Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/21/24: Biden And AIPAC Freak Over ICC Warrants, Ryan Confronts Biden Spox On ICC, Gaza Protests Erupt At Seinfeld Standup, Arab American Leader Speaks Out On Secret Biden Meeting

Episode Date: May 21, 2024

Ryan and Saagar discuss Biden and AIPAC freaking out over ICC arrest warrants, Ryan confronts State Dep ghoul on ICC, Gaza protesters interrupt Seinfeld's standup, and Arab American speaks out on meetings with Biden admin.   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. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up, they could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. You experience dad guilt? I hate it.

She understands, but she still pretends she likes me. Happy Father's Day. This show may be called Good Moms, Bad Choices, but this show isn't just for moms. We keep it real about relationships and everything in between. And yes, men are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch. To hear this and more, open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here, and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking

of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody. Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody. Say extra amazing. Ryan is here. The bro show, first bro show of the locals era. It's great to see you, my friend. Thank you so much for joining us.

Crystal is at, what is it? It's a fifth grade school event. That's all I know. Family comes first here over at Breaking Points. All right. Let's go ahead and turn to my camera and let's see these topics. This is a very difficult part of the job. I really don't know how she does it. We're going to talk about the political fallout here in Washington over those ICC arrest warrants issued for Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders. Some major freak out by the Biden administration, by Prime Minister Netanyahu and others. Our own Ryan Grim here was at the State Department briefing yesterday going toe-to-toe with State Department spokesperson Matt Miller. That's going to be interesting. We're going to talk about the Trump trial. Trump star witness Michael Cohen admitting to stealing

some $50,000 on the stand, arguably a worse crime than what Trump is actually being put on trial for. We're going to talk about the debates. Donald Trump saying he wants a drug test for Joe Biden ahead of the debates. I would stipulate a drug test for all candidates who are involved, Ryan. We're going to talk about the Congo. Luckily, we've got coup expert Ryan Grimm here. There is some wild stuff going on in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a full-on coup attempt that failed, but it appears that some Americans were involved, maybe some three-letter agencies. We'll get into that. And then Jerry Seinfeld going at it with some protesters at one of his most recent shows

making headlines. And finally, Bilal Hamoud. He was recently in a meeting with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. We're going to hear from him about what was said in that meeting and some political fallout. But before we get to that, Ryan, thank you, by the way, for saying, you told our audience they were going to be underwhelmed. And you could not be more wrong, my friend. They were blown away, weren't they? Yeah, they were blown away. Okay, so first of all, thank you to everybody for all of the excitement over the switch. We very, very much appreciate it. It's just amazing watching everybody's comments flood in on the locals page. So that's been awesome. We've gotten a lot of comments. We're very proud of the boomers,

our boomer audience. By the way, you guys keep saying this is seamless. I'm amazed by your ability. You want a Switch to be underwhelming. That's what you, yeah, you're right. You don't want it to just move like this. Yes. You want it to be a seamless transition. So as we continue to remind everybody, you have an email in your inbox, which will give you your login credentials. You just literally click in, sign in, and you'll get access to your premium subscription over at Locals. We know that there were some technical issues yesterday, but just it's going to be a lot smoother today. Just bear with us. You know, it is obviously a new thing. Just continue to check your inbox for the links to the show. For any issues, big and small, can't access my account, something's not working

properly. How do I connect X, Y, or Z? Support at locals.com. We have concierge service set up for all of you. Any issues, like we said, big or small, there's going to be a link down in the description. Just make sure if you have any questions about your account. And I did it. Okay. And I am in spirit a boomer. Uh-huh. And it took me like 30 seconds.

Yeah. So Crystal's parents both did it. They're both in their late 70s and 80s. My mom is in her 60s, and she said it took her like 15 seconds. So we're actually really, really pleased with how easy this has been. The app is really amazing. Nice, the video quality is really good. Exactly, the video quality is fantastic.

That's one of the major things. So, okay, now the last question we continue to get, just to clear up any confusion. Can I still watch or listen to the show the way that I always did? Yes, the answer is yes. That is if you are a premium subscriber. Check your inbox.

But you have to switch your account. Yeah, you just have to switch your account. That's it. So like, can I still listen to the show on Spotify or Apple via my premium thing? Yes, absolutely. Don't worry about it. There's going to be instructions in your email. All of that is being sorted out.

Same with the full show. Same with everything. Just check your email. Everything here is additive. There's nothing that is- Right, everything up here stays the same. Exactly. Just moving from one back end to another go

And so if you're over here, you just got to move over here, and it's still gonna come right all these other It's like it's like a flower. Yes exactly season here. We're just we're adding new branches to the show We've got some exclusive content that will drop soon in rumble you guys can check that out We have a rumble channel first video on rumble got over a hundred thousand views. We pretty happy about that. We're only adding things here and no subsequent drop in our YouTube views either. Now, this is very important. You have done it in the first 24 hours, which thank you guys so much. We were really worried about that. We have a week-long transition, so just go ahead and take care of it now so you don't have to worry about it anymore. All right, that's all the administrative stuff out of the way there, Ryan.

And let's actually get started here with the ICC and the fallout. So President Joe Biden- We've got to give people a second to pause. Oh, okay. Pause. Oh, yeah, okay. Pause and then go handle it. Thank you. I'm back in. See, you're even better at this than I am.

Okay. Now we're back here. We're doing the ICC. What are we doing? President Joe Biden speaking out very forcefully against the ICC arrest warrants issued against the Israeli leaders and Hamas leaders, but in particular, taking exception to the charges against Israeli leaders. Here's what he had to say. Let me be clear. We reject the ICC's application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Whatever these warrants may imply, there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas. And it's clear Israel wants to do all it can to ensure civilian protection. But let me be clear, contrary to allegations against Israel made by the International Court of Justice, what's happening is not genocide.

