leaders and HUMMAS leaders, but in particular taking exception to the charges against Israeli leaders.
Here's what he had to say.
Let me be clear, we reject the ICC's application for rest warrants against Israelan leaders. Whatever these warrants may imply, there's no equivalence between Israel and Hamas.
It's clear.
Here's what we all do all it can to ensure civil and protection. But let me be clear, contrary to allegations against Israel made by the International Court of Justice, what's happening is not genocide.
We reject that.
And always stand with Israel and the threats against his security.
We will always stand with Israel and its threat against its security. That's pretty significant, Ryan, because if we can go to the next part, please, This was an official statement from President Biden immediately after the warrant was issued. Quote, the ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. Let me be clear, whatever this prosecutor might might imply, there is no equivalence, none, between Israel and Hamas.
We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security. So this was the immediate reaction from President Biden, kind of reverting back to his original stance here on the conflict.
What did you make of this, Ryan, I mean, on the.
One hand, just rhetorically, the prosecutors in a no win situation like he tries to bring everyone and Hamas into the dock, and so they say how dare you compare Hamas to Israel? If he doesn't charge Hamas, then they say, how dare you single.
Out good point Israel.
They've also been saying, we can talk about this more that Well, the prosecutor's team was about to go to Israel and he said that, you know, the Israeli government said that they were going to cooperate, and you got to let the government play out. The Israeli government spent the last several weeks practically threatening war against the i c C. You know, like meeting, you know, meeting with
leaders in Washington and making public threats. From the second it looked like there was a chance going to be a restaurant saying that if they did that, they would lobby for sanctions.
They would they would not even.
Let the family of people who worked for the ICC travel anywhere in the world. So the idea that this was a government that was just on the brink of cooperating with war crimes charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu is just laughable.
Got it, Well, we have actually a response from Prime Minister nets and yah who that we can show everybody here.
Let's see it.
The outrageous decision by the ICC prosecutor Kareem Khan to seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of Israel is a moral outrage of historic proportions. It will cast an everlasting mark of shame on the International Court. Israel is waging a just war against Ramas, a genocidal terrorist organization that perpetrated the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Hamas massacred twelve hundred Jews, raped Jewish women,
burned Jewish babies, took hundreds hostage. Now, in the face of these ours, mister Khan creates a twisted and false moral equivalence between the leaders of Israel and the henchmen of Ramas. This is like creating a moral equivalence after September eleventh between President Bush and Osama bin Laden, or during World War Two between FDR and Hitler. What a travesty of justice, What a disgrace. The prosecutor is absurd
charges against being Israel's defense minister. I'm merely an attempt to deny Israel the basic right of self defense, and I assure you of one thing, this attempt will utterly fail. Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were totally defenseless against our enemies. Those days are over. Now the Jewish people have a state and we have an army to defend our states. Notwithstanding the blood libels mister Khan is leveled, Israel will continue to wage this war in full compliance
with international law. We will continue to take unprecedented measures to get innocent civilians out of harm's way and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gazam, Mister Khan also sets a dangerous precedent that undermines every democracy's right to defend itself against terror organizations and aggressors. The ICEC has no jurisdiction over Israel, and mister Khan's actions will not stop us from waging our just war
against Amas. But mister Khan's abuse of this authority will turn the ICC into nothing more than a farce. He's doing something else. He is callously pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world. Through this incendiary decision, mister Khan takes his place among the
great antisemites in modern times. He now stands alongside those infamous German judges who donned their robes and upheld laws that deny the Jewish people their most basic rites and enable the Nazis to perpetrate the worst crime in history. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I pledge this, no amount of pressure and no decision in any international form will prevent Israel from defending itself against those who
seek our destruction. To all the enemies of Israel, including their collaborators in the Hague, I renew that place today. Israel will wage our war against Klamas until that war is won.
So there you go.
Moral equivalents, that appears to be the line that they're going with against Israel's right to self defense is what they are saying.
He is, Yeah, I want to give you the chance to have to give us some breakdown. Go ahead?
Or is it logical fallacy at play here? The United States getting attacked by Japan or the United States getting attacked by al Qaida would not be a get out of jail free card for its war criminals. You're still responsible for what you do in response. I don't think anybody would even claim like, oh, well, they flew the planes into the towers, they killed three thousand Americans. Therefore
there rules no longer apply to you. Right, that's the opposite of the We did actually act that way for a while and it was a disastrous.
Right, yeah we did.
Yeah.
It was called Abu Grab, it was called the Black Sites where torture was going around on waterboarding. And so our argument would would be and is like, we do not support it's it's funny. We wanted to build up this kind of rules based international order post World War two. This is part of that idea, but we only want
it to apply, you know, to our adversaries. It looks like and so con in the in the interview that you guys talked about yesterday yes on the show, he said that he heard from an elected American leader that, hey, the ICC is for Africa and thugs like Putin. Now we also know that Lindsay Graham met with Khan recently.
