Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:01]
A
Audible's romance collection has something to satisfy every side of you when it comes to what kind of romance you're into. You don't have to choose just one fancy a dalliance with a duke or maybe a steamy billionaire. You could find a book boyfriend in the city and another one tearing it up on the hockey field. And if nothing on this earth satisfies, you can always find love in another realm. Discover modern rom coms from authors like Lily Chu and Ali Hazelwood. The latest romantasy series from Sarah J. Maas and Rebecca Yarros, plus Regency favorites like Bridgerton and Outlander, and of course, all the really steamy stuff. Your first great love story is free when you sign up for a free 30 day trial at audible.com wondery that's audible.com wondery hey guys.
- [00:45]
B
Today's show is brought to you by Yo Kratom. Grab some@yom.com Home of the $60 kilo, longtime sponsor of the Part of the Problem podcast. If you are over 21 and you enjoy Kratom, you make sure to get your kratom@yom.com it's delivered right to your door and it's the best price you will ever find. $60 for a kilo@yom.com all right, let's start today's show. Hello. Hello, boys and girls. Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I am Dave Smith. He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein. Will got a good show for you today. How you feeling, Rob?
- [01:28]
C
Doing good. Excited for some Dallas this weekend. Always. Good club.
- [01:31]
B
Yes. Hyenas in Dallas and Fort Worth. Me and Rob will be there this weekend. Hold on, let me see if I can get that up for you. Oh, sorry, one second. Yes, it will be the Friday we're in Dallas. Saturday we're in Fort Worth October 3rd and 4th.
- [01:53]
C
That's backwards from last year if I remember correctly.
- [01:56]
B
Yeah, we're trying it a little different this time. See how that works. Maybe, maybe that's going to change things. Then the following weekend we'll be out in Detroit at the House of Comedy. And then the following weekend after that we will be at Tampa side Splitters. These are all these three this run in the next three weeks are three of me and Rob's favorite clubs in the country. So definitely come check us out there. Comicdavesmith.com for all those, those tickets. Also, I did want to mention that. So I know we missed the, the episode yesterday. We will be making that up. I apologize for that. We'll Be putting out another episode tomorrow. I have Colonel Douglas McGregor coming back on the show, so I'm very excited to talk to him and get his insights on a lot of things that are going on in the world. And so we. I missed yesterday. I did. I recorded Coleman Hughes podcast yesterday and we did. I think we did three and a half hours. So we ended up going, I think, much longer than either of us planned on. But we did a long show. I thought it was. I thought it was really good. I think. I hope you guys enjoy it. I was going to say I think you'll enjoy it, but I hope you do. And I think that should be out in the next few days. I will say what was interesting about this was that Coleman, and I say this to his credit, he literally started the thing. We did three and a half hours, and the first thing he said was he goes, you know, I see constantly when you're in these debates, the debate becomes about you rather than the topic. And I don't want to do that. And I want to, like, debate the issues. And. And we did, I think, keep it a very civil conversation that was about the issues. So that's all I'll say. You guys can judge the. How you feel about the. The results of it or whatever, but it was.
- [03:34]
C
How many Israel debates do you have left in you? I feel like at this point it should be bench pier or nothing.
- [03:39]
B
Yeah, I mean, yeah, I don't know. I don't know. It's a. You know, I try to just kind of judge these things on a case by case basis. Like, one of the reasons why I wanted to talk to Coleman is because I did think he would have that attitude. And I thought that would be like, you know, kind of interesting. And of course, you know, I'm. I gotta say, I'm almost like baffled at the. The people who can still support this thing at this point. And so there, there was something about that dynamic that I thought was. And it was, I think, essentially what I was. I thought it would be what I hoped it would. Would be. And, you know, I don't know, it just. I just kind of go on a case by case and go like, okay, if this one makes sense, then this one makes sense. I, you know, I, at this point, it's a weird thing where I do. It's not. And it's not just the debates, it's shows in general. There was, you know, I remember Rob, this when I first started part of the problem. This is like 2012 or something like that. There's A no audience podcasting is like. It's a ridiculous thing to start. You know, it's like when you're starting from nothing, you're just like, I'm just gonna talk into this microphone, you know? And then, okay, many years later, people started listening. But I used to have a thing where I'd answer all the comments. That was like a segment on the show through a tiny show. We're getting, like, six comments on a show. So you just go through the comments and respond to every single one of them. And then there was a period where I'd be like, oh, I'll debate anyone or I'll anyone's show, you know, because you're not getting invited on that many. So it's like you'll just do all of them. And at a certain point, you just like. It's like half. Half my day is going through all the requests of all the things. I just only have so much time in the day, so, like, I just have to be a lot more picky about what I do now as opposed to before. But I do struggle with the science of that. Like, get challenged to do a debate. It's a debate, you know, you can go win. You're like, okay, I'll go win another debate. But at the same time, you're like, I've already done this debate so many times. You're not. There's no real new eyeballs getting on this. You know, it's. It's. It's difficult to. To judge when to do them and when not to. But I judged the Coleman one, one that was worthy of doing, and I think I was right about that. So I look forward to you guys seeing it and. And to his audience as well, volunteering.
- [05:54]
C
Themselves as it becomes harder to argue. So I guess it's interesting to put them on the record and collect more heads for the mantle.
- [06:00]
B
Yeah. And I do. Look. I mean, I do obviously, inherently, to some degree, right? Like, it's almost. It's You. You can deduce logically from the fact that we're doing this show that I still do believe in persuasion, you know, at least to some degree. Like, not that I think I'm gonna, like, change Coleman's mind or convert 100 of his audience, but I do still believe that, like, there's got to be some people who, if we're just having a calm, rational conversation about this, will go like. And he is making some really good points. You know, it's like, whatever that is, even if it's just at the margins, I still you know, like, I always used to have the attitude, and I, I, like, I still do to some degree. Like I said, I just have constraints with time. And then the, the other thing is just having little kids. And particularly, like, there's something like, I had babies for years, but in a weird way, there's actually a lot more free time when you have babies compared to when you have little kids, because you. Little kids start having things in their schedule, and then you, like, your baby's just always there. So you're always kind of getting quality time with your baby. But like, when you have older kids, it's like, oh, if you're always busy, you might be busy in the little bit of time that they had free anyway. But I always had the attitude, like, but there might be like, one person listening to this show who, like, is me 15 years ago or something, and I reached that person, and then he's like, oh, shoot, that just made total sense. And so that always would motivate me to want to do them. Anyway, let's, let's get into it, because there's a lot that has happened in the. The 48 hours since last me and you recorded an episode, of course, two days ago when we were recording, it was during the Benjamin Netanyahu meeting with. With Donald Trump. There had been hints at Donald Trump pushing a deal of some sort, but it wasn't exactly clear at that time that they were going to announce the deal in the manner that they did. They did do, like, a little joint press conference thing afterward, but they didn't take questions. So let's play. We have a couple clips here. One of them's of Benjamin Netanyahu, one of them's of Trump. So let's play both these clips, and then we're going to discuss the peace deal.
