Christine Rosen (2:01)

Trump told me, okay, there you go.

John Podhoritz (2:04)

Okay.

Christine Rosen (2:04)

No, I, I just had that sense because as I said at the time, Trump likes to create these buddy, buddy moments where he comes off looking like a good guy and he loves to cozy up to the man of the hour. Whatever. For whatever reason, that man is the man of the hour. That's irrelevant. But he wants to bask in a little bit of the reflective glow, which Mamdani certainly has. And I think there's also a certain sense in which he figures, why should I go into this combative? I am the President, he's 30 something year old mayor elect. I'm not. I would look a little crazy if I sort of, you know, took out my elephant gun and tried to blast him away on this first, you know, meeting. Why give his fans exactly what they are looking for here, which is a confrontation. And the truth is, I mean, look, I'm not happy about it, but the truth is Mamdani didn't look particularly happy with the fact that Trump was so happy. Trump was, like, beaming. And Mamdani standing there, kind of sour look on his face.

Jonathan Schanzer (3:35)

But there, I mean, I thought it was a glimpse of the pre political Trump. You know, he would turn up for cameos in any movie, regardless of the quality, in part just to sort of be in the mix, you know, and to remind people that he's Donald Trump and he. He's, you know, sort of a celebrity. And I got a little bit of that vibe. I think you're right that Mamdani will probably regret the smiling, grinning pictures with Trump. But as we know, with Trump, it. It doesn't mean anything with regards to him turning on Mamdani tomorrow. So it has no meaning beyond the photo op and the opportunity to, you know, show him around the Oval Office. I don't see it having any political implications beyond the fact that actually he probably will. I mean, we do know that he sent Harmeet Dhillon after the protesters in front of the synagogue that we were discussing last week. Like they are now investigating what happened there. I'm much more happy to see that than to worry too much about the weird photo op.

Abe Greenwald (4:32)

Eliana, I do think we saw some of the political Trump in this, in that what we know about Trump is that he likes people who win and in that sense. And that he likes people. He says nice things about people who are nice to him. And so if Mamdani was congenial behind closed doors, Trump would then be inclined to flatter him and to say nice things about him once the camera's turned on in public. And so I really wasn't that surprised that this happened. And, Christine, I totally agree with you. Tomorrow Trump could start savaging Mamdani. I don't think it really means anything long term politically, but I think because Mamdani won the mayoral race and Trump had endorsed Cuomo, he was inclined to, you know, say nice things about him on camera. But I have a sense that it's a fleeting moment. I also think that Mamdani looked small in this. Trump was. The optics of it were that Trump was sitting at the desk and Mamdani was standing next to him looking awkward as Trump showered praise on him. And so there was a sense in which these were sort of backhanded compliments where he looked like a little child who was feeling awkward getting praise from the guy he had described as a, you know, fascist, you know, disgusting fascist.

John Podhoritz (6:07)

Okay, so Jonathan Schanzer, as. As Christine points out, Harmony Dhillon, the head of the Civil Rights division at the Justice Department, is apparently is likely.

Christine Rosen (6:18)

To.

John Podhoritz (6:21)

Filed charges against the protesters at the Parki Synagogue on the Upper east side last week for blocking the entrance to the synagogue, thus preventing people from doing their acts of worship, even though they were. What they were protesting was simply a meeting to discuss making aliyah to Israel. This comes after, of course, the year in which Trump has become the hero of the Israeli people. The unambiguous 95% of Israelis have a favorable opinion of Trump, believe that he has sort of saved them from the Gaza war, helped them win the Gaza war, helped them destroy the Iranian nuclear program. And now we have a very important leak which is sort of 20 years in the making, that. That the administration is readying to pronounce that the Muslim Brotherhood is an illegal terrorist organization inside the United States. So the idea that Trump needed to do something about the Parquet synagogue or about Mamdani to demonstrate his bona fides or his support for fighting anti Semitism or whatever, Trump has earned himself a bye on not yelling at Mamdani for saying that Israel caused a genocide. He has, you know, actions, not words. And if there's one place in which he has acted, the words matter less than the actions. It's Israel, Gaza, the Middle east, and now this Muslim Brotherhood thing. Can you tell us a little about the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation?

Eliana Johnson (8:01)

Yeah, before I do, John, I do want to mention that that Trump not saying anything as Mamdani talked about genocide has actually rubbed the Israelis the wrong way. It's not to say they're going to start, you know, like, hammering him for it, but it did not go unnoticed in. In the Israeli media. And I thought that was interesting. It's not like, what have you done for me lately? But it was, hey, why did he put up with this? Especially because we know that, you know, Mamdani's kind of a fan favorite of the Qataris and a bunch of other bad actors. But the Muslim Brotherhood designation is a. It's a pretty big deal. I mean, I remember when I was at the treasury department back in 2003, there was this really unlucky analyst who was, like, locked in a room trying to figure out how to get this thing designated. This is back during the Bush administration. Obviously didn't occur then. You know, Trump comes in first term, they were looking at it. They were trying to get to. Yes, couldn't do it. And then it obviously loses steam under Biden. Now it's back. And I got to say, it's a weird moment because the Qataris are like, you know, I mean, they're really feeling it right now. They've got a huge amount of influence in Washington and they're the number one funders of the Muslim Brotherhood worldwide. So there's a little bit of dissonance in terms of policy, but I will just say if this occurs, and this would be an executive order that would essentially command the US Government to start adding branches of the Brotherhood underneath the executive order structure. So you look at foreign actors that are involved in violence, so I'm thinking like the Yemeni branch, the Libyan branch, the, you know, et cetera. Then after that you've got charities, and then you've got individuals that are also part of this, and who knows what that leads to.

John Podhoritz (9:52)

Can I interrupt you for a second? If you could just spend literally like 60 seconds explaining what the Muslim Brotherhood is. It's. I mean, I know 60 seconds for an organization that's almost 100 years old, but nonetheless, I think I can do it.

