Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein dissect the fallout from Nick Fuentes' viral interview, contrasting it with accusations against Douglas Murray and David Frum as foreign spies for Israel. They critique Coleman Hughes' minimization of Gaza's destruction, analyze the Charlie Kirk assassination amid claims Candace Owens revealed Kirk planned to drop his pro-Israel stance, and question Josh Hammer's integrity regarding Israeli messaging. Ultimately, the episode exposes perceived hypocrisy in media narratives surrounding the Israel lobby and calls for reflection on U.S. complicity in regional destruction rather than celebration. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Platforming Me More Than Him00:08:52
What's up?
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He has Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
We are out on the road in Detroit, Michigan.
How you doing today, brother?
Doing good.
We got a nice hotel here.
It is.
Nice hotel.
They made a share of bed, but we'll get past that.
Just kidding.
Just had to do something that was gayer than the picture I took with Nick Fuentes.
And I figured a podcast right alongside a bed was the best thing we could do to top that one.
Yeah, so man, there's a lot.
There's a lot to talk about on today's show.
And so we wanted to make sure we got this episode done.
And then we will.
Tomorrow, we're going to record like a members-only double show because we missed.
And we're in Detroit all weekend.
So if you're out here, come on out.
Next weekend in Tampa.
This Sunday, I'm doing Schilderberg.
Then I'm off to California.
And I got a whole bunch of runs.
Porchstore.com.
Yours is comicdave Smith.com.
Any other dates coming up?
I think I got the rest of this weekend here in Detroit, next weekend in Tampa, Skank Fest in New Orleans, and then we got a one-nighter in Poughkeepsie.
And that is the rest of my schedule.
All tickets available at Comic.
Charleston people, give me a porch.
They're very stingy with their porches in Charleston.
Oh, really?
I'm trying out of Charleston, and none of the fans are coming forward and giving me their lawns.
That's true.
Greedy fans, if you ask me.
Truly outrageous.
Okay, so I did, I guess just, I want to start the show just with a few quick thoughts about the last episode where, of course, I had Nick Fuentes on the show.
And look, it's been interesting.
The reaction has been, I think, overwhelmingly positive.
But it's got, I knew it was going to be a big episode.
20 million views.
Well, maybe not quite.
We need to reach out to more Nazis and white nationalists because that's where the market is.
We've been doing this wrong.
Well, there is, I got to say, there's something.
So the podcast as of right now, and it's been up as we're recording this, it's been just over 48 hours since the episode was put out.
It's over a million views on YouTube and over a million views on Twitter, making it by far the biggest episode of Part of the Problem ever.
I'm glad to be a part of it.
Yeah, well, sorry, buddy.
We'll get you on the next big one.
But it is, look, I mean, it demonstrates something.
And if nothing else, I think it, well, look, I mean, it kind of removes the big talking point from like when I had had Fuentes on the show five, six years ago, where people would say, why are you platforming this guy?
And I think it's pretty obvious, like, I'm not platforming this guy.
In fact, I think he was platforming me much more so than I was him.
And obviously, there was the mix of us together, I think was an interesting dynamic.
But look, dude, this kid is just huge at this point.
It's unbelievable.
And it's a divided country, and it's time for us to come together and forge tides with the LGBTQ.
Well, you son of a bitch.
I will tell you.
I will tell you.
I retract it.
Just a joke.
You're a nice kid.
Thanks for bringing such numbers to our podcast.
Well, also, I will say, I don't think he's gay.
I don't think Nick's gay.
I did not get that impression when we were with him.
I think he's...
I don't care about his sexuality as long as he hates Jews.
There you go.
Well, I will.
My last joke.
You have serious remarks.
Well, I do.
I just thought, I think in a weird way, you know, one of the things I was thinking about, first of all, I thought it was great.
I thought it was a great podcast.
I think the kid, I know people get annoyed sometimes when I say the kid, but that's just the way people in their 40s talk about people in their 20s.
I don't mean anything personal by it.
He's an incredible talent.
To be able to, to be as good as he is in his mid-20s is phenomenal.
I mean, like, it's just, it's kind of out of this world how good he is at this, at such a young age.
And I did, I found him to be very compelling and very interesting.
And obviously, like, look, there's, there's areas where we have large disagreement.
I was a little bit, I thought, you know, I thought we would argue a little bit more about the areas where we have disagreement.
But regardless of that, the guy, it kind of, I almost, it kind of reminded me, I was just getting interviewed by this guy from Politico, and we were talking about this briefly.
And I was talking about how after Donald Trump won the election in 24, it was almost the first time the media admitted that they weren't the mainstream anymore.
You know, up until for years during the Biden administration and I guess the last year of the Trump administration, right?
We'd hear every day Brian Stelter would talk about the fringe Joe Rogan.
You know, he got the fringe Joe Rogan over there with his 15 million views an episode, but we're the mainstream with our 200,000.
And we'd all be like, yo, this is totally ridiculous.
It's ridiculous that they even frame it this way.
And after the 2024 election, it was almost like they had to admit it.
And they had to go, hey, we need our own Joe Rogan.
Likewise, at this point, which look, I agree, I felt this way before he was that big.
But particularly now, it's like, dude, what are you going to do?
Oh, you shouldn't platform him.
You shouldn't have conversations with this guy.
Like, I'm sorry.
You're not platforming him.
It's just not like that.
And so I think at the very least, you'd have to acknowledge at this point that like we should talk.
It's better to talk than to not talk.
And honestly, I do think there were several things that Nick said that I won't even say I didn't expect him to say, but like I wasn't sure he would.
Like I wasn't sure that he was just going to like straight up like reject racial hatred and say that like he doesn't want to push people in that direction.
And I thought it was very positive that he did.
And then I also just, you know, like one of my big takeaways from the whole thing, I guess I've always kind of felt this way, but it was just a little bit more, I felt it more as you're in person talking to somebody.
And, you know, me and Nick both, and we've kind of always had this, whatever views we disagree with each other on, we just like each other.
And there's kind of a mutual respect there.
At least that's certainly the feeling I got.
And I think he would say the same.
And I was just, as you're talking to him, it was, you know, something that I've said before, but that I really just kept thinking was like, man, it is so crazy that this kid was determined to be the most evil man in America at like 22.
That's just, that's bananas.
It is so goddamn crazy.
And we got to like, we got, I mentioned this to him on the show, but we have to find a way where now that people are growing up online, that people are being teenagers and in their 20s on their phone, on their computer, we cannot determine that people are evil and can never be like vindicated, or not vindicated, but can never be even rehabilitated, if you wanted to say it that way, because of stuff that they posted when they were very, very young.
I mean, I just, if every, if everything that me and my friends said when we were very young, there was like a record of, I could be ruined in an afternoon.
And so I think that's something we got to figure out.
And it's necessary, like to move forward.
