Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to another edition of The Cajun
Speaker 1: Night Live. I am your host, the Cajun Knight, Jacob
Speaker 1: Mook and Man. We got a lot of things to
Speaker 1: talk about here. We're gonna be talking about some geopolitical
Speaker 1: We're gonna be talking about some dose. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about some Russia. We're gonna be talking about some
Speaker 1: American controversy going on, not just Doze but also within
Speaker 1: our own defense administration. We're gonna be talking about some
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency heights from North Korea. We're gonna be talking about
Speaker 1: some crazy anthropological things. We got all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: to talk about here. But first, I would like to
Speaker 1: thank everybody for joining me on this evening and to
Speaker 1: anybody listening to this show on the following day, on Thursday,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, or whatever day of the
Speaker 1: week you happen to find this episode. If you would
Speaker 1: like to join into this conversation and be a part
Speaker 1: of The Cajun Night Live, then please come check out
Speaker 1: the Cajun Night on Patreon. Link is in the description below.
Speaker 1: There there's only one tier. He'll be able to join
Speaker 1: in and share things add into the conversation. Or banter
Speaker 1: back and forth, maybe debate some of the topics you've
Speaker 1: heard brought up, and maybe you disagree with some of
Speaker 1: the things, Hey, bring it on. We would like to
Speaker 1: discuss these things in this open forum. There is no
Speaker 1: hatred here. There is only the sharing of ideas and
Speaker 1: hopefully a tad bit of growth from all parties involved.
Speaker 1: At least that's the goal anyway. So with that being said,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead. I'm gonna share the scream and I
Speaker 1: wanted to kick off with this first. Uh well this
Speaker 1: really first talking point. That's not the one, all right.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if anybody heard about this yet
Speaker 1: or not. I'm sure most of my good following on
Speaker 1: the Cage to Night has, but the Trump administration is
Speaker 1: facing backlash from the Signal security breach. Now we have
Speaker 1: another article that pulled up right after this, but this
Speaker 1: is gonna kind of give it the quick and dirty
Speaker 1: of it if anybody is unaware. Long story short, there
Speaker 1: was a Signal group. Signal was an app and it's
Speaker 1: used because it's encrypted on both ends, and that's why
Speaker 1: it's seen as quote unquote secure, even though we all
Speaker 1: know if it's on the Internet, it's not secure. That's
Speaker 1: just the way it goes. But basically, some very key
Speaker 1: members of our heads of state, vice president, head of
Speaker 1: the NSA, head of the God these things were in
Speaker 1: this group chat and they were discussing plans to attack
Speaker 1: Hoothy Rebels, which we support here on the Cage to Night.
Speaker 1: We really are not fans of the Hoothy Rebels. But
Speaker 1: long story short, they accidentally added in a really high
Speaker 1: up editor of a journalism post, The Atlantic, mister Goldberg,
Speaker 1: I know, I know c the Jewish hate already. I
Speaker 1: can hear it from the ether coming through. But anyway, look,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead and play this quick little video about it,
Speaker 1: and then we'll read the article. Y'all tell me what
Speaker 1: y'all think.
Speaker 2: Broken windows and shattered glass could be seen in the
Speaker 2: aftermath of US strikes on the Hooties in Yemen, but
Speaker 2: more focus is being put on the fallout from details
Speaker 2: of the attack being mistakenly shared in advance with a journalist.
Speaker 2: Atlantic editor, Jeffrey Goldberg says National Security Advisor Mike Waltz
Speaker 2: added him to a group chat on the Signal app
Speaker 2: with other key members of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: All right, real quick, I'm going to read off. And
Speaker 1: this is not the entire list of the people whose
Speaker 1: names were in this group chat. This is, however, some
Speaker 1: of them maybe you've heard of them. Mike Walls, that
Speaker 1: would be the National Security Advisor. Jd Vance that would
Speaker 1: be our VP, Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, Pete hegseef's
Speaker 1: Defense Secretary, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, Sulci Gabbert, director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence, and Steven Miller, the deputy of White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff. All of them and more were
Speaker 1: in this group chat and it accidentally got leaked because
Speaker 1: this dude with the Atlantic accidentally got added to it
Speaker 1: and just kind of sat silently and watched it all.
Speaker 1: But we continue jin.
Speaker 3: It's embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Yes, we're going to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 2: Waltz took full responsibility, but says it had no impact
Speaker 2: on the actual attack in Yemen. We made a mistake.
Speaker 2: We're moving forward, and we're going to continue to knock
Speaker 2: it out of the park for this president. President Trump
Speaker 2: is defending Waltz and saying that his National security advisor
Speaker 2: would not be fired.
Speaker 4: No, I don't think he should apologize.
Speaker 2: But Democrats are not ready to give the top national
Speaker 2: security officials a pass, arguing the messages could have put
Speaker 2: American lives at risk if they were seen by the
Speaker 2: wrong people. The problem with mistakes when bombs are flying
Speaker 2: and pilots are piloting F eighteen's and F thirty five
Speaker 2: over dangerous territory is that a mistake gets people killed. Today,
Speaker 2: House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries wrote President Trump a letter
Speaker 2: saying Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should resign.
