How much do you know about the scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached? Monica Lewinsky is under the microscope. Bill Clinton is under siege and the White House is trying to contain the damage. Maybe you know the basics. that Clinton's presidency came to a screeching halt amid a storm of accusations involving sex, power, and partisan warfare. If it turns out to be true, it could be the end of Clinton's presidency. Congress is rushing to overthrow the commander-in-chief.
What determines who we believe and whose side we take in a political fight? Trip secretly tape Monica Lewinsky. Go down to Radio Shack and buy a tape recorder and plug it into your phone. What does it mean to abuse one's power? I did not. have sexual relations with that woman. It is absolutely staggering that the fate of the most powerful man on the planet is in the hands of a completely unknown 23-year-old intern. Subscribe to Slow Burn and Apple Podcasts.
In late August 1992, Randy Weaver and his family were refusing to come down from the remote Idaho mountaintop where they lived. Weaver, a fugitive on a federal firearms charge, has been holed up in a cabin near Naples for more than a year. The government thought Randy Weaver was a dangerous, possibly violent extremist. Randy and his wife Vicki thought the government was an agent of Satan on Earth. When it was all over, three people were dead.
and the government had spent millions of dollars to catch one man. We'll find out why the siege at Ruby Ridge unfolded the way it did, and think about some of the questions it raises. What should we do about white supremacists? Why has the story of Ruby Ridge become an enduring myth for the far right? And whose fault was it anyway? Subscribe to Standoff, What Happened at Ruby Ridge, in Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.
Hey, everyone, before we get into it, just a heads up, we recorded this show yesterday, but this story is still moving. It's possible things shifted overnight. All right, here's the show. Since last week, Israel has been raining bombs down on Iran. And yesterday, the wreckage became visible up close and live. An anchor for state television was in studio, on air, when suddenly there was an explosion.
This anchor hustles off screen as a cloud of dust floats into frame, debris fluttering like confetti. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was looking to send a message of sheer strength, The brazen targeting of not just military assets, but Iran's communications infrastructure. Well, it says something. I mean, the Israeli military says it's achieved full aerial superiority over Tehran skies.
It has. I mean, you have Israeli jets flying in daylight right now over Tehran, essentially uncontested, and they've been doing that for the past 24 hours or so. Greg Karlstrom is The Economist's Middle East correspondent. He says while Israel calls what's happening right now Operation Rising Lion, from the outside, it just seems like war. Hundreds are reportedly killed in Iran.
There are casualties, too, in Israel, where Iranian missiles are setting apartment buildings ablaze. That said, Israel's been picking off Iran's missile depots, one by one. The number of missiles that Iran has been able to fire seems to be dwindling each night. It was above 100 on Friday. It's down to somewhere in the 60s on Sunday night. Some of that might be because Iran is trying to conserve.
ammunition, but some of that might be because it doesn't have as many launchers with which to fire missiles. So it feels like Iran's efforts may be flagging. And I think the problem here for Iran is that... Iran only has a finite number of ballistic missiles that went into this war with probably about 2,000 that have the range to hit Israel. So if it keeps up this tempo of firing a few dozen every night after a couple of weeks...
it starts to run low. If you listen to Prime Minister Netanyahu, he'll say he started this war for a very clear reason. He'll say he's got intelligence showing Iran was months, even weeks away, from producing a nuclear weapon. But Greg says Netanyahu's reasoning goes deeper than that. After all. This is the man who just days after Hamas' October 7th attack declared he was about to change the Middle East. Nearly two years later, he's certainly trying.
I think the unstated goal here is regime change, is to topple the Islamic Republic and replace it with something else. And Netanyahu is increasingly clear that that's... what he wants. You listen to some of the things that he's said in recent days, and he alludes very strongly to wanting to overthrow the Iranian government. Well, Israel has always seen Iran as the, quote unquote, head of the snake.
like the root of their trouble with so many neighbors, right? They have. I mean, Netanyahu has wanted to do this for decades now. He's dreamed about it and it moved. higher up the agenda in November after Donald Trump was elected because he thought suddenly he had a sympathetic president in Washington who might be willing to go along with it.
And the war against Hezbollah last year in Lebanon also removed one of the constraints on Israel doing this because it didn't have to worry so much about retaliation from Hezbollah if it went to war with Iran. You could say in a lot of ways, the stars had aligned for Netanyahu and something that he had been dreaming about for many, many years suddenly started to look plausible in the past few months.
