Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 10/19/23: Biden Pledges US To Any Israel-Hezbollah War, Jocko Sounds Off On Israel Tactics, New Evidence Gaza Hospital Explosion, Ukraine Israel Spending Package, Panel Debates Jim Jordan Next Speaker, RFK Jr Poll, Focus Group Savages Kamala

Episode Date: October 19, 2023

Krystal and Saagar discuss Biden secretly pledging the US military to any Israel-Hezbollah War, Military expert Jocko sounds off on Israel military bombing tactics on a recent podcast, Americans in Gaza are stranded, new evidence emerges in Gaza Hospital explosion, Biden wants 100 Billion for Israel-Ukraine package, Ryan and Emily join for a panel on Jim Jordan as Speaker and a new poll showing RFK Jr. Kneecapping Trump, and finally we look at another clip from our recent BP focus group asking if Kamala Harris would be a good president.To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Turn uncertainty into your next business opportunity with Export Development Canada's market insights, connections, and financial solutions. Discover the export impact today at edc.ca slash export. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall

of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John.

Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son even though it was promised to us he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son but i have dna proof that could get the money back hold up they could lose their family and millions of dollars yep

find out how it ends by listening to the okay story time podcast on the iheart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. It's Thursday. We have a great show for everyone today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed we do. We have all the latest of the fallout and details from President Biden's trip to Israel. We also have some additional information, which you can do with whatever you want about what happened with that hospital in Gaza. So we'll break that down for you. We also have new questions about how quickly humanitarian aid could move into Gaza after President Biden says that he was able to strike a deal with Netanyahu. So we'll give you those details. We also have some new details about how the White House is planning on dealing with trying to get Ukraine aid and Israel aid and border funding and Gaza humanitarian assistance through Congress. Of course, right now there is no Speaker of the House. So we are

actually going to bring in Emily and Kyle to talk about some domestic politics, both in terms of the Speaker's situation, a new poll, very interesting with regards to RFK and who he hurts more in terms of the general election, some details about the Cornel West campaign, and excited to bring you the last of our results from that focus group down in Atlanta with Democratic-based voters. Yes, that's right. And just thank you to everybody who's been taking advantage. We do have a focus group special going on right now. Everybody's been helping support our show. I know it's been a lot of work on all of our staff's behalf, not only the focus group, but keeping up with the day-to-day grind of Israel-Palestine.

So we appreciate everybody for your support and all that. It does certainly mean a lot. With that, let's go ahead and get to the, as you said, fallout really from the trip. President Biden going on the ground in Israel after the cancellation of his follow-on Arab summit in Jordan, having to turn around and come back. He made these comments while he was on the ground. Let's take a listen to what he said. I come to Israel with a single message.

You're not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. As long as the United States stands and we will stand forever, we'll not let you ever be alone. We've seen it described as Israel's 9-11. But for a nation the size of Israel, it was like 15 9-11s. But I caution this while you feel that rage, don't be consumed by it. After 9-11, we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes. I'm the first U.S. president to visit Israel in time of war. I've made wartime decisions.

I know the choices are never clear or easy for the leadership. There's always cost, but it requires being deliberate. It requires asking very hard questions. It requires clarity about the objectives and an honest assessment about whether the path you're on will achieve those objectives. So that was an interesting, that was basically a mashup that our team did there. The major takeaway from the U.S. was Israel does not stand alone. The United States is behind you. But a slight note of caution, describing it though as 15 times 9-11,

he's also like, also maybe exercise a little bit of restraint. He would certainly know, having participated in much of the war beating for up to Iraq. But this also really what those comments came is after critical meetings, not only with Benjamin Netanyahu, but with the Israeli war cabinet. And in that war cabinet, we are learning more details from Israeli media about what Biden promised them. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. Again, this is from the Times of Israel military reporter. He says, quote, the new Biden administration has privately been urging Israel not to launch a military campaign against Hezbollah. Washington is working to keep the current war from spreading beyond Gaza.

The U.S. recognizes Israel must respond to the increased targeting of its northern border high Hezbollah since the October 7 onslaught. But repeated attacks by the Lebanese terror group, in fact, that Israel failed to anticipate this assault, have led to the intensification of discussions about whether Israel must be the one to initiate a battle in order to maintain the upper hand. Let's go to the next one because this is where things get very, very complicated for America. Such talk has been a cause of concern for the U.S., which is privately warning Hezbollah and Iran not to open a war on the northern front. The U.S. has cautioned Israel to be careful in its military responses, but here is the critical tweet.

Biden officials have indicated to Israel in recent days, if Hezbollah initiates a war against Israel, the United States military will join the IDF in fighting the terror group. Let's go to the next one, please. The Pentagon has already dispatched a pair of aircraft carrier strike groups to the eastern Mediterranean near the Israeli border in order to deter Israeli and American adversaries in the region. Hezbollah has already fired dozens of anti-tank guided missiles, rockets, and mortars into Israeli positions. So this actually demonstrates, Crystal, that behind the scenes, President Biden did give a guarantee or at least rhetorical assurance that should Hezbollah officially enter this war, that the United States will back them. So originally, it was talked about deterrence, this carrier strike group.

But we have 2,000 United States Marines which are on their way already to the region. I mean, certainly, it's not like they've given us yet an indication of ground troops. But I mean, this is a significant military declaration on behalf of the president. I can't help but think nobody in Congress ever voted for this, just so we're all aware. It's not like the 2001 AUMF can cover Hezbollah, although I'm sure the White House lawyers will try, but it just, again, though, underscores that President Biden's visit was not just to try and, quote unquote, tamp down tensions or to give assurances. There were also military talks happening behind the scenes, which absolutely, and something we've tried to underscore here from the beginning, could embroil and bring the United States into this war at a very, very immediate direction.

Something Emily and I covered yesterday is this report in Axios suggesting that these discussions had taken place within the U.S. government context. And one of the things they laid out in Axios is the legal justification that they would use to get involved in these hostilities with Americans without having to go to the American people, let alone go through Congress. What they say is that under commonly held understandings of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president can enter U.S. forces into hostilities to protect Americans abroad. So they would use the fact that there are Americans in Israel who could

potentially be in danger to justify us getting involved. This expert added that if Biden were to make that decision, he'd need to notify Congress within 48 hours under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. That would give Biden 60 days to act before Congress's approval to use military force would be required. And we, of course, have seen many times presidents use authorities without going to Congress whatsoever and getting us involved in various conflagrations abroad. So this is a very, very real possibility, especially as we look, you know, in the wake of that horrific hospital carnage and you see the protests and anger erupting in cities across the

region. You see protests outside of U.S. embassies, Israeli embassies. You see Palestinians clashing with police in the West Bank. So the level of anger and outrage throughout the region is incredibly heightened, which puts a lot of pressure on Hezbollah to do more. So far, they've sort of calculated like we can do just enough to signal our solidarity without this going into a broader escalation. But there is a huge, huge risk here. And the fact that the U.S. is explicitly telling the Netanyahu government, if we go there, we will have your back. We will involve our military is incredibly consequential. Yeah, I'm not so sure, though, because, you know, I mean, they've killed five IDF soldiers, not nothing.

Imagine if somebody killed five U.S. soldierss soldiers you know that certainly would invite a response that's right they have used and i can't emphasize this enough hezbollah is not hamas it is not palestinian islamic jihad these people have serious weapons they brought it to the idf hardcore in 2006 they've only gotten better since then. They have fought sustained military campaigns throughout Syria. These are battle-hardened, trusted veterans. And they have the recruiting pipeline dream. If the United States were to get them involved, they would have certainly population that would back them if there were to seem like an external Western power, not just Israel, that were to do that. But the real danger in all this is that it goes up the escalation chain because Hezbollah, of course, is controlled,

or at least in some way, by Tehran. IRGC forces almost certainly would be involved. So then Iranians could be getting killed if America is. And then you just keep going up the ladder of then Tehran thinks they have to get involved. And already, you know, the very day of the attack, there were already calls for the United States to get involved. Now, imagine if a Hezbollah rocket or something like that falls on a U.S. base or it goes after and hits some American soldiers or they use, you know, I mean, look at the Houthis. They were able to fire things against U.S. ships. It's not like it is outside of the capability of these militias to inflict damage. And also, we focus now on what the US has told Israel. Let's also focus on what Israel has told the US about what the forthcoming operations in Gaza could look like, which almost certainly fall

on the backdrop of how the Arab world itself is going to respond, specifically Hezbollah. Let's put this up there on the screen. This was a report from Barack Ravid. He is a Israeli reporter here in Washington. He works for Axios. He actually put this out in Hebrew. So we were reading the rough translation by Google, but it's been confirmed. This is just the gist of it. He says, US President Joe Biden has said during his meeting with the members of the war cabinet that he understands the operation in Gaza will be protracted and will take time, according to a senior Israeli official who is aware of the war cabinet, that he understands the operation in Gaza will be protracted and will take time, according to a senior Israeli official who is aware of the contents of the meeting. Let's go to the next one, please. He says senior Israeli officials have stated that Prime Minister Netanyahu, the defense minister, and the minister have told Biden that the move to dismantle Hamas

and change the reality in Gaza will be lengthy. Quote, it could take years. Go to the next one, please. And says, Gallant has said that the operation in Gaza will be long and difficult. Israel will need American political support and security assistance for a long period of time. And then finally, he says, Biden told the members of the war cabinet it is important to respond to the humanitarian needs in Gaza in order to preserve the international support that currently exists for the IDF operation. So this is where I also think that we need to spend some time thinking about the geopolitics. The hospital situation, we're going to talk a little bit about what happened with the hospital, all of that, in terms of what exactly, who was responsible for the explosion.

Okay, in the immediate aftermath, though, regardless of how the Western media or anybody would have reported it, here's the truth. No matter what the New York Times or the immediate aftermath, though, regardless of how the Western media or anybody would have reported it, here's the truth. No matter what the New York Times or the BBC said, people in the Arab world were going to protest anyway, Crystal. They are primed to believe that this is something that Israel would do because they have done some of this stuff like that in the past. They are also primed not to believe the West and to disregard anything that we say. They also are getting instantaneous updates. I don't think people really comprehend how much of the Arab world is both on Twitter and gets all of their news on WhatsApp, which is forwarded to them by their friends. It only takes one tweet in order

to spark something like this. This was just 500 people, and I'm not diminishing the death, and also we don't even yet know if the 500 number is real, but this was a claim of 500 people for a single hospital. Now imagine a full-fledged, years-long, according to the Israelis, urban combat situation with tens of thousands of civilian deaths over the course of a year. The hospital is happening every day with combined armed tactics. Israelis did this. Palestinians did this. Nobody knows in the immediate aftermath. All we do know is videos coming out of carnage, blood and dead bodies all over the street. There is simply no way that the situation will be contained to Gaza. That was one incident, one alleged airstrike and or misfired rocket. This is actual combat

on the ground that will just go on forever. And, you know, as we all saw in Ukraine, I mean, the blood and the carnage of what modern urban combat looks like is horrific. Luckily, most people did not pay much attention to that, at least, you know, outside of the news for what was happening inside of Ukraine. It didn't, you know, it didn't have the same level of emotional resonance. But for the global Islamic population of 2 million, like this is a highly emotional issue and they are not going to forget in the very same way that many American Jews and Israelis will never forget the carnage as well. I'm not even morally equivocating it. I'm only saying that if you think that they will sit by and just watch this happen, you're out of your mind.