Speaker 1: Okay, so before we get into the the people that
Speaker 1: are just kind of going over the top with it,
Speaker 1: I will say this. Pete Hegseth released a statement on
Speaker 1: the UH on the issue, basically calling the Atlantic editor
Speaker 1: or the the whatever executive mister Goldberg called him a
Speaker 1: professional liar who has made a career out of spouting
Speaker 1: hoaxes and misinformation and all of these things. And while
Speaker 1: that may be true, that there may be some truth
Speaker 1: to the statements being made by our boy Hegseeth, that
Speaker 1: doesn't detract from the fact that what he saw with
Speaker 1: this group chat was verified, true information and all of
Speaker 1: those people on the list were absolutely in this list
Speaker 1: and UH and so basically, and I saw a couple
Speaker 1: of interviews and I wanted to pull them up, but
Speaker 1: they're they're very long winded in the uh the MSNBC
Speaker 1: reporter that was talking to mister Goldberg, if anybody wants
Speaker 1: to look it up, it there's videos galore. He's been
Speaker 1: making his rounds on all the big mainstream media news
Speaker 1: outlets talking about it. Essentially, there was and I forget
Speaker 1: who the other guy was, but JG. There is another
Speaker 1: head of a department with the initials JG. And they're
Speaker 1: thinking that Marco Rubio might have accidentally added this JG
Speaker 1: rather than the correct JG. He got added to the
Speaker 1: chat and didn't contribute anything to the conversation. He just
Speaker 1: sat in the background quietly and just whatever. They even
Speaker 1: asked for verification from everybody to like make sure that
Speaker 1: everything was on the up and up, and I guess
Speaker 1: decided to just continue on with the conversation even without
Speaker 1: all the verifications, but whatever, whatever. And they were talking
Speaker 1: about specific times and specific locations that would be struck
Speaker 1: in Yemen to attack Hoothy's. Now, mister Goldberg is not
Speaker 1: exactly a fan of the Hoothy rebels, so I mean,
Speaker 1: he didn't really say anything about it, and he also
Speaker 1: didn't know if this was more of a planning chat
Speaker 1: or if this was an execution style chat. And then
Speaker 1: when he saw certain strikes being made at the correct
Speaker 1: times and at the correct locations that were being discussed
Speaker 1: in this chat, that's when he realized, Okay, no, this
Speaker 1: is not a this is not a hypothetical conversation. This
Speaker 1: is a real planning chat that I just got added to.
Speaker 1: So he decided to publish it, not all of it, obviously,
Speaker 1: he did for national security reasons. He was he even
Speaker 1: said that he was going to be responsible and not
Speaker 1: release anything that was like yet to happen, but the
Speaker 1: attacks that did take place already, he felt comfortable releasing
Speaker 1: that information. And the big push right now is saying
Speaker 1: that this is just a gross incompetence from our current
Speaker 1: administration that they really didn't even make sure and verify
Speaker 1: that everybody in attendance was who they were supposed to
Speaker 1: be before they discussed some you know, clearly highly classified conversations. Right,
Speaker 1: this is a serious breach of OPSEC and that's something
Speaker 1: that we've heard a lot of people talk about in
Speaker 1: today as this whole thing is being brought to light.
Speaker 1: And while that's true, I mean, it's not like the houthies.
Speaker 1: Really we're gonna do anything with that information. Even if
Speaker 1: it did get released to them. They're not you know,
Speaker 1: they're not going nowhere. They're kind of locked in where
Speaker 1: they're at. But I digress. Anyway, Let's go ahead and
Speaker 1: read this article. It is from NBC, so take it
Speaker 1: with a grain of salt. I understand that it is
Speaker 1: going to probably just blast our current administration and all
Speaker 1: these things.
Speaker 5: But the.
Speaker 1: Truth is the truth on this one, it says. The
Speaker 1: Atlantic on Wednesday published a transcript of text messages showing
Speaker 1: that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth detailed US military attack plans
Speaker 1: in Yemen in a Signal group chat that inadvertently included
Speaker 1: the magazine's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. In an article
Speaker 1: titled here are the attack plans that Trump advisors shared
Speaker 1: on Signal, Goldberg quoted from the text in which hex
Speaker 1: Seth sified types of US military aircrafts and the timing
Speaker 1: of recent air strikes against Huthy militias and Yemen. The
Speaker 1: text did not include information about specific targets. Uh. This
Speaker 1: is a direct quote from one of them, he says,
Speaker 1: Uh one two, one, five, et f eighteen's launch first
Speaker 1: strike package. One of the texts says, referring to a
Speaker 1: type of military aircraft, UH, thirteen forty five. Actually I
Speaker 1: believe those are times, So twelve to fifteen Eastern Standard time,
Speaker 1: thirteen forty five trigger based F eighteen first strike windows
Speaker 1: starts to target terrorist is at his known location, so
Speaker 1: should be on time. Also strike drones launch m Q nine's.
Speaker 1: So like this was an actual technical play by play
Speaker 1: of what they were about to do and why and
Speaker 1: all of this stuff. So I mean, A, I'm glad
Speaker 1: that the heads of state are communicating these things in
Speaker 1: that way. B. I'm not happy that an editor in
Speaker 1: chief of a traditionally very liberal news outlet was a
Speaker 1: part of this conversation. And see I'm not happy that
Speaker 1: they didn't verify all of the people. But neither hear
Speaker 1: nor there. Goldberg and Shane Harris, a national security and
Speaker 1: intelligence reporter at the Atlantic, published the latest article a
Speaker 1: day after President Donald Trump's administration tried to downplay the
Speaker 1: magazine's first report about the signal threat. Asked about the
Speaker 1: matter Tuesday, Trump said it wasn't classified information. Hex Set,
Speaker 1: speaking to reporters on Monday, said, in part nobody was
Speaker 1: texting war plans. That's a direct quote from him. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, he hex Seth has said that
Speaker 1: to a couple of different cameras that had been in
Speaker 1: his face, like nobody was texting war plans. It wasn't
Speaker 1: anything like that. This wasn't classified information. I understand you
Speaker 1: trying to save face, but you it's also very possible
Speaker 1: that you got caught slipping on this one. And I'm
Speaker 1: a fan of heg Seth. I am don't don't don't
Speaker 1: make it, you know, don't get it twisted like I'm
Speaker 1: over here trying to shit on him. I'm not. This
Speaker 1: was a little bit of a breach though. Somebody, somebody
Speaker 1: dropped the ball here. We can just be adults to
Speaker 1: acknowledge that. But the administration is doing that. If anything,
Speaker 1: they're doubling and tripling down on the fact that it's
Speaker 1: not what it looks like, which I guess you gotta
Speaker 1: say face where you can. On Wednesday, Trump was left
Speaker 1: less definitive. Asked by reporters in the Oval Office if
Speaker 1: he still believes nothing classified was shared, Trump responded, that's
Speaker 1: what I've heard. I don't know. I'm not sure. You
Speaker 1: have to ask the various people involved, I really don't know. Yeah.
Speaker 1: For the record, Trump was not a part of this
Speaker 1: group chat. Jd Vance was, but Trump himself was not.
