Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/7/24: Israel Launches Rafah Invasion, ICC Warns Senators After Threats, Trump Fined Over Gag Order, DeSantis Bans Lab Grown Meat, Columbia Cancels Commencement, Jerry Seinfeld Faceplants On PC Culture, Gaza Doc Details Rafah Horrors

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

Krystal and Saagar discuss Israel launching their Rafah invasion, ICC warns Senators after threats, Trump fined again for gag order violation, polls show tight 2024 race, DeSantis bans lab grown meat, Columbia University cancels commencement, Jerry Seinfeld faceplants on PC culture, and Gaza doctor details horrors in Rafah.   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. are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. What? 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. I know a lot of cops.

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. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war. This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of starts that a little bit, man.

We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two 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 Tuesday. We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do we

have, Crystal? Indeed, we do. Lots of big news coming out of Israel where the Rafah ground invasion has begun. They've taken over a key border crossing and there's also a lot going on with regards to a ceasefire deal. Hamas accepted and then Israel went ahead and invaded. So we'll break all of that down for you. Also have some Trump on trial updates for you. The judge in the Hush Money case issuing yet another fine against Trump for violating the gag order and threatening him with jail time. So talk about that. The long anticipated meat debate, lab-grown meat debate. It's finally happening. Hopefully we're getting to it today.

Hopefully Sakura and I will be able to avoid talking so much that we have to skip it once again, because I know you guys are very excited about our takes on lab-grown meat. Columbia has officially canceled their commencement. This after they claimed that one of the big reasons they were clearing out the encampment was to get ready for said commencement. So we'll take a look at that, as well as polling about how people feel about these protests, about the response to the protests. A lot of interesting stuff to dig into there. Speaking of interesting, Sagar taking a look at some recent Jerry Seinfeld comments that seem to be from circa 2015. So that's gonna be a good

one. I'm looking forward to that. And on a much more serious note, we are hoping to be able to speak with a doctor who just returned from Gaza to talk to us about the conditions on the ground there and what she saw in the context of trying her best to treat patients. So very much looking forward to speaking with her as well. That's right. We want to get an on-the-ground update. She literally just returned from the war zone, and she can give us an actual view as to what's going on.

Before we get to that, thank you to everybody who's been signing up and helping us out for becoming a premium subscriber. We've got a big counterpoints debate. Everything is ready and it's set to go. It's gonna be on free speech. We won't give you away who the contestants are, but I think suffice to say you're gonna know them, you're gonna like it, and that there's gonna be some fiery moments. So go ahead and sign up. You guys get early access to that. On top of supporting all of our work here, we've got big plans now for the DNC. I think it is official. It is definitely going to be 1968-esque. We will all be on the ground there. So if you want to be able to support that type of work, breakingpoints.com, we deeply

appreciate you. All right, guys, let's go ahead and turn to developments out of Israel and the Gaza Strip. Specifically, we can put these images up on the screen. So these are images of airstrikes. This is actually taken from the Egyptian side of the border, of course, Rafah there, all the way at the southern end of Gaza. These are more images you can see of airstrikes that are occurring. This is, I think, an IDF soldier TikTok running what appears to be a tank over the Welcome to Gaza sign. And this was released by the IDF. I know it looks like a video game. To me, it looks like a video game. But this is official footage that the IDF released of the

beginning of this invasion into Rafah. And these are more drone images that were also released by the IDF. So we don't know a lot at this point. We know that the ground invasion has obviously begun. We know there has been a significant increase in terms of airstrikes, and we know there have been some additional Palestinian deaths. We also know that the IDF has actually taken control of the Rafah crossing on the Palestinian side. This is something that Egyptian officials are already expressing alarm about and has major implications, not only in terms of military strategy, but most significantly in terms of humanitarian situation on the ground. That Rafah crossing is one of the most significant entry points for aid into Gaza. We know that yesterday,

the Israelis had closed another entry point into Gaza. This after Hamas rockets had hit a nearby military installation. And in retaliation, they closed that crossing as well. This comes, of course, as the UN is saying, they are, Sidney McCain of the U.N. is officially saying, hey, northern Gaza is in full-blown famine. This is creeping south. We also know in Rafah, you have some 600,000 kids, all of whom are in bad shape, many of whom are already malnourished. And yesterday, of course, we reported on the fact that the Israelis had asked 100,000 Palestinians sheltering in Rafah to leave. I read some accounts of some of those individuals, Sagar, and many of these people, they've already been forcibly displaced multiple times. They have literally no money. They have no idea where to go. There is

nowhere that is actually safe. And that's not according to me. That's according to New York Times and NPR and other analysts who have looked at the quote unquote safe zones that people have been told to move to in the past. In fact, Rafa was one of these safe zones that people were originally told to move to. And now you have this long threatened invasion occurring. Let's go ahead and put this next element up on the screen, give you a little bit of background here because this ground invasion came immediately after Hamas had actually accepted a ceasefire proposal. And the details of that proposal are very clear. The US was involved in helping to negotiate this along

with Egypt and Qatar. And there's a lot of details about three different phases, etc., etc. But the bottom line here is that Hamas wanted to release all of the hostages in order to secure an end of the war. So all the reporting is that the Israelis, after Netanyahu really went out of his way to try to scuttle this deal, to try to sabotage it, as we covered yesterday, by announcing after there were some indications Hamas might be favorable towards the deal, by announcing really clearly, no, no, no, we're going into Rafah no matter what, as an attempt to undercut it, also by banning Al Jazeera. That Al Jazeera, obviously, a product of a link to the Qatari

government. That was an effort to piss off Qatar as well to try to undercut this deal. Because Bibi's whole play is to pretend like he's open to a ceasefire deal for the international audience, but to really do everything to block it. And of course, exposes the lie that they, you know, this thing that we've heard a million times, oh, if Hamas just released the hostages, the war could be over tomorrow. Well, here's Hamas saying, hey, we'll release all the hostages. And Israel's like, no, we want to continue the war. And we're going to go ahead right now with this invasion of Rafah. Let me just put this next piece up on the screen and then I'm going to get your reaction, Sagar. So the Israeli media, after they were kind of stunned

by this Hamas acceptance of the proposal, Israeli media started reporting that Israel was not likely to accept that ceasefire deal. They claimed it was softened or one-sided Egyptian version. But again, we actually, we have all the details of what this deal entailed and it is release of all the hostages, which is something that Israel demanded. The key sticking point is that the Hamas side wants the war to end and the Israeli side wants the war to continue. One side actually wants a ceasefire and the other doesn't. So that's kind of an irreconcilable difference. Yeah, that's basically where we're at. This is a complicated backstory. There's a lot of

sniping. People are saying this is a Hamas PR move, according to the Israelis. Basically, the background appears to be this. This was a ceasefire proposal that was given by the Egyptians in Cairo with the input and knowledge of the United States. Hamas sees this deal and they're like, cool, we're in. We're on that. You already saw the details, Crystal, which you put up there on the screen. According to the Israelis, they were never aware of that. And according to them, the U.S. never delivered the details of that proposal to them. And the first they had heard of it is after Hamas had accepted that. Now, U.S. Western diplomats behind the scenes were leaking and saying, that's not true, actually, at all.

We did communicate the details of that. They were under consideration whenever Hamas accepted that deal. Another point against the Israelis is they didn't have anybody in Cairo. So it's their fault that they had nobody at the table with Hamas and with Egypt and all the other negotiators, despite the fact the U.S. has been begging them to come and to be available because Israel is now blaming the United States for being bamboozled into a situation where they, according to them, have been screwed because Hamas agreed to a ceasefire deal that they view not as acceptable. There's also a sticking point right now around the number of hostages to be released.

The Hamas counteroffer was that they'll release 33 hostages, that these 33, though, are some are alive and some are dead. The Israelis say, no, we want 40 hostages in the first deal, but they all have to be alive. I don't know, you know, exactly who is telling the truth. It obviously is conceivable that some of these hostages have sadly perished, either from, you know, malnutrition, from bombing. They've been in a war zone for seven months. Or in bad captivity. I mean, we have no idea, right? You know, in terms of, it's been a long time since anybody has actually been released from

Hamas. There's been some proof of life images and all that that have been released. So my only point is that in terms of the background on all of this, there is a lot of pointing fingers, but the end result is clear. They're using this as a pretext to go forward with the Rafah invasion. And I do think that it's a tremendous mistake from the international community side. We can put this up there on the screen. For example, just if you look at the wording of their justification, the war cabinet has unanimously

decided that Israel continues the operation to exert military pressure on Hamas in order to promote the release of our hostages and the other goals of the war. They already agreed to the release of the hostages. Hamas is like, no, no, no, we'll give you the hostages though. And they're like, but you know, we're squabbling over seven, whether some are alive or dead. I'm not saying that stuff isn't important, but I think we should point, Crystal, to the fact that there are massive protests in Israel calling for the acceptance of this to show you that the members of hostages themselves, family members, are pleading with them to take this deal. So that the members of hostages themselves, family members, are pleading with them to take this deal. So that's very important to underscore.

A couple things to add to that. So I want to read, Muin Rabbani did a fantastic lengthy thread on Twitter. I just want to read a small portion of it because it gets to what's really going on here. He says, among the key sticking points in the negotiations is that Hamas demanded an end to Israel's war while Israel insisted on continuing it. That's, like I said, kind of an irreconcilable difference when one side wants a ceasefire and the other side does not want a ceasefire. He goes on to say, given this contradiction, the mediators could not incorporate explicit wording that either ended or failed to end the war and still clinched the deal. What appears to have happened is that a sufficiently vague formula was included in the proposal paired with informal American assurances that if Hamas implemented the first stages of the

three-stage deal, Washington would guarantee an Israeli cessation of hostilities by the end of its final stage. So basically, the Americans were like, listen, we can't put into this deal that it will definitively end the war. But trust us, we're going to make sure that there is a permanent cessation of hostilities. We didn't even get to covering this because it happened on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, somewhere in that time frame when we were off air. That actually leaked out that the Americans were telling Hamas, no no, this is actually gonna end the war, even though the language doesn't explicitly say that in the deal.

Then the Israelis come out, that's when you get Bibi saying, no, absolutely not, and we're still going into Rafa, etc., etc., which was an attempt basically to kill the deal because he doesn't actually want a deal. And just to be really clear about the Haase situation. So first of all, the Israelis are also holding thousands of Palestinians. We've covered here and many other news outlets have covered the abhorrent conditions they've been kept in under, including torture and sexual abuse. You actually just recently had a doctor from Gaza who died from the torture that was from being tortured in Israeli custody. So those Palestinian hostages are also part of this deal. And while there may be some quibbling about how many hostages in phase one, phase two, etc.,

it's very clear that Hamas has, as part of this deal, accepted releasing all of the hostages and all of the remains of the hostages. You know, one thing, Sagar, that I've been thinking about, I was talking to Yegor about this too, we had the same thought, which is a really dark thought, which is, I don't actually think that Bibi Netanyahu or the rest of the war cabinet wants these remaining hostages to be released and talk about what their experience was like. Because basically their experience was having their lives risked by their own government, being left in a war zone for seven months. God knows in what conditions, God knows what sort of injuries they sustained from potentially IDF bombing and starvation. And I'm not sure that that's a

political reality that Bibi Netanyahu wants to deal with. Well, that happened last time around, right? Whenever we had the previous trench of hostages that were released, they were all were like, you were literally bombing us. And then three of them were killed. I mean, I think that the family members of these people know that. For example, we can play this video, please. This happened immediately after Hamas accepted the ceasefire. This is in Hebrew, so we'll just read you a translation. But the families of these prisoners are saying Hamas has agreed to the deal. The government must agree now, otherwise we will burn the country. And there actually were massive demonstrations last night in Tel Aviv and across the entire country,

led by many members of the hostage families that were begging for the government to take that deal. Because I think you're right. I think, look, the smart ones, they know and they can see it. Now, I'm not saying all of them are unanimously of some of that opinion. I know some have come out with a different opinion as well. But you could also see there is a widespread celebration at the population level on both sides of this conflict at the idea of a ceasefire, maybe not the Israeli government. Here we have a video that came out in the immediate aftermath that we can go ahead and play. This was actually in Rafah, immediately after it was announced that a ceasefire was agreed

to. Now, obviously, these people didn't know what was coming in the immediate aftermath, which was the invasion. But it's important just to point out there that there is obviously a widespread want, not just at the Palestinian level, but at the Israeli level for a ceasefire. But the problem is the government. Crystal, you pulled this clip, which is one of the most insane things I've ever seen. Let's go ahead and play it that we have here. This is Simon Boccare. He's the vice chairman of the World Likud arm of the party. And he says here, the abductee families, they're going to be murdered. They see what we're doing.

