Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 1/4/24: Ryan Confronts Biden Admin On War Crime Charges, Broader War Looms After Iran Attack, Bernie Demands No Israel Funding, Trump Beats Biden With Young Voters, Epstein Documents Unsealed, Wall St Dystopian Landlord Scheme, And Bibi Allies Defend Starvation Of Gaza

Episode Date: January 4, 2024

Krystal and Ryan discuss Ryan confronting the State Dep on war crimes charges, broader war looms after Iran terror attacks, Bernie demands no more Israel funding, Trump beating Biden with young and Hispanic voters, Epstein documents unsealed, Wall Street builds entire neighborhoods, and Bibi allies defend starvation of Gaza.   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/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories

shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones. The Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. What up, y'all? This your main man Memphis Bleak right here, host of Rock Solid Podcast. Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So whatever I went through while I was down in prison for two years, through that process, learn, learn from. Check out this exclusive episode with Ja Rule on Rock Solid. Open your free iHeartRadio app, search Rock Solid, and listen now. Hey, guys.

Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. We have an amazing show today. Crystal, what do we have for everybody? Indeed we do, because Ryan Grim is in the house.

And he did us the kindness of making some big news yesterday in the State Department briefing, asking some fantastic questions and getting some absolutely horrific answers, so we will break that down for you. Also got Dr. Trita Parsi coming in to break down the escalating risks of a wider war. This is something we've been tracking from the beginning, and it has never been as fraught and as dangerous as right now. Bernie Sanders finally coming out strong on Israel. We will tell you about his shift. We've got new details of Biden's political trouble and how they plan to try to get out of it. And the long-awaited Epstein docs released, unsealed. We've got some of them. Court records unsealed. And I would just say there's some powerful names. Bill Clinton

comes up quite a bit. Donald Trump is there, et cetera, et cetera. Nothing like that we didn't already know, I would say, but still kind of shocking. We also got a really interesting response from Alan Dershowitz that we'll play for you as well. Wall Street also with a new strategy to become America's landlord. We'll break that down for you. And I have a look at how Gaza is entering an outright famine and what that means for our country and certainly for the people there in Gaza. But we wanted to go ahead and start with Ryan in that State Department hearing, asking Matthew Miller about the increasingly common remarks that are being made by high-level Israeli officials calling for ethnic cleansing of Gazans out of

the Gaza Strip. Let's take a listen to that. Pick up on your response to Smotrich and Ben Gavir yesterday. You and Linda Thomas-Greenfield both had similar statements. You both said in your statements, quote, there should be no mass displacement of Palestinians from Gaza. Given that you both had the same word for word statement, it seems like there was thought put into that. Why use the word should there? There should be no mass displacement. Would you be willing to make a more definitive comment? There must. There must not be. Yeah. And then to get to Ben Gavir's response, which I'm sure you saw, he posted on Twitter,

with all due respect, we are not another star on the American flag. The United States is our best friend, but first of all, we will do what is best for the state of Israel. The emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the enclave or the envelope to return home and live in safety and to protect the IDF soldiers. Any response to Ben-Gavir's public response to you? So certainly Israel is a sovereign country that does make its own decisions. There is no dispute about that. The point of the statement that I made yesterday was that the comments that Ben-Gavir and Minister Smotrich have made are in direct contradiction of Israeli

government policy, as has been represented to us by multiple Israeli government officials, including the prime minister himself. So I'm not surprised that he continues to double down and make those statements. But they are not only in contradiction with United States policy and what we think is in the best interest of the Israeli people, the Palestinian people, the broader region, and ultimately stability in the world. But they are in direct contradiction of his own government's policy. And we believe those statements should stop. Direct contradiction of Israeli government policy. Ryan, what do you make of that response? I like the very end where he said, we believe those statements should stop.

It's like, because you're putting us in a really difficult position when you keep saying the quiet part out loud. Right. It's difficult to say that top ministers in a government are contradicting the government's policy. Because they are the government. They are the government. Now, he's right that there is a higher figure in the government, and that is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But as Netanyahu, just speaking fairly recently, saying we're not rejecting that possibility, and the possibility is, quote unquote, scenario of surrender and deportation, there are claims to be made for and against it. In my

article at The Intercept that I posted last night, I have a quote from Netanyahu from fairly recently where he says, regarding voluntary emigration, I have no problem with that. Our problem is not allowing the exit, but a lack of countries that are ready to take Palestinians in. And we are working on it. This is the direction we are going in, which seems to be in line with what Smotrich and Ben-Gabir are saying.

That's right. And in line, by the way, with, according to polling, what the Israeli public wants and is open to. And by the way, I don't know if you guys remember this, all the way back in the early days after October 7th, Tony Blinken went to Israel. This is when he went and said, I'm here as a Jewish person, first and foremost. And he made comments at the time pushing back on the idea of setting up some sort of a tent city, saying, I spoke with Sisi and this is completely off the table. But it was a tell that the Israeli government was already pushing in this direction of expelling Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip. We know because we've covered all of these pieces

extensively here, there was a report that came out from a government ministry saying, hey, here's our options for the day after. The one we prefer is pushing everybody out into the Sinai Desert. We know we have reports that Netanyahu has tasked one of his senior advisors with, quote unquote, coming up with plans to thin out the Gaza population. We know there's a plan that's been floated here in the U.S. with some bipartisan support to use aid dollars, our aid dollars, to pressure regional countries to accept refugees out of the Gaza Strip. So to say that it is not, that it's a direct contradiction of Israeli government policy is just, it's not even inaccurate. It's just a lie. And put the second element up here. I mean, you get pieces like this almost literally every day. This is the Times of Israel reporting Israeli officials are in talks with Congo and other African countries on taking in Gaza immigrants. Let me read a little

bit of this. Their Hebrew sister site reported that Israeli officials have held clandestine talks with the African nation of Congo and several others for potential acceptance of Gaza immigrants. Congo will be willing to take in migrants and we are in talks with others, a senior source in the security cabinet told that outlet. They also quote intelligence minister Gila Gamliel saying at the Knesset yesterday, at the end of the war, Hamas will collapse. There are no municipal authorities. The civilian population will be entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. There will be no work and 60% of Gaza's agricultural land will become security buffer zones. And this is the other piece, Ryan, that has been laid out very

clearly because in that original government ministry plan that I think was sort of like strategically or tactically released as a trial balloon, they laid out how they would do it. They said basically we'll destroy Gaza and then we'll make it the quote, humanitarian. That's right. Start in the north and then we'll proceed from there and we'll make it the humanitarian option so that we put pressure on U.S. and other countries of like, well, they're either going to starve and get bombed to death or they can be allowed to, quote unquote, voluntarily migrate out of the strip. The best argument that I've, the best counter argument that I've seen, and since Sagar's not here, I'll try to make a counter argument here. You would say that there's a war going on and you have to displace the population so that the population is not dying

under the reign of these bombs. And in fact, after my question, the Associated Press reporter pressed Matt Miller on this, he said, well, you said you're against the displacement of millions of Palestinians. There's already been displacement. They've already been displaced. And he said, well, that's different. They're getting out of harm's way because of the battle. Okay. Let's say that, of course, yes, you don't want civilians killed. There was another option that did not involve kicking them into the Sinai Desert. And that is the Negev, the desert that is just on the other side of the Gaza fence. There was nothing stopping Israel from building a tent city, a refugee camp, just a few miles away from Gaza and saying, look, come into Israeli territory here. They can heavily guard it. It's not as if they're going to go from there into Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. And then when the war is over, they come back in. But that's the part of it that made that

option never on the table for Israel. Because the plan was never that they would come back in into a kind of reconstructed Gaza after the war. It was go into the Sinai. And then from there, some of them stay and the rest are dispersed around the world. I also think this is very typical of the U.S. approach and certainly the Biden administration approach to Israel is they may verbally signal some discomfort with this or that action, this or that plan, while they are speeding weapons and support and providing diplomatic cover that inevitably leads to Israel effectuating the plans that they are saying out in the public that they are interested in pursuing. So, you know, to me, it fits very much with these elaborate fantasies that the U.S.

media and U.S. politicians over decades have really constructed about Israel that, to your point, Ryan, Netanyahu and his government coalition partners have made it very difficult for them to sustain because they are saying the quiet part out loud. And sometimes now, not just in Hebrew, sometimes they are now saying the quiet part out loud in English as well. That wasn't the only question that you were able to get into, Matthew Miller, though. You also asked whether they were concerned that the U.S. may be implicated in the genocide charges that Israel is now facing due to South Africa's filing at the International Criminal Court of Justice. Let's take a listen to that question as well.

To follow up on Turkey, I'm sure you've seen Turkey has joined South Africa in its charging Israel with genocide before the International Court of Justice. Is there any concern within the State Department that State Department officials could be roped into this prosecution? No, I will say that as it relates to the State Department, we have been committed to addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and have made a priority of preventing, as I just said in your response to your question, the displacement of Palestinians. I will also say, though, that genocide is, of course, a heinous atrocity, one of the most heinous atrocities that any individual can commit. Those are allegations that should not be made lightly. And as it pertains to the United States, we are not seeing

any acts that constitute genocide. And finally, over the break, top authorities in the Armenian quarter expressed deep concern that the Israeli government was using the conflict in Gaza to push out a lot of Armenian Christians from the Armenian quarter. Any response? So no specific response to that. But as we have said on a number of occasions, we do not want to see the government of Israel take any steps that would escalate tensions. South Africa has filed this 84-page lawsuit against Israel, accusing them of genocide. Israel says that this is blood libel. Does Washington agree? And where does this put Washington and Pretoria? We find this submission meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever.