Eliana Johnson (10:06)

So basically, it's founded by this guy named Hassan Obana in 1928 in Egypt. The guy gets up on a desk and starts preaching to people that Islam needs to start to conquer Western culture again, that the Brits are everywhere and they shouldn't be in Egypt and everywhere else, it starts to take off. I mean, it spreads like wildfire. And it initially really grows in Egypt. It becomes a violent organization and the government cracks down on it. But it spreads across the entire Arab world, throughout the Muslim world, and in fact, today into the west as well. It is the largest or second largest Muslim activist group in the world. But here's the thing that I think folks need to understand, that the ideology that Hassan Al Banna created back in the 1920s is now the cornerstone of every violent jihadi group that we have tackled since 9, 11, if not before. So I'm talking about Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Taliban. Every one of them draws inspiration and refers to these texts and these tracts produced by the Muslim Brotherhood. So it is all very justifiable what's happening here. But I guarantee you people are going to be howling about this, talking about how it's mistreatment of Muslims, it's Islamophobia, etc. It really isn't in the sense that they're really targeting a specific network that has been at the heart of violence and radical ideology for a century.

John Podhoritz (11:36)

So you think that there will be actual defenses inside the United States of the Muslim Brotherhood and the idea that this is a suppression of free speech, because obviously we know about the Muslim Brotherhood, that it literally, as I, as I understand it, unless I'm. My memory is conflating things that the Muslim Brotherhood was given credit or blame or whatever for the assassination of Sadat, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the organization behind the extraordinarily violent effort to take over the holy sites in Saudi Arabia in 1979, which led to the total Wahhabization of the. Of Saudi Arabia. The. The. It's complete embrace of radical Muslim ideology and the funding that it did before the Qataris got involved of extremist terrorism. So I don't think it has a, it's in good odor in the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, just because it has Muslim in the title. It's like the Jewish Defense League had Jewish in the title and people were still able to see that it was a terr organization.

Eliana Johnson (12:50)

So, you know, it's interesting what I would say is you may have noticed in last week the government of Texas Governor Abbott designated the Brotherhood and the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Abe Greenwald (13:03)

I was just about to ask you about this.

Eliana Johnson (13:05)

Yeah, yeah. And you know, look, this all tracks back because, I mean, it was Ted Cruz that initially created the, the, the piece of legislation that was designed to target the Brotherhood. It looks like that won't happen, but the executive order will instead. And you can sort of see the connection between Abbott, Cruz, Trump. It all, it all tracks. Right. But what I think you're going to likely see is groups like CAIR come out and try to fight this. And cair, you may remember, was identified as the unindicted coconspirator in the Holy Land case back in 2001. This is a massive Hamas terror finance scam scheme. I wouldn't be shocked to see CARE come out and try to fight this. There may be other groups, you know, Muslim legal groups that may also try to do this. At the end of the day, my sense is that this thing lasts for three years and then it, you know, depending on who becomes president after Trump, you know, we could see the evisceration of this executive order or we could see the expansion of it. But I think the important thing for me is to see that whatever they add to this annex of actors, that they're truly violent, that they meet the criteria, that this is done in a sober and analytical way, that it's not just red meat for the masses that have a, you know, an axe to grind with the Brotherhood or an axe to grind with care. They really need to be careful here. If they are, then I think this thing has staying power and that. That's crucial in my view.

Christine Rosen (14:34)

John, can I just Take a shot at your question about whether people will defend the Brotherhood here. I think if we're talking about the activists, definitely I don't think there's any question they have had no problem defending Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime. So especially if CAIR and all these activist networks get involved in this as a cause, they will activate all these, all their troops to come out and start talking about the Brotherhood in glowing terms.

John Podhoritz (15:12)

Okay, well, let's connect this to another story then, which is who are those troops and where are they? Because we had this amazing moment over the weekend when Twitter revealed as part of an update to Twitter that apparently is going to be live at some point, but there was a sort of hour or something in which this, this became active in which Twitter compelled, inserted into everyone's information on their Twitter feeds where the Twitter feed was originating from, specifically what country that they were from. And hundreds and hundreds of very activist Twitter accounts talking about American politics and pushing, you know, Nick Fuentes and pushing anti Israel material. And all of that were revealed to be located with American names and sobriquets and all that were revealed to be in gutter in Turkey, in Egypt, some very high number follower accounts. And so this raised anew the idea of is the social media world from Twitter to TikTok, is it. Are we being gaslit by psyops being produced by literal government disinformation agencies that are creating these identities on social media intending to look like Americans lobbying for American politics, lobbying against certain American figures, pushing anti Semitic ideas and that they are in fact not Americans. They don't live here, they're not participants in the United States and in fact are likely literally created, as was true in 2015 and 2016, by government agencies that are doing this now 24,7 in countries that have broken the code on how to, on how to manipulate American public opinion.

Jonathan Schanzer (17:22)

It's a classic destabilization technique. I mean, it's a classic. And we knew this. They capitalized on the Black Lives Matter riots as well. I mean, this is a classic way to make, create turmoil in a democracy. And it's a really good thing that we now know this because it's not. These are America first accounts and none of them live in America. And I mean, just that like we always joke about how social media is not real life, but it has created a political culture where our elected officials are responding to, you know, some wacko in Nigeria who's just trying to sow discord and destabilize our country.

Eliana Johnson (17:57)

I mean, well, can I say, oh, Go ahead.

Christine Rosen (18:00)

What's also amazing about this story, especially the one, the way pirate wires covered it that Christine sent, sent us over the weekend, is that there are a lot of just individuals who are just doing, who are just trying to monetize this for themselves, particularly when it comes to the Gaza, the big Gaza influencers with, you know, hundreds of thousands of followers. You know, these X users claiming to be in Gaza dodging, you know, Israeli bombs are everywhere from like, you know, Poland to Thailand to Nigeria to Canada. Yeah, what I have, I have like a shocking negative sort of prediction here, which is that I wonder how much difference this ultimately makes because we live in a media culture where people just want their opinions confirmed. If they're confirmed by someone in Nigeria or Canada who claims to be, I don't think they matter. I mean, we're talking about people with, you know, bot girlfriends and, you know, bot therapists. I don't think they care where they get their priors confirmed as long as they're somewhere out there where they can get them confirmed and join in with the other, with the other fans of these fake accounts.