And so then they're asking him what they should be done. He says, I think we should have gone into Rafah already to get in. And they go, okay. And then what happens? He says that they'll pop up from under the ground. There are no uninvolved civilians. You have to go in and kill and kill and kill. And she says, okay, I got it. Will that bring back the hostages? And he says, we will then kill them before they get us. And they say, well, are you going to get the hostages? And he says at the end, we will try to get them. So again, this is the international arm of the Bibi Neson Yahu party, who is on channel 12, Israeli news crystal, who's saying this out in the open. I think the hostage families at this point know and hear this, and that's why there's so much consternation in Israel.

I mean, yeah, this view is not, it's fairly prevalent in terms of hard right factions in Israel. And it is almost a unanimous view, I would say, in terms of the actual Israeli government administration. And, you know, we talk a lot, and I think understandably so, about Bibi Netanyahu's calculations and how he wants the war to keep going because he needs to do that to keep his grip on power. But we should make no bones about it. The war cabinet voted, including quote unquote moderates, voted unanimously to invade Rafah. So, you know, they have their own political calculation, their own ideology, too. They are all now as being part of the war cabinet, they are all responsible for the conduct of this war. They know they have not accomplished the purported objectives that

they set out to accomplish. So they have just as much invested in keeping the brutality going as anyone else. They have as much invested in making sure these hostages can never come out and tell their story, frankly, as anyone else. And that is at odds with the population. We brought you some polling that even right-leaning members of Israeli society think that we should prioritize getting our hostages back, even if it means ending the war, even if it means new elections. We want our hostages home. And you see that sentiment certainly expressed in the street. And we're talking about huge protests, tens of thousands of people in the street saying, okay, Hamas said yes, they give us our hostages back. What the hell are you waiting for? And so a couple more things to say about this. First of all, Sagar, you said this was being framed as like a Hamas PR move.

I think that that's- According to them. Yeah, I think that's fair in a certain regard, because I think they had every expectation that Bibi's government, and by the way, US officials also were leaking to this press, that they weren't engaged in good faith in these negotiations, that they have no intention of taking the deal. And so I think in a sense, they did say, okay, we're gonna call your bluff. We're gonna say, yes, even to this deal that doesn't explicitly say the end of the war. We're going to take the American assurances for it, which I wouldn't recommend. But anyway, we're going to take America's word for it. This will actually result in a sensation of hostilities.

We're going to say yes to a ceasefire and put the ball in your court, Bibi Netanyahu. What are you going to do now? Because now it has exposed the entire world that all your bullshit about concern for hostages and hey, if they return the hostages, the war can end tomorrow. This was all complete and utter nonsense. This has been clear for a while, but now it's undeniable. And I think it's undeniable to the Israeli population as well. The last thing that's really important to say about this is Biden has been sounding the oppositional alarm to a ground invasion into Rafah for months now. He even sort of kind of said it was a red line before immediately saying I'll never leave Israel, but he sort of kind of said Rafah was a red line. We've heard about these tough conversations from Blinken just recently,

and Jake Sullivan and co, and these sort of vague threats that, hey, we may even change U.S. policy. We may not have unconditional support if you go into Rafa, especially if you go in in a way that we don't like. Well, guess what? They're doing it. So Joe Biden, what are you going to say? What are you going to do? This is a direct rebuke. This is Bibi calling your bluff and saying, yeah, you expressed concern about some other things in the past either. And at the end of the day, you did nothing. You did exactly what we wanted you to do and that's exactly what we think is going to happen now so in that manner the ball is now in joe biden's court do your words of concern mean anything does your supposed red line does it mean anything at all are you just going to

let the israelis get away with literally anything they want, anytime they want, till the end of time? Unconditional support, no matter what, no matter how humiliating it is for you, no matter how awful it is for Palestinians. That's the real question that's on the table right now. Yep, absolutely. I mean, it's humiliating for him, the fact that it even happened. And so even if he, which he very likely is going to be unable to bring to the brink. So I think we all know which way things are headed. 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. Add free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glod. And this is season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. We are back. In a big way. In a very

big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown.

We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. 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 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. This is also another extraordinary story we didn't want to lose sight of. We had covered previously there's kind of a freakout going on in the Netanyahu government right now about possible arrest warrants being issued for Netanyahu, Yoav Golan, and a few other individuals, and possibly Hamas leaders as well, coming from the International Criminal Court. So let's put this up on the screen. The ICC issued this rather extraordinary statement

warning any entities against bullying and threatening them. Let me read you some of this. They say the office of the prosecutor is aware of their significant public interest in its investigation. It welcomes comments, communication of concerns, and engagement in its activities. But they go on to say, independence and impartiality cannot be undermined. And they are when individuals threaten to retaliate against the court or against court personnel. Should the office in fulfillment of its mandate make decisions about investigations or cases falling within its jurisdiction. Such threats, even when not acted upon, may also constitute an offense against the administration of justice under Article 70 of the Rome Statute. That provision explicitly prohibits both retaliating

against an official of the court on account of duties performed by that or another official and impeding, intimidating, or corruptly influencing an official of the court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform or to perform improperly his or her duties. They conclude the office insists that all attempts to impede, intimidate, or improperly influence its officials cease immediately. So they put this out, and everyone was like, hmm, okay, what's going on? What is this about? Now, we had some guesses because there had already been some reports about the Israelis using all the tools they had, about the U.S. pressuring the ICC. But now we have these specific details of what this likely was in reference to. And this is really quite extraordinary. Let's put this up on the screen.

This scoop came courtesy of Zateo, that's Mehdi Hassan's new news outlet. He got a hold of a letter that was sent from a number of highile Republican senators, including Mitch McConnell, that directly threatened the ICC prosecutor and threatened their family members. This is really crazy. Let me read you a little bit of this. They say, in a terse one-page letter obtained exclusively by Zateo and signed by 12 GOP senators, including Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Kahn, that's the prosecutor, is informed that any attempt by the ICC to hold Netanyahu and his colleagues to account for their actions in Gaza will be interpreted not only as a threat to Israel's sovereignty, but to the sovereignty of the United States. Quote, target Israel and we will target you, adding they will sanction your employees and associates and ban you and your families from the United States. The letter concludes, quote, you have been warned. So I mean, direct threats being made

against the ICC, their employees, their family members, direct threats made by these 12 Republican senators. They got a statement response from Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, who said, quote, It's fine to express opposition to possible judicial action, but it is absolutely wrong to interfere in a judicial manner by threatening judicial officers, their family members, their employees with retribution. This thuggery is something befitting the mafia, not U.S. senators. So pretty wild, this situation. I was not aware of something called the Hague Invasion Act, which authorizes the US president to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release, not just of US persons, but also allies who are imprisoned or detained by the ICC.

Who wants to guess who signed that one into law? George W. Bush, 2002. Now, look, it's one thing if it's it's one thing if the ICC is attacking and going after U.S. service members for us to exert extraordinary influence to prevent that. It's another thing to do so on behalf of a foreign nation who is not even a treaty ally, who we have no obligation actually legally to defend at all. It's just a quote unquote non, but like, just so people understand Israel has the same treaty designation or ally designation as Argentina. So, you know, just so everybody understands that in terms of our actual obligations to the country. Now, as we can see here though, very clearly, they're saying that this would constitute an attack on the U S itself where further evidence of dual loyalty and of exactly how much these people are willing to, you know, basically expend extraordinary U.S. effort and

influence on behalf of the Israeli government. It's just crazy. Well, I think it's in part, too, because there is some risk because the U.S. has been so involved in this assault on Gaza. So they're not crazy to see this as like, this could be a problem for us too. Given what we've known about these war crimes, given the overwhelming support in Congress and from the presidential level to ship these weapons in contravention of US law, leave alone international law. So I don't think they're crazy to see this as like this could be a problem for us too. And speaking of the Hague Invasion Act, they actually name check. It has some other like sort of like Orwellian name, like the Service

Member Protection Act or something like that is the official name. The nickname for it is the Hague Invasion Act because it, as it indicates, authorizes military action in the event that, you know, our service members were detained or any, there was any sort of, you know, threat to quote unquote U.S. sovereignty. So it authorizes extraordinary measures. And they're saying that this could be invoked, the Hague Invasion Act could be invoked, even if there are just arrest warrants for Bibi Netanyahu, Yoav Golan, etc. So this is wild. Like, this is really wild. And I guess it also does speak to the fact that it's easy to dismiss, like, UN resolutions and whatever. It's like, they don't have any, you know, they don't have a police force. What are they going to do? They're

not going to actually arrest Netanyahu or whatever. Clearly from the freak out from these individuals, the direct threats that are being issued in this letter and the freak out that's been reported on from the Israeli side, like they clearly think it means something. They clearly feel like this is not a little nothing that they can just hand wave away. I mean, I've said this before. I don't think anybody will get arrested or anything is going to happen. But international isolation is a problem. And that's really what they're more afraid of than anything is they just want to be able to. I mean, what does anybody want? They will go to land without having to even worry or negotiate or have the US have to exert influence is ultimately what they want. Bibi also backing

this, putting this up on the screen, please. Yesterday was actually Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel and Netanyahu in his message, frankly, in a very insulting message to all of us, says, quote, Israel will defend itself even if it is forced to stand alone. Now, if this was a country that had not received more military aid than any other country literally in the world from the United States, it would be one thing. But this is a country that owes not only its foundation and its existence, but every military development post 1972 to the United States taxpayer. So the idea that they're forced to stand alone and it's just them against the world is bullshit. I mean, it's just insulting to us to say that as if their isolation at this point

is A, real, because it's not, if you look at the way that the West is supporting them, but B, to sell this idea that it's oppositional when when in reality they are the greatest benefactors of the U.S. superpower than probably maybe any other nation in the history of the world. So anyway, it just shows you that their foundational myth is like, we stand alone, we stand together. We're the underdog. Yeah, we're the underdog. It's like, come on, man. Like, you know, not whenever you've been, we've been funding your ass for the last 35, 40 years. This country wouldn't even exist without us.

It's literally the case. It's actually true. The UN partition plan that was originally passed only came after we, like, bullied and coerced and threatened a few countries to demand their vote. Okay? So, I mean, it's just ridiculous. But it does speak to this sense of constant victim. We're the only legitimate victims. That's number one.

Everything that we do has to be seen in the context of the horrors of the Holocaust. And so since that horror was done to us, we can never be the ones perpetrating the horrors. No matter what we do, we get a free pass. That's number one. And number two, this self-conception, which, you know, people like like Christian Zionists like Joe Biden and others also buy into this like outdated notion of which was never really accurate of Israel as the underdog, as the, you know, the David against the Goliath, which is a preposterous concept when you look at the power disparity between them and the Palestinians at this point. So, but he said specifically in this message with regard to the ICC, he said, which also speaks to that dual like, you know, victimhood and underdog situation. Issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials would leave an indelible stain on the edifice of international law and justice. He stressed the ICC was founded as a consequence of the Holocaust and should not attempt to undermine Israel's fundamental right to self-defense.

So again, the idea is like, because of the Holocaust, we can do no wrong. This institution isn't about making sure that the law is applied equally, no matter who does it, and making sure these horrors that were perpetrated against us, that nothing like it can happen to anyone in the world. No, no, no. This was set up explicitly to give us a pass and make sure that it's never done specifically to us. Which again, I want to reiterate that the reporting is that the ICC arrest warrants, if they come, which is a big if, the reporting is that they will likely be against Israeli officials and Hamas leaders. Right. So keep that in mind as this is all unfolding.

Well said. 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 multibillion-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. B one two and three on may 21st and episodes four five and six on june 4th ad free at lava for good plus on apple podcasts i'm clayton english i'm greg glad and this is season two of the war on drugs podcast sir we

are back in a big way in a very big way real people real And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher.

Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really them. It makes it real.