And yeah, I don't know what else to say.
I thought it was a great conversation.
I think the kid is a phenomenon.
As I said before, as I said to him, I hope as he gets older, he pushes more of the Christian stuff and less of the Nazi stuff.
That would, I think, be much better.
But I also think that probably the spirit of these conversations shouldn't be that I'm here to take Nick down or I'm here to teach Nick something.
It should be more like, let me see what I can learn from him and let me also offer him some ideas that maybe he could learn from.
So anyway, I thought it was great and I hope we do it again.
And I have a feeling we will.
But anyway, it's going to be interesting.
It's been very interesting to see the response and I'm sure there will be more of that.
And the haters should celebrate you as a national hero that you brought the biggest white nationalists in the country on your podcast and had him swear off violence towards minorities.
What more can he ask?
You would think that would be a positive thing, right?
Or somehow that's a negative thing.
But in a way, it's kind of anybody who does think that's a negative thing, it's kind of revealing of them.
Foreign Government Speech Writing Standards00:15:36
It's revealing of their motivations.
It's like, I think you actually don't really think this kid is the devil.
And I think that you're actually not scared of the movement that he's leading.
Because if you were, you'd be thrilled that there's open communication and that he's disavowing violence and not just violence, but hatred.
And maybe you weren't worried about any of those things.
And maybe he was just a convenient villain for you and that you'd prefer to keep him as that villain.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is the Wellness Company.
I don't know if you guys have been keeping up with the latest about the water supply and fluoride, but let's just say the future of oral care isn't fluoride.
It's peptides.
And the wellness company just launched the first ever peptide paste that regenerates gum tissue, strengthens enamel, and naturally whitens your teeth.
It's called SMILE, a doctor-formulated breakthrough that works with your body's natural repair process.
The advanced formula blends targeted peptides with blue spirulina, aloe vera, and powerful remineralizers to boost blood flow, stimulate collagen, and help rebuild lost gum tissue, all while gently whitening without sensitivity.
No fluoride, no peroxide, no artificial dyes, just real clean ingredients that fight bad bacteria and support a healthier mouth from the inside out.
If you're ready to upgrade your oral health and experience the future of oral care, check out SMILE.
Plus, you can get 10% off and free shipping just by going to TWC.health slash problem and using the promo code problem.
That's TWC.health slash problem, promo code problem for 10% off plus free shipping.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see where he goes and how he develops over the years.
And yeah, I, you know, we'll see.
We'll see how this all goes.
Anyway, I really did enjoy the conversation and I really am appreciative to Nick for coming out and doing it and doing it in the what I took as a spirit of good faith, which is also what I, you know, it's a, it's, um, I think it's a little bit of a weird situation, particularly when me and him had kind of, you know, been feuding a little bit and then he's been feuding with good friends of mine.
And kind of like, it's difficult for everyone to come in and like lower their guard and go, let's just be, you know, like that, that that takes a little bit of personal discipline.
And I just appreciated that he had that.
And so yeah, I guess that's those are my thoughts on that for now.
Okay, let's move on.
And I, okay, this is a little bit selfish of me to do this topic first, but only a little bit, because this is actually a very interesting story.
But so, okay, so the episode with Nick Fuentes is the most viewed episode of Part of the Problem ever, but the most viewed thing that I've ever been a part of is still and quite possibly will always be the Douglas Murray debate on Joe Rogan.
And so anyway, there's a big story that came out about Douglas Murray the other day.
Shout out to Ryan Grimm, phenomenal reporter who broke this story.
Love that guy.
And he texted me the night before the story broke, and he goes, I got a story for you tomorrow that I think you're really going to like.
And I was like, oh, what?
What is it?
And he gave me some hints.
But then I saw it the next day.
So anyway, Douglas Murray, my famous rival from that debate on the Joe Rogan experience.
A traveler to places.
Now, of course, as everyone remembers, the big moment of this podcast that went as viral as anything I've ever seen, and certainly anything I've ever been a part of, was the You've Never Been, which I wanted to find this clip just so we could play it for today.
And I found out, I was not aware of this, but all you got to do is YouTube You've Never Been.
And oh my God, it actually took me a while because I was just trying to find this clip for Natalie.
It's all the remixes.
But it's all the remixes.
It's all video.
So essentially what happened is Douglas Murray tried to make this ridiculous non-argument about me having never been to Israel.
It was fairly universally mocked and derided, appropriately so.
And then this just became the kind of the story of the debate, essentially, was just everybody making fun of how ridiculous Douglas Murray was.
And it led to a lot of fun, a lot of auto-tune remixes and funny YouTube comments and, you know, and that's just what it was.
But so this story came out that Ryan Grimm just broke, that there were some leaked emails that came out.
And it turns out that both Douglas Murray and a few other people, including David Frum, had been writing speeches for the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations.
And Douglas Murray's case, it also came out that he was directly fundraising for the IDF.
And I think friends of the IDF.
Well, an organization that gives money to the IDF.
So fine, one step.
In the same way that the National Institute for Health didn't actually fund the Wuhan lab, but it was a subsidiary that funded it.
But really one step.
He's basically raising money for the IDF.
It could be.
I'm not sure.
It sounds like it might be for like soldiers that served.
I get the money's fungible, but it might be like going to...
I don't think it's money that's going to weapons for the IDF.
Regardless money that is going to the IDF in one form or another, but sure, but regardless, you've got him now writing speeches for government officials and raising money for the government's military in one capacity or the other.
Anyway, I just, I can't help myself, but just to point out that I have never been caught assisting a foreign government.
I have never been essentially a foreign agent represent.
But just the part of the reason why this is such an interesting story and so just incredibly vindicating is that as everybody was mocking Douglas Murray's ridiculous non-argument, I think a lot of people have kind of forgotten what he was trying to say there.
So I'd like to go back to my biggest hit ever.
Let's go back and listen to what Douglas Murray was saying to me on the Joe Rogan experience.
Have you been to the crossing points?
No.
When were you last there at all?
I've never been.
You've never been.
Well, am I not allowed to talk about it now?
I've never been to.
Have you ever been to Nazi Germany?
Are you allowed to have feelings about them?
You can't time travel, but you can travel.
Okay, but so what?
So, what's the point?
No, okay.
I find that people have been okay.
Sorry, let's jump.
We had to do this in two different clips here.
Let's jump to the next one where he expands on what he means by pretending by acting and pretending to be outraged when he heard that I've never been there.
No, we got the next one, Natalie.
There we go.
I just think this is a non-argument.
You don't put okay.
No, I think it's a non-argument.
But if you're an expert, will you have to go and touch the ground?
No, I think you have to see.
I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly if you spend a career talking about something.
Yes, I have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about a country, even in Parsi, unless I've at least been there.
Okay, it's sort of normal.
It's a normal thing to do.