John Podhoritz (19:36)

Let me tell you about Aura Frames. I'm excited about this advertiser. I can't deny it. They sent me an aura frame to test in my own house. I've downloaded hundreds of photos and videos onto it. It's sitting in my living room. I'm sitting there and looking at it and marveling at it and enjoying every second of the images of my family and our past and our present through the aura frame. And Aura is suggesting that you get one of these for the holiday season. And I think that is an amazing gift. And you can actually download photos to your aura frame before they even ship it to your loved one as a holiday present. Unlimited free photos and video. You can personalize it by adding a message before it arrives. And there's a gift box with every frame packaged. So for a limited time, visit auraframes.com and get $45 off Aura's best selling Carver mat frames named number one by Wirecutter by using promo code commentary at checkout. That's auraframes.com promo code commentary. This exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best of the year. So order now. Before it ends, support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. Okay, this is exciting. Cozy Earth has a sale. It's going to run from Thanksgiving to Cyber Monday, November 27 to December 2. Cozy Earth has the bamboo pajama set and the bubble cuddle blanket. Timeless Classics soft stretch knit pajama set that drapes beautifully and sleeps degrees cooler than cotton. Or a blanket that combines comfort and style with its distinctively textured bubble design and ultra soft faux fur feel. If you are like me, somebody who really is concerned about getting presents that will last a lifetime and will be remembered by the people you give them to, Cozy Earth is about as good as you are going to get. Their products feel different from other presents. They are durable, they fit their name because they're so cozy and it allows you to slow down, feel comfortable and make your home a sanctuary. So it's a risk free purchase. 100 night sleep trial. Try them out. If you don't love them, you can return them hassle free. But trust me, you won't want to. And a 10 year warranty because once you feel this level of comfort, you'll want it to last a decade. So give the gift of comfort that lasts beyond the holidays. This weekend only, from Thanksgiving Day through Cyber Monday, get 40% off@cozyearth.com with code commentary. It's the best deal of the year. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Once again, cozyearth.com with code commentary. Well, go ahead.

Eliana Johnson (22:47)

Yeah, I just want to say first of all, you know, I think a lot of idiots learned a lesson over the weekend, which is use a VPN when you're going to create a bot account. I mean seriously, this is not hard for people to fix if they want to, right? I mean this is just laziness. You use the virtual private network and you reset it from another country and that's where you're, that, that's where you created it. As far as everybody else is concerned, this is not hard for people to cover their tracks. But there's another thing that I think we just need to understand here. We are literally welcoming this.

John Podhoritz (23:18)

I think I'm bummed out because you know what, some EXPRESSVPN or somebody should have just paid us for that. For that everyone's getting it for free. Like, all right, ExpressVPN, contact our ad agency.

Eliana Johnson (23:31)

Yeah, well you can. And then, you know, ask somebody to put it out on social media. But speaking of social media, the other thing that I think people just, you know, it's like people are outraged about this. Meanwhile, you've got TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese Communist party that is manipulating their algorithm to make sure that anti American, anti Israel, anti semitic content is flowing like, I mean, gushing out of this app, right and people are actively taking part in it. Right? I mean, you know, people talk about it all the time that, you know, this is how like 80% of people under 40 get their news and it's controlled by our enemies. So people are welcoming, they're volunteering for this. So the idea that people are outraged about what happened on X because they found a couple of accounts that are, you know, that are from a foreign country, they're welcoming this over and over again here in this country. Idiocracy.

John Podhoritz (24:31)

Let me, let me tell you a story about just something happened to me over the weekend. I was at a dinner party. A friend of mine who is a guy who does a lot of work in Hollywood and in show business was describing what he thought, explained how the center of gravity after October 7 shifted in Hollywood though. People were sort of like, you know, wanted to say, oh, we don't like guns, we don't like bombs. Let's, you know, ceasefires are good and all that to kind of almost affirmative support or affirmative loathing of Israel and support for, for its enemies. And they said was people in Hollywood are very ill informed and they're, you know, particularly celebrity actors, often many of whom have never gone to college, not that that would necessarily help you develop a proper perspective on, on Middle east matters, but nonetheless they're, they're, they're very, you know, their, their understanding of the world is very limited and they interface with social media. That is how they understand the world, how, how their followers act, react, what they support, what they like, all of that. And that the great success of things like TikTok and TikTok say campaign against Israel is not that it affects a 14 year old, you know, in, in, you know, in Oklahoma, but that it affects the celebrity who has a huge effect on the 14 year old in Oklahoma. So if, if you get hundreds of what, you know, like teeny bopper singers or dozens of teeny bopper singers, some of whom say things like it's just so terrible what's happening there and we just need it to stop the amplification effect that is Created by the TikTok algorithm goes to that person, not to, you know, you know, Joanie and her and her friends, you know, in Kansas, that, you know, if X pop singer says something about how we need a ceasefire, that's tens of millions of people and they in turn are affected by the TikTok algorithm to a larger degree than other people are, which I thought was a very interesting way of looking at this, that it's not just that It's a massification effect, but that it actually affects a moronic elite that has oversized influence on, on people where, you know, 30 years ago, 60 years ago, you wouldn't have known how Connie Francis felt about the civil rights movement, you know, or something like that. You know, you wouldn't have had Bobby, you know, Bobby Sherman talking about his views on the war in Vietnam anywhere. Like he would have been opaque and probably wouldn't have had any. This is the world that we live in now. I interrupted you, Eliana.

Abe Greenwald (27:44)

No, no, I think I was interrupting you. But I agree with John and Abe that China is doing this out in the open and nobody's batted an eye. They have English language propaganda news outlets like Xinhua News and TikTok and everybody knows this and they are stoking the, trying to capitalize on the Black Lives Matter movement and the chaos on college campuses. Those are just two recent examples. So it is hard for me to believe that the revelation that some of these Twitter accounts are in Poland or in Saudi Arabia or Care Action, which is in Turkey, is going to really change the game. But to your point, John, what I was struck by is that some of the mainstream media outlets reporting is citing these foreign, you know, bots as evidence of real phenomena. So, you know, the BBC was quoting the account of, you know, a journalist in Gaza as an eyewitness.