It's so funny. That's funny language to me. He dreamed about this. Like, to dream about war is, like, bizarre to me. He, you know, he has this sort of Churchillian view of himself where, in his mind... Iran is the rising Nazi threat and everybody else is Neville Chamberlain. And, you know, only I, Benjamin Netanyahu, see things clearly and I'm willing to stand up to the Iranians. That is...
how he sees himself in these sort of world historical terms. Today on the show, Israel's war with Iran may have been inevitable, but how it ends... No one knows. I'm Mary Harris. You're listening to What Next. Stick around. Hello, Slate listeners. I'm Felix Salmon. I host Slate Money, the podcast about all things business and finance. We talked about the taco trade recently.
That was the episode called Let's Taco About It. It stands, of course, for Trump always chickens out. And my co-host Elizabeth Spires explained why she thinks this acronym bothers him so much. You know, he's being called a coward and he personally can't tolerate that because he's certainly gotten plenty of criticism, even during the first term, that he was inconsistent in terms of what he would promise, what he would deliver and how many times he would reverse himself. This isn't new.
In another segment we talked about a recent survey finding that parents are reading less to their kids, which did not go down very well with Emily Peck. And it quotes some parents saying things like, it's so boring. They always want to read the same books. They interrupt. It's like, yeah, welcome to reading books to kids. Join me, Elizabeth, and Emily every week on Slate Money wherever you get your podcasts.
During any given June, the Supreme Court issues decisions at a head-spinning rate. That's why we call this month Opinionpalooza here at Slate. This year, a pileup of constitutional crises on the so-called shadow docket means... We're sharing new episodes every Saturday with deep analysis. And we're popping up with emergency episodes whenever the biggest decisions come down. Find us by searching AMICUS wherever you listen to podcasts.
Can we talk a little more deeply about how we got here? Like over the last few weeks, an Israeli attack on Iran was beginning to feel inevitable. What were the signs you saw in advance? Well, you know, I'll say I think none of us saw that it was going to happen on Friday. I think we all assessed that it was going to happen at some point this summer, but the specific circumstances.
were a surprise. I mean, going back to the beginning of the year, really, since Trump took office, the Assad regime fell in Syria, Hezbollah was weakened in Lebanon. I think it was clear that barring a diplomatic agreement between the U.S. and Iran, that Israel was going to do this. That's so interesting. It sounds like you're saying Netanyahu was like clearing the chessboard.
Right, exactly. You look at everything that's happened since October 7th, the war against Hezbollah, then the fall of the Assad regime, which took everyone by surprise, but that helped as well. The election of Donald Trump, you know, suddenly the path was clear. for this. It seemed back in April like Trump had preempted this by starting negotiations with Iran to try to
hash out a nuclear deal to replace the one that he abandoned in 2018. And so that seemed like it temporarily put an Israeli strike on hold. Those talks didn't go very well. They stalled. They weren't a priority for the administration, I think, either. There were only five rounds of talks. with Iran in two months. So by the end of May, beginning of June, it started to look like Netanyahu was getting antsy. He thought these talks weren't going anywhere and he was looking for an opportunity.
to carry out this strike. But again, I think even a day before it happened, even Wednesday, Thursday of last week, the sense was that... At least there was one more round of talks scheduled for Sunday. At least those talks would happen before Israel struck. But the fact that it acted before that round of talks caught everyone by surprise. Yeah. A month ago, when Trump...
came to the Middle East when he did his tour through the Gulf, and he talked about wanting the region to focus on commerce, not conflict, and move past the wars. He said, this region has been at war for a thousand years, and we need to move past that.
That didn't sound like a very hawkish Donald Trump who was going to, a month later, turn around and give the Israeli prime minister a green light to go to war in Iran. Well, did he turn around and give a green light? I mean, I think that's a little bit... of an open question, right? Because the nuclear talks were going on and there was a sense from Donald Trump like, oh, well, Netanyahu's going to do what he has to do. But it wasn't clear to me that the United States was like okaying things.
I mean, it's an open question. And like with so many things with Trump, it's very hard to tell what is fact and what is spin. But I think, I mean, my sense of it from conversations that I've had is that... Trump did give the Israelis a green light. He did so, I think, pretty late in the game. I think Trump started these talks with Iran hoping to make a deal.