I'm not saying that Lindsey Graham said that, but people, I mean, come on, how.
Good is that?
I bet about Russia?
A nuclear armed power and great power in its own right, And I don't mean like comparable to the United States.
Just it's a great power.
It's a big nature, it has a lot of land masks, so big military, and it's got nu because you're a great power in my opinion. Well, then it's fine, and not only fine, it's good. We laud those decisions. You have a great point that you bring up with the State Department that we'll get to later. But I want to tug on this threat because we are watching the entire bipartisan machine here in Washington move to Israel's defense.
Let's put this up there for example, on the screen, there's a statement from Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House. Immediately afterwards, he says, the ICC has no authority over Israel or the United States. Today's baseless and illegitimate decision should face global condemnation. International bureaucrats cannot be allowed to use lawfair to usurp the authority of democratic nations that maintain the rule of law. Israel is fighting a war
for survival, just war for survival. The ic C is attempting to equate Israeli officials to the terrorists who perpetrated the October seventh massacre. It is clear ICC's decision has been advanced due to the Biden administration's pressure campaign against Israel and its outlandish State Department investigations. So that is an interesting little turn, isn't it, Because here we have on the one hand, President Biden, Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln,
and Mike Johnson all decrying it. But in this case we have Mike Johnson who said it's actually Biden's fault for doing this. So let's take some twisted logic. I also, there's something so naked about the Israelis that I can't just help but admire. Let's put this up there on the screen. They openly just tweet this out live updates. Israeli Foreign Minister Catz asks APAC leaders to work with
Congress against the ICC decision. So, Ryan, since you're more readin than I am, just explain what steps remain that Congress could take. And also this ICC thing, it's not a done deal yet per se. So what actions remain in terms of levers of power for the United States and for its Congress to try and to push back against this decision.
So I think we're going to absolutely see a resolution. You those are the easiest.
Things, right, but that's not finding it. Congress can do it.
It'll be a temper tantrum resolution, right, and there'll be a contest to see who can come up with the wildest adjectives to you know, this is the end of.
The free world.
But yes, sanctions like some like going directly after the family of the prosecutor, uh, targeting any institutions like basically think about b DS and the way that this the Palstatian grassroots organization has urged the world to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel, like the US is going to try to do the same thing to the i c C. Like any lever that they have, They're going they're going to push on.
Now.
Pessimists from the Palestinian side that I've been speaking to have said they think, you know, within a couple of months, there'll there will be so much pressure that you'll just see these that you just see this dropped, that the that the application for the arrest warrant will not turn into an actual arrest want arrest warrant, and that but then the hamas ones will go forward because there will be so much pressure and the and the idea that
Lindsey Graham or whoever was in that meeting was saying that this is for Africa and thugs like Putin will be will be uh you know, reinstated, will be restored.
Okay, Well, That's the interesting question though, in terms of the Hamas thing, because part of the US response has been that they don't have jurisdiction over any of what's happening here. We would be remiss if we didn't show what all of the responses from our own representatives in Washington.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Brian mass do you remember him for wearing an IDF uniform even though he's not a Jew?
In the United States Congress.
He says, America doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court, but the court sure as hell will recognize what happens when you target our allies. Next, we have a response, very long one from Lindsey Graham. He says, this outrageous decision is truly a slap in the face to the independent judiciary in Israel, renowned for their independence. We must not forget as a nation the ICC threatened to bring actions against American forces in Afghanistan, and we are a non member.
I will be issuing a detailed statement, However, these are my initial thoughts. Most importantly, I want the world to know that I, along with Republican Democrat colleagues, engage the ICC on this issue. Weeks ago, we were told there would be discussion with Israel before any actions were taken. We stress the principle of complementarity which should be applied in this case, which requires the ICC to let the nation in the questions legal system move first before any
action is taken by the court. What do you make of that, Ryan? That might be the only interesting objection that I've seen about this issue of complimentary And then, last, but not least, by the way, Elist Dephonic, who was actually in Israel when this came out, tweeting the ICC is an illegitimate court that advocates a peaceful nation protect its rights to exist with radical terror groups that commit genocide.
Congress must pass my bill that will punish those in the ICC that made this baseless, undemocratic decision.
But what do you explain to Lindsay Graham?
Yeah, so the argument is that, yeah, if a country has its own robust, non corrupt justice system, then the international system recognizes that and allows the sovereignty of that system to play out. And so then it's just a judgment call, Like, do you think does a prosecutor believe that there is any chance that an Israeli judicial system
will investigate and prosecute war crimes by its leaders. He clearly made the call, no, he does not think that that is remotely possible, and I think the statements coming from the Israeli government would support that. Like they have said that it is an anti Semitic attack on the state of Israel to even remotely suggest that it is committing war crimes against the Heinus Amas terrorists like that, So if the entire idea of that is itself anti Semitic.