So we had there, of course, John Kirby also responding to a similar question. And I mean, they're both basically giving the same answer. Kirby does a little more aggressively. But what did you make of Matt Miller's response there in particular that, oh, we're not seeing anything that constitutes genocide or would raise questions. And also, I thought it was interesting that he started by saying, look, we've been very aggressive in trying to resolve the humanitarian crisis. Like, if you're going to start prosecuting people, let's be clear that we tried to make it less bad than it is. Now, at the same time, they're sending weapons the entire time. Right. Which, his answer sort of accepts the premise that there's a serious prosecution here. Yeah. Whereas Kirby consistently has been kind of off the wall

in how aggressive he is in responding. Very true. Calling them, you guys heard it, meritless without any basis. In fact, which as Waleed Shah had pointed out on Twitter, was the exact same response that the US had to charges that were brought before the International Court of Justice against the apartheid South African government back in the 1980s. We said the exact same thing, that absolute meritless, like this is terrible stuff. How could you even contemplate this? It's an 84-page document that has six full pages of just quotes from Israeli officials. And we'll play a new one in a second if they want to amend their complaint because they haven't slowed down their genocide. I'll just pick one at random as I was going through it this morning. Israeli Minister of Heritage, Amakai Elihu. He said, the north of the Gaza Strip,

more beautiful than ever. Everything is blown up and flattened, simply a pleasure for the eyes. We must talk about the day after. In my mind, we will hand over lots to all those who fought for Gaza over the years and to those evicted from Gush Katif, which is a former Israeli settlement. So he's saying they will hand out land to Israelis in Gaza. It's this beautiful land, a pleasure for his eyes, seeing everything blown up and flattened. For Kirby to say that a document that includes so many quotes like this, which is coupled with what we're seeing on the ground, for him to say it's meritless is beyond absurd. Well, and you had the president of the United States himself describing the bombing campaign as indiscriminate, which is a war crime. So to say it's without any basis, well, that is in direct contradiction to what the president himself has indicated with his

comments. And to your point, Ryan, one of you and Emily sat down with, I'm forgetting his name. Paul Bigger? No, the Holocaust scholar. Oh, Roz Siegel. Yes, who said this is a textbook case of genocide. And one of the things that he pointed to was, listen, usually in these cases, as it's ongoing, the hardest part to prove is intent. So you can see the actions, you can see what's

unfolding, you can make some real educated guesses about what the end goals are, but to actually suss out, okay, do they have genocidal intent can be very difficult in real time. Not so here, when you have everyone from Netanyahu down openly making genocidal comments, calling for the absolute destruction of Gaza. Yoav Galant saying you're dealing with human animals. That's why we have to impose a complete siege. I mean, this is totally out in the open. And so to have pages and pages and pages of high-level government officials

and high-level military officials laying out exactly what they plan to do makes this incredibly unique. And as you were mentioning, we have, this is just the latest of many that you could pick of an Israeli lawmaker from the Likud party, that is Netanyahu's party, calling for the annihilation of all Gazans. Let's put this up and I can read the subtitles as he speaks. As it's clear to everyone today that the right wing is right in the matter of politics, in the matter of politicians. Today, it's Palestinians. Today, it's simple. You go everywhere and they tell them to destroy them. My friends at the attorney office who fought with me

in the political issues, in the debates, it is clear that you have to destroy all the Gazans. These are words that I have not heard saying, listen, they used to not say it. Now everybody's like, yeah, you've got to destroy all of the Gazans. And, you know, the Israeli public is in the grip of basically like a genocidal craze. Because if you look at the polling, I would love to say like these are outliers and this doesn't represent the Israeli public. But the reality is the overwhelming majority at least are in favor of pushing Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip. They're at least in favor of ethnic cleansing. And then the farther right are out there, you know, actively saying, hey, what if we nuke Gaza?

How about we destroy all of it? How about all of Gazans are annihilated? Right. We flatten it. It's beautiful. We take lots and give it to the people that used to be settlers there. And you and I both lived through the post- 9-11 period here in the United States. So it's not that hard for us to kind of put ourselves in that place. Not at all. Yeah.

If you weren't kind of conscious at that time, it's hard to describe just how bloodthirsty the American public was. So this is not unique to the Israeli public. That's right. And people right after October 7th kept describing it as 15 9-11s, which at the time there was some eye rolling. But if you take the feeling that people had on 9-12 here in the United States and multiply it by 15, you can imagine how you would get the public sentiment that, you know what, we're just not going to live next to these 2 million people. And this will get to our treat of Parsi segment later. We're not going to live anywhere near Hezbollah either.

But we're also not going to leave. So the only other option is you're going to displace millions of people, not just Hamas, because you had John Kirby saying for months, if Hamas surrenders, this is over. You now have the Israeli government officials making very clear Hamas could surrender today. Right. And they would not accomplish their stated objective, which is to clear out the Gazan population. I think that's a really important point. And this is another one of the fantasies that's been constructed and propped up by U.S. politicians, by Western media is that, you know, this military action in Gaza, the all-out assault on Gaza is about, quote, unquote, hunting for Hamas. Well, that's just

not true. Because if that was your actual goal, if your actual goal was eradicating Hamas, this is, and this is what military experts will tell you, this is not the way to do it at all. And we have now reporting saying, no, actually the goal here is destruction. We see the plans that have come out saying, look, we want to push people out in the north and then we want to make it unlivable in the south and we want to ultimately push them out. We also know the political demands of Netanyahu, who wants to hold on to power for as long as possible, which incentivizes him to, you know, sort of like quench the thirst for revenge that is widespread throughout the Israeli population and to extend the war as long as possible because he's been able to push off the questions about his own failures that led to, you know, missing all of the intelligence,

ignoring all of the intelligence, relocating IDF soldiers away from the area that was attacked on October 7th, he's been able to push those questions off and delay them until after the war is over. So he has every incentive to keep this thing going. But it's very clear that the way that the war has been waged on Gaza is not aimed at, quote-unquote, hunting for Hamas. It's much more about destroying the entirety of the Gaza Strip and then putting a choice to the U.S. primarily of basically like, okay, well, people can't live here anymore. It's uninhabitable. So what are you going to do now? Right. And international legal experts who have studied this case and who have

participated in previous genocide cases brought before the court think that this has a real chance of prevailing. Which brings us to the comments from the French ambassador to the United Nations, who has said that they will respect the decision no matter what. Because the court's mandate depends on international legitimacy. Yeah. As Andrew Jackson said about the Supreme Court, you know, they made their ruling, now let them enforce it. So it's, the question is, what happens? You know, first question is, do they get a conviction? Right. But then after a conviction, who enforces it? What mandate does it have to have actual teeth? And for somebody like the French to come forward and say, we're

going to respect this decision no matter what, is significant. Do we have that as a side? We do. Yeah, let's take a listen, guys. There will be legal implications if the international law is violated by one side, by all sides. It's pretty clear that there have been a violation of international law by different sides, if you look at this file from the very beginning. And we'll see what the consequences will be. As you just said, the International Court of Justice

has been seized of the matter. So I will not comment on this one. You know, France is a strong supporter of the ACJ. We'll see what they decide to on this matter. And we'll make sure that we'll support the outcome of the

decision. But I will not the same with the ICC and the decision by ICC. We are a strong supporter of international justice, whether it's criminal justice with ICC, whether it's ICJ for international law. And we certainly don't want the – we won't certainly encroach their mandates. So do you think that Israel is taking this proceeding seriously? I know you and Emily covered yesterday, or at least I think you did, that Israel is apparently interested in Alan Dershowitz representing them,

which, you know, from our perspective, maybe they're not taking this seriously, but actually the fact that they're thinking about who they would appoint to represent them indicates that they're not just brushing this aside as a nothing burger. Israel and the U.S. have both been among the most vocal kind of detractors of any kind of international court of justice or international criminal court. They're not alone, but they're the leading kind of voices against this sort of international approach to justice. But to see Israel kind of float Dershowitz and to see Dershowitz decline to comment on it, we're going to get to Dershowitz later in the show, of course, was interesting. You couldn't

tell if it's making a mockery of the whole thing because Dershowitz is kind of mockable at this point. But on the other hand, in a lot of circles, he's still Alan Dershowitz, the great lawyer who got Klaus Van Buren off decades ago. It almost was a very Trumpian move because Trump loves to find these lawyers who are people for his administration. And Dershowitz himself. Right. Who is like, you know, oh, I saw him on cable news and they were really like bombastic and held their own on cable news. So that's who I want in my corner.

And so to me, it was this very sort of like, you know, Trumpian reach for who was the right character to vociferously defend them in this case, which obviously he would vociferously defend them, whether his arguments have merit or not. Yeah, but I think they have to take it seriously because before October 7th, the boycott divestment sanctions movement was gaining steam around the world. This is a nonviolent approach to ending the occupation, to try to isolate Israel politically to force change, just as happened with South Africa. The number one kind of response to that from Israel and

its defenders was that this is anti-Semitic. Why are you singling out Israel? And you had states like Texas and others straight up banning support of of bds if the international court of justice finds israel guilty of genocide it's very difficult then to tell supporters of bds that the only reason they're supportive of bds is because they're anti-semites right because they can then point well what about the international court of justice right and. And so that then makes it easier politically for those forces aligned with Palestinian civil society to isolate Israel politically, which then pressures them to change their behavior. Yeah. And you can already see, I mean, some impact has been had by these charges, even in the fact that, you know,

John Kirby and Matthew Miller are having to get asked about it and having to respond and having to make some truly, you know, ridiculous statements in response to that. I want to go ahead and move on. There's been huge developments in terms of the risks of a broader war. So we're going to pause for a minute. We're going to bring in Dr. Trita Parsi and break all of that down for you. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her and it haunts me to this

day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades,

a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment that was, you know, dying.

This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This five months, we are not just celebrating. We're fighting back.

I'm George M. Johnson, and my book, All Boys Aren't Blue, was just named the most banned book in America. If the culture wars have taught me anything, it's that pride is protest. And on my podcast, Fighting Words, we talk to people who use their voices to resist, disrupt, and make our community stronger. This year, we are showing up and showing out. You need people being like, no, you're not going to tell us what to do. This regime is coming down on us.

And I don't want to just survive. I want to thrive. You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen. To freedom! Angelica Ross. We ready to fight? I'm ready to fight. I want to thrive. You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen. To freedom! Angelica Ross. We ready to fight? I'm ready to fight. And Gabrielle Yoon. Hi, George.

And storytellers with wisdom to spare. Listen on iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So as we've been discussing, risks have really been proliferating throughout the Middle East. We had that terrorist attack in Iran yesterday. We've had assassinations in Lebanon. We've, of course, had those Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the U.S. looking to escalate our response there. So joining us now to break down all of this, what it means, what it could mean, is Dr. Trita Parsi. He's, of course, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and fantastic friend of the show. Great to see you, sir. Great to see you. Happy New Year.