Speaker 1: In a testimony at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday,
Speaker 1: National Intelligence Director Tulsa Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: both claimed no classified material was shared in the group chat.
Speaker 1: Ratcliffe said his communications in the Signal Message group were
Speaker 1: entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.
Speaker 1: The intelligence officials both testified Tuesday that Hegseth was the
Speaker 1: quote original classifying authority on the chat. Goldberg and Harris
Speaker 1: wrote in the article published Wednesday that these statements by
Speaker 1: heg Seth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump, combined with the assertions
Speaker 1: made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about
Speaker 1: the content of the signal text, have led us to
Speaker 1: believe that people should see the text in order to
Speaker 1: reach their own conclusions. So this is the other. This
Speaker 1: is one of the there's a picture right here. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, if anybody wants to see this again,
Speaker 1: it will be the video will be up on the
Speaker 1: Cajun Night on Patreon. But it says jd Vance was
Speaker 1: like what Mike Walls says, typing too fast. The first
Speaker 1: target their top missile guy. We had positive idea on
Speaker 1: him walking into his girlfriend's building and it's now collapsed.
Speaker 1: Jdvance responds, excellent. Mike Walls responded with a fist American
Speaker 1: flag fire p P pure. I like it. I like
Speaker 1: these things. But either way, there's a direct quote from
Speaker 1: Goldberg and Harris. There's a clear public interest in disclosing
Speaker 1: the sort of information that Trump advisors included in non
Speaker 1: secure communication channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting
Speaker 1: to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.
Speaker 1: Information about the upcoming US military attack on an adversary
Speaker 1: is typically considered to be classified, according to at least
Speaker 1: four former national security and intelligence officials who had handled
Speaker 1: legal matters. The former officials did not know anything specific
Speaker 1: about the status of the information in the signal chat,
Speaker 1: but they said it would be difficult to imagine a
Speaker 1: scenario in which details of the military operations would not
Speaker 1: be treated as secret and damaging if disclosed. I tend
Speaker 1: to agree with that personally, but anyway, so that is
Speaker 1: the overall gist of it now, as I said, this
Speaker 1: did not detract or take away from the attacks that
Speaker 1: took place. They still want all without a hitch. The
Speaker 1: targets were hit and to the knowledge of everybody that
Speaker 1: you know, quote unquote matters or is in the know,
Speaker 1: the people that got attacked and were supposed to be
Speaker 1: hit got hit. Like it was very successful top to
Speaker 1: bottom here. And I do not know. I don't know
Speaker 1: if there was any civilian casualties that were hit as
Speaker 1: a you know, innocent biastandard to it. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it was a one hundred percent success rate or
Speaker 1: whatever the case was. But what we do know is
Speaker 1: that the top guys they wanted got got got So
Speaker 1: I'm taking that as a all around w However, it's
Speaker 1: gonna take a little bit of time to let this
Speaker 1: one blow over to save face, and for the love
Speaker 1: of God, they need to start verifying their their participants
Speaker 1: in the chat. But anyway, uh, let's see here, We're
Speaker 1: gonna some people in the chats have put in some
Speaker 1: things here. Let's see Raven says, how uh, Anthony says
Speaker 1: accidentally got added and leaked. I have to think it
Speaker 1: was an accident because there was another JG in God
Speaker 1: I wish I could remember the guy's name. But there
Speaker 1: was another JG that was supposed to be added to
Speaker 1: that chat. But like, bro, how do you how do
Speaker 1: you mistake the guy you're looking for with this dude,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Goldberg. It might be it might be Tony. I
Speaker 1: think you might be onto something Jeffrey Goldberg. Maybe what
Speaker 1: position does he hold? I forget off the top of
Speaker 1: my head.
Speaker 6: But he's an editor at the Atlantic magazine.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, he But there is a JG that
Speaker 1: currently holds a seat of power in America right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which department he's ahead of, or a
Speaker 1: director of or a secretary of something along those lines.
Speaker 1: But there was another JG that they were trying to
Speaker 1: add to the chat, and they accidentally added John Goldberg
Speaker 1: or jeff Goldberg where his name is? But yeah, that
Speaker 1: was a big misstep. And again this is I doubt
Speaker 1: that this was supposed to happen, like there was a
Speaker 1: quote unquote accident. I believe it actually really was a
Speaker 1: genuine accident, and thankfully it got corrected and thankfully it
Speaker 1: didn't get in the way of the attacks as they
Speaker 1: were supposed to happen. But my god, I mean talk
Speaker 1: about the one of the worst ideas is to have
Speaker 1: a reporter, and not just any reporter, a pretty well known,
Speaker 1: famous reporter added to your war plan chat that Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I see that as a little bit of an oopsie daisy,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. But anyway, Uh, let's see here. Uh,
Speaker 1: last time I heard of a fucking group chat. A
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, there was a Castralian Oh it is
Speaker 1: a castration in shit glad that Yeah. Yeah, Tulca Gabbard
Speaker 1: found out that big group chat with all of the
Speaker 1: members of the NSA. We're talking about how people in
Speaker 1: the of a post op trans setting, how they derived
Speaker 1: sexual pleasure without genitals anymore. And that was a whole
Speaker 1: thing that was in the news. So to my knowledge,
Speaker 1: everybody that was associated with that got fired like outright.
Speaker 1: And we haven't heard anything else about that as of yet.
Speaker 1: And now that Trump's cracking down all the DEI stuff,
Speaker 1: I doubt we're gonna hear anything else like that go down.
Speaker 1: But now we have to worry about military op sect
Speaker 1: in the group chat. That's because that's a that's a
Speaker 1: real thing that just happened, you know, and they're trying
Speaker 1: to downplay it as they would. It would be very
Speaker 1: easy for somebody just step up and be like they did. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, not the Secretary of Defense. It was a
Speaker 1: Secretary of National Security came and took ownership of it
Speaker 1: and said, look, that's on me. I added him that
Speaker 1: was my bad thing, was Ratcliffe. And he's like that
Speaker 1: that was my mistake. And I do appreciate that. Give
Speaker 1: credit word's due, But you know you can't. You can't
Speaker 1: undo this one one hundred percent. It's gonna take a
Speaker 1: little bit of time to let this one blow over.