We reject that. We will always stand with Israel and the threats against its security. We will always stand with Israel and its threat against its security. That's pretty significant, Ryan, because if we can go to the next part, please. This was an official statement from President Biden immediately after the warrant was issued. Quote, the ICC prosecutor's application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. Let me be clear, whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence, none between Israel and Hamas.

We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security. So this was the immediate reaction from President Biden kind of reverting back to his original stance here on the conflict. What did you make of this, Ryan? I mean, on the one hand, just rhetorically, the prosecutor's in a no-win situation. He tries to bring everybody in Hamas into the dock. And so they say, how dare you compare Hamas to Israel? If he doesn't charge Hamas, then they say, how dare you single out Israel? Good point. They've also been saying, we can talk about this more, that, well, the prosecutor's team was about to go to Israel. And he said, the Israeli government said that they were going to cooperate

and you got to let the government play out. The Israeli government spent the last several weeks practically threatening war against the ICC. You know, like meeting with leaders in Washington and making public threats. From the second it looked like there was a chance there was going to be a rest warrant saying that if they did that, they would lobby for sanctions. They would not even let the family of people who worked for the ICC travel anywhere in the world. So the idea that this was a government that was just on the brink of cooperating with war crimes charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu is just laughable. Got it. Well, we have actually a response from Prime Minister Netanyahu that we can show everybody here. Let's see it. Well, we have actually a response from Prime Minister Netanyahu that we can show everybody here.

Let's see it. The outrageous decision by the ICC prosecutor Karim Khan to seek arrest warrants against the democratically elected leaders of Israel is a moral outrage of historic proportions. It will cast an everlasting mark of shame on the international court. Israel is waging a just war against Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that perpetrated the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Hamas massacred 1,200 Jews, raped Jewish women, burned Jewish babies, took hundreds hostage. Now in the face of these horrors, Mr. Khan creates a twisted and false moral equivalence

between the leaders of Israel and the henchmen of Hamas. This is like creating a moral equivalence after September 11th between President Bush and Osama bin Laden, or during World War II between FDR and Hitler. What a travesty of justice. What a disgrace. The prosecutor's absurd charges against me and Israel's defense minister are merely an attempt to deny Israel the basic right of self-defense. And I assure you of one thing.

This attempt will utterly fail. Eighty years ago, the Jewish people were totally defenseless against our enemies. Those days are over. Now the Jewish people have a state, and we have an army to defend our state. Notwithstanding the blood libels Mr. Khan has leveled, Israel will continue to wage this war in full compliance with international law. We will continue to take unprecedented measures to get innocent civilians out of harm's way and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gaza.

Mr. Khan also sets a dangerous precedent that undermines every democracy's right to defend itself against terror organizations and aggressors. The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, and Mr. Khan's actions will not stop us from waging our just war against Hamas. But Mr. Khan's abuse of this authority will turn the ICC into nothing more than a farce. He's doing something else. He is callously pouring gasoline on the fires of anti-Semitism that are raging across the

world. Through this incendiary decision, Mr. Khan takes his place among the great anti-Semites in modern times. He now stands alongside those infamous German judges who donned their robes and upheld laws that denied the Jewish people their most basic rights and enabled the Nazis to perpetrate the worst crime in history. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, I pledged this. No amount of pressure and no decision in any international forum will prevent Israel from defending itself against those who seek our destruction. To all the enemies of Israel, including their collaborators in The Hague,

I renew that pledge today. Israel will wage our war against Hamas until that war is won. So there you go. Moral equivalence, that appears to be the line that they're going with. Against Israel's right to self-defense is what they are saying. He is, yeah, I want to give you the chance to give us some breakdown. Go ahead. There is a logical fallacy at play here. United States getting attacked by Japan or the United States getting attacked by al-Qaeda would not be a get-out-of-jail-free card for its war criminals. You're still responsible for what you do in response.

I don't think anybody would even claim like, oh, well, they flew the planes into the towers. They killed 3,000 Americans. Therefore, their rules no longer apply to you. Right. That's the opposite into the towers. They killed 3,000 Americans. Therefore, their rules no longer apply to you. Right. That's the opposite of the point. And we did actually act that way for a while, and it was a disaster. Right, yeah. And we did it.

Yeah, it was called Abu Ghraib. It was called the Black Sites, where torture was going around. Autonomo. Waterboarding, Autonomo. And so our argument would be, and is, like we do not support. It's funny. We wanted to build up this kind of rules-based international order post-World War II. This is part of that idea.

But we only want it to apply, you know, to our adversaries. It looks like, and so Khan, in the interview that you guys talked about yesterday on the show, he said that he heard from an elected American leader that, hey, the ICC is for Africa and thugs like Putin. Now, we also know that Lindsey Graham met with Khan recently. I'm not saying that Lindsey Graham said that, but people, I mean, come on. How good is it that it's legitimate when we're talking about Russia, a nuclear armedarmed power, and great power in its own right? And I don't mean comparable to the United States. It's a great power. It's a big nation. It has a lot of land mass, a big military, and it's got nukes.