So you had an article that you just posted in The Nation. Let's put this up on the screen. Talking about the risks here, you asked the question, will Israel drag the U.S. into another ruinous war? And lay out the case very clearly that, you know, as the U.S. is trying to assemble this coalition to go after Houthis and figure out how to respond in all these various ways, that Biden has blocked the most clear solution to all of these problems, which is to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. Absolutely. And we have four areas of potential escalation right now. The Lebanese-Israeli border, Iraq and Syria with the militias attacking U.S. troops, the Red Sea because of what the Houthis are doing, and then, of course, a potential direct confrontation between Iran and

Israel, particularly if it emerges that the Israelis had a hand in those attacks yesterday, which, of course, at this point we don't know. The U.S.'s approach, Biden's approach essentially has been to escalate in order to de-escalate, move more troops there, issue threats. There's now very clear threats to the Houthis that they will be attacked if there's an additional attack against the ships. On a very immediate level, perhaps one can say that is understandable. There needs to be a degree of deterrence. But at the same time, the easiest and fastest way of actually de-escalating the situation is a ceasefire. And we know that for certain, because during the six days that there was a ceasefire, that's the six days in which the Iraqi militias completely seized all attacks on US troops.

There were six attacks the day before the ceasefire. But for those six days, nothing. And then they issued warnings on the sixth day of the ceasefire and saying that they will resume attacks if Israel resumes bombing Gaza. Even when it comes to the Houthis, there was a significant reduction. So we know for certain that at least there's a very significant likelihood of that succeeding. But it appears to be the one option that the Biden administration is the least inclined to pursue, even though it seems to be the most effective. Let's talk about the terrorist

attack yesterday at the event commemorating Qasem Soleimani. We actually have John Kirby here responding to questions. Matt Miller also made similar comments yesterday. Here's Kirby being asked about potential Israeli involvement in this attack. We don't have any more detail in terms of how it happened or who might be responsible for it. On your second question, again, I would point you to our Israeli partners to talk more about this. We're, again, not in a position to confirm the specific reports. I would just tell you that al-Huri was a noted, designated global terrorist. And if he is, in fact, dead, nobody should be shedding a tear over his loss. We have no indication at this time at all that Israel was involved in any way whatsoever.

No indication, but just to be clear, you don't think, did they support or assist in some other way? I would, I'm not gonna speak for another nation. I would just tell you that we have no indication that Israel was in any way involved in this. So his first answer was about the assassination of Al-Aurya, and he says, well, talk to the Israelis about that.

And then with the second one, he says, we have no indication that it was the Israelis. So there is a degree of difference in the kind of response there. So take them both. It's broadly assumed that Israel was responsible for the killing of the Hamas leader in Beirut, and Israel has made very little effort to deny that. When it comes to the attack in Iran, Israel does seem to be signaling to allies that they were not responsible. So why would they be responsible? Why was suspicion on them? And if it wasn't them, who would it have been and why? I mean, the suspicion as to why it would be them is, of course, because of the context that we're in. We had the assassination of the Iranian general in Damascus just about a week ago. And then you had the assassination of the Hamas

officials and others. So within this context- And a Hezbollah official. Hezbollah official yesterday as well. So given that context and on all of those others, there's clear fingered indication that there was Israelis. So it certainly raises suspicions. However, there's no evidence at this point. The evidence that some are putting forward that this is not the modus operandi of the Israelis, et cetera, I think that's a fair argument. But I think we should also recognize that things have changed after Gaza, after the October 7th attacks, in which the Israelis themselves have said that previous red lines, previous operations, previous ways of doing things are no longer the case. So I think we need

to keep that in mind. There is another possibility, of course, which is that it is the Iranian Mujahideen, the MEK, which is a terrorist organization, was on the EU's, on the US's terrorist list, got off that list during the Obama administration for political reasons because they were just buying off half of the city, the law before them. They were used by the Israelis to conduct assassinations of Iranian scientists. And this was revealed by the Obama administration itself, that the Israelis were working with the MEK. And the Israelis have had a relationship with the MEK for quite some time. Their modus operandi would very much be to do an attack of this kind. So it could also be that it is the MEK potentially with some Israeli dimension.

What about ISIS or the Sunni element? So ISIS in Afghanistan, the Khorasan province, they have attacked Iran just in the last three years more than three, four times. Some of those attacks quite bloody. Nothing like this, of course. And there is definitely a likelihood that it could be them as well. Do they specifically take credit for those attacks? They do. And on Twitter, there were accounts taking credit for it,

but not by the official sources there. But it's also a very interesting question that will be raised if this was ISIS. There's already all kinds of conspiracy theories in the region asking the question, why did ISIS never attack Israel during all of the period that it was active? And it would raise additional questions. During this war in Gaza, they have done nothing. They've said nothing about the war in Gaza, but then they take the opportunity to attack Iran. So it doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it will just add fuel to some of the speculation about all of this. So why would Israel potentially want war with Iran? Because I think that would be the other

pushback. It's like, this would be obviously incredibly escalatory. This would be inviting a direct confrontation if Israel did have some hand in this terrorist attack. So, what would be the potential logic behind it? So, that's the question I'm perplexed by, mindful of the fact that for 20 years, the Israelis have done everything they can to get the U.S. to go into war with Iran. And just remember what happened a couple of years ago when Netanyahu was pressing Donald Trump to attack Iran after the U.S. elections when Trump had lost. And Trump thought that perhaps by starting a war, he would be able to overturn the elections and he was pushed by Netanyahu to do so and there were counter pressure from Milley etc. The Israelis have tried to get the United States to go to war with Iran for more than 20 years. They've been

pushed back by previous presidents. Even Trump pushed back prior to that specific incident and he actually told the Israelis if you think this is a good idea, you should go ahead and do it on your own. And did not want to have part of it. Obama pushed back against this. Now the Israelis find themselves with the most deferential president that I can remember when it comes to Israeli military strategies and objectives. And they may just believe that this is the one opportunity they have waited for. Netanyahu in particular, who was in charge back then when they were trying to start a war with Iran. And the way the Israelis wanted to start a war is that they would do something, but they would drag the U.S. into it. Given how Biden has gone along with almost everything Israel

has done right now, it wouldn't be inconceivable that the Israelis would think that this is the best opportunity they have yet. Is it evidence that they were behind it? No. But as to the question, is there a potential motive? Clearly there is. But to set aside the attack inside Iran, you still have the Hezbollah assassination, the Iranian IRGC general in Syria getting assassinated, and then also then the Hamas official in Beirut. So there's clear evidence that they're certainly not opposed to an escalation. So let's say that they get what they want, that they get the escalation, that now there's a direct confrontation. Do you think that they're correct that the U.S. goes along with them? Depends on how it happens. I think if you have assassinations that then begets a strong response by Hezbollah or by Iran with another attack on Israel, with a lot of

civilian deaths, then I think once again you would find Biden in a situation that he would strongly support the Israeli war effort, which originally, at least initially, will be military support, other types of support. The question is, will it eventually drag the U.S. into the war itself? Because once that happens, I mean, already the U.S. is very much, I mean, all the weapons that are being used in Gaza essentially are American weapons. But once that happens, you're going to have additional escalation risks because you already have all of these attacks on U.S. troops and bases by Iraqi and Syrian militias.

At one point, one of them will be successful in that scenario. At that point, the U.S. will respond. I mean, the attack... They injured somebody pretty recently. Exactly. Just yesterday or a couple of hours ago, there was one in Iraq and the Iraqis are pointing the finger either at the U.S. or at Israel. Next time when some American soldiers are dead, the U.S. is going to respond even stronger and it just doesn't escalate further. I think we should remember one thing. We've been lucky that it hasn't happened

yet. On October 26th, there was an attack by an Iraqi militia against the Erbil base in northern Iraq. It managed to get through all of the American air defenses, 5 a.m. in the morning. It hit the barracks on the second floor where American soldiers were sleeping. By pure luck, the explosives did not work and the drone did not explode. Had it exploded, the U.S. most likely would have retaliated very strongly, killed a very large number of militiamen, which would probably have gotten another response by them, and we would be at war. And we all know the way that the media pushes. We already see the voices, you know, hawkish voices, both on the right and in the Democratic Party pushing this direction.

I also wanted to get your reaction to some news that's developing with regard to the Houthis. Put this up on the screen from the Wall Street Journal. This is A9, guys. U.S. allies give Houthis ultimatum, stop ship attacks or face consequences. This report says that U.S., Britain, and key allies issued what officials described as a final warning to the Houthi Yemeni rebel group Wednesday to cease its attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea or bear the consequences. They go on to say that the U.S. military has prepared options to strike the Iran-backed rebel group, according to U.S. officials. What are the risks attendant to this strategy?

Massive risk. I think, first of all, I think it's important to keep in mind this is the U and the US. Major other countries, France, Italy, Spain, have pulled out of this coalition precisely because of a desire not to get dragged into war. I think some of them were also fearing that they were used as bait. Looks like Bahrain is the only Middle Eastern country. Mighty Bahrain is it. So that tells you something. And incidentally. Micronesia took a pass. Yeah. They got our back elsewhere there, don't worry.

This is supposed to be a neighborhood watch watching the neighborhood, and the neighborhood is the Red Sea. There's no countries from the neighborhood in the neighborhood watch. Yeah. So, but the escalation risk is they're very significant. The Houthis have capabilities, ballistic missiles, et cetera. And one of the things that they might do, which would be very dangerous, and it would also be destabilizing for the region as a whole, they may start targeting the UAE and Saudi Arabia as a way of pressuring the US.