- [08:22]
D
I think we should understand that we're giving everybody a chance to have this done peacefully, something that will achieve all our war objectives without any further bloodshed. But if Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then. Then basically do everything to counter it, then Israel will finish the job by itself. This can be done the easy way, or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done. We prefer the easy way, but it has to be done. All these goals must be achieved because we didn't fight this horrible fight, sacrifice the finest of our young men to have Hamas stay in Gaza and threaten us again and again and again with these horrific massacres.
- [09:28]
B
All right, so there is Benjamin Netanyahu doing his gangster thing, you know, that he does. We could do this the peaceful way. This is a funny thing to say after you've destroyed the entire Gaza Strip. Could do this the easy way or the hard way. So essentially Hamas, you either accept the deal as is or we will continue the campaign that genocide scholars are in large numbers considering a genocide. I, I will say, I guess, which is just like the obvious here. And unlike a lot of people, I am consistent with this across the board. But you know, it's interesting because a lot of the people who were like appalled by Zelensky don't seem so outraged by, by Netanyahu, but it really, there really is something that, like when a country who is completely dependent on the United States of America, including dependent on the United States of America to conduct the current military campaign that it's conducting, it is, I just can't explain how infuriating and appalling it is that you come over here not asking for our support or trying to persuade us of our support, but dictating gangster. We can either do this the easy way or the hard way. Like, it's just, I, I, I don't know, I find this to be outrageous. It is such a, in the same sense as, as Zielinski sitting there and going now we could think we're not going to sign that deal without security guarantees. And you're like, what? You're just entitled to us to fight and die to protect you? Like, it's, it's outrageous. And at the same time for Netanyahu to just be like, this is how it's going to be done. Like, excuse me, if you just believe in national sovereignty at all, you, like, excuse me, you're a foreign leader and this is like our decision to make, or so they would have us believe. All right guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Vandy. Did you know all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow? Up until the 1990s when big corporations switched over to cheap processed seed oils. Well, Vandy Crisps decided to do something about that. They created a tasty and delicious potato chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils. That grass fed beef tallow is not just for flavor. It's packed with nutrients which are great for your skin, your brain and your hormones. Snacking on Vandy is nothing like eating regular chips. With Vandy, you feel satiated, light and energetic with no crash bloat or gross sluggish feeling afterward. Vandy is 100% American, made with zero compromises. The best chip you'll ever have. And as an added bonus, that beef tallow makes the chips much more satiating, so you won't find yourself uncontrollably binging and still feeling hungry afterward. If you're ready to give Vandy a try, go to vandy crisps.com Dave and use the promo code Dave for 25% off your first order. That's vandy crisps.com Dave promo code Dave for 25% off YOUR first order. And if you don't feel like ordering online, that's fine. Vandy is now available nationwide at your local sprout supermarket. Stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone. All right, let's get back into the show. Any thoughts on Netanyahu's line here before we hear from Donald Trump?
- [12:45]
C
Well, I certainly think his line when he says, you know, if Hamas backs out of this, then we're just going to go ahead and get this done. He's not just saying, he's not suddenly saying Israel is going to be spending its money and its money only and without the support of the United States. He's going to go ahead and get it done. But I think that, I think he's talking to Hamas here and saying that, yes, we're agreeing to Trump's deal and if Hamas doesn't keep its end of its of the bargain, then we're going back in and we're killing them all.
- [13:13]
B
Yes. No, I granted, he's talking to Hamas here and he's agreeing with Trump's deal. But part of Trump's deal wasn't we're going to go kill them all if they don't do this. That's his addition onto it. They will be doing that with US Support anyway. Well, I guess I shouldn't say that. Donald Trump did kind of hint at that, too, to be fair enough. Let's hear from, from Donald Trump himself because this was an interesting part of the, the press conference.
- [13:37]
E
A lot of our leaders are here. Our great vice president Susie Wiles, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner. They've been so involved in this, in this process. I don't think anybody else could have done it or even even come close. But it's we're right there. We're right there. First time in thousands of years. I think you can probably say if you really look into it, if you study back, if you, if you're a scholar, you would say thousands of years, Israel would have my fallback into finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas. But I hope that we're going to have a deal for peace. And if Hamas rejects the deal, which is always possible, they're the only one left. Everyone else has accepted it, but I have a feeling that we're going to have a positive answer. But if not, as you know, baby, you'd have more full backing to do what you would have to do.
- [14:42]
B
All right, so, yeah, and yes, to be clear there, of course he does say you would have our full backing because of course they always would. I guess that's kind of my point is that they're doing it with our backing. There's. So there's, there's some interesting things here in the deal and maybe getting into the actual deal now, this has been reported. There was a, I was just reading an article in Axios about this and then there was one other. I can actually probably pull this up and figure what was the other source that I had. I was reading another piece about this earlier today. Yeah, it was. Axios had one. And essentially what they're saying is that Netanyahu, you know, changed. So what happens here is they, there was a deal that was worked out too that was agreed by a bunch of other Arab leaders. And then Netanyahu had like a six or eight hour meeting with, with Witkoff and Kushner and they made some key changes. And now Donald Trump is presenting this as, look, this is the deal that everybody agreed to, but a lot of the Arab leaders have already been like, hey, like, no, this isn't what we agreed. And the changes in it where was. It was right. There was also, it was in the Times of Israel that I was reading. There was also a piece about this that kind of seemed to back up the same. Netanyahu was able to like, essentially achieve key changes in the agreement before, you know, the, the agreement that, that Trump ultimately presented.
- [16:17]
C
I'm not saying that this is accurate, but I'd read in Axios that basically Trump told Netanyahu the deal is as is and if no changes can be made to it and we will walk away from full support of Israel if you don't accept it as is. Now, it could be that that was a Trump bluster phone call after adjustments had already been made to make it acceptable to Netanyahu. Yeah, and well, I'll return it to you because then I do have other comments about it.
- [16:46]
B
Sure, sure. Well, the latest, the latest reporting is that Netanyahu got his changes in after that, of course, been other people coming from particularly some of the more hawkish sources that like, oh, you know, Donald Trump really brought Netanyahu to heel on this. I'm not buying that at all.
