Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 9/9/25: Zohran Dominates Every Issue In NYC, Israel Strikes Qatar, GenZ Gender Divide

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Zohran dominates Cuomo on every issue, Israel strikes Hamas in Qatar, Gen Z gender divide explodes.   Jeremy Scahill: https://x.com/jeremyscahill  Dave Weigel: https://x.com/daveweigel    To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Hi, it's Honey German, and I'm back with season two of my podcast. Grazias, come again. We got you when it comes to the latest in music and entertainment with interviews with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition? No, I didn't audition. I haven't audition in, like, over 25 years.

Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We'll talk about all that's viral and trending, with a little bit of cheesement and a whole lot of laughs. And of course, the great bevras you've come to expect. Listen to the new season of Dacias Come Again on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. What would you do if one bad decision forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth?

Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York state number, and we own you. you listen to shock incarceration on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Hi, it's jemmers bag, host of the psychology of your 20s. This September at the psychology of your 20s, we're breaking down the very interesting ways psychology applies to real life, like why we crave external validation. I find it so interesting that we are so quick to believe others' judgments of us and not our own judgment of ourselves. So according to the

The study, not being liked, actually creates similar pain levels as real-life physical pain. Learn more about the psychology of everyday life and, of course, your 20s. This September, listen to the psychology of your 20s on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here. Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere. else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all

put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. So we got a bunch of political topics to dig into, and our friend Dave Weigel from Semaphore. joins us now. We've got some new Zoron polling, and you were just at two very interesting conferences. So great to see you, Dave. Yes, good to be out of the conference. I'm sure. I'm sure. Let's go and put this polling, New York Times polling, on Zoran up on the screen, because this is pretty interesting. So this is the four-way race, which looks, you can tell me if this is wrong, but it looks like this is going to be the field. Zoron with a commanding lead, 46%, Cuomo at 24, Curtis Sliwa, beating Eric Adams, 15, and then 9% for Adams. The Trump administration reportedly was offering Adams the Saudi ambassadorship. He apparently turned it down. Sliwa says he's in the race. certainly Cuomo is he's in the race. So I think this is what the field is going to be.

They did test the head-to-head just Zoran versus Cuomo and Zoran still won, but it was a much, it was like by four points or something like that. Also interesting, if we put this next one up on the screen, this was kind of fascinating. So they dug into these different policy areas to see how New Yorkers felt about these various candidates. And Zoran came out on top in everything. So the one where he was closest was on crime. where he just edged out. Cuomo, I'm sure it's like a statistical tie there. But commanding lead

on affordability, commanding lead on housing, pretty solid lead on taxes and spending. And his largest lead, actually, is on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where 43 percent say they think he would do the best job on that issue. Of course, not that central to the New York City mayor's race, but in any case, his opponents tried to make it central to it. Cuomo is second at 16 percent, or actually really second is don't know or did not say at 21%. So, Dave, what do you make of these numbers? What sort of jumped out at you as significant, both in the head-to-head and then also with the issues? Well, Zoran's personal popularity, too.

That's another piece of data in this poll. He is the only candidate who most voters say they like. It's, I think, plus 13, everyone else is underwater. So everyone else is trying to do the classic multi-candidate field thing of dragging him below the water, but dragging themselves below the water, dragging each other below the water, too. No one's getting any advantage. Cuomo tried after, this is about three weeks ago. Tromo tried after reporting on the housing plans to say that Zoran was unfairly in a rent-stabilized apartment.

He'd sometimes say rate control, which is different. And if Andrew Cuomo's elected, there's going to be a reckoning with people with rent-stabilized departments. That's the first poll since then. That didn't work at all. That just wasn't affordability argument. That was a revenge argument. And people saw through it. Yes, and it is remarkable that knowing, with cover several months, though, this is the discourse

in the entire Democratic Party, several months to see that Zoran captured the affordability and new message, are they competing on that? No, they're very distracted by other issues. And even on the crime issue, Zoron's been saying for, I'm not trying to raise his campaign brochure for him, but since he got in the race, he renounced to fund the police, his answers on policing are not, I'm going to stop them from arresting anybody. Nobody can really make that stick because they're still operating like voters think he has the mindset of 2020. He no longer does. So you can't polygraph him, but he no longer does.

I mean, also, crime has come down in New York City. So it's also potentially not, not as much an issue as it was when Eric Adams was getting elected, for example. It was interesting to me, too, to see there that Adams is quite poorly on the issue of crime, even though, you know, he was police officer. He ran on that. That was sort of like his bread and butter. And crime has actually come down under his tenure. And yet Zoran has much higher approval. The other one that is just fascinating to me is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict number. And that was an issue, you know, Zoran was not trying to make that central to his campaign. But Cuomo and others in the Democratic primary were really trying to tag him with this label of, oh, he's an anti-Semi, and he just hates

Jewish people, and he hates Israel. He won't even travel to commit to traveling to Israel. He won't say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. And, you know, I think it's pretty clear, not only did that argument fail, but it actually redounded to his benefit ultimately, you know, for people who care about that issue, he is receiving the lion's share of the vote. And it also made them look like they were focused on these other superfluous issues while he was focused on affordability and issues that were core to New Yorkers. Yeah, and you said there's an intensity gap. So the voters who care most about this are not the Upper East Side.

The voters that everyone thought they were going after were a little bit outdated. Other Democrats had a view of the electorate that was very frozen in the 80s in views of how Jewish voters think of Israel. and they did not factor in two years of the demolition of Israel image, even with Jewish Americans, especially in New York. And there's a dismissal you find in the pro-Israel political community of younger groups that are on-campus active or in public active, the BDS movement, the Jewish members of that movement.