You're talking about, hang on, you're talking about crossing points.
And not only have you never been to a crossing point in either Egypt or in Israel, but you've never even been to the region.
Okay.
Again, I think this is a non-argument.
No, no, no, it's not a non-argument.
Yeah, it is.
It's not a non-argument if you're insisting that you're an expert of some kind, or not claiming you're an expert, but still talking about it about the provisions going into Gaza or not, if you've never seen any of this going on.
I just think this is a non-argument.
You don't put it okay.
Okay, so that's this is essentially.
I mean, look, it obviously was just a totally pathetic attempt.
Even Rogan in the moment is like, I don't understand what you're even saying here.
Then he goes into your, oh, you're claiming to be an expert, which we had already like decided I wasn't, but like, whatever.
The point here is that, first of all, also, just in Douglas's point, I don't even think I caught this like in all the times that I've seen this clip, which I've been flooded with quite a bit.
That he goes, not only, he goes, you're talking about the crossing points, but not only have you not been to the crossing points in Egypt or in Israel, but you've never even been to the region, which makes no sense at all.
Like, if I had been to, well, what's going on?
I don't know what's going on with the camera.
I think it will.
Okay.
But so the idea that, like, if I had been.
Just give it a second.
If it keeps doing it, we can make an adjustment.
Okay.
But so, like, if I had been to Saudi Arabia, then I could talk about the crossing between Egypt and Gaza or something.
Like, it doesn't even make any sense.
But the point he was trying to make was about journalistic standards.
And in fact, in his follow-up op-ed in the New York Post, this was the point he was trying to make.
Journalistic standards, these people who aren't experts.
And that's his point.
I have a journalistic standard that if I'm going to talk about an area, I've at least visited it.
Now, that is not true.
He's a liar.
He's never been to Iran.
He's never been to North Korea.
He talks about these places all the time.
But the claim he's making is that he has these journalistic standards.
Well, where exactly are the journalistic standards in being an agent for a foreign government and not disclosing that?
I mean, this is so goddamn appalling.
And I do not think, like, I'm sorry, that is not an overstatement.
If you are writing speeches for and raising money for not your own government, but a foreign government, and then you're going to lecture others about standards in journalism while not disclosing that, it is, oh man, do I, this, I mean, this should look that podcast with Rogan should have and probably was the death of Douglas Murray's reputation.
But if there was any sliver of it left, this should just absolutely destroy it.
What an intensely dishonest person, which, by the way, is going to be a theme of this show.
Like, how many of these Zionists are just the most intensely dishonest people?
Now, this is not, by the way, it's even worse than, say, there was a journalist who was reporting on the CIA, but was also working for the CIA and didn't disclose that.
That'd be pretty bad.
That'd be a pretty severe violation of journalistic ethics, okay?
But this is a foreign government.
It is so much worse.
It is so much worse than serving your own country in some capacity, which would still be pretty bad if you weren't disclosing that.
But to sit there talking about the foreign nation, which you, sir, are an asset of, an agent of.
Douglas Murray is a foreign spy.
And he's sitting there talking about journalistic ethics to me.
Wow.
I think also the words to the ambassador is essentially helping them craft the propaganda.
I believe it went back to 2012 and speaking out against the divestment, but he's literally helping craft Israeli propaganda.
And now this is from a single hack.
That's a breadcrumb.
That's not the totality of the story of Douglas's Murray relationship with Israel.
But if you're taking the time to go, hey, I've got some expertise in journalism.
Let me help you guys try and craft your propaganda message.
And then you're out in the public space now, you know, pretty clearly trying to advocate for one side.
My guess is that there's more of a relationship there and more of a payday there than just, hey, I'm friendly with the ambassador.
Let me try and help you here and craft some of the message.
Yeah.
Well, the fact that Douglas Murray wouldn't go, well, look, I present myself as a journalist, even though I'm totally on your side.
I can't be writing your speeches for you because like you're a foreign government.
I'm a British citizen.
I can't be writing speeches for a foreign government.
Nope, does it?
And no need to disclose it.
So save me this load of bullshit about your journalistic integrity and the ethics of being a reporter and how these podcasters just don't have the same standards that we have.
What standards are those?
Now, Dave, have you ever met the ambassador?
You've never met him?
How can you comment?
And look, like part of the reason why Douglas was so rightfully universally mocked and ridiculed for taking this line or taking this approach with me was, well, number one, it's a ridiculous non-argument, right?
Like you could have never been to a place and still be correct about it.
You can learn a lot from books, as it turns out.
Turns out, there's like all of these really brilliant people and they've collected their thoughts in written word and then bound them together on pieces of paper and they sell them.
You can purchase them and read them and learn lots of things.
And just because someone's been there, you could be wrong about that.
Like a Chinese citizen could tell me that 75 volcanoes are erupting in China right now.
And I could be like, no, that's not true.
And even though I've never been there, I could be right and he could be wrong.
So the argument itself was stupid.
But part of the reason why people mocked him so much for it was that he was clearly acting.
Like this wasn't, he wasn't really shocked that I said that.
And then he goes, you've never been.
Like he did this dramatic performance.
So people were responding to the dishonesty in a sense is what I mean.
But think about the level of dishonesty that has now been revealed.
That not only, yeah, you've been because you work for them.
Like, you go, I've been there.
Yeah, you're a foreign spy.
I'm sorry, you're a foreign spy, in effect.
You are working for a foreign government as you publicly advocate for them and don't disclose that you're working for them.
So just again, like one of my big takeaways with whether it's Chris Cuomo or Douglas Murray, it's like one of my big takeaways, Josh Hammer, who we're going to talk about in a second.
The level of dishonesty, how comfortable these people are just telling a bold-faced lie is truly remarkable.
And man, I am thrilled that they're all getting exposed.
Man, do they deserve this?
Okay, so the other one here, which doesn't... isn't as personal to me, but is probably even more relevant is David Frum.
David Frum getting busted here, okay?
Now, David Frum also essentially was doing the same thing, given the Israeli ambassador draft speeches.
Then David Frum is also, who's working at the Atlantic right now, also in a separate email, they had him asking for an interview with the same ambassador who he's writing speeches for.
Hamas Ceasefire Negotiation Signs00:09:01
I'll give you a nice interview.
I'll make sure you look good.
I'll re-edit your responses if I didn't think you were slick enough.
I mean, I don't think it needs to be said, I'll make you look good when you're literally writing speeches for the man.
How about we'll do a written interview?
I'll write your part and then you can just sign off on it.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, it really is like, and to all of the people in the old guard, in the legacy media, who are, you know, constantly decrying the lack of journalistic standards in the podcast scene.
I mean, how can you defend this?
The Atlantic should be forced to issue an apology like the New York Times was after they sold the war in Iraq based off lies.
They should apologize like they had to for all those Judith Miller pieces that she ran with her source.