You're a great power, in my opinion. Well, then it's fine. And not only fine, it's good. We laud those decisions. You have a great point that you bring up with the State Department that we'll get to later. But I want to tug on this thread because we are watching the entire bipartisan machine here in Washington move to Israel's defense. Let's put this up there, for example, on the screen. There's a statement from Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House, immediately afterwards. He says, the ICC has no authority over Israel or the United States. Today's baseless and illegitimate decision should face global condemnation. International bureaucrats cannot be allowed to use lawfare to usurp the

authority of democratic nations that maintain the rule of law. Israel is fighting a war for survival, a just war for survival. The ICC is attempting to equate Israeli officials to the terrorists who perpetrated the October 7th massacre. It is clear ICC's decision has been advanced due to the Biden administration's pressure campaign against Israel and its outlandish State Department investigation. So that is an interesting little turn, isn't it? Because here we have, on the one hand, President Biden, the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, and Mike Johnson all decrying it. But in this case, we have Mike Johnson who says it's actually Biden's fault for doing this. Let's take some twisted logic. I also, there's something so naked about the

Israelis that I can't just help but admire. Let's put this up there on the screen. They openly just tweet this out. Live updates, Israeli foreign minister Katz asks AIPAC leaders to work with Congress against the ICC decision. So Ryan, since you're more read in than I am, just explain what steps remain that Congress could take. And also this ICC thing, it's not a done deal yet per se. So what actions remain in terms of levers of power for the United States and for its Congress to try and to push back against this decision? So I think we're going to absolutely see a resolution. Those are the easiest things. Right, but that's not binding. Congress can do. It'll be a temper tantrum resolution. And there'll be a contest to see

who can come up with the wildest adjectives to like, this is the end of the free world. But yes, sanctions, like going directly after the family of the prosecutor, targeting any institutions. Like basically think about BDS and the way that the Palestinian grassroots organization has urged the world to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel. Like the U.S. is going to try to do the same thing to the ICC. Any lever that they have, they're going to push on. Now, pessimists from the Palestinian side that I've been speaking to have said they think within a couple months there will be so much pressure that you'll just see this dropped,

that the application for the arrest warrant will not turn into an actual arrest warrant. Okay. But then the Hamas ones will go forward because there'll be so much pressure. And the idea that Lindsey Graham or whoever was in that meeting was saying that this is for Africa and thugs like Putin will be reinstated, will be restored. Okay. I understand. Well, that's the interesting question, though, in terms of the Hamas thing, because part of the U.S. response has been that they don't have jurisdiction over any of what's happening here.

We would be remiss if we didn't show what all of the responses from our own representatives in Washington, let's put this up there on the screen, Brian Mast, you'll remember him for wearing an IDF uniform, even though he's not a Jew in the United States Congress. He says, America doesn't recognize the International Criminal

Court, but the court sure as hell will recognize what happens when you target our allies. Next, we have a response, very long one from Lindsey Graham. He says, this outrageous decision is truly a slap in the face to the independent judiciary in Israel, renowned for their independence. We must not forget, as a nation, the ICC threatened to bring actions against American forces in Afghanistan, and we are a non-member. I will be issuing a detailed statement. However, these are my initial thoughts. Most importantly, I want the world to know that I, along with Republican-Democrat colleagues, engaged the ICC on this issue weeks ago. We were told there would be discussion with Israel before any actions were taken. We stress the principle of complementarity, which should be applied in this case, which requires the ICC to let the nation in the

question's legal system move first before any action is taken by the court. What do you make of that, Ryan? That might be the only interesting objection that I've seen about this issue of complementarity. And then last but not least, by the way, Elise Stefanik, who was actually in Israel when this came out, tweeting, the ICC is an illegitimate court that advocates a peaceful nation, protect its rights to exist with radical terror groups that commit genocide. Congress must pass my bill that will punish those in the ICC that made this baseless undemocratic decision. But what do you, explain the Lindsey Graham thing. Yeah, so the argument is that if a country has its own robust, non-corrupt justice system, then the international system recognizes that and allows the sovereignty of that system to play out. And so then it's just a judgment call.

Like, do you think, does the prosecutor believe that there is any chance that an Israeli judicial system will investigate and prosecute war crimes by its leaders? He clearly made the call, no. He does not think that that is remotely possible. And I think the statements coming from the Israeli government would support that. Like they have said that it is an anti-Semitic attack on the state of Israel to even remotely suggest that it is committing war crimes against the heinous Hamas terrorists. So if the entire idea of that is itself anti-Semitic, in his response Netanyahu said, we are the most moral army in the world. Yes.

Like that is the line that they've been using for decades. So if your stated position is that you are running the most moral army in the world, like in what world are you going to prosecute yourself for war crimes? And so the prosecutor just clearly came to the conclusion that the only avenue for accountability here was going to be through the ICC. There was no chance. You also see some of the political response institutionally inside Israel. Let's put this up there on the screen. Times of Israel reports outcry in Israel as the ICC prosecutors seek warrants against Netanyahu and Galant. The foreign ministry is to establish a command center to counter move.

Benny Gantz, who is the opposition leader, says that the decision is a deep distortion of justice. And the ex-Israeli prime minister calls on other countries to cut their funding for the court. So the foreign minister of the government says this is an unrestrained direct attack, actually on the victims of October 7th because it draws moral equivalence, that the entire institution is kind of moving to protect both Netanyahu and to Yoav Galant. So this does demonstrate to us something that we try and highlight. Benny Gantz may be the opposition leader. He doesn't like Netanyahu, right? Galant, he also doesn't particularly like Netanyahu. That does not mean that they disagree really with the prosecution of the war. And in fact, they mostly

agree with it. They would probably just finesse and do things a little bit differently to maintain Israel's international isolation. So yesterday, Crystal and I were talking about this. I said, there's really only two ways that this plays out. A, it actually leads to a reduction of the rules based international system as for whatever is left of it, because it's just, obviously it's a farce. It's just one of those where, yeah, it does only exist for Russians and for Africans because those are the people that the West doesn't like. The other way is that this is a very convenient way for the Israelis to just shove Bibi out and they're like, listen, man, you're causing us too much trouble. We'll put Benny

Gantz in there and he'll talk to Biden more. Maybe we'll let in 10% more aid trucks and we'll just move on with our lives. What do you think is going to happen? But apparently Netanyahu has a say in that. He's been pressured recently to come up with a plan by Gantz and others to say like, look, come up with a – and it's a kind of funny demand. Like the demand is that you come up with a strategy for ending this war. And for what the war looks like after it's over.

