5/20/26: Bibi Begs Trump For Iran War, JD Savaged Over Slush Fund, Massie Defeated, AIPAC Blown Out In PA

26:28And in the future, none of you, neither you nor any of your family or organizations affiliated with your family can be subject to IRS audits. Like that's the agreement that he forced the IRS to reach. That's actually pretty big chunk of the IRS budget, by the way. so jd vance now is taking incoming from this it's always fun to hear kind of jd vance turn what trump's doing into like eloquent paragraphs so let's let's see how he manages some of this let's roll b1 i understand that everybody is eligible to apply for this one i mean you're eligible but i assume you're not going to apply and you don't think you should get money out of this of course so isn't it just as easy to say that people that attacked police officers should not get taxpayer money from this phone?

27:19Well, look, John, we're not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer. We're trying to give money, not give money. We're trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them. They were mistreated by the legal system. Sometimes, you know, we are, we do have John in this, in this country, innocent until proven guilty. We do have people who were accused of attacking law enforcement officers. That doesn't, That doesn't mean that we're going to completely ignore some of the claims that they're going to make. We're going to evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis. And if we think that somebody, whatever they were accused of, if we think that somebody was unfairly prosecuted and deserves just compensation, then that's what this fund is going to exist to provide.

28:03It's just going to correct a wrong. And I think that's a good thing. And I'd encourage everybody, Democrat, Republican, independent, let's turn the page on this thing that we did under the last administration where we tried to throw people in prison because they had the wrong politics. Let's throw people in prison who broke the law. I think this fund is a good part of getting justice for the people who are wrongly treated. So, Emily, do you want to hear how Trump formulated a response to that or do you have any thoughts on J.D. Vance's reply there first?

28:32Emily Jashinsky:Well, no, let's kick to Trump, but also just note that J.D. Vance was, if you're listening to this, that quote was from the White House briefing room. J.D. Vance did a press briefing yesterday, which is itself interesting because Marco Rubio did one not long ago. So while they're filling in for Caroline Levitt, Rubio goes, then not long after, a couple weeks later, Vance steps in. So I think probably worth noting a little sign of jockeying there, too. But let's take a listen to the president. The Justice Department has this new fund that was announced today,$1.7 billion. Why should taxpayers pay for the January 6th?

29:08Well, it's been very well received, I have to tell you. I know very little about it. I wasn't involved in the whole creation of it and the negotiation. But this is reimbursing people that were horribly treated, horribly treated. It's anti-weaponization. They've been weaponized. They've been, in some cases, imprisoned wrongly. They paid legal fees that they didn't have. They've gone bankrupt. Their lives have been destroyed. And they turn out to be right. I mean, it was a terrible period of time in the history of our country. And they worked on it. I know the Justice Department, it's really been working on it very hard.

29:44There's been numerous other occasions over the years where things like this have been done. But these were people that were weaponized and really treated brutally by a system that was so corrupt, with corrupt people running it. and they're getting reimbursed for their legal fees and the other things that they had to suffer.

30:01Emily Jashinsky:Brent, I was just going to say, both Trump and Vance are correct that people were wronged in the rush to prosecute folks for some serious, obviously serious wrongdoing on January 6th. There was a huge dragnet. There were some wild over prosecutions and political abuses that came afterwards. What you then have to trust them to do, and maybe you can help us break down what we know about the mechanics of the slush fund so far, but you have to then put your trust in this slush fund and its managers, which are essentially, it's a board of what, like five to six people with allegedly there will be some congressional representative that is supposed to provide oversight.

30:44Emily Jashinsky:I think Todd Blanche is on the board. You then have to trust that this is just going to be used for the people who were caught in the dragnet, who were over prosecuted and not for anything that's political favor related, because we haven't seen any evidence of this administration doing anything like that, self-dealing and the like. So they're asking for an enormous amount of trust for people to buy that it is really just going to be used to correct some of the legitimate wrongs. Right. And they've done really nothing to earn that trust. When Trump came in and did this, did his blanket pardon of everybody, basically everybody, there was this amazing moment in the White House and the Oval Office where a reporter said, But hey, you know, you didn't pardon just the people who, you know, were nonviolent.

