Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that,
Speaker 2: let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday.
Speaker 2: We have an amazing show for everybody today. What do
Speaker 2: we have Bristal.
Speaker 4: Indeed, we do.
Speaker 1: Lots of interesting things unfolding right here in the nation's capital.
Speaker 1: We finally got the text of that border plus Ukraine
Speaker 1: plus Israel deal and there is something for everyone to hate.
Speaker 1: Apparently we will get into what's in it, and also
Speaker 1: it's increasingly long odds of actually passing. At the same time,
Speaker 1: we are taking a look at the fact that AI
Speaker 1: is already taking white collar jobs.
Speaker 4: In spite of the.
Speaker 1: Fact that tech has in many ways recovered this year
Speaker 1: record revenues all that kind of stuff, they are still
Speaker 1: shedding jobs and AI appears to have a lot to
Speaker 1: do with it. We're also going to do a little review,
Speaker 1: possibly debate. I'm not sure about the Apple vision pro
Speaker 1: Saga and I believe have different assessments.
Speaker 4: Of the utility and the future of this thing.
Speaker 1: Jeff Stein is coming in studio to give us a
Speaker 1: breakdown on a very simple question.
Speaker 4: How is the economy actually a very challenging.
Speaker 3: Web to answer? I wish it was simple.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it should be a simple question, but it actually
Speaker 1: is really not. We have an American general who is
Speaker 1: saying that Israel is completely failing in their stated objectives
Speaker 1: in gods. So this comes as the US has been
Speaker 1: caught lying about whether or not they actually gave a
Speaker 1: rock pre notification about those strikes over the weekend. And
Speaker 1: we're also taking a look at one provision in that
Speaker 1: Border Ukraine Israel bill that would permanently ban funding from UNRA,
Speaker 1: that is the main aid agency on the ground to
Speaker 1: benefit Palestinians, what that could mean. And also actually got
Speaker 1: a little bit of a look at what the allegations are.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you something, guys. Those allegations against
Speaker 1: UNRUN employees completely devoid of any evidence. So a lot
Speaker 1: to get to you this morning.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really excited to talk about everything for today's show.
Speaker 2: Before we get to that, though, we did have our
Speaker 2: RFK Junior focus group that just happened last night in
Speaker 2: the state of Michigan.
Speaker 3: It was really interesting.
Speaker 2: We've already got some amazing results, and I think you
Speaker 2: guys are going to be really struck and in some
Speaker 2: cases honestly moved by some of the reasons why people
Speaker 2: support RK. A lot of it having to do with
Speaker 2: just a rejection of the two party systems. So I
Speaker 2: think it's really going to resonate and for our premium members,
Speaker 2: you guys get to watch it early and you get
Speaker 2: to support work like this Breakingpoints dot Com. We have
Speaker 2: a discount currently available for our annual members. But it's
Speaker 2: always good to hear from people directly.
Speaker 4: Yea, Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Griffin was there on the ground during the focus group,
Speaker 1: so he gave us a little bit of a preview
Speaker 1: of what to expect. And I'm personally really looking forward
Speaker 1: to watching it and hearing from these folks why they
Speaker 1: have decided to throw in with RFK Junior. And he
Speaker 1: also said they're very optimistic, Yeah, very very optimistic that
Speaker 1: he could actually win and be the next president. That'll
Speaker 1: be really interesting to listen it's.
Speaker 3: Going to be exciting. I think you guys will enjoy it.
Speaker 2: We'll release it as a podcast again exclusively and early
Speaker 2: available to our premium members, So Breakingpoints dot com if
Speaker 2: you want to take advantage.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: Let's move to the areas of the Border bill which
Speaker 2: were paired with aid military aid to Ukraine and to Israel.
Speaker 2: Senator Schumer had a stunning pronouncement on MSNBC yesterday in
Speaker 2: his advocacy for the bill, where he said that if
Speaker 2: the bill is not passed and money is not given
Speaker 2: to Ukraine, America will regredit because then American troops will
Speaker 2: have to be sent to fight in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 6: Well, if we don't aid Ukraine, Putin will be walk
Speaker 6: all over Ukraine. We will lose the war, and we
Speaker 6: could be fighting in Eastern Europe in a NATO ally
Speaker 6: in a few years. Americans won't like that. If we
Speaker 6: don't help Israel defend itself, Aviance Thomas, that perpetual war go.
Speaker 3: Go on and on and on.
Speaker 6: If we don't help humanitarian aid to the starving Palestinians
Speaker 6: in Gaza, hundreds of thousands could starve, and the order
Speaker 6: everyone has said it's chaos.
Speaker 3: A speaker. You just saw.
Speaker 6: Speaker Johnson, he said, it's chaos. We have to do
Speaker 6: something legislative a few months ago. But what has happened?
Speaker 6: And answer your your question. So this is crucial for America.
Speaker 6: It's a turning point. History is going to look over
Speaker 6: our shoulders and say, did we rise to the occasion?
Speaker 6: To his credit, Mix McConnell did. But too many Republicans,
Speaker 6: including Speaker Johnson, are just scared to death of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: It is insane that the way that they act like
Speaker 1: they would have no choice in the matter, I know,
Speaker 1: but to send our sons and daughters to die in
Speaker 1: Ukraine if you don't give them even more money than they've.
Speaker 4: Already given it.
Speaker 1: You know what's amazing in this bill that I think
Speaker 1: it was Michael Tracy.
Speaker 4: That pulled this out.
Speaker 1: One of the provisions of the bill is that the
Speaker 1: Ukraine funding includes that we have to come up with
Speaker 1: a strategy for Ukraine for the future. It's like, wait
Speaker 1: a second, aren't you supposed to have a strategy already.
Speaker 1: We've been at this for years at this point, and
Speaker 1: you're admitting you just literally have no strategy for how
Speaker 1: this is to end.
Speaker 3: Guys, we actually have that.
Speaker 2: Can we put a seven please up on the screen.
Speaker 2: I will read directly from the text of the bill.
Speaker 2: He says that the House of Representatives will have a
Speaker 2: strategy regarding the United in Ukraine against aggression. That such
Speaker 2: strategy must be provided for a multi year, established, specific
Speaker 2: and achievable objectives, define and prioritize the US national security interests.
Speaker 2: This will hasten Ukrainian victory against Russian invasion forces.
Speaker 3: I do want to.
Speaker 2: Spend time on this because it's one of the most
Speaker 2: dishonest things that.
Speaker 3: People who are pro Ukraine saying.
Speaker 2: They're like, well, if Ukraine is defeated, then American troops
Speaker 2: will have to fight. Why Ukraine's not in NATO, It
Speaker 2: actually doesn't change anything. If Latvia is invaded then yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a different story. Then yeah, we would be in
Speaker 2: a fight because they're in NATO. Ukraine's got nothing to
Speaker 2: do with NATO. Ukraine is a former Soviet state which
Speaker 2: has no security obligation zero from the United States. I
Speaker 2: would also say it is the most stupid argument because
Speaker 2: it's one of those where it's Domino theory in reverse.
Speaker 2: For example, Crystal Currently the line is to support Taiwan.
Speaker 3: We have to support Ukraine.
Speaker 2: And the reason why is because if Ukraine falls, then
Speaker 2: China will be in bolden to support Taiwan or in
Speaker 2: bay Taiwan. And my friend Elvit Kolby always points out,
Speaker 2: if you think Taiwan is under threat, then you should
Speaker 2: support weapons to Taiwan and more navy destroyers in the
Speaker 2: South China Sea. That has to do with Taiwan. But
Speaker 2: don't try and do all of this convoluted jiu jitsu
Speaker 2: about well if this happens, and this may happen, which
Speaker 2: may invite somebody to do this, No, no, no, no, make
Speaker 2: the argument on its face. And the reason they can't
Speaker 2: is because the Ukraine War is a failure and a disaster.