Like that's it. Just tell us where this is headed. And for him to say no, just to that demand, that no. Because his idea is we're going to continue just to prosecute this war. Like this is the day after. His answer is we're going to continue just to prosecute this war. Like this is the day after. His answer is we're just going to continue. Because now you've seen about 800,000 people have left Rafa and moved to Darabalit and Khan Yunus and elsewhere around the God's Strip. Maybe next they go there.

Like just chase them all over the place for, you know, endlessly. Because the second that the war ends, that, you know, then the kind of political reckoning from NetYahu is on the horizon. I was going to say, it's not just political reckoning. It's like, he doesn't want to commit to either. He said, he's already said there's going to be no Palestinian state. He literally said that. So it's like, okay, well now what? And then that's the basis of our negotiation from the United States. Remember, this is just the US, not just the UN and the rest of nations. And I left out all the Arab powers who apparently, you know, that's their number one demand. They're like, sure, we'll work with you, but it has to have- Right, he wants them

to pay for it. He wants them to pay for it. I mean, that's even fine if they even get a state, but their question is like, fine, but you have to have the state. So a lot of irreconcilable differences. All we can say is that the U.S., basically American foreign policy right now exists to advance the interests of Israel. I think there's no other way for me to say it. I'll put Ukraine in there too, but that's it. Mac flagged this this morning, this bill from two Republicans, Max Miller and another guy. I think Michael Tracy posted this on Twitter where it says, in general, for purposes of this chapter, to the extent practicable, the service of a citizen of the United States in the Israeli Defense Forces shall be treated in the same manner as serviced

in the uniformed services. It's actually called Israel Defense Forces, so maybe that won't count. You could sue and be like, they spelled it wrong. What does that even mean? Basically, it means that if you become a foreign fighter, you've been watching YouTube, you've been radicalized, TikTok has convinced you to go. You join the, you make Aliyah, you do your IDF service. That if you get wounded or if you need like time toward a pension that it could count. But yes, let's say you get wounded over there, that you would come home and you would have veterans benefits. Right. That makes sense. Right. Yeah. That totally makes sense. It's just that it only says, you know, when you open your

passport, if anybody's got their passport, do this. I actually went and I rechecked it just to make sure that I was correct. It says it right there. It says, if you serve in a foreign military, you're going to lose your passport. You're going to lose your citizenship. This is the only country in the world where we allow that. You can't even fight for the French Foreign Legion as an American. Not only do you not, right. And under this law, not only would you not lose your citizenship. Yeah, we're going to pay for it. We would pay for that. Right. It makes sense. Yeah. That's exactly why we pay all the taxes, right? Look, I mean, you know, you don't have to like Palestine or Israel or whatever, not to just be

like, what? Can our foreign policy advance my interests as a citizen? Is that so difficult? Why are we expending? If they're coming after our soldiers, that's a different story, okay? All right, fine, then maybe. But all of this is just nonsense. It's like the entire thing is geared towards protecting them. And then this also shows the total incoherence of the Biden administration. We want more aid to go into Gaza, so we'll build them a pier. Oh, the pier is only, we just looked at the stats this morning, 10% of the aid that could have been let in via a truck. So actually, it's leading to net probably less than what's getting in.

We're footing the bill. Everything got looted yesterday. Yeah, everything got looted yesterday. Oh, congratulations. And the Israelis are inspecting it or whatever the hell all of that means. The entire thing is a farce. And it's like, oh, I'm going to withhold weapons,

but I'm going to send weapons. I would respect him more if he just picked a side at this point, which he has, but rhetorically he just won't be honest about it. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets.

Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. 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 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. Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up. See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pre-game to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispretirement.org. Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. So Ryan, I'm going to ask you to analyze some of this for us. We'll play first this clip of Matt Lee.

He's the AP reporter, rockstar guy, puts up with no BS in the State Department, just going back and forth ruthlessly with the State Department spokesperson. Here's what he had to say. Who does have jurisdiction here? So the governor of Israel has jurisdiction. Over the occupied territory. We have jurisdiction. Over Gaza, which is not entirely occupied. They have jurisdiction into looking at the actions by their military personnel. Okay, so the Palestinians, if they have a complaint, they have to bring it to Israeli court. We have jurisdiction with the use of our equipment.

I'm sorry, how do you have jurisdiction? With the use of our military equipment that we have provided. How do you have jurisdiction? If you look at the Leahy Law, if you look at... That's not jurisdiction in a criminal process. Not in a criminal process, but it has to do with the determinations that we make and the policies that flow from it. Yeah, but that's not jurisdiction.

But Matt, long term, you were right that we want to see- You used the word for DOJ, Matt. Come on. The U.S. does not have jurisdiction. I wasn't referring to criminal jurisdiction, Matt. There are different ways to look at this. Long term, we agree with you that the Palestinian people should be a state and have the ability to make these determinations, but that's not where we are today. That's where we're trying to get to. Okay. What the hell is going on here? What is he saying? Yeah. So the fundamental question he's asking there, he's like, okay, if you are a Palestinian and you feel like you've been the victim of a war crime or a crime against humanity,

who do you appeal to? Like, what is your venue that you can go to? Because Miller is saying, well, they can't go to the international criminal Court, even though Palestine as a non-member kind of state at the UN is a signatory to the ICC, to the Rome statute. They're saying because you're not an official state, you can't go through that venue. So Lee is asking, well, then who? Like, where can a Palestinian go? And Matt Miller's first answer was Israel. And you hear him like, wait, they have to go through Israel? Like just, you live in Gaza and you're going to like get a lawyer and you're going to sue in an Israeli court? If you can get into Israel. They're not even going to let you in?