That could potentially then cause a breakdown of the Iranian-Saudi normalization, which actually has helped stabilize a lot of different areas in the region right now. If that falls apart, we might be in a much, much worse situation than we're right now. So this is, and that's beyond the escalation risk of the U.S. getting further dragged into the war, of course. This is, again, very dangerous, and it goes back to what we talked about earlier on. There is a much safer, faster, more effective way of preventing this escalation. And that is actually to have a ceasefire in Gaza. Let me just add one

point on that. It raises the question again and again, what is it? What is the US interest in continued bombardment of Gaza that is of such value that Biden is willing to risk all of these escalatory cycles. And on top of that, according to the Democrats themselves, they say that the elections in this year is going to be about the survival of American democracy. And the polls clearly show that Biden is destroying his winning coalition, particularly because of how he's pushing away the Gen Z. So he's not only risking his reelection, he's not only risking war, according to him himself, he's also risking American democracy. For what? What is the American interest in continued bombardment in Gaza that makes all of this worthwhile? That's actually what I wanted to ask you,

because it's also in contradiction with the reports of Biden's own strategy. You keep hearing that Blinken and Biden and others are telling them by the new year this has got to be done. What did Blinken say? You don't have that much runway. You don't have that much credit. Because when they said they wanted to go for months. It has to be over by now. So even they think this needs to end,

they have the power to end it. It is causing all of these risks to everything that they stand for, yet they're carrying on simply so that starvation and bombing can continue. And to what end? Do you have an answer to that question? I don't. The only thing I think we can say is that earlier assessments, which treated Biden as if he was not entirely on board with the Israeli strategy, but he was trying to build credibility with them with a bear hug or show support so that he at some point could be able to rein them back. I just don't think that has proven to be true because it seems much more likely that he actually signed on to the Israeli objective of the elimination of Hamas. He wanted to see Israel do to Hamas what the United States could not do to the Taliban. Knowing the lessons

from that lesson, he never, the lessons from that story, he nevertheless supported this. And I think that much better explains why he's been so obstinate about preventing a ceasefire and thinking that he's actually still building up cachet and credibility to at one point later on push for it. Yeah. At this point, you have to view that as absurd. I mean, it seems to me as almost just like purely ideological and not based on a current analysis of American interests, let alone humanitarianism. On that last point that you both referred to, there is this argument out there of like, oh, you all act like the U.S. could just push a button, this would all be over. And really, they're their own country. And even if we were opposed to it, they would continue and do what

they want to do. What is your response to that? Does the U.S. really have significant leverage in this situation? Of course it does. It's an absurd notion to say that the U.S. doesn't. I mean, we have that Israeli major general who just admitted it last week, last month, saying that all these weapons are coming from the U.S. If the U.S. cuts off the tap, we can't fight, period. So it's very clear. I mean, Biden has shipped 10,000 tons of weapons and ammunition to Israel since the beginning of this war. The Israelis need this to continue, particularly mindful of the pace and quantity of bombardments that they're raining down on Gaza, which far exceeds what the U.S. did in Mosul, for instance, against ISIS. But he also raises the

other question. If it is so, let's assume for a second that the United States doesn't have that leverage. Okay, then why are we sending these weapons? You can say that the U.S. doesn't have leverage to stop it. Why are we fueling it? Answer that question then. If it is so that we cannot stop it, fine, perhaps we can't. But why are we fueling it is so that we cannot stop it fine perhaps we can't but why are we fueling it why are we sending more weapons in that case that's the question that is not being answered yeah last question for me uh hassan nasrallah's speech yesterday uh leader of hezbollah what did you take away from that i think that speech again showed that there is no desire either in Iran or in Hezbollah to actually have open warfare. There is clearly a war going on between these different sides,

but open warfare in which the Israelis would completely invade Lebanon, the Lebanese would use all of their resources and assets against Israel, potentially dragging in the U.S., is not something that they believe is beneficial to them for a variety of reasons. It's not just because they're weak militarily. It's also what would it do inside of Lebanon because of its dynamics. The same thing is happening on the Iranian side. Lebanon's or Hezbollah's red line is that, you know, essentially an invasion is their red line. That's how they would get involved in a war. Same thing is coming on the Iranian side.

They're saying that unless there's an attack on Iranian soil, Iran will stay out of the war. Now, whether that terrorist attack qualifies as that, you know, there's a gray area there. It depends on how it is being interpreted. But I think from the very beginning, it's been clear. They're not looking for that open type of a confrontation. They're looking for a more indirect, asymmetric way of conducting this war. Dr. Parsi, thank you so much for spending some time with us this morning. It's truly invaluable. Thank you so much for having me.

Great to see you. Good to see you. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her.

And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter.

She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people.

Everyone thought they knew her, until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah

on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This Pride Month, we are not just celebrating. We're fighting back. I'm George M. Johnson, and my book, All Boys Aren't Blue, was just named the most banned book in America. If the culture wars have taught me anything, it's that pride is protest. And on my podcast, Fighting Words, we talk to people who use their voices to resist, disrupt, and make our community stronger. This year, we are showing up and showing out.

You need people being like, no, you're not going to tell us what to do. This regime is coming down on us. And I don't want to just survive. I want to thrive. You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen. To freedom! Angelica Ross. We ready to fight. I'm readyica Ross, and Gabrielle Yoon,

and storytellers with wisdom to spare. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Bernie Sanders is shifting his tone a bit on the war in Gaza, coming out with a statement calling Netanyahu's war, quote, we can put this up here, illegal, immoral, brutal, and grossly disproportionate. He says, Congress must reject any effort to pass $10 billion of unconditional military aid for the right-wing Netanyahu government. Longer statement up there if you want to pause it and read it. Crystal, let's unpack this a little bit. First, the obvious point, he has yet to call for a ceasefire. One of the things that people have always loved about Bernie

is his consistency and his stubbornness. Here it plays in the other direction though, huh? His stubbornness. I'd be surprised if he goes to his grave never calling for the word ceasefire. He might say the fire should cease, but he's not going to let the left pressure him into saying a ceasefire. He will call the war illegal, grossly disproportionate, immoral, and brutal, but he's just not going to go there and say those words, which, whatever, we're not here to make Bernie Sanders say magical words because they're not going to actually do anything. How significant is this though? Let's say short of calling for a ceasefire, how significant is it for him to call for blocking the $10 billion and to call the war illegal? Because that's calling for a ceasefire because nobody supports an illegal war. He just won't

say the words. He just won't say the words, which is frustrating. I mean, it is frustrating because like, just at this point, really, how many were up according to Euromed Monitor? Over 30,000. One point on that, not me, us, is undermined if it really, if your ego won't let you go with the us. Very true. That is very true. I do think, I mean, so it's complicated because on the one hand, you're like, number one, what took you so freaking long to have this level of upset over what has been clear from day one? I mean, Bernie Sanders is not naive about who Benjamin Netanyahu is. He's not naive about what the current Israeli government is or about really what successive Israeli governments have

been moving towards for decades now. Because I also don't want to give the impression that Netanyahu is some outlier in Israeli society right now. He's not. I mean, if anything, in Israeli society, he is kind of a moderate, which is terrifying. His government, however, is the most extreme in history. Bernie is not ignorant of any of these facts. So it was always clear from day one that the response was going to be a horror. And the statements that were made from the Israeli government, in case you were in any doubt, you could just listen to their own comments. You know, the siege, the complete medieval siege, denying millions of people food, water, medical care, fuel, etc. That was announced as official government policy. So to not see it for what it was from day one was preposterous. Then, of course,

you have the specter of, you know, somewhere around, the numbers vary a little bit, but around 80% of the deaths being innocent civilians, which also was incredibly predictable in a densely populated enclave where a majority of people are kids. So, you know, that was not surprising either. But for it to have taken this long to even put out this statement is immensely frustrating. However, you want to say, okay, good. I'm glad you finally are seeing it at least somewhat like what the overwhelming majority of the world and certainly the overwhelming majority of your supporters, the way that they see this thing. And I do think it's significant because he is a United States Senator and an individual Senator, as you know better than I do, has a significant amount of power. You now have a

situation where the Biden administration is trying to put together these three pieces, Ukraine aid, border funding, and additional aid to Israel. And the idea is in the new year when Congress comes back that this is going to be a top priority. And so if you have Bernie Sanders really trying to muck up the works on that whole thing and taking an adamant stance against it, yeah, I do think that that actually does have some significance. Yeah. It's been a real drag on the anti-war push to have to drag the most left-wing senator to this position. I mean, on AIPAC. Right. Look at Bernie Sanders making the case against a ceasefire, which was grotesque, which was grotesque to see.

Yeah, and your point to single out his use of the word, the phrase, the right-wing Netanyahu government as a way to kind of distance the entire project from this and to try to pin it on Netanyahu, I think is relevant here. And to show how far he had to travel, there was a clip from early November where he was on cable television and was asked about a ceasefire. Let's roll this and then unpack it. I want to just clarify one thing, Senator, if I might. You support a humanitarian pause in Gaza. Some of your fellow progressives say that there should be a full-on ceasefire, which would require an agreement on both sides to halt the fighting. Do you support a ceasefire? And if not, why not? Well, I don't know how you can have a ceasefire, permanent ceasefire, with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos

and destroying the state of Israel. And I think what the Arab countries in the region understand that Hamas has got to go. Right. So that's almost, that's two months ago at this point. What I found so interesting about that response from him is that a kind of left-wing senator analysis of that same situation would say, okay, yes, sure, yes. Hamas is founded with genocidal intent towards Israel. But Hamas and the occupation are mutually reinforcing kind of dysfunctional elements.

You could just as easily and kind of more persuasively say that how can you ever have a permanent ceasefire with one party militarily occupying another party? That's not a ceasefire. Even if the occupation doesn't involve kind of shooting civilians for a period of several hours or several days, an occupation is still done by force. And there had been hundreds of civilians killed just in the West Bank before October 7th. That's right. Those get ignored, though, in this whole ceasefire conversation. You keep hearing AIPAC in particular say one of their big talking points is there was a ceasefire on October 6th. No, there's been an ongoing war, which involves an occupation. That's not a ceasefire. To make it entirely clear, the greatest threat to Hamas and the greatest

threat to Israeli extremists is de-escalation and peace. That is the greatest threat to Hamas. And that's not theoretical. When you look at a polling of Palestinians throughout history, when there was some peaceful process to be engaged with, where there was some reasonable hope and expectation that it would result in some kind of a settlement, not even what I would call a just settlement, but some kind of a settlement, support for groups like Hamas, armed resistance groups like Hamas, decreases. When those pathways are all closed, guess what? Support for violence increases. And we're seeing it right now. I mean, this idea that, oh, by inflicting a shock on the civilian population,

they're going to turn on Hamas and that's how we're going to get them. It's preposterous. This has literally never happened in history that bombing the hell out of a civilian population causes them to turn on whoever there is governing them. No, it causes them to be hardened in their actual support to rally around the flag. This is what we saw in the bombings in Britain during World War II. This is what we saw in the Allied bombings of Dresden and other places in Germany in World War II. We have seen this throughout history. So it's a preposterous idea. And, you know, I don't know. I don't want to psychoanalyze Bernie. It seems to me that, and this is not to make excuses either, he's like a product of his generation on this. Because if you look at the polling, you know, the older you are, the more likely you are to see things through

this binary of Israel's good and the Palestinians are bad and that's that. And so it just seems to me like he has been incredibly corrupted by the propaganda that he has been exposed to throughout his life and is much more similar to his own generational cohort than he is to the younger base that, you know, overwhelmingly supports him and most of his ideas. Yeah. And your point that peace is the real risk to these extremists, both in the Israeli government and Hamas, is so important and needs to be underscored. There have been idiots within Hamas who thought that violent attacks against Israeli civilians would cause the Israeli public to turn against

the occupation. There were people who made that argument. Absurd, immoral, unethical, disgusting, gross, and also tactically incorrect. It unifies the country. We've seen it before, though. When the ANC was of terror attacks against the apartheid South African government, the white Afant wing of the ANC had no reason to exist anymore and just faded away. The IRA was told the same thing, that if we give in to the IRA, that they're going to take out violent retribution against the British because of what the British have been doing for thousands of years to the Irish. The depth of the hatred, both religious and ethnic, is so deep that it's going to lead to endless violence. So we just have to keep our boot on the neck of the IRA. As soon as the war ends and there's dignity and peace, the reason to be in the militant wing of Sinn Féin just evaporates.