31:40And after the Capitol had been sacked and police were like letting people in, you know, they walked in, walked around a little bit and walked back out. And if the police kind of wave you in, to me, you actually shouldn't be prosecuted for that if you didn't have anything to do with the reason that they're now waving you in, which was the violent assault on the Capitol. But what the reporter said to Trump is like it wasn't just those people and named named one guy who, you know, nearly killed a police officer, nearly beat him to death and was let out as a result of this. And Trump said, oh, did I do that?

32:12I'll look at I'll I'll look into that and then just move and then just moved on. So what do you mean you'll look into it like you are you've already done it? And also we know you're not going to look into it. Has he looked into it? No, he hasn't looked into it. Now, a decent number of these J6ers have been arrested subsequently for other acts of violence. I wonder if that's going to hinder their ability to cash in on some of this money. But can you imagine if Democrats in the 2024 campaign put out an ad saying that if Trump wins, he's going to create an illegal fund of nearly$2 billion and he's going to pay it out to himself and to January Sixers?

32:55Can you imagine if they said that? I would have been like, that's crazy. How could you? I understand you got some problems with Trump. But on what planet would anybody be that unpatriotic, that insane? Like, stop. There's no way he's going to do that. Clearly, I deeply underestimated what this guy is capable of. He's coming up with new avenues of depravity that were like previously kind of inconceivable. And actually, the stock trading is a good one. Vance just getting hammered with all of Trump's stuff. So Donald Trump in the first quarter of this last year traded more stocks than all of Congress combined for like the entire year.

33:49Think about that. Congress is this hornet's nest of insider trading. And Trump, on his own in three months, did more trading than them. And explicitly did his trade. Go ahead.

34:04Emily Jashinsky:It's through a broker, right? And not that that makes it better. It actually is a good reason, I think, that some of these attacks. He's not on Ameritrade, like, execute on the trade. But yeah, like he's trading, he's buying Nvidia stock, and then he's making an announcement about NVIDIA. He's buying a Palantir. Whenever he would visit a factory and encourage people to invest in that factory, like that day or the day before, he would buy stock there, knowing that his visit there is going to bump up the share price. Just an incredible harvesting of other people's money. Well, also just a really great illustration of why some of these efforts, the only reason I brought that up is some of the efforts to, quote, ban congressional stock trading.

34:48Emily Jashinsky:It has to be banned completely for public servants because they'll just say, oh, I put it in a blind thing or I'm doing it through a broker. I've got nothing to do with the broker. That excuse never has much credibility. I think he posted on True Social that caught people's eye. What was this a couple of months ago? He posted Palantir, but then in parentheses, the stock abbreviation for it. Did you see this? People were like, why did he do that? And then it turns out around the same time he was buying Palantir. Yes, truly incredible. So let's hear how J.D. Vance responds to this one. The question, sir, is how can you and your administration argue to Americans that you're cleaning up corruption, you're preventing fraud, you're fighting the sorts of things that harm people, and people's financial situations when the president seems to be talking up stocks that he owns, selling them and enriching himself.

35:50Okay. So here, let me, let me, let me answer your question here. That was a doozy. Before I answer your question, I want to just observe, there are different ways to ask a question. Okay. You can just ask a question and try to get your answer, or you could do like a speech where you say, you know, Mr. Vice President, every, you know, you're, you're, you're a terrible human being. And so is the president. So is the entire cabinet. And then I'm like, what's your question? And then your question is, how dare you? Come on, man. Have a little bit of objectivity in the way that you ask these questions, because there were a lot of things in that speech masquerading as a question that didn't actually get asked.

36:26OK, number one, the president doesn't sit at the Oval Office on his computer, on his like Robin Hood account, buying and selling stocks. That's absurd. He has independent wealth of divisors who manage his money. He is a wealthy person. He has had success in business. He's not making these stock trades himself. And your question imputes that. It sort of it doesn't say it exactly. But a reasonable person listening to that question would assume the president is sitting around and doing that. He's not. Second of all, you're right. I am a big fan of banning members of Congress from trading stocks. So is the president of the United States.

37:01all of us believe that nobody should be taking proprietary information gained from public service and buying and selling stocks. We want to ban that process. And I think the way to lead by example is banning that process, banning that approach and making it illegal, which is exactly what the president has proposed doing. I mean, having a broker doesn't mean you can't call the broker and say, buy a million dollars worth of NVIDIA. Like, it's just a coincidence that the broker is buying these stocks of these companies that he's visiting that day or the day or he's buying them the day before. If he has the best broker on the planet, if he's not taking direction from Trump and he just keeps nailing like the timing of these trades, then this this broker needs needs his own, you know, CNBC show because guys got incredible foresight.