I think he started to despair about these talks over the past couple of weeks because they really weren't going anywhere. I think Netanyahu saw an opportunity there and had a series of phone calls with Trump where, you know, he wore him down. We know that Trump eventually, if you...
talk to him enough. If you get him on the phone enough, he listens to the last person he spoke to. I think Netanyahu wore him down and convinced him that not only would this be a good idea, but it might actually help you with your diplomacy. If you let us bomb the Iranians, that might... help bring them back to the table. And Trump was sold on this idea. You know, one thing I've heard less discussion of here in the U.S. is the fact that these strikes came at the end of a week.
that was pretty perilous for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel domestically. Like he was facing a whole bunch of political upheaval and the possible loss of his governing coalition, right? Does that play in at all to the timing in your mind? I think everything that the Israeli prime minister does right now, politics play into it. I mean, his his overarching concern in the world is his.
political survival. And you're right, he faced the no confidence motion the day before these strikes started, initiated by members of his own coalition, the ultra-Orthodox parties in his coalition. In the end, they backed down and they didn't vote in favor of the motion. But it seemed for a moment like his political position was really imperiled. And there were reports in Israel that...
Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, met with these ultra-Orthodox parties on the eve of the vote and told them, listen, you can't vote for this now. Big things are happening with Iran. Iran is still a threat. You don't want to bring down the government and leave Israel without leadership at a time like this. And maybe he knew something in advance. Gosh, talking to you, I really get the sense of how...
braided together the United States and Israel and the Iran nuclear deal potential are to this conflict. Like, you can't separate them out. No, I mean, if... If Trump had never left the deal back in 2018, Iran probably would not have made the strides in its nuclear program that it has over the past few years. And this moment of crisis might not have arrived.
Joe Biden had been able to negotiate a new nuclear deal in his presidency, which he promised to do and failed to do. Again, we might not be here. You know, I'm sort of curious, this implicit thing. that is happening here is, and sometimes explicit because Donald Trump has said this on Truth Social, is the idea that
If somehow Iran came to the table on a new nuclear deal, maybe the strikes from Israel would stop. But is it all working like that? Like, do you think if Iran said, hold it, hold it, let's go back to the table. Do you think the United States has that much pull with Benjamin Netanyahu that would be able to say like, okay, buddy, like pull back a bit. We're going to try to do this our way.
If Trump really wanted to, he certainly has that pull. Israel is relying on the US to defend against missile attacks, to share intelligence, to resupply its army. It cannot fight this war without American help. So that gives America a huge amount of leverage. But will Trump do that right now? I don't think he will. I think the issue right now is that...
The Iranians just aren't willing to make major concessions yet in their nuclear program. They're happy to sit down and talk about a mutual ceasefire where both they and Israel will stop shooting at each other. they might be willing to go back to the sorts of nuclear talks that we saw before this war started. But that's not what the US wants. That's not what Israel wants. They want Iran to make really big concessions around
It's uranium enrichment capability, for example. They want Iran to forswear enriching uranium at home. Iran has refused to do that for a decade or more. But that is what Israel and the US are demanding right now. And Iran, maybe at some point in a couple of weeks, if this war keeps going on, if the damage in Iran accumulates and things get really bad for the regime.
Maybe at that point they will be willing to capitulate and make these sorts of concessions, but I don't think we're there yet. Real echoes of Gaza and what you're saying there, just sides that don't want to come to an agreement with each other. continuing to fight and just drag it out because the negotiation isn't appealing to them for whatever reason.
And I'm starting to hear that comparison speaking to analysts and to other people in Israel over the past couple of days. The tactical playbook that Israel is using here is reminiscent of what it did in Lebanon. last year, the decapitation of the senior leadership, these very targeted strikes at missile sites and other things. The way they're fighting this war looks like the war they fought in Lebanon.
The strategic side of it, what are you actually trying to achieve? How do you see this war ending? That looks a lot more like Gaza. And the argument that some Israeli analysts are starting to make is that... Israel doesn't have a way to end this war by itself. Israel is banking on America getting involved somehow, whether it's militarily or diplomatically. America is going to have to find a way to bring this war to an end. Israel won't be able to do it.