Yeah. And you have some splinter groups that just are defined by their need to be violent. But they're just tiny little elements that fade away. And within a couple generations, they're completely gone. And also, people age out. Like that's the other thing people don't understand. Like participating in that sort of violence is a thing you do in your teens and 20s for the most part. And that, you know, if you can get to a place where you can just live a normal life,

that's what most people want. And that's why you don't have bombings in Dublin anymore or in South Africa. And to ignore that analysis is to make the case, which unfortunately many do, that Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims are somehow different. Just inherently violent. They're just inherently, you know, yes, it's in their DNA, which is obviously a wrong and blatantly racist view, which again, unfortunately, is all too common and pervades so much of the thinking on this conflict. And is how the news media is typically able to get away with these completely dehumanizing statements about Palestinians, the coverage of Palestinian atrocities. How we just had one of the deadliest attacks,

which is really saying something in all of this war. I think there were roughly 200 Palestinians killed in this one attack in Gaza. You may not have even heard about it. It was a footnote. Imagine if that was Israelis. Imagine if it was any, you know, Europeans. Imagine if it was here, God forbid. This would be front page news for months and months and months and justify apparently all sorts of atrocities being committed. But since it's Palestinians, it's barely a blip on the radar. Right. And there are two million Arab-Israeli civilians. And they're not blowing things up all over the place.

There's nothing inherent in being Arab. That's a great point. They're the same people. It's the oppression. Right. Yeah. It's just they live on different sides of the fence. Yeah. That is such a great point. The political fallout certainly continues for Joe Biden over his response here. Ryan, why don't you break down some of the latest polling for us? Not looking good. You put up this first one. So several months ago, you started seeing polls showing Biden losing vote share among young people and among Hispanics.

And originally, it would kick off days of kind of discourse online about how the polling must be completely wrong. We've seen so much of it now. People just have to start taking it seriously. So this poll from The Independent has Trump leading Biden among Hispanic voters, an absolutely incredible collapse for Biden. This has Trump up 39-34. Even if you consider this to be something of an outlier, it's directionally in the same direction as other polls you've seen.

I think Biden won close to two-thirds of Hispanic voters in 2023. We've also seen Donald Trump leading Joe Biden among young people in this independent poll, in this poll, 37 to 33. Even if you say, look, this is wrong, how wrong is it? Let's say it's off by 10 points in each direction. Yeah. That still puts Biden only at 43. Still a catastrophe. 27 or something. Biden has to win, like he did in 2020, overwhelmingly among young people. He has to run up numbers with Hispanic voters. He has to maintain his margins with black voters. And he's not doing any of that. The coalition is coming apart at the seams. It's collapsed. And I mean, it sort of exposes

the lie. There's this idea in modern politics that everyone is just like totally partisan and no one changes their mind based on events on the ground. Not so, guys. People are changing their mind in real time in a major way. And in the same poll, which was a USA Today Suffolk University poll, they also found that only 63% of black voters support Joe Biden. Now, this is interesting. It's not that black voters are saying, oh, actually, we love Donald Trump. No, Donald Trump is still getting the same 12% of black voters that supported him last time around. However, you have one in five black respondents saying they're going to back a third party candidate in 2024. And it's a similar story with young people. It's not like they are flocking to Donald Trump. It's that they're looking around and saying,

you know what? I just, I can't do this anymore. And it turns out that participating in mass atrocities and, you know, spending our taxpayer dollars to kill babies in the Gaza Strip turns out that has not only horrific humanitarian consequences and consequences for U.S. interests. It also has some pretty negative consequences for you politically. And you might be asking yourself, do Democrats just want to lose? Well, maybe, but let's assume for the sake of this conversation that they actually want to win. And then the question is, why on earth would they stand behind a candidate who is getting crushed so badly in the polls when you still have almost a year to go before the election? And the answer that I get from Democratic partisans and operatives in Washington is that their wing and a prayer is that those people who are telling

pollsters now that they're not supporting Biden, but they're not supporting Trump, when forced, when push comes to shove, because they are being pushed and shoved into the ballot box, that they will come back to Biden and reluctantly cast a ballot for him. What I think that they're not understanding is not only do you have, maybe Cornel West is on the ballot, maybe Cornel West is not. RFK Jr. is going to be on the ballot in a lot of places. He's getting a lot of publicity within independent media and podcasts, which are places that a lot of working class people get their news from because they're listening to them during quote unquote window time. Probably most of the people listening to us right now are engaged in some kind of window time. That means they're

driving a truck, they're driving an Uber, they're just driving themselves on a long commute, or they're working construction, they're working in a kitchen, they're working in a hotel, and they want something to kind of keep their mind off the boredom of the work. So they're listening to these long-form podcasts. RFK Jr. is on those. So if he's on the ballot and you're trying to push these voters who have told you that they hate Biden into voting for Biden, they might take this other choice. And so that bet that they're making is the whole reason that they, and Trump's unpopularity is the whole reason that they're unwilling to consider any kind of alternatives to Biden. It's just a wild bet. And I don't want to hear anything about, you know, from those kinds of Democrats about who cares about the, you know, electoral politics. Right.

If this is the gamble that they're willing to take with the future of the country. So true. And listen, let's be clear. Trump was also incredibly sycophantic with Israel. RFK Jr. may be the most talkish. More than them. Yeah, that's what's crazy. maybe the most hawkish, maybe the most pro-Israel of all of them, judging by my recent conversation with him and many of other comments that he's said as well. But voting isn't necessarily rational. That's right. He is an alternative. He is a protest vote. And, you know, also, by the way, I do think that there is something genuinely different between, okay, he's making all of these statements that are incredibly pro-Israel

versus he's shipping the weapons. He's blocking the UN resolutions. He's actively participating in these atrocities and running cover right now. We see it before our eyes. That just hits a little different than theoretical statements that are being made. And to underscore, I think, what a break there is, especially among young people on this issue. This to me is extraordinary. I don't know, Ryan, you can tell me because you've got a better memory than me, whether you've ever seen anything like this in presidential politics. Put this up on the screen. Biden's own campaign staffers. 17 of them. 17 Biden for president 2024 campaign staffers just published this anonymous medium post calling him out for his unconditional support. They say,

dear president, we need, dear president Biden, we need a ceasefire now. We write to you as the current staff of your reelection campaign. As we work to mobilize voters to cast their ballots for you, we must take a moment to acknowledge our tremendous grief and the grief shared by countless other Americans toward the violence occurring in Gaza. We join this campaign because the values that you and we share are once worth fighting for. Justice, empathy, and our belief in the dignity of human life is the backbone of the Democratic Party, they claim, but of the country. However, your administration's response to Israel's indiscriminate bombing,

a carefully chosen word because that's what Biden himself said, in Gaza, has been fundamentally antithetical to those values, and we believe it could cost you the 2024 election. They go on to list a series of actions that they would like to see him take. But I don't know that I've ever seen a campaign staff, presidential campaign staff, come out in this organized fashion and say, you have to stop this. You have to change. Now, they didn't put their names on it, which has been a habit and a pattern in a lot of these staff letters that have circulated. But it was published by Politico's

West Wing playbook, which is, as the name suggests, read very closely in the West Wing. And so they very deliberately targeted it to make sure that everybody inside the White House read it. And those reporters, because we've reported on some of these anonymous letters, you make sure that you're not getting punked by like just some random person DMs you on Twitter. It's like, hey, I'm a campaigner. You're like, all right, prove that you have 17 people. Who are the people? All right, okay, now we'll let this ride. But yes, I've never seen anything like this.

Partly, it's new that staff are willing to stand up in this way. That's kind of a post-2015, 2020 thing. But you've certainly never seen a staff of a presidential campaign, and certainly not of an incumbent president, come out with this firm of a rejection of their own candidate. Yeah. So the Biden team does have a plan to try to combat the collapsing poll numbers that they see. Let's put this up on the screen. They're going to lean into Trump and lean into January 6th. And I mean, listen, I might sneer at this, but let's also be clear. I mean, this kind of worked for them in the midterms of like, listen, we're not really promising much, but we're not them. And Trump is a maniac and all the people

he supports is a maniac. And January 6th was horrendous. And, you know, let's throw in the overturning of Roe versus Wade. Again, we're not going to do anything to reclaim those rights, but we're not going to further erode them. And in the midterms and in every basically special election we've had since then, it's been a pretty potent political message. So I can't completely turn up my nose at it or sneer at it. And what's so incredible is that when it comes to codifying Roe v. Wade, they actually could run on that. Because they're getting an enormous amount of support in special elections and around the country from the rejection of the kind of Republican agenda and the successful Republican agenda of overturning Roe v. Wade. Biden could go to voters and say, if you elect me and hold the Senate and give me one or two more people in the House of Representatives,

flip the House, we will codify Roe v. Wade into law. You could actually, I know it's a novel idea. You could actually run on something? To make a promise, a pledge of something that you will do, get votes for that thing, and then do that thing. You could do that, but that seems to be just so far beyond the imaginations of our politicians that they'd just much rather just say, remember how bad January 6th was and also how, you know, what a maniac Trump is. You don't want that. So vote, so vote for us.