It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. 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. All right, let's turn to the Trump trial. So some major developments, Donald Trump being held in contempt again and giving a speech where he says he is very happy to serve in jail. Let's take a

listen to what he said. And it's a disgrace. And then you have the other thing that maybe is even more disgraceful is the gag order, where I can't basically, I have to watch every word I tell you people. You ask me a question, a simple question, I'd like to give it, but I can't talk about it because this judge has given me a gag order and said, you'll go to jail if you violate it. And frankly, you know what? Our Constitution is much more important than jail. It's not even close. So our Constitution is more important than jail. It's not even close, allegedly, and further going on,

saying that he would be happy to do it. Let's put this up there on the screen. This happens after Trump has been fined for contempt the 10th time now in the trial. He's been fined $1,000 each time. A sternest warning yet from the judge who says that clearly the money is not enough and that future gag order violations would send him to jail. So obviously that is pretty significant because the $1,000 isn't exactly cracking the wallet of Donald Trump here, especially with all of his true social stock. But this has kind of overtaken the fact that there have been some significant developments in the trial itself.

The most significant testimony actually happened on Friday. I've been wanting to give everybody an update. Let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen. It entails Hope Hicks, once his most closest advisor, his communications director in the White House. She was integral to the entire operation. She gave a tearful testimony at times over two hours, quote, with a behind-the-scenes glimpse into how his inner circle operated and responded to negative media stories. So Hicks actually was testifying there

about learning about the Access Hollywood tape, about what the inside of how they learned about the Karen McDougal story, who previously also alleged an affair with Donald Trump. And then also Michael Cohen's role in the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. So Hicks, despite being one of Trump's closest advisors, Crystal, called here to trial to try and offer evidence as to the fact that this was a payment given to Stormy Daniels motivated purely by the campaign and not as Trump is the fact that this was a payment given to Stormy Daniels motivated purely by the campaign and not as Trump is alleging that it was a personal expense that was done on his behalf. Yeah. And, you know, a lot was made of the fact she was very emotional.

Reportedly, she's still quite loyal to Trump. I mean, this is someone who had known him from time she was quite a young woman, you know, thrust into the spotlight and into this big national position and really was, especially in the early days of the Trump presidency, just at the heart of everything that was going on. And, you know, in terms of what impact it has on the trial, I think it's significant her testifying to the nature of the campaign and how they operated from just, you know, interest remembering that time. It was also really fascinating to hear her perspective on what happened the day that they got, you know, the media inquiry about, hey,

you want to respond to this whole Access Hollywood tape? They first got the transcript from the Washington Post. She's reading through it and is like, this is terrible. And her first thing that she sends to everyone is, we need to deny, deny, deny. Very quickly, they also get the video and realize, okay, that's probably not gonna be a workable strategy. And she takes you into the room where she's the person who has to talk to Trump about what is about to come out.

She said in her testimony, I shared the email with Mr. Trump sort of verbally, and we were at the time, based on the conversation outside the conference room, trying to get a copy of the audio or the tape to assess the situation further. We weren't sure yet how to respond. We were kind of just trying to gather more information. Everyone was observing the shock of it. Then she's asked, when you say you shared the content verbally, did you read Mr. Trump the email you received from Mr. Ferenhold? He was the reporter who had asked for comment on this.

She says, I read him the email. I have a vague recollection of starting to read the transcript. And then he finished reading it himself, I believe. Did you hand the email for him to read? Yes, that's my recollection. And what, if anything, did he say? He said that it didn't sound like something he would say. Oh, really?

It definitely sounds like something he would say. And obviously, it was on tape. Obviously, he said it. But, sound like something he would say. Oh, really? It definitely sounds like something he would say, and obviously it was on tape. Obviously he said it. But I mean, it's extraordinary. She says she was stunned, hard to describe. It was definitely concerning. I had a good sense this was gonna be a massive story and sort of dominate the news cycle for the next several days, at least. And she indicates it was a damaging development. This is all, the reason this is relevant to this case, because you might think like, why are they talking about this? This isn't actually directly related to the Stormy Daniels thing, is to provide insight into the way that they reacted to negative stories that would come out about Trump, especially with regards to any sort of, like, you know, sexual relationships or

commentary, etc., and how much they understood these things could be damaging to the campaign. Because remember, the core of this question is, OK, was this payment, these payments to Stormy Daniels, should these have been a campaign expense? Or were there other reasons that Trump may have wanted to bury the story? Like, for example, his wife, not, you know, him not wanting his wife to find out. So that's why this piece is relevant. Try to provide context of like, yes, this was all about the campaign. Yes, when these negative stories would come out, they realized they were really damaging. They moved, you know, did whatever

they could to try to mitigate that damage, et cetera, et cetera. And the speculation about why Hope was emotional, I mean, anyone can kind of relate and understand, but this is someone she feels loyal to. And here she is testifying on the stand and feeling like she's providing information that's likely damaging. I think that's probably why it was difficult for her on the stand. Absolutely. I will say she did give some evidence that would help be helpful for Trump. I mean, in terms of reasonable doubt, she said that Donald Trump was concerned about the impact of the Stormy Daniels news on Melania Trump, his wife, and apparently said he was very concerned about how it would be viewed by his wife and wanted to make sure the newspapers

weren't delivered to the residents that morning. And quote, the former president really values his wife's opinion. So giving at least some room possibly for reasonable doubt. One of the things, you know, I want to prepare everybody for is that it is, remember, you only need one person to declare a mistrial or a hung jury. Like it's very possible to create reasonable doubt. I think he's actually presented, despite all the craziness around it, you know, enough reasonable doubt for at least maybe one or two so-called impartial people to say, yeah, maybe he did do it for, you know, for personal reasons. And that's all you really need to actually win this. Let's put this up there on the screen. Trump is trying to turn this to really to his political

advantage. Quote, Trump escalates attacks on prosecutors, says that the Democrats run a, quote, Gestapo administration. This was actually made at a fundraiser. My favorite part of the fundraiser, Crystal, is he said, anyone who donates a million dollars here at this fundraiser can come up here and can say whatever they want. And he was taken up on it by a couple of people. So effective strategy, very effective strategy. What did they have to say with their million dollars? Anyone who makes a million dollar donation right now, I will let you come up and speak. Quote, two donors then came to the stage and told the crowd, Donald J. Trump is the person that God has chosen for us.

Oh, Jesus Christ. I don't know who you are with a million dollars, with beliefs like that and a million dollars in disposable income, but I guess good luck. I guess money really is speech saga. There you go. That's right. It's pretty amazing. Our main takeaway again here is that Trump, I've seen a lot of analysis on this. I'm curious what you think. Trump seems to believe that him getting arrested would create another Mar-a-Lago type moment or being thrown in jail, would create a Mar-a-Lago type moment where it would force again, the Republican Party to coalesce around him the same way that we had the Mar-a-Lago raid. You already see evidence that Ron DeSantis is meeting with Donald Trump and doing campaign events set in the future on the schedule together.

You haven't seen Nikki Haley or any of those others come, but he remembers how Mar-a-Lago really saved him back in, what was it, November of 2022? And he believes he could recreate that if he was held in contempt and sent to jail and turn it into a free speech thing. So your analysis-

No, I'm saying that's what he is. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know if that's true or not. But your analysis is that he's repeatedly violating the gag order to sort of intentionally court getting thrown in prison? I think it's possible because I don't know what's the other possible reason. I mean,

nobody, let's be honest. Because he just like pops out of the mouth all the freaking time. I don't think it's just like wildly undisciplined because I mean, if I don't, I think that's possible too, that he is actually wants the spectacle of getting thrown into jail and is like kind of asking for it. I think that is possible. Yeah. I don't think it's a particularly wise strategy. Oh, I wouldn't do it either. Because it's one thing in the context of a Republican primary, right? Yes, that rallied all the troops around him in the context of a Republican primary. In general election, I think it's very different political dynamic. He's already got all Republicans on board. I don't think very different political dynamic. He's already got

all Republicans on board. I don't think DeSantis coming on board is any surprise or has really anything to do with this trial. It's just like, yeah, he's the nominee. He's very possibly the next president. If I'm gonna have a political future, I better make things right with this dude. So that was always gonna happen. So that piece, I don't think is really connected. But yeah, the prospect of Trump actually getting thrown into jail, it just brings this story to the forefront of the public. It provides images of him actually in prison that I don't think are really great for him. And then the other thing here too is the reason why this latest fine was levied is he was like, you know, like smearing basically the jury, which I know they're supposed to be disconnected from the media and not know what's going on. But if you're out there just like repeatedly going after the jury or the ones who are responsible for your fate or the judge who's very important in terms of being responsible for your fate, it's not really a great legal strategy, I would say.

And you're right that he has things to work with legally in this case. I think, like you said, Hope Hicks testified in particular with regard to the Karen McDougal story, which is relevant here. That's one of the catch and kill situation with National Enquirer, that he was worried about what Melania would think and that that could be a real part of what was going on. I don't think it requires a huge leap of imagination for people to imagine that he didn't want his wife to know about his affair with a porn star. So legally, he has things to work with here. If he genuinely is trying to get thrown in jail, first of all, I'm not sure it's going to work because the judge did indicate that that might

be required, but also expressed a lot of understandable reluctance about taking what would be an absolutely extraordinary step. But I'm also not sure that that political analysis from Trump really holds up. We'll see. 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 multibillion 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 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. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Glott.

And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner.

It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug man. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. Got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette.

MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. 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. All right, let's get to the polling. That's something that we also wanted to make sure we keep everybody updated on. Things actually possibly looking up for Joe Biden, always want to show the other side of the coin. Let's put this up there on the screen. Six months out, quote, a tight presidential race with a battle between issues and attributes. Trump has a 46 support amongst US adults and Biden 44 in a head to head matchup. But don't let that deceive you because as we see here in the graphic in front of us, this is ABC News, Ipsos. All adults, it shows Trump 46, Biden 44. But if you go to registered voters,

you see 46 to 45. And if you look at likely voters, you actually get to- Sorry, that was my hairspray. It's all right. Usually we can move fast. That was a little too clangy. Three, two, one. Don't let those numbers deceive you though, as you guys can see on the graphic in front of you on the right. All adults, 44% Biden, 46% Trump, but registered voters, 46, 45, likely voters, 49 to 45 for Joe Biden with a huge lead there. Four points outside the margin of error within the likely voter sample. Now,

obviously that matters because likely voters are the people who are probably going to vote. Now, the same actual phenomenon comes out even clearer in our next piece. Let's put this up there, please. This was from NPR. Marist just came out again just a couple of days ago. The headline there on their poll was Democrats fear fascism, Republicans worry about a lack of values. But here again, just check this out. Among people who say they are definitely voting in November, Biden's lead expands to five points, 52 to 47. The survey shows Biden is doing better with groups that they are likely or definitely voting, older voters and college educated whites in particular.

What do I always tell you people? Don't ever bet against suburban ladies and boomers, because they'll drag their ass to vote no matter what. So I guess, and this will be the most basic election analysis I've ever given. If it's a high turnout election, that's going to be really good for Donald Trump, because it means low propensity voters are coming out to the polls. If it is a normal or low turnout election, like let's say 2022 or anything prior, then it's going to be very good for Joe Biden. Basically, people who love to vote, like basically Democrats and highly educated and boomers, if those are disproportionately the number of people comprised the electorate, then Biden has a huge edge. That said, I would never bet against Trump. He has a historic track record of always being able to bring out people who are very low propensity

and have never voted in the past. So I have no idea. History says one thing. We have no idea if that's necessarily a good predictor. Yeah, and it used to be you could kind of bake in like, oh, the polls are understating Trump's support. We really don't know anymore. It's in some of the polls, they've been underestimating Democratic support. So it's impossible to like even read into the polls what it might really mean. But this dynamic of Biden doing better with the likely voter screen when the polling companies are trying to look at Ari who's actually gonna show up and vote versus the overall electorate is a dynamic we've been seeing for a while. It's basically, remember how back in 2016, I think it was Schumer who famously said,

for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in Western PA, we'll pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia. You can repeat that in Ohio, in Illinois, in Wisconsin. Basically, these polls are like, maybe that strategy is finally coming to fruition. Maybe that's actually gonna work out for them this time. Maybe. If it is the case, I do think abortion is a significant part of that. And then also just like the negative sentiment around Trump. Which one of these men do people find to be more distasteful? That's gonna be a key question here as well. How do young people factor into all of this who are not only disgusted with Biden, but some number have actually shifted to Trump. Some number are just like, I'm not gonna vote at all.