- [17:07]
C
To say yes today and make changes later.
- [17:10]
B
Yes. Well, this is, let me just say, I'll say it like this, okay? Because I think there's actually, there's a little bit of nuance to how I feel about all of this. And so I'd say, number one, just to understand what's going on, because this seems to me to be fairly obvious and this is the way that these things tend to work. We mentioned on our last show the secret recording video of Netanyahu where he's literally bragging about doing this during the Oslo peace process, that he would put all of these poison pills into the agreement. And so then it becomes this like, oh, this isn't really, you know, like in that case it was that he can determine know he was like, we'll give the Palestinians autonomy over the west bank, but we still control the key military areas. And then he's like, I say that all of area C is a key military area and all of this. So haha, we put this in, but we weren't really. And what this allows them to do, it's kind of twofold. Number one, if they accept the agreement. Well, they didn't really get what they thought. You still have total control of the whole damn thing and how it actually plays out from there. And, and so even if they had accepted the agreement, this results in a, in a real Palestinian state. Never. Because Netanyahu can prevent it or you don't accept the agreement, which is what happened in, in ultimately at the, in the culmination with Oslo. And then all of the Zionist propagandists can say we offered the piece and then they didn't take it. This was part of what me and, me and Coleman Hughes argued about yesterday. But so look again, also, this is exactly what happened during the Iran negotiations that failed preceding the 12 day war, 12 day for now war, which is that they, the hawks insisted, when the negotiations were happening, they insisted that Donald Trump stay firm to you have to not enrich uranium at all, give up your civilian nuclear program completely. And they were like, no, we're not going to do that. So you put the thing in that, you know, they won't agree to do. And then you could say, hey, we tried to negotiate and it didn't work. That overwhelmingly seems to be what this is. The, essentially the key changes that Netanyahu made were about. And let me pull this up, this is from Dave decamp. He had a piece on this earlier today, the great Dave DeCamp, who's always really on top of these things. One of the best war reporters out there. Antiwar.com is where this was published. Of course, reading from the article, the changes were related to two of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations, the disarmament of Hamas and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. The new proposal ties Israel's phased withdrawal from territory to the demilitarization of Gaza and the ability of an international force to take over the land. The proposal also essentially gives Israel and the US a veto over the withdrawal from Gaza by stating that the idf, quote, will withdraw based on standards, milestones and time frames linked to demilitarization. That will be agreed upon between the idf, isf, nsf, the guarantors, and the us. So essentially, what's going on with the details of this are that Israel, like, like the, the deal that Hamas has been saying for whatever you want to, you know, however much you want to trust that they'll keep their word, but the deal that Hamas has been repeatedly proposing is that we'll return all the rest of the hostages if you withdraw from Gaza. Okay, now the, the difference here is the proposal that's being offered to Hamas here is essentially you have to bend the knee. You have to bend the knee and trust that Israel will follow through with its part. So in other words, they have to release the hostages before Israel has to release anybody. Okay? So they have to hope that Israel will still do it after all that, and that they have to put down all their weapons and then hope that Israel will say, okay, that's satisfactory now, now we can withdraw. And so, of course, what's being set up here is that even if they accept this deal, there's, you know, look, the thing when Benjamin Netanyahu says, you know, the eradication of Hamas is, is the goal here, right? We can't, we're not going to finish the job unless if Hamas is still there. When they vowed to attack us over and over again. Well, like, just for the sake of argument, if Hamas tomorrow just said, we're not calling ourselves Hamas anymore, we're calling ourselves, you know, flin or whatever, they. They just said we're calling ourselves that. Same people, same guns, same thing, do you think Netanyahu would go, oh, that's okay then? Because it's not H. No, of course, right. It's not about the group being essentially the corner that Israel in, in a way has painted themselves into, is that Israel will say, yeah, will withdraw as soon as there's no young men in Gaza. Who wish to resist Israel, who wish to avenge their parents or their sisters or their cousins, as soon as there's none of that, will withdraw. Now, what does that sound like to you, Rob? It sounds like the perfect excuse to never withdraw. Right, so this is already what's being set up here. Okay, so all of that is true, and I'm sorry I'm rambling here, but I do, I do want to get your thoughts, but I just to be clear that I get all of this out, all of that is true, and I would still say I hope Hamas takes this deal. I just, I've just watched this game. I know, I know. It's a. Tails I win, heads you lose. I know. It's that. It's just that this, this at least has a. It's on the table. It at least has a shot of maybe stopping the dying for a little bit and then hopefully, like, I think the best play here would be to, like, take this deal and then let the world see that you took the deal and then let the world see that Israel still is going to find an excuse and not demilitate. At least maybe it'll slow down the killing for now. I understand where that's very easy from my perspective to say, and if you've been militarily occupied by a foreign country for 60 years and you've decided to violently fight back, you're probably not going to take that. Also, obviously, if the last two years has demonstrated anything, Hamas is willing to make the calculation that, oh, a lot of our people will die, but global opinion will be turned against you. There's, I'll say, just like for an example here and then I promise this is the last thing and I'll turn it over to you, Rob. But the original UN partition recommendation in 1947, right at the time, I think by this point, I think like a third of the population in what is Palestine now was, was Jewish. It's about 2/3 Arab, 1 third Jewish. But that was a new development. Historically, the Jewish population had been much lower than that. They had gotten a lot of new people in, in the last few years and, or maybe, I mean, immigration was limited for a while in World War II, but I mean, like 10 years, 20 years before, it was much less than a third were, were Jewish, but they, there were about a third of them were Jewish. And I believe the percentage of property that they owned was less than that. It's been a while since I've read these numbers, but the UN partition recommendation recommended that, that a Jewish state gets 56% of the land. And that in Arab state will get 44% of the land. And understandably, this was rejected by the Arabs and accepted by the Zionist settlers because, like, that was really good deal for them from the Arab perspective. It. It was like, why should. Why should the people who are a third of the population get over 50% of it? That's not a fair deal. And so you could totally understand why they turned that down. In fact, I don't know that anybody, anybody that I've ever heard, like, has actually taken on that argument and been like, no, it was fair for the Jewish state to get 56%. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but there really is no argument for that. So you can totally understand why the Arabs turned it down. Also, you could say in hindsight I kind of wish they had taken. Is true that it is unfair, but like, if you had taken that, maybe there was a chance that we didn't end up in a war that basically has been going on since then up till now. I don't know. So I guess I kind of feel that way. It's like, yes, this is an unfair deal. Yes, it's set up to probably sabotage you at the same time. What other play do you have here other than this insane strategy of sacrificing your own people? Like, you're up against this maniacal, evil force that's willing to just slaughter your people. What other option is that on the table? Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really see it here. So it's. I don't think it's likely that this deal is going to be accepted by Hamas. I think Netanyahu is designing it so that it's probably not going to be. There's already been some signals to that effect that Hamas is just like, not happy with it. They've given him like, three days, I think, or something like that to sign on to it. I doubt that this is going to work. I kind of hope it does. I hope anything that will stop people from dying as quickly as possible would work. And yeah, okay, so those are basically my thoughts. Take it away, Rob.