Yeah. And I do think that, listen, time will tell, they're betting basically. If he might win, that's what's so crazy. Biden could win. Absolutely. People should not take from this that it's locked in. Absolutely. That is certainly the case because people do hate Donald Trump and aren't excited about the chaos that he would bring with another four years of him in the White House. But I do think that there is something that has fundamentally broken with regard to the Biden response in Israel with, you know, unconditional support for Israel that they don't seem to

have really processed. You know, I think they really feel like, oh, they'll just get over it. Like they'll move on. And if we don't give them a choice, they'll come back. They'll come back around. And I just, I wouldn't bet on that because I do think that this is a kind of like a rock war type breaking point for young people who cannot wrap their heads around the fact that we are so directly complicit in these horrors that they are seeing every day on TikTok and other places where it's like, okay, this is not just some horror happening in some far off land. We are funding this. We are directly complicit in this. This is happening on our watch with this guy that many of us voted

for. And so I do think that it is, you know, a different type of, this isn't just a like, oh, they'll move on to the next issue of the day. I think this has fundamentally reshaped an entire generation's relationship towards the Democratic Party. Yeah. And I know it'll never happen, but I wanted to get your take on the In These Times piece that was out yesterday. Yeah, I saw your comments. Yeah, so they floated Andy Levin for president. Now, it's partly absurd because I have to explain to everybody probably who Andy Levin is. He's a former member of Congress who was basically driven out of office by AIPAC in 2022. He's the scion of the Levin family in Michigan. It's Carl

Levin, the son of Sandy Levin, who was the Ways and Means chairman. He'd win Michigan. He's the scion of the Levin family in Michigan. It's Carl Levin, the son of Sandy Levin, who was the Ways and Means chairman. He'd win Michigan. He'd waltz through Michigan. He's also a former synagogue president. Okay. But he has been very critical of Israel. He calls himself a Zionist, but he's been very critical of Israel for years and was very supportive of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib every time that they were attacked. And AIPAC said that the reason they went after him was that he, as a former synagogue president, was giving cover to critics of Israel. He was sort of a uniquely powerful and influential voice.

He's also, he was the most powerful and most eloquent kind of pro-labor and pro-union voice in the House. So, I mean, I think if you actually did nominate him, he went, AIPAC absolutely loses its mind. He wins Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania with his connections there and with his pro-labor, pro-union record. And he easily beats Donald Trump by 10 points. And I don't see that as even a controversial thing to say. Right. Yet it's basically impossible to envision it happening, which then raises the question of what is the point of a political party that can't do that, that can't even conceptualize of doing that. Right. I mean, listen, I am all for it. I am 100% on board. But it's not like there haven't been alternatives in the Democratic primary from the beginning.

You've got Marianne Williams. You've got Dean Phillips. So if your whole thing is like, oh, she's never been elected office. Well, this is a credentialed fellow who, he's not where I am on Israel, but he's been much better than Joe Biden and has an actual knowledge of the region. He's on the, what is he, the chair of the subcommittee on the Middle East. So he has, you know, he's been to the region. He has some understanding of it. And so there are alternatives, but the Democratic Party has gone out of their way to make sure that there are not only no debates. Not even having primaries.

They're not even having primaries. That's right. I mean, this news just broke of another state, I believe it was North Carolina, that just kicked everybody off the ballot except Joe Biden. And it's preposterous. It's like Saddam Hussein stuff. It truly, truly is. So you now are up to, I believe it's four or five states that have just said, we're just not even having a primary. We're just Joe Biden. You're the guy. That's it. 100 percent to zero. Congratulations. Right. And all in the interest of preserving democracy, of course. So, you know, you just can't take seriously that they actually believe that democracy is at risk, that Trump is a unique threat, because if he was, yeah, you talk about, you know, Levin, the fact that he's not that known and he's just sort of like a generic person is a massive asset.

Right. Every poll shows that if you just have generic Democrat on the ballot, they beat Trump hands down. It's not even close. Well, I've got a generic Democrat. Yeah, you add to it that he's got, you know, good like populist labor and he's good on the issue of, you know, not just enabling genocide because it's Israel. And yeah, I think you've got a pretty compelling case there, in my opinion. But the Biden team does have one thing going for them. That's true.

Ryan, this was just recently on Fox News. I just had to find an excuse to put this in the show because it's sort of hilarious. For some reason, I don't know why, they brought on a tarot card reader to try to tell us about the future of what's going to happen in politics. And they asked her specifically about the coming year for Donald Trump. Let's take a look at what happens. Oh, what is that? I mean, I do recognize that I'm at Fox TV. I have a sense of loss. The death card she pulls there and she tries to come and be like, it just means a loss. Uh-oh. It means a loss. Yes.

Dark year for Donald Trump. Listen, I guess the lesson there is literally anything could happen over the course of this year. I think any outcome is on the table. Certainly. Yeah. I mean, if I were Trump right now, I wouldn't be feeling great either. I wouldn't be feeling great if I were either of these people. No.

Yet one of them probably is going to win, which is bizarre. Would not be feeling great if I was an American citizen, which I am. And I'm not feeling great about what 2024 is going to bring. Because like I said, I just, I can't, you know, normally like we're political nerds. I get excited for presidential years. The Iowa caucuses are what, less than two weeks away now, which is crazy to me. And it's just like, I cannot envision a positive scenario unfolding that I would be happy about or that the American people should be happy

about this year. And, you know, I don't think I'm an outlier in feeling that way. Yeah, it's pretty bad. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough. Someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her. Until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real?

I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This five months, we are not just celebrating. We're fighting back. I'm George M. Johnson.

And my book, All Boys Aren't Blue, was just named the most banned book in America. If the culture wars have taught me anything, it's that pride is protest. And on my podcast, Fighting Words, we talk to people who use their voices to resist, disrupt, and make our community stronger. This year, we are showing up and showing out. You need people being like, no, you're not going to tell us what to do. This regime is coming down on us. And I don't want to just survive. I want to thrive.

You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen. To freedom! Angelica Ross. We ready to fight? I'm ready to fight. And Gabrielle Yoon. Hi, George. And storytellers with wisdom to spare. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. At the same time, we had some big reveals yesterday. This was much

anticipated. Unsealing of court documents, revealing some of the depositions with regards to Jeffrey Epstein. We can go ahead and break this down. Let's put this up on the screen. This is from CBS News. Their news article writes, Jeffrey Epstein contact names released by court. Here are key takeaways from those unsealed documents. And let me just give you a little bit of their synopsis, and then we can show you some of the specifics. So they say, documents that include the names of more than 100 people connected to Jeffrey Epstein, including business associates and accusers, among others, were made public on Wednesday, following a federal judge's December ruling that that information must be unsealed. More than 900 pages of mostly unredacted documents

were released. They indicate, and I think this is accurate, much of the information has been previously reported. However, to see the actual specifics is still quite noteworthy. And they mention, this is Virginia Goufray. This is part of her now settled defamation lawsuit. That's the context of all of this information and these depositions. She had accused British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell of enabling her abuse by Epstein. And Maxwell, of course, was found guilty back in 2021. Gosh, it's been that long now of enabling that abuse. And so some of the names here, you're not going to be surprised. We've got Britain's Prince Andrew. We've got Bill Clinton. We've got Bill Clinton. Bubba. We've got Donald Trump. We've got Alan Dershowitz. And we can show some of those details.

Let's go ahead and put this first one up on the screen. So this probably was the biggest piece that people were sharing. Let me just read this. This is, again, a part of a deposition. They say, let me back up. Do you know Bill Clinton was a friend of Jeffrey Epstein? This person says, I knew he had dealings with Bill Clinton. I did not know they were friends until I read the Vanity Fair article about them going to Africa together.

Question, did Jeffrey ever talk to you about Bill Clinton? Answer, he said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls. Ryan, what do you make of this? Gross, gross, gross, gross, gross. Yes. And this is, the reporting says this is Johanna Stoberg, one of the Epstein accusers. Just, I mean, not shocking, but just gross. Yeah. See it in print. Bill comes up a number of times, like this wasn't the only mention of him in these documents either, but this was the sort of most, I guess, damning commentary with regard to him that came up here. Yeah. And you also had, people were noticing, for instance, that like Al Gore's name came up in there, but then you

get to the part of the document where Al Gore's name is, and you said, did anybody ever mention Al Gore? And the person says, no. Right. Did they ever mention Tibbergore? No. So some people whose names are in there are in there because the lawyer just asked about them. Right. And in some ways they're sort of like exonerated by the commentary, but then just the fact that you came up in Epstein-Dox is I'm sure not a great feel. Gore's got his own situation with that massage thing, if you remember from many, many years ago. Vaguely remember that one. What we have next, I believe, is Prince Andrew. Jane Doe number three was forced allegedly to have sexual relationships with this prince when she was a minor in three separate geographical locations, London at Ghislaine Maxwell's apartment, New York,

and on Epstein's private island in the U.S., Virgin Islands, in an orgy with numerous other underage girls. Epstein instructed Jane Doe number three that she was to give the prince whatever he demanded and required Jane Doe number three to report back to him on the details of that sexual abuse Maxwell facilitated, they say. Prince Andrews acts of sexual abuse by acting as a madam for Epstein, thereby assisting in internationally trafficking Jane Doe, number three, and numerous other girls. These are the allegations. Another person that comes up here, I don't know if you guys remember this disgusting character, Jean-Luc Brunel, who was like the modeling, what was he, French modeling agent that was implicated in a lot of this as well. And years ago, I did reporting on

Prince Andrew through a financial lens because he got himself involved in all sorts of kind of shady financial dealings. What he would do is he would basically lend the credibility of the crown to corrupt banking operations and all sorts of other things. I didn't know that piece, though. He was a shady character on all fronts. Yeah, and while I was doing that reporting, people would just refer to him by his known nickname at the time, which was Randy Andy. So when this news broke, and we've obviously known about this for years at this point, like, oh, Randy Andy, okay. Not exactly the most shocking revelation to people who have known him for so long. And the French acting, the French guy sounds just like a comic book villain when it comes to sexual abuse.

Well, in the modeling connections with Epstein was reportedly how he was able to, you know, convince these young girls to be associated. oh, I can make you a star, basically, type of crap, and held himself out that way with Victoria's Secret in ways that the company, Lex Wexner was the owner, and he was apparently a big benefactor of Epstein and helped to facilitate his lavish lifestyle. And other underlings at Victoria's Secret were complaining about Epstein holding himself down as this modeling agent and trying to, you know, persuade young girls in various ways. The difference between what happened to these young girls and what happens to so many young girls trying to get into modeling is minuscule.

