Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 4/29/24: Cable Viewers Brainwashed On Israel, Jill Stein Arrested At Campus Protest, SCOTUS Blow To Trump Case, Howard Stern Tongue Bathes Biden, Trump Loses It On RFK Vaccine Stance, Biden Blocking Bibi Arrest Warrant, ADL Freaks On Ilhan, Kristi Noem Puppy Murder

Episode Date: April 29, 2024

Krystal and Saagar discuss exclusive BP polling showing cable viewers brainwashed on Israel, Jill Stein arrested at protests, Howard Stern tongue bathes Biden, SCOTUS fatal blow to Trump case, Trump loses it on RFK over vaccines, Biden blocking ICC Bibi arrest warrants, ADL freaks on Ilhan Omar, Kristi Noem brags about puppy murder, Colin Jost fawns over Biden decency amid genocide.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, 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.

Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn

to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 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. 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. Happy Monday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. It's a big day, guys. We have a lot of exclusive polling that we commissioned here at Breaking Points that's going to look at Americans' views of Israel and Palestine. And we have a special lens of how people view this conflict depending on where they get their news from. Yes. Which is very interesting and obviously very relevant given the conversation about TikTok, etc. So we're going to break those down. We also have the continued crackdown on campus protesters and a few hoaxes that have emerged.

Amidst all of that, you've also got a bipartisan effort to further censor speech on campus. So that's great. We'll get into all of that. Also, incredibly consequential oral hearings at oral arguments at the Supreme Court last week, taking a look at whether Trump should be immune for any official acts during his presidency. And big question marks about what this is going to mean for Jack Smith's January 6th case in particular against Trump. So we'll break that down for you. We also have Trump now taking aim at RFK Jr.

After some polls, which we covered here, revealed that perhaps RFK Jr. is taking more votes away from Trump. So he seems like he's a little bit more nervous now. And RFK Jr. also was on with Bill Maher. We'll show you a little bit of that. It appears that the International Criminal Court is set to issue arrest warrants against Bibi Netanyahu and some of his compatriots, the US, getting involved there. And we also have some exclusive poll numbers that we can bring you there as well about how Americans feel about Bibi Netanyahu and whether or not they think that he is a war criminal. And lastly, Kristi Noem apparently murdered a puppy. So gotta break that down for you as well. We're not lying. At least that's literally the case. She wrote about it in her book, created, I would say, a bipartisan reaction of utter

revulsion. And she was a top contender for Trump VP picks. So seems important. We'll get into that. And I'm taking a look at the horrific spectacle of the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend and the protests that they were met with. Yes, I'm very glad that you're doing that. It's a yearly tradition. We got to go after the White House Correspondents Dinner. Boy, do they ever deserve it this time. Yeah, I know. Before we get to that, thank you to everybody who supports the show. You guys enable us to be able to do this exclusive polling. Polling is very expensive, and this is just part of exactly the type of things that we want to do. So we have a promo graphic. We can go and put that up there on the screen, and you can sign up at breakingpoints.com to support this. And just so everybody knows,

one of the reasons we're very proud of this poll is we tried to go after the things that a lot of mainstream media was either not covering or was not going after itself, specifically with media coverage, because it would be an indictment of them specifically. So I think that we've partnered with JLP here to do a really good job as to how people view things

based upon their news consumption. And that in and of itself is a major indictment. I think of a lot of things that this show stands against. So if you could support us, we would appreciate it. Cable news, as we go through these, is a bit of an outlier in terms of how they view the conflict in almost every instance. So let's start with this. Put A2 up on the screen to give you the overview here. One of the questions we asked so that we could have this demographic breakdown as we were looking at One of the questions we asked so that we could have this demographic breakdown as we were looking at all of the questions we asked with regards to Israel and Palestine is, hey, where do you get most of your news? Here we have that information broken

down by age group. So something that's really going to jump out at you here is take a look at 18 to 29. 59% of young people say they're getting their news from TikTok, Instagram, X, or other social media. 59%. The next closest category is podcasts and YouTube, but at 17%. So huge drop off, only 15% say cable news, 4% say print media, and 5% say none of the above. Then take a look at 65 plus, totally different dynamic. 59% there say they're getting their news from cable news. Only 5% from social media, only 5% from podcasts, 9% from print media. And you can see the other age demographics. I mean, 50 to 64 looks very similar to the 65 plus, 54%. So a majority getting their news from cable news. The 30 to 49-year-old demographic is a little more mixed. You still have a plurality at 37% getting their news or

saying they're getting their news from cable news. Next highest is social media, then podcasts and YouTube, then podcasts and YouTube, then print media. I just want to reflect and say more of you all should be getting your news from podcasts and YouTube, apparently. That's right. The lowest category in many instances. But I mean, Sagar, just I think it's worth commenting on this piece specifically, which shows you if you compare the news habits of 18 to 29 yearyear-olds versus those 50-plus, it's a whole different world, whole different landscape in terms of the type of information that they're taking in here. Yeah, look, I try to say this, and our boomers always get mad, but

you guys are living in a different world. Like, listen, I think it's great the number of boomers that watch the show, premium members, we love you, we respect you, but even you need to acknowledge that you're in the very distinct minority of your age group. And one of the things that this country is really determined by is the fact that the median voter is 55 years old and is not college educated. And the vast majority of those people, 55, 65, 75 plus, who are very invested in the political system, they live in a completely different reality whenever it comes to money, whenever it comes to media. It's never been more evident, I think, in modern American history than it is today. Everyone's like, oh, it's kids these days. But the monoculture moment,

and specifically monocultures of information from newspapers and that cable era and all of that, basically from 1992 prior, was very, very different where everyone was consuming the same media, but they had very different opinions about how they were consuming that. Here, we are actually living in different realities. And that determination of reality is downstream of all of our politics. It's how you see polls where the majority of Republican voters will be against Ukraine aid, but very specifically, 65 plus, it's like 50-50. So that's how you get 85% of Republicans who then go and support it. Same whenever it comes to Democrats. You have 50-some percent of Democrats who can be against something. But if you go to

the 65 plus, where the people most engaged with the political system and the people most who are actually in Congress itself, that's how you get, what is it, 90% of Democrats who end up voting for Israel aid. So this, to me, is the most important graph that we may have ever produced because it that is America as a picture Yeah, and a couple things to note about that So first of all as much as cable news viewership and frankly their whole business model is kind of falling apart You can see from these graphics how important it still is course how incredibly influential it still is And this is part of why we still continue to cover what happens on cable news, because it's very impactful, especially in terms of that elite conversation and how our policymakers

are making their decisions, and also how vast swaths of voters are processing information from this conflict. So that's number one. Number two, I just want to say that famously, as we covered here, remember Nikki Haley had that quote about like, the more time you spend on TikTok, you become 18% more anti-Semitic or whatever. There's this assumption that the social media platforms are making people have a different view of the conflict. Now, I do think there is kind of a reinforcement cycle. But the reason why a more pro-Palestinian view of the conflict. Now, I do think there is kind of a reinforcement cycle, but the reason why a more pro-Palestinian view of the world is wildly more popular, not just on TikTok, but on Twitter, on effectively any social media platform you could look at that has a broad audience, is because young people started from a different place in this conflict.

And so then social media companies being in the business of making money, guess what? They're going to surface for you and their algorithms, content that they think matches things you've already expressed interest in. So I think the sort of causation is the exact opposite of the way that people in Washington are thinking about it. And obviously this ties into the whole reason why TikTok is actually in danger of being, I mean, the legislation was passed, is very possible to be banned is because they see, okay, young people are on TikTok. Young people have a different view of this conflict. We're blaming TikTok. But as I said, I think that the causation goes in the exact opposite direction. All right, so bearing those

numbers in mind, let's put the next question up on the screen here, which gives you a kind of overall picture of which group people are more sympathetic towards. So the question here, which do you feel more sympathy with, Israel or the Palestinians? So keep this up so I can explain this and people can kind of process this information. So the yellow bars here are the sentiment of social media news consumers. The blue bars right next to that are podcasts and YouTube. Then the green bars are cable news and the red bars are print media. So starting with the yellow bar, you can see that a very clear plurality, 33%, leans towards having more sympathy with Palestinians versus Israelis. Only 20% say Israelis, so 33% versus 20%.

When you go to podcasts and YouTube, you can see that's the blue bar. Similar dynamic, plurality, 26% says Palestinians versus 21% says Israel. If you go to cable news, that dynamic totally flips. And similarly with print media. So for cable news, 18% only lean towards Palestinians. And the plurality, 34%, are more sympathetic with Israelis. With print media, it's 20% Palestinians and 42% Israelis. And obviously you can see significant chunks in each group saying neither one or don't

know. So it shows you, Sagar, the way that there is a different sort of like innate sympathy, different pluralities going in opposite directions here, depending on what news media they're consuming. Yeah, I mean, and again, I would just point to the fact that the podcast YouTube number is incredibly significant. Something also that people, it's funny if we think back to some of the 2019 discourse, what was it? All podcasts are right wing. RSS is out of control. Really what comes becomes very clear to me is that any media, which is non-institutionalized and separate from big moneyed interests and or the corporate machine is by definition just going to be more attract an audience and be able to present information which is not as sanitized. And thus, in less sanitized

information, you're going to have a more honest view of the conflict. And I just have to underscore the reality question once again. What reality do you live in? Even people who are probably pro-Israel and who are online, as in on social media, listen to a podcast, they're even going to be more aware, let's say, of some of the arguments, Crystal, that you or I would raise about Israeli military conduct. Whereas if you are on cable, you don't even understand that those exist unless Fareed Zakaria on Saturday to his audience of 350,000 people happens to do a seven minute segment about it. Right. Like just think about the disconsonance, you know, that has to exist there in that reality. That's exactly right. And so, I mean, that's why it's sort of newsworthy when they do a segment that's like the one we covered here. Oh, my God.

They actually talked about the fact that the IDF is desecrating cemeteries. Right. Because it's so rare that that type of information about what is going on in this conflict actually breaks through. And, of course, we've covered here the analyses from The Intercept and elsewhere about the dramatically more sanitized language that is used. We had that leaked memo from the New York Times saying you shouldn't even say the word Palestine. You shouldn't say the word occupied territories. You shouldn't say the word refugee camps. So that's the bubble and the filter that older Americans in particular are learning about this conflict through.