In his response, NETANYAHUO said we are the most moral army in the world. Yes, Like that is the line that they've been using for decades. So if your stated position is that you are running the most moral army in the world, like, in what world are you going to prosecute yourself for war crimes? And so the prosecutor just clearly came to the conclusion that the only the only avenue for accountability here was going to be through the iccate that there.
Was no chance.
You also see some of the political response institutionally inside Israel.
Let's put this up there on the screen.
Times of Israel reports outcry in Israel as the ICC prosecutors seek warrants against nets On Yahu and Gallant to the Foreign Ministry is to establish a command center to counter move. Benny Gantz, who is the opposition leader, says that the decision is a deep distortion of justice, and the is x Israeli Prime Minister calls on other countries
to cut their funding for the court. So the Foreign Minister of the government says, this is an unrestrained direct attack actually on the victims of October seventh, because it draws moral equivalents that the entire institution is kind of moving to protect both Netson Yahu and to eof Gallant. So this does demonstrate to us something that we try and highlight.
Benny Gantz, maybe.
The opposition leader, he doesn't like nets Yahu, right Gallant. He also looked particularly like that does not mean that they disagree really with the prosecution of the war, and in fact they mostly agree with it. They would probably just finesse and do things a little bit differently to maintain in Israel's international isolation. So right yesterday Crystal and I were talking about this. I said, there's really only two ways that this plays out. A. It actually leads
to a reduction of the rules based international system. As for whatever is left of it because it's just obviously it's farce. It's just one of those where, yeah, it does only exist for Russians and for Africans because those are the people.
That the West doesn't like.
The other way is that this is a very convenient way for these Raelies just shove bb out and they're like, listen, man, you causes us too much trouble. We'll put Benny Gantz in there and you know, he'll talk to Biden more. Maybe we'll let in ten percent more AID trucks and we'll just move on our lives.
What do you think is going?
But apparently Nyahu has to say in that, and you know he you know, he's been pressured recently to come up with a plan by Gans and others say like, look, come up with a com and it's a it's a kind of funny demand, like the is that you come up with a strategy for ending this war and for what the war looks like after it's over. Like that's that's it just just tell us where this is headed.
And for him to say no just to that demand, that no, because his his idea is we're going to continue just to prosecute this war like this is the day after his answers, we're just going to continue because now you've seen about eight they're estimated about eight hundred thousand people have left Rafa and moved there to Derera
Belite and Conyunis and elsewhere around the God's Trip. Maybe next they go there, like just chase them all over the place for you know, endlessly, because the second that the war ends, that, you know, then the kind of political reckoning that YAHOO is on their right.
I was going to say, it's not just political reckoning, it's like he doesn't want to commit to either. He says he's already said there's going to be no Palsinian state. He literally said that. So it's like, okay, well, now what And then that's the base is of our negotiation from the United States. Remember this is just the US, not just the UN and the rest of nations. And I left out all the Arab powers who apparently, you know, that's their number one demand.
They're like, sure, we'll work with you, but it has to have he wants them to pay for it state.
He wants them to pay for it. I mean, that's even fine if they even get a state. But their question is like fine, but you have to have the States. So a lot of irreconcilable differences. All we can say is that the US, basically American foreign policy right now exists to advance the interests of Israel. I think there's no other way for me to say it. And I'll put Ukraine in there too, and that's it.
Mac flagged this this morning, this bill from two Republicans, Yeah, Max Miller and another guy, I think Michael Tracy posted this on Twitter, where it says, in general, for the purposes of this Chapter, to the extent practicable, the service of a citizen of the United States in the Israeli Defense Forces shall be treated in the same manner as service in the uniformed Services. It's actually called israel Defense Forces. So maybe that won't count. You could too and be like this it wrong.
What does that even mean?
Basically, it means that if you become a foreign fighter, you've been watching YouTube, you've been radicalized, TikTok has convinced you to.
Go join the you make ali a you know, you do your IDF service, that if you get wounded or if.
Or if you need like time toward a pension, that it could count. But yes, let's say you get wounded over there, that you would come home and you would have veterans benefit.
Right.
That makes sense, right, Yeah, that totally makes sense.
It's just that it only says, you know, whene you open your passport. Anybody's got their passport, do this. I actually went and I rechecked it just to make sure that I was correct. It says it right there. It says, if you serve in a foreign military, you're going to lose your passport, You're going to lose your citizenship. This is the only country in the world where we allow that you can fight for the French foreign legion as an American, not only do not and yeah.
Under this law, not only would you not lose your citizenship. Yeah, we're gonna pay for it. We would pay for it, right, it makes sense.
Yeah, that's exactly why we pay all taxes. Right. Look, I mean, you know, you don't have to like Palestine or or whatever not to just be like, what, like, can our foreign policy advance my interests as a citizens?
It's so difficulty. Why are we expending.