- [26:31]
C
There's a lot about this deal that's fascinating to me, and the biggest one is it seems designed so that Hamas can accept it. The biggest poison pill being that they have to give up all the hostages first and then trust that the rest of the Israeli side will actually take place. And then all of Hamas has to actually give themselves up and drop arms and then hope that they're actually given amnesty if they did so. And then I believe that some are allowed to stay if they swear to be peaceful towards Israel, and others will be allowed to relocate to some location that hasn't been disclosed yet. You know, Donald Trump, not all the details will be given to you, nor have the details been given. If you're given amnesty, I guess what kind of monitoring you might then have to submit to in order to ensure that you remain peaceful.
- [27:20]
B
Yeah.
- [27:21]
C
But it somewhat seems like this deal was constructed so that, you know, Donald Trump could turn around and said, hey, I gave them a sweetheart deal where we were going to invest in all the area and this would have been the best things for the Gazans, and they didn't accept it. Problem with that is that Hamas didn't accept it, and he didn't really give Hamas a deal that makes sense for Hamas, because I think you'd probably have to show, you'd probably have to give a little bit more of the specifics on how exactly they're going to be treated if now they just decide to completely give up on their cause and give themselves over. So it seems to me like this deal is mostly designed to fail. Now, with that said, I don't think Netanyahu wants this deal on the table because I think he wants to push forward with what he's been doing. And I actually, from what I've read, it seems like Trump was pretty upset about the cutter thing. And now here's where it gets real interesting. I also agree with you that right now it's probably in the people of Gaza their best interest to take this deal and hope that the investment comes in and that Donald Trump actually has in mind some sort of a way for these people to live peacefully and potentially be allowed to remain in the area with more investment and prosperity. I think their best option right now is to hope that that's true.
- [28:30]
B
Well, it increases. I'm sorry, but at least it increases aid in the immediate, in the short run. I mean, it's something, I think.
- [28:39]
C
I think with the options on the table, it would make sense if you could. If you could. If the people of Gaza could vote. I think this option is probably their best option at the moment. Now, with that said, apparently Kushner has been working on this thing for years, and he's been working on it with Tony Blair. That's the guy's name, right?
- [28:55]
B
Yeah, that's another. Yep, yep, that's another.
- [28:56]
C
Interesting. Now, Tony Blair was. I've been reading up on this. So apparently that guy was a big pusher of the Iraq War. And in the last couple years, he's.
- [29:04]
B
Making, just to be clear, not just a pusher, but the, the British sent in in the tens of thousands of troops. I mean, he was a, he was the Prime Minister of England while they, you know, they fought the war as well. He was like after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the next most guilty guy about the war in Iraq.
- [29:25]
C
And so now you've got Tony Blair, who's been making billions of dollars doing I don't know what in the Middle east, but he's out there. He's been wheeling and dealing since the Iraq war. It just kind of reads to me like a bit of a Hillary Clinton type character, but out of England. And so now you've got what I think the World Economic Forum's involved in this. And the idea is that people are going to be dislocated from the region, but guaranteed right of return within five years. We don't know where they're being sent to. I've also watched construction projects on United States highway that were supposed to take a year, provide traffic for me for 20 years. So there's a. I'm just saying it's a classic Donald Trump no plan plan that firstly, I don't think he really wants this deal to move forward because he put poison pills in it that I think won't be accepted. And I think the idea is to try and court a little bit of favor so that he could try and present the American people. This is all Hamas's fault. I gave him an out. And they could have had a Riviera of the Middle East. But if they do push forward with the Riviera of the Middle east, and let's just say it is the Palestinian or the people that live in Gaza's best option, this seems like some real shady dirty dealing. And I don't really imagine that the people of Gaza are returning in five years or that there's going to be a lot of development that that helps them. And this also does kind of just take the option of them having their own state off the table.
- [30:45]
B
Yeah. Even though, as is always the case, even though it vaguely alludes to, like one day this happening in five years.
- [30:52]
C
Tony Blair is going to give up control to, I don't know, the Arab leagues to then run. Run the area.
- [30:59]
B
Yeah, well, in the late 70s, at the first Camp David meeting, which is where the peace between Israel and Egypt was struck, that, that was part of the agreement that, like, hey, you got to start a process that one day you got to end this occupation you know, because you think, like, this is like, the late 70s. So they started occupying Palestine in 1967. So this is like the late 70s. It's like, guys, it's been a decade. You know what I mean? Like, you gotta. You gotta take your boot off their neck at some point, and they go, okay, we agree to do that. And then that's what Oslo was, too, was supposed to be officially starting the process to someday give these people a state, which is like, again, like, as I got into this argument with Coleman Hughes that you guys listened to yesterday, we were saying, like, the thing that's so ridiculous about it is that, like, this whole Israeli line, like, but we don't have a partner for peace. It's like, you don't actually need a partner. Like, in the same way that you don't need, like, if you have, like, a. A bunch of slaves. And you go, I offered them their freedom, but they won't agree to it. It's like, you just stop enslaving them. That's it. You don't. Like, you don't have to do this. Israel could just retreat to 67 borders and stop militarily occupying Gaza and the West Bank. They could do that. It'd be an enormous gesture of goodwill and probably win a lot of global opinion over. But, like, they don't want to. They'd rather have the control. And so, yes, so once again, like, it does seem like if. When the occupation was, like, 10 years old, if you're going, hey, you have to agree to eventually give them a state, and they go, yeah, sure. And now the thing is, like, 60 years old, and you're going, oh, you have to one day agree. You know, nobody is really taking that seriously. Nobody believes and judge just based off the Israeli government's actions over the years. Everything has been designed to thwart, and they openly say this, they openly admit it, that everything's been designed to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state. Yeah. It's also, you know, to your point, bringing in Tony Blair, the guy whose most famous thing ever was the disastrous war in Iraq, bringing all the crazy, you know, financial interest that Kushner and I think Witkoff himself all have in the area. It's all just. Just screams of corruption and, like, it's. Yeah, I. I essentially agree with your assessment there. And so it also seems like this is inevitably going to lead to more US Involvement, more of a role that Trump is going to play. And who is the official guy in charge of this part of Gaza or whatever anyway? Just does it doesn't look like anything good. And then of course, like, as all these negotiations, negotiations always are, they're like a, they're, they're a tool for the Israeli government and its propagandists to go, look, we tried, we tried to do a negotiation