37:54Emily Jashinsky:You can compete with Kramer. He may actually be better. Yeah, it's the way Vance responded is also, I don't know if it's a tell, but it's so frustrating nonetheless. Because, yes, this is, I mean, Drain the Swamp is, other than build the wall, like the most memorable tagline of the last 10 years of MAGA. And they made these really flamboyant promises to voters in 2024, also in 2020 and in 2016, but particularly the 2024 campaign, which J.D. Vance was a part of. They made these really flamboyant promises to voters about draining the swamp and ending corruption. And as we've been discussing this morning, it has been like pedal to the metal on self-dealing from Trump himself.

38:43Emily Jashinsky:You know, Kristal and Sager talked about that great Isaac Saul piece that kind of wrapped up all of the not even hidden or like investigated investigative journalism type stories, but like actual just like they're just coming out and saying it type corruption stories in the last several months. but just the first year, almost a year and a half of the second Trump administration. There's no plausible, no, like Doge was their drain the swamp mechanism. They didn't, as Steve Bannon said, cross the river and go to the Pentagon. They never did that. They're in fact asking for a bigger Pentagon budget.

39:22Emily Jashinsky:So it's a stark contrast. And I think, you know, Vance is aware of the contradictions and was trying to be pretty smooth there to get around it. But it's something you just can't get around. All right. Let's finish with a J.D. Vance hat trick. So Trump has also said multiple times in the last week that when it comes to the Iran war, he doesn't think even a little bit about the American people's financial situation. You may say to yourself, that doesn't sound like somebody who cares about the American people's financial situation. So let's see how J.D. Vance responded to this one. Just to follow up on the war, you last week denied that the president said he was not taking Americans' financial situations into consideration when he's making decisions on the Iran war.

40:12Emily Jashinsky:He was asked about that again. He stood by it, called it a perfect statement and said he would make it again. Do you believe that Americans' financial situations should be taken into consideration when you're making decisions as an administration? See, Caitlin, what you did is you misrepresented the question that I was asked, and then you misrepresented the answer that I gave. What I said is that a question that was asked where the president allegedly, he allegedly said that he didn't care about Americans' financial situations, he never said that. What he said is that when he, it was totally taken out of context.

40:43What he said is that when he is negotiating with the Iranians, he's focused on the national security objectives that he's trying to achieve. Of course, the president has a mandate to be focused on a number of things. And I guarantee you every single day I have conversations with him about it. Every single day he's worried about his fellow Americans. He wants them to be prosperous. He wants them to thrive. He wants them to have good jobs. That's why we've done the things and taken the steps that we've taken in order to create record job growth, in order to create record wage growth, in order to induce trillions of dollars of new investment into our country.

41:17That's because he cares about that stuff. What he also said is that when he's talking to the Iranians, he's talking to the Iranians about questions, of course, of national security, like their nuclear program. You could hold two thoughts in your head at the same time, that the president cares about financial security for Americans. but also when he's negotiating with the Iranians, he's talking about the issues that are germane to the concerns of that particular conflict. Sure, J.D. Okay, now let's move on to something that Trump does actually care about, and that was enacting revenge on Thomas Massey.

41:48That's up next. Hey, it's us, the Jonas Brothers, and guess what? We have some big news. What's the news, Nick? Huge news. We created our own podcast called Hey Jonas. We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We're the first people to do podcasts. Yeah, pretty wide range of podcasts. We're starting a trend. But this one's extra special. So how did we actually come up with the name Hey Jonas, guys? I honestly don't remember. I think it was on a call about what we should call it. Well, we were thinking originally calling it one of the early names of our band before Jonas Brothers.

42:26This is how you guys remember it going down? Yes. I have a very different memory of this. We were talking about a thing, a bit for the podcast where people could call in and say, hey Jonas. And then I wrote down on my little notepad, hey Jonas, and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys. Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy. Not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier.

43:02This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Here's something that should not be as complicated as it is. Getting a racist statue removed. And here's something that should be a whole lot easier than it is. getting a new one put up in its place. As long as there's a politics of race in America, there's going to be a politics of remembering the Civil War.