You know, if they're coming after our soldiers, that's a different story. Okay, all right, fine then maybe but all of This is just nonsense. It's like the entire thing is geared towards protecting them. And then this also shows the total incoherence of the Biden administration. We want more aid to go into Gaza, so we'll build them a peer Oh the peers only. We just looked at the stats this morning. Ten percent of the aid that could
have been let in via a truck. So actually it's leading to net probably less than what's getting in.
We're footing every lot. Yeah, everything got looted yesterday.
Oh, congratulations, right, and on the Israelis are inspecting it or whatever the hell.
All of that means. The entire thing is a farce, you know.
And it's like, Oh, I'm gonna withhold weapons, but I'm gonna send weapons. Would I would respect him more if he just picked a side at this point, which he has, but rhetorically he just won't be honest about it.
So Ryan, I'm going to ask you to analyze some of this for us.
We'll play first this clip of Matt Lee, he's the AP reporter, rockstar guy, puts up with no bs in the State Department, just going back and forth ruthlessly with the State Department spokesperson.
Here's what he had to say.
Who does have jurisdiction here?
So the government of Israel has jurisdiction.
Occupied over Gaza, which is not.
They have jurisdiction into looking at at the actions.
Military that they have. They have to bring it to his rey.
We have jurisdiction we have with the use of our equipment.
I'm sorry with how do you have with the use of.
Our military equipment that we have provided.
How do you have if you.
Look at the lay law, if you look at that's.
That's not jurisdiction and a criminal process, not in.
The criminal process, but it has to do with the determinations that we make in the policies that But Matt, long term, you were right that we want to use you were on.
Us.
It does not have jurisdic There are different quess I wasn't referring to criminals stiction at There are different ways to look at this. Long term, we agree with you that the Palestine people should be a state that has the and have the ability to make these determinations. But that's not where we are today. That's where we're trying to get to.
Okay, what the hell is going on here?
What does, he saying, yeah, So the fundamental question he's asking there, He's like, Okay, if you are a Palestinian and you feel like you've been the victim of a war crime or a crime against humanity, who do you appeal to?
Like what is your venue that you can go to?
Because Miller is saying they can't go to the International Criminal Court even though Palestine as a non member kind of stayed at the UN, is a signatory to the ICC, to the rom Statute. They're saying, because you're not an official state, you can't go through that venue. So Lee is asking, well then who, like where can where can that Palestinian go? And Matt Miller's first answer was Israel.
And you hear them like, wait, they have to go to through Israel, Like just you live in Gaza and you're going to like get a lawyer and you know, sue in an Israeli court, like.
If you can get into Israel, Like they're not evenna let you what are you talking about? That's completely absurd.
And then he says, well, we have jurisdiction, and I think Matt probably realized Matt Miller probably realized he stepped in and immediately when he said that, and Matt Lee, wait, you have jurisdiction, Yeah, like the United States, and there there would be a world because anybody can sue around the world in a US court. That would be kind of funny if that's what Matt Miller meant that, Okay, you can sue the government of Israel through an American court.
It's not what he meant. And also it's not criminal.
He just means, well, if they commit some crimes, then we'll send fewer weapons according to the Lady Law.
Not that they're actually going to ever do that, but he's saying we could do that. So it's not jurisdictions.
And so it ends with nobody would really have criminal jurisdiction over Israel according to according to the US posture here, and that's actually what I picked up on in my exchange with him.
Well, let's get to that. So do you want to set up anything else? Yeah, no, give us a background before you get to change.
So the point that Matt Miller and the State Department and President Biden, when he is able to kind of put together a coherent argument that they would make is they'd say, well, look, Palestinians are not a state and we believe that you can only have an ICC prosecution if one member state is involved. Now neither Ukraine nor Russia are signed on to the Rome Statue. We're totally fine with that, but people have pointed out that that
hypocrisy before. I looked back at the original prosecutions back in twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen of African warlords.
If you remember Joseph Coney, I remember that viral guy Regid completely.
Yeah, he was not a state and he was prosecuted by he was charged by the ICC as well as the first prosecution this DRC militia leader, and the State Department at the time celebrated that at Jensaki, yeah was the State Department spokesperson really at the time, so we can so I asked him about that one to say, hold on a second, and you know, these are so the problem I have with these and I'm the ones doing them, so I'm criticizing myself here is we know
they're hypocrites. And so yeah, the beginning and this is all about power, right, It's still good, but the.
More you get to that I think is important. Okay, So with all of that lead up, let's actually take a listen to.
It on the back on the question of jurisdiction with kath the International, you said that because the Palasenians are not a state actor, they don't jurisdiction over your side.
But back in twenty fourteen, I just googled this one up.