and this is how it went. And I think that, you know, look like, Obviously you've got two people here who have been at war essentially since 1947 all the way to 2025. And you just, you know, it's very easy for both sides to, to feel like whatever violence they're doing is a response to the last violence of the other side. You know what I mean? Like when you, when you got like, it's very easy for people on the pro Israel side to say, hey, this, this war, as they would call it, is a response to October 7th. But then it's very easy for people on the pro Palestinian side to say, no, no, no, October 7th was a response to this brutal occupation. Or even just the fact that the year 2023 had been one of the most violent years on record. Like the, Israel killed a whole bunch of Palestinians that year, just earlier in the year in regular old military, you know, campaigns. And so when you have a conflict where there's been violence and aggression on each side for so long, it's easy for both sides to say, no, no, no, we're the ones. We were just responding to that. You know, like you, what I always like come down on with, with the big Israel question is that, okay, so you're, you're going, everything is a tick for tat. Everything is a response to that, to response to this. But if you zoom out, you just go like, yeah, but like a bunch of Europeans decided that they were going to create a Jewish state on a plot of land where Arabs lived. Those Arabs did not wish for a Jewish state to be created there. And the creation of that state involved 750,000 of them being kicked out of where they lived and never let back in. And that's bad enough, but like, you could probably get past that eventually. States are created in messed up ways all the time. The real problem is that then in 1967, only 20 years after that last war started, they, they started militarily occupying them and have done so ever since for 60 years. And so now every time they go, you go like, what do you want to say here? Like this whole, and, and this. Look, I know this is a really bitter pill for people to swallow, particularly for, for Jewish Zionists and maybe so for Christian Zionists. As well. But like, if you just zoom out and look at this and you go, okay, you had this idea, right? This was this idea of Zionism, which you could say the Jews need their own state. Like, oh, okay, fair enough. Like the Jews need their own state for security. You know, it's, it's reasonable enough on the face of it. Okay. You know, there's a diaspora, there's, there's a group of people who are like, they're not all in one place, but there's a little bit of them everywhere and they sure have been mistreated all over the place and they want to go live here. Fine. It's like you have this idea for a project, but the project just again, you can always blame every little actor who did something wrong or who, you know, there's lots of people who made mistakes and did really horrible things over the years. But the bottom line is that the project of creating the nation state of Israel required a massive, a massive ethnic cleansing campaign to create the state. Ethnically cleansing 750,000 people out of their land. It required 60 years of military occupation to maintain the thing. And now it is requiring what scholars are debating over whether is a genocide or not to culminate. Like this whole project. And at a certain point, if that's what's necessary for this project, I think it is pretty reasonable for people, including American Jews like ourselves, to go, maybe we shouldn't be propping this thing up here as Americans, as American taxpayers. Like, if you still need all of this and all of our support to make this thing work, then maybe this was just a bad idea. Like, maybe we can discuss other, you know, possibilities. Maybe, maybe Jews need to find a place where they can buy up a whole lot of property voluntarily and create their own Jewish state there or something like that. And maybe this just doesn't work. Now, I would much rather see, but I would much rather see like a 2 state solution, 67 borders or something like that. But it is, I think it is fair to ask those questions. They're just, they're staring you right in the face. And so anyway, the idea which I said before, Israel's kind of painted themselves into this corner in a way, like, particularly with, with their rhetoric that they're saying we're not going to end this until even Benjamin Netanyahu right now, look at all this effort. You know, Scott Horton was, he was, he was debating General Wesley Clark again. They've done this several times now in Pierce Morgan. They've all been real interesting and like one of the Final things on the show, Scott said something about how horrible, you know, Donald Trump was for supporting the destruction of Palestine. And then General Wesley Clark said something like, I forget exactly what he said, but this is really the four star general who I always love quoting. But the. He said something like, he goes, yeah, but then you let Hamas claim victory, you know, like, if Netanyahu pulls out now, you let them claim victory. But isn't this just the most horrible version of a sunk cost fallacy, Rob, that like it, right? Because you could say the same thing for Vietnam or Afghanistan or any of them. It's like, well, yeah, but that's the whole thing. That's the whole thing. If you're going to sit here and say that the standard is that there has to be no young man in Gaza who wants to avenge any of what we, what Israel just did to them, then that's a guarantee you're in forever war. That's it. And the insurgency is like, as we've seen in all these countries, like, it's very, they're very, very hard to beat. They're very hard to beat. As of right now in Gaza, where the whole Strip has been fucking destroyed. I mean, Rob, you've seen the pictures of what Gaza looks like right now. They are, they are retrieving Israeli bombs that didn't detonate, digging them out of the ground and using them to take out tanks. They're still having. Benjamin Netanyahu is talking about all the people they've lost, even in this conflict. They're still fighting back even after all this. And so, like, the obvious only answer is that you can't go. Like, you can't go, I'm going to keep my boot on your neck with all of my weight on it until you stop squirming. You got to go, I'm going to take my boot off your neck and then stop squirming, please. After that, it's the only, you know, real conclusion that there is no political will to see happening. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Brunt. Brunt Workwear. You got to check them out. Choosing work boots used to mean sacrificing comfort or durability. If they felt good, they didn't last. And if they lasted, they just destroyed your feet. That is over. Brunt has made the best pair of work boots you will ever get. They sent me a pair of them. I love them. They are as comfortable as your most comfortable pair of sneakers. But they're serious work boots that are ready for any job. Definitely go check them out. You work too hard to be stuck in uncomfortable boots that don't hold up. Go check out bruntworkware.com and make sure to use the promo code problem. For a limited time, our listeners will get ten dollars off. Once again, that's bruntworkware.com the promo code is problem. Go use that. You get ten bucks off and you're good to go. The most comfortable pair of work boots you will ever put on your feet that do hold up. And after you order, they'll ask you where you heard about Brunt. Do us a favor, make sure you tell them the part of the problem podcast. All right, let's get back into the show. Anyway. Any other thoughts are up. Go ahead.
- [41:29]
C
Well, I guess we got three days to see if Hamas responds and whether or not Trump actually keeps to his deadline and whether or not they actually have any sort of a plan in place that can be enacted or might actually help the Palestinians or was actually agreed to by the Arabs. So still a lot of unknown variables to see how it plays out.