But there are a lot of them in New York. And so Zoran has that entire vote. The pro-Israel vote is divided between other candidates, but you're right. This was not the issue of the race. The other candidates thought they would get that. intensity gap. They would get most Jewish voters. That would be a block that would help Cuomo over the line. There are communities that happen for Cuomo, less so for Adams. Adams is literally running on the stop anti-Semitism ballot line, which one of the outlaws he got. They just, they overrated how

much of an issue this was. It does sound like something they're here a lot from high, highly, high-powered, from donors, from high-powered Democrats, from people who are worried in the Hamptons, a real thing that the Times is running about. And that it's not been the the main intensity. Are they're going to be voters who get a mayor Zoran and are disappointed that he's feuding in Netanyahu or something, possibly. It's not their top issue. For everyone who does want a major figure in the Democratic Party in their city to support an arms embargo, support changing Israel so that it's a secular state, as Zoran does, it's the most exciting candidate of their lifetime. So, of course, they're intense about him. Yeah. And I'm sure you saw Kirsten Gillibrand saying,

I think it was like a donor event, the nine of ten Democrats support Israel and it's like, you need to take a look at literally any poll. to, you know, adjust your views of where this issue is. That's a whole other sidetrack. We'll push that one to the side for now because I want to get to your coverage of, we'll talk about the abundance conference to begin with. We'll put C1 up on the screen here. So what were some of the things that they were grappling with?

And I know you were telling me before we started that actually Zoran was very sort of present at this conference in terms of a subject piece in how to deal with him. Because during the primary, he really kind of extended an olive brand. He embraces a lot of abundance style policies and, you know, sort of talk the talk, but they certainly don't see him as being one of them. No, yeah, when I talked to Zoran before the primary, that was one thing he emphasized. His vision and the whole campaign's vision is have a socialist mayor of New York who makes the rest of the country say, oh, this could work for me in every respect.

And that starts with housing and affordability. So at the conference, some specific examples where Rihon Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute, and there's an overlap of the abundance, but that's not the face of their movement, somebody let in their room. He said, look, I'm my family of Bangladeshi immigrants, when Zoran says, afford to live, afford to dream, that's thrilling to us.

That's the story that a lot of our parents had where they could buy a house and the kids could live in one of the extra rooms. Their kids can't afford a house. That was motivating for us, and he captured it, nobody else did. There was a session on polling and data, and it uncovered that, yes,

affordability is the most powerful message in politics, the top priority for voters, I should say. And there was a slide showing Zoran and that slogan on one half of the slide. The other half was Trump at McDonald's saying that there are ways to be populist and capture this affordability message. And those guys are pretty good at it. And we in the abundance movement do not have the branding, the power. We have reach and we have a lot of meetings and a lot of groups that are signing up on our YIMB agenda, but that we've not figured out a populist way to sell this the way Zoron has or to a lesser extent Donald Trump has. Can you talk a little bit more about the, like, where did this abundance movement come from?

Because I think for a lot of people, the perception was, you know, Derek Thompson, Ezra Klein, write this book. And then suddenly we've got abundance conferences and we've got abundance think tanks and this whole thing. Like, where did this come from? Yeah, they are key players in this. Thompson and Klein were writing about this in 2022, 2023. At the same time, there was a movement of liberals in cities who wanted to build more. And this came from frustration, really accelerating the Biden year.

Biden is president. Money is being shoveled out of the states, but you are a legislator in California or in New York or even in Colorado, and it's taking forever for you to build something. Because there's a joke, there's a line they like to say that there's no Democratic or Republican way to build a pothole. Well, there is a democratic way to fill a pothole, I should say. It is to have a six-month equity study and make sure that the pothole filling company is a minority owned, et cetera. So they were grappling. Okay, our Democratic Party has no trade-off agenda. at all. It just says everything to everybody. It takes forever to build. Biden presidency ends with so much money being clawed back by Trump because they didn't spend it. So they're trying to solve that national problem. But these two ideas sort of come together with a lot of help from donors. There are Silicon Valley donors, not just there, but some of the people like John Arnold starts in Enron, but now he's a bigger libertarian liberal philanthropist. And there are a lot of people say, well, we don't want the left to take over the Democratic Party. We do like this idea where there are Democrats who want to build things and spend things and deregulate. And this is actually

happening in some states, California, Scott Weiner, who's in that slide, in that picture, very progressive state senator wants to replace Pelosi when she retires as a pretty good chance. And he leads, he's one of the leaders to scale back the environmental law that was past the 1970s because every California's has experience with homeowners associations or energy companies, or just an angry boomer somewhere, saying, no, you can't build that six unit apartment building on this vacant lot because it'll block the view for my bungalow.

So it's a very local movement. Ezra, who's from California, is big into this, and columnists and reporters talk to politicians, talk to donors. It's not fully organic, but it was just a couple of different ideas about the Democratic Party's problems being, I'd say, elucidated the most,

the most, I guess, book-selling way by these two guys. And that's now the brand of the movement, but they didn't fully start it. Well, and talk a little bit more about who's in the movement, because you have liberals like Ezra and Derek, and then you have these more libertarians. I mean, at its core, like, this is an oversimplification, but a lot of it is just kind of like deregulation, you know, which obviously the libertarians have long loved. So are there tensions in the movement between these various factions of how to proceed? There are some.

So in the conference, you can go to their website, the donors include Stand Together, which is the Koch Organization, Pacific Legal Foundation, which is a libertarian legal group. They do have some differences. One of them, I'll draw a little bit in the article, is that where does immigration fit into this? Because there are progressives and libertarians who are very open-minded about immigration, get as many people in the, if you need asylum, you can move to my city, if you have high skills, even better, but we need to streamline the system. But there is a political worry from the more Democratic electability focus, abundance people that if Democrats are seen as the party that has no restrictions in immigration, then the homeowner who says, I want to vote for the party that's going to make it easier to fund a home, to build a home, to buy a home, is going to say, well, that party is going to give everything away to these new arrivals. I'm going to vote for the Republicans who say that they're going to do mass breed deportation, and I can have a cheaper housing, cheaper goods for that reason. So that was one conflict. It was actually between the libertarians and the more progressives on one side and the more

electorally minded liberals on another side. There are different views of what abundance means. Does it mean those restrictions to make it necessary? Does it mean just a deregulation where there are few tradeoffs? Part of the conference was about debating this. And I was at NatCon, the National Conservatives Conference, too. They frame themselves against that. They said, well, we're having our fights.