Jensaki was up here, or colleague, the statement was, Today, the ICC convicted Jermaine Katanga, the commander of the FRPI militia, for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC's DRC cases represent a significant step towards delivering justice for victims in the DRC. She then went on to say the United States reiterates it's called for the apprehension of Sylvester Muda Kumora, another leader of an abuse of rebel militia in the DRC, who is subject to
an arrest warrant by the ICC. The Department of State continues to offer a reward of up to five million dollars for information leading to his arrest. So, at least in twenty fourteen, it was the position of the administration that you could even put out a reward for the arrest of somebody that would then go to the ICC and would have jurisdiction, So why does not that apply to the current consty.
So we have supported the work of the ICC in previous cases. I can't speak to this case because I don't know the fundamentals of it. I don't know the jurisdictional questions. Ultimately, the main way that the ICC is jurisdiction is if one of the two state parties to a case is a signatory to the Rome Statute and comes in under the ICC's jurisdiction. That is not the case. Here.
You have Israel, who course is not a signatory to the ICC, the Palesitnians who do not represent a state at this time time, and so in our view, cannot sign the Rome Statute and become come under the ic C sturt stiction. I can't speak to other cases. I'd have to look into it in more detail.
All right, Explain to that, well, what's happening here.
So he's basically saying, you need you need all of these different elements. You would need both parties Israel and Palestine to one of one or two of them have to be members of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Palestine is Israel has rejected it.
The most moral army in the world. Why would they ever need to be part of that. They're not. We're not part of it either, Ryan, which second most moral in the world.
And so you do have you do meet that because the Palestinians have signed the Rome Statute through the UN because they're like a it's called a.
Non members of state or state. Yeah, that's right.
But what Miller is saying, well, that doesn't count, like you have to be a member state in order for your application, in order for your signature on the Rome Statute count. Now nobody, nobody else in the world agrees with that. The ICC certainly doesn't with that. They believe they have jurisdiction here. So what that is essentially saying to the Israelis is that there can be no accountability through the ICC as long as you don't sign the Rome Statute and as long as you prevent the Palestinians
from gaining statehood. The war that they are currently conducting, which the ICJ says is a plausible genocide, in which the ICC is saying includes war crimes and crimes against humanity, is aimed, according to ntyahu At, preventing Palestine from becoming a state, in other words, from preventing Palestine from having access to the venues through which they would be prosecuted
for keeping them from getting statehood. So it's this kind of sick circular reasoning where as long as they can keep their boot on the neck of the Palestinians and keep them from having member state status through the UN, then the United States is going to say, well, those can't be war crimes.
Yeah, because it's not a state.
Even though you're like, wait a minute, these these militia leaders and so their argument there would be okay, Well, Uganda and Congo signed the ICC, so therefore it's okay.
But I thought your strongest point was just, hey, you celebrated in the past when he's non ICC or whenever it's a nastuate actor, So what's the difference.
And he's like, he's like, we have of course you've supported the past word the past Africans, Yes, but the real one is Russia, because again, Russia is a non member party state we all recognize, though the US government says at that time, there's no way the Russian courts are going to hold Putin exactly accountable, So we're going to have to go outside of that.
If we believe in this hole. Now by the way, as you said, I don't believe this. I think this whole sysem is fake and that it is all about power and it always has been, even going back to Nuremberg, which you know, there are lot of people who didn't get to go to Nurmberg because they started working on the NASA program.
Right, And his whole point falls apart when you go back to you Ukraine, because Ukraine is not a yeah exactly either. I'll say, well, Ukraine said it was okay if we prosecuted Okay, what are you talking about? And Ukraine had said like that they would allow some prosecutions around the Maydan. So like they're like, so that counts that that bring that brings them in. It's like, but okay, Israel also said we will work with the i c
C here, so boom. According to that rationale, they would then have jurisdiction.
Point.
Yeah, Ukraine's just like, hey, don't go over to the a's off, you know, just forget about that one.
Yeah, we don't. We don't need to open up old wounds all rights.
Yeah, they did a Ukraine did an independent investigation into whether or not Maydan was a false flag. Uh huh that perpetrated by the far right in the US and they never released that report.
Oh really interesting, All right, Seinfeld, let's do this quickly. This is a funny moment, depending on how you look at it. There was a moment here where Jerry Seinfeld, whose wife recently has been found to be donating to some of those Israel counter protesters you may remember, who beat up some of those protesters at the Palestinian encampment over at U c l A. And more recently, Seinfeld
himself has become much more outspoken about pro Israel issues. Well, he was interrupted by a protester at his show and it led to some serious chaos.
So let's go ahead and take a listen.
I recommend if you're just listening, I would actually watch this happen because the video really hits it all home.
Let's take a listen.
Jetta side supporter, you're a genocide supporter, honey, time.
He let go of him, Let go of him over there.
You're ruined for everybody else, No good, getiside supporter.
You're gonna break his neck, all right.
So we could see their prote audience members attacking the protest.
So they said he's going to break his leck.
Seinfeld at one point, what did he say, Griffin, something along the lines of, you, I love it when the jew haters always I love the jew hater. Yeah, I love when the Jewish haters spiced up the show.