And so you can see, and this is going to be a very consistent theme as we go through these numbers, the way that they're coming to very different conclusions from people who are getting their information, who are seeing the IDF TikTok-ing their war crimes, for example, who are seeing all of those horrors on a daily basis, which is much more readily available on social media, podcasts, YouTube. All right, let's put this next piece up on the screen, very relevant to the college campus conversation. Question here is, has anti-Semitism increased? Okay, you've got a couple, you've got a number of options, increased a lot, a little, decreased a little, decreased a lot, stayed the same, and don't know. So let's start at the top and focus in on this line that says, okay, I believe anti-Semitism has

increased a lot. You can see a significant divergence between the yellow and blue bars at 18%. Those are your social media and podcast news consumers. And the cable news and print media audience, they say 31% and 35% that it has increased a lot. If you look down at the stayed the same, you have a much different view. You've got actually a similar number across the board that say it's more or less stayed the same. So the big divergence there is in terms of the numbers at the top. So you see significant numbers, even of podcasts and social media consumers who say increased a little or increased a lot, but that increased a lot line stands out

as a kind of different view. And obviously the emphasis has been much greater on cable news and print media. And I mean, they've just gone all in on smearing anyone who's protesting for a ceasefire as an anti-Semite. So if that's the view of the world you're taking, if you're watching Morning Joe with Jonathan Greenblatt from the ADL saying actually these college campus protesters are all

Iranian proxies for Hamas, then you can see how you end up with a little bit of a different emphasis on anti-Semitism than perhaps on other platforms. Absolutely. We see it too in the next one. I actually think this might even be most impactful. If we could put it please up there on the screen. The question here is, has the Israeli military gone? Let's say for too far, you're only going to have 32% of cable news viewers who say that it has. You're going to have 33% of podcast viewers. You're going to have 45% of podcasts and then also 41% of TikTok and or Instagram users. Whereas if you go to the about right number or the not far enough number, you're going to see that it's much larger for print media and

for cable news as opposed to the podcast and the TikTok number. Cable news in particular there. Cable news. 17% like, eh, we need to, it's not far enough. They need to annihilate more. They need to increase. And then even about the about right figure, if you look at print media and cable news,

it's just disproportionately so much bigger compared to the podcast and the TikTok users. And again, I just want to say, I would, considering the fact

that you look at the podcast, the top news podcast in the country of which we are on there, it's not just us. It's like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly. It's not like there isn't a huge pro-Israel segment of the population that is not listening to news podcasts. It is the fact that those podcasts, again, if you are interacting with Ben Shapiro, you're more likely, from what I can see too in our data, to also watch maybe a Breaking Point segment.

So even if you are pro-Israel, and I've seen this actually, the pro-Israel side that has to engage with some of the things that we will bring up here on the show, they'll be like, yeah, but it's okay because I support Israel. Or it's okay because war is terrible. It's not even mired necessarily in like a moralistic language. It's much more, I guess, realpolitik in terms of their historical justification, which, I mean, I have no issue with that in terms of at least be honest about who you are, but just don't throw your morality kind of in my face. My only point is that even amongst, you know, podcast users who, let's be honest, have been smeared as right-wingers, Joe Rogan and all of that, even they are much more reticent to kind of describe Israel's actions as not gone far enough.

Even if some people like Shapiro, who is one of the largest news podcasts in the entire country, may say that they are. Yeah. Let's actually back up on the screen, because there's another thing that I noticed about this, which is that even though the numbers are higher for the podcast, YouTube, social media people, you have a plurality of every group that says they've gone too far. Yeah, good point. So even among the cable news watchers, you know, who are listening to Jonathan Greenblatt and whoever else, you still have a third, 33%, saying too far versus the next highest, number 24%, about right. So even in these very skewed news ecosystems, you still have a plurality that is saying this is too much. And listen, one thing I was thinking about when you were

talking about the podcasts that are out there, you can look at the way liberals on MSNBC respond to it. All of these people are responding to a lot of audience and market incentives, right? Liberals on MSNBC, they've got the older audience. They are much more sort of hawkish. They're much more on the Biden line. You think about the Pod Save Bros, which is like the biggest liberal podcast out there, as far as I know, they've been critical. That's a good point. So there's been, there's, you know, there is a different audience they're responding to. There's a different age demographic. And frankly, there's more room for that kind of critique on that platform versus on MSNBC. Shout out to, you know, Eamon Woyldeen and Ali Velshi and others who have been created some space on MSNBC to be critical. But overwhelmingly, if you're watching there, you're getting the Joe Biden party line.

Let's go to the next graphic, which is highly relevant to our recent policy debate. So the question here is, overall, do you think the Biden administration is sending too much, too little, or about the right amount of aid to Israel. And once again, you've got similar dynamic where if you are social media or podcast, you say by larger numbers, it's too much. Okay, you've got a plurality, 35% who say it's too much of social media users, 47%, very strong, almost majority saying too much among podcast and YouTube users. And then you've got smaller numbers, 28% and 29% for cable news and print media, respectively. About Right is the plurality choice for the more traditional media consumers.

And Too Little, the highest number here, once again, print media and cable news is a little bit of an outlier. They are the, it's still not a plurality, by the way, that says too little, but 19% as opposed to 13 and 11% for the podcast and TikTok, Instagram, social media, sort of non-establishment platform consumers. So, you know, you can see a pretty sizable split in the way these groups are viewing the conflict. And again, you know, you can see a pretty sizable split in the way these groups are viewing the conflict. And again, you know, it's a complicated mix of correlation is not causation. You've got very different, as we showed you before, age demographics consuming news on these various platforms. Different age demographics were already coming at this conflict from a very

different perspective. And then they're basically having a lot of their views sort of confirmed on their platforms of choice. And that leads to an increasing split in the way that these age demographics and news consumers are viewing the conflict. Yeah, it's an important point, right? There's no way to know for sure whether it's a causation of the media, whether it's a self-selection bias. If anything on podcasts, you're probably more prone to self-selection bias just because you can genuinely seek out something that is inherently just almost entirely confirming what you want. But there's still a lot of ideological opinion and disagreement if you listen to multiple shows or if you just listen to our show. And so I think that it opens you up just intellectually in a different way. And again, even too, for all of the talk of social media creates reality

bubbles, I think that the biggest reality bubble that exists is the cable news environment as shown very, very clearly. And I see this all the time in my real life. I'm sure everybody does too. If you have older relatives or older Americans that you speak with, and they ask you, usually they ask you about the dumbest, most like inconsequential political event. Be like, did you see Trump said a bloodbath or something? You're like, dude, that was debunked like three months ago. Yeah. What are you talking about?

Yeah. And they're like, well, I saw it on MSNBC. And you're like, you know, at a certain point, too, like you really want to argue with your in-laws, grandparents? Like, no, you're not doing that. Yeah. I will note, though, in terms of that, you know, how much aid should we be sending to Israel? There was no group of news consumers in which the majority or even plurality was like, we're sending too little. So just in terms of the disconnect from our policymakers with even the most, you know, sort of consent manufactured group of people, which is the people watching Cable News, even with them, they're not

like, we're sending too little. Their plurality says it's about right. So maybe ease off the gas pedal there, D.C. lawmakers. 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. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for

Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st,

and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers. But we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you've got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else. But never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth.

Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Let's get to the very latest that is happening in terms of college campuses. We can put this up on the screen. This is from Ohio State University, which saw some of the most dramatic clashes with, well, I shouldn't say clashes, arrests, peaceful protesters. There weren't even any allegations of violence, to my knowledge, at any of these universities we have up on the

screen. We've got Arizona State, we've got Indiana, Washington University, Northeastern University, just says Austin. I guess that's UT Austin again, Ohio State University. So you can see the arrests escalated at Arizona State. If you pay attention on that upper left box there, that's actually frat boys who are apparently collaborating with the cops to destroy tents, which is, or sorry, ASU, one of the most ASU things I've ever heard in my life. But some of these arrests were quite violent. There were also reports at Ohio State's, did you see this? Snipers. I did see that. Being placed on top of the buildings. For no consequence either, by the way,

which was hilarious because it turned out that one of the students was actually able to sneak up on said police sniper. Right. Which somebody pointed out, they're like, dude, that's one of the most basic tenets of being a sniper is not allowing somebody to sneak up on you from behind. Sneak up on you from behind, yeah. So anyway, militarily. Highly trained. What are we doing here? For what purpose is that? Crowd control is one different thing. Enforcing local ordinance or whatever about people who are unlawfully gathered again. But putting people up on a rooftop,

I have only ever seen that in one instance because I live here in Washington, D.C., and whenever it's the president is out and about. I've never seen it anywhere else in the entire United States. So I saw that clip, and I was like, it's just clownish on several levels because A, it's ridiculous in terms of a short force, and B, it didn't even work, dude.

Yeah, you got snuck up on. I mean, it's complete insanity. And I put A14 actually up on the screen, guys. So apparently 200 at least protesters were arrested over the weekend, in particular, Northeastern University, Arizona State, Indiana University, Washington University in St. Louis. They say there have been more than 800 arrests of protesters on U.S. campuses since April 18th. That was when Columbia University initially had that crackdown. This map we can see up on the screen, this shows you the way these protests are spreading. In fact, I was kind of, I was very pleasantly surprised to see that University of Mary Washington, which is very close to where I live in Fredericksburg, Virginia, is not a large school. And it's not like, I mean, it's a liberal arts college, but it's not like an elite Columbia type university. Apparently they had protests

and there were arrests that took place. You also had Virginia Tech. Sorry, I'm showing my Virginia bias. But you can see these protests are literally across the country. And so that crackdown and the focus on the Columbia protesters, if it was meant to snuff out the flame and scare students out of protesting what they see as a genocide being committed with our tax dollars in the Gaza Strip, it has had the polar opposite reaction. And actually, sorry, I saw something that was really quite beautiful, which is a number of Palestinians in Gaza staging a demonstration, writing on their refugee displacement tents, messages of solidarity and appreciation for the Columbia University students in particular for standing up for them, which was kind of incredible and I'm sure very heartening for these students who are, you know, trying their best to figure out how to make a difference in the world. Let's go ahead and go back to A8, which shows you some of the aggressive tactics that are being used here. You can see the elder woman, Jill Stein, the white hair there, being aggressive, I would say assaulted with a police bike there. She was arrested. Okay, you saw the interaction.

She was arrested and charged with assault of a police officer. Again, 73-year-old, whatever you think of her, she is a presidential candidate, and the Green Party is, you know, it's a significant organization. They're likely to have ballot access, and she's being treated in this manner, Sagar. It's completely outrageous. At the same time, and speaking of outrageous, we have new bipartisan effort that was just launched in the House. You can put this up on the screen. Pro-Israel House Democrat and Republican plan to introduce a legislation creating federally sanctioned anti-Semitism monitors for select college campuses. This is, who else, Richie Torres and Republican, also from New York, Mike Lawler. The bill would allow the

Department of Education to send a third-party anti-Semitism monitor to any college that receives federal funding and to revoke that funding for colleges that don't comply. The monitor, which would be paid for by the school, would be charged with releasing a public quarterly report evaluating the progress that a college or university has made toward combating anti-Semitism. Now, obviously, I abhor anti-Semitism and any type of racism, but we also know the way that these people have consistently defined anti-Semitism as anything that basically they don't like when it comes to criticism of Israel. It's wrong think when it comes to Israel. So the idea of codifying this at a federal level, I mean, Sagar, this is one of the most aggressive attempts I've seen to have an overt attack on the First Amendment officially sanctioned on college campuses. It's pretty wild.

No, this is pretty crazy because what it does is it actually institutes the Department of Education and says to them that they have to create, quote, third-party anti-Semitism monitors paid for by the U.S. government that they will then go and analyze each college that receives federal funding and then revoking funding for colleges that don't apply. That monitor, again, would actually be charged with, quote, releasing a public quarterly report evaluating progress that a college or university has made towards combating anti-Semitism. And what it would do is redefine anti-Semitism in the same way that previous resolutions of Congress have passed. Now, let's be very clear about that, because that actually directly conflates, as previous

governmental definitions of anti-Semitism exist, criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism itself. And that is why I almost just refuse to fall for the canard at this point of like, I abhor anti-Semitism. It's like, yeah, of course. But at a certain point, like, I'm not even going to play these people's games anymore, because if you're going to use that definition, then I'm not playing. It's like, at that point, I'm just going to say I believe very strongly in the First Amendment.