Speaker 1: I am happy that the Houthis are pretty much all
Speaker 1: but exterminated at this moment. Well, the Hoothi rebels, I
Speaker 1: should say, the ones that are trying to get in
Speaker 1: the way of trade in the area. From what I've
Speaker 1: been given to understand and what I've read in articles,
Speaker 1: they have been pretty much all but wiped out. Now
Speaker 1: I know that that's not a one hundred percent accurate statement,
Speaker 1: because it's an insurgency, and there's only one way to
Speaker 1: get rid of an insurgency, and it with mimocide. And
Speaker 1: we don't need that, right, we really don't need that.
Speaker 1: But it uh, you know, I'm glad to see that
Speaker 1: the hooties are probably not going to be making any
Speaker 1: and he plays towards touching America's boats again for a
Speaker 1: good long while. This makes me happy. Yeah, Zombie Raven says,
Speaker 1: no way, they fucked up this bad. Yeah, No, it's
Speaker 1: it's bad. It really was a big drop of the ball.
Speaker 1: It's not as bad as Killery and her emails. I agree,
Speaker 1: Killery and her emails and old Biden's son in his laptop.
Speaker 1: I would say it would be a way further breach
Speaker 1: of OPSEC and national security. I agree with that. However,
Speaker 1: as we are currently in active conflict with these people,
Speaker 1: I'm with this is the It's embarrassing. It is flat
Speaker 1: out embarrassing. Tony, go ahead.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The people think or speculate was confused for JG was
Speaker 3: Jamison Greer, who's an American trade representative. So that might
Speaker 3: have been what God heg sith confused or maybe he
Speaker 3: just confused JD for JG. So that's what people are
Speaker 3: speculating about. That's for the hoo Thies. I would speculate
Speaker 3: personally that they hold onto power because they've been in
Speaker 3: power for about ten years now, that Saudis were not
Speaker 3: able to get rid of them, and they control about
Speaker 3: half the country. I don't think we'll be able to
Speaker 3: get rid of them either. They're still launching suicide drones
Speaker 3: at Israel, which is like a thousand miles away, and
Speaker 3: some of them reached the target, but I think most
Speaker 3: of them get shot down, but they were just doing
Speaker 3: that earlier today.
Speaker 1: As long as they do ont touch American boats, that's
Speaker 1: my big issue with them. So I don't know. And
Speaker 1: like you said, they're currently in control of over half
Speaker 1: the country and it's an insurgency. The only way to
Speaker 1: get rid of them would be basically all out gin side,
Speaker 1: which is not a good look. Nobody needs that kind
Speaker 1: of thing on the repertoire, so I don't want that.
Speaker 1: But at least, if anything, if they were to start
Speaker 1: changing their tone a bit and go more towards the
Speaker 1: controlling Yemen's side instead of trying to control the sea
Speaker 1: trade side, we'd probably leave them alone.
Speaker 3: But yeah, this is all about the trade. I liked
Speaker 3: jd Vance's take on the whole situation through the signal
Speaker 3: leaks because he was saying that only something like three
Speaker 3: percent of our trade goes through the Red Sea. The
Speaker 3: United States, but forty percent of Europe's trade goes through it.
Speaker 3: So he was asking everybody, what can we do to
Speaker 3: use this as leverage against the Europeans? What can we
Speaker 3: extract from them in exchange for opening up the sea
Speaker 3: lanes over there? And I'm okay with that. I figure
Speaker 3: if that, if this is all the way on the
Speaker 3: other side of the world, in the other hemisphere, that
Speaker 3: should be the responsibility of people over there, not ours.
Speaker 1: I fully agree. JD. Vance is taking a very a
Speaker 1: very oppositional stance to pretty much Europe as a whole
Speaker 1: that with some exceptions some countries, is a little more
Speaker 1: favorable towards, But yeah, he is not a fan of
Speaker 1: europe like at all. So if there's something that we
Speaker 1: could leverage against Europe to put ourselves in a better
Speaker 1: position over them, JD is on board with it.
Speaker 7: Man.
Speaker 1: He's been very vocal about that, especially in the past
Speaker 1: week and a half. It's a thing, It is a
Speaker 1: whole thing, which again, as we were talking about this
Speaker 1: tariff war that's going on here and which countries are
Speaker 1: actually gonna be playing a role in Ukraine, they all
Speaker 1: promised the world, but then none of them actually show
Speaker 1: up jd is he's on a motive right now, he's
Speaker 1: on a move. I support it, honestly. I like putting
Speaker 1: America first. I know it's a crazy concept, but uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I personally like that we have leaders that
Speaker 1: are putting America first. Let's see here, Raven says, good
Speaker 1: on they have all they have shit all over us
Speaker 1: over for over a decade. There's so many things they
Speaker 1: have said and pushed forward in to penalize America. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. One hundred percent. They penalized us and
Speaker 1: talked all kinds of shit on us for the twenty
Speaker 1: two years of war that we had going on in
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan, which fine, fine, I get it. Europeans
Speaker 1: weren't really a big fan of military American military intervention
Speaker 1: and they still aren't. And we were just having this
Speaker 1: conversation on the cults. As a matter of fact, It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, if, realistically, if Trump woke up tomorrow and
Speaker 1: decided that he wanted to in the conflict in Russia
Speaker 1: and Ukraine and in the conflict in Israel in Gaza,
Speaker 1: and he wanted to deploy troops there, and just that
Speaker 1: would be the end of it. Just hard line. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we could do that. That is a that is a
Speaker 1: physical thing that could happen. Nobody wants that. Nobody wants that.
Speaker 1: Americans don't want that, Europeans don't want that. And even
Speaker 1: if we did, even if these people were begging for
Speaker 1: us to come in there, the second US boots touched
Speaker 1: the ground, you're gonna have everybody and their mom come
Speaker 1: out to just point the fingers, say up. America is
Speaker 1: trying to be the world police American intervention. It's it's
Speaker 1: it's a no win situation. So I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: not it's like a moot talking point. Now, who's touching
Speaker 1: our boats? Yeah? Yeah, no, we got time for that.