So what would American involvement look like? More on that after a quick break. Hey, it's Anna Sale, host of Death, Sex, and Money. I talk to a lot of people on my show about sensitive parts of their intimate lives. And one thing I hope I would never do is share someone's personal story if they didn't want me to. That's the topic of a new episode in our feed with writer A.J. Delario. who in 2008 was the editor of the sports site Deadspin.
And one of the stories he wrote was about how Brett Favre, the world-famous NFL quarterback, sent a Jet sideline reporter named Jen Sturger messages and allegedly a lewd photo to proposition her. Jen told AJ about that, but she asked him not to do a story. I remember getting off that call and being like, Jen, I think you just overshared. And I was like, no, it's fine.
AJ did the story, it went viral, and is still what Jen is most known for online. In this episode, Jen and AJ talk together about that betrayal, the years of silence that followed, and the unexpected way they reconnected. And we both do some Googling, basically just like, is this the person that I had burned years ago? And it turned out that it was. And I said, well, I guess this dog will die. You can listen to this episode and all episodes of Death, Sex, and Money wherever you get podcasts.
How much do you know about the scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached? Monica Lewinsky is under the microscope. Bill Clinton is under siege and the White House is trying to contain the damage. Maybe you know the basics. that Clinton's presidency came to a screeching halt amid a storm of accusations involving sex, power, and partisan warfare. If it turns out to be true, it could be the end of Clinton's presidency. Congress is rushing to overthrow the commander-in-chief.
What determines who we believe and whose side we take in a political fight? Trip secretly tape Monica Lewinsky. Go down to Radio Shack and buy a tape recorder and plug it into your phone. What does it mean to abuse one's power? I did not. have sexual relations with that woman. It is absolutely staggering that the fate of the most powerful man on the planet is in the hands of a completely unknown 23 year old intern. Subscribe to Slow Burn and Apple Podcasts.
In late August 1992, Randy Weaver and his family were refusing to come down from the remote Idaho mountaintop where they lived. Weaver, a fugitive on a federal firearms charge, has been holed up in a cabin near Naples for more than a year. The government thought Randy Weaver was a dangerous, possibly violent extremist. Randy and his wife Vicki thought the government was an agent of Satan on Earth. When it was all over, three people were dead.
and the government had spent millions of dollars to catch one man. We'll find out why the siege at Ruby Ridge unfolded the way it did, and think about some of the questions it raises. What should we do about white supremacists? Why has the story of Ruby Ridge become an enduring myth for the far right? And whose fault was it anyway? Subscribe to Standoff, What Happened at Ruby Ridge in Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.
Let's talk about American involvement in this war potentially because I think this is a big question for Americans watching this play out pretty far away. Will the U.S. get sucked into fighting in this war? And are we already sucked in in ways we can't avoid? I mean, you've laid out how diplomatically we're just incredibly enmeshed with everything that's happening in this war.
There are so many ways that America is involved, right? Diplomatically, defensively, intelligence sharing, all of these things. But I think you can set all of that to the side as long as America doesn't... get involved offensively in this war, as long as you don't have American jets or American bombers hitting targets in Iran. As long as America doesn't do that, America can still play a role diplomatically in trying to end this. I think the moment America joins the war offensively and...
starts carrying out strikes, all sorts of risks emerge. There's a risk that this becomes a much wider regional conflict. There's a risk that diplomacy between the US and Iran absolutely falls apart forever. And there's a risk that this war keeps getting bigger, that America gets sucked into a sort of regime change effort in Iran, not unlike Iraq 20 plus years ago. So you're saying...
The big thing the United States needs to do if it wants to avoid getting sucked in in this way is just don't send troops, don't send ships, maybe continue sending weapons because we've always done that. Like there's a... There's a history of that? Yeah, I mean, realistically, I don't think anyone in Washington is going to win the argument if they say, you know, America shouldn't provide defensive support or military supply for Israel.
That's just not realistic. But there is an argument going on in Washington right now about whether America should get involved in airstrikes, whether it should help Israel bomb Fordow, for example, which is this heavily fortified... uranium enrichment facility that is dug into the side of a mountain. It's too deep for Israeli jets to bomb it. And so you need much bigger bombs than only the American Air Force.
can drop. And there are some people in Washington right now saying, you know, America should get involved just for that, just to carry out these sorties to bomb Fordow and then doesn't have to do anything else. And I think that would be a catastrophic mistake, I think. Getting involved, even if it's billed as a limited campaign, a few sorties against one nuclear site, I think there's a huge risk that it morphs into something much, much bigger. How? What would that look like?