What I would like to see is a First Amendment monitor, which actually goes to each campus and revokes federal funding from anyone, which is directly in violation of a Supreme Court definition for federal funding. That seems like a lot more reasonable to me. But of course they're not doing that. They're actually moving in a more censorious direction. And I would just say again, to any right wingers, I've been trying to make this point more recently. If Trump wins again, do you know how many college Republicans are going to be called anti-Semitic or any of these other groups? You think they're not going to use this against

other student groups that they don't want there on campus? And even if they are anti-Semitic, that is legally within the bounds of the First Amendment, which I stand for. I know I'm not saying it's a good thing. I don't love seeing it march on campus. But guess what? I've said this before. I've seen straight up Christian nationalists, psychos, march on my campus when I was in college, and nobody really cared much at that time. So to that point, I think this weekend or last week in Charleston, West Virginia, there was a group of out and out neo-Nazis marching down the streets of Charleston, West Virginia. Okay, fine. Yeah, fine. The cops didn't get involved. They did their disgusting thing and everyone moved on. And you know what? I find them abhorrent and disgusting and I still

support their right to be there under the First Amendment. Because that's what the First Amendment is, okay? It's not for the speech that you love and you're comfy with and is friendly for the establishment. It's for the speech you find offensive. It's for the speech that is controversial. It's for the speech that, you know, in the case of the Palestine protesters, that challenges powers that be and the status quo. So I love your idea. Someone needs to take that up. The First Amendment monitors on college campuses, that's a great freaking idea. Ilhan Omar or whoever, you need to get on that because that would really make

it very difficult for all these people who claim to be free speech bros when it was their side of the equation that they felt was being censored. Now you're jumping on board with a fit using the power of the federal government to quash legitimate criticism of US funding and involvement in a foreign conflict. Like, what are we doing? It's such complete insanity. And I guarantee you, if it was anything else, if it was certainly like the trans bigotry monitor on campus, you would be right there. And listen, to do the flip side, I'm sure there are people who would have supported the trans bigotry monitor who are involved in the protests now are supportive of the protests who have a problem with this. How about we just all learn the lesson that we protect free speech,

even when it's things that we specifically in our political ideology disagree with. Okay, so that's that. Incredible things were happening at Northeastern University over the weekend. The Daily Beast with a rare W here exposing what was an incredible hoax, basically, that unfolded. Put this up on the screen. So their headline says it all. A pro-Israel agitator shouts, kill the Jews, and gets everyone else arrested. Okay, so there were pro-Palestine protesters at Northeastern, as at many other college campuses, they were doing their thing. Someone with an Israeli flag shows up and tried to incite the group and start a chant that said, kill the Jews. Okay, so this is a counter-protester. This isn't on the Palestine side, this is on the Israeli side. They say say kill the Jews as a provocation. Then Northeastern uses the excuse

of the pro-Israel's kill the Jews provocation to have 100 peaceful protesters arrested on Saturday. I'm going to show you just to tell you that this, you know, the way it happened is the way that I'm describing. There were reporters, there was an NPR reporter there who confirmed it. And we also have video of the incident. Now I'm going to play the video. It's a little bit hard to discern. So I'm just going to describe what happens, then we'll, we'll watch it. But you see them sort of gathered the, you know, pro-Palestine people. And then you hear this individual with an Israeli flag say, kill the Jews, trying to get that chant started. And everyone boos him and then moves on to the chants that they actually wanted to do. Let's take a listen to how this unfolded. Anybody on board? Anybody on board? You just chanted for it. You just chanted for it.

You just chanted for it. The IDF can't afford it. They're back on the wall. We're going to let them leave. We're going to let them leave. We're going to give them a pass. We're going to give them a pass. We're going to let them leave.

We're going to let them leave. Everybody got it? So there you go. This individual shows up, tries to cause trouble, gets booed, and everybody moves on. But this is used as the pretext to arrest everyone. When confronted with this set of facts, here was the response from a Northeastern University spokesperson. Put this up on the screen. The fact that the phrase kill the Jews

was shouted on our campus is not in dispute. The Boston Globe, a trusted news organization, reported it as a fact. There's also substantial video evidence. Any suggestion that repulsive anti-Semitic comments are sometimes acceptable, depending on the context, is reprehensible. That language has no place on any university campus. Okay, but you didn't even arrest the dude who said kill the Jews. You arrested the people who booed him. Like, I mean, it's just, it's so preposterous. But this is very emblematic of a lot of what is on. I'm not saying there aren't any bad incidents and, you know, things that you shouldn't say or I wouldn't say or whatever.

But this was huge. This was spread everywhere. This is now going to get picked up by all kinds of people. They're chanting, kill the Jews on college campus. No. Some pro-Israel person came in as an agitator and chanted it and got booed because you know what? Many of the organizers and demonstrators are themselves Jewish, which is always buried and erased by all of the mainstream media coverage. Yeah. And I also just want to presuppose this question.

Why should anyone be arrested for saying this? Is that a violent? Thank you. Last time I checked. Again, that is totally within the bounds of the first amendment. You know, people get angry whenever I say things like this. Like, that's clearly an incitement of violence. It brushes up against. It's like, no, it's not. Unless it's actually literally quite targeted to an individual, you are allowed to say basically whatever you want in this country, as I think you should. I don't think people should be arrested for shouting, quote unquote, kill the Jews on a college campus, even if they were saying it in earnest. And although, of course, and I would just please apply. It's not my law. I've stole it from many others.

If something seems, quote unquote, too good to be true, it usually is. If you're a pro-Israel, I saw Ted Cruz is putting this out there. There's no ambiguity. This is what they're shouting. It's like, just have a moment of self-reflection, dude. Because I think about it too. Every time it's the other way, you know, anytime some narrative just seems too convenient for the right, it's like perfectly on the nose. I'm like, you know, maybe it could be a little bit something. And without fail, if you wait 24 hours, it'll usually fall apart. And everybody who spread it initially looks like an idiot. You know, that's it's almost certainly. And in these highly charged scenarios, people have every incentive in the

world to make things up, to instigate. Think back to the swastika, anecdote that I've relayed here. Yeah. Back to the racism ones. How many instances of quote unquote racism on college campuses turned out to be bullshit? The girl that got stabbed in the eye. Yes, stabbed in the eye. Last week, someone just literally brushed up against her with a Palestinian flag. And these go in all directions. I lived through these here in DC. I remember when I was in college, women are being attacked for wearing a burqa, bullshit. It was completely a made up instance while we were in DC, complete moral panic. The police were called, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent putting police

officers on corners. She made the entire thing up. I mean, it's like with every single time, people have every incentive, media attention. And in this case, to smear others. This has happened so many times. Agent provocateurs, we know that they exist. So just be weary. But I'm just going to come back to almost our initial plot, our initial block, which is if you live on the Internet, and if you live in the world of Jussie Smollett and every instance that I just described, you probably have this more baked in. But if you live in the cable world, how often do you hear, like the Jussie Smollett, and every instance that I just described, you probably have this more baked in. But if you live in the cable world, how often do you hear, like the Jussie Smollett thing?

Did MSNBC people even know that that turned out to be BS? Because they just stopped covering it, like the moment that it turned out to be fake. Maybe one or two segments. Same thing on the right wing. How many of these things that get played? I was just looking. Laura Ingraham apparently interviewed this woman, the stabbed in the eye lady, three separate times on Fox News. Does Fox have a segment? That is so embarrassing. I mean, you should. If you have any integrity, I would.

If we said something that wasn't true, I'd be like, hey, just so everybody knows. It turned out it was complete BS. Whichever way it goes, whether it's my narrative or not, I can't believe it. But how many people will watch Fox? They're not going to know. To them, stabbed in the eye is canon at this point. That's the issue. That's so true.

I mean, it's just, listen, guys, we live in a big country, and there are a number of freaks and weirdos out there who are desperate to be a victim, desperate to be the center of attention, and will go to any lengths to make that a reality for them. Or they're intentional agitators and provocateurs who love to stir the pot. Or, I mean, we covered here on this show incredible in-depth reporting on how one of the BLM protests in Denver was infiltrated by this FBI informant who was trying to stir them up to blow up buildings and embrace more overt violence. So this is not, it sounds conspiratorial, but these things are real and documented throughout history, including through very, very recent history. So, okay. So in the category of, I think, just desperate to be a victim, this next scenario, this video is just incredible. I knew Sagar was going to absolutely love this one. So this lady, which,

you know, I'm very loathe to use the term Karen, but if it has ever applied, it certainly applies. Let's just say a woman. In this instance, okay, she's walking her dog, comes upon, she's at, I think she's at Northeastern maybe. She comes upon the, you know, the protesters there. And she completely melts down. She calls 911. They're just standing there. They're not doing anything to her. Nothing to her.

She's not in Cirque. She's saying, I'm in Cirque Golden. I'm in danger. And I'm a Jewish American. She's just literally standing there. She could leave at any time. But fortunately, someone caught this whole thing on video. Just watch how this unfolds.

Yes, they're right behind me right now. This person is not in my way. I need help. I know that, but they're all they're surrounding me. Let me move. No, no, you are free to move. You are free to move. She's free to move. You are free to move. You are free to move. You are free to move. I just need to respond to you right now. She's free to move. She's free to leave. She is free to leave. No one is surrounding her.

Nobody is surrounding you. She is free to leave. You are free to leave. Please help. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, ten. I'm wearing a white Adidas shirt. I have a dog with me. I need help.

I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. I need help. two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. I'm wearing a white Adidas shirt. I have a dog with me. I need help.

You do need help. You're not wrong about that. Poor dog is just like, can we get on with our walk here? Like, we were having a good time. Who walks their dog just straight into the middle of a protest and isn't asking for it? Let's be real. And she didn't even get anything, even when she got there, right. But, you know, come on. Like people need to chill. If you who thinks they're in danger and then walks into the middle of a protest and then even in that protest, they're

like, lady, you're completely free to leave. You're the one here causing a problem. This is all on video. You look like an idiot. And it's just like I do not understand. I don't know. There's just such a deep narcissism that runs in this country where everybody wants to be the victim. And they think, though, in the age of social media that they're going to get away with it. It's just astounding, you know, the victimhood complex you need to walk into there and then call the police. I mean, this is another thing where we really should have more stringent fines and penalties for falsely calling 911 under false pretenses or false allegations of assault, because that is such bullshit. Yeah, these people have real emergencies to deal with. I know, I agree. Not your fake panic attack,

trying to incite the cops to come and arrest you. I mean, that's clearly the goal, right? That's clearly why she walked there in the first place. She was hoping something bad would happen to her, that she could, you know, call 911, get the cops to arrest these people who were doing absolutely nothing wrong or herself get, you know, who had Laura Ingraham interview, three Laura Ingraham interviews about how she was the subject of an anti-Semitic attack or whatever. Like, that clearly is her goal. And so, thank God someone caught it on camera because this is the sort of thing that it was just this woman recounting what happened. Or if you're reading local news, I walked my dog into a protest. I called 911. I felt unsafe. People are like, oh, my God. Right.

Next thing you know, she's writing a column for Barry Weiss's thing about how she got stabbed in the eye or whatever. And Jonathan Greenblatt's on Morning Joe talking about how this was a hate crime. That's what could have very easily happened if they hadn't just been recording her standing there perfectly safe and all the protesters being like,

lady, you can leave. Like, you're fine. Go on. Apparently 9-1-1 also was like, I think you're good. You can, we're moving on here. I usually am a critic of 9-1-1 response times, but in this particular one, I think you're good. You can, we're moving on here. I usually am a critic of 911 response times, but in this particular one, good for them.

Yeah, they have real emergencies to deal with people. Come on. 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 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.

I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley

comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season One, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves.

We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers. But we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you've got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else. But never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov.

Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. There was a highly consequential argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question of Donald Trump and his immunity from prosecution as President of the United States. The reason this is very consequential is it specifically focuses in on the Jack Smith January 6th indictment against Trump as it relates to whether Donald Trump was acting in an official act as president or not while he was undergoing a lot of this January 6th false elector scheme of which he is actually being charged with.