Speaker 2: Since the day of that Spring Offensive, if you want
Speaker 2: to call that from the Ukrainians, they haven't advanced a
Speaker 2: single inch of territory. They have squandered probably up to
Speaker 2: a million of their own citizens. They are currently undertaking
Speaker 2: a draft which includes people who are blind, disabled and
Speaker 2: barely functional in their fifties, throwing them into a meat grinder,
Speaker 2: begging us for more bullets as they sacrifice their own people,
Speaker 2: and at the same time have been completely militarily inept
Speaker 2: to apply any tactics that have even remotely worked in
Speaker 2: retaking their territory.
Speaker 3: It's their fault.
Speaker 2: They decided not to take that peace deal back in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty two, many supported also by the United States,
Speaker 2: and now the two of us are in this you know,
Speaker 2: death grip where we're watching the failure of our policy
Speaker 2: just go apart. Zelensky, by the way, I should say,
Speaker 2: is in free fall. He's firing his top commander. Why
Speaker 2: because the guy admitted to the economists that it's a stalemate.
Speaker 3: That's why he's firing him.
Speaker 4: He's, you know, for the being honest.
Speaker 2: The crime of being honest. He's firing many top ministers.
Speaker 2: He's finally allowing some of the tip of the iceer
Speaker 2: corruption to come to light. Who knows how many billions
Speaker 2: we're squandered and were stolen, you know, by the Ukrainian oligarchs.
Speaker 3: Now at this point the.
Speaker 2: Only humanitarian thing and strategically important thing you could do
Speaker 2: would be to sue for pieces soon as humanly possible.
Speaker 2: But honestly, at this point they have squandered their chances
Speaker 2: such that the Russians just yesterday we took a city.
Speaker 2: If I were the Russians at this point, because America
Speaker 2: is so distracted and all this thing, I would take
Speaker 2: the whole thing. I would roll through the whole country
Speaker 2: as much as I could. And it's their own fault
Speaker 2: that they got themselves in this position. You know, good
Speaker 2: luck with your drones and your F sixteen's and all that.
Speaker 2: It's about men, it's about bullets, and you were never
Speaker 2: going to.
Speaker 3: Be able to do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really our fault too, so for pushing
Speaker 1: them into this war and giving them all the insurance
Speaker 1: assurances that we would be there forever and we would
Speaker 1: back them forever and give them what they needed in
Speaker 1: order to succeed. So, I mean, our hands are incredibly
Speaker 1: bloody with this entire conflict. And so I do think
Speaker 1: it's very revealing that within this document, within this bill
Speaker 1: pledging additional support to Ukraine, it's like, oh, and let's
Speaker 1: also come up with a strategy. The only strategy at
Speaker 1: this point is how do we possibly get to another
Speaker 1: place where there can be negotiations and diplomacy, because that's
Speaker 1: the only way this is going to end. And right
Speaker 1: now it's already a complete disaster. We already missed the
Speaker 1: best moment that would have achieved for Ukraine, the best
Speaker 1: deal that they were possibly going to get on in
Speaker 1: this situation.
Speaker 4: And that's just the sad truth.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And you know, and then they can't complain is that, oh,
Speaker 2: we sacrifice so many people. It's like, well, welcome to
Speaker 2: the logic of the First World War. You should have
Speaker 2: tried to settle it whenever you could. Should you listen to.
Speaker 3: The wrong guy.
Speaker 4: Honestly, it's heartbreaking.
Speaker 3: On Israel as well.
Speaker 2: There's just you can't even make some of this stuff up.
Speaker 2: Let's put this up there on the screen again. Flagged
Speaker 2: by Michael Tracy, he says and points out all of
Speaker 2: these seventeen billion.
Speaker 3: Dollars appropriated for Israel in this bill.
Speaker 2: Any congressional notification requirement applicable to funds made available under
Speaker 2: this heading in the Act for Israel will be waived
Speaker 2: if the Secretary of State determined so in the national
Speaker 2: interest of the United States. In other words, it specifically
Speaker 2: exempts Israel and Ukrainian funding from congressional oversight, meaning that
Speaker 2: you are not allowed to, as we saw in the past,
Speaker 2: ask any inquiries about corruption, ask any inquiries about whether
Speaker 2: this is compliant to this military aid with US law
Speaker 2: like for example, violating the Lahy Act and not being
Speaker 2: misapplied against civilian forces.
Speaker 3: Or any oversight whatsoever. So what is the point?
Speaker 2: Like imagine Congress coming in and being like, we want
Speaker 2: to abdicate our responsibility, But it actually makes sense because
Speaker 2: they don't want to know what the money and the
Speaker 2: weapons are being used for. It's just want to turn
Speaker 2: them over and then look the other way, at least
Speaker 2: pretend that it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: It's just codifying what has already been reality with this
Speaker 1: White House, because we've covered how multiple times they've skirted
Speaker 1: Congressional authorization to rush through they've skirted their own state
Speaker 1: department policies to rush through whatever weapons shipments that they
Speaker 1: want to.
Speaker 4: So this is just codifying what has.
Speaker 1: Already been reality and what the overwhelming majority of members
Speaker 1: of Congress have already accepted. And to that point, put
Speaker 1: this next one up on the screen. It also has
Speaker 1: a provision here that would skirt any authorization debate about
Speaker 1: the ongoing US operations in the Red Sea in a
Speaker 1: Rock and Syria by simply handing over two point four
Speaker 1: billion dollars to cover those operations, no questions asked. So
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to go to Congress for anything, wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to go, you know, even to ask for additional
Speaker 1: money to continue these illegal operations bombing three different countries.
Speaker 1: This would you know, tie that up with a bow
Speaker 1: as well. And by the way, kudos and great thanks
Speaker 1: to Michael Tracy for reading through the entire bill and
Speaker 1: pulling out these key provisions, which, of course we're not
Speaker 1: getting covered by the.
Speaker 2: Mainstreat that's of we No, I didn't see a single everyone. Yeah,
Speaker 2: everyone's focusing on the border. Shit, sure we did too.
Speaker 2: We did a whole hour on it just this morning.
Speaker 2: But guess what, it's not the only thing that's going
Speaker 2: on in there. All of this is what the national
Speaker 2: security complex. This is their thing of wildest dreams, free money,
Speaker 2: no oversight. It's like the continuation of the Pentagon budgets.
Speaker 2: And just think about it too, when you fund a
Speaker 2: foreign war, you may want to know what's actually going
Speaker 2: on inside of that war instead of issuing empty threats
Speaker 2: like Senator Schumer did in the beginning. Let's move on
Speaker 2: now to the discussion around AI. This is something crystal which,
Speaker 2: by the way, teas we answered a question in our
Speaker 2: AMA about UPS workers. There was a major story about
Speaker 2: how UPS is laying off twelve thousand people. Now, many
Speaker 2: people were anti union picked that up and they're like,
Speaker 2: so you to fire a bunch of people after they negotiated.
Speaker 3: Conflict but a contract.
Speaker 2: Guess what, though, it turns out, let's put this up
Speaker 2: there on the screen that many incorrectly assumed this is
Speaker 2: going to affect delivery drivers.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no no.