Some number are like, hey, what about these third party candidates? That's the other big question mark is these numbers we're showing you are just the head to head. They don't have RFK Jr. They don't have Jill Stein. They don't have Cornel West. What ballots are those candidates going to be on? I just don't know. I just don't have Jill Stein. They don't have Cornel West. What ballots are those candidates going to be on? I just don't know.

I just don't know. Like, it seems to me that it is really 50-50. Every day that I see a like, oh, Biden's doing okay, the next day I see one that's like, oh, Trump's winning every swing state. And I think that is another thing, important thing to bring up, Sagar, is it seems pretty consistent that the swing state polls appear to be better for Donald Trump than Joe Biden, whereas the national polls are more of a mixed bag. Great point. That's exactly right. And we don't know for sure. Just to give some turnout evidence,

I just have it in front of me. Midterm turnout actually was about 52% of the vote in 2022, but that is 10 points lower than where we were in 2020. So 60 some, per 63% of people came out, eligible voters came out to vote in the 2020 election, only 52%. That was actually quite high for a midterm election. But clearly the Democrats had a major performance advantage with 52% of people coming to the polls in 2022. So in presidentials, they're usually higher, but is it going to be 60 or 63? There's actually quite a big difference between those numbers and who they are. But like you said, too, the swing voter stuff here really matters. At the same time, you're like, okay, I see a poll, Arizonans say they're fed up with the economy,

all that stuff. Well, we saw all of that before 2022. And then what happened? They all came out and they elected a bunch of Democrats. So I could see the exact same thing happening. Their state legislature has to try eight times to overturn a total abortion ban. So I'm like, well, I don't know. You never know when you're with the Republicans. And you got a number of states, including Florida, that I think Trump won by four points if memory serves. Three to four. That has an abortion initiative on the ballot. That could be impactful.

I'm not saying Democrats are going to win Florida, but Biden seems to actually do better with old people than young people at this point. So you never know, which puts if Florida's in play, then you're like, oh, well, this could be a landslide for Joe Biden. I could honestly see it going either. I could see it all going to Joe Biden, like all the swing states plus some outlier like Florida. I could see it going in the other direction, being like a sweep for Trump, perhaps with some assist from third party candidates. I could see the third party candidates cutting the other way. We see Trump freaking out about RFK Jr. right now. I will say just in terms of anticipating turnout, polling indicates,

and I think the vibes indicate as well. And what we see in terms of response to the horse race segments that we do here, people are way less engaged than they were in 2020. They're just completely apathetic. I don't blame them. I feel the same freaking way. I'm like, what kind of a choice is this that we have? Our great democracy, and this is the choice we have? This is disgusting. So I think a lot of people'm like, what kind of a choice is this that we have? Our great democracy, and this is the choice we have? This is disgusting. So I think people, a lot of people are like, who really cares? Who cares which one of these terrible people ends up being the next president of the United States? Very important point. And yeah, we can see it in our own data. I mean, our show began as an election show back in 2020. We know just how ripping election coverage

can be when people are interested. That is not the case these days. And actually, we're doing better than most national news outlets. In fact, most national news outlets have had a reduction in their overall ratings six months ahead of the election, which is insane because that's never supposed to happen. It didn't happen in 2016, didn't happen in 2020. I mean, there was even more interest, frankly, in the 2012 election, you know, at that time. Obama being tested and all of that. I mean, I remember, I'm sure you do, too, that primary and Mitt Romney and everything. I think there was more interest in, like, the 2018 midterm.

I think you're right. Than this generalization. You know, typically, just in terms of, you know, media business, whatever. Typically, there are a few media brands that really and we were one of these that really like establish themselves and make themselves and become known in the context of that really spike and are an outlier, you know, order of magnitude higher in presidential election years. And now, I mean, listen, it's a little early, but it's May. It's not that early. And people are like, who cares? And I feel the same way. Frankly, I feel the same way. I agree with you. And just to give you even more evidence here also about how propensity and

low propensity people may even turn out. We cannot erase RFK Jr. Let's put this up there on the screen. News Nation just did a poll. RFK Jr. actually more popular here as showing with younger voters and specifically with Republicans. 57% of younger voters say they have a favorable view of RFK Jr. And amongst Republicans, he's got a very high approval rating. So let's say that you have more low propensity, anti-institutional folks who hate liberals or hate the Democrats and want to stick it to somebody. Previously, they were just going to vote for Trump in 2016. This time around, they may come out and they may vote for RFK Jr. if they do turn out to vote. So we cannot erase his role either in this election.

There's a lot of X factors. But I agree. I mean, all indicators are right now is a much lower turnout than 2020. That the interest, in a lot of ways, I mean, this might be, this almost feels like the 1996 election, which I think is the least important election of my lifetime, where you're like, yeah, you know, whichever one you get, I'm not saying it won't be consequential. Of course it will. Right. Like 96 was consequential for a variety of reasons beyond the Gingrich era, welfare reform, etc. Like on a policy level. But in terms of the way people felt about it, they just didn't really care that much. And I think people do care this time around. But like you said, know that their choices are so limited that they're just turning the dial off. Most people, sports coverage, pop culture coverage, and all of that is record highs, while political coverage is very, very low.

Yeah, and I think part of it, too, is the fact that you basically didn't really have a primary on either side. I mean, the Republicans went through the motion, but it was a foregone conclusion. Trump didn't even participate in the debates. So there's a natural progression where people get engaged in the primaries. They get excited about the elections. They've got some candidates, some horse on their side of the aisle that they're getting excited about.

And then, you know, that starts to spark interest in the stakes of the election. And so you have that dynamic of on the Democratic side, they just literally basically canceled the primary. And we're like, nope, we don't care. No dissent. We don't care. The majority of Democrats actually would like to have someone else. We're just sticking with Joe, that's that. And on the Republican side, as I said, Trump didn't participate in the primaries

and he was massively ahead in the polls nearly once people actually engaged the entire time. So there's that. And then there's just the fact that you've got a majority of Americans who say they don't like Biden and a majority of Americans who say they don't like Trump. And the most unifying sentiment in the entire country is utter disgust at the nature of our choices for this election. Bingo, that's right. At the same time, the segment everybody's been waiting for, lab-grown meat. We really built this puppy up, didn't we? Let's put it up there on the screen. Florida, Ron DeSantis has banned lab-grown meat as other states weigh a ban. Quote, what's their beef with cultured meat?

Good headline there from USA Today. Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law this bill which bans any, quote, cultivated meat because it is grown from animal stem cells. He says take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere. We're not doing that in the state of Florida. To be clear, the ban does not include things like Impossible Meat, which is made from plant-based ingredients and is meant to protect cattle ranchers and the integrity of American agriculture. Now, critics have come after Governor DeSantis saying that it goes against regulatory approvals that came in through the U.S. just a year ago.

There's actually been a huge backlash, Crystal. You'll find funny to know amongst the technology community, there's a lot of venture capitalists who moved to Florida who are very pissed off. They are calling this anti-science and anti-tech. However, there have been some- I think I saw like Bezos invested a bunch of money. That's right. Bezos just invested a lot of money. This is a point against me.

I shouldn't have brought that up. Jeff Bezos invests about $60 million in a lab-grown meat company. He has picked up, though, some interesting fellow travelers in the movement. Let's put this up there on the screen. John Fetterman has supported Ron DeSantis' lab-grown meat ban, saying, quote, the fake meat is slop. And he says, it pains me deeply to agree with the crass and burn Ron, but I co-sign this. As a member. Picture of health, both Fetterman and DeSantis. Okay.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. It says, as a member of Senate Agricultural Democrats and as some dude who would never serve that slop to my kids, I stand with American ranchers and farmers. So this is picked, I guess it's an interesting discussion which we wanted to have here about lab-grown meat, so I will at least give my perspective and my advocacy for the bill. Now, I think it is a fair point just to preempt any criticism. Why wouldn't you say this about factory meat? I agree with you. I think factory meat is poison. I was telling you, U.S. meat is actually banned in 160 countries because of a lot of the additives that we put in there. Many of the ways that we have

in our meat supply, Tyson's foods and all of this is repulsive and disgusting. And if you have the ability, I would genuinely urge you to not eat it and to try and either buy local meat, which is pasture raised, organic grass fed, et cetera, from people who actually both treat animals well, harvest them sustainably and responsibly. I understand it's more expensive. Not everybody can afford it. That's part of the curse, though, has been factory and vertically integrated meat production here in the United States. Now, the reason I'm against lab-grown meat and all of this is I believe very strongly in a principle called the Lindy Principle. This was by Nassim Taleb. And the idea is basically like the longer it's been around, the better it is. And there is just something deeply dystopian and terrible to me about the ideas of like the future technology companies like these tech guys, Jeff Bezos and others, not just owning land where food production actually happens, but synthesizing meat and then possibly, I mean, who knows what you're even going to put into it. I mean, just imagine, you know, our current vegetables already are not even real

vegetables. They're like genetically modified and they have all this crap in them to make them last longer in the freezer car on the way from Chicago or whatever to over here. And it's just more that we do that. I understand it's better for feeding 8 billion people at scale. So I'm not going to criticize it, I guess, in that way. But I don't think it is healthy and moving more in that industrialized food way. And it's also stripping away the tradition and I think the benefactor of cattle ranching and trying to move to a pre-1960s food market, which I would like to see. I'm supportive of the measure. Anyway, with all that said.

Yes. So there, first, let's talk a little bit of background. The two things that are really driving this move to ban lab-grown meat, which, by the way, what this is, is that, I mean, not that I really understand the process, but they take some stem cells. Yes, exactly. From an animal, animal's not harmed, and then they're able to use amino acids to basically like grow actual meat out of these stem cells, which is extraordinary, right?

And has potential, you can imagine the potential massive benefits because the meat that we consume as Sagar is accurately pointing out is actually really terrible. And industrial factory farming is also really horrifying and is bad, obviously, for the animals. But it's also bad for people. You have this massive use of antibiotics, which has led to antibiotic-resistant strains of infections and that being a problem. You have even, like right now, there's a bird flu situation that comes directly out of the result of the way that these factory farms operate and the close integration with humans and these factory farms, which are disgusting, dystopian places. These animals are tortured from birth until the time that they are slaughtered. It's horrifying, horrifying situation. And that's before you even get into the climate impact.

OK, so that's number one. Number two, as I was beginning to say, the reason this is happening now is not because Ron DeSantis is deeply concerned about the quality of the food that our children consume. It's because, number one, there's a lot of money in the factory farming industry that is concerned about this. And number two, Republicans have made it into this culture war thing where it's like, and even DeSantis says in his bill, like the World Economic Forum elites want us to eat fake meat and bugs and who cares about climate change, et cetera. So it's this culture war issue that has the benefit of also overlapping with a lot of big money interests.

Fetterman, I think picking it up likely given his the demonstrated level of corruption and how influenced he is by money that is given or withheld from his campaign. I think it's very reasonable to assume that may be a factor for him as well. But yeah, it's not like the rest of our food system is so pristine that it makes any sense to single out this one potential innovation. And then the other thing to say is this is like, this is a long way from coming to fruition. Yeah, that's definitely true. Right. It's still very early in the development.