So we have two separate questions, lines of questions from the conservative justices and the liberal justices. I will give it away to you before we even play them. It does appear that the conservative majority will side with Trump, but getting into some of the actual line of questioning is important to understand and tease out kind of what they're getting at for the legal merits. Here is Justice Alito with a question on that official proceedings and whether someone could be undicted under an official act. Here's what it is. Mr. Sauer and others have identified events in the past where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,

that's not really true. This is page 42 of your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to intern Japanese Americans during World War II? Couldn't that have been charged under 18 U.S.C. 241, conspiracy against civil rights? Today, yes, given this court's decision in Trump versus United States, in which Trump versus Hawaii, excuse me, where the court said Korematsu was overruled. I mean, President Roosevelt made that decision with the advice of his attorney general. That's a layer. Is that really true? I thought Attorney General Biddle thought that there was really no threat of sabotage, as did J. Edgar Hoover. So I think that there is a lot of historical controversy, but it underscores that that occurred during wartime. It implicates potential commander-in-chief concerns, concerns about the exigencies of national defense that might provide an as-applied

Article 2 challenge at the time. I'm not suggesting today. But the idea that a decision that was made and ultimately endorsed by this court, perhaps wrongly in the Korematsu case, would support criminal prosecution under 241, which requires under United States versus linear that the right have been made specific so that there is notice to the president. I don't think that would have been satisfied. So that was an important line of questioning there by Justice Alito specifically on the official act of whether you're doing something an official act leaves you open for prosecution. They're talking about the

infamous internment of Japanese Americans. Now we're gonna flip it and we're gonna show you here a line of questioning from Justice Sotomayor around whether an official act as president could include, let's say, assassination of your political rival. How and what would that then be tested under this bounds of absolute immunity that the Trump prosecution or the Trump defense is arguing? Let's take a listen. If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him,

is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity? It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act. It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain. So that is the interesting kind of crux,

and it's actually a fascinating conversation. A little awkward there for the liberals, isn't it? Yeah, no, it is, because they're talking, they're like, well, yeah, Obama, because that was a very clear, they're like, well, what about President Obama and the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, which he basically just greenlit through the Solicitor General's office, even though he was an American citizen and was never once convicted of a crime, let alone stripped of his citizenship and allowed to be killed by his own government. So this gets then to the question about that official act, where it appears that the court

is going to split the difference. Let's go and put this up there on the screen. What they are showing from the arguments is that they are likely to side with Trump on some presidential immunity. What I mean by that is that they're going to narrow the indictment such that Jack Smith is going to have to go back and use some legal minutia to argue that much of the Trump false elector schemes happened as in his personal capacity as president. The way that they're going to argue that actually does comply with some of the facts, Crystal. It gets to, for example, some of his off-the-books Oval Office meetings, which were not happening in his official capacity, were happening in his

campaign capacity. Yeah. So they need to go back and basically narrow and tailor the indictment after this is issued to specify that this happened as campaign Trump and not as President Trump. It gets into that question of official versus campaign and also not, remember, we're not talking here about the speech or even the actions of January 6th. It's often conflated. The actual indictment focuses on the false elector scheme specifically, and so they have to go back and tailor what is and is not an official act in terms of the indictment. Now, the reason any of this matters is because A, it's narrowing the definition of official act of the presidency, but B, procedurally, this is almost certainly going to delay

the trial until after the November 2024 election, at least according to the timelines that we've seen. Supreme Court still has to issue an opinion on this, that Jack Smith would then have to go through all the procedural things that you have to do, the Trump team throwing everything they can. So it does seem very likely now at this point that the only case that will come to trial before the November election, it's more likely than not, is this stupid Stormy Daniels case in New York City, which is astounding. It's kind of crazy. I mean, it's very ironic. Incredibly ironic. This is the one that actually- The one that people care the least about. Yeah.

I mean, yeah, it's a strange twist of fate, but here we are. I mean, it's- Anyway, with regard to these arguments, it looks like four of the conservative justices were very amenable to the Trump team's arguments about presidential immunity. Roberts being kind of the swing vote. And as Sagar is indicating, what may happen here is they say, yes, you're immune for official acts. But there's a big question about how many of the acts that he's actually indicted for are quote unquote official acts and how many are the acts that he's actually indicted for are quote-unquote official acts and how many are private acts. And there was a lot of discussion and debate that happened in these hearings about how you distinguish between the two. Because on its face, you might think that it's clear,

but you very quickly come to realize that it's hard to draw the line in a lot of instances. And I think with regard to this January 6th indictment in particular, I'll read a little bit from that piece we just had up. Several justices pressed the Trump team on how to distinguish official acts for which a president would enjoy immunity under their theory from private acts for which he could still face criminal charges. Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, asked the Trump team about a scenario involving a president's official act appointing an ambassador, but that he does in exchange for a bribe. When the Trump team conceded that accepting the bribe is private conduct, Roberts then urged them to explain how the boundary between an official act and a private one would come into play. Prosecutors could bring charges against the former president for accepting a million dollars, Robert queried,

but they can't say what it's for. So where do you draw that line? Can you say, okay, this was for appointed ambassadors, that off limits, because that's an official act. So it becomes quite murky. Justice Elena Kagan also took up this line of questioning. She had a series of examples. She talked about signing a form affirming false election allegations. Would that be private? Trump's team said it would be, but they asserted that other things like calling the chair of the Republican Party would be official. So it was directly relevant to the Trump case. So if you're signing a form asserting, yes, these fake electors are real, all right, we're saying that's private. But you're calling the chair of the Republican Party to pressure them

in this direction, that's official. So again, it's very murky. When asked whether ordering the military to stage a coup so the president could remain in office was private or official, the Trump team suggested it would depend on the circumstances prompting Kagan to say that sure sounds bad, doesn't it? And, you know, previously we had talked about how some of the Trump theory that they were arguing at the D.C. Circuit Court level was, hey, the process here is impeachment and conviction. That's the direction to go through. And some of the arguments here really indicated that even if, let's say, Trump was impeached over January 6th and the attempts to overturn the election and convicted in the Senate, they still, under or Trump or anybody else. But in terms of the consequence for this case, I mean, it really is consequential for all future presidents and what they can do and what they feel entitled to do and the way that they frame

their potentially future illegal acts. So it's very consequential, not just for this case, but moving forward. But specifically for this case, if they do what it looks like they're going to do, at the very least, it's going to be another significant delay. Because not only may Jack Smith have to tailor the indictment, but you're then very likely to have to go through a bunch of additional court rulings about where do you draw the line? Is this appropriate or is this not appropriate? And that could also have to go all the way back up to the Supreme Court. So the delay tactics from Trump on this particular case, which I would say, putting aside the strength of the legal case, which I think could be debated. But in terms of what people hate the most about Trump, this one is really kind of at the core.

And it doesn't look like we're gonna come anywhere close to any sort of resolution with this before Election Day is the bottom line. Well said. So there you go. Part of the reason, too, that it was such a dumb idea to indict Trump if you were going to indict him so late in the game, because now, congratulations. Honestly, it would set America up for even more of a nightmare. Because now, what if he wins? The president-elect on trial, the current president of the United States on trial. If you think these current Supreme Court courses are crazy, imagine if he's sitting in the damn office while this is all happening. I mean, it's just absolute madness. Let's move on now to the next part. This is one that we just couldn't let slide.

Howard Stern. This is honestly deeply sad and almost emotional in a certain sense. Howard Stern, I mean, was the icon of the United States, fined, you know, as the anti-establishment. The FCC, you know, went after him for being lewd or, you know, cursing on the air. He signed his deal with Sirius. He was totally uncensored. And then the last seven years or so, we've seen a transformation of this former renegade basically into like a blue and on liberal. And I mean, this has been coming now for quite some time. But Howard Stern, who, let's all be honest, maybe more responsible for popularizing Trump than anybody else, used to have a standing segment where Trump would call in Melania too. And the two of them would

just like discuss like sex and weird lewd stuff. And they would get, you know, everybody loved it because Donald would go in with Howard and there was very, very popular segments there. It's now turned again into like Trump is a fascist. And this culminates in this recent interview where President Biden, who has not done an interview with a major news outlet yet, including the New York Times, for his entire presidency for print media. In terms of TV, it's been, I think, like several, I think it's been more than a couple of months. Remember, Chris Lee famously skips out on the CBS interview for the Super Bowl. He has skipped multiple opportunities for major sit-down

interviews that millions of Americans would watch. Well, he then decides to sit down for an hour-long interview with Joe Biden. Now, in the past, this might have actually been important. Howard might have actually asked him one or two questions. Howard manages to sit with this man for an hour, make one piece of news where he offhand is like, oh, are you gonna debate Trump? And Biden's like, yeah, I'll debate him at some point. It doesn't even commit to a thing. And then listen to the tongue bath that Howard gives his interviewee subject. This is, again, Howard Stern, the former renegade. Take a listen. Thank you for doing this today.

I want to thank you for your compassion. You know, the reason I'm so excited to talk to you was because I wanted to understand the tragedy in your life and how you dealt with it. And you're the kind of leader I love because we're lucky to have you in the Oval Office and serving as the father of the country. Because if you're a good father to your family, which you are, I know you'd be a good father to the country. And I want to thank you for providing a calming influence, an organized administration post-COVID, getting that vaccine out. I remember what the world was like at that point, getting NATO, getting us to feel comfortable, standing up to Putin.

The incredible large growth in the jobs, unemployment rate down. I'll give you your greatest hits. The lowest uninsured rate in history. Four out of five Americans are covered for less than $10 a month. Knocking off a few ISIS leaders, cutting the emissions in half. I mean, you've always been an environmentalist. Even the marijuana reform laws, enough with sitting there and fighting that battle. Respect for marriage act.

What the hell is with people with this gay stuff? Who cares if someone's gay? How is it affecting anybody? People in love, it's good, right? Love is good. My dad, we saw two men kissing one another in Rodney Square when I was going in to get a license. I looked at him, he said, Joey, it's simple. They love each other. That's it. That's how I look at it. Do you have a question there, Howard? What the hell is that? I can't imagine a subject that I would ever interview. Even if I was enamored by them, especially a politician. I would never speak to a politician somewhere like that.

What is wrong with you? This is the most powerful man on the planet. I have a fucking question, dude. What are you doing? This was honestly, remember how we used to always make fun of that slobbering interview Nicole Wallace did? Yeah, that's right. This was worse. Way worse.

It was worse. Ten times. And I'm going to talk about this in my monologue about the White House Correspondents Dinner where they talk, oh, Colin Yost talking about his decency. Decency. His decency. Yeah. Do you know how sickening that is?

Here he's talking, his compassion. Do you know how sickening that is when under his watch, tens of thousands of Palestinian children have been killed? We've all seen the images of these babies being amputated with no anesthetic on a kitchen table with a butcher knife. And you're going to talk to me about this man's compassion, his compassion. Right now, we're going to cover in a little bit how he's intervening personally to make sure that Bibi Netanyahu is in charge of war crimes. And you're going to talk about his compassion and his decency. It's just, it's so grotesque.

It really shows you that how simple minded and also how the only thing that so many of this is very like beltway mindset. All they care about is this like decorum. So the fact that he's like not vitriolic towards Mitch McConnell or whatever is more important to them than the fact that he's aiding and abetting a genocide with whores that we are all appalled by on a daily basis. How many images have you seen of the mass graves that were uncovered outside of a hospital in Khan Yunis? And you're gonna tell me about this man's compassion. Compassion for who? Because it's certainly not those people. It's certainly not Palestinians.