Her source was Chalabi.
This is so funny.
Her source was an Iranian spy who convinced all of the Israeli spies to go overthrow Saddam Hussein.
But it is just, man, it's really something.
And so if people who don't know, David Frum is not some peripheral character.
David Frum was the head speechwriter for George W. Bush, an arch neocon.
Okay.
He is the one.
Now, I don't double check me on this.
I'm 90% sure I'm right about this.
But he is the one who came up with Axis of Evil after 9-11.
He was the one writing all those George W. Bush WMD speeches.
So if you're an ambassador and you're looking for good propaganda, he's the guy to talk to.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
He can craft the good stuff.
But think again, think about all of this, where in the context of the argument about like the Israeli role in U.S. foreign policy or Israeli influence over the United States of America.
When you have, think about how close the connection there is.
The guy who sold the war in Iraq, the guy who coined Axis of Evil, the guy who wrote the weapons of mass destruction speech also happens to be an Israeli spy, also happens to be working for Israel.
It's like, you know, it's sit here, like I was just doing this interview for Politico.
And by the way, you know, it was a, Tucker like told me he actually trusts this guy.
And so we'll see how the fight.
He seemed like a real nice guy on the phone.
So we'll see how.
Dave Smith loves racist.
Yeah, you know, like we'll see how much they butcher it.
But like the piece, at least as it was presented to me, that he wanted my commandant.
We talked on the phone for like over an hour.
So I probably gave him plenty of stuff to butcher and make me look real bad in it.
But we'll see.
We'll see how it comes out.
But the premise for the piece was the growing criticism of Israel on the right.
And then questions of anti-Semitism, questions about Jeffrey Epstein, questions about, you know, the war in Gaza, the 12-day war in Iran, all this stuff.
And it's like the question that everybody's asking is like, well, why is this growing criticism of Israel?
And it's like, look, look at that.
I mean, how can you even argue with this?
You got people.
It's not that they're just, it's even worse than like the guy who's selling a U.S. policy is an Israeli spy.
It's the guy who's selling a lie is an Israeli spy.
The guy who's lying America into war is also working for the government of Israel.
Well, how the hell can you not object to that?
Who could possibly not have an issue with that?
And then people will turn around and go like, well, why is this Nick Fuentes kid getting so popular?
Like, why is Dave Smith growing so much?
Like, why would we not?
How would we not?
How would the people who are calling this out not grow in popularity and the people defending this not have their trust evaporate?
Seems impossible.
Fair points.
Yeah.
Looking forward to the political piece and what they actually took from you.
Yeah, you know, me too.
I'll be interested to see that.
But you know, it's a weird thing because the dynamics are changing so much that it was like, who cares?
Run a hit piece.
Like, even if you're going to say, okay, that'll just, then I'll just correct the record to a much larger audience.
Far-right nationalism grows so far, even Jews are now anti-Semitic.
And we spoke to podcaster Dave Smith, who is leading the cause online.
Well, it was, you know, I'll be interested.
I have a feeling, maybe I'm just being naive about this.
I don't think it's going to be a hit piece like that, though.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
I could be wrong.
All right.
Let's talk a bit about the other.
Okay, there's two other stories that we got to at least spend some time on here.
And so let's first talk about the ceasefire.
Not Josh Hammer first?
Let's do the ceasefire and then we'll do the Charlie Kirk, Josh Hammer stuff.
Okay.
Let's go.
So essentially, there is a ceasefire that has been agreed to by both sides.
This was kind of, you know, picking up off what we had been talking about a couple episodes ago, where and I will be the first to admit, as I did a couple episodes ago, that I was surprised by the way this went down.
I thought, and I still think that this was the plan from Netanyahu's perspective, was to put poison pills in the agreement, have Hamas not accept it, and then go, see, look, we offered peace and go right back to the war.
It does seem like the variable that changed in there was Trump.
Trump did not, you know, Trump had said, Hamas has to accept this deal as is, or we will unleash hell.
Hamas did not accept the deal as is.
They countered with what was a pretty reasonable counter proposal.
And Donald Trump jumped on it and said, okay, they're ready for peace and seems to have pressured Netanyahu into accepting this.
Now, who knows?
Who knows what's going to happen here?
It's quite likely that this ceasefire will be violated by either Israel or Hamas and we'll be right back to square one.
But for the moment, there is a ceasefire in place.
This ceasefire is supposed to facilitate very immediately the release of the remaining hostages, an increase in aid going into Gaza, a pause in the killing in Gaza.
And then we will work out, you know, as Hamas gives over power to what they say, another Palestinian group and Israel retreats to an agreed upon position in Hamas.
So it's not exactly what Hamas wanted.
It's not exactly what Benjamin Netanyahu wanted, which is the sign of a good negotiation, right?
A good deal usually means neither side is getting exactly what they want, but they're getting something they can live with.
Now, who knows what's going to happen in that part?
But if we get the first immediate part of this, which is the hostages are released and additional aid comes in and the dying stops for the moment, well, hey, that is really fantastic.
That is really, really great.
And everybody should be happy about that.
Even everybody who's not getting everything that they wanted should be very happy about that.
And that's certainly much better than that not happening.
So that's kind of like where I'm at with this.
I think it's great, but we should be cautious in our optimism.
I don't know if you have any other thoughts on that.
Seems like a win for now.
And I would be surprised if Hamas were negged on releasing the hostages as Israel is pulling back from its position.
But you've got big variables on the table, the biggest being whether or not Hamas is actually going to disarm and give up power in the region to some other entity.
And then you got the whole other, you know, what kind of investments actually coming into the area and what does that look like.
So I think the biggest obstacle for moving forward is going to be, does Hamas actually disarm and give up power in the region?
But for now, seems like Trump got the hostages out and has created an actual ceasefire.
And, you know, maybe the Israelis will actually adhere to it.
And perhaps we'll, you know, perhaps Trump has a good win here for peace.
But there still seems to be a lot to work out.
Yeah, no, I think that's right.
I think it's wait and see is kind of the only reasonable thing here.
And the devil will be in the details and we'll see how this works.
But at least there's some reason to be optimistic that things could get a little bit better in the short run.
And that's really fantastic.
And Trump apparently, what pushed the ball forward was him guaranteeing that Israel wasn't going to be the ones to break the ceasefire, which if that's true and that's very on the record, it will be interesting if Trump is actually more aggressive towards Netanyahu of we can't have this there anymore.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that will.
And there was definitely the moment where he told Netanyahu to quit being so fucking negative.
Stash Investing App Optimism00:02:02
Yes.
No, that's for sure.
And it does, you know, it, again, it'll be interesting.
It'll be interesting to see how this actually develops.
And is it the case that Smotrich and Katz and Netanyahu and all these guys just lose and don't get the ethnic cleansing they want or don't get the annexation or occupation that they wanted?