Speaker 2: It turns out that the larger group quote of white
Speaker 2: collar workers are being fired because UPS is now testing
Speaker 2: artificial intelligence and machine learning tools, ramping up its use
Speaker 2: of both across enterprise. This fits with larger firings that
Speaker 2: are happening all across the white collar market, most importantly
Speaker 2: in big tech. Let's go to the next one there, please,
Speaker 2: because what's very important is this question, why is big
Speaker 2: tech still cutting jobs? As they flag in the New
Speaker 2: York Times, the economy is doing well, stock prices that
Speaker 2: are all time highs MetaStock just made records, all these others,
Speaker 2: So what's happening? Well, what they say is that instead
Speaker 2: of hiring thousands of people every quarter, the companies are
Speaker 2: now spending billions to build AI technology they believe could
Speaker 2: one day be worth trillions. Not only that they are
Speaker 2: not only investing in AI crystal there in many cases
Speaker 2: are trying to replace as much as their workforce. The
Speaker 2: reason we're flagging this is that this is just totally
Speaker 2: counter narrative to the twenty tens discourse around AI and
Speaker 2: around machine learning. Everybody assumed the truck drivers would be
Speaker 2: first out of work. Oh, it's actually the truck drivers
Speaker 2: are getting paid and still have their jobs. It's the
Speaker 2: white collar supply chain logistics guy who was directing routes
Speaker 2: from one place to the other, which was automated out
Speaker 2: of business in a matter of two years after the
Speaker 2: invention of this technology, which is stunning, and it's totally
Speaker 2: counter to the way that everybody expected the economy to go,
Speaker 2: and it does show us. I think a white collar
Speaker 2: apocalypse is absolutely on their horizon, like a decimation of
Speaker 2: HR anything low level starting out things that are you know,
Speaker 2: Excel jockeys and all that stuff is going to be gone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is all that can be automated already,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean some of the harder things to automate,
Speaker 1: as like care work, you know, some of the manual
Speaker 1: labor that really requires the human touch. The whole delivery
Speaker 1: drone idea hasn't worked out, right, You still need the
Speaker 1: delivery drivers exactly. So it's ironic because it is the
Speaker 1: opposite of what people were originally thinking. They're originally thinking
Speaker 1: that blue collar workers would be hit artist. I do
Speaker 1: think there's still some risk for truck drivers based on
Speaker 1: California and Texas and some of the you know, autonomous
Speaker 1: vehicle technology and the development of that, although it appears
Speaker 1: to still have some major issues, but they're still a
Speaker 1: push in that direction. But I do think that this
Speaker 1: is really a harbinger of things to come. And in
Speaker 1: many ways, this so called apocalyp is already upon us,
Speaker 1: given the fact that you know, the tech companies, many
Speaker 1: of them struggled last year and revenue was down and
Speaker 1: there were mass layoffs. Many of these companies had massively
Speaker 1: staffed up, staffed up during the pandemic because of course,
Speaker 1: there was like a tech boom during the pandemic years.
Speaker 1: They had way too many people on board than when
Speaker 1: you know, people went back to more normal behavior and
Speaker 1: there was a loss in their revenue.
Speaker 4: They had to adjust.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: Now revenues are back up.
Speaker 1: Many of these companies are doing extraordinarily well, and yet
Speaker 1: the layoffs in some instances continue. And it's not because
Speaker 1: they can't afford to hire the people. It's because they
Speaker 1: would rather have a robot who you know, can't call
Speaker 1: them sick and doesn't have all the like human being
Speaker 1: issues and maybe faster ultimately depending on the task, and
Speaker 1: more efficient than the human being is. So they'd rather
Speaker 1: move and investing in that direction than investing in human capital.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's interesting too to consider the layoffs. Let's
Speaker 2: go to the next part where we have a slide
Speaker 2: here which shows all of the companies that have had
Speaker 2: mass layoffs in twenty twenty four. You'll notice names like Salesforce,
Speaker 2: You'll notice like SAP, You'll notice a Vroom. A lot
Speaker 2: of technology companies are included that are on the list
Speaker 2: in addition to major retail. The reason that you're seeing
Speaker 2: names like Microsoft, TikTok, Google, you know, eBay and Sports
Speaker 2: Illustrated Discord, Amazon, Pixar, NBC News. Almost all of that
Speaker 2: crystal can be traced back to either too big expansion
Speaker 2: during the pandemic or artificial intelligence. And I think AI,
Speaker 2: especially in big tech, is the number one story because
Speaker 2: it's not that they don't have the money. They're printing
Speaker 2: money more than ever before. There's stock prices, like I said,
Speaker 2: are at record highs. But they're investing specifically in technology
Speaker 2: which will replace their overall workforce, and they see it
Speaker 2: as superfluous. You see the same thing actually in some
Speaker 2: of these news organizations, which is the same problem. And
Speaker 2: we'll probably do a story about this soon. The mass
Speaker 2: layoffs in the media industry are about one single thing,
Speaker 2: the collapse of the original click model. And the reason
Speaker 2: why that the BuzzFeed model and all that no longer
Speaker 2: pays is because of a fundamental change in advertising. But
Speaker 2: what you have seen too, what have those companies done.
Speaker 2: They're investing in chat, gpt AI written articles because they
Speaker 2: realize having to pay salary HR and you know, all
Speaker 2: these other benefits for these human beings which can be
Speaker 2: you know, relatively easily changed, is one that they're going
Speaker 2: to make that trade every single day. So I think
Speaker 2: this is the biggest story in white collar work. And
Speaker 2: many people I think.
Speaker 3: Have a lot of hubrisk. They're like, well, I got
Speaker 3: a college degree, you know, I can't be replaced. It's like, well,
Speaker 3: it turns out a lot of you can.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And you know, you should really, if you're eighteen
Speaker 2: years old, I urge you to think about this.
Speaker 3: The physical world is not going anywhere.
Speaker 2: People will be needing to build things, repair things, HVAC, plumber,
Speaker 2: trade school and all that. And if you want to
Speaker 2: go to college, you better Dan will be starting something
Speaker 2: that cannot be automated out or make yourself indispensable somewhere.
Speaker 4: And it's honestly difficult to predict.
Speaker 3: It's very oft five years ago.
Speaker 4: Now, yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1: So the other thing that I'll say is, if you know,
Speaker 1: it also shows why it's not just blue collar workers
Speaker 1: who need worker job protection and unions to be able
Speaker 1: to advocate for them and to try to prevent as
Speaker 1: much as possible the layoffs that we see white color
Speaker 1: workers obviously in need of that as well.
Speaker 3: Okay, we have a great guest standing by Jeff Stine.
Speaker 3: Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Join us now to answer what in theory should be
Speaker 1: a simple question is actually a very politically fraught one
Speaker 1: of how is the economy actually doing? Is our friend
Speaker 1: watching post economics reporter Jeff Steine.
Speaker 4: Great to see her.
Speaker 1: Thank you guys before I jump in. Also plug your
Speaker 1: podcast about John Brown, which is fantastic.
Speaker 7: If you guys like Dan Carlin, Long Storm History podcast,
Speaker 7: American Radicalism, check out American Carnage. Thank you everyone from
Speaker 7: Breaking Points who found the show and listened and subscribed.
Speaker 3: Rating to subscribed by stars, Share with a friend.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's fantastic, I really do.
Speaker 5: And it's very irrelevant.
Speaker 1: I mean history is always interesting, but relevant at current
Speaker 1: times as well.
Speaker 4: All right, so let's put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We had a big jobs report on Friday, some three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand plus three and fifty three thousand jobs added
Speaker 1: in January. Of course, the White House is saying we're back, baby.
Speaker 1: The economy is actually amazing. We're going to run on it.
Speaker 1: Americans less certain that they feel so great about the economy.
Speaker 1: You know, just give us a sense of how you
Speaker 1: analyze these numbers and what you think the overall picture
Speaker 1: of the economy is like.
Speaker 5: Right at this moment, I think.
Speaker 7: It's a little hard to describe the economy without running
Speaker 7: the risk of sounding like an MSMBA show.
Speaker 3: We'll give us both sides.
Speaker 7: Then, well, I think from the perspective of the White House,
Speaker 7: you've had two consecutive years of sub four percent unemployment,
Speaker 7: which is the lowest and the longest consecutive streak below
Speaker 7: four percent since the nineteen sixties. The job market continues
Speaker 7: to surpass out of any other major industrial country. You
Speaker 7: had a recent report with very strong wage gains outpacing inflation.
Speaker 5: For over a year. Now.
Speaker 7: You've seen the number of Americans working as a share
Speaker 7: of the labor force continue to be extremely strong. And yeah,
Speaker 7: I think that there's really no doubt at this point
Speaker 7: that the economists like Larry Summers, who were adamant that
Speaker 7: bringing down inflation would require millions or tens of millions
Speaker 7: of Americans to lose their jobs, that that was just
Speaker 7: fundamentally wrong.
Speaker 5: Inflation has come from nine to three percent. It's not solved.