Well, I think a couple of ways. One is, how might Iran retaliate for that, right? Iran has options, aside from just firing missiles at Israel, it can attack U.S. military bases in the region, US embassies in the region. It can try to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, which is a vital conduit for oil.
It can attack Saudi oil facilities as it did back in 2019 and briefly knocked out 50% of Saudi oil production. It hasn't done any of these things over the past few days because it's very worried that if it does these things... America will enter the war, right? It makes sense. If you attack American targets or American allies, Donald Trump might decide to step in and defend them. But if America is already in the war, if it joins Israel in carrying out airstrikes on Iran,
then Iran won't have that caution anymore. And Iran can start doing these things. It can start regionalizing the war in the hope that that puts enough pressure on the US that eventually the US and Israel... have to back down. So I think there's a really big chance that if the United States starts carrying out strikes in Iran, this goes from being just an Israeli-Iranian war to being a broader Gulf War.
You've said the endgame for Israel here, the part that they're beginning to say out loud, is regime change in Iran. I'm curious, can we talk about that a little bit? Because... I don't think historically leaders have been good at this, organizing a regime change for another country. Do you see the... elements in place inside Iran itself, that like if things reached a point where regime change seemed possible, it could actually even be carried out? The short answer is no.
I don't. Three sort of longer points I'd make on that. One is you're absolutely right about the history. It is terrible everywhere in the region, whether you look at Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan. In 2001, Iran in the 1950s, when the CIA overthrew a popular Iranian prime minister. you can draw a direct line from that decision, which engendered a lot of anti-American sentiment in Iran, to the Islamic revolution in 1979 that brought the current regime to power.
anywhere the US has tried regime change in the Middle East, the results have been bad. So I think that's one very good reason not to do it because it's never gone well before. I think a second reason is you don't have an organized opposition. in Iran, right? You don't have people waiting in the wings to take power. This is a regime that has spent decades very effectively stamping out any organized opposition. So it's likely that if you...
topple the regime at this point, what you end up with is chaotic. And then I would also add, as much as the regime might be unpopular, it's repressive, it's excessively conservative. has mismanaged the economy for many, many years. It's deeply, deeply unpopular. But being bombed is also unpopular. And I don't think people in Iran are going to welcome...
Israeli airstrikes. I don't think they're going to mobilize against the regime because Israel is bombing them. I think quite the opposite. What you see... almost anywhere in the world when these sorts of things happen as a rally around the flag effect, where people get a bit more nationalistic. And, you know, at the very least, whatever disagreements they have with a regime, they're set aside temporarily. You must be talking to individual...
Iranians and Israelis at this moment in time, just trying to take the temperature of what people who are not, you know, leaders in those countries think of this conflict. I'm curious what they're telling you about how they feel about the decisions their leaders are making. Well, and I think in Iran, it's so hard to generalize because it is such a... divided society at this point. People who, before all of this, were very, very critical of the Islamic Republic, of the regime.
They're not happy about what's happening. Obviously, they're fearful. They're angry at Israel for strikes that have killed civilians. But at the same time, they're angry at their leaders as well. They feel like... The regime, you know, sort of you had one job, right, which was to protect the country from foreign attack. And you've told us for decades that.
The reason you're suffering, the reason that we don't have money to spend on infrastructure, on the economy, on other things, is because we're spending it on proxy militias and missiles and a nuclear program that will protect the country. And then in the moment when Iran needs that... It turns out all of it is by and large useless and the country is exposed to foreign attacks. So there's a lot of anger at the regime. For Israelis, I think this is broadly...
popular or broadly supported. I don't want to say popular, maybe that's the wrong word, but there's widespread support for a war against Iran. People think, Israelis think that Iran... is a threat, is their main threat. And so they are supportive of the government in doing this. But they're not supportive of the government in general, right? Netanyahu is a deeply unpopular prime minister. He's in charge of
a far right cabinet that most Israelis would like to get rid of. So people are concerned about where this is going, about whether the government actually has a long-term strategy. They feel like the government has sort of left the people, forsaken the people, and it's not offering them enough help as they deal with nightly barrages of missiles.