Is that it's certainly not obvious right now.
And from everything I'm seeing, it doesn't seem like the residents of Gaza are upset about the war being over because they wanted to continue being human shields and take advantage of this opportunity that everyone's upset with Israel.
So I don't know that that narrative still holds true.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Stash.
Saving and investing can feel impossible, but with Stash, it's not just a reality.
It's easy.
Stash isn't just an investing app.
It's a registered investment advisor that combines automated investing with dependable financial strategies to help you reach your goals faster.
They provide you with personalized advice on what to invest in based on your goals.
And if you just want to sit back and watch your money go to work, you can opt into their award-winning expert managed portfolio that picks stocks for you.
Stash has helped millions of Americans reach their financial goals and starts at just $3 a month.
Don't let your savings sit around.
Make it work harder for you.
Go to get.stash.com slash problem to see how you can receive $25 toward your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures.
Paid non-client endorsement, not representative of all clients and not a guarantee.
Investment advisory services offered by Stash Investment LLC, an SEC registered investment advisor.
Investing involves risk.
Offer is subject to terms and conditions.
Go check them out at get.stash.com/slash problem to learn more.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Genocide Framing and Poll Data00:12:44
Yeah, oh, oh, yeah, no, I don't think so quite at all.
Um, I wanted to read this because I thought this was kind of interesting.
Uh, there's Coleman Hughes, who I just uh debated uh recently, um, and I was destroyed, according to the people who thought I was destroyed by Douglas Murray as well.
Um, but anyway, uh, so he uh posted this on Twitter.
Uh, I was this today, um, he posted pure joy in the.
Wait, are you sure that this is actual evidence of his opinion?
I know it's written and you're reading it, but well, yeah, I mean, who knows?
No, I have actually seen the tweet, and so therefore it's legit.
Oh, okay, it's legit.
It's not here.
I got you.
I'm learning here.
So he wrote, quote, pure joy is in the air, end quote, is how an Israeli journalist described the mood in Israel right now.
But how could that be?
The Israelis want, above all, genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Then why would they celebrate a deal that ends the war with no ethnic cleansing and 90% of Gazans alive?
Quote, pure joy is not what you feel when your deepest ambitions have just been thwarted.
It's almost as if the goal of the war really was to get the hostages back and oust Hamas.
It's almost as if Israelis are motivated by a deep, dark desire to live in peace with their neighbors.
A few things on, oh, go ahead.
Just off the bat, there's a term mowing the grass, which I've heard from the Israelis quite a few times.
Mowing the lawn, mowing the grass.
Yeah, which is essentially every once in a while, you got to go in there and you got to kill a whole bunch of people to kind of keep them in line and keep them in check.
And so they do have a state of objective of doing that, and they certainly accomplished that here.
Maybe there are some that actually wanted a full-I'm not, listen, the word genocide is just too academic for me.
I'm simple-minded and like just, hey, there's civilians over there and you're killing them.
Let's not be killing civilians.
Whether or not it is or isn't a genocide, other academics can have that conversation.
It's just it, but the point I'm trying to make is to now turn around and go, oh, they were only looking for genocide.
They didn't accomplish that and they're happy.
Well, there certainly are people that have stated a goal of mowing the lawn, which is pretty gross as a goal.
And they certainly did get that goal.
And maybe at the moment, not everyone who, like, Nets and Yahoo might be upset that he's not actually able to totally ethnically cleanse the region.
And it might be something that he can't verbalize right now: man, Donald Trump really got in the way of me accomplishing my goal of completing a genocide.
Well, good luck.
So good luck getting on the news and saying that.
Dude, there's again, and this is, I think, a major part of the reason why Israel has lost this PR battle so badly.
And it's like, when you look at the numbers, dude, like I saw one poll the other day that said it was pre-October 7th.
Who do you sympathize with more, the Israelis or the Palestinians?
And it was plus 48 for Israel.
Like that was the standard in America.
And the latest, the same poll, or is the same polling organization had it plus one for the Palestinians.
Now, I'm just saying, a 50-point swing in a poll is something you almost never see.
Like in any issue, there's almost any issue in three years to swing 50 points in a poll is...
Now, again, I'm not saying that any one poll has it exactly right.
But when you track a 50-point swing, there is a major trend going on there.
And part of the reason, there's several, but part of the reason why Israel is losing the PR war so bad is that they rely on this type of just obviously disingenuous stuff.
Like one of the basic things Coleman's doing here is he's conflating two different meanings of Israel.
So he goes, when he's saying joy is in the air, oh, I thought the Israelis' goal was this, but in fact, why are they celebrating this?
Well, you're talking about the people.
And I don't think that too many, certainly I was never making the argument that the Israeli people were purely motivated by a desire for blood and genocide.
And so like, yes, after three years of Israel becoming a global pariah and turning the entire world against them, the fact that some citizens might be happy that this thing is over, that's great.
That's wonderful that they're celebrating that.
And much like I gave Israeli citizens credit for the protests that have happened in the last few months over the war, well, that sure is great, but that doesn't actually prove anything.
Like that, it's not, okay, is Smotrich celebrating?
You know, what does Netanyahu really feel in his heart about this?
I mean, not that we know, but like it's not so clear that he's celebrating this.
But then, okay, so there's one.
You're just blatantly using Israel as you like.
Usually, if we say, for example, if you know, if we were talking about a foreign country, if we say China is thinking of moving on Taiwan, what we're saying is the Chinese government.
We're not saying the collective will of all the Chinese people.
And if we went, China is thinking of moving on Taiwan.
And then I went, but here's an opinion poll where 70% of the Chinese say they don't want to move on Taiwan.
You'd go, yeah, but that's a different conversation.
We're saying, what is the government planning?
As we all know, governments don't always do what the people want them to do.
Oftentimes, they do the exact opposite.
So that's already a very dishonest framing.
But on top of that, it's like if somebody, look, Israel is a dependent state.
They are dependent on the U.S. and other Western governments.
And so if pressure was put on them to stop doing what they're doing, that doesn't prove that that's not what they wanted to do.
It doesn't prove, you know, like if you run into a building with the plan of I want to murder everyone in this building and you only murder a percentage of them, but also you're relying on somebody else who's paying for the bullets and paying for the guns.
And then the person paying for the bullets and paying for the guns goes, enough, you have to stop.
And you stop with only murdering a percentage of them.
That doesn't prove that the people who said your motivation was to murder all of them were wrong.
And also, by the way, the claim wasn't really ever made that Israel wanted to murder all of them.
I think Israel wanted their land.
They wanted them gone, right?
And so murdering a bunch and then ethnically cleansing the rest.
Again, this isn't something we're guessing.
We're saying people at the highest level of the Israeli government have said that this is their goal.
Okay.
So then there's that.