But on the other side is the Trump administration that believes in scarcity, that believes in deportation, we're not doing that. We're saying that the population of the country could grow steadily. We could have more. We could have big families and they don't have an answer for them. They want them to live on the AI generated farm with the tradwife. We want them to live in a single stair unit and maybe buy a bigger house when they're older because we freed up the housing market. We've made it legal to build things. So it's a very optimistic movement, but also very aware of all these political cross currents that make it hard to win.

Let's talk a little bit about that national conservatism conference, right? I don't know what it's called. Okay, let's put this up on the screen. This is C2 guys. And you say nationalists consolidate the U.S. right with one small crack. And I'm sure it was interesting to go, you know, back to back to these two conferences because with the abundance people, you've got a group of people who are like totally on a power in terms of the federal conversation with the nationalists.

They've got their guy in the White House and they've got Stephen Miller and they've got, you know, a whole administration, and they had time in the opposite season to, like, put together what their policy plan was. They're steamrolling through the Supreme Court. Zogger, and I covered that earlier. So, you know, how are they feeling about how all of this is going? Well, they're feeling great. You conveyed it.

They feel that Donald Trump is not going to have a problem leading this movement for another three years. Now, it doesn't have a serious threat to power. The left is in disarray, which I guess we just dealt with. Yeah. And then the old right, they're saying, the conservative ink is the popular term for it, are discredited, but they're going to try to take the party back over once Trump is gone. And there are Bannon's who say maybe he'll never be gone, but most of the movement thing,

yeah, in 2028 when it's a Rubio Vance primary. The crack I was referring to the headline is younger conservatives who are aligned with this, who agree with the movement's goals, who agree with deportations. There is a strain of America-first foreign policy thinking that includes, let's cut off all funding to Israel, and even let's not support the United States backing up Israel because they need our B-2 bombers to finish something their army couldn't, or their Air Force couldn't do. So that was the crack. And so Yoram Hazzoni, the leader of the conference of Ebenberg Foundation, et cetera, he uses his speech to say, we're winning. However,

I was really in denial about how many young people would have a problem with Israel and how many of our commentators. He didn't use the names, but it sounded like he meant Tucker Carlson. How many of our commentators, how many people are getting these new audiences and are critical of Israel. At this point point was never criticized Israel. It was, hey, I thought after the Iran bombing happened and World War III didn't happen, that would stop and it didn't. It looks like there's something very elemental here where people hear nationalism and they think not just let's have the strongest military in the world, but let's not be bailing out Ukraine or Israel or anyone else, viewing them the way that we view France. Nobody's saying, they need our help right now.

This other nuclear power in Europe needs our help and needs our military aid. So that was a fairly hot debate. There was a debate where leaders of the Heritage Foundation, Yoram, et cetera, we're listening as the American Conservative and Max Abrams, is actually Kurt Mills from the American Conservative and Max Abrams, a scholar at your Northeastern, we're debating this. Abrams saying you guys are discredited and there is an American role in defending Israel and Mills saying, no, this is going to ruin the entire movement and we're anti-interventionists and this doesn't fit in. So the final thing I'll say about that is national conservatism, it is rooted in a lot of politics in Israel, in Europe, that are not necessarily the same politics we have here.

Europe has a different experience with mass immigration than we do. It has longer traditions of ethnic homogeneity in their countries that are changing. They have more of a sort of natural blood and soil inclination than... Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in America, the country of manifest destiny and expanding into the frontiers and talking about buying Greenland, does that fit? There was some tension there, but the main tension was, well, forgetting about whether we should have, we have more in common with Israel as a project, why are we funding any war there whatsoever? Why are we on the hook? And isn't it going to discredit, this is one point that Mill's made. Young people are learning that all our movement does is cut taxes and give money for foreign wars,

that he was saying, this could all fall apart the way the neoconservative fell apart if we don't fix this. Yeah, well, there's a lot of parallels there. I mean, if you just described the agenda that way, that is the Bush administration agenda. Let me just play this one clip of Kurt Mills because I thought I was interesting. He's the American conservative executive director, also talking about the hypocrisy around speech issues. Remember, J.D. Vance went to Europe and lectured them about free speech. We continue to hear these lectures about European speech policies. And yet, of course, there's been a major attack on free speech here, especially when it comes to Israel, Palestine.

This is C3, guys. Let's go ahead and play this. On the home front, this dynamic is dementing. one can be forgiven for believing the only people this administration is reliably deporting are supporters of the Palestinian cause. After riding back into power on the appeal of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of this country's constitution, if conserving that isn't conservatism, I don't know what is. This administration has used this influence to attempt and curb and intimidate speech on Middle East issues, particularly the State Department.

After assembling and potentially generationally realigning cohort of voters disgusted with woke pieties and the suffocation of dialogue with incessant accusations of racism, Republicans have all too eagerly embraced holding the whip themselves, accusing countless unbigoted critics as anti-Semites instead of engaging on the issue. So, Dave, how is this message received in the room? In that room very well. This is a room, again, a lot of people pack this room. Not everything in the conference was this crowded. There were people standing along the walls. And younger, you could kind of tell if you were doing a quick mitochondrial survey of the room. Younger people in the room were laughing a lot more at his lines. The sort of thing RFK Jr. would do that.

That's what's going for. That mitochondrial scan. Also very popular at this conference. But even if they agreed with Abrams, that's this idea that we're giving up our sovereignty, if we're saying that we always have Israel's back, even if they're pursuing war aims that are not defensive. This is, I think, where a lot of the spaces opened up for not just people like Mills, but critics of Israel in the United States among the Democrats, is not, we want Israel to go away, we want to be to replace, but do they really need this? It feels like they're safe.