Speaker 1: We absolutely have time for that. But anyway, so that
Speaker 1: was all I wanted to bring up on that talking point.
Speaker 1: It's a uh, it's a whole thing. Hold on, we're
Speaker 1: even why would we do this when power is up
Speaker 1: for grabs? It is this is a chess game that
Speaker 1: has multiple pieces on the board, So that is strategic. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I agree, that's what I'm saying. It's is it possible
Speaker 1: for us to end this ship once and for all? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Will we? Nah, that's not our beef. It's not our fight.
Speaker 1: Why would we get involved with it? And I'm again
Speaker 1: thankful that we have an administration that seas that way.
Speaker 1: That's wonderful. Let other people deal with their problems. Once
Speaker 1: it becomes us problem, then we will intervene. But right now, no,
Speaker 1: that's a dumb problem. So I personally like this a lot.
Speaker 1: Tony says, we do it for Israel, not for Europe. Well,
Speaker 1: that's because of the long standing ties that America has
Speaker 1: with Israel. We are the thickest, the thickest of homies
Speaker 1: with Israel. And I know people have a lot of
Speaker 1: different opinions on that. I get it, all the things,
Speaker 1: all the stuff, but until further notice, America is you're
Speaker 1: going to be locked in, just locked in.
Speaker 3: But anyway, yeah, that is the explanation. Because Trump doesn't
Speaker 3: like Europe either, not really like Israel.
Speaker 1: Trump does like Israel, and I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: really a fan of net and Yahoo like as a dude,
Speaker 1: I know they're they're cordial, they're friendly and everything else,
Speaker 1: but it's like, and that's the other part of geopolitics
Speaker 1: that are kind of crazy to watch play out. How
Speaker 1: much of it is actually like two heads of state
Speaker 1: being homeboys, And how much of it is the representative
Speaker 1: of Israel and the representative of America keeping up the alliances,
Speaker 1: of keeping the countries as homeboys, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: Like there was a big thing with Russian collusion when
Speaker 1: Trump got elected the first time, they were trying to
Speaker 1: say that Putin and Trump were like actually secretly like
Speaker 1: really good friends, like they talk all the time on
Speaker 1: the phone. That's not true. But I could envision a
Speaker 1: world where Putin and Trump could also like get together
Speaker 1: and have a beer together and like two peas in
Speaker 1: a pod kind of thing. I could see a world
Speaker 1: where that's a true statement. But how much of it
Speaker 1: is keeping up the relations on behalf of your nation
Speaker 1: and how much of it is them hanging out with
Speaker 1: a friend of theirs. There's like a dance to be
Speaker 1: had here. There's a game to be played. I don't
Speaker 1: think that Trump and net and Yahoo are friends. I
Speaker 1: think that they are friendly on behalf of their nations,
Speaker 1: if that makes sense.
Speaker 3: I think they used to be personal friends. But then
Speaker 3: when Netton Yahoo recognized Joe Biden as the president elect
Speaker 3: right after the election in twenty twenty, I think Trump
Speaker 3: really soured on him. A lot of people noticed that
Speaker 3: Trump unfollowed Nettan Yahoo on Twitter that day, and he's
Speaker 3: had a few kind of negative comments about him since then,
Speaker 3: but they're tempered for sure, and Trump has always been
Speaker 3: As far as the partisan divide goes in Israel, the
Speaker 3: Net and Yahoo Lukud faction lines up more with Republicans,
Speaker 3: and the Ahood Barack faction lines up more with Democrats.
Speaker 3: And Jeffrey Epstein was more in the Ahood Barack faction,
Speaker 3: so that is another thing to be aware of. And
Speaker 3: Putin has also been sort of personally friendly with Net
Speaker 3: and Yahoo for many many years, and I think that
Speaker 3: relationship has also soured a little bit over the last
Speaker 3: five years or so, but I think it had helped
Speaker 3: them avoid all out war over Syria in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 3: So I would totally agree with you that these random
Speaker 3: interpersonal relationships do influence. It's a lot on the world stage.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that Net and Yahoo and Putin were
Speaker 1: like friendly in that regardless on a personal level, because
Speaker 1: Putin and the Ayatola have been really even I'm not
Speaker 1: going to say close, but as far as like on
Speaker 1: behalf of their nations. They have a very very good
Speaker 1: working relationship and have for a very long time. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that Putin was kind of friendly towards netanyago, though.
Speaker 1: It kind of makes sense when you think about it.
Speaker 1: The two big Russian bases for the Mediterranean Sea or
Speaker 1: in Syria right there to Israel's northern border, so it
Speaker 1: would make sense that you would want to keep the
Speaker 1: area and a relative state of peace. I know he
Speaker 1: was really tight friends with the Assad regime, so I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: you could see and why they would keep it friendly
Speaker 1: on the southern side of that towards Israel too.
Speaker 3: Sure, Yeah, I think Putin used to be friendlier with
Speaker 3: the NET and Yahoo, and the relationship has gotten worse
Speaker 3: and worse over the years. But Putin's been in power
Speaker 3: in Russia since nineteen ninety nine, with only very brief
Speaker 3: four years pause around twenty ten. But yeah, Russia has
Speaker 3: been very friendly and Russia has been a strategic enemy
Speaker 3: of Israel for a very long time, with very few
Speaker 3: exceptions except for you know, the late forties, and you know,
Speaker 3: they've supported Syria, Egypt. They put their military assets in
Speaker 3: Egypt during the nineteen sixties and seventies. They built AK
Speaker 3: forty seven factories through the Arab world. But Russia, the
Speaker 3: Russian government does not wear its feelings on its sleeves
Speaker 3: as much as the Iranian and Arab governments do regarding Israel.
Speaker 1: So very true, very true, And I don't think Putin
Speaker 1: actually has any kind of Most of the Arabic countries
Speaker 1: have a a real systemic dog in the fight against Israel.
Speaker 1: I don't think Russia really has a dog in that fight.
Speaker 1: And like you said in the in the forties, I mean,
Speaker 1: and yes, is I know this is gonna sound anti
Speaker 1: Semitic as hell here, but yeah, Russia we had some
Speaker 1: pogroms where they were very unkind to the Jewish population.