But I got to say, there's something particularly, at least to me, about the framing of, he goes, if the Israelis wanted, above all, genocide and ethnic cleansing, then why would they celebrate a deal that ends the war with no ethnic cleansing and 97% of Gazans alive?
Like, that is a very convenient way to describe murdering 3% of a population.
97% alive.
Like, I just, I just, I mean, think about the dishonest frame.
How many of them still have homes?
Well, yeah, well, that's a good, right.
That's another point.
Right.
We've only made 100% of the population homeless and destitute, but we only murdered 3%.
It is literally on the level of talking about saying O.J. Simpson only killed 3% of the people that he met that day.
Like, wait, what?
What a nice guy.
Yeah, we tend to focus on the people you did kill, not the people you didn't kill.
By the way, we don't know that it was 3%.
And we will probably get a lot more information about this in the coming months and the coming years.
We have no idea exactly what percentage of that.
You know, like it's so funny that for a while, the Israeli argument, the pro-Israeli argument, relied on saying, you can't trust the numbers.
You know, this is Hamas's numbers.
And then it's almost now their argument hinges on trusting these numbers in some sense.
Now, for those 3%, by the way, the overwhelming majority of whom were women and children, you're bragging they only killed those 3% and completely leveled the place and destroyed the lives of 100% of the people living there.
Just what an intensely dishonest way to frame what just happened.
Look, they're also, for whatever reason, because they're so desperate to try to get a win, to try to get something that makes the other side look bad so they can save face a little bit, which they are not going to do.
They are going to be remembered in history as the people who defended this goddamn destruction of a captive people.
But a lot of them now are saying, well, where are all these people, the people who wanted a ceasefire?
Why aren't they celebrating?
Well, like I just said, I wouldn't describe it as celebrating because we don't know what's going to happen here.
But I am cautiously optimistic.
Man, if the dying can stop and some more aid can get in, then hallelujah.
That is just an objectively, objectively wonderful thing.
But I'm sorry.
No, even if it stops now and that wonderful thing does happen, and I am saying hallelujah, my tone is not celebration.
I don't think there's anything here that should be celebrated.
The U.S. government, through its tax base, which includes me and you, have facilitated the destruction of a helpless captive people.
It is a goddamn disgrace, a disgrace to all of us, a disgrace to our country, a disgrace to the world, a disgrace to humanity, a disgrace to every goddamn global institution that this was allowed to happen for the last three years.
That it should be a time for reflection and disgust, and just pure disgust at all of our leaders all around the world.
That this type of thing, I mean, what the fuck is the point of having international law and having global governance bodies at all if this type of thing can't be stopped?
It should be a dark, dark lesson for humanity.
And hopefully that's it.
Hopefully this is like there is some type of peaceful resolution here.
Being like in the bigger picture, a peaceful resolution, I'm not that optimistic that we actually have one.
But even if we did, this should be a time for reflection.
And I'm sorry, just the idea of seeing, like, let's just say the number is 3%.
Objectively, majority women and children, that 3% of a population can be exterminated.
And our response to that should be, you guys made a big thing out of that.
97% of them are just displaced.
The Coleman Hughes thing is also wild because I don't think anyone in this country who ever commented on the war would have thought that if a deal was worked out where the hostages were released and Israel hadn't fully killed off every person in Gaza, that our perception of Israelis were that they were going to be upset about that.
You're framing something that nobody ever thought or would have thought.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I mean, what you're framing is that literally we're shocked that Israel's happy that they're getting their hostages back and that they didn't have the opportunity to genocide the entire region.
I don't think anyone's perception of general Israelis was that.
That's crazy.
Well, I remember at one point when I was debating Coleman Hughes, he said, so we did the whole thing.
I was arguing about how the neoconservatives were part of the Israel lobby and arguing about like the clean break strategy and all this stuff.
And then at one point he goes, he goes, well, what about Tony Blair?
Like, why did Tony Blair get on so on board and send troops and back George W. Bush?
And I was like, I was like, well, I don't really know enough about like the motivations of Tony Blair, but my guess would be that in the wake of 9-11, he made a political decision to be all in with the George W. Bush administration and that he viewed that as, you know, like that was his political calculation at the time.
And then Coleman goes, but how does that fit in with your narrative of Israel?
And I went, the world's complicated and there's more than one reason for stuff.
You know, like, but it's almost like, like, he was not blatantly strawmanning me, but there's like an implied straw man there that, like, yeah, but you're saying that these Jews run everything and every decision is because, but it's like, yeah, but that's not what any of us ever said.
That's not the point.
The point is just that like the Israel, the Israel lobby did push for this war and they were the difference.
American Financing Debt Control00:02:28
It wouldn't have happened without them and it did happen with them.
That's enough to be an issue.
And so, right, like you said, it's like you're setting up this thing that never would have been the agreed upon paradigm at the beginning.
That, yes, like imagine some right after October 7th, if somebody had said that, like, if any critic of Israel was saying that, like, you know, destroying all of the Gaza Strip and murdering 3% of the population will not be enough for them.
And they'll still have bloodlust after that.
Like, that was never the argument.
This doesn't prove anything.
I'm sorry.
And I think it's just one more example.
Like, the only thing it proves is that all of you guys are so dishonest about this shit.
That seems to be the thought here.
Or that seems to be what's demonstrated, I should say.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is American Financing.
With everything that's happening in the economy, it feels like we're all walking on shaky ground.
Prices are stuck at a really, really high level, and it seems like nothing is affordable anymore.
I know personally, I am still blown away every time I buy anything at how expensive it all is.
I got burgers and fries for me and the family the other day, and it was like $130.
It's just, to me, it still seems insane.
And this is also part of the reason why credit card debt is skyrocketing.
People are putting regular expenses on their credit card and paying exorbitant interest rates on the money they owe.
But if you're a homeowner, you don't have to face this uncertainty alone.
American financing can help you take control.
They can help you access the equity in your home to help you pay down that high interest credit card debt, giving you the peace of mind of real savings.
On average, people like you saved $800 a month.
Plus, they may be able to close your loan in as little as 10 days.
Now, this doesn't make sense for everybody, but if you're putting a lot of debt on credit cards, it might make sense for you.
Call them today at 866-886-2026.
That's 866-886-2026.
Or you can visit them at americanfinancing.net slash Dave.
That's Americanfinancing.net slash Dave.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, I want to also hit in the time that we have left here, the latest on the Charlie Kirk situation.
Candace Group Chat Oddities00:16:09
And I wanted to give some thoughts.
You know, me and Fuentes briefly touched on this, but I've actually learned a bit more since that podcast.
Like, I think, you know, I might be misremembering this, but I think if I'm right, when I was talking to Fuentes, the latest I had seen was that Candace had released this group chat where Charlie straight up says, I'm going to have to abandon my support for Israel.
And I believe, I could be wrong about this.