I mean, I can give you even more. I mean, think about Ukraine bringing us to the brink of nuclear war, like continuing that forever. Also, the idea that it's some well-oiled machine there, you know, I was saying while the clip was playing to you, they should hire Howard as his press secretary because they can't even fire their current press secretary because she's black, even though they literally want to fire her, but they're so afraid of the affirmative action consequences of firing a black lesbian. That's how much of a joke that these people are. So it's like, you know, father of the country, the full father of the country, Mr. Decency. I mean, all of this really goes to the fact that his son is dead,

which is obviously tragic and sad. But, you know, let's be honest, like that's not a qualification for being president of the United States. There's a lot of people in this country whose kids are dead and or can speak with some empathy or compassion or, you know, use it as foundational experience of their life. I just, this is sickening to me on so many levels, both because of who Howard was and how he got his fame, how he really changed American culture. I think for the better, you know, opening up, challenging a lot of these conceptions of censorious government organizations and standards and all that was very constraining to speech. And we know that Howard 30 years ago absolutely would not have stood for the current type of environment and all that that Biden has brought to the table. But for some reason, his brain has just been completely broken.

So it's sad that that, again, too, that's the only type of interview that Biden will sit for. Well, how can you have this? That's right. As a republic. You can see, I mean, you can see why, see why he picked Howard Stern, clearly, and why he won't go and sit with, yeah, I mean, the New York Times is very favorable towards him, but they're going to ask him something that he's going to have to respond to. And I mean, he's not equipped, right? So that's why he does it is because he can get away with it. And he can just, you know, go on like Howard Stern or go on with some like mindfulness podcast, which is not going to ask him anything difficult. And, you know, it's a real political problem. It's obviously a moral, like, abyss in terms of what he's done in his presidency vis-a-vis Gaza. But it's a real

political problem for him because the core value that was kind of his political superpower was this sense that he's this, listen, I may not agree with him, but he's a decent man. He's compassionate. He has all this well of empathy from a life that was marked by genuine, horrible tragedy, right? But we covered a poll recently, I wish I had the numbers in front of me right now, that people don't feel that way about him anymore. They don't feel that way about him anymore. Because, you know, you look at what he's doing, what he's enabling, what he's funding, what he's covering for, and you can no longer say, like, oh, this is an empathetic, compassionate man. It just doesn't hold. Especially if you're talking about, you know, as our poll reflects, people who are not getting their news from cable news or print media,

but cable news in particular, the rest of the country is looking at what he is not just enabling, but facilitating. Starvation, the complete siege, all of these things. I don't feel like this is a good, decent, compassionate man. So previously, I feel like some comments like this or the ones from the White House correspondents or whatever, they would have passed without a lot of commentary because there were a lot of people who felt that way, who used to feel that way about Joe Biden. And that image is falling apart by the day. Yeah, it fell apart for a lot of people a long time ago. 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. I've never found her and it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Helling 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. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes, but there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops called this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened

when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st, and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th.

Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you've got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad.

That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Let's move on now to RFK Jr. The war between RFK Jr. and Donald Trump is escalating. RFK Jr. appears to have really set Trump off with some, it's either his interview on Bill Maher and specifically the vaccine section. So we're going to play for you what RFK either his interview on Bill Maher and specifically the vaccine section. So we're going to play for you what RFK Jr. said with Bill Maher, and then we're going to show you Trump's response. Let's play it. But your vice presidential pick wants to recall the

Moderna vaccine. That's the one I got. Do you agree with that? Recall it. I think the, you know, I think those vaccines need to, we need to have, again, true double blind placebo controlled trials on that. There's 25% of Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed by a COVID vaccine. Killed? Killed. Killed. 25% of Americans, 52% of Americans believe that the vaccines are causing injuries, including death, 52%.

If you look at the clinical trial studies, the actual studies that were done that were released of the Pfizer vaccine, Moderna has not released it. If you look at the Pfizer vaccine. Moderna has not released it. If you look at the Pfizer vaccine, there were 22,000 people in the placebo group, 22,000 people who got the actual vaccine. And the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes

at the end of that study. But that could not be the disease itself? No, well... So as you can see, RFK Jr. versus Bill Maher there. But what was interesting is how Trump is now handling this. So let's go put this up there on the screen. So Donald Trump puts out this long truth. God, the character limit really was good for him.

This is way too long. He says, I actually watched for the first time in a long time. Ratings challenged Bill Maher's really boring interview with RFK Jr. RFK, only to find Jr. is far more liberal than Maher. And in fact, far more liberal than anyone else running as a Democrat, including West and Stein. Yet despite this, he has no hope as a Democrat because they were able to use their typically fascist repression, blah, blah, blah, throw them out of the party like a dog. So now Junior's a so-called independent, but he's not. He's a radical left-wing lunatic trying to have it all wed. He says that no vaccine is safe and effective, and then said, I would never say I'm not anti-vaccine. Where did that come from?

Maher defended the vaccine, which Junior seemed to agree. Wow. And then told him his poll numbers have crashed. No Republican can vote for this guy. Hashtag MAGA 2024. No idea what Trump is trying to say there exactly, Crystal. But I think what he can sense, at least correctly, is that A, vaccine politics is disproportionately going to resonate with people who are right wing. And that therefore, something like RFK Jr. there citing those numbers, which probably disproportionately going to be Republicans or Republican leaning voters. And Trump's not an idiot. He can read a poll. How many internal polls now does he probably able to see now that confirm a lot of the reporting we've had here on this show and elsewhere that RFK Jr. actually could end up affecting Trump

and drawing more from his voters than anybody else in the election. Yeah. And so I think most Americans overwhelmingly have moved on from COVID politics. Yeah, definitely. Because we're talking, this was years ago now. Right. But there is still a core base on the right in particular that is still like, this is a big thing for them. And it's one of the areas where Trump's more vulnerable because he did Operation Warp Speed and he continued even as the Republican base went to the anti-vax side pretty hard. He continued to defend the vaccines and at a time

like faced some blowback over that. So I think he feels a little bit vulnerable, not that this is gonna be a huge wave of support from his group to RFK Jr.'s group but I think he feels that this is an issue where he's a little bit vulnerable to losing some percentage points I do want to I mean he does make a point about RFK Jr. that I think is fair which is that he does play very like fast and loose with what he actually thinks about vaccines because the quote that they're referring to was from Lex Friedman's podcast. Remember this? That's right. This is from July 2023. So he was being asked if any vaccines are safe and effective. And he said,

there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. Now, what he tries to claim is that he did say that some, this is the exact quote, some of the live virus vaccines are probably averting more problems than they're causing. But then he went on when he was pressed and said there is no vaccine that is safe and effective. So I think it's fair to call him then an anti-vaxxer. And of course, he's been one of the leading funders and organizers of an entire movement, again, pushing back on the idea of vaccine safety. So in any case, this is an area where Trump feels like RFK obviously codes more right wing. And I think he also is seeing some of the polling numbers and realizing this could actually be more of an issue for him than it is for Joe Biden. Because not only do you have a couple polls that show him

pulling more from Trump, the one we covered last week. What was that? Wall Street Journal? No, NBC News. NBC News that we covered last week. I believe the Wall Street Journal one before that also showed RFK Jr. taking more from Trump. And then if you look at any of these polls, RFK Jr. has very high approval ratings among Republicans and extremely trash approval ratings among Democrats. So logic would indicate that that's probably going to be more of a problem for the Republican side. Although, you know, the fact he's a Kennedy and all of these other factors are a little complicated, not to mention

the fact that it remains a question how many ballots he's actually going to end up on. You can see this too in some more of the attacks that Trump unleashed over the weekend on RFK Jr. Let's put this up there on the screen. He really does appear to be zooming in on vaccines specifically as an attack vector. He says, RFK Jr. is a Democrat plant, a radical left liberal, blah, blah, blah. If Republicans knew the true story about him, Jr. is totally anti-gun, an extreme environmentalist, a big time taxer, an open border advocate, anti-military vet. He goes on and on and on. And he continues, I quote, his views on vaccines are fake. He says, I live with RFK Jr. in New York. Watch him convince Cuomo to make environmental moves that were outright nasty. You know, he can go on. It would be dead either way. His views are

vaccines are fake, as is everything else about his candidacy. Let the Democrats have RFK Jr. They deserve him. So it is interesting to see, you know, he's zooming in here. Yeah, I'm not really, again, not exactly clear what exactly he's trying to do here. We do here have a response from RFK Jr. Let's put this up there on the screen. And he expanded a little bit on this in a recent interview. He says, when frightened men take to social media, they risk descending into vitriol, which makes them sound unhinged. President Trump's rant against me is a barely coherent barrage of wild and inaccurate claims that should best be resolved in the American tradition of presidential debate. President Trump, who has proven himself the most adept debater in modern American history, should not be panicked to meet me on that stage. To preview my arguments,

I will show how Trump betrayed the hopes of his most sincere followers. He promised to end the Ukraine war, then colluded with Johnson. He let Big Pharma and his corrupt bureaucrats run roughshod over him as president, promised to cut the deficit, etc. He says, instead of lobbying Poe's and his bombs from the safety of his bunker, let's hear President Trump defend his record to me, mano a mano, by respectful, congenial debate. So he's challenging Trump to a debate, very unlikely that Trump will accept it. Although, one thing I will say, it incures more likely. Now, Biden has agreed to some sort of debate. Trump, of course, is chomping at the bit for a debate. That because of this debate, apparently the Biden people don't like the commission on presidential debates either. So it could be that we could see the CPD

fall apart. And if it does, it would be, I think, more likely that RFK Jr. may actually be included, maybe as a condition either by the Biden campaign or the Trump campaign, possibly to try and trip the other side up if we do see the overall debate infrastructure collapse. But I'm not 100% sure how it will all shake. I mean, we should see that. We should see Jill Stein. I would love to see it, yeah. Dr. West, if he ends up on a number of ballots, we should hear from all of these candidates. They should be able to compare and contrast their ideas. You should have people who have a variety of opinions

who have to match up against each other on a stage and see how they perform. Debates are not perfect. They're not the end-all, be-all. But, God, at least it's like a little bit of a democratic process to allow us to judge in real time what they say under pressure, how they respond to actually difficult questions, because now it's far too easy for these candidates. And RFK Jr., I mean, he's sat with us. He sat for a number of difficult, challenging interviews. And I applaud

him for that. All of these candidates should have to do that. They should have to do that. And they should certainly have to get up on a debate stage and justify themselves and their candidacies to the American people. So listen, I was glad to hear Biden say he's open to a debate. We'll see if that actually comes together because I can still see, you know, a lot of times what will happen with Biden is he'll say something and then his staff will be like, no, no, no, that's not really what he meant. And, you know, walk it back and sort of try to steer him in the direction where they feel safest and which is probably the wisest course for him. Probably the wisest course for him is not to debate Donald Trump. But it did make me a little bit hopeful that we might see one when he said that with Howard Stern. I can still see them,

though, like, you know, at the end of the day, Trump doing something that they say, oh, this is too much. We can't stand on debate stage with him or, you know, no, end of the day, Trump doing something that they say, oh, this is too much, we can't stand on debate stage with him. Or, you know, no, this moderator is biased, whatever, coming up with some excuse at the last minute to not do it. So I'm still like only maybe 30% hopeful it's actually going to happen. Good point. So as we reported last week, it is looking more and more likely that the International Criminal Court is actually going to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a number of other top Israeli officials. So the U.S. has decided to involve themselves in an attempt to stop this process. Let's put this up on the screen. This

is a report specifically from the Times of Israel, but there were a number of reports across Israeli media. So according to those reports, the US is part of a, quote, last-ditch diplomatic effort, in other words, threats, to prevent the ICC from issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. The news site Wallah, an analyst there, writes Netanyahu is, quote, under unusual stress over the prospect of an arrest warrant against him and other Israelis by the UN tribunal in The Hague, which would be a major deterioration, they write, in Israel's international status. Netanyahu is leading a, quote, nonstop push over the telephone to prevent that arrest warrant and

has focused especially on US President Joe Biden. Another Israeli media analyst, Haaretz Amos Harrell, writes that the Israeli government is working under the assumption that the ICC's prosecutor may this week issue warrants for Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Galant, and IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi. Netanyahu's latest public statement about the war said forthcoming decisions by the ICC could set a, quote, dangerous precedent. And he also said we will never stop defending ourselves. Whereas decisions of the court in The Hague will not affect Israel's actions, they would be a dangerous precedent, threatening the soldiers and officials of any democracy

fighting criminal terrorism and aggression. There was also, Sager, a New York Times report. This was the first one I'd seen in the New York Times that came out just yesterday evening about how imminent these potential arrest warrants are. They said in that report from the New York Times, they had some indication of what the arrest warrants may be specific to. The Israeli officials could potentially be accused of preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and pursuing an excessively harsh response to the Hamas-led October 7th attacks on Israel, according to some of the officials they spoke to.