Yeah. And so we have to consider that. We have to consider what the future is going to look like if we want stability. Horrific carnage. I mean, you already have very high civilian death rate. You already have over 1,000 children in Gaza. And those images will be playing on a loop on social media and on regional televisions, you know, for apparently for years to come. Let's also think about from a U.S. perspective, we're already embroiled in this proxy war in Ukraine. Now we're going to be embroiled, even if we don't get directly involved, which is a big if

we're now going to be embroiled in a second multi-year indefinite proxy war. I want to go back to some of what Biden was saying there, you know, warning, very gently warning about the lessons of 9-11 and make sure you understand what your objectives are and make sure you understand that if you're if what you're doing right now is actually leading to the accomplishment of those objectives. And we're about to talk a little bit more of that in a moment. But it's already clear that those lessons have not been learned. I mean, it's already clear the Israeli government has admitted they have no plan for the day after. If they actually want to go in and root out Hamas, which is an absolutely worthy and legitimate goal, just bombing the hell out of the mostly civilian population is not going to accomplish that goal. It's certainly not going

to win you the trust of any locals to help you be able to decipher and figure out who is part of the Hamas terrorist organization, who is just an innocent civilian. So you can already see the lessons of 9-11 have not been learned here and are not being heeded. And no little like gentle warning from the American president who has already said, we're going to do whatever you need for years to come to whatever extent that you need. None of that is going to be listened to

whatsoever. And I just have to say on a side note, the like 9-11 math thing really irritates the hell out of me because I understand why they say they want to impress upon people like how devastating and how horrific this attack was, which I think anybody who is looking at what happened here can fully understand and acknowledge. But there's such a weird desire to make some sort of math equation to analogize it to 9-11. And it's like, can we just acknowledge that like these lives were lost and they were precious and that matters a lot without doing some sort of weird 9-11 math, which by the way, has never applied on weird 9-11 math, which, by the way, has never applied on the Palestinian side of like, well, this is an even smaller population. Look how many lives are there. Then this is like 70 9-11. It's just it's to me, something about it

really irritates me and sort of indicates that certain lives mean a lot more than other lives. Yeah. I mean, we were talking about this previously. The only reason why it's useful is just to emphasize that it's a small country, which means that somebody knows somebody who was impacted by the attack. I personally think you can just leave the weird math out of that because, you know, by that standard, it's like every car accident in Israel would be magnified higher. It's like, no, it's like, look, human life is equal. Yes, it is a catastrophe. We can intellectually understand that in a smaller country, it will hit harder than in a larger country, although I'm still not even entirely sure that that is true. More people will have a direct connection to it within that country.

Right, but I mean I could argue it the other way, which is that this is a country which has been at war since its foundation and has sustained and has baked into it the idea of military service. And so maybe they would emotionally, see, like, there's no point in trying to do all of these games. It's just like 1400 people were viciously and horrifically killed by Hamas terrorists. Leave it at that. And I actually think emotively, we can all empathize with that because we also went through it, something similar on 9-11. If you factor it out more, I mean, I think everybody knows somebody who served in Iraq or Afghanistan or knows somebody who did. And I think we can all just, you know, empathize. And having seen that person with a little bit of the light, you know, fade out of their eyes over time or they just changed a little bit after they came over from there. So let's just try and, you know, bring it back to relating to people on a human level.

And then we all process collectively the trauma that we also went through post 9-11, not just from the attack, but from the wars that we engaged in. I was listening to a podcast by Jocko Willink and Daryl Cooper. They do a podcast called Jocko, The Unraveling. And Daryl, in particular, he has a Twitter account called Martyr Made, and he has a podcast as well, which is fantastic. I highly recommend it. They have been sounding off with some of the most sane takes from analytical and strategic historical perspective that I've heard yet. And I actually wanted to play some of this audio where Jocko, who served as an officer in the Battle of Ramadi in Iraq, has extensive experience with urban combat, gave some advice on how he would handle the current situation in Gaza if

he was Israel. And it was so unlike anything that I've heard yet before. I want to play for everybody. Let's take a listen. That immediate military action that they took was really good. It was a good, solid military action that they took quickly. At this juncture you know i think it's going to be and i think i would like you said i already kind of said what i'd be doing i would be i would probably stop bombing gaza right now that you've got there's people in tunnels the enemies you're not killing you're not killing bad guys at this juncture with with airstrikes so what you're doing is just destroying you're destroying the city and you're giving hamas opportunities to win the information operations if i was emperor of israel right now we would be annihilating on the information operations.

We would be doing humanitarian missions. You showed me a video of the aftermath of some strikes on Hamas. It was just a wasteland. And the first thing I thought, whenever I see something like that, you as somebody who has combat experience as a soldier, when you see a landscape like that, knowing that there's tunnels throughout the area and everything, what are you thinking when you look at that? It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare. And that's why, again, going to the emperor position, I would not be super excited to roll in there and start hunting for Hamas with my troops. I'm going to take a lot of casualties.

I'm going to take a ton of casualties. I'm going to take a ton of... You want to start talking about clearing, what do they say, 300 miles of tunnels is what's down there? 300 miles of tunnels. 300 miles of tunnels. This to me turns into siege warfare. And I start doing siege warfare with this overarching idea of benevolence to take care of the civilian populace and show them that we will help. We are here. We want to figure out a peaceful solution to this. We're going to help you out and we're going to starve and crush Hamas. And oh, you don't want to get starved and crushed? Cool. Come to this location at this time. And I know it sucks, but that is how you actually get the other side to see your perspective a little bit as well.

The first thing that has to happen if you're going to win those hearts and minds though, right, is you have to destroy Hamas. Just like when you were in Ramadi, you could drill all the wells and do all the things you wanted. None of that matters if you don't kill the jihadists in that city. So the reason I thought that that was interesting, I'm curious for your perspective, Crystal, is that these guys are knowledgeable about counterinsurgency warfare. Jocko in particular has excessive combat experience, urban combat operations. And I have not heard a single commentator describe it that way. on terror, but also having really intellectually been fascinated by that conflict is understanding that this, what he describes exactly is what the United States tried to do at its best

whenever it was in Iraq in the post-surge period, which was understand that we have to both restore security, but you have to build a sustainable political calculus for the Iraqi population not to gravitate towards the jihadists, which would make us less safe and actually made their lives miserable. And what he specifically points to is the nightmare of what military operations like this would look like. But he also, you know, very, I think, correctly pointed out, he's like, look, I understand that it sucks. He actually even continues. He's like, I had to look my guys in the face and tell them why they had to risk their lives running humanitarian operations while we were in Iraq and the reason why. We had a broader strategic goal of winning over the population.

And yes, many of my men died on similar operations, and I still had to explain to them why this is part of a bigger picture. He's like, that's leadership. So I don't know. I wanted to play that because, you know, these are people who were battle-hardened in these exact type of conflicts and who intellectually had to grapple with the exact same problem of an embedded jihadist group inside of a mass urban environment, civilian populations. They basically had to deal with all of this. They also had to deal with more modern media. And they are very, very discordant with the current Israeli strategy. And they said multiple times, they're like, I think Israel is losing in terms of the information operation.

What they mean by that is like the way that the rest of the world- The perception of what's happening. The perception exactly of what's happening. So I'm curious what you thought about what he said. I mean, I think it's also important. I know a lot of people know who Jocko is, but this is not some like liberal lefty squish,

which is part of what gives him credibility here. And I think what for me it underscores is that the truth of the matter is Netanyahu and his government, these are no dummies. Really what the current program is about is vengeance. Because if your goal was actually we're going to root out Hamas, we're going to come to some sort of peaceful, more secure situation vis-a-vis the Palestinians. I mean, ultimately that should look like some sort of statehood, but even leaving that off of the table for now, just some sort of more peaceful coexistence, this is not what you would be doing. And let alone the fact that they acknowledge they have no plan for what it looks like going forward.

And so, you know, they are doing what is very easy. They are doing what is, you know, direct, like, emotional reaction to the horror that their population suffered. And, you know, emotionally, you can understand that human instinct, even as you recognize, first of all, you are inflicting even more carnage on civilians in Gaza. And second of all, it is completely discordant with your stated goal. But to do what Jocko is discussing here, I mean, you're going to lose a lot of IDF soldiers. You're going to lose, you know, you're going to take a lot of casualties. It's going to take a lot of time. It's going to take, you know, really acknowledging the humanity of Palestinians and really, you know, you're going to take a lot of casualties. It's going to take a lot of time. It's going to take, you know, really acknowledging the humanity of Palestinians and really, you know, trying to not only win the messaging, but in reality, try to improve their lives. And then hanging over this whole conversation about what we did right now and how well this worked out over 20 years. One of the things that I really learned from Daryl, who highlighted and really taught me from his podcast about the actual military capabilities of the IDF is that the last 20 years,

it's not a good story. 2006 was a nightmare against Lebanon. What the IDF did is they were taking significant ground casualties and they relied on what most modern militaries do is they retreated and they just let the Air Force try and do their work for them. But that was a story that played out again.

The last time that we had major ground combat operations was 2014, the major war in Gaza. Huge portion of the city was killed. Sorry, huge portion of the city was leveled. 2,500-something people were killed. We don't know yet how many of those people were Hamas. But exact same story. IDF rolled in. The Hamas

had learned a lot from 2006 Hezbollah. They tried to get as close to the Israelis as possible, which means that the IDF can't come in and provide ground support. And when you're engaged in a full blown, like it's almost like hand to hand combat where you're fighting like block by block and it's just weapons, you know, it's just guns against guns. well, that is a great equalizer for a lot of people, especially in an urban combat environment. It's the same thing. The IDF was taking pretty bad casualties. They pulled back. They relied more on ground operations and just absolutely bombed the crap out of them. But in all of those situations, what did we learn? It didn't actually eliminate Hamas, and it didn't necessarily even accomplish the military objective that they

wanted it to. So in this case, they are saying, we need to eliminate Hamas. That is very similar to the US mission in Iraq during the surge. They're like, we need to eliminate al-Qaeda in Iraq. And it sounds easy. We're like, okay, well, we killed Zarqawi years earlier. Why does this group even still exist? It turns out that the population has been suppressed by the Shia majority. And now there are these tribes which are allying with them. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy off tribal leaders, sending in our soldiers who all got killed, by the way, on behalf of trying to keep these people safe and restore security and all that. And as you point out, it still didn't, frankly, it didn't work because we didn't commit to the strategy for a

long enough period of time. And that probably wasn't even politically sustainable anyway. So what he said repeatedly is he's like, look, if they were serious about this, you've got to separate the population from the actual jihadists. The best way to do that is to convince the population that you believe in their humanity and you want the best for them. He even said, he's like, I would open the border right now and I'd be bringing these people in and be like, hey, come work over here. You can have a better life. We're going to pay you. Even in terms of humanitarian assistance, he was talking about, he's like, you need to have sector by sector. You need to secure it. You could set up checkpoints. And then within that, life needs to be normal. You can get everything that you want. And you need to draw as big of a contrast as

possible if you truly want to eliminate this group. And yes, it still would take years. But I think what nobody's prepared themselves for in that scenario is what we're talking about here is thousands of IDF soldiers that have been killed. Thousands. And Israel, I don't think they've ever lost the number of people that it would probably require to have a sustained counterinsurgency campaign inside of Gaza. So then it comes back to like, now what? You know, your only real option if you want to eliminate Hamas without losing a lot of people is to wipe Gaza off the face of the earth. And that's 2.2 million people with a million children. And I just don't think that that's a politically sustainable solution in the current environment.