There's just been a lot going on the last few days, but I believe I had not yet seen that turning point had confirmed that those messages were real.
But so I've been thinking about this a bit more lately.
And actually, I just watched our good friend Clint Russell's last podcast on this, which really was phenomenal.
Let me see if I can find that so I can give it the right plug.
I love Clint.
Clint's one of the best guys out there in this space.
Liberty Lockdown.
Liberty Lockdown.
He is criminally underrated.
His latest podcast was titled Charlie Kirk Provably Betrayed Candace Owens Bombshell Texts, My Reaction to Dave Smith.
Sorry, my reaction to Dave Smith and Nick Fuentez.
It's not that long of a podcast.
It's a little over 40 minutes, but I thought it was really excellent.
And it really, it was, you know, he was, as is usually the case, I mean, me and Clint usually see eye to eye on most issues.
And I kind of, you know, I pretty much agreed with everything he said.
I always hesitate to go, I agreed with everything he said because maybe there was something in there.
But for the most part, I think I'm right where he is.
And so I wanted to kind of like talk about this because I have been, and I think I have some credibility on this issue because I've obviously I've been, you know, a fairly prominent critic of Israel through all of this stuff.
I am, you know, was friends, I would say, with Charlie Kirk, and I am friends with Candace.
But I've also been somebody who's taken a lot of heat from my own audience.
I do hear you good people for saying from the very beginning that, look, I don't see any evidence that Israel was involved in this.
So I want to be careful in what I say here.
I would still say there is no hard evidence that Israel was involved in the assassination of Charlie Kirk's murder.
There's no hard evidence that puts an Israeli in a network with this alleged shooter or that put, you know what I'm saying?
Like we don't have anything like that yet.
But let's talk about what we do have because what Candace just revealed really is something.
This is not nothing.
And it's at least, it's more than enough to, look, it's not hard evidence of who done it, but it is more than enough at this point to raise an eyebrow.
And it is more like, like if you were, if this was a, you know, a domestic crime and you were the detective or you worked at the police department or something like that, you're not ready to bring anything to a grand jury.
You're not ready to make arrests.
You know, you're ready to ask some people to come in for some questions at this point.
Like that's where you are.
You know, you know, in the cop shows where they're like, hey, you're free to go, but we'd like to ask you some questions downtown.
And you come in and, hey, you're free to go anytime, but we'd like to get you on record here.
I think we're at that point.
And so one of the things, if we track this timeline, this is kind of what we have right now, seems to me.
Candace, and I agreed with Clint when he said this, which I think Candace handled this truly brilliantly.
And Candace is no dummy.
Let me say that about Candace.
And of course, there's been, as I've mentioned on the show many times, there's this very interesting dynamic with her and her show lately where she is clearly, she is mourning.
I mean, she is grieving the loss of a close friend, and you can feel that on her.
And there's something very visceral about that.
But she is also like prosecuting this case and trying to get to the bottom of it.
And so what Candace did is she came out and she said that Charlie Kirk was rethinking his support for Israel.
Now, this is after Benjamin Netanyahu is quoting from the letter that he read to him, and all of the Zionists are trying to kind of like control the narrative.
Candace says he was thinking of turning on them.
In response to that, all of these people, including Josh Hammer, go out there and they say, That is absolute bullshit.
He was never thinking of that.
Josh Hammer's out doing shows saying, Well, just look at the letter that he wrote to Netanyahu.
He was not even thinking of questioning his loyalty toward Israel.
Okay, we now know, and it's been confirmed, that Josh Hammer was lying through his fucking teeth when he said that.
He was on the group chat where Charlie Kirk straight up said, I'm going to have no choice but to abandon support for Israel.
And so I would just say, like, I'm not trying to overplay what we have here, but I'm also not trying to underplay it.
Josh Hammer, and I think Josh, you know, I've met Josh a couple times.
I've debated him twice.
You got some questions to answer, man.
You really got to answer some questions.
You were active, you were lying through your teeth publicly during an active murder investigation.
Like, now, look, that's not perjury.
He wasn't, you know, he wasn't under oath when he lied about this stuff.
But there's two, there's two elements to this.
Number one, there was an active murder investigation going on, and you're publicly lying about the information that you know.
And number two, supposedly, this was your good friend.
You know, people could talk about, and I've had some people, you know, there were some people who gave me some shit for reading the text messages that Charlie sent me.
And I understand where they're coming from.
You know, people going, listen, man, that was a private message, and this guy's dead.
So aren't you kind of making a decision to say something publicly that he didn't necessarily want said publicly?
And I understand that.
And it was something I wrestled with a little before we did it.
But it was like, you know what?
At this point, Netanyahu had already been reading selective passages.
This is before he released the full letter, if that is the full letter.
So Netanyahu was doing it.
Bill Ackman was doing it.
Josh Hammer was doing it.
They were all releasing private text messages.
Candace Owens was talking about them and she specifically called on me to do it.
So I was like, you know what?
I'm going to do this while everyone's else.
But you know, however you feel about reading private text messages of someone.
Now, look, in any other situation, I probably wouldn't have done it.
In any other situation, I at least would have waited a while to do it.
But this was the highest profile political assassination of my life.
And everybody else involved was doing that.
And so I just felt like, you know what, guys, I do have a little bit of information here that's somewhat relevant.
I was very clear to not overplay it or act like it was anything other than it was.
But I was like, you know what?
I'm going to give up everything I have.
And that's that.
So I've, you know, I have no other information that I haven't already told you guys.
And that is like, part of that was out of my bond I feel to Candace, who's a friend who asked me to do this.
And part of this was out of a bond I feel to the audience.
I'm being like, hey, I got to be transparent with you guys.
However you feel about that, then I could still understand some people going, I don't know if that was the right thing to do.
How about lying?
How about lying about your friend?
Josh Hammer knew, he saw the words.
Do not think for a second that every Zionist on that call that did not send up major alarm bells for them that Charlie Kirk had said he had no choice but to abandon support for Israel.
This was 24 to 48 hours before he's killed.
Okay?
So Josh Hammer lies through his teeth about his friend who hasn't been buried yet and says that this is absolute bullshit when he knew it was true.
Okay, that's something.
That's at least, we're going to ask Josh to come in for some more questions here if you're a local police department.
Now, I will say, and again, this is not hard evidence of Israel's involvement in this, but Candace also did reassert the other day that three different people have confirmed to her that Charlie Kirk thought Israel was going to kill him.
That's what she's saying.
Three different people said that.
Now, also, Andrew, who I met down at the Turning Point USA event, he revealed something very interesting.
It was not only that, it's not only that he said the group chat was legit.
It's that he said he had taken the screenshot.
He had taken the screenshot, which is the one Candace was sharing, and he said he had sent it to the authorities.
He sent this to the authorities because he thought they needed to know this.
Now, I'm trying to really be fair here about what we have.