43:37To get to school, I had to go down Robert E. Lee Boulevard. To get to the grocery store, I had to go down Jefferson Davis Parkway. If you're a historian and you leave out half of what the history is, you're not doing your job. I'm Akilah Hughes, and Rebel Spirit Season 2 goes deep on both of those things. The fights, the politics, the people who won, and my personal campaign to add something to the Kentucky Statehouse that's actually worth the wall space.

44:01Emily Jashinsky:We are more than our bodies. We contain essence. We contain spirit. How do you represent that? They are just fueling a fire that is really catching. You'll see what I mean. Listen to Rebel Spirit Season 2 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Republican Thomas Massey has lost his primary in Kentucky after getting some$20 million dropped on him by pro-Israel and pro-Trump groups. You can put up C1 here. It looks like in the end we're going to be staring at roughly, what, a 10 ,000-vote margin. A guy named, what, Ed Gowrein, who don't anybody commit this guy's name to memory because I don't think we're going to hear much about him going forward.

44:50His role was to put his name on the ballot, be a Navy SEAL, and have tens of millions of dollars in commercials attack Massey and boost him. He skipped basically every debate, did very little campaigning, but this wasn't about that sort of election. This was about knocking him out of office. Massey conceded last night. Let's roll C2 here. I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede, and it took a while to find Ed Galrine in Tel Aviv.

45:34I did get the call three of you. I have called and conceded the race. We've been honorable the whole time, and we're going to stay that way. 20-8!

45:45Emily Jashinsky:20-8! 20-8! 20-8! 20-8!

45:56What happens in 2028? You want me to run for Congress again?

46:11I don't know what you're talking about.

46:22President, President, President, President, President, President, President, President, President, President. All right. Well, you made a compelling argument. You spoke your piece, but I need a medical margarita right now. And we'll talk about it later. So of the two leading Republicans who pushed for the opening of the Epstein files, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey, they're both now out. Emily, what happened here? What's going on?

46:57Emily Jashinsky:Well, can we put the APAC tweet up? I want to say this is the third element. Yep, this tells you what happened. APAC says, Ed Galrines' victory in Kentucky and Clay Fuller's win in Georgia. Ensures two outspoken pro-Israel voices are positioned to fill seats previously held by outspoken detractors, Thomas Massey and Marjorie Taylor Greene. And then here's the important part of this tweet. quote, our community was proud to help pro-Israel candidates win these races. Now, this is the big difference between every other primary that Thomas Massey has run in and the primary this year. Thomas Massey, of course, did vote against the one big, beautiful bill last year, but Thomas Massey has bucked Trump on other big bills before.

47:37Emily Jashinsky:Trump first came out against Massey when he was bucking Trump on COVID, the COVID relief package, huge, big ticket part of the Trump presidency. Massey goes up against him. And Trump says this guy, he basically was insulting Massey. Massey gets a primary challenge. But over and over again, I just pulled some of the results in his primaries. This is 2024, 76%. So after that happened, he wins his primary by 76%. This is 2022. 75 % he wins his primary. 75%. This is 2020. June 23rd, 2020. 81%. He won his primary by 81%. So$32 million goes into Kentucky's 4th District. This is according to the Wall Street Journal to a primary in Kentucky's 4th District.

48:30Emily Jashinsky:$13.5 million for Massey,$18.6 million for Galrine. And again, reading from the journal here, quote, The super PAC led by Trump strategist Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio released an ad this month accusing Massey of being in a throuple with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar. The super PAC receives funding from hawkers pro-Israel hedge fund billionaires Paul Singer, John Paulson, and a group funded by wealthy donor Miriam Adelson, according to campaign filings. And then again, you see AIPAC claiming that they helped. Well, yes, Ryan, you've been reporting on this happening to the left for a long time.

49:06But without this money, this primary, like all things being constant, Trump has criticized Massey before and very, very sharply.

49:16Emily Jashinsky:Massey has gone against Trump before on a big picture piece of legislation, a big ticket piece of legislation with COVID relief. Yes. Again, I get it. I actually think they're totally it makes sense that there are people in Massey world who are Trump voters. I wouldn't agree with them. But in Kentucky's fourth district to say you voted against that bill that secured the border or provided immigration enforcement, whatever. I get it. He's been on a lot of podcasts. They see him as somebody who's like leaning into media appearances and that sort of thing. So I see where people are coming from. But the big difference here, money, money, money, money.