And Netanyahu's talked about this, the Munich effect, where people don't think, see Israel is under assault. Oh, that's the country where if you commit any crime against it, they're going to hunt you to the end of the earth and then bomb you. Why do they need our money? But what he was saying, that it was worrying to some people in that room. And I talked to some more pro-Israel attendees who they organize on college campuses and 95% of what they're saying lands. And then someone in the crowd says, I don't want to die for Israel or why should I be dying for Israel? That's what Mills is talking about, is that those people who came into the coalition, the younger men who are interested in a lot of what Trump is doing might get off on that. And certainly some of the

influential Rogan types were not attitudinally conservative. That has been a breaking point for them is, wait a second, because we're not allowed to criticize this country. Why did this guy get deported? What he's talking about, he's trying to say, lock that off because you have the potential to completely rely on the country. NACCONs disagree. And say, no, you can rely on the country while this is happening. But they haven't figured, no one has figured out the answer on this question. To me, that's a pretty healthy movement. This is unlike Democrats who bracket the conversation, don't want to talk about Israel at all in the 2024 election and are now splintered and fighting over it. This is, this I think was happening, too, was we have the space and the

power to say, let's air this out and figure this out before we start losing elections over it, or we start going on campuses and getting yelled at because of our positions. Yeah, interesting. And then contrast that with Schumer, Jeffries, et cetera, who won't even endorse Zoran. I mean, they won't say exactly why, but certainly Israel is a part of that calculus there, why they find it so abhorrent to endorse the guy who won the Democratic nomination by 12 points. Dave, great to have you. Thank you so much. as always for your insights. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Janica Lopez, and in the new season of the Overcover podcast, I'm taking you on an exciting journey of self-reflection. Am I ready to enter this new part of my life? Like, am I ready to be in a relationship? Am I ready to have kids and to really just devote myself and my time? I wanted to be successful on my own,

not just because of who my mom is. Like, I felt like I needed to be better or work twice as hard as she did. Join me for conversations about healing, and growth. Life is freaking hard. And growth doesn't happen in comfort. It happens in motion, even when you're hurting. All from one of my favorite spaces, The Kitchen. Honestly, these are going to come out so freaking amazing. Be a part of my new chapter and listen to the new season of the Overcumper podcast as part of the My Cultura podcast network on the IHeartRadio app, Apple

podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. if one bad decision forced you to choose between a maximum security prison or the most brutal boot camp designed to be hell on earth. Unfortunately for Mark Lombardo, this was the choice he faced. He said, you are a number, a New York State number, and we own you. Shock incarceration, also known as boot camps, are short-term, highly regimented correctional programs that mimic military basic training. These programs aim to provide a shock of prison life, emphasizing strict discipline, physical training, hard labor, and rehabilitation programs. Mark had one chance to complete this program and had no idea of the hell awaiting him the next

six months. The first night was so overwhelming, and you don't know who's next to you. And we didn't know what to expect in the morning. Nobody tells you anything. Listen to shock incarceration on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was.

Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA, using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny, you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha.

On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors. And you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We've got a number of significant developments. We are tracking with regard to Israel and Gaza, and we are joined this morning, fortunately,

by Jeremy Skahill, of course, co-founder of DropSight News alongside our own Ryan Grimm. Great to see you, Jeremy. Good to see you, man. Good to be with you guys. I wanted to start with these very nascent reports. We're getting of some type of an explosion in Doha. There is some speculation. It could have been at the Hamas offices there.

So, Jeremy, what can we say about the possibility of what's called? going on here? Well, without speculating on the particulars of it, because at this point, we don't know anything factually other than there's reports of an explosion. Israel has made clear for decades that it's willing to assassinate Palestinian political figures, resistance leaders, et cetera. But in recent weeks, the chief of staff of the Israeli army said quite explicitly that if Hamas does not surrender, it's not only going to obliterate and annihilate all of Gaza, but it's not

but that it is going to target for assassination Hamas leaders abroad. Now, of course, most of the Hamas figures that are trying to negotiate these ceasefire deals and are essentially running the organization politically are outside of Gaza. And, you know, many of them are in Doha, in Qatar. And, of course, Israel last summer, assassinated the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Hania in a strike in Tehran, Iran. It also assassinated recently, or it's also assassinated much of the on-the-ground leadership of the Qasan brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, as well as the political leader in Gaza of Hamas, Yajah Sinwar. So Israel has a long history of assassinating

Palestinian political figures. In fact, many years ago, there was an incredible story that happened where Khaled Mashal, one of the leaders of Hamas, was in Jordan in the Middle East and Israeli Mossad agents poisoned him. And it caused a huge diplomatic uproar between Jordan and Israel. And essentially, a Mossad agent had to fly on a plane with the antidote for this poison to resuscitate Khaled Mashal. So, you know, it's something out of a movie, but that actually happened. So, you know, we should be watching this very carefully because Donald Trump is. put forward this vague ceasefire proposal that we're going to talk about. And it seems like any time there's the possibility of some form of negotiation, the Israelis not only escalate

on the ground in Gaza, but then increase their threats like we're seeing now to potentially assassinate external leadership of Hamas. Right. I mean, Jeremy, we were talking a bit before the break, but it's very important to note, you know, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans present in Doha, not to mention all of the troops that are there. And it is, of course, been a way station for a lot of the diplomatic talks between the United States, between the world, Hamas, and Israel. And so, of course, it would be sending a message just as previous Israeli assassinations like in Tehran and elsewhere did. We did want originally to talk to you about this ceasefire proposal. We can go ahead and put it up here on the screen just so you can give us some insight.