John Podhoritz (29:01)

And yeah, that's Motorsem Dalul Moto, a journalist in Gaza City who lives in Poland.

Abe Greenwald (29:09)

Poland, exactly.

John Podhoritz (29:12)

So journalist in Gaza City.

Abe Greenwald (29:14)

But it's just hard for me to believe, like the mainstream media, the BBC and the Times and the Post in the Journal, they were all going to say there's a genocide in Gaza regardless, and then create the data points. So it could have been accounts on X or could have been something else. And it's, you know, now amusing that their data was shown to be, you know, bs, but their data would have been shown to be BS regardless of what it was because the story's not true.

Jonathan Schanzer (29:44)

We also need to add on the TikTok point. I know this is me beating the dead horse again, but it's almost in January to be a year since the Supreme Court upheld the law that Congress passed saying that ByteDance has to either sell or be banned. So it's so that we can sever this connection to the Communist Chinese Party. And because of a huge donation given to the Trump campaign and the cozying up of the lobbyists and of ByteDance to the Trump administration, that has not happened. He keeps kicking that can down the Road and Congress should probably act again on this because this is a clear violation of the law and the executive is basically refusing to enforce the law. So this is bad. The fact that it rarely gets mentioned just drives me absolutely bonkers.

John Podhoritz (30:29)

I mean you're absolutely right and Congress doesn't act. So we now we live in a world in which Congress doesn't act. I give you Exhibit A. Dr. Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, who is a doctor who under oath RFK Jr. Swore to him that he would not tamper with the direction of the federal government that vaccines do not cause autism. And then last week we discovered that the website, some website at HHS declared that vaccines may cause autism. And John Cassidy is apparently going to do nothing about this. That is, this is something that in previous eras, and that means I don't care what era a senator would haul the cabinet official who had lied to his face in front of a hearing and say you lied to my face under oath. Explain yourself. We are about to do a launch a major investigation into what happened here. That was just simple senatorial prerogative. That's what confirmation hearings are about. And it's clear that John Cassidy is not going to do that.

Jonathan Schanzer (31:47)

But can I say that there were the weasel words used on the website are notable because it doesn't say say that vaccines cause autism. What it says is that the claim that vaccines don't cause autism is not substantiated by scientific evidence. And I'm paraphrasing. So, so he could kind of weasel his way out of the claim that he's like, I'm not saying they cause it, I'm just saying there's no evidence they don't. I mean it's weasel words but.

John Podhoritz (32:12)

Yes, but it doesn't matter because again under other circumstances, at any other, in any other timeline but this 2025 Trump timeline, Cassidy would have gone at RFK Jr's jugular with by the way, extensive public support. It's just that Republican senators do not want to have anything to do with criticism of the executive branch in the hands of Republicans. And that just simply wasn't the case in prior eras where senators felt like every senator felt like he was his own little mini president and would get angry at the, you know, angry at a Republican administration or Democrats that are get angry at a Democratic administration if they were lied to like as person is when they're lied to and, and they might be self righteous about it, they might be ugly about it or something like that, but it was something to be expected. It was the discipline that caused people to go before Congress and not perjure themselves when they gave testimony at their confirmation hearings, which is that there was a realistic possibility that you would be held to account if you lied directly to a, to a senator. And this was on the record, like, you know, you could be impeached. Not that hardly any cabinet secretary has ever been impeached, but you could, you know, things, bad things could happen to you. You get wrapped up in all kinds of, like, woes and troubles. And now obviously Bobby Kennedy feels like he has a completely free hand to futz around with things. However, however he's futzing them around. And no one, just like TikTok, no one is going to hold the administration to account. Let's talk about one other way in which the administration needs to be held to account or may. This is a question of what's going to happen here involving this unbelievably complicated, confusing mess relating to our negotiations with Ukraine and Russia on the Ukraine war, where we now have a moment at which two or three senators said on the record on the weekend that they spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, their former colleague in the Senate, who said that the 28 point plan that is being used as the basis for negotiations on ending the Ukraine war is a Russian document and that it is not governing how the United States is pursuing these negotiations because it wasn't produced by us, it was produced by Russia. Roger Wicker said it, I think, and Senator Burr maybe of North Carolina, Mike Rounds, I think Mike Rounds of Indiana. Okay, so we have at least two senators. So like, obviously, obviously Rubio said it to them like they didn't make it up. It didn't come out of whole clock. They just said, he said it wasn't our talking point. We're glad to hear that because we're concerned at what's in the 28 point plan to basically suppress the war in Ukraine, give land to Russia that Russia doesn't even have yet, and all of that. And then later that night, the State Department said no, issued a statement saying, and the White House saying, Rubio never said that. And then Rubio issued a statement saying, I never said that. And he's obviously lying and they are obviously lying. There was nothing in it for those senators to have come out and said, boy, we're relieved because Rocco Rubio told us that that's not our plan and we're really interested to see what our plan actually is. And again, like under, in other circumstances, the Secretary of State going in, lying to, you know, like Telling somebody the truth and then lying in a public statement afterwards would be a very, very big deal for the Senate, since the Senate provides oversight over the executive branch. And here we are, and I doubt much is going to come of it except this exposure of what the hell is going on with these talks with Ukraine and, and the, and the Russians and us and nobody can make any sense out of it. And it's chaos. And I get these little chills up my spine about how Trump is going into 2026, kind of in a way that he went into 2020, not that he's up in 2020, which is nobody is going to be able to make sense day to day of what the policy of the administration is on world crises. And that is not good for the party in power.