49:54Emily Jashinsky:That's it. And Ryan, you can tell us when that money comes in from these sources that the money is coming in from, it was about one issue. Right. It was about one issue. But as you said, that wasn't the issue that played out on the airwaves. the ad about the throuple is incredible like a lot of these ads that they were running were AI generated and one of them has like CCTV fake CCTV footage in a hotel room showing Thomas Massey going to a hotel clerk holding hands with like AOC and Ilhan Omar and then shows them like walking into a hotel room and I think they would if they were forced to defend it, they would say, well, we mean metaphorically he's in bed with Democrats because he votes on the same way with them sometimes.

50:44But I, you know, he lost by like 30, 40 points among people 65 and up. People 65 and up sitting at home watching that, watching that ad would not believe, I don't think, that it was AI generated. Like they thought they were being told what they were actually being told. So I think it's a really good point. So just to put a fine point on it, because I know you got to run. Trump, let's say Trump comes against Massey, but there isn't$20 million spent against him because of his criticism of Israel, because of his release of the Epstein files. Does Massey hold on in your counterfactual world where it's only Trump and not Adelson and Paul Singer and the rest of the APAC world?

51:27Emily Jashinsky:I think absolutely yes. And this is, I just want to put up on the screen before we run C4. The first time I interviewed Massey was back when I was with the Washington Examiner in 2017. And this quote that he gave us, it wasn't even a question I asked. I was just the one who wrote up the piece. It was, he said, basically, when he had been campaigning in 2012 with Ron Paul and Rand Paul, he made the mistake of thinking, wow, all these people are just really excited about libertarian values and realized ultimately that they were when trump came around this was the same people supporting trump and they were just looking for quote the craziest son of a bitch in the race and this quote made it into books and the like it's it's become somewhat famous um as for people who like study the maga movement and i think what it says at the end of the day is that for a lot of those people trump is still the craziest son of a bitch in the race.

52:20Emily Jashinsky:And they still have that, uh, like trust in him above others. And that is one of the big takeaways. It's like the Trump loyalty test is still what those APAC groups or the APAC and the, uh, pro Israel groups used ultimately to get at Massey. Uh, it wasn't, you've covered this many times. It wasn't about Israel in the airwaves. All right. Well, Emily, thanks for being here and happy travels. Thank you.

53:13up with the name hey jonas guys i honestly don't remember i think it was on a call about what we should call it and well we were thinking i'm originally calling it one of the early names of our band before jonas brothers was this is how you guys remember it going down yes i have a very different memory of this we were talking about a thing a bit for the podcast people could call in and say hey jonas and then i wrote down on my little notepad hey jonas and offered it up as a potential title for the podcast. But thanks for remembering that, guys. Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

53:50Just listen. We don't care where you hear it. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy. Not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guests, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Keith Giamanca seemed like a mild-mannered suburban dad, but secretly he became someone else, a master of disguise who went on a crime spree.

54:35At the time, did it seem like a crazy idea? It seemed very crazy, but I felt so desperate that I felt it was the quickest, easiest way out. Did you allow yourself to think about how it could go wrong and what that might look like? No, I didn't want to manifest that. I was trying to manifest success. Every family has its secrets, but what happens when you discover that your dad has been living a double life? That is not the look of an innocent man. This is going to change my life and my family dynamic forever, because everything that had existed prior in my reality is now untrue. Listen to Deep Cover, The Family Man, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

55:33So in two competitive congressional races in Pennsylvania, Bob Brooks in the Lehigh Valley overcame, I think, more than a million dollars in kind of fake Republican spending where they were trying to kind of uplift an unelectable Democrat. They're doing the same thing in Texas with this lunatic lady who's calling for concentration camps. And they failed. Bob Brooks, the firefighter union guy from Allentown, Pennsylvania, comfortably won his election. So he'll be facing McKenzie, the Republican incumbent in the primary there. But more importantly, probably to the national conversation down in Philadelphia in an open race, Chris Rabb, and we can put this element up on the screen, emerged victorious.

56:16Not even that close by the end of it. Almost 45 percent of the vote for Chris Rabb, Democratic Socialist, against 29.5 percent for Sharif Street. And then Alice Stanford, a physician who had been the front runner, down at 24 percent. And so this is a rather stunning victory. Two months ago, you would not have, you know, we were covering Chris Rabb two months ago, but you would not have said that he was kind of remotely even in contention. A lot had to come together for him to be able to win. I think primarily Summer Lee deserves an enormous amount of credit in this election. She's the kind of DSA-backed, although she's had a complicated relationship with DSA Pittsburgh.