Speaker 7: We can get into the rebuttle in the counter argument,
Speaker 7: but we have brought seen huge declines in inflation to
Speaker 7: the point where I don't want to get two into
Speaker 7: the weeds. But this idea of core pc inflation, which
Speaker 7: sort of strips out like volatile measures and looks at
Speaker 7: like the underlying fundamentals of inflation, those numbers have come
Speaker 7: down sort of where they were in twenty nineteen, twenty eighteen,
Speaker 7: and that is huge at a time where the economy
Speaker 7: is adding jobs where payrolls are continuing to grow, where
Speaker 7: you're seeing increases in private and public sector employment, retail,
Speaker 7: white collar work, manufacturing up to above where it was
Speaker 7: under Trump, healthcare.
Speaker 5: All these sectors are growing really.
Speaker 7: Fast, and it seems like the investments that the administration
Speaker 7: made in green energy and chips in infrastructure is beginning
Speaker 7: to really beove the economy in a very important way.
Speaker 5: Should I get into the hut of the flip side,
Speaker 5: I think is.
Speaker 7: The American public is still catching up to the pain
Speaker 7: of inflation, and that's probably the number one reason that
Speaker 7: people still don't give Bying a lot of credit, the
Speaker 7: hangover from inflation. You may have seen inflation go to
Speaker 7: three percent, but as you guys know, when you go
Speaker 7: from six to nine to three, you're still cumulatively way
Speaker 7: up from where you were before. And so people don't
Speaker 7: necessarily measure things in the same time horizons that economist
Speaker 7: in Washington do, and that is to my mind, completely
Speaker 7: rational and completely understandable. You've also seen when the COVID
Speaker 7: safety net disappeared and the inflation raging at the exact
Speaker 7: same time the hardship indicators, and I think this doesn't
Speaker 7: get nearly enough attention in Washington that's so focused on
Speaker 7: the labor market. But hunger, poverty, those kind of lack
Speaker 7: of insurance, the safety that has really frayed in important
Speaker 7: ways and ways that contradict the increase in wages that
Speaker 7: have outpaced inflation. And you've seen, i think, twenty twenty
Speaker 7: two according to Feeding America, the biggest food bank in America,
Speaker 7: they said that this last that twenty twenty two was
Speaker 7: the biggest spike in hunger in American history, forty four
Speaker 7: percent increase in hungry kids. I mean, that is tremendous
Speaker 7: suffering at the bottom and lower middle class, and a
Speaker 7: lot of those people are not you know. You know,
Speaker 7: some people will say that, look, the middle is doing okay,
Speaker 7: but the bottom has done very well. And there's some
Speaker 7: indicators that wages at the very bottom have grown the most.
Speaker 7: But people who are making seventy sixty k a year,
Speaker 7: who have suffered and have not seen their wages on
Speaker 7: trend with where they were before before the pandemic, they
Speaker 7: are still not like, you know, the rich people. And
Speaker 7: to say that that's like the privileged of America, I
Speaker 7: think is really misreading the current moments I filibuster for
Speaker 7: too long.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, this is great because that's exactly what I
Speaker 2: wanted to get to, which is that you have a
Speaker 2: narrative about how the economy has gotten better, and on
Speaker 2: paper people are like, yeah, at least the White House
Speaker 2: and others, and if you're in the top twenty five
Speaker 2: percent or whatever, it's probably fair. But then you also have,
Speaker 2: as you said, in sticky inflation, inflation time horizon extends years.
Speaker 2: We don't measure prices in quarters. We think about the
Speaker 2: most of our lives for two percent inflation.
Speaker 3: And then we have twenty percent inflation. You're like, what
Speaker 3: the hell happened?
Speaker 2: So it's one of those where the experience of the
Speaker 2: economy is different now. At the same time, we do
Speaker 2: see things that are trending up in terms of consumer
Speaker 2: sentiment and others. So where what indicators can we look
Speaker 2: at for how peopleeople who are experiencing the economy feel
Speaker 2: about the economy going forward and how that's going to
Speaker 2: impact politics, Because I know the Biden White I was
Speaker 2: probably tracking that the most closely.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean so, sentiment, like how people feel about
Speaker 7: the economy is at a three year high highest it's
Speaker 7: been since twenty twenty one, since before inflation, and that
Speaker 7: seems to be primarily driven by gas prices staying in
Speaker 7: the stock market being high. Yes, if you're asking, like,
Speaker 7: what is the last mile there for getting people to
Speaker 7: actually feel good about the economy. We looked at a
Speaker 7: survey recently that found that the number one reason that
Speaker 7: people still say that inflation is hurting them is at
Speaker 7: the grocery store. That they still feel every time they go.
Speaker 7: And I don't know if you guys do your grocery shopping,
Speaker 7: but it just feels incredibly random to people where it's like, yeah,
Speaker 7: this thing that was like I remember in my you know,
Speaker 7: very recent memory, was like two dollars an hour at six,
Speaker 7: and then it goes down and then something else goes up.
Speaker 2: I mean it's chicken. It's like seeing the price. I'm like,
Speaker 2: I cannot believe this.
Speaker 7: Culture plain is actually were a huge thing that exploded
Speaker 7: even last year when grocery this overall plateau.
Speaker 1: Guys puts C three up on the screen while Jeff
Speaker 1: is talking about this because he just had a piece
Speaker 1: at the Washington Post. The headline is inflation has fallen.
Speaker 1: Why are grocery still so expensive. So what did you
Speaker 1: find there.
Speaker 7: Well, what the White House has been saying is that
Speaker 7: corporate profits continue to rise. We're seeing basically the producer
Speaker 7: price inducks not to get into the econ TALC, but
Speaker 7: the producer price INDECKS, which measures the input costs for firms,
Speaker 7: has fallen dramatically and that has not necessarily resulted in
Speaker 7: consumer prices.
Speaker 4: So it's great claiming.
Speaker 7: Sub Subsequently, and what the White House put out analysis
Speaker 7: saying is that corporate profits in this sector are at
Speaker 7: a twenty year high and remain two percentage points higher
Speaker 7: than they were before the pandemic.
Speaker 5: And that's a lot of money. That's billions of dollars
Speaker 5: on the table.
Speaker 7: Yeah, most economists I talked to will say that the
Speaker 7: overwhelming driver remains things related to climate change and supply
Speaker 7: chain's shock. So that's you know, everything from av and
Speaker 7: flu which killed like eighty million birds or something insane.
Speaker 7: Florida got ravaged by hurricanes, and you have like a
Speaker 7: crippling of citrus production. So there's all these like weird,
Speaker 7: idiosyncratic things. But as long as natural disasters keeps striking
Speaker 7: different parts of the world in weird ways, you're gonna
Speaker 7: have these like weird price volatier volatility in grocery stores,
Speaker 7: and I think sager to get back to your point
Speaker 7: earlier about like how people view the economy. One thing
Speaker 7: that like economists who are more sympathetic to Biden will
Speaker 7: say is that people externalize price hikes. They like view
Speaker 7: those as outside their control, and they internalize wage gains
Speaker 7: where they're like, I did that, I got that job
Speaker 7: because like, of course, people earn their raises and they
Speaker 7: feel like they should get credit for them, And I
Speaker 7: totally don't think that should be taken away from people.
Speaker 5: But it's also understandable.
Speaker 7: That people don't see that often the same factors that
Speaker 7: push up inflation are the same reasons that they're pay goes.
Speaker 1: That's interesting, So they're not like Joe Biden gave me
Speaker 1: a raise, which is very understandable that.
Speaker 7: It no, but it's also likes a it's a problem
Speaker 7: for like, as you guys know, there's this school of
Speaker 7: macroeconomic policy making that's like taking over the range of
Speaker 7: the Democratic Party that said we need massive kinsine stimulus,
Speaker 7: and if that leads to a political situation where people
Speaker 7: are mad because they don't see the inflation as their responsibility,
Speaker 7: and they see the wage gains as something they did
Speaker 7: that is an untenable answer politically to the next time
Speaker 7: we have a recession.
Speaker 1: So some of the theories that I have seen of
Speaker 1: why Joe Biden. I think the latest poll had him
Speaker 1: at I think thirty six percent approval on the economy.