Abe Greenwald (36:52)

Can I push back on you, John? Okay, I will just say I'm going to. I'm reserving judgment on whatever the Russia, Ukraine deal is until there is a deal. And when I saw this whole back and forth over the weekend between Rounds and Angus King was another one of these people, what occurred to me and then, and then Rubio, Rubio spokesman first, and then Rubio himself denying it. And then I think Rounds issued a statement walking back what he had said. It occurred to me that I'm not sure what terms Rubio told the senators that under. And it was obviously clear he didn't want that to be public. You know, the administration wants as much freedom as it's negotiating as it can have. He clearly didn't want the senators going out and saying on the record, yeah, what we got was a Russian wish list and we're working on it. It then became public and restricted, you know, his freedom of action in some way or, you know, it was an inconvenience to him. So, you know, you characterized it as Rubio, as the Senate should be. Senators should be crosswise with Rubio. I thought maybe Rubio should be cross with these senators for going public with something he may not have wanted public that he told them in confidence. Look, I don't know. I'm speculating. In any case, I'm reserving judgment on this deal until there's a deal. And the dog that hasn't barked, it seems to me, is Trump. He hasn't weighed in to, you know, say anything about where this deal is going to land, should land like it just, it seems to me, not over yet.

Eliana Johnson (38:42)

So, Eliana, let me, let me push back on your pushback just a little bit. What we know about the deal is that it is supposed to Yield territory that's been conquered by Russia and some that has not yet been conquered by Russia to the Russians. There are guarantees, at least as we've seen so far, that Ukraine will never join NATO. In other words, if any of this is accurate, it's a complete capitulation to the Russians. Now, I will say that there is.

Abe Greenwald (39:15)

And limits on the army, limits on how big Ukraine's army can be.

Eliana Johnson (39:20)

Yeah, I mean, right. So, I mean, really, I mean, a horrible deal based on what we know. Donald Trump, when he has talked about this, has basically said, look, this was a war that I inherited. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. And we're doing everything that we can to just end this because, you know, no one benefits from it. But basically, you know, I think from all indications. And this is not new, right? I mean, we've been watching this for, you know, for a year now. This is the war that nobody wants. And it's a war that Republicans don't want to fight. It's a war that Donald Trump doesn't want to fight. He sees it as a waste of munitions. He sees it as harmful to the American interest. And this is playing to the MAGA base. So, I mean, I think we kind of know at least enough right now about where this thing is trending. Now. They may be able to walk back some of these clauses, but this 28 point plan, at least as it's been explained so far in the media, is a disaster.

John Podhoritz (40:21)

Okay, Now I'm going to push back on you, John Chanzer in who supporting Eliana's pushback of me. So now I am pushing back myself. Okay? Because there is a very interesting report by Mark Antonio Wright in National Review. He's on a trip to Ukraine sponsored by some group and his report is that Thursday night everybody that he was with was in shock in Ukraine at the nature of the 28 point plan. And then on Friday in Ukraine, remember, Ukraine's seven hours ahead or something like that. So that would have been Friday morning. The text, according to ABC and others, the text of the American version of the plan, which is was delivered to Zelensky by the delegation led by the Secretary of the army, is significantly different from the 28 point plan that was reported by Axios last week, which apparently is the Russian wish list, which features among other things, not that there are things that the Ukrainians want, but a basically an almost Article 5 security guarantee for Ukraine that says any attack on Ukraine will be viewed as an act of war against NATO and will and will be responded to with military force. It's still, as Wright says, a bitter pill for the Ukrainians to have to swallow. But. And this cap of the size of the Ukrainian army, but the cap is much lower than the original plan and some other stuff. So it is possible that what the Americans have presented the Ukrainians is something that the Ukrainians can work with and they're not imposing the Russian plan. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't forces inside the administration and what we are told are the forces that. Surrounding the Vice President of the United States, the front runner for 2028, which is why we need to be paying attention to this, because they're. These are the revelations of what. Of where he is going and where his brain is very important to the future of the United States, that he is basically all in on the Russian version of the plan and is trying to torpedo this more limited plan, which I think is probably what Rubio was trying to tell the senators. And again, I agree with you, Eliana, that doubtless he was like, all right, let's talk topless. Here's what's really going on. And that he never thought in a million years that they would go public with it, because, you know, there is a. There is a world in Washington, and we all know it, where you're somewhere and the person in power says, look, I'm going to tell you what's really going on here.

Abe Greenwald (43:28)

It's this forum in Canada. It is where all the national security bigwigs get together.

John Podhoritz (43:35)

Yeah. So if they were having a conversation in the corner of the ballroom during a breakout session, or, you know, like when they were all getting coffee and we was like, dad, that's not the plan. That's not. Don't worry about it. That's not the plan. That was the Russian wish list. We got other stuff going on. And then they're like, wow, that's great to hear. We're going to go and tell everybody that we're not sucking up to the Russians. And then you're right, Rubio might be going like, what the hell are you doing? Like, I have problems inside. I don't need you to be, you know, like, showing our dirty laundry in public. But there is dirty laundry. That's.

Jonathan Schanzer (44:08)

Well, we should totally agree with that.

Abe Greenwald (44:10)

I totally agree that this seems contentious, complicated. I have no idea where this is going to land. I asked several people over the weekend, what is going on. Nobody really seemed to know. And to John's point, I assume that where this lands will be unsatisfactory to Those of us on this podcast, we will be left probably wanting more. I just am not prepared to render judgment on what Barack Ravid at Axios tells me is the 28 point plan and assume that that is the administration's plan. I do not assume that.

Eliana Johnson (44:50)

I'm Oliver Darcy. And I'm John Passantino. We have spent years covering the inner workings of the news media, tech, politics, Hollywood and power. Now through our nightly newsletter, Status.

John Podhoritz (45:01)

And we're bringing that same reporting and sharp analysis to a new podcast, Power Lines.

Eliana Johnson (45:06)

Every Friday, we're breaking down the biggest stories shaping the industry, explaining why they matter and, and saying the things most people are thinking but too timid to say out loud.

John Podhoritz (45:15)

No spin, no fluff, just sharp analysis that isn't afraid to call it like it is. We also pull back the curtain via our exclusive reporting to take you behind the scenes.

Eliana Johnson (45:25)

My understanding having reported this is that the Pentagon protested to CNN and tried to effectively exile the CNN producer. And when the moment calls for it, we've got some hot takes. I just think Brad Pitt, honestly, he kind of seems a little washed up.

John Podhoritz (45:41)

Oh, my God. That's Power Lines presented by Status.

Eliana Johnson (45:45)

Follow Power Lines and listen on Apple.

John Podhoritz (45:48)

Spotify, Amazon Music or your favorite podcast app.