It's a hundred word ceasefire proposal from Trump to Hamas. Can you break it down for us, the level of seriousness and what exactly it means? Well, I think first it's important to look at the broader context here. Right now, Israel is in the midst of a sort of final solution operation in Gaza City where they're just systematically targeting these massive high-rise buildings where some of them have 100 or more apartments in them. And Netanyahu said last night that all of the residents, we're talking about a million people of Gaza City need to leave immediately or they're going to consider them Hamas combatants. So that's the back. of what's happening right now is this intensification by Israel. Hamas three weeks ago on August 18th actually accepted what Qatari mediators said was 98% of the terms of what was called the Whitkoff framework. This was the deal that's being negotiated for months that would have been a 60-day ceasefire where half of the Israeli living captives and half of the deceased captives would have been released in exchange for a large number of Palestinians held by Israel. And Hamas made

massive concessions and agreed to this framework. And then Israel never responded to it. And what happened is that the Trump administration and the Israeli government said, oh, no, we don't want that deal anymore. We want now an all-in deal where Hamas immediately releases all Israeli captives living in dead. And so what we obtained was a 100-word summary of what Donald Trump has communicated to Hamas. And what it basically says is that within 48 hours of signing an agreement, Moss would need to release every single Israeli that it's holding captive and that a certain number of Palestinians, it doesn't specify how many, some of whom are serving life sentences, others who were snatched from Gaza after October 7th would be released.

It says that there would be a 60-day ceasefire and that Donald Trump would take responsibility for ensuring that the ceasefire held while negotiations to formally end the war took place. What it also says is that there would need to be a new government. installed in Gaza in order to even discuss Israeli troop withdrawals. It does say that there will be aid allowed into Gaza, but it doesn't specify how much aid who would distribute the aid. So, you know, talking privately to officials from Hamas, they have compared this essentially to a surrender document. They suspect that it was written by Israel. The Arabic, where the document was presented in Arabic was clumsy Arabic, strange word choices. So Hamas is speculating that it was written by

Israel, and we know that that has happened in the past with U.S. proposals. But then Amir Segal, one of the top propagandists for Netanyahu on Israeli public television, he himself came out and said that this is an Israeli proposal wrapped in fancy American cellophane. And he, you know, so he said the quiet part out loud. So what I think we're seeing here is, you know, Trump, I think, genuinely wants to wrap this up, so to speak, but he wants to do it on Israel's terms. So essentially what they're doing is saying, listen, accept this surrender order from Israel, and I'll see if I can do something about maybe ending the genocide. And there's no guarantees that Israel wouldn't just get its captives back and then continue with the war of annihilation.

So I think it's extremely unlikely, if not flat out, impossible that Hamas would agree to such a proposal. Jeremy, while you were talking, yeah, go ahead. We have an update from Barack Ravid tweeted from senior Israeli officials, quote, the explosion in Doha is an assassination. operation against senior Hamas officials. So it would appear to be confirmation of what you and others suspected was going on there. Yeah. And again, I mean, there was a very long history of Israel assassinating Palestinian political figures, not just within the borders of historic Palestine, but externally.

And again, Israel openly has said in recent days that if Hamas doesn't surrender and demilitarize and give up its arms and release the Israeli capital. that it was going to begin targeting the external leadership of Hamas. And remember, this presumably would mean that they are also attempting to assassinate the very people who would be negotiating a ceasefire. And Donald Trump just days ago submitted what he said is a new proposal for a ceasefire. So doing that and then turning around and assassinating the negotiators while they're deliberating a proposal from the president of the United States sends a message that

the U.S. is backing Israel in just constantly choosing to murder Palestinians instead of using diplomatic roads when the Palestinians have said repeatedly they're open to an agreement either in phases to release half the Israeli captives within 60 days and the other half once a ceasefire is negotiated or to do an all-for-all deal. And again, Hamas made major concessions. And I think it's worth pointing out, among the concessions they made was allowing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to continue operating, despite the fact that upwards of 2,000 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May when they started. They backed off of their demand that there be a clear timeline for withdrawal of Israeli forces

from the Strategic Philadelphia Corridor. They reduced the number of Palestinians that they were demanding be freed in return for Israeli captives. And they also agreed to allow an Israeli-enforced buffer zone to encircle the entirety of the Gaza Strip, at some points piercing 1,500 meters inside of Gaza. and Israel and the United States never formally responded to that offer. So, you know, if this is true, then what they're doing beyond the fact that they're conducting assassinations on Qatari soil, which also houses U.S. Sentcom, which also is the lead mediator

in these talks, they are killing the very people that Donald Trump just sent a offer to to try to reach a ceasefire deal. Wow. Jeremy, this may be a dumb question, but it's pretty clear that, Hamas, or sorry, that Israel and the U.S. are just seeking unconditional surrender. The terms that you just laid out effectively, I mean, would not only lead to a quote-unquote new government, but is really continued occupation, control of this so-called buffer zone. What exactly does Hamas see as the difference between that already, you know, pretty extraordinary concessions, considering what they started out with, as opposed to unconditional surrender? Like, why don't they just

take the unconditional surrender, if they're effectively signing their own demise and their own control anyways? Well, two things. One is, and Hamas leaders have said this to me privately, they don't want to be in control of Gaza anymore. You know, this is an albatross around the neck of Hamas, and it has been for many, many years. So, you know, they've said quite clearly they're willing to relinquish control. The issue, though, is that while we say Hamas, it's not just Hamas. There are many Palestinian political groups, including those opposed to Hamas, or that are not allied with Hamas, including those that have no armed factions, but are political parties that stand for elections, that also have been part of these negotiations.