- [41:49]
B
Yeah. Yeah, agreed. And my, you know, my most, my best guess as of right now is that Hamas is not going to agree to this and that, you know, more disaster will continue in the short term. Unfortunately, I hope I'm wrong about that, but that'd be my guess. All right, let's, let's switch gears and talk a little bit about the, the Charlie Kirk letter to Benjamin Netanyahu. That was another big story that happened the other day. The New York Post published the full letter. Now if you, if you recall.
- [42:26]
D
The.
- [42:26]
B
Benjamin Netanyahu immediately after Charlie's assassination had read a few lines of this and the Candace Owens as well as some others had called on him to release the whole letter. And there, you know, there's obviously with something we've talked a lot about on this show, there's just like a very interesting story. This is something that's been covered pretty extensively by, by Candace, by Megyn Kelly, by Tucker Carlson and, and we have on the show as well here talking about just like the dynamic of what was going on with Charlie Kirk and the, the, his young people, you know, Israel bleeding support amongst his young people. And so anyway, this letter, the New York Post published this letter. I now did you read the piece, Rob?
- [43:17]
C
I did.
- [43:18]
B
Yes. Now I, I did notice in there, correct me if I'm wrong, I did read, I read the piece twice looking for this, but they, they did not explicitly say where they got the letter from like they kind of like they. Sorry, go ahead.
- [43:31]
C
No, I just jumped to reading the letter. I didn't even read their characterization.
- [43:35]
B
Well, I'm reading.
- [43:36]
C
I did pick up on that. It wasn't clear. I was just going to go. If you want to take it as fact that this was actually a letter from Charlie Clerk to Netanyahu, here's my thought about it. But, you know, they didn't really validate.
- [43:50]
B
No, but they did. They did seem to just present it as fact. We have obtained, we have obtained the letter. This is what the full letter says. And all I'm saying is, by the way, I, I said not on air, but I did just privately say this. When, when Candace first called for Netanyahu to release the letter, I always thought it was like, yeah, but like, if the letter comes back just saying none of the stuff you're saying is in it, we're all, you're just gonna say that this wasn't the, you know, like, if the source on it is Netanyahu, then it just seems like a lot of people would think there's a possibility it has been altered or something like that. Now, I don't, I don't know enough. And it doesn't explicit, explicitly say. I'm just saying, like, if the letter, if the letter was written to Benjamin Netanyahu, who has a copy of the letter? Unless they're the. It's like, o, oh, Turning Point had a copy of it too, or something like that, which it certainly was not explicitly said in the piece. So that'd be the first thing I will say, though, the, like, just assuming that's not the case, which I don't know that it is at all. This seemed to fit in, like, kind of be a piece of the puzzle that fit kind of right into what would have seemed reasonable to me. It's true. It does show you that, like, it, Charlie Kirk is calling in a sense, for like Hasbro to get their together. You know, he's like, look, like I'm in this position of, of supporting Israel and you guys are getting, you know, he's saying this in a very diplomatic, kind way, but he's like, you guys are getting destroyed. And he doesn't exactly say this, but it did seem to me to be like a heavy implication that he's listing out the, the talking points. He's going, look, man, I'm taking questions from young people and here are all the questions that they have. And then now he doesn't exactly say it, but he's kind of like saying, like, we gotta have a response to this because right now we don't have one. Now that is reading between the lines a little bit. But I think, Rob, you read the letter only a little bit. Like, that's kind of what he's saying the whole time. You guys gotta find a way to completely reinvent how you're countering this stuff. Like, what are we talking about doing here, man? Because you're getting killed in this information war. And I just think that there was, I don't know, there's something interesting there in this story that it still does show. Because the story, you know, when, when people were trying to make the, like, Israel killed Charlie Kirk claim, like, as I always said, it was like, we. There was never any evidence for that. There still isn't any evidence for that. There's not really a strong reason to even suspect it or be looking for evidence. But hey, if you want to look for it, I. You find some, I'll certainly take a look at it. There's no reason to suspect that. As of right now, there. Aside from that, though, there just is a really interesting story about this guy and the dynamic of what was going on. And like we've said before, it all seems to come essentially, yes, Charlie Kirk is the big ten Republican guy who's trying to get people to vote for the Republicans. Donald trump last time, J.D. vance or whoever next time. And he's got to deal with young people. These young people are abandoning Israel in droves for obvious reasons that we cover at length on this show. And yet he knows that he can't, you know, he has to somehow try to facilitate that. Like, you can't have a big tent that doesn't include Tucker Carlson or Megan Kelly or Candace Owens on the right wing. It's just not enough tent left. They're too big a portion of the. The thing. He'd already decided he's keeping Nick Fuentes out. He'd already decided there's this young movement that I don't want to be a part of. So he, like, he's in this position where, like, well, I got to at least be able to moderate a debate on the topic, you know, so he's in this position. Then he's getting all types of pressure because that's not good enough. You know what I mean? And his hardcore backers want him to. They have. They insist that he treat Tucker Carlson like a Nazi, you know, and, and he knows he can't do that. So he's in this impossible position. And here is this letter where he Seems to really be. Again, Rob, you give your thoughts after this. I don't think I'm mischaracterizing this. He seems to be pleading with Netanyahu for some help, like, send me some backup here. I don't know what to do. And then offering some help of his own. But I don't know. What are your. Your thoughts on the letter?
- [48:23]
C
That was my takeaway was that it felt like a letter to corporate, either before someone's trying to quit the team or someone who still really cares about the company. But just see his misdirection. It did not seem like he was uninterested in continuing to defend these perspectives. But it was a letter of, hey, you're making my job impossible, and you guys have to figure out how to start doing a little bit more, because I can't. I can't just win this fight. Now, what I found most interesting about the letter was in his appeal for help. I think he's asking Israel to come up with better talking points on questions that they know that they can address. And that's why they're leaving it for people like Charlie Kirk or others to kind of talk on their behalf, because it's a little bit like Joe Biden on the border wall thing. You can lie about that topic for two years and go, no, we care about border security. No, there is no emergency. No, there is no problem. And at some point, if you're actually doing the thing that people are concerned with, the truth does come out. And it's. Same thing happened with COVID You know, there's some storylines where, you know, if you keep saying, hey, I'm interested in peace, but then you keep just killing people, at some point, people are like, well, you just keep killing people. And so the problem is governments like Netanyahu, I think they're more interested in censorship because they can't actually justify what they're doing. When you're asking questions of, why is this a strategic partner? Why is this in the US Best interest? Why should we be supporting this with all these innocent. Like, I can understand you're hearing these questions from kids, and you're like, I don't have answers to these questions. I need some answers. And I don't think Netanyahu. Now, listen, Nitinha, someone has taken this advice. He's going on American podcasts. And, you know, I don't know that they're creating better social media content from that video we saw the other week of.