What are you talking about? That's completely absurd. And then he says, well, we have jurisdiction. And I think Matt probably realized, Matt Miller probably realized he stepped in immediately when he said that. And Matt Lee, what do you mean you have jurisdiction? Like the United States? And there would be a world because anybody can sue around the world in a U.S. court. That would be kind of funny if that's what Matt Miller meant.

That, okay, you can sue the government of Israel through an American court. It's not what he meant, And also it's not criminal. He just means, well, if they commit some crimes, then we'll send fewer weapons, according to the Leahy law. Not that they're actually going to ever do that, but he's saying we could do that. Right. That's not jurisdiction. That's over USA. And so it ends with nobody would really have criminal jurisdiction over Israel, according to the US posture here. And that's actually what I picked up on in my exchange with him. Well, let's get to that. So do you want to set up anything else? Give us some background before we get to your exchange. So the point that Matt Miller and the State Department and President Biden, when he is able to kind of put together a coherent argument that

they would make is, they'd say, well, look, Palestinians are not a state, and we believe that you can only have an ICC prosecution if one member state is involved. Now, neither Ukraine nor Russia are signed on to the Rome Statute. We're totally fine with that. But people have pointed out that that hypocrisy before I Looked back at the original prosecutions back in 2014 2015 of African warlords If you remember Joseph Kony, yeah, I remember that viral guy original Yeah, yeah

He was not a state and he was prosecuted by, he was charged by the ICC, as well as the first prosecution, this DRC militia leader. And the State Department at the time celebrated that. And Jen Psaki was the State Department spokesperson at the time. So I asked him about that one to say like, hold on a second. And these are so, the problem I have with these, and I'm the one that's doing them, so I'm criticizing myself here, is we know they're hypocrites. And so— Yeah, but getting them on the record, this is good. And this is all about power. But it's still good to at least—

But the more you get to that, I think it's important. Okay, so with all of that lead up, let's actually take a listen to it. So back on the question. Jurisdiction. Yeah. The international, you said that because the Palestinians are not a state actor, neither you, they don't have jurisdiction over their side. But back in, in 2014, I just Googled this one up. Jen Saki was up here, your colleague.

The statement was today the ICC convicted Jermaine Katanga, the commander of the FRPI militia for his responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC's DRC cases represent a significant step toward delivering justice for victims in the DRC. She then went on to say the United States reiterates its call for the apprehension of Sylvester Mutakumara, another leader of an abusive rebel militia in the DRC who is subject to an arrest warrant by the ICC. The Department of State continues to offer a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to his arrest. So at least in 2014, it was the position of the administration that you could even put out a

reward for the arrest of somebody that would then go to the ICC and would have jurisdiction. So why does it not that apply to the current conflict? So we have supported the work of the ICC in previous cases. I can't speak to this case because I don't know the fundamentals of it. I don't know the jurisdictional questions. Ultimately, the main way that the ICC has jurisdiction is if one of the two state parties to a case is a signatory to the Rome Statute and comes in under the ICC's jurisdiction. That is not the case here. You have Israel, who of course is not a signatory to the ICC, the Palestinians who do not represent a state at this time, and so in our view cannot sign the Rome Statute and come under

the ICC's jurisdiction. I can't speak to other cases. I'd have to look into it in more detail. All right, explain to that. What's happening here? So he's basically saying you need you need all of these different elements you would need both parties Israel and Palestine to one of two one or two of them have to be members of the Rome Statute of the ICC. Mm-hmm Palestine is Israel has rejected it the most moral army in the world. Why would they ever need to be part of that? You know, they're not we're not part of it either Ryan, which I support second most more moral army in the world, why would they ever need to be part of that? Hey, we're not part of it either, Ryan, which I support, by the way.

Second most moral army in the world. And so you do meet that because the Palestinians have signed the Rome Statute through the UN because they're like, it's called a non-member state. Non-member state, yeah, that's right. But what Miller is saying, well, that doesn't count. Like you have to be a member state in order for your application, in order for your signature on the Rome Statute to count. Now, nobody else in the world agrees with that. The ICC certainly doesn't agree with that. They believe they have jurisdiction here. So what that is essentially saying to the Israelis is that there can be no accountability through the ICC as long as you don't sign the Rome Statute and as long as you prevent the Palestinians from gaining statehood.

The war that they are currently conducting, which the ICJ says is a plausible genocide, and which the ICC is saying includes war crimes and crimes against humanity, is aimed, according to Netanyahu at preventing Palestine from becoming a state in other words from preventing Palestine from having access to the to the venues through which They would be prosecuted for keeping them from getting statehood so it's it's this kind of sick circular reasoning where as long as they can keep their boot on the neck of the Palestinians and keep them from having member state status through the UN, then the United States is going to say, well, those can't be war crimes because it's not a state. Even though you're like, wait a

minute, these militia leaders. And so their argument there would be, okay, well, Uganda and Congo signed the ICC, so therefore it's it's okay. But I Thought your strongest point was just hey you celebrated in the past when it's not ICC or whenever it's a non-state actor So, yeah, what's the difference and he's like he's like we of course supported the past right? That's Africans Yes, but but the real one is Russia because again Russia is a non-member party state We all recognize though and butS. government says at that time, there's no way the Russian courts are going to hold Putin accountable. So we're going to have to go outside of that if we believe in this whole – now, by the way, as you said, I don't believe this. I think this whole system is fake and that it is all about power.