Speaker 1: So once Israel became a nation, they were like, send
Speaker 1: all of them there, what's up. They were cool with
Speaker 1: Israel because it was getting rid of their Jewish quote
Speaker 1: unquote Jewish problem. So yeah, I could see them being
Speaker 1: friendly with them, at least in the beginning. But as
Speaker 1: the Cold War pressed on and as the lines got
Speaker 1: divided with which Arab nations were friendly with Russia versus
Speaker 1: friendly with capitalist nations and NATO, it, yeah, I could
Speaker 1: see how things would sour these days. Though, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't think that he really has. I think you're right
Speaker 1: the situation between Putin and net and Yahoo has probably
Speaker 1: soured on a personal level, but on behalf of each country.
Speaker 1: It's not like Russia's sending fighters into Israel or Gaza.
Speaker 1: They don't care, but they will definitely sell Iran some
Speaker 1: weapons or you know, I could see that one hundred percent.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, one hundred percent.
Speaker 3: By the way, the programs from hundred years ago, they
Speaker 3: all took place in what is now Ukraine, and I
Speaker 3: believe Belarus, what is Russia today, did not have any
Speaker 3: of them because most of the Jews lived in the
Speaker 3: former Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. I think this gets into the weeds,
Speaker 3: but I find it kind of ironic that Israel's on
Speaker 3: Ukraine's side now, even though that's where pretty much all
Speaker 3: the pugromes happened one hundred plus years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Times changed things, you know, they really really do.
Speaker 1: And I know Putin's been on this whole Denazification push
Speaker 1: that that's been as big kick this whole time. But
Speaker 1: at the time, you're right, these places were a part
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Union, so it was like the Royal
Speaker 1: the Royal Quotations of Russia proper so to speak. So
Speaker 1: I mean we, like you said, it's getting into the
Speaker 1: weeds a bit. But yeah, yeah, these days, especially the
Speaker 1: Poles and opinions have changed a bit. Go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 8: The only thing I was going to suggest is a
Speaker 8: possible reason for Israel, not necessarily my Ukraine, is that
Speaker 8: there were actually a lot of acidic masters in Ukraine
Speaker 8: throughout the seventeenth eighteenth century.
Speaker 9: So like there there are there's a famous robbi named
Speaker 9: Rabbi Nelson of wrestler where that whole wrestler movement comes from,
Speaker 9: and that is in Ukraine, and like every single year
Speaker 9: they're like literally thousands, like tens of thousands.
Speaker 5: Of people that go visit the grave site.
Speaker 8: Of Reminessen in in Uman.
Speaker 5: So you know that could also make sense.
Speaker 1: Okay, I did not know that, And I mean that
Speaker 1: makes sense as far as the Oshkenazi movement goes. I mean,
Speaker 1: they settled a big portion that went to Germany, a
Speaker 1: big portion that went to Poland. But I'm I mean,
Speaker 1: we're talking about Ukraine and Belarus and all that right there,
Speaker 1: the Lithuanian Commonwealth, like that's all that's all Central and
Speaker 1: Northern European connected, So that makes sense that they would
Speaker 1: have a fairly large Jewish population there for sure in
Speaker 1: the fifteenth and sixteenth century, like you just said, that
Speaker 1: was kind of when they really set down roots in
Speaker 1: that section of Europe too, if I'm not mistaken, right, So.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there are definitely some very famous rabbis that have
Speaker 8: come out of there, Like the Lithuanians are like a
Speaker 8: huge sect in and of them and of themselves nice
Speaker 8: like you have. There's thirty thousand people, forty thousand people
Speaker 8: on Russia Shana and various other times like they will
Speaker 8: specifically go there. And I think the Balshamptov also was,
Speaker 8: who was basically one of the founding fathers of a
Speaker 8: sidem in general.
Speaker 5: I believe his greave site is also in Ukraine.
Speaker 8: So there's definitely a lot historically, at least farm the
Speaker 8: more religious ends of the spectrum.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, let's not forget in Zelensky Jewish himself.
Speaker 5: I think I heard, I mean I have heard that, yes, right,
Speaker 5: And I.
Speaker 1: Know Putin's all about the denotification as he's attacking a
Speaker 1: Jewish head of state, but you know, yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: whole other thing. But you know, while we're on the topic,
Speaker 1: of Russia. Before we talk about this CBS thing here,
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring this one up. This is kind
Speaker 1: of interesting, and I don't think that there's really much
Speaker 1: weight to be put behind this, I know, but I
Speaker 1: also think it's interesting that this is happening again. Russia's
Speaker 1: commander doubles down on Putin's coup and calls as security
Speaker 1: elites turn against the Kremlin. Now, this is from the Express.
Speaker 1: It's a UK publication, but let's talk about it here.
Speaker 1: A Russian private military company a PMC told the Express
Speaker 1: that their commander stands by his overthrow Vladimir Putin. Greg
Speaker 1: gory Zakravinsky think I nailed that. One is the founder
Speaker 1: of the Paladin PMC, and the Paladin PMC is a
Speaker 1: pretty well known one as far as Russian military contractors
Speaker 1: are concerned. They are not nearly as big as the
Speaker 1: Wagner group once was, but they are one of them.