So, you know, I think we talked the other day, I think it was me and Emily, you were out about Lunchables. Like to me, things like that are probably a much bigger problem than lab grown meat, which has all of the genetic indications of being just basically like meat. So to have a hard ban on this, it's more culture war signaling than it is actual concern for anybody's health. Because if you're concerned for anybody's health, you have a lot more critiques of our food system than you have. Sure. But I mean, take where you can get, right? I mean, to me, lab-grown meat is the epitome of

the Jurassic Park meme. Your scientists were so preoccupied whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. I mean, the idea, look, as we have seen with a lot of the regenerative farming movement and others that are out there, you can actually minimize a lot of the climate impact. You can actually raise animals sustainably. You can have much healthier meat, and you can even buy directly from the source. One of the amazing things about the internet is you can buy meat online today and you can get a ship to your house from UPS. You're going to pay maybe 15% more than you would buy at the grocery store. I totally understand. A huge portion of the public cannot afford that. So I

am not saying that it is anywhere where it needs to be. But imagine if those people got the same federal subsidies that Tyson's Foods and Purdue Farm and all these other people are getting. I mean, that's a totally different type of food system, which we could get to pro-technology in the way that people could still get access to, or even better, buy something locally, which is properly raised. So I would just say this lab-grown direction is one where, look, there's something both in terms of the playing God, but second, I just really believe, and we're going to talk, we have a guest later who we're going to be posting later on, uh, about Ozempic. And there is just, there is this idea

of hubris where we seem to believe that we can just synthesize amino acids and that there isn't something intangible over hundreds of millions or tens of millions of years of evolution, of an animal being grown from birth to wherever it is, and then us eating that animal protein that can just be synthesized through a tube into something that we're going to eat and is going to give us all the nutrients that we could ever possibly want. There's no history of medical science that shows you that, like Western medicine itself right now, if you were to ask me how to fix a bone, they know how to do that. But they don't know what makes us tick. That's why

nobody has ever solved depression or why you can't just take vitamins instead of eating vegetables. If it was that easy, then it would already have been done. So for me, it doesn't pass the Lindy test at all. And I think we should stay the hell away from it. I mean, your take is just basically like, I assume all technology is bad. Not all, but a lot. I mean, look.

It's very dissonant with other technological, like embrace of the Apple Vision Pro and other things that you're very- Apple Vision Pro is enhancing human life. And also it's very dissonant also with your, um, you know, your view that we don't really need to worry about climate change because science is going to solve it. Well, this is one area. I mean, what it's like 25% of carbon emissions come from food delivery. It's very high. So, okay. This is part of science solving the climate change crisis and making it so that we don't have to make some of the more dire tradeoffs that some of us fear that ultimately we'll have to make.

So, listen, study it, make sure it's safe. But to just have no evidence that it's a problem and be like, I'm going to ban it because I want to own the World Economic Forum elites is just silly. It's just silly. And like I said, it's so different than the way the entire rest of the food system is viewed. It's just this sort of like based on nothing reactionary view that I believe based on nothing, this is going to be a problem. When, you know, it's nice that you can get like your organic, whatever, small ranch, raised beef, et cetera. 99%. That's the stat. I agree. Of animals consumed for food production are factory farms. And it's horrible. It's horrible for the animals. It's horrible for human beings. But I don't see Ron DeSantis or John Fetterman upset about that. Of course not, because that's where they're getting the money from that is being used to drive this position and then also this just like culture war virtue signal.

I don't disagree. I think there's also, I mean, look, I understand the whole World Economic Forum thing, but really what they are saying, let's say the best faith version of it is basically in a lab-grown system. What does it mean? It means you have to go to a company

in order to buy your meat. You can never actually be fully sustainable or harvest something if you wanted to yourself. What? Why? Okay, because- People can still have their own cow. They can still buy their meat. I mean, what if they outlaw that? It's certainly possible. You take a stand against that. But instead of saying, hey, let's study it and see,

and actually maybe this is healthier for people. Maybe this reduces the cost of meat so that people can have more whole foods versus the Lunchables crap that they're eating now. Rather than that, you're just like, let's ban it before we even know. I understand what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing that it is a culture-based argument. I'm only telling you where it comes from, the skepticism. Again, for me, it doesn't pass the Lindy test literally at all. The idea that you can just grow something in a lab and that's going to replace it. Again, if it were true, then vitamins would have replaced all of vegetables. But all medical science would tell you that a vitamin is not a direct substitute. Now, could it get there? Maybe, but they've been trying for what, 40,

50 years? So in this case, maybe they will get there. But it does seem like just, look, it makes me uncomfortable, the idea that these people are trying to consolidate the food system such that- The food system is already consolidated. Yeah, but we can- That's part of the problem. We have some level of self-exit right now. I'm saying, what if we get to the point where you have a total control of the food system there, which I do think that there are a lot of people who want that. This is actually competitor to the consolidated food system. That's why there's a reaction against it from the political class,

because of these monopolists who want to be able to continue their factory farming with no alternative and have consolidated the marketplace. That's exactly the problem. They don't want a competitor. Well, but they don't, the competitors who are coming in

are Jeff Bezos and the Facebook, the VC guys who I see tweeting about this on Instagram or on Twitter, who are multi-billionaires or have funds themselves. It's like Facebook taking over the monopoly of newspapers. Like, did we win? I mean, that's competition. It's not necessarily good competition. Like, is the new boss really as good as the old boss? Or is it just basically the exact same type of boss that we have here? Now, again, is DeSantis corrupt?

Do they really care about the food system? No, because they're from the top sugar producing state in the whole country. Like I'm with you. Like I'm not saying that it's not a good thing. If we could ban sugar, we'd probably be better off doing that than we would with lab grown meat or any of this other stuff. We could go after the agricultural subsidies and Purdue and Tyson's and all these other companies and like Lunchables, which is I don't even know.

That doesn't even qualify in my head as meat or hot dogs or so many of these other things with all these disgusting additives and things like that. Yeah, hot dogs are a great point, actually. People are fine with hot dogs and you're worried about this? Okay. By the way, I eat hot dogs. I'm not fine with hot dogs, and I don't eat any hot dogs, period. I'm not putting that poison into my body. Yeah. Well, listen, if you actually care about the food system, you would do a lot more good rather than banning something that hasn't even really been developed yet. You'd do a lot more good just like killing the corn subsidies and the sugar subsidies. Certainly.

Putting those subsidies instead towards whole foods, whole fruits, vegetables, meat, etc. But for some reason, political class is not interested in that one. I think that's a fair point. Yeah. We're just trying to zoom out a little bit. meet, et cetera. But for some reason, political class is not interested in that one. I think that's a fair point. We're just trying to zoom out a little bit. 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 multibillion-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. B one two and three on may 21st and episodes four five and six on june 4th ad free at lava for good plus on apple podcasts i'm clayton english i'm greg glad and this is season two of the war on drugs podcast sir we are back in a big way in a very big way real people real And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. We are back. In a big way. In a very big way.

Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We got Ricky Williams, NFL player, Heisman Trophy winner. It's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves. Music stars Marcus King, John Osborne from Brothers Osborne. We have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown. We got B-Real from Cypress Hill.

NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corvette. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. 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. All right, let's get to what's going on in terms of the college protest panic across the country. Some significant news broke yesterday with regard to Columbia University. Let's put this up on the screen. So they announced their decision yesterday to cancel their university-wide commencement amid protests, this headline says. And they cite specifically some vague, quote unquote, security threat. Noteworthy that previously the justification for bringing in the cops and clearing out the encampment and all that was, hey, we got to like, we got to get it together so we can host a commencement. You can put this

up on the screen. This is part of the statement from the president of Columbia. It's going to take time to heal, but I know we can do that. I hope we can use the weeks ahead to restore calm, allow students complete their academic work and honor their achievements at commencement. But apparently, I mean, I don't think anyone should take their security threat thing here seriously. They're worried about it being disruptive. They're worried about a show of how widely supported these protests are, not only among the students, but among the faculty. They're panicked about the donor class meltdown that they've already seen. And so like UCLA before them, they decided better just to cancel it altogether so no one can see any potential exercises of free speech. Because, sorry,

we covered yesterday. There have been graduation ceremonies that have had protests. It hasn't been a big deal. Some people stand up with flags. They get cheered or booed or whatever. They're squirted out. And that's the end of the story. And everybody continues with their day. So, you know, there's, I guess, two things to say. Number one, like I said, it's not about security. It's about they don't want to be embarrassed and they don't want to be out of control. And number two, you know, this has everything to do with the manufactured panic that has been created. And they just want it to end and be able to,

you know, silence everyone and move forward. It is about the donors and the parents who would be coming there more than it is about anything else, obviously, as evidenced, like you said, at previous ones. There were annoying protesters, by the way, at my graduation, if I recall. I think it was at the height of Ferguson. It's very common to have protests. It is very common, protests. We did at Minus, but I can barely even remember because it wasn't even like that big a deal, you know? I'm with you. I agree with you. I mean, I don't particularly care. I remember, but at the same time, if I recall, the university was like, there will be no political signs on people's hats. And

then people did it anyway, because they're like, what are you going to do with my degree? Yeah. And then people's parents were, some people's parents were outraged and other parents were supporting. I guess this is a time honored tradition. Let's put the next one, please, up there on the screen. This kind of gets to some of what we previewed yesterday about what we were going to talk about. There's been some interesting new polling now about how Americans feel about these pro-Palestinian college protests. So I'll go through support and oppose. The top line, U.S. adults is 28% strongly or somewhat support. Not sure, 24. Strongly or somewhat oppose is 47%, so definite plurality. Now, there is an age gap, 18 to 44, 40% strongly or somewhat support, 31% not sure, 30% strongly or somewhat oppose.

45 and older, basically completely flipped. You got 62% who completely oppose. 19% only who support. It's a pretty wild age gap. What do I tell you about boomers, folks? Yeah, it's a pretty wild age gap. Non-college graduates, this is another important one. Important to me because it's the support figure

and the don't know figure, which are really interesting, where the oppose is relatively similar. So you got 38% college grads who support, 15% not sure, 48% oppose. Non-college is 24% support, 29% just not sure, as in probably just don't care. And then 47% who oppose. Amongst Democrats, you got 46% Democrats who support, independents 24, Republicans 16. And then on the opposition, you got 31% Democrats, 44% independents, 69% Republicans. Not a surprise.

They've got a breakdown there by religion. But do you want to comment on this before we go through more of them? Yeah, I mean, I'll just say, I actually, to be honest with you, this, you know, as someone who does support the protests, given what I know about historic disapproval of protests and given what I've seen in terms of the overwhelming media and political class manufacturing of consent around these protests, I'm actually surprised the numbers aren't worse. Like the fact that you still have 18 to 44 year olds, plurality of whom are in favor. The fact that the Democratic number, I mean, Joe Biden is really going against his own base because there's a very clear plurality, 46% of Democrats who are in support specifically of the college campus protests and only 31% who oppose. The religion gap is also quite extraordinary and quite notable. But to be

honest with you, these numbers are not as bad as I frankly feared that they would be. Interesting. Cope, in my opinion, a little bit because there's still 47% opposed figure there in terms of the plurality of the public is against it. Yeah, but if you look at like Vietnam War protests, which we have these numbers we can get to in a minute. Let's get to that. They were way more negative than this. We'll get to that. Let's go to the next part. This is about too harsh or not harsh enough. This again is where I would say there's some

warning signs. Amongst US adults, 33%, the plurality here, at least in this one, are saying that has not been harsh enough of a response. 31% not sure, about right 20, 16% say too harsh. 18 to 44, you've actually got a plurality who are saying it's about right or not sure. 22% say too harsh, 16% not harsh enough. But again, look at that older figure, 45% and older, 48% are saying not harsh enough. Yeah. And 12% are saying too harsh. They love their order. College graduates, actually very similar. There's definitely more who will say too harsh, but there's still a plurality amongst college grads for the not harsh enough figure. Same for the non-college graduates

figure, although the number is higher amongst not sure. Amongst Democrats even, the about right figure is the one that really takes the cake at 30%. So even amongst people who necessarily support the protests are saying it is about right for the police response. Republicans and independents, independents actually relatively split, republicans obviously saying it's not been harsh enough, and then a similar breakdown there amongst religion. Finally, let's go to the next part. This is just on the latest parts. This is about protecting free speech. This can be relatively grim as somebody who definitely supports free speech. Do Americans think colleges should focus more on protecting free speech or stopping hate speech? U.S. adult citizens say both equally, even though stopping

hate speech is a fake thing and is not real. I mean, you can understand how people say it, though. You know what I mean? This is one of the most unifying questions, actually, where you see some divides among like older people are more likely to say stop hate speech. Whereas most people who are like, yeah, both. Like, I want to protect it. But hate speech is bad and free speech is good. Let's do both. So, I don't know.

Even though from an ideological perspective, obviously, I think protecting free speech is more important. But it doesn't—I understand why they got these results, I guess I would say. I see what you're saying. Yeah. If you're a normal person, you're not thinking, well, actually, there's no such thing as hate speech as opposed to free speech. Yeah. Technically, the First Amendment even applies to it. Which is true.