The Israeli officials who are worried about the potential fallout from such a case said they believe Netanyahu is among those who might be named. It's not clear who might be charged from Hamas or what crimes would be cited. So just to be clear for people, the U.S. and Israel are not actually participants in the ICC. The ICC doesn't have its own, like, police force to come and arrest Bibi Netanyahu, as much as I would personally love to see that image. However, there are, what, 124 countries that are involved in the ICC. And any one of those countries would be obligated, if they travel to those nations, to arrest Bibi or Yoav Galant or any other officials who were potentially issued these arrest warrants. So obviously, in terms of the international

standing of Israel, having your prime minister having a rest warrant from the ICC out for war crimes against your prime minister is a pretty significant development. Yeah, there are only two foreign leaders that similarly have ICC warrants against them, Omar al-Bashir, former president of Sudan, and then obviously Vladimir Putin as well. Are they going to be arrested? Let's be real, no. They're going to be able to travel far and wide, as Putin has been able to do. However, Putin has had issues, right? He wasn't allowed to, or he decided not to challenge ICC to travel to South Africa for

the BRICS conference. There have been various political problems that he has had. And look, while I am against the Ukraine consensus funding the Ukraine war and all of that, I don't think anyone could deny that it's been bad for Russia in terms of its international standing, not necessarily their domestic economy. It hasn't led to their collapse. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it certainly has damaged them in the eyes of the world. And so similarly, I would say this is likely the same effect that this would have, especially since the US, the Israel signatories. I was a little curious about these Hamas warrants because I hadn't seen some of the argumentation around this.

It said it was considering warrants for these leaders of Hamas. I actually think, just look, again, in terms of the eyes of the world, it would make it a little bit more undeniable if they were to do it. And so if they did, it would be, at least politically, that would probably be the right thing to do. If you charge them for October 7th, issue arrest warrants as well. Now, again, let's be very clear, this body has zero enforcement mechanism. There's a reason that Bashir, at the end of the day, was taken out by a coup in his own government, and that Putin, similarly, will remain the autocrat of Russia

for as long as he lives and as he wants, because it has no authority itself. It's simply kind of a rebuke from the international community. To the extent that that matters, difficult to say. Yeah, and war crimes were committed on October 7th. There should be accountability for that. There should be war crimes trials for everyone who was involved in murdering innocent civilians on October 7th, and there certainly should be accountability for Bibi Netanyahu and other government officials who've been involved in a siege, creating a famine, causing starvation to death of babies and children. And of course, the overwhelming annihilation throughout the Gaza Strip. I mean, one number, we're talking about college campuses and whatever. So this

popped up today, 200 schools have been targeted by Israel, just as one measure of how overwhelming and how much civilian infrastructure was just completely obliterated, not to mention the 40,000 plus Palestinians who've been killed, the overwhelming majority of whom were innocent civilians. Some 70% were women and children. So even if you assume all of the rest of the men were guilty, terrorists, whatever, you still have overwhelming numbers who were innocent civilians. So, you know, it's disgusting that the U.S. would jump in here and try to throw their weight around to try to forestall these arrest warrants being issued. But you know why they do it? Because it's very uncomfortable for the U.S. as well. You want to keep our cloak of supposed morality. And so if you've got the ICC out there issuing

arrest warrant for your bestie, Bibi Netanyahu, that's going to be uncomfortable for the U.S. as well, which has gone out of their way to deny that they see any evidence of war crimes. More on that in a moment. The last thing I'll say about Israel with regards to this is, you know, in some ways, their moral standing as a country is more important than maybe any other nation because they use that moral standing and the, you know, the horrors of the Holocaust in order to justify, you know, continued occupation, continued apartheid state, things that would be seen very clearly in different contexts if it wasn't Israel. This is used from a propaganda standpoint to justify this entire state, the way that they operate across administrations outside of just Bibi Netanyahu.

So that's part of why these threats to the moral standing of Israel specifically are a particular problem for them and why at least reportedly, Bibi, even though he knows he's not going to actually be arrested, why he's very concerned about this and putting a lot of pressure in holding emergency meetings to try to figure out how to deal with the fallout from what looks to be impending as soon as potentially this week arrest warrants, but we'll see if the U.S. is able to thwart any of those sort of consequences. We have some exclusive polling that is highly relevant to this discussion of Israel's conduct in Gaza Strip. And we're taking a look at these specifically by partisanship.

So how do Republicans, Democrats, and independents feel about Israeli military actions post-October 7th? Let's put this first one up on the screen. So the question here is, which of the following statements comes closest to your view? The options are Israel is committing genocide, Israel is not committing genocide, and don't know. So you have even actually 23% of Republicans saying they think Israel is committing genocide versus 47% who say no. On the Democratic side, it is quite overwhelming. So 48%, a near majority say affirmatively yes. 18% say no, only 18%. And another 35% say don't know. So huge plurality, near majority saying, yes, it's a genocide. If you look specifically at Joe Biden voters, by the way, within our poll, it is a majority. And then with independents too, you have a plurality who say Israel is committing genocide, 30% versus 23% who say no and 47%

who say they don't know. So overall, you have about a third of Americans who are saying, yes, this is a genocide. That's pretty astonishing when you consider the way that Israel has been viewed with this bipartisan halo for decades and decades and decades. And now you have this sizable minority of about a third and a majority of Joe Biden voters saying they're committing genocide right now. That's an extraordinary shift in public opinion. Let's put the next one up on the screen, also relevant, highly relevant to the question of ICC arrest warrants. So the question here is, which of these statements comes closest to your view? Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza. Israel has not committed war crimes in Gaza and don't know. Pretty similar numbers here. 27%

of Republicans, slightly higher, say yes, they've committed war crimes. 41% say no, 31% say I don't know. With Democrats, it is a majority. 52% say yes, only 18% of Democrats say no. And you also have a plurality with independents, 34 to 22. And let me just put this last one up on the screen so I can get your reaction to all of these. Specifically, we asked the question, should Netanyahu be charged with war crimes? With Republicans, 24% say, 24%, so a quarter even of Republicans, pretty significant, say yes. 42% say no, 34% say don't know. With Democrats, it's another 48%. Only 17% say no. So Joe Biden, only 17% of your voters think this man shouldn't be charged with war crimes and you're in there intervening. 36% say they don't know.

With independents, you've got another plurality, 26% saying yes, should be charged with war crimes. Only 20% say no and 54% say they do not know. So this shows you a pretty stark picture of where Americans are in terms of their public opinion of Israel and the way this war has been conducted, which again, given the way people felt about Israel just a year ago, it's a pretty dramatic shift. Yeah, no, it's a titanic shift in terms of the coalition. It will significantly change the way things look for the future. This is why I keep saying that things in the near term have not changed all that much, but things in the long term are significant to the point where the relationship between the American people and Israel will never be the same,

and the relationship of the international community to Israel will specifically never be the same, and probably more radically different than it is here in our nation. What that polling just underscores to me is the radical shift that's going on amongst the Democrats. But significantly also, if you do start to break it down by age, which we did, amongst the 18 to 25, 18 to 29 demographic, even when you self-select for Republicans and others, you see shifts very, very different away from the way that younger voters, younger Americans view their relationship with Israel as compared to the international community and the 65 plus. So as America ages up and a lot of the younger voters become middle class Americans or 30 to 45 year olds and others with more economic power, probably in general,

being more invested in the political system, there will be a significant change. And of course, too, in terms of the representatives, the people in Congress who represent them. Let me just give you guys the overall numbers on some of these questions. So in terms of whether people believe war crimes have been committed in Gaza, you have a plurality. This is overall, 37% versus 27% who say no and the remainder say they don't know. With regards to Bibi specifically and whether he should be charged with war crimes, you once again have an overall plurality, 32% versus 26% who say no and the remainder say they don't know.

So it is quite an extraordinary and dramatic shift for a plurality of Americans to be saying, yes, we believe that this man, who is the leader of Israel, should be charged with war crimes. And you know who else agrees with many Americans on this is apparently many members of the State Department. Let's put this up on the screen. There was an internal memo from the State Department that was just leaked. And parts of it had been classified, and this journalist was able to get their hands on it with some of the most extensive, they write, and serious-to-date warnings to Secretary Blinken over Israel's possible noncompliance with international humanitarian law. Go on to the next piece for some of the details here. So they say a joint submission from four

bureaus, Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Population, Refugees and Migration, Global Criminal Justice, and International Organization Affairs raised, quote, serious concerns over noncompliance with international humanitarian law in Israel's conduct of the Gaza War. The assessment from the four bureaus said Israel's assurances were, quote, neither credible nor reliable. You don't say. Cited eight examples of Israeli military actions. Officials said raise serious questions about potential violations of international humanitarian law. Let's go on to the next one. These include repeatedly striking protected sites and civilian infrastructure, unconscionably high levels of civilian harm

to military advantage, taking little action to investigating violations or to hold to account those responsible for significant civilian harm, and killing humanitarian workers and journalists at an unprecedented rate. Now, there were some who participated in this memo who diverged from that opinion. But, Sagar, this is important for a variety of reasons, but most specifically because it suggests that the State Department is, you know, all these shipments of weapons are in direct contravention of U.S. law, and that Tony Blinken has on his desk information that indicates that he is specifically himself violating U.S. law in order to continue shipping these weapons to Israel. Yeah, the Leahy Law and the humanitarian violation is a significant problem for them, especially as a lot of the evidence in this

stuff mounts. This is particularly why they're working against the ICC and against a lot of the memos and other evidence they have on their own desk because it puts them in a bind where they either have to comply with US law or don't. We've already had this instance where they were supposed to sanction that IDF battalion based upon a previous report that was pre-October 7th and some of its conduct. They said they were going to do it or they indicated they were going to do it, but Netanyahu and the Speaker freaked out and it has yet to materialize. But it's not the end of that, though, because if the law and all of that exists, it's either

going to leak or it's going to go towards Congress, and people can ask questions about that. But that would also require Congress asking the administration why it's not doing its job. And to actually do something. I mean, some of these people who claimed that they, you know, understood that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid and was very likely in contravention of the Leahy law, then just turn around and still vote for the weapons. So it requires, this memo, I believe, was prepared

because Congress was pressing on exactly this issue. That's the whole reason why this thing exists. But then they don't actually, you know, act upon the information once it's provided. So in any case, that's what's going on there. The U.S. has proof that Israel is committing war crimes. Next time you watch one of these enraging State Department briefings where they say they're looking into it and they don't know and they heard about that, but they're going to ask Israel about it or whatever. Just keep in mind, Tony Blinken has multiple reports from inside his own State

Department telling him, yes, they are committing war crimes and they are just choosing to ignore that and violate U.S. law in order to continue this onslaught and atrocities against Palestinians. 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. 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 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 iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know a lot of cops and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Sometimes the answer is yes. But there's a company dedicated to a future where the answer will always be no. Across the country, cops call this taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that taser told them.