And then he finished by kind of mockingly saying like, yeah, SA saved the children. I'm going to finish the show and say, right, save the children of Gaza. Okay, So that's what has happened. I find this amusing. I just did a whole monologue that's part of the words when we want to talk about this where Seinfeld has been convinced now but woke ism is what is destroying comedy, And I'm like, yeah, I think he would have had a point, you know, maybe ten years ago, but at
this point. Actually, and I did my monologue comparing Seinfeld's comments, immediately followed by the Tom Brady roast and the you know, Shane gillis hosting.
SNL after their fine.
In fact, I opened up my Netflix app like two days ago, and Shane has a new comedy series which has come on Netflix, and there he's like the star of the show from what I understand. So anyway, I guess I'm looking at this and I'm like, yeah, man, I don't really see that anymore. I think you had a point at one point. But it seems interesting that you're starting to say these things at the exact moment about what's going down in Israel where it appears to
be that you care a whole lot about what's happening. Right, so insane ten years ago when Luis c k and all these other people are getting canceled, But you know, when your wife's given money to a bunch of people were beating people up in UCLA.
Now now the woke left is out of control. Yeah, that is an interesting point, and I might be in them. I'm probably in the minority on this on the left when it comes to this opinion. But if I would say, leave Jerry steinfeldt alone, interesting, So what do you mean by that? I mean, by the way I agree with you bout Seinfeld is clearly an outspoken supporter of Israel. His wife has donated to do these counter protests, so he has like actively gotten himself involved in this conflict.
But I think the average American who's watching it doesn't know those details. And it's and it's and it's just going to say, like, why are people yelling at Jerry sivil just because he's Jewish? And it will if you know the details, you're like, no, no, it's not anti submity. They have these particular grievances that are not related to him being Jewish, but for the average person, they don't know about that, and so it's going to feed into
that criticism certainly. I mean, you can't buckle to all of all of the misperceptions out there, but sometimes you can like make some tactical adjustment.
I don't disagree with you at all, especially because Jerry is not a person in actually any power, right, it's a serious influence on policy.
It's just Jerry Seinfeld, now, you.
Know, like when he's talking about comedy, then sure I'll do them a logue being like, yeah, I think he's totally wrong, you know, in X, Y and Z. But I'm not, like, I have no under illusion that Jerry Seinfeld is like affecting US policy.
Now, if you're a U.
S Secretary of State, I have no sympathy for you, right, and people are going to interrupt you.
The only the only amendment that would be that his wife is affecting things by donating to those counter protesters, but then protest his wife.
Yeah, okay, all right, well it's not like she's making policy statements.
My colleague, my colleague saying over the interscept I said that let's all give a thanks to Larry David for that waying and publicly we must we must keep curb your enthusiasm from being politicized. It's the one thing we can all agree on.
That's true.
Unfortunately, though, Larry himself became a very anti Trump boomer for a while.
Apparently he was caused in a funny way, not really, he.
Was called he refused to speak to Alan Derschwitz at the chill Mark Library on Martha's Vineyard, which was it just blew up.
He didn't refuse to speak to me. He came up to him in a restaurant. That also happened.
It was tiring Martha's Vineyard apart. We just we cannot have we cannot have this on Martha's Vineyard. It's supposed to be a place for Kamala Harris and for you know, former Trump administration officials to mix the cocktail party. That's if we can't have that, that's what America is all about for the ultra rich to seclude themselves away to rule the world. Okay, what lack David does in Martha's vineyard, I forgive him, yeah, but I forgive him. You know,
he's given so much to America. Ryan, you have a booked a great guest for us, bilaal Hammoud, let's get to it.
On Friday, a group of Arab Americans met with Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln. One of those Arab Americans who met with him was bilal Hamood, who is the executive director of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.
He joined us. Now, Bela, also, can you hold.
Up for us what you were just showing us right before we started this interview.
We got ourselves a classic breaking points mug are.
There you go, made in the USA Union. So thank you, We appreciate you, Belave.
You love to see it.
Okay, So Belall, on Friday you had this meeting for how long was it scheduled for?
How did the meeting come about? And how long did it end up going.
A good question. Just to clarify, I represent the American Air Chamber of Commerce, not the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The meeting was scheduled with Lincoln's office for forty five minutes. We ended up going nearly two hours, discussing the various issues and talking points that had been brought up, and going well beyond that, pushing on the administration for action, action that I don't think we saw in any capacity.
What were the debates internally about whether or not to even take the meeting and did some refuse to show up. How many people were in this two hour meeting with Blncoln Friday, It.