You're like, let's do both. All right. If both's an option, let's do both. Right. Okay. Fair enough. As Crystal teased, though, there definitely is a difference in terms of Vietnam War protests. Before we get to that, I want to ask you what your takeaway or what you think the implications of these polls are.

My implication is that it's either a wash, it will be marginally important. But the reason why I actually don't pay attention to much of this, as I do to, there was a recent column, we didn't cut it, unfortunately, that I just read this morning about why this is very different from Vietnam, is that all of the polling that we have says that Israel-Palestine is not number one or even top five. And if anything, is a 15 out of 16 issue for the vast majority of people, including for young people. Whereas in Vietnam, Vietnam was top five, and in many cases was number one and number two. The truth is, is that most people either don't care or they're marginally just like kind of interested in like, yeah, whatever this chaos, maybe I support it, maybe I don't. And the real evidence to me was the huge, not sure numbers in all of these, because one things that really comes out in

Vietnam, people were damn sure how they felt. They either felt strong or opposed because people had thought a lot about Vietnam. Whereas with this one, I mean, look, I've said this before. If you watch the show every single day, you're in like the top one to 2% of news consumers in this whole country. And yeah, you know, we cover the news in the same way. If you go to the front page of the New York Times, Israel, White House, Trump trial and all that stuff, maybe five, 10% of the country, of the country actually checks in every single day because at that time, 1.9 million Americans had been drafted into the armed forces, 55,000 killed. The level of civic engagement around the issue was just so much higher that I don't really see

it making all that much of a difference. Based on the polling, I would say I would probably be on the side, you know, polling just pure like popularity-wise of either the about-right figure or of the crackdown. That just seems to be the more popular response. I'm not saying I support that. I don't for free speech purposes. But I'm just telling you, like, for political purposes, that's probably where I would align if I were a politician. So you think Joe Biden is handling this well? Unfortunately, he's probably doing his best, given the coalition that he has. He's got the suburban ladies. The abortion ladies are coming out to vote for him. Yeah, he's already got them. The boomers are loving it. The young people mostly don't vote in particular. They're making life miserable for everybody else. It's like, well, you know, most people, we know how that turns out. Most people are going to turn against that,

even amongst college protests. But who are they making life miserable for? This hasn't impacted your life or my life. Not yet. I mean, it's different than— I'm just waiting to get stuck in traffic. It is different from, like, the Black Lives Matter protests. So we've talked about that. So I think your point about the probably more important numbers are for how many people this is a critical issue. Yes.

Right. This is their number one issue. This is their voting issue. Yes. Right, this is their number one issue. This is their voting issue. Yeah. And I agree with you. I think that's probably a small number, but it only really takes a small number. Yeah, we'll see.

But, you know, I mean, look at the uncommitted vote in Michigan. There were a few states where the uncommitted vote itself in a Democratic primary was larger than the margin that Joe Biden won against Donald Trump. So in that way, even if it's only a small percentage, you say this is my number one issue, you clearly have some part of the young population in particular who were likely Biden voters who were like, no, not doing it. Can't vote for someone who is funding agenda, just not going to do it. And that's a problem for him. The reason I disagree about his response goes back to the analysis. It's similar to the analysis of why I thought

he made a big mistake in terms of how he handled immigration. Okay. And there's studies, especially of politicians in Europe that show when they try to move to the right and be like, no, I'm actually an immigration hardliner as well. It demoralizes their base and divides their base. And it seeds ground to that right wing perspective so that if people are like, oh, well, even this guy agrees with the, you know, the right on immigration. So why am I going to go for the watered down version of that? If I want the law and order crackdown, dude, I'm going with Donald Trump all day long. So I think that's number one. Number two is that the thing that has caused the impression of like chaos is not actually the students who are in relatively small numbers on each of these campuses, like setting up tents.

It's the crackdown. It's the police response. It's the police coming in, brutalizing these students. In fact, the initial crackdown at Columbia sparked a massive increase in these protests across the country. So I think the response itself has created this impression of chaos that is a problem for Joe Biden with his moderate suburban voters. Now, in my opinion, those moderate suburban voters are already voting for him. They're not going back to Trump. They're voting for him, many of them very energized by Dobbs, as you're accurately pointing out. This issue is not important to them.

They don't really care either way. So I think he has, number one, divided his own base and coalition. We see that in some of the numbers. Number two, further alienated some potentially small, but also potentially determinative number of young people who are like, you just called me a Nazi. Like, no, I'm not voting for you. And there's nothing you can say. It's going to change my mind at this point. And number three has created exactly the scenes of chaos that can lead to a conservative backlash that is not going to be like, you're the law and order, dude. They're going gonna be like, you're the law and order, dude. They're gonna be like, Trump's the law and order, dude. That's who I'm going with.

The counter to what you're saying is BLM, is that if Joe Biden had embraced defund, he 100% would have lost. I'm absolutely convinced of it. Now, he basically tries to distance himself from the protest movement. But he actually was much more sympathetic rhetorically to BLM than he was here. You're right, but he did enough of a job of dissing himself from the violence and not all riot is the voice of the unheard and everybody's suddenly MLK Jr. All of a sudden back in 2020, no black squares on Instagram and no anti-racism Ibrahim Kendi. And that was enough for some moderate voters to come along with him. But let me say though, that contradicts

some analysis from you in the past where you've said, and this is true even, you know, you've made this point about Republicans and abortion, for example, or with the Democrats. Like, even though, I don't know, did any Democratic politicians, elected members of Congress, did any of them actively say defund the police? Joe Biden certainly didn't. But your point was a salient one, which is like, it doesn't really matter because they're associated with this thing. Yeah, that's right. And Joe Biden was associated with that thing. He was, as I said, rhetorically much more sympathetic to the protesters, was very clear about, yes, I condemn the violence, but let's not use that to distract from the core issues and these core concerns,

which are legitimate. And, you know, obviously, he became president of the United States. The point I'm trying to make is that I definitely think he paid a political price. I think, though, that if he had not navigated it and more of the way that he did, which was trying to split the difference, like in a kind of establishment friendly way, I think he would have lost. I think if he'd been more AOC on the topic, let's say, in terms of people are stealing bread because they're hungry and more like, listen, you know, we got to hear people out. But at the end of the day, I don't condemn violence. He would have lost the election. So let me make the

counterpoint, which is that if you look back at the polls, when Trump really started to have a problem was after, remember the whole Bible photo op and the, I don't remember which federal agency it was. There were peaceful protesters that were like cracked down, the horses came in. It was crazy. It was crazy. And there was a huge backlash to that. And the problem, part of the problem for him in terms of his response at the time is there was chaos and it was happening under him. So my point is that Joe Biden, by greenlighting this crackdown, has created the very chaos that, yes, is a problem for him, and that it sort of doesn't really matter what he says

about it because the chaos is happening under him. And if his response is to be like, we need a crackdown and we'll see what he says about college student protesters today, he's giving some big speech on anti-Semitism. Like, if you're looking for the, if you are, you know, horrified by what you're seeing on college campuses and you want the law and order guy, that's never going to be Joe Biden. That's going to be Donald Trump. The thing is about the Trump thing though, is that there were a majority of the public at the time who supported calling in the National Guard in response to the riots. So it is more complicated. And I don't disagree. He owns the chaos because in a lot of ways, he was like police response, but then wouldn't go all out. And he was all over the

place in terms of his, and then what he hid in his bunker during the protests. I remember that big story as well. And don't forget COVID on top of that either. So he's not, you're not wrong. He paid a price for sure. Now, was it all riots? Was it COVID? I mean, it's very difficult to say. I guess just focusing on this, let's turn to Vietnam because this is actually important and instructive. Let's put this up there on the screen. For example, how Americans felt about the campus protests against the Vietnam War. So as you accurately pointed out in your monologue yesterday, a majority of respondents blame the students, not just for violence, but specifically in the deaths of the four students.

Yeah, we actually have put the next piece up because we have an overall number about approve or disapprove of public protests. 75%. Which is why I'm like, well, the protest perception now is actually not that bad compared to this. No, you're not wrong. The other point I want to make about this, which was noteworthy to me in looking into this, is that this was taken in November 69. At this point, public sentiment had already really turned against Vietnam. You had a majority, in fact, I have somewhere the actual numbers, but you had a very clear majority who were opposed to it, who said it was a mistake to ever send US soldiers there. And you had, I think it was

somewhere in the 30s who were still supporting it. So even though public sentiment at this point agreed with the protesters, there was this very like visceral reaction against the protests themselves, which is, you know, it's just interesting that that can be two separate questions that they can support the issue in general, but also be like, you know, no to these protests. It makes sense to me, though, because what you're saying is actually, unfortunately, was very different in terms of Vietnam context. So even though the majority of the people who had supported and said, it was kind of like Iraq, where we're like, well, we never should have gone. But now that we're there, we need peace with honor. And that was Nixon's entire thing. And that's, again, the protest. I mean, remember, Nixon is elected in

68 and escalates the war in Vietnam. The number of deaths actually increased. We have the secret bombing of Cambodia. Vietnamization doesn't happen until later on in the Nixon presidency, where U.S. soldiers are still dying by the hundreds every week in Vietnam. It's insane, actually, to go back and to think about. So I kind of think that the protest movement, you know, in terms of the evidence from back in the day, is very strong for the fact that it was immediate backfire. It didn't work in the immediate term or the near term. We didn't really look back like, quote unquote, fondly on Vietnam War protesters until like the 1990s when Bill Clinton was elected. Actually, this was an important thing in the 92 election when I think H.W. Bush called him a draft-dodging bum or

something because he got a college exemption for a Rhodes scholarship, and he had hair, and he smoked weed at the Vietnam protests. And that was the first time it kind of didn't matter that somebody had opposed the Vietnam War. And that was 30 years later after something. So saying the political fallout from those protests basically led to quasi-Republican rule from 1968 with a brief aberration of Jimmy Carter up until, what, yeah, 1992. The same thing actually can be said of the civil rights protests. Do we have the sit-in graphic? We do.

That's, I think, the last graphic that we have. So this question, this is an important one too. This is extraordinary. This gets to what I talked about previously. 1961, people are asked about the sit-in protests. Do you think sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes will hurt or help the Negro chance of being integrated in the South? Hurt, 57%. Help, 27%. Now, you can look at

that two ways. You can say, and I totally disagree with whoever this tweeter is, as the most iconic and effective protest movement. I don't think it was effective, actually, at all in the moment. And this gets to a point that I was dying to bring up with you, which is about abolition and about how the history of these things actually happen. So in 1860, 1861, you have the Southern secessionists, they go out and the radical Republicans come to Lincoln. They're like, we got to do abolition, man. We got to do the Emancipation Proclamation. It's time. The rabble rousers are gone. And Lincoln famously says, I would like to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky. As in, we have to have the border slave states who stay within the union. So who was correct in the long run? The practical,

political practitioner, Abraham Lincoln, who understands abolition is incredibly unpopular, that these radical abolitionists, quote unquote, who we view fondly now at the time, but who had maybe 9% approval rating in 1860, were they correct to trying to push him to do something that was very unpopular? Or was he correct to basically lie about his position and work within the political system at the time and force abolition and the emancipation through, basically as a war aim, lying to the American people and saying, well, we're doing it to win the Civil War. It has nothing to do actually with black liberation, even though that's an end result. And I think that's a very important question is like, you know, who is the who is really responsible? I would say Lincoln is the one who's responsible. Well, so let me ask you this.

Is your opinion that no protest movement in history has ever mattered or been successful? No, but that seems to be what you're laying out here. But I'm giving people good evidence. So in 1961, the chances of a Civil Rights Act was zero. But you're creating a binary choice though. I mean, what you're basically saying is the only thing that matters is these individual great men. None of the social movements, none of the protest movements, the sit-ins, the freedom riders, the abolitionists, the suffragettes, the anti-apartheid protests, none of these things matter at all. All that matters is that you get one dude in there who's going to do the right thing. And I think that that is a fundamental misreading of history. I think it's you have to have a confluence of factors, right? The social movements are critical.