There's just simply no way the Arab world would sit back and let that happen. Not to mention probably shouldn't do a genocide. I know you're just trying to be analytical, but like, I can't leave the morality out of the equation that you're talking about genociding an entire population when, and that kind of rhetoric, I mean, that's much closer to the rhetoric that the Israeli government is using versus what Jocko is suggesting. And what Biden has kind of hinted at of like, let's be clear, not all Palestinians are Hamas. You have to separate the two. Meanwhile, you have the president of Israel, Herzog, saying, quote, it is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true, this rhetoric about

civilians not being aware, not involved. It's absolutely not true. They could have risen up. They could have fought against that evil regime, which took over Gaza in a coup d'etat. So making the case that, no, we don't really believe in this whole innocent civilian concept. That's their messaging. And that, I think, is in part what Jocko is responding to here of, you know, even if you are on Israel's side and you want them to win this war and you want, you know, their messaging and propaganda to win the day, they are going in the polar opposite direction. And the other thing I would say is, like, we already have a track record of this specific approach from Israel. They have been mowing the grass in Gaza, which is basically like, you know, periodic indiscriminate bombing of, you know, some Hamas terrorists and lots of civilians and lots of civilian infrastructure over many years now. And guess what? It has not worked. It is only further served to radicalize the population and, you know, hasn't done anything to weaken Hamas.

And of course, that's putting aside the fact that people like Netanyahu thought it was beneficial to actually strengthen Hamas because they knew that it would help to thwart a potential Palestinian statehood movement to have this, you know, evil foil out there for them to use. So they are going in the polar opposite direction of what Jocko is suggesting there. And then I would again just remind that even if they followed his advice to a T, it's not like this really worked out well for us in Iraq or Afghanistan. And so it seems like, you know, I don't even know if it's not it's that the lessons weren't learned. It's that they're not really interested in learning those lessons right now.

And I think part of it also does come from Netanyahu's incredibly precarious political position where he's desperate to hold on to power. And so if what the Israeli population wants right now, just as we did after 9-11, is vengeance and that's what feels good, he's not thinking too far in the future. That's what he's going to deliver. Well, then they can find it out the way that the United States did after you lose, you know, 1,500 or so of your soldiers and you have a heightened domestic terrorist issue and you have to spend, you know, a couple trillion dollars. We're all trying to save you trillions and also save lives, but they can go through the exact same painful growing periods that we did.

That's very unfortunate. But, you know, as Mark Twain famously might have said, history rhymes. So there you go. So let's talk a little bit about where we are with regard to humanitarian aid, because, of course, the situation on the ground in Gaza continues to worsen as they, you know, suffer through these siege conditions with little water, no electricity, little food, no fuel, etc. One of the goals that Biden claimed for his visit to Israel was to try to make some sort of a deal to secure some sort of quarter for humanitarian aid to pass into the Strip. Let's take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say, very cooperative. I thought I'd have to spend more time trying to convince him

on the timing, but he stepped up. As did Bibi, and I was, as you probably told you, I was very blunt with the Israelis. Because, look, Israel has been badly victimized. But, you know, the truth is that if they have an opportunity to relieve suffering of people who have nowhere to go. They're going to be, it's what they should do. And if they don't, they'll be held accountable in ways that may be unfair, but that's what

we're doing. And my point to everyone is, look, if you have an opportunity to alleviate the pain, you should do it, period. And if you don't, you're going to lose credibility worldwide. So warning there that if they don't take steps to move aid and they have the ability to alleviate pain, they will lose credibility worldwide. Let me give you the details of the deal that was announced. Put this up on the screen. This is per Bibi Netanyahu's office. He says, in light of the overwhelming and vital support from the U.S. and in light of U.S. President Joe Biden's demand for basic humanitarian aid to be able to reach Gaza,

Israel's war cabinet has decided the following. Number one, Israel will not allow any humanitarian aid to be delivered from its territory to the Gaza Strip until the hostages being held by terror groups are returned. Number two, Israel demands Red Cross be able to visit hostages and will work to mobilize international support for this demand. Number three, Israel will not, and this is the key one, will not thwart humanitarian supplies from reaching Gaza from Egypt as long as it is only food, water, and medicine for the civilian population in the strip, any supplies that reach Hamas will be thwarted by Israel. So this all comes back to that Rafah crossing, which has been bombed four times in recent days. So there is damage to the roads there. Even with them saying, okay, we're not going to thwart the aid coming through, it is a lot more complex than just now those trucks can roll in. The roads actually have to

be repaired before the trucks can even come in. The White House is indicating that could happen over today and perhaps aid could enter tomorrow. There are hundreds of trucks that are massed at that border. You also have all kinds of foreign nationals, including American citizens that are masked at that border and lots of Palestinians also who are right there because of promises that were made from the U.S. about, oh, American citizens are going to be able to pass through. Well, that has not come to fruition whatsoever. But you at this point have hundreds of trucks that are lined up there waiting for the go ahead and waiting for those roads to be fixed so that they could roll through. So far, they're saying they're only going to allow 20

trucks through. You know, we're getting word from various authorities and, you know, people who are focused on humanitarian aid that one of the critical needs here is water. There are reports and figures that people now only have three liters of clean water per person today, the absolute minimum that they should need. Bare bones is 15 liters for drinking, cooking, and basic hygiene. So there's a long way to go here before you actually have significant aid rolling into Gaza to help the people there who desperately, desperately need it. And Sagar, I've mentioned this before, but just so people remember what a dire situation this is with regard

to water in particular. In the best of times, the majority of water in Gaza is not drinkable, not potable. So when you have this additional siege-like conditions, you've had hospital workers so desperate they're drinking IV bags. You've had reports of people drinking seawater, you know, really having to limit and curtail their use of water. There's also a lot of concerns about sewage treatment. And of course, without electricity, it's just a very dire situation. So hopefully this aid can roll through. But what they're discussing right now would be a real drop in the bucket of the overall need. Yeah, the real thing. And yeah, I think, what is it? The number is 20 trucks of aid that I've seen floated from the Egyptians and from the US. My also major concern is what about our citizens who are currently trapped inside of

Gaza? As I mentioned, my friend Trey Yankst over at Fox News had an interview with an American woman inside of Gaza. Here's what she had to say. the ground, like Israel. So no one has a safe spot at the house to stay in. So everyone stays in one room and take a safe spot at the house you're in, everyone dies, you know? Yeah, you can just hear the terror in her voice there, Crystal, what she's describing. And yeah, I mean, this woman is an American citizen and we've gone to extraordinary lengths, correctly, to get our citizens out of Israel. But, you know, the Egyptian and the Israeli government have not been playing ball with us really at all. It's interesting, too. I've watched some of the mainstream commentary be like, hey, we give all this money to Egypt

and Jordan and they don't even meet with our president. It's disgraceful. And I'm like, oh, are we setting a standard where we give you a ton of money that maybe you should listen to something that we say and actually show us some respect because I would love for that standard to be applied to Saudi Arabia or Ukraine maybe a little country called Ukraine that we've given more money than probably anyone else except for Israel Which also doesn't necessarily listen to us all the time when the aid has zero conditions And when you're out there just saying like yeah, we'll be with you no matter what. Doesn't matter. Then, of course, they're not like there's no leverage being used here. Same with Ukraine. U.S. just vetoed a U.N. resolution that would have condemned all violence against civilians in Israel and in Gaza with Palestinians. They said it was too early to craft an appropriate

Security Council response. And in particular, they took issue with the fact that there was not language in their underlying Israel's right to self-defense. So in terms of, you know, what's happening at the U.N., for whatever it's worth, we vetoed that resolution, which would have condemned violence and called for humanitarian aid to Gaza and condemned violence on both the Israeli and the Palestinian side. So that's where we are with that. But, you know, with that audio that we just played of this American woman who is stuck in Gaza, think of how dark and chilling that is. There are no bomb shelters. So their strategy isn't like, here's how we're going to protect ourselves. It's we're all going to be in one room so that if we get hit by missiles, we all die, that we all die. Like that's how grim,

that is how grim it is. And I also want to underscore, you know, Israel told 1.1 million Gazans to leave the northern part of Gaza and go to the southern part of Gaza with the idea being like that's where safety would be. But that has not turned out to be the case whatsoever. There are plenty of airstrikes that are happening in southern Gaza as well. So people really feel like and you've had you've had apartment buildings hit. Let's put the hospital aside. We're going to get to that in just a minute. You've had apartment buildings hit. You've had residential houses leveled. You've

had marketplaces hit. Mosques, you've had other medical facilities. You've had schools that people had sought relief at. All of these places have been bombed and leveled. And so people really feel like there is just literally nowhere I could go right now and be safe. And they are completely trapped in Gaza, whether they want to be or not. Yeah. I hope we get our people out of there. All right. Let's talk about the very latest in terms of what we know with regards to this horrific explosion at the hospital. All of the you know, it's it's even unclear right right now what the death count is, what the casualty number is. But we've seen from the photos there was absolutely horrific carnage here.