And what they all have said is that our right to bear arms in opposition to an illegal occupation by a colonial apartheid state is a legitimate right. And so while Hamas could say, okay, we step down from power, we're not going to exist anymore in this format, they're not going to sign a document that says, we agree to demilitarize the Gaza Strip. In fact, they've said, we don't have the right to do that, that that is a question for the Palestinian people. And consistently in public opinion polls, Palestinians support the right to armed resistance. I think at the end of the day, the direct answer to your question is that they view that not as a surrender of Hamas as a political entity or a movement,

but that it would be them taking the outrageous action of surrendering the Palestinian cause of liberation. And whatever anyone thinks of Hamas, I think that's a true statement, given that Hamas is used as kind of the catch-all to describe Palestinian armed resistance right now. The fact is that the struggle, the armed struggle, far predates Hamas. And if Hamas surrenders itself and dismantles and no longer exists, another group of Palestinians are going to rise up under the same type of banner with the same aim to repel Israel's occupation and liberate Palestine by any means necessary, including armed force. So, you know, you have to look at this not in the context of October 7th, but in the context of 76 years of history. And I think that genuinely is

how the Hamas negotiators view this. Jeremy, last question I have for you is, do you find it plausible that Israel could have gone forward with this assassination operation without, at least in some way, having been greenlit by the U.S.? You know, there were some reports that Donald Trump had relayed to Hamas that that was an option on the table. When I spoke to Hamas leaders over the past several days. None of them said that that was true. They didn't exactly say that it was false, but they said, not that I know of, not according to my information. It would surprise me if there wasn't some form of consultation with Donald Trump. And look, the guy just greenlit this strike on the boat off of Venezuela. There's still questions about who the people were that

they killed. He greenlit an assassination of Qasem Soleimani in his first term, bombing him in a third country in Baghdad, Iraq. So, you know, do I know that Donald Trump was aware of this? No. Do I suspect it? Yes. Me, Jeremy, as you laid out, sent comm is there. Nothing's flying in the airspace over there without U.S., you know, at least my own personal speculation, just in terms of pure deconfliction, right, for making sure that, you know, U.S. assets don't get confused. This is still an extraordinary message. That's actually my last question. How is the Gulf going to handle this? So if you are the UAE, if you're Saudi Arabia, and I know they have complicated relations themselves

with Qatar, obviously. But I mean, for them, the answer has to be you can house U.S. troops. You can buy hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. arms, and you still may see basically explosions and attacks by a U.S. ally on your soil. I mean, doesn't it undermine a lot of their own security doctrine? I mean, first of all, you know, many Palestinians see the United Arab Emirates as basically now a self-declared suburb of Israel, you know, it was the lead figure in the Abraham Accords, but also is, you know, constantly taking Israel's side. But if you look at Qatar, this is a, you know, a different equation. I mean, you mentioned sentcom being there. But, you know,

Trump also has these huge business deals going on, not just, you know, officially in his capacity as president and getting his airplane and all those things, but also his family businesses. So there's, you know, there's deep ties there. The cold, hard fact at the end of the day is that what the U.S. and Israel have shown is that Israel can do whatever it wants in that region and not a single Arab country, particularly those in the Gulf, are going to do a thing about it. So, you know, Israel doesn't need these normalization agreements anymore. Israel has shown that it can do whatever it wants. It can strike wherever it wants and not a single one of these decrepit regimes

are going to do a thing about it. And that's the cold fact at the end of the day. Yeah. You're right. I think that's well said. Shocking. Jeremy, thank you so much. Great to have your insights, as always.

Thank you, guys. I had this, like, overwhelming sensation that I had to call it right then. And I just hit call. Said, you know, hey, I'm Jacob Schick. I'm the CEO of One Tribe Foundation. And I just wanted to call on and let her know there's a lot of people battling

some of the very same things you're battling. And there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, so join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. I was married to a combat army veteran, and he actually took his own life to suicide. One Tribe saved my life twice. There's a lot of love that flows through this place, and it's sincere. Now it's a personal mission.

Don't have to go to any more funerals, you know. I got blown up on a React mission. I ended up having amputation below the knee of my right leg and a traumatic brain injury because I landed on my head. Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hola, it's Honey German and my podcast, Grasias Come Again, is back. This season, we're going even deeper into the world of music and entertainment with raw and honest conversations with some of your favorite Latin artists and celebrities. You didn't have to audition?

No, I didn't audition. I haven't auditioned in like over 25 years. Oh, wow. That's a real G-talk right there. Oh, yeah. We've got some of the biggest actors, musicians, content creators, and culture shifters, sharing their real stories of failure and success. You were destined to be a start.

We talk all about what's viral and trending with a little bit of chisement, a lot of laughs, and those amazing vivras you've come to expect. And of course, we'll explore deeper topics dealing with identity, struggles, and all the issues affecting our Latin community. You feel like you get a little whitewash because you have to do the code switching? I won't say whitewash because at the end of the day, you know, I'm me. But the whole pretending and code, you know, it takes a toll on you. Listen to the new season of Grasas Has Come Again as part of My Cultura Podcast Network

on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. A foot washed up a shoe with some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good for. the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable. These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime.

A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA. Using new scientific tools, they're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it. He never thought he was going to get caught, and I just looked at my computer screen. It's just like, ah, gotcha. On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the team behind the scenes at Othrum, the Houston Lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

So some very interesting polling results that we wanted to dig into about Gen Z and the gender divide and the partisan divide in that particular generation. This comes courtesy of NBC News, as tweeted out by Steve Kornacken, put this first one up on the screen. So the question is, how do you define success? What is your personal definition of success? Which things here on this list are most important, that personal definition of success? So for Gen Z men who voted for Trump, number one is having children. For Gen Z women who voted for Paris, the very bottom of the list is having children. Similarly, being married comes in quite high for Gen Z men who voted for Trump. 29% say that's important to their personal definition

of success. Gen Z women, being married is at the bottom with children at just 6%. Let me go through a few more of these because it's interesting. So just keep this up on the screen. So, you know, for both fulfilling job and career, pretty close to the top, like pretty important. For Gen C men, financial independence, having money to do things you want, owning your own home, also pretty significant there, and being grounded spiritually, making family community proud. Lower on the list for Gen C men is having emotional stability, interesting, able to retire early and using talents and resources to help others. those ones were more important, in particular the using talents and resources to help others and having emotional stability for Gen Z women who voted for Harris. We can go to the next one as well, which shows the women who voted for Trump.

Also for them, you know, having children is not at the top of the list. It's kind of in the middle. And being married is towards the bottom. So again, even among those who voted for Trump, you see different views between men and women on what their definition, personal definition of success is. And for men who vote for Harris, their list looks a bit more like the women who voted for Harris with being married and having children more towards the bottom of the list.