Having like the labor movement pressuring FDR. These things are critical for pressuring these people in power to make these steps in history that are important. So I just can't go along with the idea that protest never works. It always backfires. It's always foolhardy. Because when I look at the lunch counter sit-in numbers, the conclusion is the exact opposite. It's not only did people disapprove, they found it disorderly, chaotic, et cetera, et cetera, just like the reaction, you know, among many to the protests now. Not only that, they said, this is going to create a backlash, just like you're saying, this is going to be a problem, this is going to make it worse. And I don't think any reading of history can look at that and say that's accurate. And so the fact that a protest movement

is not accepted by normie Americans, is, you know, uncomfortable for them, rejected where they think it's going to be a backlash, et cetera, is not at all determined if you look at history of how successful those movements are ultimately going to be. So, you know, the apartheid movement in the 80s is like a great example of that. And it's probably a more close example to Israel than Vietnam, because you're right. There was much more focus on Vietnam. It was a much longer period of time. You had Americans getting drafted. You had Americans dying. I mean, this was massive, right? The apartheid example, I think, is a much more closely related one. But you still had the same, like, normie backlash. You still had, I feel like,

Fareed Zakaria out there, you know, like, what are you kids doing? And he really, yeah, he was on the wrong side of that one. Yeah. Yeah. That got dug up recently in terms of context, whatever, anyway. And, um, but, but they mattered. They helped. Were they the only thing? No, but they were part of a global movement combined with internal struggle within South Africa itself that contributed to a climate that ended that racist regime. So I guess my question for you is like, put yourself in the shoes of these college students. I don't know you don't agree with their perspective. That's fine. But I think you are, I think you understand they're not doing this for like clout. They genuinely feel very passionate

that there is a genocide that is being conducted in their name with their dollars. And they want to do whatever they can think of to do to throw some sand into these gears and to desperately try to stop these horrors that they see unfolding in front of their eyes. Like, what would you tell them to do? It's a tough question. I mean, sometimes you have to understand, too, that you have no influence on the system. I mean, I felt this way whenever Congress passes Ukraine aid and we spend two years talking about how it's useless, how it's a stupid cause, how it's just going to waste more life. And we get the majority of the American public on our side. And then Congress passes it anyway. What did I do the next day? I put on my

suit and I came back to work. I mean, like, what else are you going to do? Sometimes you got to know when you're beat. There was no significant protest movement with regard to Ukraine. And I think it is not correct to look at the response of Joe Biden and the Democrats and say they're not feeling the pressure. They very clearly are. I mean, I think, like, we know the US was involved, and I believe this reporting was involved in trying to secure this ceasefire deal. Barack Ravid, who is the White House whisperer in all of this, is saying they see this as really important politically. Because Joe Biden obviously doesn't care about Palestinians. He's obviously a committed Zionist. He is feeling political pressure from this protest movement. That to me is very clear. And so since we don't really live

in the kind of democracy where the majority rules and just you get public sentiment on your side and that's it, that pressure that he feels from this movement is what counts way more than whether normies are upset about a campus building and a window broken and the encampments. The disruption itself is creating the pressure. That is the thing that could, I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but that could change things. I don't disagree. I do think we're flirting right along the line right now of the same danger that happened

back in the 1960s, where the disruption can turn and can actually be going against the disruption, can become a political asset. The reason I bring all these things up is not because I revel in the fact that America was frankly very sympathetic with the Jim Crow South, or at the very least didn't think it was their problem. It's only to say that I know that that was the reality. And so like, let's, you know, the sit-in thing is the perfect example. Like this person calls it the most effective protest.

It's just not true. 1961 was a time when the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy, his Attorney General, support rhetorically the civil rights protesters. At the day that Kennedy died, the likelihood of a Civil Rights Act being passed, 0%. It was his death and LBJ that eventually the genius of LBJ ushers in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But then even to say that these people were wrong, I don't think they were wrong. The truth is, is that race politics then rules the Republican Party in the South for what? 1968 race riots are basically the reason that Nixon gets elected. Then Ronald Reagan, everybody seems to just forget this, happens to launch his 1980

campaign in Mississippi at the very heart of some serious segregationist sympathies. I mean, the year I was born in 1992 in Texas, 50% of the public did not support interracial marriage, which is nuts. That actually happened the year that I was born. But the question then, the logical question out of that then is, okay, so was it worth it? And I think most people would say, myself included, of course, of course, getting the Civil Rights Act passed and ending segregation, ending Jim Crow, even knowing that it did create this, you know, this LBJ, we lost the South for a general, him being right up, like he knew that that was going to happen. It was still worth it. And so you're like, if your argument to me is

like, oh, now Democrats are going to lose elections. You think I fucking care about that? I don't care about that. That's a fair point. Like I, if, if I knew that Democrats were going to lose elections for the next 20 years straight, but the genocide in Gaza was going to end. Sign me up for that deal today. And I think that's the way that many of these students, they're not worried about how Democrats are going to do in the fall. The fact that they're a threat to Democratic electoral chances is the only thing that gives them power because the Democrats certainly don't care about human life in Gaza. So yeah, it's a problem for Democrats electorally. Their policy in Gaza is a problem

for them electorally. The way they're treating young people is a problem for them electorally. The chaos that they themselves created is a problem for them electorally. And to that, I say, good, it should be. It should be a problem for you. I agree. And I'm glad. I mean, you're honest about it, but they're not, right? I mean, these people are craven self-interest politicians. Like I'm saying you and the protesters are like, yeah, we don't care about the Democrat. I'm with you, by the way. I'm with you.

What I'm saying for them is these politicians, they're craven. They don't care. They're, you know, narcissistic. All they want to do is really get reelected at the end of the day. Which is why causing problems for their reelection is the only strategy. Because it's not like saying screw you is more electorally beneficial, which I think is a decent polling that there is. We've been, you know, ceasefire has been a majority position since like day two of this war. Definitely. Public opinion has been on the side of these protesters, not maybe in

terms of the protest tactics, but in terms of what they're actually protesting for a long time now. And it hasn't mattered. So if this is your number one issue, if you cannot sleep at night, seeing these children starving to death, children being bombed, knowing these are our tax dollars, what else are you going to do? This is the only, and they have been so disciplined, 99% nonviolent. The worst thing they've done is break a window and enter one campus building, okay? That is incredible discipline, very big contrast.

Definitely. With the 70s protests and with the Black Lives Matter protests as well. Like, this is not guaranteed to work, but at least it has a chance of working. And I think that's all you can bet on is that, like, I'm doing everything I can think to do. I'm being principled in my nonviolent tactics, which they really have been. And even now, even with the, I mean, I've never seen a media propaganda campaign like what we're seeing with this. I genuinely, this is beyond war on terror, whole of politics, congressional response, banning TikTok, Dana Bash and Fox News making common cause with Bibi Netanyahu over these kids

are Nazis and Joe Biden, the whole bit, everybody in league. and you still have a clear plurality of Democrats who are like, nah, I'm with the protesters. I mean, that is pretty extraordinary. The Democratic base is quite split with specifically regards to the protest tactics, in spite of the most insane propaganda campaign I've ever seen. And the American public is very clearly on the side of the protesters in terms of wanting to secure a ceasefire and the end, and not supporting for their aid to Israel and saying the Israeli military has gone too far. Like they're on their side in that. So yeah, I think this is the only thing that has even a chance of making

a difference. And so I, you know, I say, God bless these protesters. Thank God for them. We'll find out. We'll find out whether there's a cost or not. 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 multibillion-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 six on June 4th. Ad-free at Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is season two of the War on Drugs podcast. Yes, sir. We are back. In a big way.

In a very big way. Real people, real perspectives. This is kind of star-studded a little bit man we got uh ricky williams nfl player hasman trophy winner it's just a compassionate choice to allow players all reasonable means to care for themselves music stars marcus king john osborne for brothers osborne we have this misunderstanding of what this quote-unquote drug thing is. Benny the Butcher. Brent Smith from Shinedown.

Got B-Real from Cypress Hill. NHL enforcer Riley Cote. Marine Corps vet. MMA fighter Liz Karamush. What we're doing now isn't working, and we need to change things. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does.

It makes it real. Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear episodes one week early and ad-free with exclusive content, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. 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 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. All right, Sagar, what are you looking at? Well, political correctness is killing comedy. That's a sentiment I may have agreed with like seven years ago when Louis C.K. lost tens of millions of dollars over a New York Times story and decades-old allegations. It's a comment maybe I would have agreed with when comedy movies themselves were basically stopped being made in Hollywood like a decade ago as the latest Marvel films were coming out. But it's not really a sentiment that I agree with anymore, and in fact, increasingly, think is being used by people who aren't funny to complain about their own mediocrity. This monologue was really inspired by both the roast of Tom Brady that I watched on Netflix yesterday, and juxtaposed next to

another Netflix star, Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld is hot off of his latest project, Unfrosted, where doing his media tour, he made some interesting comments about comedy and what is stifling it, according to him. Let's take a listen. Oh, Cheers is on. Oh, MASH is on. Oh, Mary Tyler Moore is on. All in the Family's on. You just expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight. Well, guess what? Where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC crap and people worrying so much about offending other people. When you write a script and it goes into four or five different hands, committees, groups, here's our thought about this joke. Well, that's the end of your comedy. They move the gates like in skiing.

Culture, the gates are moving. Your job is to be agile and clever enough that wherever they put the gates, I'm going to make the gate. So according to Seinfeld, the extreme left and PC crap has killed comedy. Now, maybe there would be something to that if it wasn't for the fact that the movie he produced, Unfrosted, is probably one of the dumbest, anodyne, and boring comedies that I've ever had the indignity to suffer through for research purposes of this monologue. What really revealed to me, though, is how dumb Seinfeld's take here is, especially with the release of the Tom Brady roast that just happened. Now, everyone should go watch this roast. I don't even watch football, and I got all the references. But what I really took away from watching it was how dead political correctness and so-called woke left limits on comedy are now.

This is mainstream comedy roast on the most establishment of all places, Netflix, with people like Kim Kardashian and Ben Affleck in attendance. It's about as establishment as it gets. And with that, they allowed the madman Tony Hinchcliffe to sound off like this. Tom is afraid of the giants, which is why Kevin Hart is hosting tonight. All night, he's been using the stool that Aaron Hernandez kicked out from under himself.

Kevin is so small that when his ancestors picked cotton, they called it deadlifting. Tom Brady is a patriot, which is surprising considering he looks like a confederate fag. Clearly your ex-wife takes after you. I hear she's out there draining balls right now. People love you, Tom. You have the same fan base as Kyle Rittenhouse. Gronk, I'm happy you could take a break from writing Santa letters to be here today. I knew you were here when we were all out of chocolate milk backstage. You look like the final boss in George Floyd the video game. Jeff is so Jewish he only watches football for

the coin toss. Nikki has such a bad eating disorder the industry keeps shoving her down our throat. You might recognize her from her podcast appearances, specials, and winning the triple crown at Churchill Downs. You might recognize Kevin as the jockey that rode her, and that's Churchill Downs the racetrack, not to be confused with what Jeff Ross looks like when he smokes a cigar. Sam Jay, an obese African-American lesbian. So by having here, Netflix checked off a lot of boxes.

Andrew Schultz, I'm glad you took a break from watching YouTube videos on how to dap up black dudes correctly. Schultz's mom is a professional ballroom dancer, which means she's a stripper that talks too much. Bert Kreischer is a king. He looks like if the Tiger King and the Liver King only ate Burger King and had a liver that looked like Martin Luther King got beat up by Rodney King.