Eliana Johnson (45:57)

This is Rubio's first mess and I'm fascinated by this. I mean, he has kept his head down and he's done what the President has asked him and he's actually executed pretty well on just about everything that the President has asked him to do. This is his first moment. And you were talking, John, about J.D. vance and kind of the future of the Republican Party. Rubio is the only other guy that's been mentioned alongside him as a possible, you know, kind of frontrunner for the next election for the Republicans. How he escapes this is going to be important and he's going to have to scratch the sort of Trumpage. He's going to have to make sure that he does what Trump wants. But he's also trying to keep the Republican senators on side. They love him. Generally speaking. The Republican caucus is super proud of this guy. I've actually seen some of this. They fought over him for what he's been able to achieve. So the fact that we're seeing this tension, how he triangulates here, how he squares this circle, I think is going to be really important for his political future.

Jonathan Schanzer (46:58)

Well, and the players and the timing because like Eliana, I kind of spent the weekend trying to figure out what the timeline for all of this was and it's remains murky. But it sounds like Rubio was looped in pretty late because the original negotiation between the Russians and Wyckoff happened in Miami. And then this sort of plan emerges and then Rubio is brought in. But there is another figure on the Vance side of this that we should keep an eye on because he emerged during this, this unraveling of the plan or whatever. And it's important to know that's U.S. army Secretary Dan Driscoll, good friend of J.D. vance. He's the one who is going around saying suddenly very urgent for Ukraine to settle matters. And so he is a key player as well. So Vance is clearly positioning people to have a more isolationist view with regard to Ukraine. And you're right, John, that, that Rubio becomes this figure that will have to make some choices, but he does. They both have to keep the boss happy for now.

John Podhoritz (47:56)

I just think that administrations that look like they're in chaos are very bad messengers of the idea that the party that they lead going into a highly content selection with what appears to be very serious headwinds, that they are sailing in bad poll numbers, discontent with the economy and all of that. If they look like they don't know what they're doing or the right hand or that they're, they're having internal smackdown fights over, over these matters and all of that, that, that is not, that is not a good look like. And as I say, we have a, we have a precursor to this. Obviously, COVID 19 is a singular matter and you can't liken what's going to be going on in 2026 to the, the hell of COVID and the politics of COVID But Trump's inconstancy during 2020 cost him the 2020 election. And inconstancy is not a good feeling for people if they feel like the country might be spinning out of control. That's all. Now let's, let's move on to Jonathan Schanzer. You are here. We have all these indications over the weekend. Hamas declaring that the ceasefire as it is understood in the 20 point plan, not the 28 point plan of Ukraine, but the actual 20 point plan that was not only agreed to by Israel and Qatar and Egypt and whoever, but was also essentially enshrined as international policy by the UN Security Council last week or two weeks ago. We're still in phase one of the 20 point plan, and Hamas has basically said that they're out, that the 20 point plan is out there, the ceasefire is off. Israel has been behaving in belligerent ways that violate the terms of the ceasefire. And it's off.

Eliana Johnson (49:48)

So it's actually back on.

John Podhoritz (49:51)

Oh, it is. Okay. Oh, you know, I just. Like I did the senators and Rubio have a fight over it?

Eliana Johnson (49:59)

Apparently not, no. But apparently Hamas had a good rethink, apparently, and they're kind of okay with things. But. So basically the story is that a Hamas guy crosses over the yellow line. This is the area that Israel has maintained. Inside the yellow line is all Hamas. Outside the yellow line is Israeli control, along with a handful of Hamas guys who are in a tunnel that are trying to get out because they don't have any more food, which is very sad for them. And they can get out.

John Podhoritz (50:33)

We should say they can get out. All they gotta do is get out. Before they get out, they get out. In the Israeli controlled area, which they.

Eliana Johnson (50:40)

Five or six of them did surrender, but apparently there are a handful more. But the Israelis gun down this one guy that crosses over. And then as they're doing this, and this is a common thing with Israel, when you open fire, you don't just shoot one bullet and say, there, I taught you a lesson. You take it five steps further and make sure that the other side knows that you're serious. So they take out five different Hamas commanders across the Gaza Strip. It's at that point that somebody from Hamas tells a Saudi publication that the ceasefire is over, but then apparently they think better of it. And the other message coming out is, no, no, no, we're not leaving the ceasefire. It's still there. As of this morning, I was reading reports out of Al Jazeera that there may be one more hostage, that they found the slain hostage, and they're going to return a body. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow, I don't know. And there are Hamas leaders, including the head of the guy from the. Khalil Haya from Qatar is in Doha, is in Cairo now. He's typically based in Doha. He went over to Cairo and he's talking with Egyptian negotiators now about phase two. So they're still actually talking about handing over the last three hostages. They're still talking about ultimately handing over their weapons. But in practice, this thing's hanging on by a threat. It's very clear that this ceasefire is, you know, it needs a jumpstart. And I will just tell you that I think that there are two countries that need to be held to account. I don't think it's going to surprise anybody here on this podcast. Qatar and Turkey are the two countries that are the traditional patrons of Hamas outside of Iran, they were the ones that agreed with Donald Trump to this plan. And if they don't hold their terrorist client to account, this thing begins to unravel. And if you ask me, this is the moment where Donald Trump should be coming down on both countries like a ton of bricks. I don't know whether it happens, but if, if they're serious about maintaining this ceasefire, which as you're. You're right, John, it is now enshrined as international law, which is insane when you think about it, that Donald Trump had an unedited 20 point plan that somehow passes the UN and calls for Hamas's destruction when the UN, I mean, its main mission is to prop up Hamas. From at least from what I can tell, it was a remarkable moment last week. It's been remarkable that this thing has held on, but it needs, it needs a shot in the arm. And I think Donald Trump's the only guy who can do it.