Was about six individuals from both sides, the administration and the of American community. There's always a discussion about whether there's value in coming to the table, and it's one that we discussed quite a bit just understand if this was the right discussion to have. And I think in past there have been campaigns, staff and officials that have come trying to discuss this from an electoral stance, and as many have said before, it's not a time for
electoral politics. But this was a discussion with the Secretary of State leading us to believe there may be some room for action and some opportunity to discuss the issue and actually see a ceasefire at least some semblance of a plan, give us some insight that there's a direction this administration is heading in which we can feel confident that something is being put together. And that was not
the case. That there wasn't even an indication that it's a priority for there to be in a mediate solution.
So your takeaway was that there was not only you know that they were listening to for electoral purposes, but that on a policy level, that nothing was going to change.
Following that meeting. Correct, I didn't see any indication that there was a plan in place, and that was one of the questions I posed. Just at the end of that discussion. I stated that I'm here representing Michigan, representing my community, representing decades of years of partnership with this administration. The go well beyond me, and not just tens of thousands of folks who worked dilligently to get this administration I liked it in twenty twenty, but hundreds of thousands
that voted. And this is not just Arab and Muslim Americans.
This is its allies, its partners, its friends, the communities from all ethnic backgrounds, communities and cultures and religions that it is spent decades building authentic relationships with and so I tried to ensure that coming from Michigan and being the only one at that table representing an organization from Michigan, that there was a takeaway that there was something that made this meeting worth it, that led us to believe that this was something that respected those years of partnerships.
And that wasn't the case. We didn't see that any of that was honored and valued and taken to a point where we would see a ceasefire or see any indication that the plan was being put together. In fact, it seemed like instead of that, there was just obstacles being put in the way.
Wow.
So one of the live issues has been the US posture toward Palestinian statehood at at the UN, which the US urged everybody to vote against. And we were talking earlier. You told me that you brought that up with him. What was how did you bring that up? And what was what was his response there? How did he explain the US rationale?
Yeah?
Right?
And I wrote from our discussion, well, I told you that the way that the UN issue was brought up was centered around what is going to be the way that US resolves this restores its reputation of being a peacemaker, right, because that is at the core of I think what they're thinking is next steps. They don't care about reaching the solution, or at least we're not seeing indications that
there is a goal for that. But I asked, how do you plan on restoring that dynamic and being able to come out on as that peacemaker once again and showcasing that those the relationships weren't just burned. And I didn't get too much of an indication that there was an acknowledgment that the relationships needed to be restored, but nothing beyond that. And so I made it very clear that the US obviously has the keys for an immediate cea spire and immediate resolution, and then some for what
we need to see. And so when the topic of statehood got brought up, we had asked for both a free and independent Palestine, a statehood and a seat at the UN Security Council table, and the response was disappointing because it made the comparison to well, first and foremost, that a vote for a Palestinian statehood from the US would lead to the defunding of the from the US.
Being its primary funder. But then the example brought up was that it would be within the right of the UN to then cut programs like the World Food Program. And so the fact that the comparison was made that the world would have to go hungry just like the Gozzens are, and the fact that it's US policy to starve the world if Palestinians have a free state, regardless of if that's the law or not, is indicative of something severely wrong.
Yeah.
Yeah, So Anthony Blinken said, we have to oppose Palestinian statehood or else the World Food Program budget will be cut and people will starve around the world. Like that's the Secretary of State's assessment that he's making to you guys.
In this meeting.
The example was given that if the UN had to cut its funding, it would have to cut programs like the World Food Program, and that was the example shared, followed by the explanation that then the world would have to starve as the Gozens are. And so that is not the comparison you make to make an argue and for why Oustingens should not have a free state.
Wow, Bill out.
My question here is about some reach out from the Trump campaign. I saw news just yesterday that Donald Trump's campaign affiliate Richard Grenell is holding leaders with Arab Americans in Michigan actually sometime this week. I'm curious if you think that, you know, so called disaffected Michigan Arab voters and or leaders are going to entertain this reach out from the Trump campaign.
What do you make of it?
I think the onus is not on the voters, It's on the candidate to earn the vote, and at this point neither have.
All Right, Yeah, have you heard among other chairmier of commerce types of whether or not they're going to take Grenelle up on this?
No, I can't speak to it. I'm not familiar with what the discussion currently is and if the conversation will be had. But from a inside looking out perspective, having the discussion is always beneficial if it can lead to
some action. But if this is going to center around electoral politics and not giving the community some guarantees and some confidence this administration or otherwise that there's going to be some action and steps taken forward, I don't see much manifestation of productive meetings at this point.
I also wanted to just ask your overall impression of the meeting with the Secretary of State and how it compared to your expectations going in, and what was the what was the overall what was it the overall tone and vibe that you think the Secretary of State was trying to send.
I think the tone going in and the thought process was that this could be an opportunity for the administration to have a reason to take action, right say that you've met with this group, you've met with the community, and now you need to take action. We were hoping some level of justification. Now there's no naive nature to the folks that were at that table. We understood what we were getting ourselves into, but there was some hope,
at least some that something would come from it. The tone in the meeting ended up centering more around addressing those specific policy points and concerns like respecting the territorial boundaries of Lebanon, preventing this from becoming more regional and from things like two thousand and six repeating itself and
impacting the nation because we're getting there. And then that was at a point that I had shared a story from my past where me and my family were in Lebanon at that point and had to be evacuated via the military camps because the airport had been blown up, and we are getting to that point, that level of escalation.