From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary mission. This is Absolute Season 1.

Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st and episodes 4, 5, and 6 on June 4th.

Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-up way,

you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. All right, there was a little flap between Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who visited some of the student protesters, and ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt that we wanted to go over for you. So first of all, let's take a listen to what Congresswoman Omar had to say that caused this holster.

Do you think this will translate to the Jewish students who are facing anti-Semitism here on campus? So I actually met a lot of Jewish students that are in the encampment. And I think it is really unfortunate that people don't care about the fact that all Jewish kids should be kept safe and that we should not have to tolerate anti-Semitism or bigotry for all Jewish students, whether they are pro-genocide or anti-genocide. So that was the part that set people off. And she said, listen, all Jewish students should be safe, whether or not they're pro-genocide. Like in her, you know, she believes that, as I do, what Israel is doing in the Gaza Strip is a genocide. And there are people who support that. So in her framing in mind,

those people are pro-genocide. She's saying, even if they are pro-genocide, they should be safe. And the people who are anti-genocide who are protesting over here should also be safe. And I 100% co-sign those comments. Yeah, it was funny because the ADL put this out there. Let's put this up there on the screen. It says, watch this clip. It features Ilhan walking through Colombia, proclaiming that Jewish students do not have to tolerate anti- antisemitism when they're pro-genocide or anti-genocide. It is patently false and a blood libel to suggest, you know, where does this blood libel shit ever end? Again, these terms have lost on me. That any Jewish students are, quote, pro-genocide is gaslighting to impute that Jewish people are somehow at fault for being harassed and menaced with signs and slogans, literally

calling for their own extermination. It is abhorrent that a sitting member of Congress would slander a group of young people in such a cold and complicated manner. Oh, oh really? This is how people get killed. Oh, you don't think young people should be slandered, ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt. I must apologize, I am not holding my breath. Ilhan Omar responded, let's put this up there on the screen. She says, this is the pro-genocide I was talking about, can you condemn?

This is like I've condemned anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kind. Kill all Arabs. They're all Hamas, all grotesquely evil, level Gaza. So it is quite, you know, kind of amusing. Now, look, people know I don't use the term genocide, war crimes, international law, because I think all that is fake and is completely in the eye of the beholder. But I do think it is funny to me that, and this is, I've observed this too, rhetorically, and I saw it in your debate on Piers Morgan. The problem that a lot of the pro-Israel people have, like in that instance, is they are very willing to be like, oh, you got to smear these young kids.

It's not a genocide. These kids are anti-Semites. You know, they use like catch-all language and moralistic language against their opponents. But in general, from what I have noticed, from Norm Finkelstein, even the most extreme pro-Palestinian voices, at least in the relative mainstream and discourse, are always willing to be like, yes, I do condemn October 7th. I condemn anti-Semitism. And part of the problem is that the pro-Israel side is not willing to give the same even rhetorical clutch, I guess, to their opponents. And it just makes them look like either like double standard or sissies like here. Like you can't say that, you know, what is it from the river to the sea or whatever is genocidal and then turn around and then not condemn on your side exactly statements like kill the Arabs or level Gaza or whatever, because you do agree with that.

And, you know, there's a certain, you lose the morality whenever that is what you're advocating for. And I just want people to be honest. Michael Tracy said that recently. He's like, all I want is people to be honest. But you can't sit there and be using terms like blood libel and going after kids and students on the one hand, and then on the other hand, be upset when other people are going to do it straight back at you. Okay. So put Greenblatt's statement back up, guys, on the screen. What was that? That was 87 or whatever block we're on, seven. There we go. All right. He says it is patently false and a blood libel to suggest that any Jewish students are pro-genocide. Oh, really? Oh, really? Because I just watched you, sir, on MSNBC accuse Jewish Voice for Peace of being an Iranian proxy a la

Hezbollah or Hamas. And I know you for a fact believe that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist group. You literally just slandered and smeared Jewish students as being genocidal yourself. And now you're upset when Ilhan Omar actually accurately characterizes some positions as pro genocide. So save it, save it. And it's so true what you're saying, Sagar. It's like, this is really not complicated. And this goes back to this whole, one of the, you know, discourse talking points or whatever about the student protesters right now. It's like, they don't even know what they're talking, these kids. I don't even know what they're protesting. They don't understand. But some of these things are complicated. Like the

history, if you know all the ins and outs, yeah, that's complex. It's a lot to know. But you can also very simply have a moral standard of killing innocent civilians is wrong. It was wrong when it happened on October 7th, and it's wrong when it happens when Israel's doing it. That isn't hard. It's not complex. And if you poll people, I think the overwhelming majority will agree with that sentiment, but you have to apply it across the board. And when we've had months and months and months of the slaughter only happening on one side of the equation, guess what? They can't acknowledge that yes, killing innocent civilians is wrong because they're faced with day after day after day of kids and women and schools being

bombed and churches being bombed and hospitals being bombed. So you have to just either pretend that's not happening or butt Hamas it to death. And at this point, it's just it's worn completely thin. So they can't take that clear moral position because their whole thing would fall apart if they did. So in any case, a hilarious fake freakout over Ilhan Omar saying something that is correct and also is very consistent, frankly, even if it's phrased in a way that makes people uncomfortable with American principles, which is, listen, even if you have speech that is so abhorrent as for it to be pro-genocide, even those people should be protected. Even they should be safe. Even if they are saying something that is advocating for a crime against

humanity, even those individuals deserve to be safe. Now, that sounds controversial, but it is a bedrock principle of America, something, you know, that is incredibly dear to me and I think many other people in the nation. The other, the last thing I'll say about Greenblatt's thing is like, you know, Jewish people are just like any other people. Like some are going to have good views, bad views, be good people, bad people, et cetera. And the fact that they're Jewish doesn't take criticism. Like you still have to be able to criticize people. It doesn't mean like any sort of criticism is off the table, ipso facto, because they're Jewish. But that's exactly what he and the ADL and many elite politicians, Richard Torres and all these other people, that's exactly what they want, which is in and of itself a form of

racism saying like no Jew is able to hold that viewpoint. It's like, no, Jewish people are complex like everybody else and have a wide variety of opinions and are able to be anywhere on the spectrum, even places on the spectrum that I find to be horrifying. My most controversial opinion is that Jews are just like everybody else and should be treated as such. And I think that about blacks, whites, whatever, Indians, any other group. I don't think you should be treated as such. And I think that about blacks, whites, whatever, Indians, any other group, I don't think you should be treated specially. I guess that's very controversial and equal application of the law, something that we allegedly were founded on and fought a civil war for. I think sectarianism is very destructive. And framing this as like a religious conflict is very dangerous and destructive. And it's not accurate when you have

Jewish voices for peace, when you have so many protests, movements organized by Jews who are anti-Zionist Jews. It's a political conflict. It's a conflict at its core over, you know, land and morality and protection of civilians. That's what the conflict is about. And the minute that you make this into this like clash of civilizations, religious conflict, that's part of why this has gotten so, has drawn out for so many decades. Because that actually confuses the situation and makes it much more difficult to resolve. Yeah, well, absolutely. All right, move on. Fun story, last story. This, she had this in the show. It's just, yeah, I mean, fun, absolutely. All right, move on. Fun story. Last story. This had this in the show. It's just it's just yeah, I mean, fun for some psychotic. Some others might say, let's go and put this up there on the screen. South Dakota Governor Kirstie Noem has written a new book and brags about killing her 14 month old dog. And I'm not I'm not exaggerating here at all. I'm going to read you directly from what she said. She said, Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old. It was a female dog that, quote,

had an aggressive personality who she was trying to train as a hunting dog. She took Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs. Gnome says she had hoped to calm the young dog down and teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life, aka what dogs do. Noam then describes calling Cricket, using an electric collar to attempt to bring her under control. She says that nothing worked on the way home after the hunt. She stopped to talk to a local family. The dog escaped and attacked the family's chickens. She said she was simply untrainable, like a trained assassin. When Gnome finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog whipped around to bite me after she was

grabbed. Through it all, she says, Cricket was just the picture of pure joy. She then writes, I hated that dog. Dangerous to anyone she came into contact with. Worse than useless as a hunting dog. At that moment, I realized I had to put her down. It was not a pleasant job, but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done. And she talks about killing a nasty male goat that was also on their property. So basically what she describes here is murdering a 14-month-old dog that was acting like a dog. Now I've seen some justification for this. Well, you know, what do you, look, dogs are tools like everything else. Yeah, maybe in 1825, you know, today, there are actually a ton of charities that are out there, animal rescues, etc., that specifically take hunting dogs that didn't pass training.

There's tons of them. I'm sure they exist in South Dakota, too. And she's trying to play this off as some, like, hardscrabble, living on the land thing. Again, let me just repeat. We are not on the frontier times. There is no reason to conduct yourself this way. It's completely psychotic, especially when you're bragging about it and trying to make yourself appear tough. This is her defense after this all came out. We love animals, but tough decisions

like this happen all the time on a farm. Sadly, we had to put down three horses a few weeks ago that had been in our family for 25 years. If you want more real, honest, and politically incorrect stories that'll have the media gasping, pre-order Noah Going Back. She's not even fundraising off this now. Trying to sell more of her crappy copies of her book, bragging about killing a 14-month-old dog. I mean, it's totally psychotic. It's not like the dog was even sick. Yeah. At 14 months old, this was still a puppy. Yeah, they're like puppies. This is still a puppy. This is still, this dog is still developing.

And there are so many other options available to you than just like she dragged it into some gravel pit and shot it in the head. I was bothered by the goat too. I actually grew up with goats. We had pet goats. One of my friends has a nasty goat. They don't shoot it.

One of our goats was We had pet goats. One of my friends has a nasty goat. They don't shoot it. One of our goats was very sweet. And the other one was a little scary. Angela was a little bit scary. We didn't shoot her in the head. It was fine. You just knew how to deal with the goat. And goats are highly intelligent and social.