Just before we got on the line, there were reports that Iran has signaled it wants to restart nuclear negotiations with the U.S., given what's happening right now. mean that whatever's going on here is working in some way? Like there's like a 12-dimensional chess element? I think there's Iran being...
open to negotiations, and then there's Iran being open to concessions, and they're two different things. I think it's not surprising that Iran wants a way out of this, right? They want the bombing to stop. They want to find a way to end it. And one way they're trying to do that is by offering nuclear talks. But if they aren't willing to concede on enrichment, on coming clean about...
their past nuclear activities, some of which were very clearly weapons related. If they're not willing to concede on these things, which they haven't been willing to for many, many years, then I think the offer of diplomacy... it's not serious, right? Or it's not going to be taken seriously. You know, I read this one analysis that basically posited that.
For years, the accepted international approach to Iran was diplomacy. Like Obama negotiated the nuclear deal that was in effect. That was then tossed over by Trump. Netanyahu himself has always thought military action was the only way to address Iran. And it just feels like we're at this moment where we're about...
To kind of live in Israel's world, like they're getting their wish and we're just going to see whether that works or not. You know, when you talk to diplomats, whenever there's a conflict going on. anywhere in the world what do you hear from diplomats they say we need immediate de-escalation there is no military solution for this conflict they have been repeating these phrases for decades and at this point many of them i think believe
these phrases. And it turns out they're not necessarily true, right? Like sometimes there is a military solution in Syria. There was a military solution. I spent the 2010s covering Syria quite a bit. And diplomats would always say there's no military solution to this conflict with the Assad regime. Actually, there was. We saw what that looked like in December. It was rebels marching all the way to Damascus and Assad getting on a plane and running away. That's how the conflict ended.
And I think what we're seeing now is an Israeli government that has a similar view of, you know, sometimes there is a military solution. Sometimes the escalation is not or should not be the immediate goal. Whether that assessment is correct, we'll see. I think you can make a case that in Lebanon last year, there was a military solution. They battered Hezbollah enough.
that it was forced to capitulate. In Gaza, there hasn't been one. There's ultimately not going to be a military solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because these people have to find a way to live together and share the land that they're on. There isn't a military solution for that one, but they're testing now with Iran, whether there is a military solution that either gets it to give up its nuclear program or changes the regime entirely. It's an entirely different...
paradigm of how you approach this. Greg, I'm really grateful for your time. Thanks for coming on the show. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Greg Karlstrom is a Middle East correspondent at The Economist. And that's our show. What Next is produced by Paige Osborne, Alaina Schwartz, Rob Gunther, Anna Phillips, Ethan Oberman, and Madeline Ducharme.
Ben Richmond is the Senior Director of Podcast Operations here at Slate. And I'm Mary Harris. Go track me down on Blue Sky and say, hey, I'm Matt Mary Harris. Thanks for listening. Catch you back here next time. How much do you know about the scandal that got Bill Clinton impeached? Monica Lewinsky is under the microscope. Bill Clinton is under siege and the White House is trying to contain the damage. Maybe you know the basics.
that Clinton's presidency came to a screeching halt amid a storm of accusations involving sex, power, and partisan warfare. If it turns out to be true, it could be the end of Clinton's presidency. Congress! is rushing to overthrow the commander-in-chief. What determines who we believe and whose side we take in a political fight? Trip secretly tape Monica Lewinsky. Go down to Radio Shack and buy a tape recorder and plug it into your phone.
What does it mean to abuse one's power? I did not have sexual relations with that woman. It is absolutely staggering that the fate of the most powerful man on the planet is in the hands of a completely unknown 23 year old intern. Subscribe to Slow Burn and Apple podcasts. Randy Weaver and his family were refusing to come down from the remote Idaho mountaintop where they lived. Weaver, a fugitive on a federal firearms charge has been holed up in a cabin near Naples for more than a year.
The government thought Randy Weaver was a dangerous, possibly violent extremist. Randy and his wife Vicki thought the government was an agent of Satan on Earth. When it was all over, three people were dead. and the government had spent millions of dollars to catch one man. We'll find out why the siege at Ruby Ridge unfolded the way it did, and think about some of the questions it raises. What should we do about white supremacists?
Why has the story of Ruby Ridge become an enduring myth for the far right? And whose fault was it anyway? Subscribe to Standoff, What Happened at Ruby Ridge, in Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.