Like, so when he, and he actually had the imprimatur of Victoria's Secret in a private plane and access to the people like Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. So like, you know, I think every young girl who gets into modeling is nervous about, because they've all heard the stories

about what's going to happen. Yeah. Then you see a private plane and you see, you know, former presidents and prime ministers involved. At the time, now, that might be a red flag. At the time, that puts you a little bit at ease. Yeah, like, oh, these prominent people, certainly they wouldn't be. These are the most powerful people in the world.

Yeah. Now, because of the Epstein releases and revelations, you might have people like, oh, the most powerful people in the world involved with this, maybe it's actually pretty dangerous. Yes. So Trump did come up a couple of times. We have both of those. He was a sort of like side character in some of these interactions. Let's put this next one up on the screen. So, oh, this is Alan Dershowitz, actually. Sorry, we'll get to Trump in just a minute. So Dershowitz has long been accused of various horrific things with regard to Epstein. They say here that he forced Jane Doe number three to have

sexual relations with Alan Dershowitz, close friend of Epstein's well-known criminal defense attorney. By the way, Dershowitz helped Epstein get that sweetheart deal that enabled him to get off basically scot-free previous sex crimes conviction. Epstein required Jane Doe, number three, to have sexual relations with Dershowitz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Florida, but also on private planes in New York, New Mexico, and the US Virgin Islands. And Ryan, we actually have a perfect response from Alan Dershowitz in the wake of these new revelations. Guys, if we can play the response from Dershowitz so people can hear his side of the story. The one point I do wanna make is that I understand all the feminist groups and the

radicals who think this is the worst thing in the world, that anybody ever had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Where are all those radical feminists when it comes to the Hamas rapes of young Jewish girls, sexual abuse, beheadings. They are quiet. They are silent. The incredible hypocrisy of the Me Too movement. Me Too, except if you're a Jew. And I want to have a list of all the radical feminists who are pushing hard, and I understand that, to get all these names revealed. And I want to know how many of them have ever actually condemned Hamas for the rapes that we now know occurred and the murders that occurred. How many have been silent and how many like the National Lawyers Guild have actually approved of what Hamas did? So making it somehow about Israel, which is kind of perfect.

And also, Ryan, the idea that it was just quote unquote radical feminists who were interested in, you know, exposing the truth of who has been associated with Jeffrey Epstein is so preposterous. I mean, this is in a lot of ways, it codes almost like right-wing interest in Epstein, even though, you know, obviously there's just like a general public disgust and horror at what was unfolding among so many of our nations and our global elites. But to try to pin this like this was some secret feminist cabal that was pushing for the exposure here and they're the same feminist cabal who won't condemn Hamas is, I don't know, it's just absurdities on absurdities. And how little respect and how much contempt

do you have to have for the victims of October 7th to drag them into your Jeffrey Epstein scandal? So true. Like what could be more denigrating to their memory than that? Stand on your own two feet and defend your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Do not bring in the memories of the people who were killed on that day to try to distract from this. It's one of the most offensive things I think I've ever seen. Well, and we would be remiss if we didn't remark that many people believe that Epstein, why he so aggressively cultivated all these relationships with rich and powerful people, was because he was a foreign agent. And specifically, the theory, unconfirmed, is that he may have had Mossad connections. There's a lot of reporting to that effect. It's not proven.

It's not purely conjecture. And so, you know, the fact that you've got Alan Dershowitz, who is one of the most vociferous defenders of Israel, who's being floated as representing them at the ICJ, who also has this Epstein link. Many people are taking note of these things, Ryan. Yeah. And Giuffre and Dershowitz reached a settlement in which she dropped her allegation, this allegation where she said that it was a case of mistaken identity. And he also dropped his counter defamation claim against her. And so that appears to be the root of what rose here. But yeah, yes, I think you're right. Yes. All right. I think we next have Trump. We have the long teased Trump piece of this. So there was apparently a trip that went sort of awry. They asked,

did you see her in the plane on the trip to New York, engaged in any kind of affectionate or sexual contact with Jeffrey? No. With Ghislaine, no. How did it come to be that you were in a casino in Atlantic City? Well, we were flying. Jeffrey said, why don't you go sit in the cockpit to check out the landing? So we were sitting there and the pilots told me to go back and tell him we can't land in New York and that we're going to have to land in Atlantic City. Jeffrey said, great, we'll call up Trump and we'll go to, I don't recall the name of the casino, but we'll go to the casino. And then they go on to talk about some sort of ID issue. But that's basically like Trump's name coming up here of Jeffrey saying like, yeah, my good friend Trump will go to his casino. And in another instance, they asked, did you ever see Donald Trump at Jeffrey's home?

And this person says, not that I can remember on his island. No, not that I can remember in New Mexico. No, not that I can remember in New York. Not that I can remember. All right. And so in this instance, Donald Trump is sort of not connected at all in this person's recollection. And the ID issue is an indication of how young this girl was. The ID question was, well, she's not old enough to be in a casino. What are we going to do? And they eventually, according to that deposition, she was not able to gamble, but they still brought her along on this trip. Now, Trump, back in 2002, gave a statement to New York Magazine for a profile that they were doing of Epstein,

which was supposed to be an expose, but didn't fully come together as an expose of what Epstein was doing. You can hear Trump kind of dictating this statement to him. He said, I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. Now, there's also reporting, to give Trump some credit here, maybe more than he deserves because of reasons we'll go into in a second, that after Epstein, during the Bush administration, was convicted of,

I forget the exact charge, but it was some type of sexual assault-ish. It was knocked down to a very low degree, but it was still a sex crime. He was banned from Mar-a-Lago. And according to reporting that has come out, he did not associate with Trump after that. Because that's an interesting break in the Epstein saga. After he is a sex criminal, like a public sex criminal, tons of this stuff happened after that with these famous people. That's right. Where everybody kind of would have known that this had happened. Now, the reason I say we're giving Trump too much credit, it was a Bush administration, it was Acosta, a Bush administration assistant attorney, a US attorney who cut the sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein back then. He then became Trump's labor secretary.

Right. And then also Epstein died in prison under Trump's watch. So let's not forget that either. Worth noting as well. We're going with died. Ghislaine Maxwell responding to some of the latest information coming out. This is just too perfect. Put this up on the screen. She's breaking her silence, smiling at an attorney, playing the woman card here, saying it's all about men abusing women for a long period of time, and it's only one person in jail, a woman. Of course, Epstein was in jail, but he died. Died suddenly. Died suddenly, vaxxed, question mark. But to play the woman card here is utterly preposterous. The fact that there has not been full accountability for all the people that

clearly there should be full accountability is not to say you should also get out for, you should also face the same lack of accountability or to pretend like you weren't integral to these schemes and there's not a very good reason that you were serving prison time. I think she's right in the sense that there should be lots of men who are also in jail. Correct. Although she could have done more to facilitate that by testifying against a lot of these men. That is true. And going public.

Look, Ghislaine. That's a great point. You want more of these men in jail? Start talking. Start talking. Send us a letter. We'll read it here. We'll get these prosecutions going.

Yeah. But she saw what happened to Jeffrey Epstein when he died suddenly. So you can imagine why she might be reluctant to take that path. Indeed. All right. Let's move on to one story I didn't want to lose sight of because it's been of a lot of importance to many of you out there, which is the state of the housing market. And Wall Street apparently has a new scheme to further their plans to become America's landlord.

Put this up on the screen reporting from the Wall Street Journal. Welcome to the neighborhood. Wall Street designed it. Big residential property investors are finding it harder to buy in good neighborhoods. So they are building new ones. Um, they opened this piece, I think it's very interesting. Your new suburban rental has granite kitchen countertops built to withstand even the most hard-wearing tenant. The neighbors next door have the exact same laundry machine.

Welcome to the community where every detail has been designed to keep costs down for the Wall Street landlord. They indicate big investors are bullish about America's family homes, so bullish they are willing to buy or build entire new neighborhoods. They were also willing to buy them, but they found that harder to do. So now they're just building them out as it becomes more difficult to purchase houses for the usual channels. Interest rates are at multi-year highs. Fewer homes are for sale. Homes are also eye-wateringly expensive. In October, prices hit a fresh record. In October, increasingly, Wall Street's solution is to build new neighborhoods of family homes where everybody rents.

The model is not completely new. Clustered housing for students and senior citizens has been around. But they say the number of build-to-rent communities is still small, with 900 neighborhoods nationwide, each with an average of 135 to 150 homes, according to a report by the Urban Institute. But the concept is growing fast. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that roughly 10% of new housing construction is destined for build to rent. So on the one hand, Ryan, I suppose it's good that they're moving their gaze from buying up existing neighborhoods and snatching up the very limited inventory of single

family homes that are even available right now. On the other hand, of course, it's very unsettling to imagine these gigantic companies and permanent capital as your perma landlord. And it's just another indication of the sort of fraying and decaying of the American dream of owning your own house, which is the way that most Americans are able to achieve some level of stability and basic level of wealth so that they can, you know, have a traditional idealized American middle class life. And we've got to do something about Wall Street buying up all these homes. The fabric of this society is stitched together by the thread of the American dream. And the American dream is often as much a dream as it is a reality, but the dream has to be there. And what Wall Street is doing, even if it's exaggerated somewhat, the extent to which they have bought up the properties at this point, it undermines people's faith in the future. And so it's a political issue just waiting to be grabbed by somebody. And I think you just have to get them out of this buying up residential homes business. You just have to ban it. Or if you don't ban it, just make it extremely difficult

for them. So if they do it, if you own more than two or one residential homes, then these are the tax implications for that, to make them compete against homeowners in a way where actual human beings can out-compete them. Because right now, it's the opposite. Like right now, because they run it as a business, they can write off all sorts of things. And they have better access to capital than a human being. And so the human being is not just poorer, but also is tax disadvantaged in the competition for buying homes. You've got to flip that. You've got to make human beings tax advantaged against these corporations and Wall Street that are trying to buy it up. Now, more housing is a good thing. So maybe the deal that you offer them is, all right, we're kicking you out of this

scheme where you tried to buy up all of this housing. If you want to go out and build a bunch of homes and rent them, okay, fine. Like, if the deal is, then you're kicked out of destroying the American dream. Yeah. Like, is it ideal that Wall Street is your landlord because they built some tract homes somewhere? No, it's not ideal. Right. But it's not the worst either because at least they're building, at least homes are being built. And that is a huge problem that we just don't have enough housing. Massive problem. One thing that we've seen is, we covered this a while back, when you have these large scale landlords where it's not like mom andpop landlords are the most sympathetic of characters either. Let's be clear, the landlord is just in general not the most sympathetic