Speaker 1: It says many military shadow groups like the former Wagner
Speaker 1: group that are linked to the Krimlin. Now, to give
Speaker 1: everybody a little bit of perspective here, the Wagner force
Speaker 1: was I think twenty or thirty thousand strong just a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago before their leader tried to really
Speaker 1: launch a coup on Moscow and got shut down, and
Speaker 1: the guy died in a freak plane accident, as one
Speaker 1: would expect when you try to take down the leader
Speaker 1: of Russia. But whatever, Now, the Paladin Group, I think
Speaker 1: I read somewhere that they have maybe one to two
Speaker 1: thousand strong, So they are not a big player by
Speaker 1: any means, but they are one of the more well
Speaker 1: known PMCs of Russia. Their reach is pretty far. They've been,
Speaker 1: you know, showcased in a couple of conflict areas of Russia,
Speaker 1: a couple of places in Africa, the Middle East. The
Speaker 1: military commander launched a blistering attack on the Russian president
Speaker 1: during a video recording in which he blamed all the
Speaker 1: military failures in Ukraine on Putin. Personally, I personally think
Speaker 1: that's a bit misguided, you know. It's not like Putin
Speaker 1: is one of the generals making the calls for which
Speaker 1: places to attack. But I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: how hands on our boy Putin it actually is with
Speaker 1: what goes down on the front lines, or is he
Speaker 1: more of the guy in the armchair and the generals
Speaker 1: are more that I don't know. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: you know either way. He also went on to accuse
Speaker 1: Putin of causing all of Russia's economic and social ills,
Speaker 1: and he urged the military to rise up and free
Speaker 1: the country from the tyrants rule. As previously reported by
Speaker 1: The Express, Zekravinsky's attack was published in a short edited
Speaker 1: video clip on social media channels in August. This is
Speaker 1: the guy in question right here, and this is this
Speaker 1: and a clip. There's just a screenshot of it. I
Speaker 1: tried finding the video itself. They did have it translated
Speaker 1: into English. You could understand exactly what he was saying.
Speaker 1: This was a scathing clip of him just shitting all
Speaker 1: over putin top to bottom and basically telling everybody to
Speaker 1: turn against him. At this time, the video is been
Speaker 1: scrubbed all the sources where I found it from earlier today.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, I can't find the video again.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but I can't find it.
Speaker 1: I had like three different sources that I had pulled up,
Speaker 1: and when I went back to send it to my computer,
Speaker 1: they're gone. They're white, I know. Shocker. When asked by
Speaker 1: The Express to elaborate on the commander's criticisms. A Spokesposton
Speaker 1: spokesperson excuse me for the militias, initially denied the leader
Speaker 1: had criticized Putin or urged his removal. They claimed the
Speaker 1: video clip had been maliciously deck doctored and edited to
Speaker 1: convey that impression. However, when pressed on whether zev Kravinsky
Speaker 1: had complete faith in Putin's domestic policies the leadership of
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine, they failed to give a clear endorsement,
Speaker 1: telling The Express to draw your own conclusions. Subsequently, a
Speaker 1: spokesperson told The Express in a further email that the
Speaker 1: original article on their leader's criticisms had correctly reflected his views.
Speaker 1: So we're already getting conflicting reports of well, what was said,
Speaker 1: what was actually intended? All of these things they wrote,
Speaker 1: you did not invent anything, did not exaggerate or minimize,
Speaker 1: did not improve or worsen the image of our leader.
Speaker 1: Zakravisky's outburst is indicative of a growing dissatisfaction among security
Speaker 1: yeah security elits with Putin, according to professor Mark Galaghdi
Speaker 1: from the Russi think Tank. He told The Express that
Speaker 1: there was increasingly fragmentation with Russia's security apparatus. And that
Speaker 1: Putin could no longer count on their unconditional support. He
Speaker 1: noted that this fragmentation was also clearly visible during the
Speaker 1: last year's Wagner mutiny, when the National Guard troops, Yeah,
Speaker 1: national Guard troops stayed in their barracks and their commanders
Speaker 1: remained deliberately out of contact so as not to have
Speaker 1: carry out the orders. I'm not suggesting we're going to
Speaker 1: see a mercenary coup because if nothing else, the mercenaries
Speaker 1: themselves are divided, they're not really political, and they're not
Speaker 1: under type control. So I'm not going to read the
Speaker 1: rest of this article. But this is the guy who
Speaker 1: tried to lead the coup last time and then got
Speaker 1: got all right, that was pregosion. But long story short,
Speaker 1: this guy is calling for an all out coup against
Speaker 1: Putin at this time. I wouldn't be surprised if he
Speaker 1: also gets got in that regard. Really and truly this
Speaker 1: is it's not a good look, but it's a small PMC.
Speaker 1: And if small by comparison anyway, and if even if
Speaker 1: every single one of his contractors decided to like march
Speaker 1: on Moscow right now, they are not gonna get far.
Speaker 1: Hel Wagner couldn't even get far. And they actually redirected
Speaker 1: whole battalions of troops to Moscow for that purpose and
Speaker 1: they got stopped. This isn't gonna happen. I think that
Speaker 1: he is upset. I think he's very aggravated, and I
Speaker 1: also think that Putin is starting to feel some pressure.
Speaker 1: I just saw another and there's another clip that I
Speaker 1: could not find. Again. He gave a national address, as
Speaker 1: he does every year to Russia, and in this address
Speaker 1: he had opened up a little bit of the floor
Speaker 1: for some questions, and there was one of the biggest
Speaker 1: oligarchs in Russia. And I'm not saying oligarch has like
Speaker 1: a negative connotation. That's how the politics go in Russia.
Speaker 1: It's okay, we have oligarchs in America too. Not thrown
Speaker 1: shade on that. This man stood up and basically went
Speaker 1: on to say, you know you're too week. Military operation
Speaker 1: has gone on three years. We are bastardized by the
Speaker 1: entire world. Our economy is on the brink of collapse.
Speaker 1: We are out producing NATO four to one in munitions,
Speaker 1: but our people are starving, and we are questioning your
Speaker 1: leadership abilities at this time, do you genuinely believe that
Speaker 1: you are making the right move on behalf of the
Speaker 1: Russian people. Now, when I heard this, I'm thinking that
Speaker 1: maybe maybe the translation was wrong, right, because it was
Speaker 1: a Russian to English translation. I'm thinking, all right, maybe
Speaker 1: maybe they did that just for the article, right, just
Speaker 1: for the just for the while and shock and all
Speaker 1: factor for Western media. And I get that right. I
Speaker 1: plugged it into a translator later on. This happened. I
Speaker 1: saw it first thing this morning, and actually had some
Speaker 1: time this morning while I was doing some laundry, and
Speaker 1: I plugged into a translator. What I just gave you
Speaker 1: wasn't a word for word or batim of what was said.