Speaker 1: It's still dramatically underwater on the economy. People give Donald
Speaker 1: Trump much higher marks on the economy in terms of
Speaker 1: his economic stewardship in spite of you know, the labor
Speaker 1: market and the low unemployment rate and the wage gains
Speaker 1: and even consumer sentence sentiment being at a multi year high.
Speaker 1: Here are two theories that I've heard about why that's happening.
Speaker 1: One of them is it's the media's fault, like people
Speaker 1: are being tricked into thinking the economy is bad because
Speaker 1: of all the dumerism.
Speaker 4: A lot of people are saying that.
Speaker 1: And then the other one is that it actually is
Speaker 1: just another indicator of people are like this dude is
Speaker 1: too old, and I just don't really think he's capable
Speaker 1: of doing anything. I don't think he's capable of handling
Speaker 1: the economy. I don't think he's capable of handling foreign policy.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's capable of like doing a Super
Speaker 1: Bowl interview, and so the perception and I would say
Speaker 1: reality of him as this you know, very aged man
Speaker 1: is weighing even on his economic approval numbers.
Speaker 7: I don't want to be too normative or didactically. I
Speaker 7: don't want to take too from a review because I
Speaker 7: think as a reporter we can like fairly evaluate these
Speaker 7: kinds of theories and other theories and give them, you know, respect,
Speaker 7: and treat people who are making these arguments, like take
Speaker 7: their argument seriously. But I think I've one of the
Speaker 7: few people who has like taken Americans that face value
Speaker 7: and understood and seeing good reason for some of the
Speaker 7: things that they believe. Like we had the Sager was
Speaker 7: saying the fastest inflation in forty years, and then there's
Speaker 7: this question of like why are people upset like their
Speaker 7: wages were not keeping up with inflation at the worst
Speaker 7: level that we were seeing in decades. And your point,
Speaker 7: Crystal is like, well, if economic sentiment is up, then
Speaker 7: why isn't that leading to Biden's approval on the economy
Speaker 7: going up?
Speaker 5: And someone could throw.
Speaker 7: This back at my face in a few months, But
Speaker 7: I think with sentiment going up, we're going to see
Speaker 7: Biden's ratings on the economy also go up. It's still
Speaker 7: so recent, Like the increase in consumer sentiment is just
Speaker 7: a few months old, and it took a very long
Speaker 7: time for cooling inflation to lead to better sentiment. So
Speaker 7: it makes perfect sense to me that it will take
Speaker 7: time for better sentiment to lead to better economic ratings
Speaker 7: for the president. If they don't, I don't think it's
Speaker 7: implausible to say, like maybe like they don't like this
Speaker 7: guy because he's so old, and that's it. You know,
Speaker 7: that seems like a plausible theory, the idea. I mean,
Speaker 7: maybe I've been too defensive about this, but what you're
Speaker 7: alluding to is, you know, there's Will Stancil and others
Speaker 7: have said, like it's the faults of the media. You
Speaker 7: guys hate Biden and that's the reason people are just
Speaker 7: around the economy, and maybe like it's rational for me
Speaker 7: as a reporter to be like, I'm not responsible for that,
Speaker 7: but like, at the same time, like your argument is
Speaker 7: that the media would have been more friendly to Trump,
Speaker 7: Like if inflation had happened under Trump, right, we would
Speaker 7: have been I don't know, that is hard for me
Speaker 7: to countenance.
Speaker 5: But I but some people argue it.
Speaker 4: Yeahs, Actually that is a great point.
Speaker 3: Yeah, excellent points. Jeff. It's always great talking to you man.
Speaker 2: Everybody, go and subscribe to his John Brown podcast, and
Speaker 2: thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: Appreciate to see you, Jeff, Thanks so much, Gus.
Speaker 1: All Right, guys, a stunning admission on Sunday TV this
Speaker 1: weekend when former Sentcom Commander General Frank McKenzie made this
Speaker 1: revelation about how the Israeli operation is going in Gaza.
Speaker 4: Take a listen.
Speaker 1: US intelligence estimates is really forces have killed about twenty
Speaker 1: to thirty percent of Hamas fighters since October.
Speaker 4: That is far short of destroying Hamas. How did you
Speaker 4: judge the level of success of Israel's campaign.
Speaker 8: It's very limited so far. I think they set themselves
Speaker 8: a goal of removing the political echelon and the military
Speaker 8: leadership echelon of Hamas when they went in. They have
Speaker 8: not been successful to date at doing either. And these
Speaker 8: campaigns are nonlinear, so they don't necessarily go from day
Speaker 8: to day. You could have a big breakthrough here and
Speaker 8: things could change suddenly on the ground. But I think
Speaker 8: the larger issue, at least for me looking at it
Speaker 8: is you have to have a theory for what it's
Speaker 8: going to look like when it's over, what's going to
Speaker 8: happen in Gaza. And we've had some people that have
Speaker 8: talked about it earlier on the show today, and I
Speaker 8: think it's important to consider that you need a vision
Speaker 8: of an end state when you begin a military campaign,
Speaker 8: because everything you do then subtracts or adds to your
Speaker 8: ability to get to that point. And I would argue
Speaker 8: that needs to be something like a two state solution,
Speaker 8: need help from the Arab nations in the region to
Speaker 8: go in there and do something in Gaza. I think
Speaker 8: Israeli occupation would be the least desirable of all outcomes.
Speaker 4: So just think about that. What he's saying.
Speaker 1: He says their success military success is quote very limited
Speaker 1: so far. This in spite of the fact that somewhere
Speaker 1: around thirty thousand Palestinians have been killed. The bombing campaign
Speaker 1: has been more devastating than historic devastating campaigns like dressed
Speaker 1: in a majority of buildings in all of Gaza have
Speaker 1: been damaged or destroyed.
Speaker 4: And yet, in spite of all.
Speaker 1: Of that, their actual stated objectives, which is I have
Speaker 1: talked about many times, do not appear to be the
Speaker 1: real objectives of the operation. But in terms of the
Speaker 1: stated objectives, the success has been quote very limited so far.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really crazy, And in terms of the overall
Speaker 2: US military, we have some crazy new reporting from Ken
Speaker 2: Klippenstein in our own Ryan Graham, let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 3: It appears crystal that the.
Speaker 2: White House falsely said that it had warned the government
Speaker 2: of Iraq of impending air strikes. The reason that this
Speaker 2: is very important is number one, they lied, and they
Speaker 2: straight up said at the press conference that they had
Speaker 2: done it, and then only later on did they claim
Speaker 2: quote for operational security, we do not provide any official
Speaker 2: pre notification with specific detail on these strikes. The reason
Speaker 2: why this is really important, beyond the fact that our
Speaker 2: government just straight up lies to us about whatever they
Speaker 2: bomb ri trees, is that many of this is part
Speaker 2: of an even crazier political element to this. The groups
Speaker 2: which bombed and helped kill these Americans, many of them
Speaker 2: were officially part of the Iraqi government, and in fact,
Speaker 2: the Iraqi Prime Minister has been visiting militia members who
Speaker 2: were wounded in US hair strikes in the hospital, just
Speaker 2: to show you the level of convoluting here, because he
Speaker 2: has deep ties to Iran and the Iranian militias have
Speaker 2: run the country now for twenty some years, been an
Speaker 2: incredibly important aspect of that.
Speaker 3: But it just gets to some of the craziness.
Speaker 2: Right now, the Biden administration is engaged with the Iraqi
Speaker 2: government to keep our troops in the country. So at
Speaker 2: the very same moment that we're bombing said country and
Speaker 2: bombing elements of that country which have ties to that government,
Speaker 2: we're also trying to keep our troops in that country,
Speaker 2: all because of a war in God make.
Speaker 3: It makes sense to me. It doesn't so somebody they
Speaker 3: know it makes sense, of.
Speaker 2: Course, because when you explain it to people are like,
Speaker 2: what what are you talking about?
Speaker 3: But they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2: They don't want people to ask any questions about this.