57:08She's the member of Congress from Pittsburgh, way across the other side of the state. She came over. She was the first member of Congress to endorse Chris Rab and really and did a lot of kind of recruiting and organizing on on his behalf. And to to really say, no, this this is a winnable race. We we need we need to get in here. You then had the Working Families Party and DSA Philadelphia getting behind Rab. Rab, both DSA, Philly, or Philly DSA and Working Families Party have done a lot of work in previous cycles in down-ballot races and city council races and elsewhere that built a lot of foundation for Chris Rab to then run on Rab, a state representative, who himself ran a great campaign and is an impressive candidate.

58:00and had built relationships kind of in the populist progressive and DSA world over the years so that when the moment came, he was able to capitalize on it in a way that he might not otherwise have been. You also had this new pro-Palestine PAC, which is capitalized with something like 10 million bucks, which is largely kind of Muslim donors around the country saying, we need to get politically active in a way that can counteract APAC. And the PAC is called American Priorities. They came in and spent about 500, a little less than$500 ,000 getting behind him. That type of money in a race like this can really put you over the top.

58:44WFP also kicked in about$500 ,000, the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC. There was a lot of people kind of flooded in to try to match AIPAC here. So on the other side, you had this candidate, Alice Stanford, who rose to prominence in Philadelphia because of her kind of heroic work on the front lines during the COVID pandemic. She then had the support of this group called 314 Action, which supports doctors and scientists. But as we had reported here back Back in 2024, AIPAC used 314 action to secretly funnel a lot of money against Sushila Jayapal in this Portland, Oregon race, also at the time backing a pediatrician.

59:30Um, it turned out and we reported at the time and it was, it was later confirmed that through a variety of, um, different kind of shady blind vehicles, uh, they had been, they had been funding pro pro Israel and APAC money, um, into, into 314 action. They were able to beat Sushila Jayapal, who was Pramila Jayapal, represented Pramila Jayapal's sister. In this race, the 314 action spent more than$3 million. And you can go read our story over at Dropsite to explain the intricacies of how this kind of pro-Israel money was funneled through 314 action. AIPAC continues to deny it. They'll continue to have to release different reports.

1:00:11Some of the money came from this. They move it from a foundation into then another thing called EDW Action, which has previously been used as an APAC front group. And then EDW Action then gives it the 314 Action. The other reason that you can know that this is APAC is that they're the only organization that does this. Crypto, AI, and, you know, say big oil, tech, like any of these other PACs or super PACs or industries that are spending in these races, when they do it, so far, they do it with their chest. Like crypto and AI, for instance, are the only ones that can kind of match APAC and pro-Israel money when it comes to spending in these primaries.

1:01:00But so far, their brands are not so toxic. I think they should be. But their brands are not so toxic that they have to hide where the money is coming from. So the crypto packs will be crypto packs. The AI packs will be AI super packs. And so even though they don't kind of run ads on the issue of crypto or on the issue of AI, they will do negative ads about whatever they think will destroy their opponent or they'll do positive ads on whatever they think will uplift the person that they're supporting. They will stay at the bottom like who they are. And so the only super PACs at this point that are hiding the source, the actual kind of issue area behind them, at this point is APAC.

1:01:49They did this a bunch in Illinois in those races that we covered there, and they did it again here. The three plus million dollars that they spent on behalf of all of Stanford that they continue to deny having spent makes up something like 50 percent of all the money that 314 action spent across the country. 314 action, they normally spend nothing and just endorse or they'll spend$10 ,000 or they'll spend maybe up to like$100 ,000. That's typically how they do it. The only time they've really ever come in and done millions is when AIPAC is behind it. Now, you may remember that Alice Stanford completely fell apart, not because she was exposed for taking APAC money, but because she did this interview on a local Fox channel where she was asked, OK, if you want to abolish ICE, who then should do immigration enforcement?

1:02:43And let's roll that again, because it precipitated one of the most incredible campaign implosions I think I've ever seen.

1:02:51Emily Jashinsky:You also said you're running to abolish ICE. This is something that we've heard other Democrats and activists talk about. Yeah. From an immigration enforcement perspective. Yes. Who do you think should be in charge of enforcing immigration laws? It's a good question. And you can pause because I just want to think about it. Well, yeah, go ahead. We need to continue, though. Okay. Who do I think should be in charge of enforcing immigration laws? Not the executive branch. So not the president. So it belongs with Congress. It belongs with Congress. After that, it was basically the end of the campaign for her.