And how about the appearance from the great Ron Burgundy, huh? A whale's vagina, which reminds me, Kim Kardashian's here. She's had a lot of black men celebrate in her end zone. Kim, word of advice, close your legs. You have more public beef than Kendrick and Drake. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Tom.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Netflix. So we have gay jokes, black jokes, Jew jokes, sex jokes, retard jokes. I mean, is it me or is it 2005? Am I watching The Office and is Comedy Central on? The best part, despite the fact that this was watched by millions, including Hollywood darlings, like I said, Kevin Hart, Ben Affleck, all these others, I couldn't even find a single think piece about how mean-spirited

it was, or how Tony Hinchcliffe and Andrew Schultz and Bert Kreischer or Jeff Ross or any of these other people should never work again. If you need proof that the PC comedy era is over, that's the proof right there. And let's not forget the real sign that before Seinfeld even spoke about how dead this comedy is, Shane Gillis, who was literally canceled from Saturday Night Live for his jokes about Asians in 2019, was invited to host Saturday Night Live this year, 2024. And while he was there, he made jokes about people with Down syndrome. Now, there may have been a few tweets criticizing him at the time,

but let's be real, nothing even close to the cancel brigade of the late 2010s. If anything, Shane Starr is even brighter and he is hosting shows with Schultz directly for Netflix, selling out massive arenas. Now, I don't write any of this to say that political correctness and woke influences on comedy were never a problem, only to say that I don't think it's really a problem anymore. And that people who rely on the crutch for why it's ruining comedy, maybe they have another agenda that they're trying to push. Like, I don't know, maybe the fact that Jerry is deciding to make these comments at the exact moment that his wife is donating huge amounts of money to pro-Israel protesters, and that he has

been urging people to read Barry Weiss's The Free Press, and broadly has decided to now enter the fray as a pro-Israel voice since October 7th. Can't help but notice that Unfrosted co-star Amy Schumer also been doing the exact same thing lately. If anything, they appear to be the new snowflakes, crying about the fact that people disagree with them in public, and then blaming their middling performance or their products on the very forces they participated in when it was something that was on their side. Now, as for why any of this matters, it's because I've always thought comedy is like a decade ahead of where a lot of the media ends up. It's not a coincidence that comedy

podcasts are really what birthed the podcasting format. It was the falling apart of the establishment comedy on controlled forces that gave rise to YouTube and podcast popularity and that presses show like ours, many others who entered that fray later on. So take from this what you will. I'll just take the victory and notice that what's really popular again today and what even establishment forces are okay with, maybe that's a bright spot for the future.

I mean, Chrysal, how can you see that? And if you want to hear my reaction to Cybers monologue, become a premium subscriber today at breakingpoints.com. We are extraordinarily fortunate to be joined by a remarkable guest this morning. Dr. Moira Lang is a palliative care doctor. She just recently returned from Gaza, where she visited many places, including Al-Najjar Hospital, which is in Rafah. Obviously, it's very relevant given the ground invasion that just began in Rafah. Dr. Welcome. It's great to have you. Thank you. It's great to be here.

Yeah. So first, just tell us the context in which you were in Gaza and a little bit of what you saw there. Sure. I've had the privilege, incredible privilege of traveling to Gaza for 10 years and working with colleagues in hospitals, in universities. And this particular visit, I was able to see what was happening to people who are living with illnesses such as cancer, kidney disease, heart disease, and to visit the colleagues and healthcare colleagues who are taking care of them. We were looking particularly, for example, at pain relief. Pain relief has been almost zero in Gaza during this last period. And I spent time, yes, in Al-Najjar Hospital, in Fatima al-Zahra Hospital, that's the oncology service that has

been displaced three times already, and as well as neonatal hospitals and primary care hospitals in Rafah. Doctor, what can you tell us about some of the remaining healthcare facilities? You're talking there about the reduction in pain medicine and others. We hear about the destruction of the infrastructure. What was it like to actually witness firsthand? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, number one, it's an absolute privilege always to spend time with colleagues in Gaza

and some of the most inspirational, courageous and compassionate people that I know. The first thing that struck me was that the health care colleagues were utterly and completely exhausted. They had been working under these conditions for six months. They had been displaced personally and professionally. Every time their hospital displaced, you lose what little supplies you'd built up. They had not been paid any salary for six months. The price of basic foodstuffs was sky high, making it impossible for their families. They were not sleeping any night. I was not sleeping any night, continually all night, drones and bombs. And yet they were still coming to work and doing the best they could. So that's the first thing I'd say.

And it was a pleasure to see people that I've known. I've taught in the medical school. So, you know, some of the young doctors. Would you believe I was teaching communication and ethics just last August? And that brought up many a conversation about what ethics looked like in health care. But it was a pleasure to see people doing their utmost best, but I couldn't believe how exhausted they were. There was a little bit of teasing about how much weight everybody had lost. But the reality was minimum 15 to 20 kilograms. And that was in a place that had some access to food. I was only able to be in telephone contact with those in the north so I said that's my first thing

that struck me the second is everywhere was full the hospital on the shower a small district hospital over the years Rafa has said you know give us a big hospital but there was a big hospital just a few miles up the road in Han Yunis and then the major one, obviously, in North Gaza. That hospital should have had 60 beds. It had anything between 600, 700 patients coming through the hospital and even more than 1,000 in the accident emergency. It was the first point of call for trauma. Even though it only had a simple x-ray machine and some ultrasound now. In fact, the doctors told me they felt they were working with their hands tied behind their back. And they told me stories of young people with diabetes coming in

with very dangerous blood tests, something called potassium, very, very low. It's a known complication. Yet they couldn't test for that. And so the patient should have been in ICU, should have had blood tests all the time they were still managing to care for those patients and one young doctor told me how he slept for 48 hours next to the bed of a young man his age who was dying of diabetic ketoacidosis that's this complication of diabetes and actually managed somehow to help that patient survive. So exhausted healthcare staff, dreadful, dreadful circumstances, patients in huge trouble with their chronic illness, and then their new illness, such as a pneumonia or an infection,

and then maybe also a traumatic event with an injury. So all of those combined, and still people trying to care with compassion. Wow. Doctor, you talked about how there was basically no pain management, which, you know, sounds very, I guess, sanitized when you say it. If you are a patient who is suffering from a traumatic injury, if you are struggling with aggressive cancer? What does that actually look like? And what does it look like to try to care for these individuals who are in absolutely excruciating pain? Because we've all seen the reports of even children

having to undergo amputations with no anesthetic. Women having to have cesareans with no anesthetic. Yeah, thank you for that question. I want to put it in the context that globally this is a big issue. I've spent 30 years of my professional career with other brilliant colleagues trying to work on this issue because this is a problem in many places. But when you're in this kindesthetic, the children, the mothers with cesarean sections without anaesthetic or with minimal, or you get maybe one dose of a painkiller because that's all there, but nothing afterwards. Think of rehabilitating from your severe injury, all the dressings changes. Think of the burns patients. I spoke to some of my colleagues whose parents died of severe burns

and they watched them cry as they died. And this is no criticism of my colleagues. And then you move to the cancer. I had just had the privilege of working with my Gaza colleagues to train 20 amazing multidisciplinary Gaza colleagues in pain and palliative care. They have the skills. We were about to graduate them.

They were pharmacists and doctors and physios and nurses. And they were saying, you gave us the skill and we can't use it. And the stories they told of the cancer patients, children, as well as adults, just crying, crying in pain was absolutely devastating. I have to say the day we were there, they had got a small donation through UNICEF, had arrived in Fatima al-Zahra. That was the clinic for the oncology hospital, beautiful oncology hospital called the Turkish Palestine Friendship Hospital in Northern Gaza.

They had been displaced now three times and they got some. And immediately my colleagues were coming to me and saying, you know, we know how to do this. Let's get on and do this. But they also told me that every time they were displaced, they usually lost all their supplies. And yesterday that panic was displaced again. And I have no idea whether where they've been displaced to, I mean, where can they be displaced to? We'll even have a drop of analgesia. And it's absolutely heartbreaking and unimaginable

suffering. Yeah. Doctor, you mentioned there the weight loss, just to translate for our U.S. audience, that's about 33 to 44 pounds that you're describing in terms of that. We've heard a lot here about the destructive effect of famine and the lack of aid. What did you witness with respect to famine and also to the lack of humanitarian aid being allowed into the Strip? As you come into Rafah through across the Sinai Desert, the first thing you see, that's the crossing from Egypt into Gaza, the south. The first thing you see is queues and queues and queues of trucks. And I have to say my heart sank. And I had a deep sense of shame that, you know know that humanitarian and access to humanitarian

aid is a basic right it's enshrined in in international law and it was awful to see that um what we saw in Rafa at that point was people somehow getting by I mean a kilo of chicken or two kilos of chicken they hadn't had any for months some arrived frozen from egypt and i think it was 50 or 60 dollars to buy enough for a family and i remember i said no one had been paid um so they were somehow managing there was a few tins coming in um and people were getting by but were still losing weight and of course once you start losing below a certain level you're using up all of your protein stores you become liable to infections i saw people dying of pressure sores now that's a combination of untreated wounds of not enough water no hygiene because you're living in circumstances where there is either no toilet

facilities or one shared between hundreds and can imagine hygiene it's getting hot now and that that kind of infections were rising that's a result of malnutrition but even worse i was hearing from northern gaza i had two long calls with a very dear colleague i've worked with a long time a tomato was costing seven dollars people were dying trying to catch the food coming from the sky. I think you've seen the pictures on that. And all of this is one hour from where I used to come into Gaza when the era is crossing. So, you know, it's not like an earthquake

in a distant mountainous place. This is just beside where food and water are available. And I also attended the meeting where we got an update on the nutritional status. And there's four stages before you get to famine. And each of those stages had been crossed and crossed. And now we were looking at moving in northern Gaza fully into famine. And that is not severe malnourishment.

That is imminent death of thousands. And it hardly ever happens. We see malnutrition, but a man-made famine is almost unheard of. Dr. Wang, we covered this morning how the ground invasion, long threatened, of Rafah has begun, along with airstrikes. The IDF has taken control of the Palestinian side of the border, has shut that crossing with Egypt there in Rafah. As someone who has been in Rafah, when you hear that news, when you see those images,

what does that mean to you? Yeah, I mean, I wasn't a lot of sleep last night. Obviously, we were communicating, trying to find out who was okay, where people were, what had happened. The very house that I was living in while I was there with colleagues has been evacuated. While I was there, there were bombs killing people happened the very house that i was living in while i was there with colleagues has been evacuated um while i was there there were bombs killing people in the house next door

and of course we remember the very the very public well publicized um deaths and killings of world central kitchen kitchen staff right i mean what i was hearing last night was just absolute panic no one had fuel they knew this might happen, but they had nowhere to go. They're trying to get out the way. Where can they go? They say they're moving for peace, but there's nowhere to go. There's nowhere safe to go. And people are just trying to desperately find a way to survive. I spoke to a colleague in Northern Gaza, a very dear colleague, working through the whole of this time. And he said to me, dear Moira, I'm so happy to hear you're in Gaza, but we have lost hope in the international community and our people are simply awaiting our fate. And that's the sense I had last night. Number one, where is the international

community to protect civilians, to protect healthcare, to protect the children and the sick. And also, where is the humanity? I see humanity every time I go to Gaza, and I've described already what I've seen. But I felt a deep sense of shame that as an international community, we have not upheld the dignity and humanity of the Ghazni people. Doctor, last question that I have for you is, you know, the healthcare system has been under attack routinely by the IDF. Some of the justification that's been used in the context of al-Shifa and other hospitals has been that these have been places where Hamas has been sheltering, understanding

that you were not in all places at all times, et cetera. I just wanted to ask you if you saw any evidence that would lead you to believe that there were Hamas operatives in any of the hospitals where you were. Thank you. I absolutely not. I saw no evidence in 10 years. And all the hospitals that have been mentioned in news reports and particularly al-shifa hospital was a hospital i knew well uh the senior colleagues that have been detained i knew well and can i just mention the courage of my gaza colleagues they are still going to work even when they know if that hospital is overrun they will be detained and we're hearing very very serious disturbing eyewitness reports of

of torture on detainees particularly for doctors um so i saw absolutely none of that i only saw i didn't see any military presence at all and i i there has not been any credible evidence shared and i would really again say we need independent journalism. We need independent international colleagues who can investigate and look into any of those allegations, but also can document which, according to the evidence presented to the international criminal courts, are evidence of war crimes. Got it. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. You're a very courageous woman and we appreciate your time very much. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Thank you so much for everything woman and we appreciate your time very much. Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Thank you so much for everything you've done. It's truly extraordinary. Thank you.

Thank you guys so much for watching. We appreciate you. Great CounterPoint show tomorrow. See you later. You experienced dad guilt? I hate it. She understands, but she's still prepared. She's like, dude.

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. I know a lot of cops. 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. This is Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated. I get right back there and it's bad. Listen to Absolute Season 1, Taser Incorporated on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Clayton English. I'm Greg Lott. And this is Season 2 of the War on Drugs podcast. Last year, a lot of the problems of the drug war.

This year, a lot of the biggest names in music and sports. This kind of star-studded a little bit, man. We met them at their homes. We met them at their recording studios. Stories matter, and it brings a face to them. It makes it real. It really does. It makes it real. Listen to does. It makes it real.

Listen to new episodes of the War on Drugs podcast season two on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.