John Podhoritz (53:24)

Can I ask you, There's a weird balance here. Israel, clearly. I was in Israel, you know, a week and a half ago. There is no way on earth that ordinary Israelis wish to go back to active war against Gaza. Like, they are very much focused on the idea that the war is over. There is some dispute over how commanding a victory it was. I think largely the people who do not like the sitting government and are looking to elections next year to help them get rid of Bibi Netanyahu once and for all are sour about what happened and want to claim that victory wasn't won. If they want to say that a victory was won, they want to give all the credit, not to Israel, weirdly enough, but to Donald Trump. Because if they have to give credit to Israel for winning the war, Bibi would get some of that credit and they don't want to give him any of it. Israel does not want to reengage in Gaza. Having said that, militarily, strategically, tactically, Israel has such the upper hand. That is, what are Hamas's assets in any form of re. Engagement? They have no living hostages to restrain Israel's movement around Gaza. They are a shell of their former self. Their entire leadership class or whatever has largely been murdered or eliminated or killed or blown up or whatever. Everybody outside is under the protection of untrustworthy patrons who might screw them at a moment's notice, meaning gutter and Turkey or Egypt or whoever. So they're. Israel doesn't want to go back to war, but should something happen and they have to go back to war, they will really. There won't be much in the way of combatancy.

Eliana Johnson (55:25)

No, you got it exactly right. I mean, let me just say, you know, you talk about the assets. They've got three hostages, maybe two if we're lucky, by the end of today or tomorrow. The only other assets they have to bring this podcast, Full circle.

John Podhoritz (55:40)

Dead hostages. Dead hostages. Bodies of hostages.

Eliana Johnson (55:44)

Correct.

John Podhoritz (55:45)

Yes.

Eliana Johnson (55:45)

The only other assets they have to bring this full circle is the bot army, the, you know, the foreign influencers that have been waging this cognitive combat against Israel rather successfully and delegitimizing Israel at every turn. I mean, Israel, you know, its brand equity is down to probably the lowest points that I can remember as a result of this onslaught in social media and mainstream media, by the way. Of course, you see a lot of these mainstream outlets buying in. And I think that that's kind of the calculus for Hamas right now is, you know, should we try to just drag Israel through the mud and delegitimize it just a little bit more, you know, at the expense of another 10,000 Palestinian dead, you know, if it needs to go back to this war. But I will tell you, the Israelis have no interest in getting back into Gaza. In fact, they may not have any interest in staying outside of the yellow zone in Gaza, primarily because it's just going to require assets that they don't want to deploy. Because when you look around the region, and we saw some of this over the weekend, you know, the Israelis just took out this top military commander of Hezbollah in Lebanon. That's a big deal. I'm hearing about Turkish military assets, significant Turkish military assets being deployed to Syria. So that means Syria is becoming a greater threat. The Houthis are stockpiling missiles at a rate that no one ever foresaw that could attack Israel again. The Iranians are trying to stockpile those missiles as well. They're handing off a lot of missiles to those Shiite militias in Iraq. In other words, when you look around the region, Gaza is the least of Israel's problems right now. It's really like it's a tactical problem, and not even that from Israel's perspective. But meanwhile, when you look around the rest of the region, man, does it look dangerous. And I keep hearing that, you know, another round is a matter of when and not if. And I do think the Israelis need to think really carefully about that. I'll just note one more thing. When we talk about Gaza, I think one really positive thing that occurred over the weekend is the hostage family forum is essentially shutting its doors. It's not going to stop doing whatever it's done. But they're not, they're not going to be campaigning for the hostages any longer. Those last two or three. It's not, they're not going to be having these huge rallies in Tel Aviv. They are pivoting away from this. And I think that's really important because I think Israel has been myopic in its, in its view of the war, that the hostages took on an outsized sort of place in all of this. When the Israelis really need to think about the longevity of the Zionist project and what they're going to need to do to protect themselves against a wide array of enemies that are only getting stronger.

John Podhoritz (58:36)

I mean, the one thing you can say about that, the threats that you are pointing out is what was different about this? What was different about this compared to anything since really, since Lebanon, certainly since Lebanon in 2006, but maybe since the Yom Kippur War was just the sheer number of Israelis who had to fight in this war which, which lasted 10 times longer than any other Israeli military conflict in terms of time. Hundreds of thousands of people in a nation of 9 million were pulled from their lives, forced to deploy, forced to put themselves in harm's way, leave their families, leave their jobs, all of that. What, what goes on now is the Israeli high tech war in the way that Israel actually wants to fight wars, which is using its superior intelligence, using its air power, using its targeting abilities and all of that. It's not that you're going to have to pull in 50,000 reservists. That's as you say, what there won't be much stomach for the perpetual occupation of this 57% of Gaza that the Israelis now control. They don't, they're not going to want to be there. And when we get, when we get into the conversations that we're going to get into, as the commission of inquiry in Israel starts talking about the failures that led to October 7th, there's going to be a lot of, there's going to be a lot of talk about how Israel blinded itself. It kept talking about mowing the lawn in relation to gut. Like you go in and things get in trouble until you mow the lawn. And they did that three or four times and that was blinding and self delusional because they didn't know what was going on underground and they didn't know the tunnel city was being built and all of that. But it's the same thing. What's missing from that, what we're missing from that conversation is what Would it have been like had Israel focused on Gaza and said, we have a real threat from Gaza, Would they have to have moved in with people and then stood there? Would they have had to reoccupy part of Gaza to create that zone of protection from the Israeli border? There would have been no stomach for that in Israel from after the disengagement in 2005. Yeah, Bibi would have been accused of being a crazy, warmongering, imperial, trying to reestablish Greater Israel or something like that. And so we find yourselves in a world in which, while Israelis are going to try to pin the evil of the October 7th matter, a lot of Israelis on the Netanyahu government, they would not have wanted what would have prevented October 7th in many ways. And they will not want what will prevent another October 7, which is an occupation of half of Gaza by tens of thousands of Israeli troops on the ground.