The other one who was named after me, she was named Chrissy. She used to always try to come in the house like she was a dog. She had commands she understood. These are very intelligent animals. And for you to just cruelly think this is your only option. And then the sickness of thinking this is going to... This is a political book. This is part of her bid to become Trump's VP pick. That you think this is going to make people think better of you? Like how little do you think of Republican voters or the American

people in general that you think murdering a puppy is going to make them feel, oh, she's tough and she makes the tough choices, et cetera. I have seen some people defending her, which is gross, but I have also seen a lot of bipartisan revulsion, which is understandable. No, the vast majority of people are repulsed by this. And that's why she's had to clean it up since. Let's put this up there. Her latest statement is, I understand why people are upset about a 20-year-old story of cricket, which you put in your book, by the way. Nobody else brought this up. The book is filled with honest stories of my life, good and bad days, challenging, painful decisions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The fact is South Dakota law states that dogs who attack and kill livestock

can be put down. Given that cricket had shown aggressive behavior toward people by biting them, I decided what I did. Now, keep in mind, we're only taking this lady's word for it. We have no idea if any of this even happened. What she's talking about is if somebody's dog goes and kills somebody else's chickens or property, and then even then, there's a whole animal process that goes through whenever you decide to put a dog down. It's one of the most extraordinary things you could do

whenever it comes to, for animals, like getting the state to order the dog to be put down after a variety of incidents. Various states have different laws. But she says, whether running the ranch or in politics, I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle. Even if it's hard and painful, I follow the law. I was being a responsible parent, dog owner, and neighbor. So I'll just reiterate, the original justification is very clear. She's like, I hated the dog and it didn't do what I wanted it to do. So I'll just reiterate, the original justification is very clear. She's like, I hated the dog and it didn't do what I wanted it to do. And I know multiple people actually who have rescued hunting dogs, people, dogs who didn't pass hunting training or whatever, which I understand,

you know, not every dog or whatever is cut out for it. But, you know, we're not living on the frontier where you got to kill them for literally no reason. And she's bragging about it as if it somehow makes her big and strong. Putting down a horse that's been horrifically injured, that's one thing that's sad. And even then, there's conversations or whatever. But here, there's no justification on it whatsoever. It's just, I murdered this dog and that makes me big and strong and that's why you should buy my book and give me $20. Unbelievable. Crazy.

Apparently, she's kind of fallen in the Trump VP esteem anyway. Well, I hope so. We'll see. But I mean, I had seen reporting previously that any governor of a state that has like extreme abortion laws like South Dakota does, heartbeat laws like South Dakota does. I didn't think about that. that has like extreme abortion laws like South Dakota does, heartbeat laws like South Dakota does. I didn't think about that. Had fallen in Trump's consideration. So she may have been off the table already.

Also, Trump apparently hates dogs. So I don't know if he would have a problem with this story in particular. But the latest is that he's considering Doug Burgum. Wow. That's something. I guess that'd be a dig because he was North Dakota, right? He was North Dakota. There's like a rivalry there.

You know, Doug wouldn't be a bad choice just purely for money purposes. He's a billionaire. He's somebody who could fund his campaign. Trump's got money issues for his campaign. He doesn't want to spend any of his own money. He's certainly not going to like out charisma. I was going to say, Doug. So there wouldn't be any worries about that.

I feel like he'd be like Mike Pence. He'd just be like, all right, whatever. You know, do whatever you want. Yeah. I don't really buy it though. I guess at this point I'm thinking maybe Tim Do whatever you want. Yeah. I don't really buy it, though. I guess at this point, I'm thinking maybe Tim Scott might be the- Yeah. I've said this before. I think all three of these people have an equal chance. I think if it was going to be a woman, I still think it's going to be Elise because Elise has got no abortion baggage. She's got this whole Harvard thing going for her right now because she's the

one who started that whole moral panic about the Ivy League universities. Trump loves her because she served as one of his spokespeople for his defense in the impeachment. She's very combative on social media. She's a total loyalist. And she's socially liberal. Like, you know, in the past, she'd been attacked by the right wing for being more socially liberal. Like she voted for the Equality Act in like 2019. So this is somebody who's very much more like Trumpist. That's if he wants a woman. If he wants a black person, just for media purposes, affirmative action candidate, it would be Tim Scott. If he's feeling really safe and he wants an ideological ally, I think he's going to pick J.D. Vance. All three of those things all depend on the polling whenever it comes right up to the convention. I think it's basically an equal shot for all three of those.

But we'll see. 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. 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. She was 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. I know a lot of cops, and they get asked all the time, have you ever had to shoot your gun? Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. the country, cops called this Taser the revolution. But not everyone was convinced it was that simple. Cops believed everything that Taser told them. From Lava for Good and the team that brought you Bone Valley comes a story about what happened when a multi-billion dollar company dedicated itself to one visionary

mission. This is Absolute Season 1. Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. It's really, really, really bad. Listen to new episodes of Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Binge episodes 1, 2, and 3 on May 21st

and episodes 4, 5, we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-up way, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad. That's that occasion. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. Crystal, what are you taking a look at? Well, as powerful politicians, elite media denizens, and Hollywood celebrities all gathered in D.C. this past weekend for the annual White House Correspondents' Dinner, they were met

with exactly the welcome that they deserved. Free Palestine protesters confronted these elites with their own hypocrisy and complicity in sanctioning horrifying atrocities against Palestinian civilians, chanting, shame on you, at these people who are, at worst, actively funding and supporting a genocide, and at the very least, comfortable with celebrating those who are backing a genocide. At one point, a giant Palestinian flag was actually unfurled from a window of the venue itself, the D.C. Hilton Hotel that has played host to this event for many years. Protesters even staged a die-in to honor the 100-plus journalists who have been killed by the IDF in Gaza. It was complete with blood-spattered

press vests. A visual reminder that while these so-called journalists were putting on ball gowns in their luxury hotel suites, Palestinian journalists were facing starvation, arrest, torture, and execution for the crime of doing their job. And the message of these protests was right on target. Of all the in-group spectacles in D.C., none has become more grotesque or more emblematic of the utter bipartisan immorality of American elites than the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The idealized notion of this event is that for one evening, the press and the politicians, they put aside the combative relationship meant to typify interactions between the powerful and the journalists who hold them to account, and to together recommit to the bedrock importance of the First Amendment in a fierce independent press by taking comedic jabs at one another.

Given the partisan toothlessness, though, of most of the press and the raging hypocrisy of everyone involved, in reality, the White House Correspondents' Dinner is just a showcase of elite coziness, disconnect, and self-congratulation. This year's circus, though, of privilege reached a new low, occurring as it did amidst the Washington-approved genocide in Gaza, which has the distinction of being the deadliest and most dangerous conflict for journalists ever in history. In fact, it appears that on the very day of these festivities, two more Palestinian journalists were killed by the IDF. This would be in addition to the 142 members of the press who had already been killed by the IDF, and at least 40 who had been arrested. Meanwhile, our great ally, the supposed only democracy in the Middle East, is promising to shut down media outlets like Al Jazeera for their coverage of Gaza,

and largely blocks the Western press from even covering this conflict from the ground at all. And of course, as these politicians were patting themselves on the back for their brave commitment to the First Amendment, they were busy cheering on an authoritarian crackdown on college students. Hundreds more students and some faculty were arrested over the weekend. At one event, officers assaulted 73-year-old Green Party candidate Jill Stein with a bicycle for the crime of protesting against U.S. government support for a foreign government's atrocity-filled war. While the politicians sent in the cops, their media allies ran cover by smearing the protesters as violent anti-Semitic terrorists, platforming the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt to call them Iranian proxies.

And by the way, Julian Assange, he's still in prison. Now, none of this stopped attendees from their typical smug, self-satisfied rituals and empty paeans to freedom of speech principles that they clearly do not actually believe in. You know, I had actually held out some hope that maybe some brave soul would offer at least an echo of 2006 Stephen Colbert. His set at that White House Correspondents Dinner during the height of the Iraq War, and to George W. Bush's face, it was actually genuinely courageous. The comedian in the room exposing the war-hungry journalist and the neocon-in-chief himself. I should have known better, though. Not that I thought Colin Yost had that in him, but I thought maybe someone would say something uncomfortable for the bipartisan elites in the hotel ballroom. Not even close. Instead, the pageantry seemed

almost an intentional middle finger to the protesters in the streets who were demanding these pro-war elites feel at least a little bit of shame. There was zero shame to be found in that room. Here is Colin Yost closing out the night, slobbering all over Joe Biden for his supposed decency, and the decency by extension of the entire establishment press corps. If you can stomach it, take a listen. My grandpa voted for decency, and decency is why we're all here tonight. Decency is how we're able to make jokes about each other and one of us doesn't go to prison after.

We go to the Newsmax after party. And when you look at the levels of freedom throughout history and even around the world today, this is the exception. This freedom is incredibly rare. And the journalists in this room help protect that freedom. And we cannot ever take that for granted. So, Mr. President, I thank you for your decency on behalf of my grandfather. And I thank all of you, almost all of you, for your decency as well. I am very honored and grateful that you invited me here tonight.

Thank you and good night. Your decency. It literally nauseates me to hear these words at this point, but they are actually just too perfect. Joe Biden has helped to murder tens of thousands of kids in the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of thousands more are starving as we speak.

A million have been displaced. How many orphaned? How many will spend their lives disabled by amputations and severe trauma? And you have the gall to call this man decent? Why? Because he'll pat Mitch McConnell and Mike Johnson on the back as they fund their genocide together? It is so twisted, proving once again the reigning ideology in Washington is decorum, delusion, and sociopathy. While Palestinian journalists were being killed, they took time out of the evening to honor one of the chief White House stenographers of this war, Israeli journalist

Barack Ravid. He writes for Axios. He's a contributor to CNN. The former IDF soldier, turned journalist, has been the foremost recipient of White House leaks about how upset Biden is with Netanyahu. He's upset. He's really upset. He's really, really upset. Failed attempt to gaslight Americans into thinking Biden gives a shit about Palestinian slaughter while not moving American policy a single iota. Of Ravid, the White House Correspondents Association wrote, quote, Barack Ravid's reporting displayed deep, almost intimate levels of sourcing in the U.S. and abroad. Intimate levels of sourcing indeed. Even the single mention of Gaza came in typical sanitized, accountability-free language. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell

said, quote, since October, about 100 journalists have been killed, most of those deaths in Gaza, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Really? Who killed them, Kelly? How many of the people in the room have ever mentioned these press murders a single time? As for Biden himself, these dozens of murdered Gaza journalists, journalists didn't come up even once. But he did raise a toast to his supposed commitment to democracy. Move past the horse race numbers, the gotcha moments, the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensationalize our politics and focus on what's actually at stake. I think in your hearts you know it was at stake.

The stakes couldn't be higher. Every single one of us has a role to play, a serious role to play, in making sure democracy endures, American democracy. I have my role, but with all due respect, so do you. In the age of disinformation, credible information that people can trust is more important than ever. And that makes you, and I mean this from the bottom of disinformation, credible information that people can trust is more important than ever. And that makes you, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, makes you more important than ever.

So tonight, I'd like to make a toast. To a free press, to an informed citizenry, to an America where freedom and democracy endure. God bless America. You know, Joe, kind of hard to find you credible on this whole democracy thing. When you rigged the primary so you had no opponent, when you're putting out statements smearing those who protest against your policies as racist, justifying a brutal police crackdown, when a lobby representing foreign government interests has vastly more influence than your average American citizen. So spare me your warnings about how democracy is on the ballot. Now to the protesters, God bless you. I hope none of these people can go anywhere without hearing about the children they are helping to starve, the journalists they are helping to kill.

American people are with you. The world is with you. And one day, all these smug assholes running cover for or actively prosecuting a genocide, they're going to pretend they were on your side all along. But we, we will never forget. Sagar, I know you're a big fan. And if you want to hear my reaction to Crystal's monologue, become a premium subscriber today at BreakingPoints.com. All right, guys, thank you so much for watching.

We really appreciate you. I know it was a long one today, but we had a lot of exclusive content that we wanted to fit in there. And we love you and we'll see you all tomorrow. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine 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. Sometimes as dads, I think we're too hard on ourselves. We get down on ourselves on not being able to, you know, we're the providers, but we also have to learn to take care of ourselves. A wrap-away, you got to pray for yourself as well as for everybody else, but never forget yourself. Self-love made me a better dad because I realized my worth. Never stop being a dad.

That's dedication. Find out more at fatherhood.gov. Brought to you by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council. 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. This is an iHeart Podcast.