So we've got some new evidence on kind of both sides of the equation. I'm just going to lay it out and you all can make of it whatever you will. The first piece that I think is really critical here is the actual photos in daylight of what the explosion and the fallout at this hospital was. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. So you can see it looks like whatever happened here did not hit the hospital directly. It was in this courtyard where all of these cars are. And, you know, one of the things that people who thought this was an Israeli missile were saying is, listen, this was way too much damage for a Hamas rocket. This paints a little bit of a different picture because now there's a theory of, all right, but it could have been, you know, Islamic Jihad or Hamas rocket that, you know, misfire and falls into this courtyard and then ignites a fire with the fuel in these cars. So these photos, you know, give some credence to that potential theory. You also have Biden, you know, yesterday

we told you that he indicated he thought it was done by, quote, the other team, which I could really do without the casual like sports team analogies here when you're talking about human life. But we'll put that aside for a second. At that time, he did not indicate whether that was based on what the Israeli government was telling him or whether that was based on our own intelligence assessments. He later clarified that this was based on our own intel community. Let's take a listen to what he has to say. I was deeply saddened and outraged by the explosion at the hospital in Gaza yesterday. And based on what I've seen, it appears as though it was done by the other team, not you. But there's a lot of people out there not sure. So we've got to overcome a lot of things.

How about the hospital? People all over the region are upset about the hospital and don't necessarily believe you or the Israelis that they didn't have anything to do with it. You have a message to the people in the streets right now. Well, I can understand why in this circumstance they wouldn't believe. I can understand that. But I would not notice I don't say things like that unless I have faith in the source from which I've gotten it. Our Defense Department says it's highly unlikely that it was really, but if it had a different footprint and intercepted some, anyway. And so that's why, if you notice, I didn't say it first.

I wanted to make sure that I knew. And look, and I'm not suggesting that Hamas deliberately did it either. It's that old thing, got a lot of shoestring. And it's not the first time Hamas has launched something that didn't function very well. So I don't know all the detail, but I do know the people at the Defense Department who I respect, the intelligence community that I respect, is highly improbable. So the official statement from a spokeswoman for the National Security Council is, quote, the U.S. government assesses that Israel was not responsible for an explosion that killed hundreds of civilians yesterday at At that hospital, our assessment is based on

available reporting, including intelligence missile activity and open source video and images of the incident. I'll just give you a little bit more details of what the intelligence community is anonymously telling The New York Times. They're cautioning this analysis is preliminary. They were continuing to collect and analyze evidence. Neither side's claims about who was responsible have been independently verified still by any news outlet. And this is part of the problem is that journalists, by and large, are not allowed into Gaza to be able to see for themselves and interview people and try to assess the evidence that exists. That American intelligence includes satellite and other infrared data showing a launch of a rocket or missile from Palestinian fighter positions within Gaza. American intelligence agencies have also analyzed open source video recordings collected by journalists and others of the launch showing it did not come from the direction of Israeli

military positions, according to those officials. Israeli officials have also provided the U.S. with intercepts, we're going to get to that in a minute, of Hamas officials allegedly saying the strike came from forces aligned with Palestinian militant groups. Of course, I don't have to tell you that U.S. intel community and the Israeli intel community have every incentive here to, you know, paint things in a certain portrait. But that is what they are saying. We do have a little bit of an independent investigation from the BBC of open source information, basically, that is available. Let's go and put this up on the screen, this BBC investigation.

They took some of the photos of the site and they were actually able to get one of their journalists into Gaza to also talk to people on the ground and get like eyewitness reports about what they say happened here. But they contacted 20 different think tanks, universities and companies with weapons expertise. Nine of them did not respond. Five couldn't say either way. And then there were experts that they spoke to at the remaining six. They asked whether the available evidence, including the size of the explosion, the sounds heard beforehand could be used to determine the cause of the hospital blast. So far, they say the findings are inconclusive, but they did have three experts who say it is not consistent with what you would

expect from a typical Israeli airstrike with a large munition. They were looking at things like the size of the crater. They were looking at the size of the fire. They were looking at the videos and the flashes that were in the sky. One person says they likely indicate the projectile was a rocket with an engine that overheated and stopped working. So that's what they said. Let me get you in on this, and then I'll tell you the piece on the other side as well. Yeah, I'll be honest. This is the difficulty of really covering and operating all this. I approached it with extreme skepticism from the beginning.

The big issue that has happened here was with Hamas specifically, they have—I'm not even going to say I had any credibility with them, but for them to come out immediately and say that the hospital itself was destroyed and then report a death count, which is clearly now not accurate, that does a tremendous blow for our ability to even trust the most basic casualty information that was coming out of there, which I think most of the international community previously, I'm not saying that they weren't skeptical, but previously they were like, yeah, this like roughly tracks with an independent assessment. So good luck to them now from now on out, because it's not like you can really believe it. In terms of the pictures, the pictures themselves and based on evidence and testimony that I reviewed from people who are former human rights watch investigators and others who do not

have an agenda and previously been highly critical of Israel, they say it's not consistent with the JDAM, which is what the type of munition that the Israelis typically drop on Gaza and would be more likely to be what the Israelis are claiming is that it's a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad group rocket that fell tragically misfired and fell onto this parking lot. Because the hospital itself remains standing, the scorched burn marks that are on the top of the vehicles, the smaller crater that is inside of the hospital and all of that, combined with the images themselves, which just don't appear consistent with what other images of Israeli strikes inside of Gaza, which draws a tremendous amount more damage, not necessarily carnage, because carnage is different because it could be. And that's just only honestly highlights how packed Gaza is or all these people are in this freaking parking lot because they thought it was safe.

So it's a tragedy and a situation from all of that. skepticism I have is that the transparent nature of how, I'm not going to say fabricated, but suspect that much of the evidence that Israelis put out is difficult for me. And I think that's where some of us have to be honest, where their evidence that they put out actually made me more skeptical. Whereas if I had just looked at this from photos in daylight, I'm like, all right, it wasn't an Israeli strike. And I still actually believe that, you know, based on what I saw. But the stuff that they put out has honestly only poisoned the well more in terms of what they've released. You guys covered it yesterday, releasing a video with the wrong timestamp, then deleting it. And then, yeah, if you want to get into the transcript of the conversation that they put out where I would

almost tell them, I'd be like, guys, you should just sit this out because a lot of people don't believe you. There are some serious questions about much of the stuff that you've put out there. The best thing you have going for you right now are the actual photos of the damn parking lot. Yeah. Well, because, I mean, part of the reason the parking lot piece and, like, the size of the crater

is so critical, Hamas rockets have literally never caused this much damage. And while we don't know the exact death count, I mean, there was a significant loss of life here. Huge numbers of people who were killed. I mean, we've seen the videos of the dead and the wounded. It was obviously a grave catastrophe, whatever the specific death count is. So when you look at that and you're like, there's never been an Islamic Jihad or Hamas rocket, which are these like rinky dink Frankensteinian cobbled together from like leftover Israeli missiles. They have never caused this much damage. That puts questions in your head.

And I mean, there's also just like Israel's bombing the hell out of Gaza right now. Their whole like, oh, we would never target hospitals is bullshit. They even this this specific hospital was damaged days earlier. They've hit medical facilities in this specific war, not to mention going back historically. And, you know, with a variety of situations, but specifically we'll talk about Shireen Abu Akhlaid, like they've been caught basically fabricating evidence in the past. So that's why people were immediately skeptical. You shouldn't believe what Hamas says. You should not believe what the Israelis say either.

And let me tell you, let me give you a couple of pieces here. So number one, let's put this up on the screen from Kent Roth. This is per LeMond, but I've seen other outlets also validate this at this point. They report that this hospital had already been damaged by Israeli bombings on October 14th and on October 15th. They had done these like, you know, little, they call them like a warning or like knock on the roof. The Israeli army had called the hospital's director to tell him those two shots were warnings to evacuate, according to the local health ministry. But again, this has also been independently verified.

I saw it in the New York Times this morning, for example, that this specific hospital, they had hit with minor damage twice on October 14th and October 15th, said you have to evacuate. And then, so then, you know, it doesn't seem crazy that then it was actually hit at least in the courtyard by something.

So that's one piece of evidence on the other side. The other one is you referenced this. So we already had the video that they put out that they had to delete because it had the wrong timestamps. They got called out immediately. Like this is not the same strike that, you know, hit this hospital. What are you doing? So they had to delete it. Then they claim to have additional visual evidence and this intercepted conversation between what they are claiming is two Hamas militants that has really been called into question for its veracity. Let's take a listen to this is a British news channel is Channel 4 talking about this, quote unquote, intercepted conversation. They present what they say is two Hamas operatives talking about the attack. Hamas call this an obvious fabrication. Two independent Arab journalists told us the same

thing because of the language, accent, dialect, syntax and tone, none of which is, they say, credible. Equally, Israel claims the Islamic Jihad failed missile was fired from here, a cemetery very close to the hospital. But look again at the video of the event. The trajectory of the missile doesn't line up with that location. Too high, too horizontal. Confusingly, the Israelis presentation also says the missile was fired from a location down in the southwest. It can't be both. Islamic Jihad say it was an Israeli missile and they have the warhead to prove it, but they haven't produced it. All right, well, release the damn warhead. Yeah, for sure. Yeah, and again, this would all be, this could be ameliorated

if journalists were allowed into Gaza so you could have more independent verification because we're relying on propaganda on both sides. But if you, I don't speak Arabic. I have no idea what a local Gaza accent sounds like, but there were, you know, I was seeing a lot of people online who were saying, this does not sound like a local Gaza accent. And then you there were, you know, I was seeing a lot of people online who were saying, this does not sound like a local Gaza accent.

And then you have two independent journalists who are saying, no, I'm not buying it from the tone, the like the way they're talking, the expressions they're using. This doesn't sound like it at all. And just reading the conversation itself is so stilted as to be sort of ridiculous.

They're like, yes, it was certainly us. It was definitely not the Israelis. And then the other piece they point out is that they're claiming it came from the cemetery. That doesn't line up with the visual evidence. So there you go. I don't know. Look, I don't know.

I'm not a munitions expert. I don't speak any Arabic. I can barely order food and a coffee. That's the extent of what I've got. I know how to say thank you. Yeah, there you go. In terms of how it all goes, for me, it has nothing to do with anything that the states have put out. It is purely based on what you see from there.

And again, from munitions and analysts, experts who are attached to organizations here in the West who I believe not have an agenda. That's not the best from my analysis of theirs. And based on all that, it doesn't seem to me like it was an Israeli strike. So there it is. I just think, though, that, I don't know. I mean, it is difficult. This has become some sort of like massive crisis online. I'm curious what you think of it, you know, for all of that.

It is, I have sympathy for the people who believe it was the Israelis. I think most people did, to be honest. And I think correctly. It was the most logical explanation. It was a very logical explanation. At the same time, I think it's a good lesson that we can all move in forward. Like, we cannot really believe a single word that Hamas says. We have to be deeply skeptical from all of them.

And everyone's like, oh, like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar and all that. I honestly do think they should delete their tweets at this point. I think because based upon the evidence, or at the very least, they should come forward and all that. I honestly do think they should delete their tweets at this point. I think because based upon the evidence or the very least, they should come forward and should clarify. Their core message was not a bad one and it's not unacceptable or pro-terrorist. If you go and you read what they were saying is they're like, look, we want to stop hostilities, but we want to cease fire to die. And I think, look, I will not live in a world where that is not acceptable discourse in the United States of America. So anyway, that's my take for all of this, for the assessment and all of that.