So there's a lot that you could, you know, pull out of the differences here. But, Sagar, what was kind of your top line takeaway of what the significance is here? Congratulations to Cheryl Sandberg. Total lean-in victory. You won. neoliberalism has officially won and I think that the results are disastrous and look you know people can do what they want to do that's the point of the country I think though this really is downstream to me of a lot of policy and also of culture and the culture over the last 15 years particularly my generation

and so you know I guess Gen Z as well who've been really inculcated in this even more so than people like me has been if you work hard you can get what you want and you can do whatever you want to do. And this is really driven by influencer culture as well. You know, there's a, there's even a term for it, like little treat culture, uh, where people, because the big things in life are so unaffordable, they're constantly chasing little luxuries like nice bags or a watch or any of this other stuff. And there's nothing wrong with any of that as long as you have your bigger basis covered, but the bigger bases are so unattainable that they don't even look or desire or even consider as important any of those things. And so they really,

really focus a lot of their stuff on hyper consumerism, travel, Instagramification, etc. And so, yeah, I mean, without even making it like a political point, because I do think it's important to say, you know, even Gen Z women who voted for Trump, having children is down there at the bottom. Being married is only like 20%. Number one is still financial independence and fulfilling job career. All I can think is, yeah, it's just like total neolib economic utility victory. And I don't think it's how it should be. You know, I don't, again, I'm not going to tell people how to live. There's a lot of data, basically, it says if you get married and have children,

you're going to be happy, you're going to live longer. You as an economic and family unit are actually going to be more successful. You're going to make more money. You're going to have a lot more fulfillment throughout your life generally. That's what all of the data tells us. But the kind of hyper-individualism that we have chased with consumerism as a society has driven us here. I blame culture, but I really blame the economy as well,

because these are the things that are rewarded, our debt structures. and we're turning into Japan. We're turning into Japan where everyone is an individual worker, you know, having children or being married is just very low on the totem pole. A lot of women there because of the hyper-patriarchical society have no desire to be in a relationship because if they are, they'll just be told to, like, stay at home so they just don't get married, they don't want to have children. They view it much more as a burden.

And that's how you end up a replacement rate of 1.2% and stagnant growth, even though you're one of the greatest, you know, civilizations in the history of the world. So it's really sad to me, actually, but there's a lot of people to blame for it. I wish it were to turn around. I want to temper your sadness a bit because I will say the way this is phrased, like, is this important to your personal definition of success, right? Obviously, I'm a mom, three kids. They're the most important thing in my life.

If you were to ask me if, like, just the act of having kids is my definition of, quote, unquote, success, I'd say no, right? having kids that are, you know, having my kids, like, happy and thrive and doing well in the world, pursuing the things. That I consider it core to my personal definition of success. That's not a choice on this list, though. Like, anyone can get knocked up. It's not like, you know, congratulations. You're so successful if you do.

And so I don't, to me, it's actually kind of weird to put having kids as like your personal definition of success, like something you have to accomplish. Now, maybe it's, I don't know, maybe the lens from a male perspective is a little different because having kids from a male perspective kind of entails like, okay, then I've got the marriage, I've got the, you know, financial stability to be able to pull this off, et cetera. So I sort of feel like just that gender distinction is coming through here, too, in the way that this is phrased. So I'd say that.

I mean, listen, we've covered before, there's certainly a big thing. partisan like political divide in the values and views of gency men versus women and comes through even more when you talk about gentsy men who voted for Trump versus gentsy women who voted for Harris. But I also feel like some of that may be a bit overstated because we're seeing, you know, if you look across the generation, um, you see a lot of commonalities in values, for example, with regard to how they view Israel, you know, you see a lot of commonalities with regard to, just kind of broad frustration discussed with the political system overall. You've seen there was a lot of triumphalism from the Trump world and from the right

about the number of Gen Z men who voted for Trump. Those are some of the groups that have shifted the most dramatically away from him and are, you know, where his approval rating has fallen the most dramatically off a cliff. So I feel like a lot of this, honestly, is still kind of shaking out with this generation. as they're more searching for anything that is anyone who's going to deliver for them, anything that's going to make sense, anything that's going to shake up a status quo that is truly, truly stacked against them in a lot of ways. That's a great point.

And look, a lot of this could be young biased, too. I mean, if I'm being honest, you know, when I was 22, when you asked me what my definition of success was, it definitely would not be, you know, children wouldn't have been having kids. Yeah. I would be totally transparent, right? It took a while to kind of get there. So that's definitely part of it. I do think, I think broadly, I still just see the forces of the economy behind all of this.

Because it's like you said, you know, if the ultimate highest and best consideration of success is having children, the vision that you have in your world with that is like owning a home and having a stable job and like everything that confers kind of with that, which is probably why that is out there. And it also fits with what I know a lot of these guys are watching, you know, on social media and the hustle culture. and Alex Hormosey and all of this, which I don't even think there's necessarily anything bad with all of that. It's just a lot of the downstream stuff that is supposed to support you does not exist. And so that's what I spend a lot of my time really worrying about.

I do actually think this is more of an interesting question for millennials because once you're my age in your 30s, these become very urgent questions, actually, about children, about getting married. And much more. I would be curious to see this poll for millennial men who voted for Trump versus millennial women and others because, you know, millennial women at this point, you're like 29 to 35.