And it always has been, even going back to Nuremberg, which there are a lot of people who didn't get to go to Nuremberg because they started working on the NASA program. Right. And his whole point falls apart when you go back to Ukraine because Ukraine is not a state. Yeah, exactly. It's not a state either. They'll say, well, Ukraine said it was okay if we prosecuted. Okay. What are you talking about?

And Ukraine had said, like, that they would allow some prosecutions around the Maidan. So, like, they're like, so that counts, that brings them in. It's like, no, but okay. Israel also said, we will work with the ICC here. So boom, according to that rationale, they would then have jurisdiction. Great point. Yeah. Ukraine's just like, hey, don't go over to the Azov, you know, just forget about that one. Yeah. We don't, we don't need to open up old wounds. Alligons. They did a, Ukraine did an independent investigation into whether or not Maidan was a false flag that was perpetrated by the far right in the US. They never released that report. Oh, really? Interesting. All right. Seinfeld, let's do this quickly. This is a funny moment,

depending on how you look at it. There was a moment here where Jerry Seinfeld, whose wife recently has been found to be donating to some of those Israel counter-protesters, you may remember who beat up some of those protesters at the Palestinian encampment over at UCLA. And more recently, Seinfeld himself has become much more outspoken about pro-Israel issues. Well, he was interrupted by a protester at his show, and it led to some serious chaos. So let's go ahead and take a listen. I recommend, if you're just listening, I would actually watch this happen because the video really hits it all home. Let's take a listen. You're a genocide supporter!

What's that? You're a genocide supporter! You should be ashamed of yourself! lesson. You're gonna break his neck Alright, so you can see there audience members attacking the protestor, they said he's gonna break his neck, Seinfeld at one point, what did he say, Griffin? Something along the lines of, I love it when the Jew haters interrupt me. This is all spicy.

I love when Jew haters spice up the show. Yeah, I love when the Jew haters spice up the show. And then he finished by kind of mockingly saying, save the children of Gaza. I'm going to finish the show and save the children of Gaza. Right, save the children of Gaza. Okay, so that's what has happened. I find this amusing. I just did a whole monologue.

That's part of the reason we want to talk about this, where Seinfeld has been convinced now that wokeism is what is destroying comedy. And I'm like, yeah, I think he would have had a point, you know, maybe 10 years ago. But at this point, actually, and I did my monologue comparing Seinfeld's comments immediately followed by the Tom Brady roast and the, you know, Shane Gillis hosting SNL after they're fired. In fact, I opened up my Netflix app like two days ago and it's Shane has a new comedy series, which is coming on Netflix. And there he's like the star of the show, uh, from what I understand. So anyway, I guess I'm looking at this and I'm like, yeah, man, I don't really see that anymore. I think you had a point at one point.

But it seems interesting that you're starting to say these things at the exact moment about what's going down in Israel, where it appears to be that you care a whole lot about what's happening. So you didn't say anything 10 years ago when Louis C.K. and all these other people were getting canceled. But when your wife's been giving money to a bunch of people who are beating people up in UCLA, now the woke left is out of control. That is an interesting point. And I might be in the – I'm probably in the minority on this on the left when it comes to this opinion. But I would say leave Jerry Seinfeld alone. Interesting. So what do you mean by that?

By the way, I agree with you. Seinfeld is clearly an outspoken supporter of Israel. His wife has donated to do these counter protests. So he has actively gotten himself involved in this conflict. But I think the average American who's watching it doesn't know those details. And it's just going to say, why are people yelling at Jerry Seinfeld? Just because he's Jewish? And it will, if you know the details, you're like, no, no, it's not anti-Semitic. They have these particular grievances that are not related to him being Jewish. But for the average person, they don't know about that. And so it's going to feed into

that criticism. You can I mean, yeah. You can't buckle to all of the misperceptions out there, but sometimes you can make some tactical adjustments. I don't disagree with you at all, especially because Jerry is not a person in actual any power. Right. It's also just Jerry Seinfeld. He has no influence on policy. He's just Jerry Seinfeld. You know, like when he's talking about comedy, then sure, I'll do a monologue being like, yeah, I think he's totally wrong, X, Y, and Z. But I'm not like – I have no under illusion that Jerry Seinfeld is like affecting U.S. policy. Now, if you're U.S. Secretary of State, I have no sympathy for you, right?

People are going to interrupt you. The only amendment to that would be that his wife is affecting things by donating to those counter-protesters but then protests his wife. Yeah, okay. All right. Well, it's not like she's making policy statements or any of that. My colleague, Maz Hussein over at The Intercept said that let's all give a thanks to Larry David for not weighing in publicly. See, Larry knows. We must keep Curb Your Enthusiasm from being politicized. It's the one thing we can all agree on. That's true. Unfortunately, though, Larry himself became a very anti-Trump boomer for a while. Apparently he was causing- But in a funny way.

Not really. He refused to speak to Alan Dershowitz at the Chilmark Library on Martha's Vineyard, which was, it just blew up- He didn't refuse to speak to him. I thought he did. He came up to him in a restaurant and told him he was- Oh, that also happened. It was tearing Martha's Vineyard apart. I mean, we just, we cannot have this. We need peace in Martha's Vineyard. We cannot have this on Martha's Vineyard. It's supposed to be a place for Kamala Harris and for you know

Former Trump administration officials to mix a cocktail party that's if we can't have that That's what America is all about for the ultra rich to seclude themselves away to rule the world Okay, what Larry David does in Martha's Vineyard? Yeah, I forgive him. Yeah, but I forgive him I you know, he's given so much to America Ryan. You you have booked a great guest for us, Bilal Hamoud. Let's get to it. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies

were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long.

You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. 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 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. Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up. See, retirement is the long game.

We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pregame to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispretirement.org.

Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. On Friday, a group of Arab Americans met with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. One of those Arab Americans who met with him was Bilal Hamoud, who is the executive director of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. He joins us now. Bilal, also, can you hold up for us what you were just showing us right before we started this interview? We got ourselves a classic breaking points mug here. There you go. Made in the USA Union. So thank you. We appreciate you, Bilal. You love to see it. Okay. So Bilal, on Friday, you had this meeting. How long was it scheduled for? How did the meeting come about and how long did it end up going?

Good question. Just to clarify, I represent the American Arab Chamber of Commerce, not the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The meeting was scheduled with Blinken's office for 45 minutes. We ended up going nearly two hours discussing the various issues and talking points that had been brought up and going well beyond that, pushing on the administration for action, action that I don't think we saw in any capacity. What were the debates internally about whether or not to even take the meeting? And did some refuse to show up? How many people were in this two-hour meeting with Blinken Friday? It was about six individuals from both sides,

the administration and the American community. There's always a discussion about whether there's value in coming to the table. And it's one that we discussed quite a bit. Just understand if this was the right discussion to have. And I think in past, there have been campaign staff and officials that have come trying to discuss this from an electoral stance. And as many have said before, it's not a time for electoral politics. But this was a discussion with the Secretary of State, leading us to believe there may be some room for action and some opportunity to discuss the issue and actually see a ceasefire,

at least some semblance of a plan. Give us some insight that there's a direction this administration is heading in which we can feel confident that something is being put together. And that was not the case. Now, there wasn't even an indication that it's a priority for there to be an immediate solution. So your takeaway was that there was not only, you know, that they were listening to you for electoral purposes, but that on a policy level that nothing was going to change.

Following that meeting, correct. I didn't see any indication that there was a plan in place. And that was one of the questions I posed just at the end of that discussion. I stated that I'm here representing Michigan, representing my community, representing decades of years of partnership with this administration to go well beyond me, and not just tens of thousands of folks who worked diligently to get this administration

elected in 2020, but hundreds of thousands that voted. And this is not just Arab and Muslim Americans. This is its allies, its partners, its friends, the communities from all ethnic backgrounds, communities and cultures and religions that it has spent decades building authentic relationships with. And so I tried to ensure that coming from Michigan and being the only one at that table representing an organization from Michigan, that there was a takeaway, that there was something that made this meeting worth it, that led us to believe that this was something that respected those years of partnerships. And that wasn't the case. We didn't see that any of that was honored and valued and

taken to a point where we would see a ceasefire or see any indication that the plan was being put together. In fact, it seemed like instead of that, there was just obstacles being put in the way. Wow. And so one of the live political issues has been the U.S. posture toward Palestinian statehood at the U.N., which the U.S. urged everybody to vote against. And we were talking earlier, you told me that you brought that up with him. How did you bring that up? What was his response there? How did he explain the U.S. rationale? Yeah, Ryan, from our discussion, I told you that the way that the U.N. issue was brought up was centered around what is going to be the way the U.S. resolves this, restores its reputation of being a peacemaker, right? Because that is at the core of, I think, what they're thinking is next steps. They don't care about reaching the solution,

or at least we're not seeing indications that there is a goal for that. But I asked, how do you plan on restoring that dynamic and being able to come out as that peacemaker once again and showcasing that those was the relationships weren't just burned. And I didn't get too much of an indication that there was an acknowledgement that the relationships needed to be restored, but nothing beyond that. And so I made it very clear that the U.S. obviously has the keys for an immediate ceasefire, an immediate resolution, and then some for what we need to see. And so when the topic of statehood got brought up, we had asked for both a free and independent Palestine, a statehood,

and a seat at the UN Security Council table. And the response was disappointing because it made the comparison to, well, first and foremost, that a vote for a Palestinian statehood from the U.S. would lead to the defunding of the U.N. from the U.S., being its primary funder. But then the example brought up was that it would be within the right of the U.N. to then cut programs like the World Food Program. And so the fact that the comparison was made that the world would have to go hungry just like the Gazans are, and the fact that it's U.S. policy to starve the world, if Palestinians have a free state, regardless of if that's the law or not, is indicative of something severely wrong. Yeah. Oh, go ahead. So Anthony Blinken said, we have to oppose Palestinian statehood or else the World Food

Program budget will be cut and people will starve around the world. Like that's the Secretary of State's assessment that he's making to you guys in this meeting? The example was given that if the UN had to cut its funding, it would have to cut programs like the World Food Program. And that was the example shared, followed by the explanation that then the world would have to starve as the Gazans are. And so that is not the comparison you make to make an argument for why Palestinians should not have a free state. Wow. Bilal, my question here is about some reach out from the Trump campaign. I saw news just yesterday that Donald Trump's campaign affiliate, Richard Grinnell, is holding leaders with Arab Americans in Michigan actually sometime this week. I'm curious if you think that, you know, so-called disaffected Michigan Arab voters and or leaders are going to entertain this,

reach out from the Trump campaign. What do you make of it? I think the onus is not on the voters. It's on the candidate to earn the vote. And at this point, neither have. All right. Yeah. Have you heard among other Chamber of Commerce types of whether or not they're going to take Grinnell up on this? No, I can't speak to it. I'm not familiar with what the discussion currently is and if the conversation will be had. But from an inside looking out perspective, having the discussion is always beneficial if it can lead to some action. But if this is going to center around electoral politics and not giving the community some guarantees and some confidence, this administration or otherwise,

that there's going to be some action and steps taken forward. I don't see much manifestation of productive meetings at this point. I also wanted to just ask you your overall impression of the meeting with the Secretary of State and how it compared to kind of your expectations going in. And what was the overall tone and vibe that you think the Secretary of State was trying to send? I think the tone going in and the thought process was that this could be an opportunity for the administration to have a reason to take action. Say that you've met with this group, you've met with the community, and now you need to take action. We were hoping some level of justification. Now, there's no naive nature to the folks that were at that table. We understood what we were getting ourselves into, but there was some hope, at least some, that something would come from it. tone in the meeting ended up centering more around addressing those specific policy points