Be skeptical and you should wait. I'm glad that you guys, I'm actually very thankful that you guys didn't come on the air until the next morning when there were more details and you could offer more. And now, you know, we're 48 hours away. So into this, I will say though, uh, the most annoying take that I've heard on this is they're like, it's the New York times fault for reporting what Hamas said that there were protests in Lebanon. I'm like, yeah, you know, guys in Lebanon are like, Hey, let's go storm the U S embassy because the New York times said so. Right. Not because they're, you know, shithead friend on WhatsApp is like, brother, they have done this based upon what Hamas says.

It's like, if you really believe that, you don't know anything about the Middle East or how these people get even their news. It's preposterous to imagine that the U.S. media is anti-Israel. There is zero. I mean, when you look at the language they use about, you know, the humanity they grant, rightfully so, to the Israeli citizens who were killed versus the way Palestinians are treated and look at the way they've covered this conflict. There is no doubt which side they tend to favor. So I think the idea that, you know, New York Times or any of these U.S.-based media outlets are anti-Israel anyway is completely absurd. But, you know, the last thing I'll say just to put all of this in context is you already have thousands of Palestinians who've been killed. You have over a thousand Palestinian children who have been killed. You have a million Palestinians in Gaza who have been displaced.

You have a dire humanitarian situation. Like whatever happened with this hospital doesn't take away from the fact war is hell. The carnage is horrific. And this is only just the beginning. So I do agree with that. I will say though that you do, they do a desperate and a disservice to their cause

whenever they're caught lying like this. And so it's important to be you should it's important to be accurate. You know, if you're going to be. Yeah, but that's true for Israel to lie all the time. Of course, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people in the United States who are boosters of their cause. It's like it just makes you like I think to leave and Ilhan Omar, they look like fools, you know, for immediately jumping on this. And they haven't deleted it. They haven't even addressed it. I mean, look, you know, you already know when you're in a position of weakness, like you have to do everything in your power in order to bolster the ground that you stand on because you know that you're critical.

I mean, we know this one on Ukraine, right? Like the media can lie about Ukraine 10 out of 10 times and nobody's going to say a damn thing. If we say one wrong thing, one out of 10 times, and nobody's going to say a damn thing. If we say one wrong thing, one out of 10 times, that's it. The next nine out of 10, if you get them right, it doesn't matter. I don't think it's fair, but that's just how it goes. And so I think for them, they have a responsibility to the anti-war cause, to the pro-Palestinian cause here, in order to try and be more accurate. And retrenching and behaving on the other side, I mean, that doesn't make you

noble or good, based on what I've seen from the two of the other side, I mean, that doesn't make you noble or good, you know, based on what I've seen from the two of them so far. I mean, that's just my, I'd be curious what you think. Yeah, I mean, I think it would be reasonable for them to address, now there are way more, see, for me, I'm still 50-50 on what, you know, the evidence actually shows and who was actually responsible.

But it was an entirely logical conclusion when your, Israel's literally dropped, you know, what, 6,000, 7,000 bombs on Gaza at this point to see this carnage and say, obviously it was, and especially when you have no track record of any Hamas or Islamic Jihad rocket creating this kind of damage to come to that conclusion. I think it would be appropriate for them to acknowledge that

there is a lot more evidence in the other direction now, I think absolutely. But your point about, you know, of course, they're going to be held to a higher standard, like how much of the like Israeli propaganda and lies that have been documented over many years goes down and there's never any question about it. There's never any like demands to retract or correct or whatever. But you're right. The expectation should be that they're going to be held to a different standard because anytime you have a distant political view, that's just the way it works. That's how it goes. I mean, I'm not saying it's fair, but it's life. And that's just how it goes. Speaking of Ukraine, as we were just talking about, let's put this up there on the screen. The White House is now pushing for a $100 billion package for Israel, Ukraine, border, and disaster relief. That will mean

the United States is requesting approximately $10 billion for Israel, $60 billion for Ukraine. They just happened to sneak that one in there, even though it's six times the number for the actual conflict that this is allegedly being tied to. And then the rest of it is border and disaster money that they had tried previously to get through the Congress. Included in that is a $100 million announcement today for Palestinian aid that will be directed towards humanitarian efforts. This comes at a very critical time, actually, for the war in Ukraine. Remember, previously, the United States had not passed through the Congress any extension of aid or even transfer authority. That has not stopped the Biden administration, though, from throwing

even more weapons into the conflict. This time, arguably one of the most escalatory weapons that they've sent there so far. Let's put this up there on the screen. Confirmed now use of long range missiles inside Ukraine against Russian forces for the first time used against the Russian Air Force. At least these were used, Crystal, inside of occupied Ukraine. So, you know, they were used actually on their own territory. But let me repeat again, there is not one thing stopping them, save for their word, which they have broken, that striking deep inside of Russian territory. Yeah. Not one thing, of which they have done before. They've used drones. They've repeatedly struck inside of Russia. I'm not talking about like what Russia claims is Russia or Crimea. I'm talking about Russia, Russia.

There's nothing stopping them from being able to do this. And I also wanted to bring up something very critical. Behind the scenes, the New York Times had one of their long profiles inside the decision to send this. Directly leaked from the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin opposed this decision for a single reason. He said, this dramatically draws from US readiness. We cannot produce these on a long enough timeline. And if we need these in the immediate term within the next year, we're screwed. Biden sent them anyway. That's from the Secretary of Defense, not any chicken hawk. This is a guy who's like, look, my job is to tell you, this is making us a lot less safe. And it will be very difficult for us to produce these in the future.

And Biden sent these weapons to Ukraine anyway, even though we're at the tail end of any amount of aid that's ever going to pour into this conflict. Do you think so? I'm not so sure about that. I mean, to me, there's no way $60 billion is going to the House. That calculus has changed significantly with the introduction of the Israeli conflict because there's nothing to keep. There is an overwhelming bipartisan consensus in favor of sending, you know, Israel, whatever Israel wants. And there's no end to just tying the two together and pushing them both through for, you know, forever and ever. And you've already got the Israelis saying, hey, this is going to last years. So to me, whereas very recently it looked like, you know, they could be coming really at

the tail end or perhaps Ukrainian aid was not going to get through any longer at all. I think that that landscape has dramatically shifted very quickly. And you even have, you know, like it's probably not going to be Jim Jordan's speaker now, but the fact that he was even out there at least trying to convince some moderates that he may even be amenable to doing that after he's been very vociferously opposed to Ukrainian aid, I think tells you the changing landscape. But, you know, just to pause again on these long range missiles and just remind everyone, this is one of the things that Joe Biden had originally specifically said no to. And, you know, it should have been the minute that Ukraine started striking inside of Russia, including drone strikes in Moscow itself. That should have been an

absolute red line. Now you will never get the long range missiles. And instead they provide them. They don't want to talk about it. You know, they did it quietly without really announcing it publicly. They won't comment on the delivery or use of these missiles, but they're there. And we're still in this quagmire situation with really no end in sight, but additional prospects for continuing the aid flowing indefinitely. So this is why I'm very happy with the speaker chaos. I hope it lasts forever. Yes.

I hope they never get a speaker until, like, the next election or whatever. I hope it just continues in perpetuity to be a quagmire, because the instant that you have a speaker in place, some major aid package, both for Ukraine, Israel, and probably border security is likely to roll through. This is the point that Michael Tracy keeps making. He's like, the longer we have no speaker, the safer that this nation is. And I think he's absolutely correct. He's correct. On that front, and it's very important to remember that this is now having the full weight of the White House being put behind it.

Let's put this up there. President Biden, just so everybody knows, will be making an address from the Oval Office, a very rare thing for him to do, directly to the American people, both on the Israel-Hamas conflict and the war in Ukraine on Thursday evening at 8 p.m. I don't know why these people are using military time. I despise military time. You get a war. You get a war. Whatever. You get a war. So the White House said on Wednesday and it pre-announced that. So everybody tune in, I guess, at 8 p.m. If he

says anything worthwhile, we will cover it here on the show and make sure we're breaking coverage. But it just goes to show you they're going to milk this thing for everything it's worth. They're going to use the overwhelming bipartisan consensus on Israel. They're going to tie Ukraine in there. And then, like I said, do not forget what the actual breakdown is. They're using the bipartisan consensus for $10 billion on Israel to try and shoehorn $60 billion. And let's just remember the track record of Ukraine's use of U.S. military aid. They have not made one square inch of net gain in 12 months. That is according to even the most hawkish analytical groups in the United States for their so-called counteroffensive. In fact, if you look

at it, you have a better case for Russia came out better during this counteroffensive. And analysts predict that the winter months will almost certainly be to the benefit of the Russian forces, given what they've learned and their overall industrial capacity. You know, I was just reading, the Russians spun up, Crystal, a sophisticated ammunitions production manufacturing center in eight and a half months, eight and a half months inside of Russia. Can you imagine that in the United States? We have not done anything like that since World War II. You know, we can't even, we can't replace ammo. And it's like, I'm watching them and we are severely underestimating their wartime economy, their ability in order to, you know, I mean, look, they had no choice. They're basically like, fine, we have to bring everything in house and produce

what we need. They're spending everything that they need to in order to keep the war machine going. And there is not a single sign of degradation of what we were promised from day one about these so-called sanctions. Let me also just quickly make a political point. Janet Yellen recently was asked, hey, can we afford these two wars? And her answer was, I think the answer is absolutely. OK, now that that may be the case, but, you know, to make a political point here, as we're heading into a presidential election, how do you think the American people who feel very poorly about the economy, who feel very poorly and are struggling

in terms of their own financial wellbeing, who are, you know, housing has never been more unaffordable, who have struggled with inflation, wages declining, all of those issues, bank accounts declining, credit card debt going up. And you see the answer when it comes to sending, you know, military aid is, oh, of course, of course, we'll find the money for that. And we'll find a will to do it. It doesn't matter if Republicans are opposed on these. We're going to find a way to get this done. Where is the urgency when it comes to our own financial situation? And so, you know, this is a real problem, most important materially for American people who are struggling, but it is also a huge political problem for Joe Biden to have the specter of endless money for these

two conflicts and nothing for our own people. Yeah. Well said, Crystal. All right. Let's go and bring in Emily and Kyle to talk about a few domestic political issues. Let's get to it. Okay, we've got Kyle Kalinske and Emily Jutenske here at the desk. We're going to have a nice power panel. We're going to discuss the speakership, RFK. Let's start with the speaker.