Speaker 2: They just assume you can drop bombs on You know,
Speaker 2: there was a time when I was a child where
Speaker 2: we actually weren't bombing anybody. It was you know, it's
Speaker 2: interesting to consider it's only a very modern phenomenon where
Speaker 2: there's things just happen and people dine a far flowing
Speaker 2: place and.
Speaker 3: You go what were they doing over there?
Speaker 2: And then you go back to watching the Simpsons or whatever,
Speaker 2: and you just forget that it happened.
Speaker 1: And the US government can't even really tell you why
Speaker 1: they're there or what they're doing. And considered, I mean
Speaker 1: not to go back to the Iraq War, but consider
Speaker 1: the utter failure of the know real goals of that war,
Speaker 1: which was in part to serve as a check on Iran,
Speaker 1: and now Iran is like basically running the country basically, So.
Speaker 4: Great job on that one. Once again, guys, way to go.
Speaker 1: You really did what you you know, meant to do
Speaker 1: and meant to accomplish there. And that's the part that
Speaker 1: just drives me insane is they know that there is
Speaker 1: no military solution to HMAS. They know that these strikes
Speaker 1: are not going to do a damn thing to deter
Speaker 1: these militias to keep our service members safe. They know
Speaker 1: all of that, and yet they do it anyway. They
Speaker 1: know that the only way that tensions actually de escalate
Speaker 1: in the region and can return to some sense of
Speaker 1: normalcy and stability is through a ceasefire in Gaza, and
Speaker 1: yet instead they pursue this policy of just like sporadic
Speaker 1: bombing and you know, apparently lying to the American people
Speaker 1: about what they're doing and who they told about it.
Speaker 4: Reuter's confirmed, you.
Speaker 1: Can put this up on the screen that the US
Speaker 1: did not give pre notification to Iraq ahead of strikes.
Speaker 1: This reporter from Reuter says, hey, this is directly contradictory,
Speaker 1: contradicting what the White House said on record on Friday
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration did indeed notify the Iraqis ahead
Speaker 1: of time. And put the next one up on the
Speaker 1: screen as well, you know, to the point of they
Speaker 1: know that this isn't going to work, That is not
Speaker 1: going to deter anyone or keep any of our service
Speaker 1: members safe. The Iran back groups have continued to target
Speaker 1: American bases as the US plans further strikes. And yet
Speaker 1: these are the same people Sagur who want to tell
Speaker 1: us that, oh, it hasn't spread into a wider war,
Speaker 1: it's still contained in Gaza. As we literally bomb and
Speaker 1: you know, take incoming in three different countries. It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, it's absolutely preposterous. So US military official confirmed
Speaker 1: there were fatalities from an attack on the al Omar
Speaker 1: oil field, part of a complex that includes a US
Speaker 1: base and jointly controlled with the American military. Those casualties
Speaker 1: were not Americans, they were some allied militias that took
Speaker 1: that incoming and you know, suffered fatalities from these attacks.
Speaker 1: Syrian Democratic Forces US allied Kurdish militia said six of
Speaker 1: their fighters had died in that drone strike on al Omar.
Speaker 1: So the bottom line is here, we've taken We've seen
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and sixty five attacks on American
Speaker 1: basis with rockets, missiles, drones or mortars since October seventh.
Speaker 1: As I've said one hundred times, the only time when
Speaker 1: these attacks stopped was when there was a ceasefire.
Speaker 4: For six days.
Speaker 1: When there was a ceasefire, these attacks stopped, and the
Speaker 1: hoo thies all but stopped what they were doing on
Speaker 1: the Red Sea as well.
Speaker 4: It is plain as day what.
Speaker 1: The correct strategy is here to protect our service members
Speaker 1: and to actually achieve de escalation in the region, and
Speaker 1: yet they refuse to actually pursue the policies that would
Speaker 1: lead in that direction.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's stunning whenever you read this, because
Speaker 2: it just shows that the what expansion is likely. Also,
Speaker 2: you know, increasingly we just we only unfortunately, we're only
Speaker 2: paying attention to people get killed, and obviously we should
Speaker 2: pay attention. But there are a lot of them, these
Speaker 2: service members who have been wounded, who have been suffered
Speaker 2: traumatic brain injuries. Also these Syrians, they were under our protection,
Speaker 2: just so everybody knows. They were on an American air
Speaker 2: base and six of them died.
Speaker 3: I mean, you.
Speaker 2: Should think our troops are not that far away. It's
Speaker 2: probably a miracle that our people didn't get killed in
Speaker 2: that attack. And once no one can answer this question,
Speaker 2: why are they there in the first place? Why are
Speaker 2: they sitting ducks? The Iranians have the luxury of being
Speaker 2: able to move about the country as they please and
Speaker 2: go back to their country if they want to. Our
Speaker 2: people are sitting on the same base with no change
Speaker 2: in strategy, a government that is lying to their own people,
Speaker 2: and you know, even.
Speaker 3: The troops there.
Speaker 2: How could you have any confidence in the Biden administration
Speaker 2: right now after what's happening.
Speaker 3: I cannot tell you how badly I feel for them to.
Speaker 2: Just be sitting there, you know, without the support that
Speaker 2: you need, a populace which is basically distracted as to
Speaker 2: your plight, and of course as we said it all
Speaker 2: comes back to Gaza. At the same time, let's put
Speaker 2: this up there on the screen. Netanyahu's saying that the
Speaker 2: war in Gaza will not be over before the killing
Speaker 2: of Hamas leadership, quote unquote, stressing it will take another
Speaker 2: few months, So doubling down on the strategy Crystal and
Speaker 2: really I think they're coming under intense military pressure. Maybe
Speaker 2: at home you can tell me if I'm wrong to try.
Speaker 2: They're like, hey, you said you're going to kill the
Speaker 2: mass leadership. You haven't killed a Moss leadership. You haven't
Speaker 2: you know? Yeah, what's his name?
Speaker 5: Sinwar?
Speaker 2: He remains inside these tunnels, surrounded by hostages, allegedly by
Speaker 2: the Israelis. It's like, well, if you know where he is,
Speaker 2: what are you going to do about it? And then
Speaker 2: it comes to the question of well, clearly you've been
Speaker 2: doing this now for what It's February sixth, so tomorrow
Speaker 2: is what the four month anniversary I believe of the attacks.
Speaker 2: So it's a quarter of a year that we've had
Speaker 2: this happening, and you haven't been able to with the
Speaker 2: world's most advanced technology and a ground invasion all that,
Speaker 2: you haven't rescued a single hostage, So what are you
Speaker 2: going to do about it?
Speaker 3: The hostage situation.
Speaker 2: Now is almost certainly going to be resolved through maybe
Speaker 2: ceasfire negotiation. It remains up in the air as of today,
Speaker 2: Secretary Blincoln with MBS yesterday.
Speaker 3: But that's all the progress that we have so far.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean, I think this cuts against the
Speaker 1: idea of a ceasefire being negotiated right now. As we
Speaker 1: covered yesterday, Netanyahu is under intense pressure from the far
Speaker 1: right Ben Gavern's motriges of his coalition who are throwing
Speaker 1: threatening to blow the whole thing up, blow up his
Speaker 1: entire governing coalition if he were to take some sort
Speaker 1: of deal of the type that Hamas would be willing
Speaker 1: to accept the more quote unquote moderate parts of his
Speaker 1: coalition or the other side of that. So he is,
Speaker 1: you know, being pulled in both directions and outside of
Speaker 1: his own ideology, which has been very clear over time.
Speaker 1: His number one interest is in his own political self preservation,
Speaker 1: which again cuts in the direction of you know, placating
Speaker 1: the right, keeping that coalition together, trying to keep the
Speaker 1: war going for as long as possible, and in lieu
Speaker 1: of achieving actual military success, bringing to the people these
Speaker 1: images of horror and destruction in an attempt to cover
Speaker 1: for the fact that the goals they claim to support
Speaker 1: of destroying Hamas are never going to be achieved, even
Speaker 1: if they get sinwar ultimately, which may happen.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: The actual goal of eradicating Hamas was always a fantasy
Speaker 1: from day one, something we've been talking about the entire time.
Speaker 3: It's not difficult to predict.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 8: So.
Speaker 1: At the same time, there was one other aspect of
Speaker 1: that Border Ukraine Israel bill that we wanted to dig
Speaker 1: into with regard to Israel, which is that the bill
Speaker 1: officially permanently cuts aid to UNRA, which is the primary
Speaker 1: humanitarian organization to the benefit of Palestinians, not just in
Speaker 1: Gaza and not even just in the West Bank, but
Speaker 1: the entire Palestinian diaspora around the region. Can put this
Speaker 1: up on the screen, it has the text of the bill.
Speaker 1: So the commentary here is by partisan Border Israel Ukraine
Speaker 1: package blocks all funding for UNRA from the US, it's
Speaker 1: biggest donor.
Speaker 4: Let me reach you.
Speaker 1: The Texas says, none of the funds appropriate or otherwise
Speaker 1: made available by this division and Division B of this
Speaker 1: Act and prior acts blah blah blah may be made
Speaker 1: available for a contribution, grant, or other payment to the
Speaker 1: United Nations Relief and Works Agency otherwise known as UNRA,
Speaker 1: notwithstanding any other provision of law.
Speaker 4: So you will recall.
Speaker 1: That on the very day that the ICJ, relying in
Speaker 1: part on some of the testimony and some of the
Speaker 1: analysis of UNRA officials, when they've ruled that Israel may
Speaker 1: be plausibly committing genocide, on that very day, the US
Speaker 1: suddenly jumped to and said, oh, we received these quote unquote,
Speaker 1: highly credible allegations about a dozen UNRAH employees out of
Speaker 1: I think thirty thousand participating in October seventh, allegedly, and
Speaker 1: they described this as intelligence that they got from the
Speaker 1: Israelis that was highly credible.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 1: So on the very day that the ICJ says we
Speaker 1: need to increase humanitarian aid to the Gaza population, which
Speaker 1: is literally starving to death, we the main backer of
Speaker 1: pull our funding, and that triggers a cascading effect where
Speaker 1: some thirteen other countries or something cut their funding as well,
Speaker 1: dramatically dealing a blow that will further starve and impoverish
Speaker 1: the Palestinian population in Gaza. So I actually was able
Speaker 1: to look at the allegations that were made by the Israelis.
Speaker 1: Source sent me a copy of what has been passed
Speaker 1: around to various news outlets like the New York Times
Speaker 1: in the Wall Street Journal that they just and out
Speaker 1: run with. It is incredible to me, Like I didn't
Speaker 1: think I could be shocked by this saga, but it
Speaker 1: is actually incredible because it is literally just a evidence
Speaker 1: free list of allegations, literally like a list of names
Speaker 1: and this person did that, and that person did that,
Speaker 1: and they say, oh, it's based on identification cards and
Speaker 1: other intelligence, but no actual evidence is provided. Now, maybe
Speaker 1: they did participate, and maybe they didn't. I can tell
Speaker 1: you there's definitely not enough that has been provided to
Speaker 1: say anything about this.
Speaker 4: Again, zero evidence provided.
Speaker 1: But second of all, these people have already been fired
Speaker 1: just based on the allegations, and so they are cutting
Speaker 1: they are collectively punishing the entire Palestinian population over evidence
Speaker 1: free allegations against a tiny handful of employees.
Speaker 4: Of a large organization. Is truly stunning.
Speaker 1: At the same time, a State Department spokesperson yesterday was
Speaker 1: pressed on the funding of UNRA and is using this
Speaker 1: text in the bill, which hasn't even been passed yet,
Speaker 1: in an attempt to justify their cutting of the aid
Speaker 1: to this vital humanitarian organization.
Speaker 4: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: Obviously, there is text in this pending legislation that would
Speaker 9: preclude us from doing so. We are an administration that
Speaker 9: follows the law. That being said, in this pending legislation,
Speaker 9: there is ten billion dollars for humanitarian sistence, of which
Speaker 9: one point four billion is for humanitarian aid for Gaza.
Speaker 9: This is an issue we take very seriously. We also believe,
Speaker 9: even prior to this conversation about the supplemental we have,
Speaker 9: as I told Simon, been unambiguous in my opinion about
Speaker 9: the critical work that UNRA does, not just in Gaza,
Speaker 9: but in other parts of the region as well.
Speaker 1: So amazingly he says, oh, we're an administration that follows
Speaker 1: the law, which by the way, is a complete lie.
Speaker 1: When it comes to Israel, they just do whatever they want, clearly,
Speaker 1: or when it comes to bombing random countries, they clearly
Speaker 1: do whatever they want.
Speaker 4: They do not follow the law.
Speaker 1: But also again, this bill hasn't even passed yet, and
Speaker 1: they're using it as some kind of cover to justify
Speaker 1: their unilateral decision based on zero evidence to cut funding
Speaker 1: to this agency.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Chris, so after reviewing the dossier which you so
Speaker 2: graciously helped share with us, and that we can provide
Speaker 2: for everybody else, I don't want I just want to say, like,
Speaker 2: you're really not exaggerating. I will not read, you know,
Speaker 2: because there's some identifying details. But they literally just say,
Speaker 2: quote unquote was a Hamas operative he entered Israeli territory
Speaker 2: on seven ten and participated in actions.
Speaker 3: That's it. I just read it direct quote. There's no
Speaker 3: like an Indian.
Speaker 1: Photographs or here's the you know, cell phone in Literally nothing,
Speaker 1: I mean not even on the level of remember those
Speaker 1: supposed audio intercepts that were so laughably like fictitious that
Speaker 1: they would say nothing, it's just so and so did X. Baseless,
Speaker 1: no evidence, nothing. I truly am s donne by it,
Speaker 1: not because I don't put it past the Israeli government,
Speaker 1: and I guess I should, you know, shouldn't have any
Speaker 1: sort of expectation for our newisance outlets at this point.
Speaker 1: But both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: just ran with this zero evidence. I mean, we're just
Speaker 1: you know, YouTubers, over here, podcasters, and we would never
Speaker 1: run with something that had no no basis whatsoever other
Speaker 1: than the Israeli government, says x y Z.
Speaker 2: No, You're absolutely right. It doesn't fit that editorial standard
Speaker 2: at all. And it just goes back to a question
Speaker 2: about like just straight up belief and also why you know,
Speaker 2: you have to really you have to evaluate what people
Speaker 2: are saying and you have to see like you can't
Speaker 2: just take their word for it just because you know,
Speaker 2: you may be friends with them or in the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journals case, you may have once been a soldier
Speaker 2: for them, but it's one Yeah, I mean some interesting
Speaker 2: questions too about the people who are reporting this stuff
Speaker 2: and about their own you know, some scrutiny in their
Speaker 2: own background, which look, you know, if you want to
Speaker 2: if you are from Israel or whatever, that's fine, but
Speaker 2: it should probably be disclosed, no, like in the report,
Speaker 2: if you're going to pass off something as exclusive and
Speaker 2: then in terms of the evidence, not provide any within that,
Speaker 2: especially when it has major humanitarian ramifications. And that's something
Speaker 2: that we can put a put the fourth element please
Speaker 2: up on the screen. That was something that the head
Speaker 2: of the World Food Program who by the way, Cindy McCain,
Speaker 2: just to note in terms of her former like most
Speaker 2: pro Israel senator and human history.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I also want to know what her conversations with
Speaker 4: their daughter alike the.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would be curious, she says, quote, no other
Speaker 2: entity currently has the capacity to deliver the scale and
Speaker 2: breadth of assistant the two point two million in Gaza
Speaker 2: urgently need. Withdrawing money from UNRA is perilous. We appeal
Speaker 2: for these decisions to be reconsidered. I found that interesting
Speaker 2: just because she technically is part of the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: was appointed by the President to the World Food Program.
Speaker 3: So there does.