So the asks were being made and the responses didn't still much confidence that there was anything besides a logical response given, but not a pathetic, not based in humanity, and not one that would carry if you were to look at it with a microscope. Just one that is the traditional talking points that are given. And so the tone didn't feel productive. As much as there were conversations had and the table did have a back and forth dialogue, there wasn't any promises given or any commitments made.
If you knew now what you knew back then when you were asked to meet, would you still have met? Like was it was it worth it? Was it useful?
It was disappointing, it was not worth it, And going forward discussions that need to be had, there are no more discussions to be had. I think at this point it's clear what needs to be done. The administration knows it had known, but now especially the only way forward is through action, and so at this point that's the only thing we can see as a next step towards any sort of relationship with the administration or others going forward.
And again, I think this isn't just the air of American community and Muslim community, but far beyond that, the allies and folks and relationships that have been built over those decades that feel the same. Right, It's not just this community in Michigan, it's across the US, across the globe, and so that sentiment I believe is shared globally.
All Right, Well, we appreciate you your time, Bill, I'll appreciate the mug as well.
Send you a new one. We'll check in. Yeah, we'll send you a new one.
Appreciate you.
No, thanks for having me all We'll see absolutely.
All right.
So, also kind of related to this entire question, we wanted to do a quick follow up to the reporting that we did over the last couple of weeks around the third Congressional district race that's going on today in Portland, Oregon. It pits Maxine Dexter, a doctor who has the support of a lot of APACT owners, against Sushila Jayapaul, who is Primila Giapaul's an older sister.
Wo.
So we've reported over the last couple of weeks that the dark money flowing into this race, to the tune of millions of dollars, had links to APAC and APEX network. We were able to firmly demonstrate that enormous amount of money flowing into her campaign was coming directly from APACK donors.
They structured these dark money superpacks such that they wouldn't have to release their donors until May twentieth, which was yesterday, the day before the election, which is not enough time for any campaign to do anything with, especially when you have a state like Oregon, which is mail balloting, so everybody's pretty much already voted by the time it has happened. However,
it's still interesting to look at the disclosures. One of the dark money super PACs spending all sending millions against Sushila Jayapaul was called Voters for Responsive Government. It was created on April first, which is the day after it would have been required to disclosed donors earlier, so that it didn't have to disclose until Yester say so, let's put up their FEC filing here so that we can
all figure out. Okay, there's not enough time yet to do much with this information, but let's look at the filing. Well wait a minute, what is that If you're listening to this on the podcast, this organization filed a multi page report with nothing but a bunch of goose eggs on it, just zeros in every single form, and so they have met the letter of the law that in this sense that they have filed their paperwork with the FEC,
but they have disclosed literally zero. So what is going to happen here is that at some point the FEC will probably get around to fining them for not filing accurate information. They will later file an amendment and then they will pay whatever fine the FEC declarre, you know, deems that is necessary. That could be weeks, it could be months, could be years.
For all we for all we know, we just have no idea how much their money.
Basically just you just we know the amount of money we just won't know, like who wow. Now the other dark money super pac three fourteen three fourteen action Fund disclosed some but not all of its donors because the amount of money that they spent does not equal the
amount that they disclosed for having raised in April. So clearly they were able to push some of it into May, which means they'll have to disclose it like June twentieth, but we do know one of the donors is Robert Granniery, who is a major A Pack donor, gave through hundreds of thousands of dollars to the A Pack super Pack
in October. Also, interestingly, according to this finally, he gave about five hundred thousand dollars to Women Vote, which is the Emily's List pack, and that money appears to have been earmarked against Dave min which is this other A Pack race that they were running in California. And so the other the five hundred thousand dollars donor was Michael Blueberg we just learned about yesterday.
We're gonna learn much.
More on June twentieth, when three fourteen Action has to disclose its may donors. By then the primary will be well over because it is today, so you can watch the Oregon primary results come in tonight. It's basically a three way race between two candidates who wanted a PAC support Eddie Morrahilson Maxine Dexter. Maxine Dexter won it against Sushila Giapaul. The millions in spending against Giapaul and four
Dexter is very likely to have tipped this race. However, because of the reporting that we did, the local press did pick up on.
The fact that this was a PAC money.
It's a low turnout, it's an educated and it's an edge caated electorate that is following the news pretty closely. So they they may they may rebel against the idea that APAC can come in.
We'll find out. You get to cover it tomorrow on counterpoints. We will definitely cover it tomorrow on counterpoints.
All right, We will have they will have a great counterpoints show for everybody tomorrow. We will have a great show for everybody on Thursday, and we will see you all later