Eliana Johnson (61:47)

So, guys, I need to jump, but I want to just say this, maybe just as a parting shot. There was no stomach for Israel to go into Gaza. There are multiple indications that they probably should have, regardless of what they knew. And they could have prevented the atrocities of October 7th had they done it. And they probably could have at least fought this war on their terms. And I think that's maybe one thing that should come out of this. But let me just say that the exhaustion that Israel is feeling sort of psychologically, physically, economically, I mean, they've spent something like $100 billion, and that's a massive amount of money. You know, people's personal finances are a wreck. They're exhausted. You know, people have been called up for hundreds of days. The Israelis don't want another round. Not in Gaza, but really anywhere else, for that matter. But they can't stop because of all these threats. And this is, I think, the kind of scary paradox that we're watching right now, that they like, whatever they want to blame Bibi for, whatever they want to scream about with commissions and committees and fact finding, it doesn't matter. And again, this is why I think the hostage forum shutting down is important. They need to start to put all this other stuff in the rear view, which is not where the Israeli mindset is. They need to start thinking about now what. Because there's a lot more happening right now than anybody wants to admit. I gotta jump.

John Podhoritz (63:21)

Okay. Thanks, John.

Eliana Johnson (63:23)

Thank you.

John Podhoritz (63:24)

Okay. Abe, did you have something you wanted to add?

Christine Rosen (63:28)

No, I was just gonna say that the situation you're describing about Israel and blame about what should have happened in stomach for it. It reminds Me a bit of after 9 11, everyone in the US saying Bush got this memo saying Al Qaeda determined to attack American homeland and did nothing about it. As if, if had Bush launched a preemptive war on Al Qaeda, the country wouldn't have lost its mind. I mean, we went to war after the attack and the country couldn't handle it. Imagine if he had launched it before. Yeah.

John Podhoritz (64:12)

I also want to point out that I am. I am in no way, shape or form and opposed to serious analysis and criticism of Israel's government. We published a massive piece by Jonathan Foreman on the commission led by our friend Lord and Roberts on this very subject six months ago, or I can't remember when, when we published it, but. But on the many failures of Israel's intelligence and military establishment in the run up to October 7th. This is necessary. It's important. All militaries and societies have to do this in the wake of surprise attacks and things like that in order to learn the lessons that are necessary. So I am not saying that these commissions, that a commission is bad or anything like that. I'm just saying that there is something comic in watching the anti Bibi forces on the left try to come at him on the idea that he was insufficiently militaristic, you know, in, in his approach to Gaza and therefore prevented, you know, could have prevented October 7th because they would have been the first people out screaming and yelling about how he was up to something nefarious in. In doing anything preemptive in Gaza. Okay. Abe, you have a recommendation? I believe I do.

Abe Greenwald (65:33)

You guys, one other thing.

John Podhoritz (65:35)

Yeah? Oh, yeah, yeah.

Abe Greenwald (65:36)

This is. I really wanted to put it to John, but on the matter of the ceasefire in Gaza, the situation with these intermittent skirmishes where Hamas fires shots at the IDF and the IDF returns fire, seems to me to be the new normal there. And where they say the ceasefire is off. No, it's back on. Okay. It seems to me that that's what we're going to have and it's a natural consequence of the US said in words, that Hamas needed to disarm but never actually insisted on it. And, you know, John said, well, you know, Qatar and Turkey aren't doing enough to pressure Hamas, but it seems to me fanciful, the idea that Qatar and Turkey are ever absent, like major US pressure going to actually lean on Hamas to disarm. And Hamas never formally surrendered in this war. So as a result, we have, you know, the armed remnants of Hamas in Gaza and they're going to act like Hamas. And the idea that Qatar is going to intervene to do anything about that seems absurd. And if absent Trump's intervention, this is the new normal.

John Podhoritz (66:59)

Well, that's, that's the paradox here, which is over. We were talking about how Israel does not want to re. Engage in Gaza. The entire enforcement mechanism of the 20 point plan is you better do this, that, or the other thing, or the Israelis are let loose to do whatever it is that they think is necessary to, to secure a future. But Israel doesn't want to be. Israel has just fought for two years and that this is a country whose longest war before this was two months. And it doesn't want to be the force that goes and physically disarms Hamas. I think they were hoping that this international coalition would do it for them. But the understanding that's in the 20 point plan is basically that the. But if you don't agree, then Israel's gonna come and, you know, beat the crap out of you. Does rely on Israel having the stomach and the will and the fortitude to go back in and beat the crap out of them. And I just don't know that that's the case any longer.

Abe Greenwald (68:07)

Yeah, it's a. Well, you know, with friends like these situations.

John Podhoritz (68:11)

Yeah, exactly. Okay, so I jumped too soon on the recommendation, but. Abe, please, go ahead. Yeah.

Christine Rosen (68:19)

Today I want to recommend a novel. Excuse me? The Sofa by Sam Munson. Sam should say, is a friend, used to work at Commentary. He's also John's nephew. But the novel just came out and I love. Deals with a strange adventure of a family, the Montessori family. There's a father and mother and two kids. One day they come home from the beach and their couch is replaced with this green and yellow antique sofa. It's just there. When they get home and things start to get weird around the house, the father starts seeing and hearing things. There's a. There's a. The faucets turn on of themselves and toilets flush. And there's a apparition that appears in the, in the mirrors of a. Of a man with a bowler hat and mustache and glasses. And that figure keeps popping up in the, in the father's peripheral vision. So the father knows something is very wrong and strange. But of course, everyone he's trying to talk to about this doesn't take him seriously because he's suggesting that the sofa is some sort of vehicle for a ghost or a demon. And he has. Even though he has his own doubts and this kind of becomes the central conflict of the book, he knows the sofa is malign and this truth ends up putting his family in grave danger. And I don't want to spoil anything else from there other than to say that it's a fantastic book. This is Sam's fourth novel and it's different stylistically than his earlier works. The prose is very clean, almost kind of clinical. Voice is restrained. I mean you sort of can't stop reading it because it just, you just. It just sort of cuts right through everything and it's kind of a bit like Kafka here and also like a writer that I had one of whose books I'd recommended in a previous recommend, so the British writer of so called Strange Stories, Robert Aikman. So it's great. It's almost kind of a hypnotic little book. It's short, 160 pages or so and it's published by Two Dollar Radio. And that's the sofa and just out. And it's truly, truly gripping.

John Podhoritz (71:16)

Okay. Sofa by Sam Munson.

Christine Rosen (71:18)

Our recommends.

John Podhoritz (71:19)

So we'll be back tomorrow. For Christine, Eliana and Abe, I'm John Podboritz. Keep the candle burning.