Speaker 2: Seem to be I mean, maybe at least consternation amongst
Speaker 2: the people who actually work in the space, as opposed
Speaker 2: to people who are looking at this purely in political term.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh, that's probably what it is.
Speaker 1: No doubt about it, No doubt about it. I just
Speaker 1: so you know, it's not just us saying that there's
Speaker 1: no evidence. Put this up on the screen from the
Speaker 1: Financial Times. This is a quote from them. Israel had
Speaker 1: not presented any evidence of its allegations to UNRA, adding
Speaker 1: the UN agency had been forced to respond to leaks
Speaker 1: in the media of an Israeli intelligence assessment that at
Speaker 1: least twelve of its Palaestiny employees had taken part in.
Speaker 4: The Hamas rate.
Speaker 1: These included one accused of kidnapping a woman and another
Speaker 1: said to have seized the body of a slain soldier.
Speaker 1: The intelligence assessment, which has been seen by the FPT,
Speaker 1: provides no evidence for the claims, which it says are
Speaker 1: based on smartphone intercepts and captured identity cards, but the
Speaker 1: US has said it found them highly highly credible. And
Speaker 1: then we have one more element that we can put
Speaker 1: up here from Owen Jones.
Speaker 4: But breaking down a sky News.
Speaker 1: Report, we were told originally there were twelve UNRA employees
Speaker 1: on a thirty thousand involved in October seven.
Speaker 4: Now it's down to six.
Speaker 1: And sky News reports that Israeli intelligence documents make several
Speaker 1: claims without proof, and many claims do not directly implicate UNRA.
Speaker 4: Anyway, I can read a little bit of this sky
Speaker 4: News report.
Speaker 1: They say that many of the claims have no evidence,
Speaker 1: has not seen proof of and many of the claims,
Speaker 1: even if true, do not directly implicate UNRA. The agency
Speaker 1: also never received any concerns about their staff members and
Speaker 1: they are required. UNRA is to share a list of
Speaker 1: their staff with Israel every single year, and Israel never
Speaker 1: raised any concerns about any of these staff members. In addition,
Speaker 1: it's worth noting UNRA, as they write in Sky News,
Speaker 1: has paid a heavy price during the war. One hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty two of their staff have been killed in
Speaker 1: Gaza and one hundred and forty five of their facilities
Speaker 1: have been damaged. It's important to keep in mind as
Speaker 1: we go through these claims against UNRA that Netanyahu and
Speaker 1: the right, but many other sectors of Israeli society have
Speaker 1: long had their sights set on the destruction of UNRA
Speaker 1: because they believe since UNRA their mission is to you know,
Speaker 1: serve they do schools and you know, aid and humanitarian
Speaker 1: assistance to Palestine refugees wherever they are, that they basically
Speaker 1: like keep the Palestinians from giving up on their claims
Speaker 1: to any of the land. And so they've long wanted
Speaker 1: to destroy UNRA because they just disagree centrally with that
Speaker 1: mission and they think they sort of like keep the
Speaker 1: problem alive and keep Palestinians from ultimately giving up. So
Speaker 1: that's also the context for these claims that are being made.
Speaker 2: The context is important because NRA's largely I mean, in general,
Speaker 2: you know, the Israel. What is smart is that you
Speaker 2: want to attack anybody who is counter narrative and showing
Speaker 2: people what you're doing, so that you don't have a
Speaker 2: complete monopoly on information from the situation, and you don't
Speaker 2: have a monopoly on media coverage, et cetera. So you
Speaker 2: attack the people and the credibility of those who are
Speaker 2: against you. RA has been a major person, a major party,
Speaker 2: which has been very counter to many of these really
Speaker 2: claims about civilian casualties, et cetera.
Speaker 3: So what do you do? You go after them.
Speaker 2: But overall, what I would really say is that this
Speaker 2: is the bigger media story to me, because the US
Speaker 2: government clearly did not do any due diligence that was
Speaker 2: based on this. They provided no evidence, and it's up
Speaker 2: to the media, well, Street journal and others. I already
Speaker 2: see a Ben Shapiro out there being like it is
Speaker 2: full of terrorists and also the things, as you said,
Speaker 2: you know, we're not going to sit here and be
Speaker 2: like it's not possible.
Speaker 3: It's certainly possible. You just need evidence.
Speaker 2: Whenever you're going to support a claim which also has
Speaker 2: a secondary organization with an aim that is overall humanitarian
Speaker 2: and clearly is undermining a strategic level the Israeli government.
Speaker 3: So we should just treat that with skeptic.
Speaker 2: To me, this is a massive media story that the
Speaker 2: fact that the US press and you know why is
Speaker 2: the Look, it's not like the British aren't pro Israel.
Speaker 3: Why is their press.
Speaker 2: Just willing to employ basic journalistic standards? The ft great
Speaker 2: paper is just like, yeah, I don't see it. Channel four,
Speaker 2: same thing.
Speaker 3: Listen.
Speaker 2: They're not liberal by any means. They're just like, I
Speaker 2: don't see the evidence here. This is the dossier. It
Speaker 2: wasn't that hard, Crystal, like you said, for us to
Speaker 2: get our hands on it and just look at it
Speaker 2: and be.
Speaker 4: Like literally paid long. There's nothing provided with if it.
Speaker 2: Look, when I was a political White House journalist, I
Speaker 2: was provided with these fake dossiers all the time. I
Speaker 2: never printed them once, you know ever, because I was like,
Speaker 2: this is just propaganda and you have to check it.
Speaker 2: You just have to be like, okay said this. So
Speaker 2: you call the guy and you're like, hey, is this
Speaker 2: what actually happened?
Speaker 3: And nine out of ten times.
Speaker 2: We're like no, that's a total misrepresentation about what is happening.
Speaker 1: Well, and it's not like UNRA, I mean, really kind
Speaker 1: of unfairly given that no evidence was provided, but they
Speaker 1: just immediately fired these people because of the gravity. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was right even the alligations. So it's also like,
Speaker 1: what do you even want them to do? And the
Speaker 1: Israeli government also, they said, hasn't shared with them any
Speaker 1: of the purported evidence, so they've already fought fired the people.
Speaker 1: The un has undertaken an investigation to see if there's
Speaker 1: any there there, they've already said if there's grounds for prosecution,
Speaker 1: they will be prosecuted.
Speaker 4: So it's also like what else do you want them
Speaker 4: to do?
Speaker 1: And why does it make sense to collectively punish not
Speaker 1: just this entire organization, but the entirety of the Palestinian
Speaker 1: people on the alleged actions evidence free allegations, but alleged
Speaker 1: actions of six UNRUH employees or a dozen unru employees
Speaker 1: or whatever it's.
Speaker 4: It really is outrageous.
Speaker 1: And the last thing I'll say about the time, because
Speaker 1: the timing is so critical here that it came on
Speaker 1: the same day as the ICJ ruling applausible genocide. It's
Speaker 1: also punishment for the fact that unrun analysts and employees
Speaker 1: and staff members were quoted and were used in order
Speaker 1: to achieve that plausible genocide ruling. So there's also a
Speaker 1: you know, a direct line between the fact that they
Speaker 1: were quoted in the report in the ruling and that
Speaker 1: they were attacked on that very day. Like, I don't
Speaker 1: think that those two things are a coincidence. I think
Speaker 1: it's direct retaliation for the fact that they were cited
Speaker 1: at all in the judges ruling there at the I CJ.
Speaker 2: You're very likely correct. All right, guys, we had a
Speaker 2: great show today. Thank you so much for supporting us.
Speaker 2: We had that rfkjun your focus group. As we mentioned,
Speaker 2: we'll have a great counterpoint show for everyone tomorrow, hopefully
Speaker 2: Crystallized throats say a little.
Speaker 5: They're rough here.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna lie, I need needed need a break here.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna let Emily speak.
Speaker 4: Thanks. Yeah, thanks for bearing with us, guys. We're trying.
Speaker 3: As you can see, we do work through sickness.
Speaker 2: So as you can see here over breaking points and
Speaker 2: we'll have a great show for everybody on Thursday.