And I will fully admit that I am perhaps on some level motivated by the fact that I really do not wish for this to be, like, I really do not want me debating at Turning Point to be like part of the reason why this happened.
It's an inexpressibly bizarre feeling.
But if what we have right now is that multiple people are saying that Charlie Kirk was worried that Israel would kill him for abandoning support with them.
And that 24 to 48 hours before his death, he said, I'm turning on Israel.
I'm not supporting him anymore.
And then all the pro-Israel people around him lied through their fucking teeth about that before he was even buried.
Okay, you're still not at hard evidence of who did it.
And maybe somebody who's got more police experience than me could answer this question.
But I think we might be approaching person of interest.
You certainly might be approaching who you'd want to talk to more about this.
So I don't know what more to add from that.
I would recommend Clint's latest podcast on it that I thought was great.
But I'm just trying to look at all of that and grapple with it honestly.
And I would just add to the story that all the details, the official details of the shooter don't seem to really add up.
There seems to be some oddities.
And then just I had one other takeaway on the Josh Hammer thing because this almost actually caught my eye a little bit more because I guess this whole whodunit thing is it's all firstly just ADD of me.
At first I was annoyed with Candace because I was like, you're yelling at everyone to show your receipts and you're not showing your receipts.
This seems contradictory, but I guess it was well played because you caught some people in traps.
Well, that's all I'm saying is that, look, as Clint put it, Candace doesn't have subpoena power.
So I think what she could do is make these statements, get all these motherfuckers on record, and then release the receipts.
But also, I think that people are, look, I get that.
A lot of people were given, I think there's a lot of people who owe Candace an apology because they're, look, you can't criticize her for not releasing the receipts and then also criticize her when she releases the receipts.
And again, you could say, why'd you hang on to it for this long?
But then again, maybe there's a strategy involved in this.
Just back to Hammer for a second.
Go ahead.
I don't know how big of a publication Newsweek still is, but I used to read it in college.
That was like the one thing I would read on Saturdays.
I didn't otherwise follow the news and was a good publication because at the time it was kind of down the middle.
It was very mainstream.
Got a pretty good picture of what happened in the news that week.
It still is a big brand.
Like Newsweek is a big brand.
I believe Hammer's position is the senior editor.
Seems very inappropriate to be the senior editor of what's not sold as a propaganda publication and to be trying to navigate donor calls and Israeli messaging with other people in the media.
That seems to me like either agent of Israel or just grossly dishonest journalistic practices that you're literally the head editor, but you're taking, you're behind the scenes trying to navigate the media space on Israeli messaging and you're on, you're trying to navigate donor calls of donors who have a specific narrative and are upset with the person who's not fielding that narrative.
I don't understand how you have both those positions.
Yeah, no, 100%.
And look, back to the broader point.
This is why so much of this Israel conversation is just not going away.
Because like, what is that?
I mean, like, look, again, in effect, you're a foreign spy.
Like, what is this?
And you're sitting here.
You are presenting yourself as an America first American citizen slash journalist, but you're actually a foreign spy.
Your number one goal is actually to manage the image of a foreign country.
If it were any other country, we'd have the same reaction.
Like, no, I'm sorry, that's crazy.
And it doesn't matter how close an ally they are.
It wouldn't matter if it was Canada or the UK or France or anyone.
It's still, it's a sovereignty issue.
It's an honesty issue.
It's like you just can't do that.
And so look, I just, I got to be honest.
And this is something that it's always, you know, it's always something like people who do what we do.
If you're in this world, it's always something you got to try to navigate.
You try to, you got to try to navigate against your own personal incentives versus finding the truth.
And part of that is even positions that you've staked out so far.
So like there's this inertia, there's this, this invisible incentive to like, I came out and said Israel, there's no evidence that Israel's involved in this.
And so then you almost like want to dig your heels in and say, but look, I'm just saying, zoom out here.
And this is where we're at with it.
There were claims that were made at the very beginning, many by Candace Owens, some by Max Blumenthal and others, that were denied, ridiculed, and, you know, straight up just attacked in a vicious way.
Some of these claims were that Charlie was rethinking his relationship with Israel.
Charlie was actually on the precipice of turning on Israel, that big donors had pulled out of Turning Point because he platformed Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly and some other comedian.
And I'm trying to think what some of the other claims were.
Well, look, they were all viciously attacked.
They've all turned out to be true.
I guess what exactly the nature of the Hamptons meeting was has not, you know, been proven.
But still, you've got enough that's there at this point that you're like, whoa, they're really, and it does, I'll tell you, thinking about all of that, it makes you look at the Megan Kelly interview in a slightly different light.
There you go, okay, you can really see what he was saying there.
As Nick pointed out on the last episode, there was one point in that Megan Kelly interview where he actually goes, you're going to lose me, and then stopped himself and went, well, you're not going to lose me.
But we all saw what you wanted to say there, Charlie.
We all saw what your thought was.
And, you know, I guess in addition to that, my one other, and this is a pettier, not as relevant thing, but like, dude, I re-listened back to an interview that Josh Hammer had given right after Charlie's death, where he was talking about how Charlie would come to him to ask for help with messaging and talking points and stuff.
And he is making this claim after our debate.
And I mean, look, I'm just saying, doesn't it see, it does seem a little bit strange to me that Charlie would be going to Josh Ham after that.
Retweet Timing Before Charlie Kirk00:01:28
You're getting fucking spanked.
Like, really?
That's the guy you're looking back to to how to win over this crowd?
The guy who just got destroyed in front of this crowd?
I guess Netanyahu's nephew.
You got to check in with your handler.
Right?
I mean, there is, I'm sorry.
There's just something about that that is a little bit too much.
It's a little, it's just like, and as I've told you before with my personal interactions with Josh Hammer, like, the dude's a liar.
And he clearly is caught here lying.
And he's trying to double down now and say that Candace is out of her mind.
But, you know, now look, I'm not going to try to make too much out of the fact that he retweeted a thing about public executions the day before Charlie Kirk got killed.
I mean, yeah, that sure is weird.
But again, it's not hard evidence of anything.
It is an eyebrow raiser, for sure.
It is something that makes you wonder.
And so anyway, I just wanted to like kind of give my thoughts on that and allow you to give yours too, because it is a development and we can't pretend that it's not.
There you go.
Porch store, everybody.
Got dates coming up.
Quit being stingy with your Charleston porches.
Out in California, going to be filming those shows to come on out with Brian McWilliams, Hawthorne, Agawangas.
I don't know, Santa Barbara, maybe.
I don't fucking know where I'm going to be.
Porchstore.com.
And of course, this weekend, we still got shows out here in Detroit, shows tonight and tomorrow night.
Tampa's going to sell out, so you better grab them tickets.
That's right.
Side splitters next week, Poughkeepsie, a bunch of stuff.