Like, you're well established into your career. It's like, is it worth? Did it get what you want? You want? Like, you can theoretically say you could achieve a total amount of success when you're 2020. When I'm 22, if you'd ask me where I am right now, I've been like, oh, my God, I made it. Like, it's, it's done. You know, it's like everything you could have possibly in.

envisioned and wanted. Is that the most important thing in your life? No, obviously, I'm married not a child, right? And so your priorities kind of become much more in view. So I would be curious to see how this shakes out in a millennial view. And now that I'm talking to you, I don't know if pulling a 22-year-old is the right way. They're literally their brains aren't even developed. It's true. True. It's an interesting snapshot, though. I mean, I also would say, like the language here, it says, fulfilling job and career. We're very lucky because we have that, right? And I think the reality is in the system we live in, you do spend most of your life at your job. So for people to say, you know, that is important in terms of my view of success, I don't think

that's so crazy because that is a structure of society. I mean, that kind of dovetails with your point of like, this is downstream of policy and the economic structure that we have. Another piece, and this is maybe a little bit more tangential, but it's been something I'm thinking about with regard to, you know, women who not only have having children at the bottom of the list, also have being married at the bottom of the list. You have a lot of, you have a whole ecosystem of online influencers set up to tell you basically like, you know, to treat women poorly and women suck and don't be their friends and whatever. So there's some of that messaging coming from then that's like, okay, fine, if you hate me,

like, I don't need you. There's also, there's also an entire tech economy that is developing these AI chatbots to convince everyone that they don't need anyone, that you don't need anyone, that you don't need human relationships. You can be best friends with chat GPT or you can be best friends with GROC or you can be best friends with, you know, meta's AI chatbots where you can invent them, create them and make them whatever you want. They're never going to criticize you. They're not going to hurt your feelings. They're never going to like steal your man, you know? They're just going to be there to make you happy and you don't need this messy world of human relations.

So I think some of that is going on in the background of all of this as well. Absolutely. That's well said. And it is important. you know at a structural level uh if you i i believe if you build it they will come so everything is downstream of availability if the house is not available if the child you know if if if if it's too expensive i think the average marriage in the u.s costs like 25 000 right now uh for a wedding i'm pretty sure that's right i could be wrong i haven't looked at the statistics in quite a long time uh but you think about all the associated expect etc and you're just like yeah you know and if that's going to be so wildly out of reach, then what is available? It's like, okay, well, getting a job,

anyone can get a job. Anyone can, you know, hustle or do anything. And that becomes more available. And so I believe that, like, the structure of what is available also determines the possibility of your imagination. And so that's what I would like to fix more than anything. I think that's true. We do have an interesting Harry Enten thought about Trump and his popularity and where he's losing ground with various groups. This is E4, guys. Let's take a look at this. Look at the aggregate of polls and look how long Donald Trump's net approval rating has been negative. It has been every day since March 12th in the average of polls. We're talking about 181 days in a row in which Donald Trump has been underwater swimming with the fishes.

There is no good data for Donald Trump when looking at the aggregate and looking overall. He has been negative for a very long period of time, the vast majority of his second presidency. Look at this. These are all the key issues. Donald Trump is underwater on all of them. Trade, obviously tariffs have been a big thing at the bottom of your list, minus 17 points. The economy, which was the reason, the reason he was elected to a second term to fix the economy, way underwater at minus 14 points, foreign policy, minus 12. And then I think, Mr. John Berman, the key two issues at the top,

because these have been Donald Trump's strongest issues, crime and immigration. But get this. He is now underwater on both of these issues, if barely, but he's underwater on cross. at minus two, immigration at minus three. On all the key issues, he is, again, swimming with the fish's consistency across the board. Two key groups that were so important to getting Donald Trump

a second term. He did so much better than the traditional Republican among those under the age of 30 and Hispanics. Look at this in February among those under the age of 30. Isn't that approval rating court in CBS News plus two points? Look at where we are now. Negative 30 points. That's a 32 point move in the wrong direction.

And Hispanics, he was six points under order. Look at this. Minus. 34 points. That's a 28 point move since February. No wonder Donald Trump's in trouble. He's steady across the board. And since February when he was last positive, he's only gotten significantly worse among two very key groups for his election back last year. I mean, it shows you voters really are up for grabs. The idea that people are just locked in and that's that. For some people, yeah, there's a good percentage of the country for which that is true. But these were really two of the key swing groups in this election and they are not happy with what they're seeing. I agree. That

is the most important look elections change they change all the time it's one of the great lessons one of the most exciting parts about covering this and i try to drill it into people's heads every time before an election is just look 96 to 2000 2000 to 2008 2008 to 2016 2016 to 2024 look at those radical changes that can all happen by the way even 20 i think 2016 to 2020 is one of the craziest elections if you'll remember crystal when we were looking at some of those South Texas numbers, I'll never forget it, sitting at the desk and looking at LaRae, I was like, I've never in my life could have imagined that, you know, South Texas Latinos or would be flipping 50 points to Donald Trump.

And it happened in three and a half years, okay? So this is something that just, you know, all politicians should notice. You should fight because you never know what actually could happen. And I do think that we are going to find that out big time in the midterm elections this time. Yeah, we will see. All right, guys, we're going to skip Tim Dillon for today. Sager and Emily will cover that clip tomorrow because we talk too much about other things, as per usual. But thank you guys so much for watching.

Thank you for your support of the show. If you can become a premium subscriber, breaking points.com. We take no dark money, guys. There's no dark money packs funding us. We don't talk to advertisers. We really do try to keep it as, like, pure as we possibly can around here. And you guys enable that. So thank you so much.

And Sager and Emily, we'll see you guys tomorrow. The Super Secret Festi Club podcast Season 4 is here. And we're locked in. That means more juicy cheesement. Terrible love advice. Evil spells to cast on your ex. No, no, no, we're not doing that this season. Oh.

Well, this season, we're leveling. up. Each episode will feature a special Bestie, and you're not going to want to miss it. My name is Curley. And I'm Maya. Get in here! Listen to the Super Secret Bestie Club on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. It's important that we just

reassure people that they're not alone, and there is help out there. The Good Stuff Podcast Season 2 takes a deep look into One Tribe Foundation, a non-profit fighting suicide in the veteran community. September is National Suicide Prevention Month, So join host Jacob and Ashley Schick as they bring you to the front lines of One Tribe's mission. One Tribe, save my life twice.

Welcome to Season 2 of the Good Stuff. Listen to the Good Stuff podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Every case that is a cold case that has DNA. Right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. On the new podcast, America's Crime Lab, every case has a story to tell. And the DNA holds the truth. He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen.

I was just like, ah, gotcha. This technology's already solving so many cases. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast.