Pod Save America - Republicans Suddenly Have Plans Next Week

Episode Date: September 4, 2026

Dozens of Republican lawmakers tell the press that they won't be attending Trump's midterm convention next week, citing a variety of unconvincing excuses, but the president seems unfazed by his party's lack of enthusiasm for more Trump, announcing Trump midterm ads, Trump coins, and the possibility he may rename the Strait of Hormuz to the Trump Strait. Dan and Jon preview the pity party and then react to Ed Markey's primary win over Seth Moulton, Kamala Harris brushing off red-state Democrats refusing her support, and the Democrats' new line of attack against the GOP — tying the construction of data centers to a tax provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. Then journalist Jasper Nathaniel stops by the studio to talk to Tommy about his reporting on violence in the West Bank.Hate listening to ads? Become a Friends of the Pod subscriber for ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, Lovett or Leave It, Runaway Country, Offline with Jon Favreau, and more—plus exclusive content, including bonus episodes of Pod Save America. Subscribe now at crooked.com/friends, on Apple Podcasts, or through the Pod Save America YouTube channel.You can request a transcript by emailing [e-mail]. Include the podcast name, episode title, and air date. Please allow 48 hours for delivery.

Today's presenting sponsor is Simply Safe Home Security. We talk a lot on the show, but they need to get off the sidelines and to be proactive. We sure do. Well, the same rule applies to protecting your home. Unlike traditional security systems that only alert you after a break-in is already underway, Simply Safe is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside. Smart AI powered outdoor cameras detect suspicious activity at the perimeter, and alert live U.S.-based agents to step in.

SimpliSafs agents assess the threat. They intervene through their outdoor cameras to scare off trespassers with their patented phrase. Uh-uh. Eh-uh. And then they call 911 dispatch. Our CEO has a Simply Safe system installed in her home. Insulation was quick and easy, and the system was up and running in no time. All the components have worked smoothly, and the app is easy to use.

It gives the family total peace of mind to see who's dropping by the house. Simpl save has been projecting your world for 20 years. Celebrate their anniversary and save 60% on your new SimpliceafSysaf system at Simplicef.com slash Crooked. That's 60% off at Simplysafe.com slash Cricket. Plus, when you order, write in our show name and how did you hear about it? survey to let them know we sent you. Don't forget, there's no safe, like simply safe. If you miss some of your favorite crooked pods this week, don't worry, you can now catch up

on the week's best moments on MS Now on Saturday nights. MS now is streaming an episode of highlights from your favorite crooked pods, packing as much analysis, funny moments, and 100% correct opinions into 40 minutes as humanly possible. Crooked on MS now airs every Saturday at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific. Welcome to Potsave America. I'm John Faffer. I'm Dan Fifer. Okay, Dan, we got a big show today. Trump's running midterm ads about himself and hoarding his super PAC money. Republicans are finding excuses to skip next week's Trumpapalooza midterm convention. The president's face is now on a $1 coin. The gerontocracy prevailed in Massachusetts this week. Kamala Harris is shrugging off some Democrats rejecting her endorsement. And Republicans have a new pro-Data center vote.

to explain. Then you'll hear Tommy's conversation with Jasper Nathaniel, an independent journalist who's been reporting on the ground in the West Bank. All right, Dan, with 60 days until the midterms, Donald Trump and Democrats completely agree on what the election should be about. Donald Trump. Republican candidates and campaigns aren't exactly thrilled with the president constantly telling voters to pretend he's on the ballot on account of his 38% approval rating. But there is much they can do about it. On Wednesday night, Trump summons some of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress to the White House so that he could helpfully say each of their names on camera and deliver the welcome news that he will be hitting the road for 35 Republican candidates

in the last 30 days of the election. Trump's Super PAC also dipped into its $400 million war chest to shell out just under a million dollars, kind of paltry. for its first midterm ad featuring who else Donald Trump. Let's take a look. He is the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves. When the world needs courage, vision, and inspiration, it is still turning to America.

There is no challenge Americans cannot overcome. No frontier too vast for us to conquer. and our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud, prosperous, and free. What the fuck was that? Oh, man. It's so good. I know you do a little show called Political Experts React about ads, campaign ads. That has to be one of the just most useless ads I've ever seen.

Yes, it. Let me use the industry term. It sucks. Like, let's put aside. the obvious strategic blunder of putting in the ad the very unpopular incumbent president who was mired in a very dumb war right now. Let's just put that aside. This ad, and then there's another ad that has a similar tone, but actually you mentioned some policies. Those are the two ads they put up. I mean, at least that's something. But here's the thing. Both those ads, they're just so

tonally off. They are victory laps at a time in which no one thinks America is winning. You have the Giardis of America's doing that the country's on the wrong track. You have in some polls, seven and ten voters who were with the economy negatively. And here you had this doofus doing this victory lap about all the great things he's done to help America. And no one buys it. My takeaway from this is that this, anyone who has spent one minute in a focus group looked at a poll of this cycle or even just like had a conversation with the actual person out in the world. We'd never make an ad like this. This was an ad made for one swing voter.

And that swing voter was Donald J. Trump so he could feel better about himself. That's what this was. I understand that. I even think if you were trying to make Donald Trump feel better about himself, you wouldn't create an ad like that. You'd like create an ad about how he was great and did a bunch of things and a couple. Like there's not even accomplishments in that ad. It's just like courage, vision, courage, America, America. But also it's just, and it takes for, it's so lazy because it takes from the state of the union, which he delivered as if he was on Xanax.

So there's a new Washington Post story that despite assurances from Trump's political advisors, quote, Republicans are increasingly skeptical and suspicious that Trump's actually going to spend his $400 million war chest on the midterms. They have concluded that it's already too late, some Republicans on campaigns, and that Trump is holding on to the money for his own purposes. I guess my initial reaction after reading that story and watching that ad is, do they really want more ads like that? Is that what they're hoping he'll spend the money on? I imagine that's not what they were hoping for. I'm not even sure what his own purposes are. I mean, I guess he could steal the money and no one want to prosecute him.

They've listed passing on the money to his chosen successor in 28, post-presidential travel, pet projects like his library. which is estimated to cost around a billion dollars. It's going to be a skyscraper in Miami. I'm not even sure the legality of transferring money. Like, he can't give any of this money to another federal candidate. So he couldn't give it to J.D. Vance or Mercer, Merck, or Pete Hacks at their take Cruz, wherever the Republican nominee is. He can't give any of it to anyone on the ballot now.

He can't give it to the RNC or the NRCC. I'm not even sure he could legally give it to his library. I mean, he could steal it. He could run ads in support of J.D. Vance in or whoever else in 2028. But even if he, whatever reason he's not spending money, which I'm sure is a stupid reason, or criminal one, yes. He's already wasted the huge advantage. When you have a huge money advantage, you deploy it early when your opponents don't have money because money invested, you know, in infrastructure, technology, organizing staff in 10 months.

before the election is worth 10 times the money invested one month before the election. And because he's waited so long, he's already going to pay through the nose for any ads he does buy because ad time has been bought up and they are just truly, these local TV stations, they are, it's the last days of disco for them and they are gouging every super pack as much as possible. So like he is, he's already wasted his advantage in a huge way. How much does this matter? Because I assume that even if he doesn't spend another dime, Republicans still have a pretty significant cash advantage over Democrats, not just because of the RNC-DNC debacle, more of a DNC debacle as we talked about. But also, I think the Senate and House committees on the Republican side have more than the Democrats as well.

And the Republican super PACs, other than the Trump super PAC, have more money than the Democratic super PACs. And so I was actually— Elon Musk is already starting to spend as well from his super PACs. I was looking at the competitive, which is the amount of money being spent in each state for starting next week. And it gets alarming very fast. The disparity between what Republicans are spending on TV and Democrats are spending is large. Now, the one hopeful caveat I would give you is dollars, a dollar is a bad way of measuring

this because a super pack, a dollar, you need $3 a super pack money to essentially get $1 of campaign money. because by law, let's say it's James Tellerico versus the Yvon must super pack. Telarico can buy an ad. I'm making these numbers up for, let's say if it costs Telarico $10 an ad, it will cost the Republicans $30 an ad because by law, you have to, the TV stations have to offer the candidates the lowest available rate and they can gouge the super PACs. But the Republican money is flowing.

And so this would just be on top of that. It does, you know, the place where I think it's going to matter most is Texas. there are a lot of Republicans who do not want to give money at Ken Paxon. He's a terrible fundraiser. The institutional Senate Republican donors hate Ken Paxson because they like John Cornyn and they spend a gazillion dollars to try to save John Corny. And James Hilariko has raised truly ungodly sums of money. And so if Trump does not come in to help Paxon, it's not really clear where that money's

going to come from. I also imagine that in addition to spending on TV, they'll probably want to spend on digital ads all over the place too. and there's no limit there. I mean, like, there's no lower rate for candidates there. Is there? That's just a challenge. No, they can, everyone can gouge everyone.

That's what I figured. So either way, it's like, it seems more like an internal, uh, fight between, you know, Trump and his advisors and Republican candidates, but at the end of the day, it's not like we should be celebrating the fact that, uh, Trump may not spend his $400 million. I think it'd be best if he did not for us. Best if he did not. Yeah. Like, we are really hanging.

get on by a threat here to try to stay competitive in all these places. And we're going to see, particularly in some of the harder states for us where that Republican spending advantage is going to start to hurt. And so if you could take a half a billion, nearly half billion dollars and keep that on the sidelines, I would endorse that decision. Are there diminishing returns at some point? Oh, for sure. For sure. But it's just these races are so close. The Republicans have so much money that it would be, like we don't, we are limited in our ability to expand the map because of our money troubles. It's not even, it's not even money troubles. The Democrats, the Senate and House Democrats have done a very good job of raising money, but the Republicans have just raised a lot more.

And so it's just, let's try to, if Trump does not want to spend $400 million and that's not spent, that does reduce their money managed by $400 million. And that's, that's good, I guess. Everyone else listening, you can go to Votesaveamerica.com. We have plenty of great candidates and very, very competitive races, some of the most competitive races. Some of the most competitive of races in the House and the Senate and down ballot, who you can donate to. So every dollar counts at this point. Just to hammer home for people, how truly excited Republicans are about Trump's plan to make the midterms about Trump, our friends at Politico surveyed more than 70 Republican

candidates and members of Congress about whether they plan to attend Trump's midterm convention in Dallas next week, which, of course, the RNC chair is calling Trump a Palooza, good branding. Let's just say there are a surprisingly coincidental number of scheduling conflicts. 45 of these Republicans said they're not going. Dozens more declined to share their plans. Not a lot of people touting their plans to attend. CNN tried to pin down a few Republicans in the halls of Congress this week to see if they were going to go. Let's see how it went. Are you planning to go to the Republican convention next week? I'm planning to be in my district. Are you going to the Republican convention next week?

Are you going to the Republican convention next week? I have to be in the district because I have events. I would love to go. I was thinking about it. I'm going to miss out on something important, but I cannot be in two places at the same time. Nope, you cannot. But you get to pick which of those two places you're in, and you chose not the convention. Someone interviewed Max Miller, asked him about it.

And he said, no, I want to be spending the time. with my family. Yes. Okay. That's a tough one. So, Dan, what if the president throws a party for his party and no one comes? They'll be like most birthday parties that Trump had from age five to 14. I think they have like 2,000 people attending so far I saw somewhere.

And I think they interviewed Tim Burchett about it, a Republican member of Congress. And he said, oh, I don't know. They sent me a $25,000 bill to go. I don't know if I want to go either. Yeah, they are. That's an important point there. Is it not just that you were invited to go. You're invited to go and then pay to go.

And it's $10,000 to $25,000 for most people. And then up to $100,000 for some folks. I see this convention as primarily an opportunity for Democrats. Yeah. Because now I imagine they're going to spend if they're halfway smart, which I don't suggest that they are Republicans, they will at least spend the convention like driving up Democrats' negatives or trying to and trying to unload the oppo file

on all the different Democrats running in the midterms. So I imagine that's probably what they'll do. But I feel like for Democrats, just having Trump up there speaking and also connecting all the Republicans who are attending, who are in competitive races to Trump, will be a boon to Democrats.

Like Mike Rogers is going, apparently, which is why all the John, Houston, who's running against Sherrod Brown and Ohio is going. Mike Lawler, I think, is going. Yeah, Mike Lawler's going. I think Susan Collins wisely to J-Mart said that she is not going. But, yeah, I'm surprised that Rogers and Houston are going. Yeah, it's all very strange.

Like, in the end of the day, I think it's a gigantic waste of time, energy and money. Like, what? And making us stay up Thursday night because you and I are recording the pod after the... That's right. Yes. The true losers are us. the, but it's like what non-political person is going to consume any of this content? Like what swing voter is going to see it?

It's not going to be covered live on television like an actual convention. It's not going to get the media attention of an actual convention. It's not going to have the pomp and circumstance of an actual convention. And it kind of is like an unlearning of all the lessons that work for Republicans in 2024. Like when they succeeded was when they were communicating in non-political spaces. So they decided to have a giant political party that looks like the most political thing possible to do their main messaging. Yeah, as one Republican strategist said, the coverage is going to be all about whatever the crazy shit the president decides to say. Yeah.

Which is about right. Now, if you're a Republican candidate who can't make the convention or get the president to campaign with you, fear not. He's going to do everything he can to make sure voters are thinking about him when they go to the polls. For example, the U.S. Mint began selling $1 Trump coins this week. Trump's face on a coin, legal tender. You can buy 25 coin rolls for the low price of just $61. Just a question, that's $251 coins. For $61.

Just in case you don't have a calculator on hand, that works out to about $2.44 per $1 coin. Why would someone do that, John? Well, Dan, apparently quite a few people have done it because 150,000 were printed or made by the mint or whatever the fuck you say. I think they're minted. I think they minted. Oh, there is a verb for it. There you go.

Yes, it's mint. They're minted. They're minted. Go ahead. Make fun of me for that. And I went on the website of the mint website just to see if I could buy a tweet because act now while supplies last. And they're all sold out.

Wow. They are already sold up. And we are sure that money goes to the treasury, right? No, no, I'm sure he pockets it. And I'm sure that they were purchased by, I don't know, MAGA Inc, the Trump family. Yes. You think it's a Trump family? I think it's more likely to be someone with a case before the Department of Justice.

Oh, yeah, that's right. So it's legal tender, meaning that, like, you can use it as real money, right? It's a dollar. It's a dollar coin. But legal tender doesn't guarantee every store will accept Trump coins. Federal law generally lets private businesses decide what forms of payment they'll accept. So you can refuse a Trump coin if someone tries to pay you in a Trump coin. Just good information for people to have.

Hmm. Interesting. I think it is funny that it's going to now cost you four Trump coins to put a gallon of gas in your car. We should measure all the costs of the war in Trump coins. Speaking of the war, you can take those coins with you on your next trip through the Trump straight, which is what the president has suggested, renaming the source. Strait of Hormuz, just to make sure people forever associate a geopolitical disaster that's led to a global energy crisis with the man responsible Donald J. Trump.

How many Trump coins will it take to make sure that happens, you think? That he renames that, because I would pay all my Trump coins to make sure that the Strait has renamed the Trump Strait. It's like renaming the Baghdad airport, the George W. Bush International Airport in fact. Yes, little big horn is Custer Hill. Yes. Just so everyone can always associate Donald Trump with the straight of Hormuz.

Just what? Like, what was, I don't even understand how he got to that point in his thinking. And that, well, it is interesting because some of these other things he floated, Gulf of America, Lake America, no of. You know, obviously they happened. This one, he was asked about in the Oval today or yesterday. I can't remember any of the days. Wednesday. Who knows?

And they asked him if he was serious and he was like, no, no, I was just throwing it out there. I was just throwing it out there. The trial balloon. Yeah, even he probably realized, is that what I want to? Do I want to put my name on the straight of Hormuz where they're shooting down,

shooting at oil tankers still six months into this war that I had promised would end in a couple weeks? Yeah, not his, not his best idea, John. Did you see the Wall Street Journal story about how Trump is, contemplating, just declaring the Iran war over. The thing that's so funny about this is... He's done it so many times already.

Yes. Is that line is buried in a story that's entirely... The rest of the story, every other word in that story, is about how they're extending the deployments for troops into 2027. Like, I remember seeing that headline thinking that was quite stupid. Then going back, when I went to go back to read the story, like, this can't be the same story. Because this entire story is about the war continuing.

and how much longer the troops are going to be there. But, like, I don't even, like, what he would declare it's over? He did do the mission accomplished truth last week. He did. So I thought it was over. He did. I think, so Alex Ward wrote the story at Wall Street Journal, a great reporter. And there's been some other reporting around those, too.

I believe what they're thinking is they want to have a whole bunch of troops there deployed maybe into 2027. But at the same time, they want. everyone ahead of the midterms to think that the war is over, really beyond the midterms. So who knows, I could see Trump planning some announcement, some more formal announcement where he says the war is over. Maybe he'll do it at Trumpapalooza at the convention. Or maybe he'll do it in October when it's closer to election day. And then they want to have the troops there for afterwards so they can resume the bombing if they need to resume the bombing and the military strikes and all the rest after the midterms are over. So maybe that's it.

Well, let's just play this out for a second. So let's say, let's say it happens in Trumpapalooza. Next Thursday night, you and I are sitting by our computers waiting a podcast. Trump makes this big announcement, declares the war over, says the end of major combat operations in the Strait of Trump. And then immediately after that, Iran shoots a missile at something. And then we respond. Yep. Then what happens?

Well, we're just, that's just, that doesn't count. That's not part of the old war. That's part of a new thing that they're just, we're just mowing the grass. And in this modern media environment, people know the war is going on, not be picking up the newspaper off their front soup, but by going to the gas station, they're not going to stop going the gas station. No, they're not. And they're spending a lot of their trump coins at the gas station. Unlike a lot of other Trump ideas, this one seems not particularly well thought out. No. I mean, if you dig into all this, there seems to be, and we talked about this a little on Tuesday's pod, but like there seems to be a thought that because we have successfully navigated either around the Strait of Hormuz or helped ships through the Strait of Hormuz so we're getting more oil out than we did before, that perhaps we could all live with,

or maybe the ultimate goal is like 60 to 70% of pre-war levels of oil getting out of the Strait of Hormuz. And maybe if we can get that, then every time Iran fires off missile and we fire back, then it'll sort of just fade into the background eventually and people won't really pay much attention to it. Now, again, that's still 50,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East. So at some point, they'll probably want to come home to their families and their families will be wondering where they are. So I don't know how they're going to get around that either.

I think for the problem for Trump here is twofold. One is as long as gas prices remain elevated over, not where they are right now, but where they were before this whole thing started. That's the main political problem for Trump, the main pressure point. But the other thing here is the political problem is not the failure to end the war. It's the decision to start the war. That was the fundamental breaking of faith with what so many people, even people who did not really like Trump, thought he stood for, which was no foreign wars, no forever worse. And so once he did that and it was a giant mess and it continued on and gas prices went

off and people suffered and people died, like I don't think any of that goes away because we get to a very sort of quiet behind the scenes that really get attention, you know, missile exchange, periodic missile exchange with Iran. CIA Navigator had a new poll today that found 20% of Trump 2024 voters regret voting for him. And the number one reason cited is Iran. 45% cite the war with Iran and Trump's foreign policy. And then close behind it, 43% cite prices and the cost of living, which is because of the war, mostly the other part is because of Trump's tariffs, the other war, the trade war. And when you do this in focus groups, the words you hear are broken promises, like that's the thing.

And both of those fall under the broken promises category. Yep. Pod Save America is brought you by Wild Alaskan Company. The difference between low and high quality seafood is enormous. But it's also one of those things that's tough to accurately assess for yourself in the grocery store. Wild Alaskan Company offers the best way to get wild caught, high quality seafood delivered to your door on your schedule. Each wild Alaskan box comes with individually portioned fillets, vacuum sealed, easy. to prep and grade for any meal no matter how quick or elevated.

All fish is quick frozen, fresh from the Alaskan waters, which helps lock in its freshness, texture, flavor, and key nutrients like Omega-3s. It's fish you can trust with no GMOs, antibiotics, or other additives. Every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and Alaskan fishermen whose history is tied to the region and practice. You cook any wild Alaskan lately? I love Alaskan. I had some salmon the other day.

it's great. You know, and I'll tell you why I was glad to have it. I was in the supermarket and I was like, oh, I'm going to make some fish and I wanted to buy salmon. And then I get over the counter and it wasn't my usual grocery store. And I was like, I don't know how to trust this salmon. I don't like the energy here. I don't look that great. It doesn't it's on sale. It's like, why is it on sale? Is this salmon price to move? You know what I'm saying? Wilde Alaskin, I know it's good. I can, I have it in the freezer. You throw it in the fridge the night before. You make it the next day. It's awesome. It's amazing. That's great. While the Alaskin Company is so confident that their fish is the best, that they offer 100% satisfaction and moneyback guarantee, so you can try your first box risk-free. Go to wildelaskan.com slash crooked for $35 off your first order of premium wildcaught seafood. That's wildelaskin.com slash crooked for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. Pod Save America is brought you by blinds.com. There's a version of your home you haven't lived in yet where the light behaves how you want,

where the rooms feel finished, where you sleep until you decide to wake up, not when the sun does. Because blinds.com has spent 30 years making it easy to find the perfect fit with over 25 million windows covered and 50,000 five-star reviews. You can feel confident you're in good hands. Whether you want to go full DIY, bring in license and vetted pros to handle the measure and install or land somewhere in-between, you're always in-control. They make it simple to choose the level of support that works best for you with flexibility every step of the way. Need help picking the right style? Book a free consultation. One of blinds.com's award-winning design experts. No pushy salespeople, no awkward in-home visits, just real advice on your schedule. They'll even ship samples to your door. or fast and free. Choose from a huge variety of style options of prices that fit any budget. Everything is backed by blinds.com's 100% satisfaction guarantee because at blinds.com, the only thing they treat better than Windows is you. And I love Blinds.com. You can customize the window covering.

You get free samples sent right to your door. You can easily add installation at checkout if you don't trust yourself to do it. You know, that's great. A huge selection. Right now, blinds.com is giving our listeners an exclusive $50 off when you spend $500 or more. Just use code, crooked at checkout, limited time offer, rules and restrictions apply. Seeblines.com for details. All right, let's talk about the Democrats who just wrapped up their final competitive primary of a very, very long 2026.

On Tuesday, my home state went to the polls and overwhelmingly chose Ed Markey to be the Democratic Senate nominee from Massachusetts. The incumbent senator easily fended off a challenge from Congressman Seth Moulton, who attempted to make the race a referendum on generational change in the Democratic Party. Moulton is 47. Markey is 80. but with the backing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, he made the race about his progressive bonifides telling Politico, quote, it's not about your age, it's about the age of your ideas. Isn't that a longtime act statement, ax quote?

I feel like I've heard that so many times. Anyway, all these things get recycled. Did he do that because Obama was so young? We were young, but we had old ideas? Acts used to suggest that Biden used that line. Oh, that's right. That's right. That's right. Yeah. It's not about your age.

It's about the age of your ideas. and I am the youngest guy in this race when it comes to ideas. What do you think of this victory for the gerontocracy? I think it exposed the limits of generational change campaigns, which is Moulton's campaign really just was Markey's old, I'm young, without ever being able to explain what was lost from Massachusetts voters by Markey's age and what would have been gained by Moulton's younger age. And usually the case is the younger candidate is the one more in touch with young voters.

But from a policy perspective, Markey was much more in touch with what young voters actually wanted on health care, on climate, on Israel, you know, being the sponsor of the Green New Deal. And if you, if you're the young candidate running on a community generational change, you can't win young voters. You're not going to win. In fact, you'll probably lose by 30 points as Moulton did. The other backdrop to this, there are a couple of the backdrops of this. One is Markey is 80, but not every 80 year old is the same. And he seems very, like you watch him in the debates. He's very, he's, he's very with it and energetic.

And, you know, and he didn't have a moment like Biden did at the debate or John Larson, the candidate from Connecticut had when he sort of froze on the house floor that sort of haunted him. And so he seemed, you know, like, you look at him and you're like, that guy can do the job. But what also was different here than it was perhaps in Maine, both for Biden in 2024 and in for Janet Mills is, this is a safe seat. It's Massachusetts. So there wasn't this question of electability. Like, can he hack it in a really tough campaign?

Right. It's like he wins his primary. He wins. If something happens, a Democratic governor appoints him. It's like it's not, there just wasn't this question of ability to actually defeat Republicans. And so he won. He won so easily that he actually even won Moulton's congressional district by about eight points, I think. Yeah, I think Moulton only won.

his like hometown and some of the surrounding towns. Moulton was in, it was my congressman, or at least my hometowns congressman, who will now be represented by Dan Coe, former Biden advisor, who was in. So there was a couple other House primaries. That was one of them, where I think the results showed that, like,

these things are complicated and they don't always fit a narrative, right? So in the sixth, which is what Moulton used to represent, Dan Coe beat the more progressive Challenger there Now it was an open seat They're both fairly young So there's that Stephen Lynch

71 year old congressman From sort of southern Massachusetts He faced a primary challenge From our old White House intern Patrick Roth He was one of the first class of interns in the Obama White House 2009 First speech returning office?

No press Oh Your office Dan My office He was It was great. I got to know him a little bit.

Yeah, no, Patrick's great. But he, so 71, Patrick's 39. Medicare for all. Fucker. Insurance are 39. I know, right? Hit Lynch on Lake and Riley Act. So you had a younger, more progressive challenger with an older, more conservative incumbent.

And he came, you know, he got first time, first time candidate came within like 10 points, closer than Lynch has ever had in a primary challenge. since he's had that seat. But, you know, that that speaks to even the progressive versus more moderate thing. It doesn't always fit with the narrative, too. And I only point that out because I think we're always, like, trying to fit all of these races into, okay, is it old versus young, but this one was progressive versus moderate, and those are the only two things that matter. And sometimes it's like personalities matter, where you are matter, how many people know you, how many people are paying attention to the race, like all kinds of factors go into this. At this point, in that after when so many people knock, knocked out that candidates are not caught off guard anymore.

Like Diana to get treated like every other election where she had faced their challenge. And before she knew it, she was in huge trouble. This is a case where these candidates knew to be, part because it was going on with Markey, but they knew to be in the district, be campaigning, be raising money, be doing stuff and give them a better chance to fend it off. Yeah. All right. So in another sign of where the party may or may not be headed, Politico ran a story about

Democrats in competitive races rejecting the support of their party's last presidential nominee, Kamala Harris. On top of Josh Turrick, Rob Sand, and Mary Peltola, who we talked about the other week. Playbook got similar answers about Kamala from the Democratic Senate nominee in Kansas, Adam Hamilton, as well as Rebecca Cook, who's running in a very flippable Wisconsin congressional district and has received the endorsement of Bernie Sanders and campaigns with him. Harris acknowledged this sentiment for the first time today, saying in a phone interview, with Peter Alexander of MS now, that she supports these candidates, quote, doing whatever they need to do to win. Harris will be on the trail next week campaigning for Aaron Ford in Nevada, who Tommy just talked to this week,

and she's recently endorsed and races in New Hampshire, California, and Tennessee. What do you make of Harris's approach here and sort of just this general story, which sort of was a, you know, now has been sort of churn in for a couple weeks? I think this is sort of a bullshit test for Harris. Like it's an unfair question. Like, name the national Democrat other than possibly Barack Obama who would be invited to campaign in Kansas, Iowa, Alaska. Like a true national figure. Well, I mean, it's tough. Would Joe Biden be invited?

Would Gavin Newsom be invited? No, but can I ask you a question? Yeah. So I agree with that. And I agree that it's a bullshit test for Kamala Harris alone to pass. And all those other people who are running should be asked the same question, right? Or potentially running in 2020. Don't you think we need a nominee in 2028 who will be welcomed in a lot more difficult spaces, in a lot more difficult places?

Well, this is the real test to me is not Kansas, Iowa, Alaska. The real test is Georgia, congressional districts. like Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania, Kate Connelly's race against Michael. Like, are you, can you campaign in, are you invited to your campaign in purple states? States that you lost by, you know, a couple hundred thousand votes at most last time around. Are you invited to campaign for Abdul in Michigan? That to me is the fair test. Well, I bring it up because I was thinking about, you mentioned Obama.

Obama now, whatever. Yeah, of course, people want them. Think about 06, right? Yeah, no, he campaigned everywhere. He's the only one. And you know who they didn't want in many places. Clinton. John Kerry.

And Hillary Well, I was saying, in 06, John Kerry had just been the nominee, right? And lost. And people didn't want John Kerry anywhere. But Barack Obama, the black guy named Barack Hussein Obama from Chicago, was invited everywhere. And you would hope.

And again, this is tough, right? Because maybe if John Osoff wins Georgia, you'd say, oh, well, most candidates in purple and light red states would want Ossoff there. But, like, there's no other midterm between now in 2028. So some of the candidates that might be welcomed in those areas and could be great presidential candidates, James Talleyico, like they're currently running in races right now. Yeah. Yeah. So it's like you think about the people who are, some of the people who are thinking of running are not well known enough to be truly polarizing.

Like I imagine Mark Kelly we invited a lot of places. He's an astronaut, you know, but he's not a national political figure in a way. I'd be curious about Pete Buttigieg, you know. That's a good one. He's been a lot of places, actually. Yeah. And he's been in, and there's one thing to go to all these red places, and you will see candidates in like these red, these really, really hard states will want national Democrats to get attention for their race. But with, like, Josh Churik won a campaign with Pete, who won the Iowa caucus?

That's the good question. That's a great question. Now, if I was advising Josh Churik, I would say, have no national Democrats of the state, like none. Right. Like, what is the upside for you at this point? I'd be very curious to know if Kamala Harris will campaign in Georgia for Keishelands Bottoms, who worked for her. and where her ability to turn out the black vote could matter a lot in that race. You know, was she campaigned in Pennsylvania?

North Carolina is interesting. I imagine where Cooper's not going to want anyone in his state. He doesn't need it. Right. But that's just to me. I just, I read that story this morning. And it was just like, this is just an unfair question to ask of Kamala Harris when, you know, when Obama was president, he wasn't going to deep red states to campaign. There has been a lot of focus on Kamala Harris around this, but, like, you are completely right.

say like what about Gavin Newsom? What about any of these other, you know, what about AOC? Yeah. I do find it interesting that, I mean, and he is a national political figure now who was very well liked in the party and beyond the party, Bernie Sanders, campaigning with Rebecca Cook. And Rebecca Cook is not like a like a DSA lefty candidate. She's a pretty moderate working class candidate in a pretty red district in Wisconsin and clearly feels that Bernie Sanders by her side is helpful. Here's my question. Does Bernie come back to Michigan before election day for Abdul? Yes, I think so. I would get so. Do the AOC comes back? Good question. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe she goes to Ann Arbor. Maybe she go, you know, I could I could see her on college campuses. I mean, I would, if Abdul was

asking me, I would be, I would be totally, I would say I'd be totally fine with him campaigning. Like, you already, there's a gazelle, like, they want to put you with Bernie Sanders and AOC and an ad. All you have to do is run kids after the primary of Abdul with AOC and Bernie. And so you might as well get the benefits of it on college campuses and places like that. I do think there will be people from the Adul campaign and the Michigan Democratic Party at the Detroit airport just watching to see if Hassan Piker gets off the plane. Make sure he doesn't go to any of it. They're wondering, like, do they have access to the no-fly list? Can we have a state-based no-fly list?

But yeah, no, I think Bernie's probably a plus for Duel in the home stretch, for sure. Okay. One last item that's become a big midterm issue and will almost certainly become an even bigger 2028 issue. AI and data centers. The same week that Donald Trump told Americans who opposed data center construction that they're going to end up, quote, backwards and poor. Democrats began pointing out that nearly every single Republican in Congress voted to prevent states and cities and towns from regulating the construction of data centers and voted to give tax breaks to AI companies that build data centers, especially in rural areas. Nearly one in five data centers currently under construction got these tax breaks

thanks to the Republican Congress. This was part of Trump's big bill that also made massive Medicaid cuts. If I were running against an incumbent Republican member of Congress, I think I would spend the next 60 days absolutely hammering my opponent for voting to cut Medicaid,

cut taxes for billionaires, cut taxes for AI companies so they can build data centers in your backyard, all in the same bill. Then you throw in their support for the war and Trump's tariffs making things more expensive and like that's your campaign. Are they going to put the data centers on the sites of the rural hospitals they close with their Medicaid cuts? Perfect. That's an ad. That's an ad. See? There you go. Free idea, people. Close the road. Yeah, close the rural hospital, put in a data center. Tax cuts to the data center. You're paying more.

Yeah. I mean, it's all right there. I think, what do you think of that hit? I think it's a I didn't know that about the one big beautiful bill. In fact, I know about it because you tweeted it. And then I saw you mentioned a Politico story as one of the people pushing this. Oh, wow. Look at that. I saw it from Brandon Duke on Twitter who had founded in the bill, liberal policy guy. And I, so then I was like, holy shit, is that real?

And then suddenly I saw Hakeem Jeffrey's talking about it at a press conference. And I was like, all right, we're off to the races. Let's get that shit in an ad. One tweet can change the world. No, no, I don't think it was my tweet at all. Don't think anyone saw it. Progressives also just launched a more aggressive approach to AI. On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Greg Kassar announced the Ban Artificial Super Intelligence Act,

which would, quote, permanently ban the development and deployment of superintelligent AI and pause, quote, AI development until a federal regulator has established safety rules. Speaking of that hypothetical regulator, Politico reports that Mark Zuckerberg had a secret call with Donald Trump where he expressed concerns about plans for a national AI regulator. You don't say. And here's what OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said about calls to regulate AI when he sat down with Howard Nutlick at the G20 on Wednesday. As industry leaders do often do it, you do interviews.

Always. I think it would be approximately as bad of an idea to say we're not going to have AI in our country as it was to say we're not going to have electricity in our country back 100 plus years ago. My prediction is we won't be talking about AI as much as we do in a decade from now. Because we'll all be dead? Because we'll just expect it everywhere.

You know, like, a kid growing up today will never be smarter than AI, but he or she will also never have understood a world where every product and service that they interact with is not really smart and really capable and really helpful. A fantastic message to parents. Hey, parents, your kids will never be smarter than... the machine that I'm building that we want no guardrails around whatsoever. And by the way, bulldoze that hospital nearby because we're putting in a data center. Just can we unpack this comment for one second? Let's first give me my stipulating that Sam Altman is a very bad spokesperson. He's probably bad at, he's maybe bad in many ways, but he's not a good spokesperson for his industry.

Like, what is the point he's making that your gigantic supercomputer, in which you much build data centers on every corner to power, is smarter than an eight-year-old? Of course it is. You know what's smarter than an eight-year-old? The computers we had last year or two years ago. No, I think he's saying your kids will never, no matter, grown into adults. That's of course they're not. That's the point of computers. Look, look, look at this forklift we built. It's stronger than any man. That's the whole fucking point having the forklift. We have these cars that are faster than any human can run. Yes, that's it. Like that doesn't even make any sense. Well, no, but this, this raises a good point about Bernie's bill as well, right? Because what Bernie and Casar put out is, so ban artificial superintelligence.

This is also known as ASI, right? You might also hear AGI, that's artificial general intelligence, which is AI that matches human level reasoning. Now, right now, the people that build the AI, the hypers, whatever the fuck they are, Sam Altman, all the rest of them, they don't think that we have quite reached AGI yet, but maybe we're about to have reached AGI. I haven't announcement. Oh, have we already done it? Have we just did? Greg Brockman, the president of opening.

He announced it today. Yeah, they have Astra. So they think. Well, they think. No, well, this is the problem is that no one knows. None of these people know exactly. Like, there's no, oh, we have definitely reached AGI. Because no one can define exactly what human level of reasoning and intelligence is.

Like, it's sort of a, I guess it's just sort of a vibe. Same thing with artificial super intelligence, which is they say we haven't reached yet, but you clearly say that we've reached with the forklift a long time ago. Just saying that we can make things that are stronger and smarter than people. We've been doing that for a long time. Just basic computers. I think what Bernie's getting at is like some of these AI leaders and the people that are in these companies like Sam Altman have already, Nelon Musk have already said like, oh, sometimes we may not be able to control these machines at some point.

And Bernie's point is if you can't control the machines, then why are you building the fucking machines if they're beyond human control? Which is a good question. That's a great question. It's a good question. I don't know that the ban actually works or how it works or that it has tea. Like it seems like more of a like he's planting a flag in the ground than an actual plan here. But it does raise the point that, again, that people like Sam Altman are like, well, you know, the kids aren't going to be ever as smart as AI.

And Greg Brockman saying, oh, we've hit artificial general intelligence. And ooh, the hugging face disaster where a bunch of AI agents got out of the sandbox and found the internet. and suddenly, you know, took over everything and tried to hide from humans. And it's like, and then they all look at this and like, well, this is bad. This is bad. Five alarms. Everyone should be really worried about this. But anyway, we're going to go back to work.

We're going to keep building this because China. We don't want China to have it. If China develops the technology to, you know, render humanity extinct, we got to get that too. We got to get that too. I tweeted basically after some of the data center stuff. a few weeks ago, I tweeted that the, from a like just from a pure step back, communications messaging perspective, the people who do politics and policy and communications at the AI companies have done an absolutely miserable fucking job.

And one of the points is that these people go out all the time when they are, they proudly and callously tout, as say Baltimore always does, the cataclysmic consequences of their product. And I heard from a lot of people who like, but publicly, and then privately who work in the industry or around the industry who say, no, no, a lot of the people who work in AI are really concerned about it. They're genuinely concerned about it. And they feel obligated to express that concern. And I actually do believe a lot of people who work in the industry are concerned. I think that's a lot of what drives, you know, it's like open AI exists because everyone thought Google was too dangerous and then Anthropic exists because of people at Anthropic thought

it was too dangerous. And I can't wait to find out what the next thing is. But the problem is, you're saying how dangerous your product is. On one hand, the other hand, you're pushing rapidly for an IPO as fast as possible in order to get liquidity to your investors. Yep. And so it's just there is this, like one day we're going to destroy the world. The other day, we're going to buy the world with the money we make from destroying the world. Well, and you're also calling Donald Trump, like Mark Zuckerberg, or I guess Trump called him, and saying, but I don't want a regulator. I don't want a regulator. And, you know, Sam Altman's like, well, you know, it's voluntary, we want these voluntary standards, but of course we're abiding by them because we want to

work with the government on this because we're, you know, we're nice guys. But like, they don't really want the regulation. The way they fight the regulation is by saying we have to win this race or else China's going to win. And then they go out and say, oh yeah, but this is really still no regulation. Thank you. We'll take care of it. It really is telling everyone we'll take care of it. We're going to build the data centers, whether you like it or not, and, and fuck off. Which is why you and I saw some private polling. The data centers are down to like 20% approval. Yeah.

It's a true bipartisan issue. And I've almost never seen an issue reach this level of intensity this quickly. People would rather have a nuclear power plant or a prison or a methadone clinic. They were all more favorable being built in your community than a fucking AI data center. And when they tested it with, oh, and the company building the. the data center will provide the power and we'll make sure that they bear all the costs and the people in the community do not. People don't buy it. It goes up a couple percent, but people just don't trust the AI companies on this, even when you do it ostensibly the

right way and make sure that the AI companies bear all the costs and that people in these communities are held harmless. They just don't trust that that's going to happen. They don't trust big tech. Why would they? Yeah, it's a fair point. So I think this, I mean, you know, I do hope, you know, obviously there's a smorgasbord of things for Democrats to run on in the midterms. But I think and hope this will be one of the big issues. And then certainly this will be a big issue in 2028. And I think in 2008, the challenge is going to be staking out positions on this that are responsive to the populist furor out there while also being like realistic and responsible. responsible, right? Because, like, and I don't say that to be like, oh, we need to find a middle ground, but these people are developing the technology. Much of it is already here. So the question is like, how do we put the, we actually do need to get guardrails around them. So we just do need to pass something. That's right. Okay. One last thing before we get to Tommy's interview with Jasper Nathaniel. A little news about someone, you know, Jasper's an actual journalist. This is about someone who plays a journalist on TV. Maria Bartaromo is out at Fox News.

So Fox, that happened this morning, Thursday morning, Fox released a rather vague statement about why that just said, we thank Maria for her work over the last 12 and a half years and wish her all the best on her next chapter. But Oliver Darcy at Status News has the scoop on Thursday afternoon. It says, after Trump delivered his unhinged primetime speech in which he pushed more conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, remember that? Remember the China thing? I am told, this is Oliver writing this, I am told that Fox News issued guidance to senior employees instructing them to steer clear of giving credence to Trump's delusional claims.

I'm told that the guidance was issued in writing, but ultimately Bartaromo spilled the secret, status has learned, divulging to the White House that Trump's speech had received scant coverage on the channel because network bosses had ordered it so. I'm even told the text message in which Fox News Brass offered their guidance was shared by Bartramo with the White House.

in doing so, Bartra Romo not only effectively betrayed her employer, but also disclosed confidential company information violating the terms of her employment agreement. What do you think about that? Well, it's more interesting, I guess, than what we all thought when her resignation or firing was announced, we thought she was being the White House press secretary. And I believe she was on your list. Was she on your list of potential? So I think she was, too, but I had knocked a few people off the list, so I couldn't remember.

But if you remember that she was on my list, I remember that because you said that earlier today. That's why. Oh, maybe that's it's up to know. At one point, she was on my list, yeah. And she still could. She still could become Prime Secretary. It's not ruled out. My number one choice, Rachel Campos Duffy, has been really out on a media tour recently, auditioning

for this task. Yeah, in all the maybe in all the wrong ways. Maybe the right ways. I wouldn't say she's doing a great job. All the wrong ways for you if you were hiring the White House Press Secretary. Yeah, that's pretty wild. It is funny that, I mean, it's Maria Bart Romo, whatever, but sort of the internal drama at Fox,

where like the president gives this speech about, you know, China interfering the election. Everyone thinks is bullshit. It was sort of weird on Fox not to hear it. And then sure enough, it was because I guess defamation lawsuits work. If you lose three quarters of a billion dollars for putting a bunch of crazy shit on your TV, you might learn a lesson from it. And they certainly did. And then went so far as to fire her for fucking snitching on them to Donald Trump. And she is a huge election denier.

Like she is huge. It is huge. Prior to the Dominion thing, she was like deep into this. I mean, as most financial journalists would be, deep into a... Man, she has had a journey. Once upon a time, she was like a fairly normal journalist. Yes, she was a very, very popular. CNBC anchor.

Can't wait to see where she ends up next. All right, up next, Tommy's interview with independent journalist, Jasper Nathaniel. Pod Save America's Broaddied by Stamps.com. We could all use a few more hours, even minutes in the day for ourselves. Don't I know it? skip your trip to the post office and stop letting mailing steal your precious little time with stamps.com. With stamps.com, you can print postage and shipping labels from your computer or phone 24-7 with up to 90% off UPS, USPS, FedEx, and more. No lines, no trips, no waiting, get everything done in minutes, and even schedule free pickups, so carriers come right to you.

Whether you're sending letters, contracts, important legal documents, packages, ballots that you just made yourself. Those famous homemade ballots with a human touch. Stamps.com makes mailing simple for businesses of all sizes, including multi-location offices. You can even send certified mail with proof of delivery right from your desk. I mean, we love stamps.com. We've been using it since 2017 when this, when Crooked started. And we were like, we don't have time to go to the post office.

We're trying to build a business here. Yeah, we're trying to do commerce. And so we use stamps.com, and boy, is it great. We're trying to harness the promise of one of the greatest forces for good in the history of the world. capitalism. Oh, yeah. If mailing is taking more time and more money than it should, try Stamps.com free for four weeks and get a welcome kit. Go to Stamps.com slash PSA to get this offer today. That's S-T-AM-P-S dot com slash PSA. Stamps.com slash PSA. Taxes and fees apply. I'm Nate Silver. I'm Gailen-Druke. And I'm Claire Malone. We're back. This time with our

friends at Crooked Media for a new show called Still. Still. Number are hard, takes her easy. And frankly, numbers have only gotten harder. What does the data actually say? How do we reconcile that with the other things that we're seeing in American politics and around the world? And how do we use that data to understand or maybe even dare to predict the future of American politics? New episodes every Wednesday starting September 9th. Subscribe to Stillcounting on YouTube.com slash at Stillcounting podcast or wherever you get your podcasts.

My guest today is an independent journalist focused on stories from inside the occupied West Bank. Jasper Nathaniel, welcome the show. Thanks so much for having me. Great to see you. We've talked. We've, uh, we've zoomed. I've never met you in person. It's great to have you in L.A.

Yeah. Thanks for for for having me here. If you guys want to find Jaster's work, first of all, you go to Substack and search for infinite jazz or go to Infinite Jazz. Uh, he's totally self-funded. He's an independent journalist. So if you sign up for a paid subscription, uh, we're sending you back to the West Bank, it sounds like.

That's right. Thank you. But other Potsie, America folks get on board. So I wanted to have this conversation with you today because we've talked a lot about Gaza on this show. I don't think we've talked about the West Bank much ever. And for a variety of reasons that we'll get into, I think the West Bank could have bigger political implications and could be an even more fundamental part of the 2028 Democratic primary in particular. For listeners who want some context or unfamiliar with the issue or the area, the West Bank is a little piece of territory. They've got Jordan to their east, Israel, everywhere else. It's home to about 3 million Palestinians, nearly 700,000 Israeli settlers.

And so when you hear people talk about a two-state solution and the creation of a Palestinian state, the majority of the territory for that state was supposed to be the West Bank. But for decades now, the West Bank has been carved up and stolen by Israeli settlers. And so when politicians say to you, I support a two-state solution, I think the next question has to be, okay, where's the territory? Where's the state you're talking about? Where we're drawing those borders. And so we'll get into all that in a minute.

But first, like, let's just do the basic. So, Jasper, can you explain to listeners, like, what is the Israeli settler movement? And how has it changed since the October 7th attacks in 2023? Okay. So just to take an even bigger step back, I mean, you know, Israel, when then it's 1948 borders, which are, you know, the borders that are recognized by, you know, under international law, law expanded in 1967 after the six-day war was fought. So basically Israel took Gaza from Egypt.

They took the West Bank from Jordan and they took a couple other territories. And the West Bank became under international law an occupied territory. And that's not just a euphemism or a phrase. That actually has legal implications that Israel is ostensibly supposed to be. to adhere to based on the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. And what those laws amount to is that this is a temporary occupation. Israel is temporarily administering the territory as it works out a security situation. With its military. With its military. It's a military occupation. Exactly. And so what that means is that the Israeli government is not allowed to govern the West Bank.

It has to actually, again, by international lobby, governed by the Israeli military. And the other thing that it means is that Israel cannot do anything to put down permanent roots in the West Bank because it has to be temporary. And so when you hear people say the settlement project is fundamentally illegal, it's because the settlement project is about settling, you know, putting down roots in the West Bank and the entire project is illegal. Right. So the settlement movement starts right after 1967, basically.

And the sort of religious tenets of it are that the West Bank is, you know, the youth probably heard the settlers or Mike Huckabee or, you know, maybe John Fetterman, I'm not sure, called Judea and Samaria. What that refers to is the ancient kingdoms of Israel. So Samaria was the kingdom in the north, Judea was the kingdom in the south. And, you know, if you talk to a settler or even Nanyahu, I think, what they will say is Judea and Samaria has more biblical significance to Jews than any other part of either. Israel, certainly Gaza, which has virtually no biblical significance to Jews. And so the reason I give that background is because there is a faction of people in Israel or of Jews around the world,

actually, who care about this territory much more than they care about anything else. And a thing that you hear a lot from settlers, they'll say, if Israel has a right to claim the land within its 1948 borders based on the Jewish people's connection to the land, well, we have a much stronger connection here. The connection in Samaria is much stronger than it is in Tel Aviv. So why don't we get to claim this? And so the settlement movement basically is acting on that. And they are trying to build what, you know, they call facts on the ground, which is Jewish settlements across the West Bank to turn it into part of Israel, basically. And since the October 7th attacks, my understanding is that settler activity and violence has just ratcheted up and up and up, right? Yes. Although,

I mean, this, this violence actually. he started before October 7th, as in like this big escalation. So in, at the end of 2022, you know, there was this election in Israel and then Yahoo forms this government with these far right factions that had been considered out of bounds even in Israeli politics, which is really far right. So you had guys like Idemar Ben Gavir in the Jewish Power Party and Bezal Smotrich in the Religious Zionism Party. Both of them are settlers themselves. They take ministerial positions immediately. And Smotrich, who is a completely messianic, who is a completely messianic, settler who has been open about saying that his life's goal is to create Jewish sovereignty across

Judea and Samaria and to bury Palestinian state, what he does is he pulls up this sort of incredible sleight of hand where he installs himself inside the defense ministry. He just makes up a title, additional minister in the Ministry of Defense. And what he does is he clears out all of these career bureaucrats inside of the defense ministry who had managed the bureaucracy of of the occupation, and he installs all of these settler ideologs. So it should be familiar to people who have followed what Doge did or what, you know, RFK is done at helping human services. Like you clear out all the people who had, you know, done the basic, put up the basic red

tape that at least made it a little difficult to build a settlement. And he puts in all these people who are just rubber stamping every new request to, to build a new settlement or to authorize an outpost or to, you know, call in state land or something like that. And simultaneously, Ben Gavir, who becomes a national security minister, directs the police to stop enforcing certain criminal laws against settlers. They remove what's called administrative detention against settlers. And they basically just give the settlers permission to run wild. And then the sort of last part of this is that the Israeli government and the IDF and the settlement movement begin working together like never before.

And the settler attacks on Palestinian villages, and we can probably get into this more later, but they're not random. I mean, they are attacking villages that are in strategic spots that Israel wants to take over to cut off territorial continuity for Palestinians or to, you know, create a new road that connects two settlements. And so basically what I'm getting at is like the violence has spun out of control, but it is, it's not chaos. This is very much part of the central state project. in the West Bank, which is to create Jewish Somerty across the whole territory. And just according to the UN, the number of settler attacks has increased every year since the October 7th attacks in 2023. 2026 is on pace to have more than 2,000 violent settler attacks in the West Bank alone.

But despite that frequency and volume of violence, very few of these stories get reported in Western media or breakthrough. One incident that did break through in Western media in a big way was one, an incident You documented back in October of 2025. We're going to watch that footage, and then I want you to describe what's happening. Come on, don't fucking hit her. Hey! Hey!

So for folks listening and not watching, that was footage of this mass settler, brutally beating. old woman and then a group of activists. And then we see footage from far away of you literally sprinting down a hill away from a mob. So what happened there? So this is in a village called Termosaya in the West Bank, which is just east of Ramallah. And it's actually one of these villages that is made up of largely American citizens. And so it was the olive harvest, which is for a long time been one of the most violent times of year for Palestinians because it's when Saddhors know exactly where they can find Palestinians away from their homes and they can attack them while they're doing this thing that's very important to them. And so I went out with a group of farmers

intermessaya into their olive fields, which recently settlers had built a new outpost there. Now, what an outpost is, is it is an Israeli settlement that does not even have Israel's approval yet. So it's basically a bunch of settlers have peeled off from an authorized settlement, planted a flag somewhere and said, you know, we live here now. And so it's like set up a camp, like Yes, literally. They set up a couple tents and a like shipping container and they start living there. So, and by the way, they know the guy who started the settlement. His name is Amishav Mellat. He's a real person with a real name and a criminal history, frankly. Everybody knows who he is. So we go into the olive fields. Immediately we see this guy, Mellet, points a gun at us, threatens us, tells us to get out of the olive fields. We find another way in. And to make a long story short, we got trapped in these olive fields by settlers who had guns. and we're threatening us.

And this is Palestinian land. And a lot of it is privately owned by American citizens, actually, for whatever that's worth. I run into a group of IDF soldiers and basically plead with them to help give us safe passage out of the olive fields. They agree. And then they lead us to come follow them. And then right as we reach me and a Palestinian farmer, we reach where the Israeli soldiers are. They speed away. And that's when that mob of settlers appears.

and chase me through the olive fields. Then I documented the clip of that woman, Um, Sava, being clubbed almost to death by settler. All in all in that attack, I want to say five people were hospitalized, homes were torched. And how old is the woman in that clip? She's, I believe she's in her 60s and she's a grandmother. And she was out there, you know, picking olives. But I think what's like really instructive about this incident actually is. is that it was one of the few settler attacks that on some level sort of broke through.

It was covered in, I mean, it was a huge story in Israel proper. And it was covered in the mainstream Western media to a certain extent. And I think it's because there's no way to spin a video of a masked settler clubbing an old woman. And so it actually created a PR crisis for Israel. Yeah. And so what they did was they went out and they made an extraordinarily rare arrest. of the guy who clubbed her. Now, the reason I bring this up is because I actually,

the Israeli authorities reached out to me about this because it was my footage. And I basically, you know, what I said to them is, you know as well as I do that the guy you arrested is a foot soldier. This is a nobody. We know where he came from. He came from the outpost,

which is in the middle of the term is Iowa Fields. You know where it is. You know the guy who's leading it. If you want to end the terror in this community, you have to dismantle that outpost. And these guys told me on the phone, just watch. That's what we're going to do. Fast forward to my visit in June.

I went back to Termosiah. What had been a couple of shipping containers is now eight shipping containers. What have been maybe one family living there is now maybe a dozen families living there. Amoshov Mellat is still patrolling the olive fields with his gun. The IDF is there hanging out with them, praying, smoking cigarettes, breaking bread. and the people of Termosai just now can't even consider trying to get to their land. And so again, it's like I bring this up because the way settler violence is sometimes covered, to the extent it's ever covered in the Western media,

it looks like a couple of sort of feral, you know, misguided youth. And that's certainly how like Ninya. Bad apples. Describes them. Bad apples are randomly attacking a village. But the Amishav Mellat is a well-connected guy. He is working with high-ranking members of the IDF and in the Knesset, in the Israeli government, to build this outpost here and push the Palestinians off their land to expand the Shiloh settlement, actually.

And so every place where you're seeing settlers attacking Palestinians is a place where the powers that be in the Israeli government and the military and the settler movement have decided not just we want to go, you know, launch a pogrom against these people, but this is a strategic point for. us to take in our effort to bury the idea of a Palestinian state. And so that is why the violence is so widespread right now. It's because it's calculated and it's methodical and it's being designed at the highest levels of the Israeli government. I want to get you asking more about those connections to the government in a second. But look, you're an American, you're a journalist in the longer version of that video. You're yelling press, American press. One would assume that would afford you some protection from the settlers, not because they love Americans, but because they know that beating up an American is going to lead to blowback and a call from the embassy to the Israeli

government. And that could maybe lead to consequences, whereas beating up a Palestinian is almost never going to lead to consequences. But just a couple days ago, a crew from NBC News was interviewing a Palestinian woman, a car full of settlers drives up, they jump out, they beat the shit out of all of them with clubs and then speed away. Did that sense? surprise you? Does that reflect a new level of impunity? No, that didn't surprise me at all. You know, these attacks are completely ubiquitous in the West Bank. The only unusual thing that happened there was that a mainstream outlet went to one of these villages that is seeing a lot of violence and they ran into the settlers who live there and they got attacked. I mean,

that's what happens. It's the same reason why Congressman Roe-Kana had his bus hijacked when he was driving through the South Teabron Hills. These people came out and said, oh, it's a hoax. You know, it was a setup. What a coincidence. It's like, no, go drive through the South Eubron Hills. That place is run by the violent settlers and the military that supports them. So this is just what happens there. And as a journalist, I mean, like you said, I certainly am much more protected at every level than my Palestinian friends and my Palestinian colleagues, journalists. But I've been going to the West Bank for years now. And each time I go, the settlers seem less and less inhibited in physically attacking me. And,

I'm visibly not Palestinian, and I'm usually speaking, and they know I'm American, and they just have no hesitation whatsoever in attacking me. And yes, it's because they know in all likelihood they will be celebrated and rewarded for this. And I'm not exaggerating, by the way. And this is covered in the Israeli press. So there's nothing conspiratorial about this. The settlers who are committing the violence are considered the tip of the spear for the central Israeli state project of ethnically cleansing the land from the river to the sea. And so they know that somebody like me who's there to report on what

they're doing, I'm an enemy of the state. They consider me an enemy of the state and the people attacking me know that maybe if push comes to shove, Huckabee will have to condemn them or so and so will condemn them. But there's almost no chance that they're actually going to go to jail or do any real jail time. And if anything, it's going to elevate their status in the movement. Yeah. Before I ask you about the government ties, is there any sort of data about Palestinian attacks on Jews in the West Bank? Because that's sort of the what aboutism you always hear. Like, what about violence or terrorism against Jewish communities in the West Bank in particular? Well, strictly from a numbers perspective, since October 7, 2023, the ratio of Palestinians

who have been killed by Israelis to Israelis who have been killed by Palestinians is about 30 to one. So there's no comparison from a numbers perspective. I'll also tell you that the communities in the West Bank that are most under attack that are seeing the most violence are the most defenseless ones. These are shepherding villages where there's no history of armed resistance, where there's barely even any infrastructure, let alone weapons, and they're being attacked because they are the easiest targets and the easiest ones to chase off the land. So anybody who claims that settler violence is a response to Palestinian violence, well, if that was a case you would expect to see the settler violence going after places that do have

some history of armed resistance, which exists in the West Bank. But that's not where it's happening. It's happening mostly in these completely defenseless Bedouin villages. But the last thing I just want to say is about this is, you know, the numbers about the violence and the murder obviously tell a story. But the violence against Palestinians in the West Bank goes so much deeper than that. I mean, these villages that we're talking about that are under attack, it's difficult to describe what the feeling of just pervasive terror in the air is like in these places. you can't go to sleep there because every single night, settlers are coming in their ATVs, they're flying drones, they're firing guns, they're putting floodlights into homes, they're beating the crap out of people. Sometimes they're killing people. They're burning down homes. They're burning homes with people still in them. People, young men in these villages who were students or farmers or mechanics are now forced to be the sort of de facto security in these places. They don't have any weapons though. If they dare to throw a rock at a Palestinian, They might be killed by an Israeli soldier who's invading the village with the settlers and then called a terrorist for throwing a stone. And so like the terror just goes, the violence and terror and just suppication of all life goes so deep that any, you know, question about who's doing the violence unto whom?

I mean, you can just go to those numbers, but also you have to look at who is suffocating the life out of whom in the West Bank. Just like day to day, cruelty, violence all day. Potta America is brought you by Sundays. When it comes to pet food, companies have a lot of cost-cutting measures and filler ingredients at their disposal. But Sundays made a deliberate choice. Real human-grade meesh. No fillers, no synthetic vitamin premixes, nothing you can't pronounce. A vet developed it because she wanted food.

She could actually stand behind. Sundays for dogs' recipes contains over 80%. All-natural meat. Roughly twice the meat content of some leading frozen brands. Plus nutrient-rich ingredients like kale, ginger, blueberries, gently air-dried rather than exposed to high heat. No fillers, no synthetic additives, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. It doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high-quality jerky.

And it's a vet founded and vet formulated, created by Dr. Tori Waxman. To meet her high standards is both a veterinarian and a dog parent. And the best part, it's effortless, no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess. Just scoop and serve. You get the quality of a home-cooked meal with the ease of kibble. Over 100,000 dogs are now eating Sundays, and many dog parents are noticing the same things. Shiner your coats, better digestion, more energy, and finally getting excited at meal time. even the pickiest eaters.

Plus it applies to their dogs as well. Share your dog's experience with the food. Loves it. More energy, not this dog. I mean, she's barking more, but I don't think that's a food's problem. No, I don't think that's, I mean, you know, Leo's barking more,

and when he eats his Sundays for dogs, then he's not barking. Is Leo actually barking more lately? Yeah. Pundit is too. They're aging, because our dogs are siblings, by coincidence, which is another story, but genuinely a coincidence, but regardless, they-

Not in the office. It's very specific. It's at home. Like when I walk in every night, he is just barking nonstop. And I try to give him a treat. And I try to pet him. And he just keeps barking. He has to like take some time to settle down. Yeah. They're getting old. They're getting ornery. You know? Yeah. But man, they love the dog food. They too. They sure do. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for Dogs.com.com slash crooked and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code crooked at checkout. Or you can use code crooked at checkout. I'm Nate Silver. I'm Gailen Druk. And I'm Claire Malone.

We're back, this time with our friends at Crooked Media for a new show called Still Counting. Yeah. Numbers are hard, takes her easy. And frankly, numbers have only gotten harder. What does the data actually say? How do we reconcile that with the other things that we're seeing in American politics and around the world? And how do we use that data to understand or maybe even dare to predict the future of American politics? New episodes every Wednesday starting September 9th.

Subscribe to Stillcounting on YouTube.com slash at Stillcounting podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. So like we were just saying, you know, when these stories do break through, when Israeli officials are forced to respond, it's some version of, you know, a couple bad apples. Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, to his credit, I think he called some of these recent Israeli settlers terrorists, which they are. But he also kind of does the few bad apples shit. Like you said, though, anyone actually paying attention knows that the Israeli government is complicit in and supportive of these settlers. You've described them as the tip of the sphere for the state-backed annexation process. Can you tell us more about how the government is backing these attackers and sort of what

the end game is? Sure. For starters, Bezal Smotrich, who I mentioned before, he is essentially running the military occupation right now, which is in charge of things like construction tenders and zoning permits and, you know, transportation and checkpoints and whatnot. So he's already controlling life in the West Bank. He is also the finance minister. And they have, they are diverting a disproportionate amount of tax revenue and funds into not just the settlements, but the illegal outposts. And so every dollar that goes into the Israeli government through taxes or, you know, aid or whatever it is,

a disproportionate amount of that is going directly to building out roads that connect illegal outpost to one another. It's giving them guns. And by the way, obviously, U.S. taxpayer dollars are paying for this stuff too, for bulldozers. And so the Israeli government is supporting the settler movement on a very material level. But I think, again, it goes to like, there was in fact a time not that long ago when there was some sort of, there was a little bit of, real estate between the settlement movement and the government and the IDF. I mean, there were certainly like alliances across them and there was a lot of,

there was political and ideological overlap. But a lot of the time the IDF and the settlers were fighting with each other because the IDF was ostensibly trying to, you know, maintain security with an iron. Police them shut down their settlements. Exactly. We'll shut down the illegal outposts. Because they saw those settlers as troublemakers. Today in the West Bank, the head of the Central Command,

which is basically the commander of the IDF in the West Bank. He's a settler himself. He appointed a guy. And again, what I'm saying now, this was first reported in the Israeli press. He appointed someone whose full-time job is to go to these illegal outposts to meet with the settler leaders there and discuss with them what their needs are in terms of funding, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of weapons, but also to pull out maps and talk about what are the places where they want to expand to.

And what that means is these are the places that we're going to launch attack. And then they launched these attacks. Over 60 Palestinian communities have actually been fully ethnically cleansed, chased off of their land since October 7th. Sometimes it makes a little bit of news. Usually it doesn't. But then what happens when nobody's paying attention anymore is the Israeli government retroactively legalizes that outposts and it becomes a settlement. And so what that means is that the violent settlers, when I say they're the tip of the spear, they are quite literally the ones clearing the land. Maybe occasionally they'll be condemned for PR purposes, but then when nobody's paying attention

anymore, that now became a new settlement or a neighborhood of an existing settlement or something. So it is quite literally all part of the same project. And you're talking about Smotrich. There's another guy, it's Mara Ben-Gabir, who, just to be clear, is part of the Israeli government. Bibi Netanyahu did not win the last election outright. It's a parliamentary system, so we had to build a coalition of other parties to get enough votes in the Knesset. to rule. Ben Gavir is the national security minister. It's hard to like describe how extreme he is without sounding hyperbolic. Like he used to have a photo on his wall of a guy named

Baruch Goldstein who is a terrorist who I think machine gun something like 29 Palestinians. A Brooklyn Jew. Yeah, who are praying. Like me. Yeah. He recently posted an AI video that we're going to show for you guys of himself sending Palestinians, on train tracks into a prison. They go in fat. They come out crying and skinny. I think it's deliberately designed to look like a concentration cam.

Absolutely. Let's watch that. So it's pretty sickening stuff. Israel's elections coming up in October. Everyone would like to see Netanyahu lose. We'd like to see this current coalition blown up so that people like Ben-Gabir are no longer in power. However, the person most likely to replace Netanyahu

who is a guy named Gotti Eisencoat. A lot of Israel supporters in the U.S. who are mad about, who are supporters of Israel but are mad about what happened in Gaza, for example, talk about getting rid of Netanyahu like it's a panacea, but the alternatives aren't great when it comes to the West Bank, right? Can you talk a little bit about that? Yeah. I mean, the main opposition candidate is a guy named Gotti Eisenkott,

who he is considered by some to be the sort of central. liberal savior of Israel. In fairness to him, he is less openly extreme than Nanyahu or Ben Gavir or Smotrich. But I guess I'll just give two quick, a couple quick anecdotes about him. The first one, Eisengot developed the doctrine that the IDF uses, which basically states that if you apply disproportionate force to civilian infrastructure in enemy territories, then you will pressure the civilians there to pressure their government. That is why all of Gaza's civilian infrastructure was destroyed.

I mean, it is because of that doctrine, basically. And so this is the guy who created that. The second thing I want to say about him is that earlier this year, he visited one of the most infamously violent outposts in the West Bank to meet with the leaders there in a clear signal that if the government changes hands, don't worry. Like, you still got a man on the inside. There's no reason to visit a violent outpost, which, again, is illegal, even under Israeli law. There's no reason to make that visit unless you were sending a clear political signal to them. And the third thing I'll say is, you know, he has had to come out time and time again and reiterate. He is against the creation of a Palestinian state against it.

It will never happen under his watch, he says. And so, you know, like, again, I mean, I'm not going to pretend that there would be no difference between him and, Nanyahu or like if they replace the defense minister or the national security minister, whatever. But the fundamentals are still there. I mean, there's still a project to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and to ethically cleanse Gaza and parts of Lebanon and, you know, who knows where else between the river and the sea. And that's, that is, there's nothing in the existing Israeli political system that shows that could change. I do also want to quickly go back to the Ben-Gabir thing real quick, though. I mean, I think that video is is instructive in some ways,

because first of all, it's an accurate representation of what's happening. I mean, besides like how, you know, they show Palestinians as being like, you know, overweight going in, I suppose that's just ridiculous. But there is an actual policy of starving Palestinians in Israeli prisons, a literal policy. Ben-Gavir, when he came into power, he instructed the prisons to cut down on the food rations, among many other things, to cut down on the number of beds they get, so some that many cells are overcrowded. There's policies of actual torture. The Israeli Supreme Court last year ruled that the Israeli prison system was not feeding

their Palestinian prisoners enough to survive and instructed them to remedy that. And Ben Gavir just said no thanks. So there is literally a policy of starvation. And there's over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners. Thousands of them are being held without charge. many of them are children. And so, you know, including American children, by the way, including American children. The reason I bring this up is just because there is this tendency among, I think, liberal supporters of Israel to describe Ben Gavir as a sort of fringe figure.

And what I always come back to is that Nick Christoph's story, op-ed in the New York Times about what's happening in the Israeli prisons, about rape and sexual assault in Israeli prisons. And the same people that are willing to condemn Ben Gavir and condemn videos like that, called that blood libel, accused Christoph of blood libel. And they acted completely incredulous that something like that could happen in Israeli prison. And so it's kind of like what you said. This guy's in charge. Ben Gavir runs the prison system. He runs the police force.

He's in charge of law and order in Israel and the occupied territories. And so if you can see a video like that and condemn it, you really need to take that next step and say, with his power, what has he actually done? Besides what he's showing us right here in this video. And we give him rifles. We are videos of him handing out like enforce. That are being handed to settlers in the West Bank. They're being used to kill Americans among others.

I'm sure the people who are listening to this who are frustrated and feel like this is like two liberals, you know, coming down hard on Israel. And they feel like there's maybe too much of this in the conversation. And I just want to point out that the New York Times recently featured, ran this piece that featured a bunch of top retired Israeli. military officials who went to the West Bank and were just horrified by what they saw. The headline was these generals fought for Israel and now they see Jewish terrorism as the threat. A retired major general says, quote, what the settlers are doing here is the real threat to Israel. This is more concerning to me than Iran, Gaza or Lebanon. Another says this is ethnic clenting, to put it simply, a retired Air Force general says,

once a society behaves this way, that society is doomed. He even compared the efforts to Nazi era efforts to erase the Jewish people. You know, if you or I made those comments, Jasper, like the ADL. Well, that is a direct to those Israeli generals, that is a direct violation of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to compare Israel to Nazis. And so I'm waiting for Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL to come out and condemn these Israeli generals for saying those things. But no, I mean, listen, there is no other side of this story of what's happening in the West Bank. There just simply isn't. Anybody who is still defending the settlement movement or the IDF there or just Israel's policy in the West Bank, you're just not looking at what's actually happening.

When you have IDF generals in that article, like, lists their accomplishments of like the extreme violence as the phrase that they committed in the West Bank, in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, and all these places, if those people are coming out and saying it, then I mean, it's just, again, it's like, as far as I'm concerned, Yeah, there's just no argument anymore that this is not happening. You're the most hawkish hawks. The most hawkish hawks. This worries me more than Iran. And I do want to say that like, you know, the way this is being talked about among a lot of Israelis, including these guys, is that it's a threat to Israel. It's a huge PR issue for Israel, first of all. These videos, you know, of Palestinians being attacked by settlers, it looks bad for Israel.

It's creating all this bad press. So they recognize that it's a problem for Israel. What you don't hear nearly enough of is talking about the principal issue here, which is the Palestinians who are being violently attacked and having their home stolen and whatnot. And so I just, I want to, you know, point that out. Yeah, in the hope for a Palestinian state. So look, you know, you and I have talked on, uh, positive the world, my foreign policy show a couple of times. We've, we've talked about your reporting on the show more often than that. Um, but I wanted to have this conversation on this show, the more kind of domestic political show because I think, I hope that these issues are going to be a big part of the 2028 Democratic primary. and generally, I think we all should be talking about how what's happening is existential and a threat to any hope of a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. I know you're a journalist. You're not like a policy white paper guy, but are there Democrats out there proposing ideas that you think are good or ideas that you wish they would propose or implement?

I'm going to answer that question a little bit differently. There are Democrats who are saying some things that I think are positive. Chris Van Hollen being, I think, the sort of the lead one and are talking more openly about like what is happening in the West Bank and in Gaza and whatnot. And, you know, like it's good to see a shift in that direction. I think that there is still a refusal to face the reality of what's happening because it is politically inconvenient. And let me give you like one specific example.

of that. It's very easy for a Democrat to come out and say, Palestinians should have a right to live in dignity. It's very easy to condemn settler violence. There's nothing hard about that for a Democrat to do. It's much more difficult to say these Palestinians who are being attacked by armed settlers, how are they going to defend themselves? When you are in a Palestinian community, And you have settlers with machine guns and a military behind them coming into the village, burning their homes, killing their people, attacking them. How are they supposed to defend themselves? And I think that, you know, the question about cutting off military aid to Israel,

I think I'm glad that that has sort of been mainstreamed or at least like the Overton window has shifted on it. But the next question becomes, how are the Palestinians supposed to defend themselves? And I would just like to hear that talked about by Democratic politicians. I think the second thing is like I just I can't I can't bear to hear them talk about a two state solution anymore. Or if you're going to talk about a two state solution, this is basically what I'm asking of Democratic politicians. You are talking about creating a Palestinian state, creating enough territory in the West Bank for Palestinians to have an actual state. The Israeli government from the left to the right is against that. The Israeli military is directly fighting against that.

The settlers are certainly against it. So at that point, if you're going to create a Palestinian state there, you're going to war with Israel. You are literally, you have to go to war with Israel to create a Palestinian state. And so if you are, you know, talking about a two-state solution, you have to also explain your plan for going to war with Israel to create that state. But in lieu of that, I think that they should be talking, you know, to the extent they're talking about solutions at all, beyond things like a full arms embargo. is a one state solution. Because what you have right now is a single state, an apartheid state. And, you know, all you got to do is say all these people living under occupation are now citizens too.

And then you can actually have a democracy. It won't be a Jewish state anymore, but it'll be a democracy. And it'll have Jewish people and Muslims and Christians living there. But you cannot have both a, I mean, look, the reality is there's, it is not with the situation as it is today, where there is no possibility of creating an actual Palestinian state there, it can't be both the Jewish state and a democracy. Right. I mean, it is a democracy when you give everybody the right to vote, and then it is no longer a majority Jewish state. And so that's just a reality that politicians have to reckon with.

And again, nobody is talking about, you know, killing all the Jews there or anything insane like that. We're talking about just giving equal rights to everybody who lives there. Well, yeah, I mean, I think what you're doing here is kind of popping bubbles and the fictions that are still a part, such a central part of the talking points, right? Like, I think in reality, there is no way for innocent villagers to defend themselves against a well-armed settler movement and the idea. So the conversation sort of has to be what can the international community do to put structures in place to defend them, whether it's like the UN or something. But it also, Tommy, I mean, it's also like when people, when politicians talk about a Palestinian state, you know, Even the, you know, ostensibly pro-Palestine ones say, well, it'll be a demilitarized state. Why?

Why should the Palestinians be demilitarized when they are being literally killed every single day? I mean, like, the double standard there is just, it's staggering. And I just think that like the way, I mean, listen, a Palestinian with a gun is considered a terrorist to the mainstream media and to politicians. Like, it doesn't matter how they got that gun. It doesn't matter what they're using it for, if it's for self-defense or whatever. just considered a terrorist. And that needs to change. I mean, and again, like, I'm not prescribing solutions here, but I want to say, if you can acknowledge that there are terrorists roaming the West Bank, Jewish terrorists roaming the West Bank, terrorizing communities, killing people,

how do you propose those people protect themselves? And it's up to you how you want to talk about doing that. But I would like to see that reality acknowledged, as opposed to politicians just saying the sort of like easy, basic things about. Two states living side by side. Yeah. And, you know, we don't, you know, condemning the violent settlers and condemning Smotrich and Ben Gavir and blah, blah, it's like, it's a little bigger than that. Oh, for sure.

I mean, I think we're both getting like moving past kind of the broken conversation of a decade ago. Those talking points were kind of not operative for a very long time, even before October 7th, frankly. And also, I think, you know, the reality of the idea that you would forcibly expel hundreds of thousands of settlers from the West Bank would lead to a massive military conflict. there would be all sorts of resistance from within the Israeli government. So it seems very unlikely to happen.

So what's the next thing that we're talking about? I think it's kind of the point we're both getting out here. Last question for you. I mean, you're Jewish. A lot of Jewish Americans, friends, family of mine, grew up hearing a very different story about Israel than the one we've been telling for the last 40 minutes. How does it feel for you to go to the West Bank to witness his occupation and oppression? What part of your own upbringing and religion do you kind of bring to this work?

Well, I mean, first I want to say that it's not fair that because I'm Jewish, my voice, like, it carries more weight to some people. I mean, everything that I'm reporting has been reported on by Palestinians for much longer than I've been doing it. And I just want to sort of establish that. Now, to your question, I mean, I'm 100% Jewish, despite what many people online like to say about me. What do they say? They just say you're a fake Jew, you're a kapo, you're a Nazi, you're a traitor, you're a ham sandwich, blah, blah. Blah, Blah. Elon Musk tweeting about genetic makeup today.

I did see that. Yeah. Nothing could go wrong there. Right. Right. Yeah, that's always a good game to go into. Yes. So my, and, you know, I'm Jewish, but also my, on my mom's side, my grandparents

escaped the Holocaust. Most of my mom's mother's family was exterminated. My mom's dad came from, they escaped the Russian pogroms. On my dad's side, his parents lived in Iraq. in Baghdad. They were Jews in Baghdad for generations. And they had to leave when there was a rise in anti-Semitism as well. So the point I'm making is just that like I grew up in a house that was Jewish and that had a very real sense of deadly anti-Semitism. As far as like how our Jewishness manifested, I think it was in two main ways. The first one was questioning and challenging everything.

and that includes the stories we heard about the Jewish state and some difficult questions about that. And it also taught me, you know, the expression that you hear more now, which is never again means never again for anyone. And at the end of the day, another way to say that is like valuing human life. And, you know, when I go to the West Bank, the reality is people know I'm Jewish. I mean, I tell people or they just know at this point. And it is the Palestinians who are feeding me and taking me into their homes and protecting me.

And it is Jewish settlers and soldiers who are trying to kill me. And it does sort of beg the question about what sort of Jewishness this is. You know, these Israelis who are trying to kill me are practicing. The last thing I want to say about this, though, is that I think that as a, you know, speaking as a Jewish American, again, who had a bar mitzvah, who has been Jewish my whole life since people like to say you're an Azadju, who still goes to synagogue. It is, we are long overdue as Jewish Americans to have a reckoning with what our institutions and our organizations and our synagogues have facilitated and enabled. And, you know, on one level, that is just the sort of unwavering support that the institutions have given to Israel and the way they have defended Israel.

you know, through a genocide, through ethnic cleansing, through all these things. But it actually goes beyond that. It goes to, I mean, frankly, material support for terror. And so what I'm talking about here is things like the Jewish National Fund, which is the organization that provides those little blue tin sadaka boxes in synagogues where people put in their loose change. And then that money goes to Israel. It's in thousands of synagogues across the country.

A lot of that money goes to bringing. non-native invasive trees into Israel, which serve as basically, they're planting trees that are basically like serving as Tinder for forest fires over there. That's neither here nor there. Great. Another place that money has gone, this came out earlier this year, was that money was going directly to an organization that is training the hilltop youth, the most violent settlers in the West Bank, training them to be little foot soldiers, little child soldiers in the West Bank attacking Palestinians. This is, this was reported in the Times of Israel. again, you are talking about thousands of synagogues across the country who are providing material support for terror against Palestinians.

And I'm not suggesting that every, you know, like my Jewish family, every Jewish person knows this is happening on a material level. But I think it is past time for people to take a close look at not just what the Jewish institutions represent, but what they are actually supporting and ask yourself, is this what being Jewish is? Is this what it's supposed to be? Is this valuing human life? And I mean, frankly, it's upsetting. It's really upsetting. And the way I deal with it is by doing the work that I do and by talking about things like this. And, you know, I refuse to accept that the religion is irredeemable or anything.

And I'm not suggesting anything like that. But this is what the institutions are supporting. And listen, Jonathan Griebaud at the ADL, he's called you an anti-Semite, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Because I thought that yo dragged this into the world of the world around. So, you know, it's just like it's so these institutions, these Jewish institutions are so corrupt and broken. And it goes so deep, really encourage Jewish Americans to think more deeply about this and think about like, what does it mean to you to be Jewish?

What do you want to support? What do you want to represent? And, yeah, I hope people ask those questions. Well, your reporting on what's happening in the West Bank has been invaluable to me. and I think it would be great if folks would check it out. Again, go to Substack. It's Infinite Jazz 1Z. Infinite Jazz.

If you get a paid subscription, you can pay to fund Jasper's next trip to the West Bank. So thanks for coming in. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Thanks to Jasper Nathaniel for coming on the show. Love it. We'll be back on Sunday with a conversation

with the host of Crooked's new podcast still counting, which brings back the voices of 538 and we'll be out Wednesday evenings starting September night. Have a good weekend, everyone. Bye, everyone. I fucking steal with my lines here at the end. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production. Our show is produced by Austin Fisher, Saul Rubin,

McKenna Roberts, and Ferris Safari with Reed Jirlin, Elijah Cohn, and Adrian Hill. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Hefkoat, Jordan Cantor, Charlotte Landis, David Tolls, Mia Kelman, Ryan Young, and Naomi Single. Our staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. I'm Nate Silver. I'm Gailen Drook. And I'm Claire Malone.

We're back, this time with our friends at Crooked Media for a new show called Still Counting. Yeah. Numbers are hard. takes her easy. And frankly, numbers have only gotten harder. What does the data actually say? How do we reconcile that with the other things that we're seeing in American politics and around the world? And how do we use that data to understand or maybe even dare to predict the future of American politics? New episodes every Wednesday starting September 9th. Subscribe to Stillcounting on

YouTube.com slash at Stillcounting podcast or wherever you get your podcasts.