and concerns like respecting the territorial boundaries of Lebanon, preventing this from becoming more regional, and from things like 2006 repeating itself and impacting the nation because we're getting there. And that was at a point that I had shared a story from my past where me and my family were in Lebanon at that point and had to be evacuated via the military camps because the airport had been blown up. And we are getting to that point, that level of escalation. So the asks were being made and the responses didn't instill much confidence that there was anything besides a logical response

given, but not empathetic, not based on humanity, and not one that would carry if you were to look at it with a microscope, just one that is the traditional talking points that are given. And so the tone didn't feel productive as much as there were conversations had and the table did have a back and forth dialogue. There wasn't any promises given or any commitments made if you knew now what you uh knew back then when you were asked to meet would you still have met like was it was it worth it was it was it useful it was disappointing it was not worth it

and going forward discussions that need to be had, there are no more discussions to be had. I think at this point, it's clear what needs to be done. The administration knows it had known. But now especially, the only way forward is through action. And so at this point, that's the only thing we can see as a next step towards any sort of relationship with the administration or others going forward. And again, I think this isn't just the Arab American community,

the Muslim community, but far beyond that, the allies and folks and relationships that have been built over those decades that feel the same, right? It's not just this community in Michigan, it's across the U.S., it's across the globe. And so that sentiment, I believe, is shared globally. All right. Well, we appreciate your time, Bilal. Appreciate the mug as well. Send you a new one. We'll check in. Yeah, we'll send you a new one. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me on. We'll see you. Absolutely. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment

and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. 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 iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Here's the deal. We got to set ourselves up.

See, retirement is the long game. We got to make moves and make them early. Set up goals. Don't worry about a setback. Just save up and stack up to reach them. Let's put ourselves in the right position. Pre-game to greater things. Start building your retirement plan at thisispretirement.org. Brought to you by AARP and the Ad Council. All right, so also kind of related to this entire question, we wanted to do a quick follow-up to the reporting that we did over the last couple of weeks around the third congressional district race that's going on today in Portland, Oregon.

It pits Maxine Dexter, a doctor who has the support of a lot of APAC donors, against Sushila Jayapal, who is Pramila Jayapal's older sister. Oh, wow. So we reported over the last couple of weeks that the dark money flowing into this race to the tune of millions of dollars had links links to APAC, an APAC's network. We were able to firmly demonstrate that an enormous amount of money flowing into her campaign was coming directly from APAC donors. They structured these dark money super PACs such that they wouldn't have to release their donors until May 20th, which was yesterday, the day before the election, which is not enough time for any campaign kind of to do anything with it, especially when you have a state like Oregon, which is mail balloting. So everybody's pretty much already voted by the time this happened.

However, it's still interesting to look at the disclosures. One of the dark money super PACs spending all, sending millions against Sushila Jayapal was called Voters for Responsive Government. It was created on April 1st, which is the day after it would have been required to disclose donors earlier so that it didn't have to disclose until yesterday. So let's put up their FEC filing here so that we can all figure out, okay, there's not enough time yet to do much with this information, but let's look at the filing. Well, wait a minute. What is that? If you're listening to this on the podcast, this organization filed a multi-page report with nothing but a bunch of goose eggs on it. Just zeros in every single form. And so they have met the letter of the law that in the sense that they have filed their paperwork with the FEC, but they have

disclosed literally zero. So what is going to happen here is that at some point, the FEC will probably get around to fining them for not filing accurate information. They will later file an amendment, and then they will pay whatever fine the FEC deems that is necessary. That could be weeks. It could be months. It could be years for all we know. So we'll just have no idea how much money. We know the amount of money. We just won't know who. Now, the other dark money super PAC, 314 Action Fund, disclosed some but not all of its donors because the amount of money that they

spent does not equal the amount that they disclosed for having raised in April. So clearly they were able to push some of it into May, which means they'll have to disclose it like June 20th. But we do know one of the donors is Robert Granieri, who was a major APAC donor, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the APAC Super PAC in October. Also, interestingly, according to this filing, he gave about $500,000 to WomenVote, which is the EMILY's List PAC. And that money appears to have been earmarked against Dave Min, which is this other APAC race that they were running in California. And so the other, the $500,000 donor was Michael Bloomberg that we just learned about yesterday.

We're going to learn much more on June 20th when 314 Action has to disclose its May donors. By then, the primary will be well over because it is today. So you can watch the Oregon primary results come in tonight. It's basically a three-way race between two candidates who wanted AIPAC support, Eddie Morales and Maxine Dexter. Maxine Dexter won it against Sushila Jayapal. The millions in spending against Jayapal and for Dexter is very likely to have tipped this race. However, because of the reporting that we did, the local press did pick up on the fact that this was AIPAC money. It's a low turnout. It's an educated electorate that is following the news pretty closely.

So they may rebel against the idea that AIPAC can come in. We'll find out. Are you going to cover it tomorrow on CounterPoints? We will definitely cover it tomorrow on CounterPoints. All right. They will have a great CounterPoints show for everybody tomorrow. We will have a great show for everybody on Thursday, and we will see you all later. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight-loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children.

Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily, it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast.

So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yep. the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars. Yup. Find out how it ends by listening to the okay. Storytime podcast on the I heart radio app,

Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. You experienced dad guilt. I hate it. She understands, but she still. Happy father's day. The show may be called good moms,

bad choices, but this show isn't just for moms. We keep it real about relationships and everything in between. And yes, men are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch. To hear this and more,

open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. This is an iHeart podcast.