- [50:09]
B
No, it doesn't seem to be going great. Yeah, but there's but they do speak.
- [50:13]
C
Somebody sat down to meeting and said, we need gay guys sipping out of straws. So I don't know that Israel, Israel doesn't seem to understand American. Well, I think they understand the money side of American politics. I don't think they understand the influencing kids side of it. But some of these questions they can't actually answer.
- [50:31]
B
Look, part of it, and this is, you know, like I used to use the example because the 2024 election, really, there was something really fascinating about the, that dynamic. But where you would see like the Tony Hinchcliffe one, to me was always a really good example. When MSNBC and CNN went into overdrive about, you know, saying that this was a commentator who made a comment at a Trump speech, you know, and then like, if you had seen the videos clearly, however you felt about the appropriateness of it, it was clearly a guy doing a Don Rickles roast in every group comedian thing. And the video itself had blown up so much. I mean, the, the Madison Square Garden rally was live streamed. It had across social media. It must have had hundreds of millions of views on it. And then some show on MSNBC is like a hundred thousand people maybe watching it. And they're trying. Most of your own audience has seen this on their phone already. And so there used to be a dynamic where you had 100 million people, the alternative people. There was no Internet. They had like a newsletter or something. They had a few dozen people. And so if you just said it was like this, everyone heard that and no one saw the truth. But now you're trying to play that game when you're the newsletter and they're the mainstream media and it just doesn't work anymore like that. And there's just a lot, you know, you would just watch like this inability to grapple with the new landscape. And this happens a lot too, when, you know, just, just the accounts like, like Tom Elliott, such a great account at this. I always just love. It's one of the best Twitter followers because he would just, he'll just make these compilations of what the media was saying. Like the old game used to be, you stay on message and you repeat the same thing over and over. And that way, if it was said all day on cnn, everyone's at least heard it. And it's some. In some part of your mind, if you've heard it a lot, you go, oh, yeah. And it's a consensus, you know what I mean? But now one dude like Tom Elliott on his laptop can just cut together a compilation of all of Them saying the exact same thing. It goes super viral. It gets way more views than they're getting on the corporate media, and it exposes them because everyone's going, oh, look, they all got the memo. And now they're all saying the exact same thing. It was sharp as attack. Sharp as attack. Sharp as attack. Attack. Why did everyone choose that same phrase? That was a coincidence. You know what I mean? Like, someone, please, someone smarter than me, who's like a statistician to explain to me what the mathematical odds are that every single person at the corporate media all thought of sharp as attack as the way to describe Joe Biden. They all just happen to independently come to that one slogan. No, there was a memo like, clear. It's just obvious. And so. So just for example, bring it back to the Netanyahu thing. So Netanyahu turns around. This is what used to work, Rob, is that. So he comes over here, gives. Then the next day he goes and gives a speech in Hebrew, right? Because this is where you. You always know who Netanyahu's talking to based on whether he's speaking in English or Hebrew, right? Is he talking to America? Is he talking to Israelis? And so he turns around and brags to them. The next day after this, he brags to them that it. We've achieved all of our object, our objectives, we've gotten it put in writing and we've got all the Arabs on board. It's the greatest achievement ever. But now you're in an Internet world where that goes super viral with the translation right underneath it. And so it's just, there's. It's like the atrophy is part that they were dominant and monopolistically so for so many years. And also there's just this inability to adjust to the new dynamic here. And. And I think, like you said, they just don't really have any arguments to combat this stuff. And so they can't. They don't have the option to play the game the way it's being played now, like, to go and win and to go win the argument. They're just in a very, very tough spot that's almost 100 of their own making. So it is. Yeah, it's something. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Tuttle Twins. I' huge fan of the Tuttle Twins. You've heard me talk about Mises and Rothbard and Hayek over the years. Well, all of their greatest works are available in children's books from the Tuttle twins. These are books that were made for kids, but honestly, an adult could spend a couple of hours reading through them and walk away with a solid foundation on the core concepts. These books are incredible. And get this, they've sold over 6 million copies. Just imagine the impact that they're going to have in the future. These are books that I've read to my children that since the time they were toddlers. They have hard toddler books too. And they've got great stuff that all the way up for older kids as well. It's really incredible. You know, they really went after something that's so important, which is getting these ideas into the next generation's minds. So I couldn't support this project more. Please go to tuttletwins.com problem and get a deal on the magazine subscription. It's like 50 bucks. Seriously, that's the price of a couple of pizzas for a year of mind molding, learning for a little one in your life. If you've got kids, kids and you listen to this show, you gotta at least go check them out. TuttleTwins.com problem TuttleTwins.com problem Check them out. Amazing books for children. Something I could not support more enthusiastically. I've been a fan of these guys for years. Thrilled to have them on as a sponsor. Tuttletwins.com problem all right, let's get back into the show. But anyway, I mean, you know, of course, as has been the case always, you know, throughout the, the last few weeks since Charlie was killed, everybody's trying to kind of, you know, manipulate this in their favor and say that this letter really proves this or proves that. To me, it just seems kind of like, it seems to be right in line with what we've been saying since this thing happens. That, oh, yeah, this kind of was the dynamic. Yeah, no, Charlie was probably not about to have some major heel turn on Israel. He was, he was probably still hoping that maybe this genie could be put back in the bottle and maybe there'd be a way that we could get back to, you know, the big tent Republican movement that's gonna have super majorities for the next 30 years. But he was clearly struggling with this impossible situation. And it would have been, you know, had he not tragically been killed. It would have been interesting to see what he would have had to do over the next few years because it does seem to be almost like, you know, like Megyn Kelly herself said the other day when she said that she had nobody under 30 supports Israel anymore. And this is coming from a supporter of Israel. She's just telling you what she's seeing right in front of her. Like, NO1 Under 30 is supporting Israel anymore. And okay, no one's an exaggeration, but, oh my God, it's not that much of an exaggeration. And so what are you gonna do in that situation? After a while, you gotta figure out something. And so anyway, I just think. I do think that is a really interesting story. Probably we all should have waited like a couple more months before we even started getting into this story, but Netanyahu started first and immediately politicized it. And then it's like, no, actually, I think we should talk about this then rather than just giving you this kind of talking point. Actually, the situation, the picture that is emerging now doesn't actually look so great for Israel. Like, no, it doesn't exactly look like Israel killed Charlie Kirk, but it certainly doesn't look like they're like anything that makes their image look good. It's like, no, the story is about how young people who don't get their news from the old corporate media, who we all are in agreement, have lied about everything right now that they don't trust those people. None of them are buying your bullshit. That seems to be the story here. And it's not a particularly good PR story for Israel anyway. Your thoughts, Rob?