Let's put this up there on the screen. Jim Jordan has lost support yesterday for his second failed House Speaker vote. There will maybe be another vote today. Everything is up in the air and it comes after a sustained campaign by Jordan allies. We can put the next one, please, up there on the screen to try and, what is it, arm twist some of the people who had actually voted against him. I'm actually fine with that, but it didn't work so i guess i'm not fine with it whenever that happens dude's like wife got anonymous emails like your husband better support jim jordan i support that apparently i sent it i told him not to yeah yeah emily give us your take uh you're tapped into conservative

circles first just like what's going on? What is going to happen? There doesn't appear to be a vote today. Is Patrick McHenry the speaker pro temp? Is he gonna get expanded speaker powers? Deal with the Democrats? What are you hearing? What are you thinking?

Yeah, so there's a package being discussed right now to give Patrick McHenry the pro temp. People remember him banging the gavel really hard in his little bow tie. To give him powers until January 3rd. So for the rest of the year, and then they can come back to the table and figure things out. Well, that's not going to happen because now conservatives, the same people who were doing the arm twisting campaign to support Jim Jordan, are basically never McHenry. Because the conservative movement is mounting a

campaign to say a deal to put McHenry in office is a deal with Democrats. Basically, to make that math work, centrist Republicans are probably going to need the help of centrist Democrats, and maybe then they can get it. Either way, it's going to be difficult because of that never McHenry faction of Jordan supporters. The problem with the math, though, is that there are never Jordan supporters that are now in the McHenry camp, which basically is impossible. And again, this is why after 15 ballots with Kevin McCarthy, they went through those 15 ballots. McCarthy went through those 15 ballots because every single person in the Republican conference knew that

only Kevin McCarthy could bridge what are now the people in the never McHenry and the never Jordan camps. He was the only person who could do it. And that doesn't mean Kevin McCarthy is amazing. It doesn't mean Kevin McCarthy is a hero or the Savior of the Republic It just means he had put years of work into bridging those two groups and nobody else is able to do that So they're completely at an impasse. He also like had no shame like he was willing to do whatever Yeah to get to get it down. I mean, what are you making up this whole situation? First of all, I think all the speakers are like that the ones who actually get to power It's like you raise the most money and you can appease the most people

behind the scenes and you got to act like a snake in a sense and say one thing over here, one thing over here. But I found it really interesting because Jim Jordan was a vocal supporter of McCarthy. And he actually argued with Gates on the House floor that I think McCarthy should stay in power. But he also has Gates blessing because he's a mentor to Gates. So the thing that I think McCarthy should stay in power. But he also has Gates' blessing because he's a mentor to Gates. So the thing that I'm stuck on is like, if it's not him, who's it going to be? Because this guy, in theory, should have the blessing of the McCarthy people and the Gates people. And I think what it comes down to is Jordan is an outsider conservative firebrand who's like, you know, built his name on right wing media. And I don't think he does the behind-the-scenes back-slapping politics like a speaker needs to do. He doesn't.

And so I think, never mind. That's all I'll say. Well, I mean, let me push back on your McHenry thing here. Because, you know, I have made the prediction that it will just end up being McHenry by default. So I'm very invested in my prediction coming true. That's the only thing I really don't care about this fight otherwise, personally. But it seems to me like no one has the votes. Jim Jordan is actually further behind where Kevin McCarthy was. Oh,

yeah. And so the status quo is the most likely outcome here where McHenry may not be like elected speaker, but they could figure out workarounds of like, all right, you know, like a government funding is about to run out or about to have a shutdown in a very short period of time. It's not like the House was doing that much anyway. So if they come up with these workarounds of like, all right, I guess you can keep the government open.

I guess you can pass your Israel and Ukraine and border aid or whatever it is that they're putting this package together. That still seems to me like the most likely outcome because I don't see any other person being able to cobble together sufficient votes to get this done. I agree with that. I mean, if I had to put money on any outcome right now, it would be the McHenry outcome. And I think your reason for that is really like probably the most correct. Like default is the easiest way for everybody.

That's how Washington works. is really probably the most correct. Default is the easiest way for everybody. Inaction is the default. Exactly, yeah. And so at the same time, though, that's becoming more and more difficult for people as we're seeing this develop right now, and you've probably noticed this over the last couple of days, people who work in the sort of activist conservative circles are putting together a really strong campaign to pressure,

and this is actually partially what pushed people away from Jordan, but they're really trying to say, they're trying to make this a red line in the sand. They're trying to mobilize constituents and say the Republican grassroots wants Jim Jordan. If you're voting against Jim Jordan, if you can't get on this bandwagon, we are going to cast you as a rhino. We're going to punish you. And for some of them, that might be good. They might like that in their districts, in purple districts. On the other hand, probably for most of them, it's not good. And so it's becoming, I thought Jordan was basically dead in the water when so many people started shifting towards McHenry. But then you started to see this really get traction in the conservative movement. And that does make it

difficult for Republicans to vote against it. Doesn't mean that it's going to happen. That's right. Kyle, you have something to say? Yeah, I have a question for Emily. Is it not Jordan because people are still mad at Gates, or is it not Jordan because Republicans from purple districts are like, I can't do Jordan because he supported the insurrection, et cetera, et cetera? Is it both of them, or what is it? I think it's mostly that because people, Jim Jordan basically was one of the early Freedom Caucus people.

He was very close with Mark Meadows, founder of the Freedom Caucus, actually with Ron DeSantis. All of those guys were the bomb throwers in the Boehner era. And so they earned so much bad will. Like people just bitterly resent them for throwing the House into chaos so often during those years. They blame them for Trump. They blame them for January 6th. And some of that is now personal not just political So it's a really like bit a lot of bitter

Feuds are did some of them fall in line like the purple district Democrats because I know 22 now voted against Jordan so would you say like the 22 Republicans are the more moderate Republicans or where they're also like 30 more moderate Republicans who are like, all right I'll just fall in line as well a lot of them did but don't forget that of that 20 the New York caucus in particular is highly represented because a lot of Republicans who are like, all right, I'll just fall in line as Portia. Well, a lot of them did, but don't forget that of that 20, the New York caucus in particular is highly represented because a lot of those people are like Long Island folks and they're more in purple districts. My personal favorite thing I saw

floated behind the scenes, Crystal, is Jordan was like, okay, well, maybe we'll lift the SALT cap. Yes, he did. He did. He did. And just to explain to everybody, the SALT is this state and Local Tax Deduction.

Tax cuts for rich people. Oh, I love that. You need to go straight up lifting a tax cut for the rich people. So they can write, because New York has very high state and local taxes, so that they would be, previously, before Trump, they were able to write off that portion from their federal income tax. And they're like, this is an outrage. We're being double taxed. The overwhelming majority of the benefit for the SALT cap goes to people who make over $1 million per year.

Therefore, it is the number one priority of the New York Democrats and Republicans. And I'm not joking. And New Jersey too. That's Gottheimer's New Jersey. They literally call him Mr. SALT. Anyway, so I would say the one promise that I think Jordan has is he was like, okay, guys, what do you want? And they were like, you got to lift the salt. The salt. That's amazing. That is amazing.

I mean, I have to think that another part of it is not just like the things he's done in the past and the bomb-throwing nature and like, you know, the shutdowns and the debt ceiling shutdowns and all of that. But they also have to be worried about if he is their leadership in the House, what is he going to do going forward? Because he's very interested in the like, you know, impeach Biden and let's have all of these hearings and investigation. I mean, that's what he, he wasn't legislating. Those are the things that he was focused on. So I have to think part of their fear is like, how are we going to look if this guy who's been nothing but a bomb thrower is our leadership in the House? Like, we can't be closely associated with this guy.

And Kyle, like, there's nothing he can promise them. He can't promise them to like, I'm no longer going to be Jim Jordan. But like, is there really that much of a substantive difference on policy between, like, him and Kevin McCarthy? Like, I'm genuinely curious about that. In my opinion. It's the vibe. Like, would you not get, if you have Jordan as Speaker of the House, would you just, like, not get bills that pass at all or a budget that passes at all? It depends on which policy.

For example, Kevin McCarthy was far more, I think, less ideological on Ukraine. He was one of those people who was like, look, I just want to appease everybody. Personally, I'm like pro-Ukraine. He almost certainly would have brought something to the floor. Jim Jordan, from the very beginning, was like, I'm not bringing any aid to Ukraine. Yeah, but then. Now with Israel, they're comparing it together. But then, behind the scenes.

He's spoken out against that. But then, behind the scenes. It'll happen. There was at least reporting that he indicated to moderates who were on the fence, like, well, maybe I would put Israel and Ukraine aid together. So I don't know whether that was just like him lying to try to get their votes or whatever, but he definitely left them with the impression that that's what was going to happen. Maybe someone needs to lift the salt in Ukraine. Yes. But anyway.

I don't think the oligarchs are paying taxes. The Israeli salt tax must be lifted. Jim Jordan is your man. See, Kyle's go. But anyway. I don't think the oligarchs are paying taxes. The Israeli salt tax must be lifted. Jim Jordan is your man. See, Kyle's question is super interesting, I think, because Kevin McCarthy, it speaks to, I think Kevin McCarthy moved over a lot. And he, when I talked to him, he talked about how the first impeachment was, he didn't use this word, but kind of radicalizing for him and the question then becomes what's the substance and different substance indifference between jim jordan and like now ken buck who is out in moderate land it's been or john bainer right like is this what happens when you become speaker is like well i guess in some ways we got to get something done like we have to get a budget passed so i

guess i got to do this and this because democrats hold the senate democrats have the white house you could pass virtue signal bills all day but but Biden can veto it or the Senate, you know, not pass it. I will say, and this is actually why I thought Jordan was the best candidate, is I thought he was the best to avoid a government shutdown because he had the most credibility amongst the people who would have pushed for a shutdown. As in, he would have been able to wrangle votes that I think McCarthy never would have been able to on a future debt ceiling. So you almost want like a member of that elk to be in higher power because when the push comes to it, they're like, look, guys, we got to shut down. You know me. This is the best deal I possibly could get. They never trusted that with McCarthy. And they said that over and over. That's true. During the debt ceiling fight, during the shutdown. You could also be a principled voice for a shutdown, too. You know what I mean? That's the risk you run. Yeah, but you know. He might be like, no, I want to do the shutdown, too.

Maybe, but the political calculus is, look, Republicans have lost every shutdown ever. You know, every single time they shut down the government, they took the public ire and the blame, all the way going back to Newt Gingrich. Jordan is, I mean, even right now, Emily, you know this, like he hates to lose. He would not want to be on the losing end of a government shutdown and be like a villain in the country's eyes for the wrong reasons. He's happy to do it whenever it comes to being anti-Hillary or anything for a political benefit. But I don't think that there is that benefit for that. So I don't know. Last thing, Crystal, what do you think? Well, the last thing I would say is, you know, part of why I don't haven't been that invested emotionally in who ends up as Speaker is because I do feel like

whoever ends up in that position is going to be in an extraordinarily weak place, just as McCarthy was. Yes, you're right. And so it's not like McCarthy was like running the show. He was trying to appease these various factions and navigate in a certain way and ultimately, you know, ended up in an untenable position where he had no other option but to basically make a deal with Democrats and then head out the exits. There was no other move left on the chessboard. And so to me, whether it's Jim Jordan or McHenry or, you know, Ken Buck or whoever the heck else might pop up,

they're going to be basically subject to those same pressures. They're going to be in an incredibly weak position. They're still going to have these same factions that they're trying to deal with. This has really been the case for Republicans for quite a long time. So that's why I feel like the person who ends up in that slot, it probably doesn't make all that much of a difference, my personal opinion. And they're obsessed with the motion to vacate because that's what empowered Matt Gaetz. That's on the table in these negotiations. And if that doesn't go away, there's nothing you can do about Matt Gaetz. There's always going to be a Matt Gaetz. And it just takes one when you have the motion to vacate where it is. Good point. Why don't we get to it? All right, let's move to

the presidential election. And as you guys all know, RFK Jr. has moved out of the Democratic primary, is now running as an independent. And we're just starting to get some polls indicating what that might look like. Let's put this up on the screen with some numbers we have here showing who he takes more away from. So in a head to head, if it's just Biden versus Trump, Biden has an edge by just three points, 49, 46. But when you add RFK into the mix, he grabs 16% of the vote, which is not too shabby. Biden gets 44 and Trump gets 37. So Biden's lead surges to seven points in the event that you have Kennedy on the ticket as an independent. Part of why this happens is Trump loses actually 10 points

with Republicans. Biden only loses five points with Democrats. RFK also tends to take more of the independents who were backing Trump. They tend to move towards him. So at least, Kyle, in this particular poll, it does look like, you know, all the MAGA people who are like freaking out now about the fact that RFK is running independent after they propped him up a lot. It looks like their analysis is reflected in this poll that this could be a problem for Trump. Well, what's interesting is what will happen if Trump really starts to go in on RFK? Right. We already saw like Sean Hannity very clearly turned on RFK when he had previously been boosting him.

He's like, actually, I looked at your record. You're really liberal, bro. What's going on here? That's an opening question. It's not even a question. What is that? So I'm curious if that dynamic will hold. You know, I don't know.

I feel like anything could happen on Election Day where theoretically he takes 50% from Trump, 50% from Biden or or 70% from Trump, 30% from Biden, or the reverse of that. So, like, I don't know what's going to happen, but, you know, you have RFK in the conversation. You wouldn't count on this, is what you're saying. Yeah, I wouldn't count on this. And also, guys, okay, so in that poll, it's like you have Biden up seven points nationally. There was a poll like two weeks ago that had Trump up 10 points nationally. And then I looked at the polling average last night, and they were literally dead tied at 44.3% in the polling average nationally. So it's like,

we're kind of reading the tea leaves a little too much here. But any analysis about RFK should also include Cornel West, because in theory, both of them will be on at least some ballots in some states, right? So you have to include him in the picture as well. That's an excellent point. What do you think, Evelyn? Well, yeah, I mean, I think that's a great point, especially because we saw what Jill Stein and like the, oh, it was all Russia stuff. But like, when you're on the ballot in Pennsylvania, even if you're not like at RFK's level, you can still eat away at some really, really important margins. I'm curious what you guys think, because I have a theory that as soon as RFK starts to

really look like he's a threat more to Trump than to Biden, which this poll starts to show us, that it'll be fascinating to see where people go when Trump starts attacking him as super liberal. Does that make him more appealing to the type of people that A, might be interested in Cornel West, but also might be like a Bernie Sanders voter that is like, holy smokes, this guy did so much for the environment in New York State. He has this like very long record. I don't know whether that's the case because there's so many points of tension now, even between, you know, kind of Bernie people and, you know, somebody who might like RFK for Stance on Vaccines. Right. There are a lot of fall lines.

That's my thing is that, look, I think Oliver Anthony is a good archetypal person. I don't know how big of a constituency he represents, but it's not zero. And when I listened to his interview with Rogan, he was like, look, I'm pro Second Amendment, you know, all of this. But he was like, well, Trump, you know, he had a lot of problems too.

He's like, like Operation Warp Speed. And I was like, oh, that's interesting. But, but, I was like, but, but, I was like, oh, okay. And so then he starts talking, you know, positively about RFK Jr. And so, look, maybe there's a million, two million people who are very upset about the vaccine or vaccine mandate. They, especially RFK, I just saw him put a tweet out the other day about, I'm not going to take your guns away. He's very sympathetic on a lot of libertarian-esque type policy. On the border too. On the border. Right. So he's like, he is, as long as he strikes the right message, I could see an Oliver Anthony type voter for him. Now,

how big is that? I don't know. As Emily says, though, I think we did this right when I announced, I pulled the numbers. In terms of Joe Jurgensen, she won like 1.6% of the vote in Georgia. She's libertarian. The libertarian candidate in 2020. That's arguably the Trump margin of victory. She won over 1% in Pennsylvania and in Arizona. Once again, we are talking all three states. It's funny because on the right, there isn't the same culture of like, it's all her fault.

But I mean, you could make a good case under that idiotic theory. So, yeah, I mean, to me, RFK with his last name, let's say he gets 3%, which I think will probably get more. Let's say he gets 5%. I mean, that's some serious carnage for Trump. Will they be on the ballot?

My question is about the ballot, though. Crystal, what do you think? Do you think they're going to be on the ballot? Well, he has a lot of money. Yeah. I know, but even the Green Party is only 46 out of 50 states or something like that.

Yeah, but, I mean, I'm saying, I think, I don't know. I genuinely, I don't have Green Party is only 46 out of 50 states or something like that. Yeah. But I mean, I'm saying I think I don't know. I genuinely I don't have enough detailed knowledge about like the ballot process and how involved it is and whatever. But he certainly has the funding to be able to build out an organization to get on a ballot, especially in key states. I do think it's worth adding into this conversation the fact that, you know, especially looking back at 2016 and this is traditionally what happens, a lot more people say they're going to vote third party than actually end up voting third party, because it makes sense when it comes down to it. You know, it's getting close to election day. Things are, emotions are as pitched as they could possibly be. You know, it can feel very existential. And you realize, like, this guy's not going to win. So let me

pick between the two candidates who actually it's going to be one or the other of them. Or not vote. But usually the third party number tends to collapse as you get close to election day. So I don't think he's going to get anywhere close to 16 percent of the vote. But I have always been wary of the ironclad assumption that because his support tends to be more Republican-leaning now, that it will stay static through Election Day. Because that Kennedy name is very powerful, number one. And number two, I do think when Trump and his allies really go in on him as like, this guy voted for Hillary Clinton, that's all they have to say to really kill his esteem with the Republican base that has been interested in

him thus far. And they started circulating his quotes about Hillary Clinton on the day he announced the Republican Party was circulating those. And yeah, you can see how they would be really devastating with a Trump voter who, you know, is tweeting things about hashtag Clinton body count. Like that's not going to, these are not compatible positions. It's not going to go well. And the other thing is like, when I saw Woody Harrelson in, I think he was wearing like a Kennedy 2024 hat. I was like, oh boy. You start seeing stuff like that popping up. I know that sounds silly, but there's something about the Kennedy brand.

And you talk and think about this a lot. That's just really potent, especially with left-leaning Americans. Not entirely, but especially with like your average left-of-center voter. That if he can tap into that by running a smart campaign, there could be something pretty powerful. Woody is a perfect example, you know, especially for RFK. RFK has lived in LA for a long time. He knows a lot of these celebrities who obviously have a lot of brand, but like Woody is anti-war. He was, you know, I'm not, he wasn't anti-vax, but he's like skeptical of big pharma and the vaccine. I have no idea his personal views on the vaccine. He's a longtime, like what is it, a pothead. He's like dissident to mainstream

like left culture, but also is socially liberal. That's the perfect voter for RFK Jr. who hates Joe Biden also. So, I mean, again, I don't think that's the vast majority of the country. I do think it is X million. I don't know what that looks like. How is he going to continue to run, though, is a big question. Because if he keeps stressing, like, I'm really tough on the border and I really love Israel, like, there are certain arguments that he could make going forward where these numbers would stay the same, right? And he would take more from Trump people. But then there's other arguments he could make where all of a sudden that flips and you take more from Biden. My advice for him to do exactly what he did was remember, Crystal, we played his ad.

It was just like, we're being ripped apart. I'm not perfect. It's like, don't you hate parties in the media? That's what I would do. A lot of people are like, yes. And then you stay out of the specific. That's probably the best that he could possibly do. I, one other piece I want to get in here really quick is, um, there was this news item that came out. You mentioned Cornell West should be included on any of these polls, because if you've got RFK there, like you're not getting an accurate picture if you're not also asking people about, well, what about if Cornel West is on the ballot? So there's this news item that came out that Harlan Crowe, who has now become infamous for his close association with Justice Thomas and the fact that he was, you know, funding all these vacations and all sorts of other things

for Clarence Thomas. And his name, just his name. That'll stick with him. That's true. Very true. It is a very memorable name. It's like a movie name. Anyway, he apparently has made a max out donation to Cornel West's presidential bid. $3,300 donation.

It was in August. Weeks before, they say West abandoned his bid for the Green Party nomination. So this was when he was still running with the Green Party before he announced his independent bid. Apparently, Crowe, who's called West a self-proclaimed non-Marxist socialist and longtime professor at Princeton University, is a good friend. So that's the reason that he's giving. I mean, Kyle, do you read into this, like, nefarious intent? Yeah, people are using that against him. Yeah.

Cornell West up as a spoiler, or what do you think? I'm not buying the friend thing. It's obviously to hurt Biden. Really? Absolutely. If he's running as an independent, give him money, let him run as an independent,

hopefully he knocks up two, three, four percentage points, and then that would theoretically take more from Biden. I think that's fine. I'm not sure I agree. I think it's ruthlessly pragmatic. There's an interesting connection

between the two, which is that Robbie George, also a professor at Princeton, is really close with Cornel West, and Robbie George is sort of a stalwart of the conservative legal movement that Harlan Crowe has really helped create. And so that would be my theory. That's my theory. Now, maybe it's also a little bit like, oh, we'll have some fun with this. Sure, yeah, why not? Harlan is anti-Trump. This guy's like pro-Nikki Haley. He like funds Jonah Goldberg. I mean, these are not- No, they'll all fall in line.

Trump's right. They're all going to fall in line. With Harlan, though, I genuinely don't think so. What do you think? I highly doubt that he voted. So let me say, I actually, my initial reaction was the same as yours. I'm like, oh, of course. He's just like thinks that Cornell will be a spoiler.

And I'm sure in the back of his mind, that's probably part of it. $3,300, though, in the context of a billionaire and in the context of a presidential campaign is nothing. So if he was like funding a super PAC with millions of dollars, that would be one thing. But like a $3,300 donation for him is like, I mean, it's literally chump change. It means nothing. First of all, that's probably all he thought he could do while staying under the radar, right? No, he couldn't do a super PAC. do while staying under the radar, right? No. He couldn't do a super PAC.

But that's actually over the radar because it's public. If you're funding a super PAC, that's actually what would be more behind the radar. But then you get this headline times a million if he funds a super PAC. But I think he will give more. And I do—look, the reason for my point is if you look at what happened with Hannity and RFK, I see this ruthless pragmatism among many people on the right. And Hannity was boosting up RFK relentlessly when they thought this guy's going to hurt Biden. And they were really intelligent about it, right? And then the second they thought, oh, he might actually hurt Trump, they flipped on a dime. And I feel like it's the same.

This guy's- Oh, yeah. Yeah. He said it. Did he say it? Yeah, he said it. Yeah, he was like, I was boosting him when he hurt Biden. Now he's going to hurt Trump. I'm going to go after him and unleash the dogs of hell. Yeah. I think this is the same thing. I think this is the same thing.

But that's how politics is. Look. Yeah. This guy's smart. Okay? He knows what he's doing. Maybe. I don't know, Kyle.

I just think you're probably right. They probably, it's some sort of personal connection. Here's what. We'll find out. If he spends more money on Cornell, then we'll know. I look forward to being told I'm right. You're getting used to that on this panel, huh? All right, guys, thanks for dropping by. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. See you both shortly. All right, guys, very excited to bring you some additional results from that focus group of

Democratic-based voters that we hosted with JL Partners down in and around Atlanta. Really interesting stuff here. And we just want to thank you guys again for enabling us to do this. As a thank you, I wanted to give you a little 10% discount. You can put this up on the screen for annual memberships if you are able and you are interested. You know, one of the things that we have always tried to do here is as, you know, mainstream cable is falling apart and failing and their ratings are way down, trying to build out a real independent ecosystem. And you guys are enabling us to do some of the things that mainstream media does, but obviously with an independent media perspective. So thank you guys for that. That's it. I mean, really what it is is we wanted this to be unique. You know, it would have been easy in the beginning to just focus on the core and just, you know, people talking.

But that's not differentiated. We keep trying to build out, add partnerships, do things like this where you really can't get anywhere else, especially in an independent show. So it means a lot to us. And if you can help us build even more things like this, we've got the independent group that we also want to do. You can sign up, breakingpoints.com. But with that, why don't we set up the first clip? Let's get to the results. So we already showed you how people were feeling about Joe Biden. It was a little complicated. We're a little worried about the age, but we were affectionate for him and we don't want him to be challenged. We're all those sorts of things, Trump hanging over all of

it. So we also asked how they feel about the vice president. This is obviously incredibly critical since Joe Biden is at such an advanced age. So if he were unable to continue to serve, what do you think about Kamala Harris? Let's take a listen. Kamala Harris. Well, she's experienced. She's knowledgeable. I did not feel like she lived up to the expectations because I was so excited when she became the vice president. I think she's a wonderful person. I don't think she's been given an opportunity to really shine and grow in her position,

and I'm not impressed overall. I think she's competent. Everything she has done has been domestically, so I don't think she's had much of the opportunity to work in international affairs. Intelligent, fierce, strong sense of right and wrong, and fearless. I think she does a lot of backup for Biden. I think that she's in that air, and that is where he makes those decisions. Believe it or not, even though he's president, he confers with her a lot and they make decisions together. I do think she's experienced, but she also gets very nervous

during interviews. I don't know whether it's insecurity or just nervousness that I sense sometimes, but I think she's hidden. I think we'll fail if she was president because she's not active enough. On the down low, I don't even know why she's my vice president. I think we'll fail if she was president because she's not active enough. On the down low, I don't even know why she's my vice president. I don't really, really know a lot about her. I don't. Would Kamala Harris be good president or bad president? I think she would be a capable, good president. I really wish that there was some sort of initiative she could be in charge of that is seen by the general public. I don't think there's been a situation that Kamala Harris has been able to kind of show that she's a good leader.

I do not think she would be a good president. I don't get a strong sense of leadership from her when I see her speak. I think she's somebody who knows how to speak. I just don't feel that I would have confidence in her as a leader. I don't think if she wasn't able to do her job and wasn't capable, she wouldn't even be in that position.

So they had to see something in her for her to get that position. Push came to shove and she had to do what she had to do. She would fight. She would do it.

Can she beat Trump in the election? I don't think so. Yeah, I think he would eat her lunch. I hate to say it. He'd tear her to shreds. Put your hand up if you think she could beat Donald Trump in an election.

Put your hand up if you think Kamala Harris could beat Donald Trump. Not in a million years. Not in a million years, Mary says there. I love her. In the front. She says, I think we fail if she's president. On the down low, I don't even know why she's vice president. Only one person in the group, which we should say, I mean, the emotions were mixed.

Some people were like, I like her. She's fierce. She's competent. They must have seen something in her to put her in that position, et cetera, et cetera. But when it came down to it, only one person said that they thought that if she was the nominee, she would be Donald Trump. These are primary voters, not even independent voters. Independent voters, by all polling accounts, have an even lesser view of her. So there you go. What's one-eighth? What's the fraction on that? I don't even know. But percentage-wise, that's a complete

disaster. I also think that with these people who are the most disposed to be affected by institutionalism, identity politics, media indoctrination, even with all of that, they're like, no, I don't think that she could win. I mean, what does that tell you? I mean, it's just one of the worst political choices and historical choices that Biden has ever done. Probably the single biggest mistake of his entire career. You could easily argue that if he'd chosen somebody who was better as a vice president, he could have done a handoff. People would feel far more secure about his age. It fed into the worst stereotypes of, like, wokeism or whatever as part of his administration.

And I think it validated some of the worst fears of the people who are skeptical of him. And it does show that he has genuinely bad judgment on all these things. And obviously you have a mixed race group there. And not one of them brought up, like, the importance of her historic trailblazing, whatever. And some, you know, the biggest critic there, Mary, you know, this is a older black woman who was saying not in a million years do I think that she could beat Trump. And I think we'd fail if she was president. I don't even know why she's vice president. So I think it blows up some of their excuses from the Harris team that they're constantly leaking in the press of like, oh, the problem is just her race, her gender, like people don't take her seriously. And

sexism and racism are very real things. But there's also something else going on here that I think you see reflected in this group. And it was interesting to me that even the people who, you know, had positive things to say about her, they had some sort of narrative about why she hadn't really been able to shine on the national stage. Like, I think she's providing backup for Biden. She's more under the radar. They must have seen something in her. She needs the one gentleman who said he did think she could beat Trump. He's like, they need to put something forward for her so she can really, you know, show off what she can do to the American public. So even the ones that

had positive things to say about her, they had some sort of a story that they had to construct about why it hasn't really worked out for her on the national stage. I agree. All right. So we have one fun little exercise that James asked our focus group participants to do, which was to draw what animal they think would represent either Trump or Biden. We'll see if we've got any real artists in the group. Let's take a look. I want you to draw two animals for me. On the left-hand side, I want you to draw what animal would Joe Biden be? And on the right-hand side, you guessed it, guys,

what animal would Donald Trump be? It doesn't have to be art. I want you to do a... You can also... You can write the word under the drawing, nice and big. I want you to hold it up and I want you to say

who you've drawn and one quick reason why you've drawn them in that way. Okay, I got Biden. He's a lamb because he care about everybody else. And I got Trump as a tiger because he always try to keep up stuff gone. We need to put him in the zoo.

I have Biden as a dog because he's intelligent, he's kind, but he can also be tough. And Trump is a snake. Why a snake? Because he's a snake. He's mean as a snake. I said Biden is a bitch. He's a teddy bear.

And then I put Trump is a bad dog. Tell us why for each. I feel because he's a teddy bear because he's compassionate, he's kind. You know, he's one of them people you just want to hug. And, of course, I put Trump as the bad dog. The one that he's like a pit. There's this grub onto you.

Don't want to let it let go. Biden as a kitten because he's docile. Donald as the horse's ass. Because he's an ass. That's the part. For Biden, I had an owl because I think he's wise. And I also think an owl is not like the strongest thing. But the owl is trustworthy.

And then for Trump, I had a snakehead fish. It's an invasive species in Florida. When they get caught, they kind of go crazy. And they kind of attack anything that's nearby it, whether they want to eat it or not. And it's it wreaks havoc on the wildlife in Florida. Biden is a German shepherd, but basically because their dog Commander. But I think he's loyal, you know, and then Trump the skunk, because I think he stinks. For Biden, I said a cat.

I mean, I have the cats. I thought of the cat. So, I mean, they're independent. They're loving. And for Trump, I mean, they're independent. They're loving. And for Trump, I know you said an animal. The only thing that came to mind, it was a roach. Because nobody liked roaches.

So there you go. Snakehead fish for Trump. You know what? Bad dog. Some of them are boomery. Horse's ass. I'm like, come on, brother. Come on.

You can do this. Okay. If I'm going to take anything away from this, not that you want to read too deeply into any of it, but the Trump ones tended to be sort of like tiger, snake, whatever. The Biden ones seemed to were more about his like empathy. Even the one who's like, he's a dog. It's because he's nice.

He's loyal. We'll set aside commander in his behavior. Yeah, I was like, who wants to tell her about commander and the biting? Anyway. And someone actually said he's like a kitten, which I'm not sure that's as a president, you know, commander in chief. Even your supporters are like, you're a kitten? I don't know if that's really what I

want. But I think, I mean, that is they always say that you vacillate between these extremes in American politics. Like after you elect one president then you go and elect their polar opposite. And I think you do kind of see that in those drawings in terms of the public impression of their predominant qualities. You do see this like total dichotomy between how they're seeing these two figures. No, I think you're right. I mean, I think for an ideal president, you want to be like, I don't even know how this would fit as an animal, but the characteristic to me would be like dignified, like stately, having command and control.

A male lion isn't exactly what it is. are not getting ones where that's what you would want as a leader, especially as like a stronger leader that has both confidence, warmth, but also can lead at the same time. Maybe Commander is not a bad, because you've got the loyalty, but then also you can bite when you need to. Because that just shows bad behavior. And then, you know, the bad owner. But that's a whole other discussion. Anyway, thank you guys again for enabling this.

There is nothing like just hearing directly from actual voters, how they're processing everything that's going on and, you know, and to see where it corresponds with and where it diverges from some of the public polling. Yes. And just get a little bit of the nuance of how people are actually looking at the political landscape. Absolutely. I agree. Thank you guys again. We'll put the graphic up there just one more time if you are able to help us out. Breakingpoints.com, 10% off. Help us build something that's even better. Let's do even more of these focus groups, guys. It's really, really inspiring that so many of you believe in the same mission that we do. It's been a great privilege for us. We will have breaking coverage for you over the weekend,

if necessary. Otherwise, we will see you all on Monday. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success.

You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father?

Well, Sam, luckily, it's You're Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy.

But to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.