1:03:40She stopped showing up for forums. She stopped campaigning, but there were still ads on TV for her. And Chris Rab's campaign started to worry that she might actually just straight up drop out of the race, because if she dropped out, then they were afraid all of her support would then, or a lot of her support would go over to Sharif Street, who was the son of the former mayor and a kind of well-known guy in Philadelphia. He had his own problems, though. Back in 2022, Sharif Street worked directly with Republicans in the state of Pennsylvania to reduce the number of Democratic seats in the state, but to draw himself a seat.

1:04:22So now the courts came in and blocked this from happening, but it was one of the most like kind of outrageous examples of selfishness where you're going against your party, working with Republicans simply so that you can have a more comfortable seat. And so the Working Families Party put almost$100 ,000 behind ads attacking Sharif over that scandal as he started to rise. And the mail-in voting among, which is elderly voters, more conservative types, that had all of Stanford winning. You had to get your ballots in, I think, by May 12th. But because she imploded around that time and after, there wasn't enough time for Sharif Street to come together.

1:05:08and the kind of establishment and AIPAC could never consolidate behind a single candidate, which allowed then Chris Rab to win with less than 50 percent of the vote. At his campaign rally last night, his supporters were very confident about who they had defeated. Let's roll this.

1:05:40Now, if you can hear that chanting, that was AIPAC lost. Now, the other group that lost was Third Way. Third Way is this kind of corporate centrist democratic organization that decided over the last month to make Hassan Piker the biggest issue in Democratic Party politics. Hassan Piker came out to Philadelphia and campaigned with Chris Rab after that AOC also endorsed him as well. Let's roll a little bit of Hassan Piker at his rally in Philadelphia. But the Democrats, some of them also love the very same things. They don't love you. They don't care about you. They don't care about your interests.

1:06:24And that's precisely the reason why letting your voice be heard in the primary system is almost as important, if not more important, because the Democratic Party's primary is what determines the trajectory of the Democratic Party. If you're angry because there's people like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, people like John Fetterman. Don't say the F word. Not a lot of not a lot of Fetterman fans in here. He's no fan of mine either. He's always on Fox News yapping. And I want you to understand, I identify as a democratic socialist, but I'm running as a democrat because the system creates this narrowness.

1:07:08But there's a bunch of democrats running and we are not all the same. We are very different. We may share this label in this moment, in this system, but we are very different. So if you choose to register as a Democrat, you are not pledging allegiance to that party. You are using your power in that moment to vote for the person who you believe reflects your interests. Your interests and the interests of the communities that you hold most dear. Some of whose members cannot vote. because they may be too young, or they may not be citizens, or they may be incarcerated. There are a number of people who will not vote for any number of reasons.

1:08:04So when you're voting, you're voting for them as well. So Third Way put the spotlight on this race by putting the spotlight on Hassan Piker. The result, Chris Rapp with a resounding victory. Hassan Piker also then went out much of the chagrin of Third Way and campaigned, also AIPAC campaigned with Abdul El-Sayed, the Senate candidate in Michigan. El-Sayed was in third place when that started to happen. El-Sayed is now in first place. So just a spectacular collapse on the part of both AIPAC and Third Way here.

1:08:56Hey guys, it's us, the Jonas Brothers. I'm Joe. I'm Kevin. And I'm Nick. And guess what? We created our own podcast called Hey Jonas. We invented a podcast? Well, we didn't invent it. We just contributed to it. We're the first people to do podcasts. We get to ask other people questions because we're sick and tired of being asked questions. Well, sick and tired is a strong way to put it, but you know. Tired and sick. Tired and sick. Listen to Hey Jonas on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Just listen. We don't care where you hear it.

1:09:47We're starving for banter. Listen to Humor Me with Robert Smigel and friends on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players and iHeart Podcast presents Soccer Moms. So I'm Leanne. Yeah. This is my best friend, Janet. Hey. And we have been joined at the hip since high school. Absolutely. A redacted amount of years later, we're still joined at the hip. Just a little bit bigger hips. This is a podcast. We're recording it as we tailgate our youth soccer games in the back of my Honda Odyssey. With all the snacks and drinks. Why did you get hard seltzer instead of beer?

1:10:20Oh, they had a BOGO. Well, then you got them. Listen to Soccer Moms on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.