- [58:41]
C
Well, yeah. And also just a diplomatic letter to your boss of going, hey, here's my concerns with the organization right now. It's really not much of an indicator one way or the other of if he's still totally in line and trying to be like, hey, I need some new marching orders here, or if he's as diplomatically as possible relaying, you're putting me in an unwinnable position here and we have to make some changes or I can't remain at this company. It's really got either of those two flavors.
- [59:14]
B
Well, like, at the very least, it's an uncomfortable letter. I mean, it's. It's a letter where he's, he's prefacing it going, like, now listen, friends can always be blunt with friends, right?
- [59:25]
E
It.
- [59:26]
C
Okay, always been loyal, but I can only. This company can only improve if I actually give you my honest criticisms of what transpired.
- [59:34]
B
Here's what I'm hearing. I'm hearing you're committing a genocide. I'm hearing your real motive here is ethnic cleansing. I'm hearing this. What is our response to that? Like, at the very least, that's an uncomfortable conversation to be having. And that you know, I think was a. Look, I think it's a. I think almost the thing that's a strange dynamic here is that there is no one. I don't think there's not. No. No one in the public eye who's a staunch defender of Israel, who doesn't know that this dynamic exists. They all know. And Netanyahu himself, they all know they're getting killed in this PR campaign here. Okay, you know what? We only have a few minutes left, but maybe we should just briefly talk about. Maybe we'll spend some more time on this on. On future episodes. But this also has happened recently, and we have not really talked about this yet on the show, but James Comey was indicted, and this is a major development. James Comey has been indicted for lying under oath. And it seems to me that he's. He's guilty as sin. And I think they've really got him on this now. It. I, you know, I'm curious what your. Your take on this is, but it does. It seems to me that they did, you know, I was talking about this back, if you remember, a couple months ago, after the Trump administration buried the Epstein story, covered that up in the most, you know, in the most sloppy way that you've ever seen a political administration try to bury a story that they themselves were fanning the flames of for so many months is just an absolute, you know, PR disaster for them. And then they clearly, as an attempt to change the conversation to that, pivoted toward Russiagate. Origins of Russiagate. Another very real, you know, conspiracy that they were like, okay, well, let's throw the attention onto that. And I do think probably there was a feeling that, like, somebody has to go down for this. Like, we have to be able to point to somebody and say, we prosecuted them for this. My guess right now is that that is James Comey. He's the guy who. The music stopped and is not going to have a seat left for him. That seems to be what it looks like to me. Like, they. I think this guy's going to end up doing time. I could be wrong about this, but this is what. At this point, the fact that they've come this far and actually charged him for this crime, which he is clearly guilty of, seems to indicate that to me. I still really don't think they're going to go much further than that into, like, the origins of Russiagate and holding people responsible. I mean, I don't know how exactly they're going to do it. It. But, you know, the Director of National Intelligence got on national television and said, we have the proof that Obama committed treason and we've sent it over to the Justice Department. It's very hard to do that and not have someone somewhere with somewhat of a name get punished for that. I really still think it's very hard to believe that they're actually going to go after Obama, even Brennan. But going after Comey is a pretty. That is something. And I gotta say, well, I think the administration is failing in a million ways, and I wish they would do a lot more and a lot less depending on what topic we're talking about. I'm happy to see that. I'm happy to see that someone being held accountable for at least something. Now, granted, they didn't charge him for conspiring with John Brennan to frame the President of the United States of America for treason. You know what I mean? Like, they didn't charge. Charge him for that, but the lie is somewhat related to that. And, you know, this is at least something. I will say something is better than nothing. I have a feeling what we're getting here is something so you stop bitching about the everything that you wanted. I will, I will take that as the small win that it is. Your thoughts, and then we'll wrap up.
- [63:48]
C
Yeah, I, once again, I agree with you. I think it's lame that they didn't go after him for worse criminal conduct. But yet I think, you know, the congressional hearings are important and people are already able to get away with too much with the, I can't talk about that for ongoing investigations or I don't remember. And so, you know, it is a crime to lie in front of Congress. And I think it's a lie that we should police. And so unlike what they went after Trump for, I think going after people for crimes that we don't want to see and persecuting people for make this country better. It makes sense to go after the guy for now. I think this would be some real loser shit if Trump pushed this one through and the prosecutors were saying, I don't think we actually have enough to go on here. And then they don't actually win this in court. I think that would be a real bad look for them.
- [64:37]
B
That would be a disaster for sure.
- [64:40]
C
But I think it makes total sense to go after Comey for this. I wish that they went after Comey for more. And there's still a possibility that Merrick Garland and Chris Wray can get in trouble for statements they made about not knowing if there are any FBI agents on January 6, because we already knew that there were informants. And now we're finding out that there were. It was like somewhere between 200 and 300 plainclothes officers there on that day. And of course they weren't provoking. They were just there to observe and very upset with the higher ups that they were left out to dry and in a bad situation already. That storyline sounds like you had informants and you had 300 people out there because. But you didn't do anything to prevent it.
- [65:25]
B
Well, it's interesting people out there.
- [65:28]
C
And then you also didn't come back and go, yeah, we had people out there and here's what we observed that.
- [65:32]
B
So yeah, right. We don't get that information the whole like years while you're using this propaganda campaign, that information doesn't come out. But now it's like, oh, yeah, there is that detail too.
- [65:42]
C
Merrick Garland and Chris Ray. I. I mean I played clips on a run your mouth, but I think they pretty explicitly said that they had no knowledge of anyone of any FBI people being there on that day. And I think that was pretty clearly lying.
- [65:55]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah, agreed, agreed. Well, we will see. The more the better when you when it comes to prosecuting the deep state. All right, that's it for us. Thank you for listening. Catch you guys tomorrow with Colonel Douglas McGregor. Peace.
- [66:22]
A
You know how everything's a subscription now. Music, movies, even socks. I swear.
- [66:27]
B
If to continue this ad, please upgrade to premium plus platinum.
- [66:30]
C
What?
- [66:30]
A
No. Anyway, Blue Apron, this is a pay per listen ad.
- [66:33]
B
Please confirm your billing.
- [66:34]
A
Oh, that's annoying. At least with the new Blue Apron, there's no subscription needed. Get delicious meals delivered without the weekly plan.
- [66:41]
B
Wait, no subscription?
- [66:42]
A
Keep the flavor, ditch the subscription. Get 20% off your first two orders with code APRON20. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more.