of figures. But when you have these big, national, massive companies buying up and renting out huge proportions and taking over the rental market in various locations, they use oftentimes algorithms that they have developed to absolutely maximize their profit, which of course they're going to do. That's what they're in the game to do. But oftentimes what they've discovered is it actually makes them more money to price people out of the market and charge the absolute max, even if it means some of your stock is sitting empty. It actually works out for them in the long term to charge those really higher prices than the market will actually bear. The other thing that you find is, oh, it turns out they're not great

landlords because they cut costs in every way that they possibly can. So there's all these documented instances of tenants having serious issues. We're talking like black mold and pipes exploding, whatever. And they do everything they possibly can to avoid having to pay for those repairs, to avoid having to do those repairs whatsoever. And this is the story of a modern economy in a lot of senses. The more that things become nationalized and go away from the local person that you have to look at, at your kids back to school night or the grocery store or run into in downtown or whatever, the easier it is to make those sort of decisions and feel absolutely nothing about it. Yeah, and the risk is that we'll go too long, let them buy up too

much market share that then they're too big, let them buy up too much market share, that then they're too big to fail. And when politicians finally are pressured by people to do something about it, now it's so built, it's so locked in. Yeah. Well, to the Democratic Party's credit, they have several proposals of actual legislation that is meant to curb the practices of Wall Street coming in and buying up single family homes. Some of this is quite significant. I'm blanking on all of this relevant details right at the moment, but it was pretty significant in terms of curbing the practice. So again, to the earlier discussion, if Joe Biden wanted to actually run on something,

this would be a good issue. It would put a lot of pressure on Republicans because they talk a big game about your homeowners and the housing market and being more populist. But when it came down to it, they're very much in bed with the developers. Donald Trump is a developer. So for him to side against these big Wall Street firms that he's buddies with, I think it would be very difficult and put him in a tough space. And it's obviously an issue that people care a lot about. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Catherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders.

I was calling about the murder of my husband. the cold case. I've never found her, and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister.

There's so many questions that we've never got any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her. Until they didn't.

I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. This Pride Month, we are not just celebrating. We're fighting back. I'm George M. Johnson, and my book, All Boys Aren't Blue, was just named the most banned book in America. If the culture wars have taught me anything, it's that pride is protest. And on my podcast, Fighting Words, we talk to people who use their voices to

resist, disrupt, and make our community stronger. This year, we are showing up and showing out. You need people being like, no, you're not going to tell us what to do. This regime is coming down on us. And I don't want to just survive.

I want to thrive. You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen. To freedom! Angelica Ross. We ready to fight. I'm ready to fight. And Gabrielle Yoon. Hi, George. And storytellers with wisdom to spare. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Well, what are you looking at today, Crystal? This is the reality of life today in Gaza. Such is the desperation in Gaza. We captured the moment an aid truck of mattresses was mobbed not far from the crossing where it entered. Fire from Hamas-run security guards frightens the crowd. And not for the first time, there is little law and order. Some people have been injured and killed just trying to get the basics. We'll take you today just for a short tour here.

There's barely anything in the markets. Virtually no commercial goods are getting into the strip. About 500 trucks a day used to enter to meet the needs of its people. Their needs are now barely met with only around 100 trucks a day. We are dying of hunger, poverty and everything. There's no shampoo to wash their hair. Look at what's happening to them. They have infections because of dirt and filth. Scenes of horror, as humans are reduced to absolute desperation and children go hungry. Yet to Knesset member and Likud party member Tali Gottlieb, this is right. This is good. It's

exactly as it should be. In an impassioned speech, she explained, per Google Translate, without hunger and thirst among the Gazan population, we will not be able to recruit collaborators. We will not be able to recruit intelligence. We will not be able to bribe people with food, drink, medicine in order to obtain intelligence. And we know that finding the abductees is a supreme and super important goal alongside the goals of fighting. Now, to be clear, this is a member of the ruling party actively celebrating and demanding starvation, dehydration, and medical collapse, demanding it continue indefinitely. Obviously, this is heinously immoral. Starving millions of civilians, half of whom are children, as a war tactic is a horror and a very clear war crime.

It is unspeakably awful to imagine what these kids and parents are going through right now. I personally can't imagine the pain of a single day where I could not feed my kids, and this has been the daily hell for the 2.2 million residents of Gaza for months now. But it isn't only immoral. It also fails as a war tactic, even if you don't care about wasted kids, babies too weak to nurse, moms too malnourished to produce milk. There's a reason, after all, that Israel has failed to rescue a single hostage. Even if they were actually serious about cultivating collaborators in their hunt for Hamas, they would surge aid to the civilian population, create a rift between Hamas and those civilians by offering a path to peace outside of armed

resistance, give them something to gain by cooperating. Just as in German bombings of Britain and Allied bombings of Germany, it turns out terrorizing a civilian population does not win support for those who are inflicting that catastrophic pain. Of course, hunting Hamas is not actually the primary goal of Israel's assault on Gaza. Bibi and his ilk have always found Hamas to be a useful foil and supported them for exactly this reason. October 7th did not change this fundamental dynamic. The real goal is retribution, to slake the appetite for destruction, for Bibi to try to cling to power and ultimately to destroy Gaza so that Israel might succeed in convincing its U.S. benefactors that completing their

ethnic cleansing by pushing Palestinians into the Sinai desert or elsewhere is actually a humanitarian option since their homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and markets have all been destroyed. In this light, imposing mass starvation on the population makes plenty of sense. Hold them hostage, denying them the basics of life, unless they agree to quote, voluntary migration. Of course, no migration is actually voluntary when you were forced to it by having your house bombed and your children starved. Now, at the beginning of their assault on Gaza, Israel announced they would be imposing a medieval-style siege on the whole area. Defense Minister Yoav Galant famously now, infamously, I should say, announced,

I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed, adding, We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly, just in case the genocidal intent was not clear from the actions. Israel, with help from Egypt, has long controlled what goes in and what comes out of the Gaza Strip and used caloric rationing, in other words, hunger, as a method of control. But what has unfolded over the past several months has been something else entirely. A new UN report spells out the incredibly dire situation.

Half of Gaza's population is now starving. 90% report they regularly go without eating a single meal in a day. They write that, quote, Gaza risks falling into famine unless access to adequate food, clean water, health, and sanitation services is urgently restored. The entire population, about 2.2 million people, is suffering crisis or worse levels of food insecurity. Food is not readily available. Any food that can be found for sale is outrageously priced and completely unaffordable for nearly all. Going out to search for food means risking your life. Only one out of 25 World Food Program contracted bakeries remains in operation. Israel has raised

farmland and destroyed orchards, meaning that even without the threat of bombings, the strip has no ability to generate its own food. Aid workers have been targeted in Israeli attacks. More have been killed in this war than in any other war in the history of the UN. Isaac Chotner actually just interviewed Arif Hussain. He's chief economist of the UN's World Food Program, and he put the crisis in blunt terms. Quote, I have been doing this for the past two decades. I've been to all kinds of conflicts, all kinds of crises. And for me, this is unprecedented because of one, the magnitude, the scale, the entire population of a particular place, second, the severity, and third, the speed at which this is happening, at which this has unfolded, is unprecedented. In my life,

I've never seen anything like this in terms of severity, in terms of scale, and then in terms of speed. He went on to attempt to put in context how the starvation in Gaza compares to the starvation that is compares to the starvation that is occurring in the rest of the world. He says, if you look globally, worldwide right now, there are about 129,000 people who are in IPC phase five, meaning a catastrophic type of hunger, 129,000. In Gaza, there are 577,000. That means 80% of the people or four out of five people in famine or a catastrophic type of hunger are in Gaza right now. This is also what makes it unprecedented. Now, according to Tali Gottlieb, who we heard from earlier, this is to be celebrated, to be encouraged,

the terror, the hunger pains, the disease that feasts on wasted bodies and compromised immune systems. But make no mistake, although Biden may not come out and say such brazenly horrifying things, he is actually a much bigger monster than Tali Gottlieb. By blocking a ceasefire, shipping the weapons that blows up those bakeries, providing BB diplomatic cover to continue this assault, Joe Biden is directly architecting this famine, keeping food from the mouths of babies by the hundreds of thousands. I guess at least Tali is being honest in her depraved inhumanity. And Ryan, this is something you have pointed out from the beginning. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine

Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try.

She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people.

Everyone thought they knew her, until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

This five Month, we are not just celebrating. We're fighting back. I'm George M. Johnson, and my book, All Boys Aren't Blue, was just named the most banned book

in America. If the culture wars have taught me anything, it's that pride is protest. And on my podcast, Fighting Words, we talk to people who use

their voices to resist, disrupt, and make our community stronger. This year, we are showing up and showing out. You need people being like, no, you're not going to tell us what to do. This regime is coming down on us, and I don't want to just survive.

I want to thrive. You'll hear from trailblazers like Bob the Drag Queen, Angelica Ross, and Gabrielle Yoon, and storytellers with wisdom to spare. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you

get your podcasts. Thank you guys so much for watching today, Ryan. It was really nice to host the show with you. I really enjoyed it. This was a first, I think. I think so. We were trying to remember, even going back to Rising Days, whether we'd ever hosted before, because Ryan usually fills in for me.

But we decided to do a little mix and match this week, and I'm glad that we did. A good time to do this again. Indeed. All right, guys. Have a great weekend. We'll have some content posting for you over the weekend as well. And we'll be back with a normal show schedule and, you know, plans are to have Sagar back in his chair next week as well. So we'll see you then. Actually, not really a good time, but glad we did it anyway. Indeed. Indeed. See you guys soon. Over the years of making my true crime podcast,

Helen Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Catherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case.

If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Stay informed, empowered, and ahead of the curve with the BIN News This Hour podcast. Updated hourly to bring you the latest stories

shaping the Black community. From breaking headlines to cultural milestones, the Black Information Network delivers the facts, the voices, and the perspectives that matter 24-7 because our stories deserve to be heard. Listen to the BIN News This Hour podcast on the iHeart I also want to address the Tonys. On a recent episode of Checking In with Michelle Williams, I open up about feeling snubbed by the Tony Awards. Do I? I was never mad. I was disappointed because I had high hopes.

To hear this and more on disappointment and protecting your peace, listen to Checking In with Michelle Williams from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.