Speaker 1: It's kind of the keynotes. Putin, of course, defended his
Speaker 1: title and said, yes, I do believe this, and this
Speaker 1: is why and these things and these things. My point is,
Speaker 1: though the Russian oligarchs are starting to seriously question Putin's
Speaker 1: leadership abilities. Now, I believe that guy himself will probably
Speaker 1: get god here in the next week for publicly and
Speaker 1: nationally coming at Putin in that manner and on that
Speaker 1: kind of platform that was on national television live. It's
Speaker 1: a bold strategy. Cotton. I do not think it's gonna
Speaker 1: work out for him, but either way it goes. We
Speaker 1: have PMC guys that are saying that we need to
Speaker 1: have a coup in Russia. We have oligarchs that are
Speaker 1: questioning Putin's like entire motives, his entire leadership capabilities. And
Speaker 1: then we also have this situation. Now Moscow was just
Speaker 1: getting lit up a few days ago. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, Ukraine launched this insane drone attack. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that the entirety of Moscow got pummeled to
Speaker 1: the ground, of course, not some very key critical infrastructure,
Speaker 1: some petroleum based plants, some storage facilities, some government buildings,
Speaker 1: all got hit with basically the equivalent of like a
Speaker 1: bunker buster, this type of missile. And they got hit
Speaker 1: by these drone attacks from Ukraine right after the ceasefire
Speaker 1: agreement was denied by Putin. And so now as Ukraine
Speaker 1: is losing ground and Cursk, I think they have very little,
Speaker 1: if any land under their control in the cursed region
Speaker 1: as we speak now Belgarod, and that it depends on
Speaker 1: the report you read on this, Okay, some reports are
Speaker 1: saying that Ukraine holds no ground in Belgarod and there
Speaker 1: was no actual land attack and it was all just drones.
Speaker 1: Then we have other reports showing that Belgarod is now
Speaker 1: not under Ukrainian control, but they have now taken land
Speaker 1: inside of mainland Russia in the Belgarod region. Now this
Speaker 1: is an ap article. I know they are extremely liberal leaning,
Speaker 1: which is why I think we need to kind of
Speaker 1: look at it with that type of lens to see
Speaker 1: what they are saying as far as this attack goes.
Speaker 1: This was published today. As a matter of fact, Russia's
Speaker 1: Belgarod region is under attack from Ukraine? Why does it
Speaker 1: keep getting targeted? What is the Belgarod region? Actually? That's
Speaker 1: read this part. Russian's Belgard region has come under increasing
Speaker 1: Ukrainian attacks this month as the invasion by Moscow grinds
Speaker 1: into its third year. A look at the region and
Speaker 1: its role in the war. The Belgarod region itself, the
Speaker 1: region of forests, farmlands and rolling hills, has a five
Speaker 1: hundred and forty kilometer border along Ukraine's northeastern edge. It
Speaker 1: has an area of over twenty seven thousand square kilometers
Speaker 1: and has a population of about one point five million.
Speaker 1: It holds about forty percent of Russia's iron ore and
Speaker 1: other minerals and is home to several major industrial companies
Speaker 1: and farms. The city of Belgarod, the provincial capital with
Speaker 1: a population of about three hundred and forty thousand, since
Speaker 1: only forty kilometers east of the border, making it an
Speaker 1: easy target for Ukrainian artillery. So what has the region
Speaker 1: faced up until this point? The region was one staging
Speaker 1: a ground for the invasion by Russia in February twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. It has come under regular Ukrainian attacks ever since.
Speaker 1: Russian forces retreated there from the northeastern Ukraine early in
Speaker 1: the war under the brunt of the counter offensive Baikiev.
Speaker 1: An attack on the city of Belgrade on December thirtieth
Speaker 1: marked a bloody escalation. A barrage of rockets struck on
Speaker 1: a holiday weekend as residents celebrated the new year. Officials
Speaker 1: said twenty five people were killed, including five children, and
Speaker 1: over one hundred were injured. The bloodshed also forced officials
Speaker 1: to cancel celebrations for the Orthodox feast of Epiphany on
Speaker 1: January nineteenth. Regular rocket and drone strikes have continued since then,
Speaker 1: and the area can be struck by relatively simple and
Speaker 1: mobile weapons such as multiple rocket launchers from forests on
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian side down to this part here. So what
Speaker 1: is Putin's reaction? The cross border shelling and incursions took place?
Speaker 1: As Putin has cemented his grip on power for another
Speaker 1: six years in a highly orchestrated election this month that
Speaker 1: followed a sweeping crack down on dissent. Putin says the
Speaker 1: attacks are an attempt to scare residents and quote, I'm
Speaker 1: sure that our people, the people of Russia, will respond
Speaker 1: to that with even greater cohesion. He said last week.
Speaker 1: He vows of the Ukrainian cross border attacks won't go unpunish, unpunished.
Speaker 1: Jesus venting particular angered at pro Kiev Russians who joined
Speaker 1: Ukrainian troops in the incursions, describing them as traders who
Speaker 1: will face imminent death. So we have pro Kiev Russians
Speaker 1: who joined the Ukrainian troops in the incursion. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: I think we already know how the Belgrade officials have responded. Yeah,
Speaker 1: no doubt, of course, ep No, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: donate to you focks. What do Ukrainian officials say? Ukrainian
Speaker 1: officials rarely comment on attacks inside of Russia, but they
Speaker 1: emphasized Kiev's right to use all means to counter Moscow's aggression.
Speaker 1: Ukrainian Foreign Minister not gonna pronounce that name said Tuesday
Speaker 1: that any military action there was the direct consequence of
Speaker 1: the illegal and unprovoked aggression of Russia against Ukrainia. Yeah, yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: So I've seen reports saying that there is absolutely boots
Speaker 1: on the ground in that area as we speak. I've
Speaker 1: seen other reports saying that it is kind of being
Speaker 1: blown out of proportion and it was just a series
Speaker 1: of drone strikes and it's not as serious as they're
Speaker 1: trying to make it out to be. Either way it goes,
Speaker 1: it's not looking really good as far as things go
Speaker 1: in Russia every time, like for instance, the Curse region,
Speaker 1: I saw them taking that land back as a positive
Speaker 1: for Russia. Good for them, they defended their territory, all
Speaker 1: these things. Yeah, they had to use North Korean troops
Speaker 1: and all these things. Yeah, yea, I'll find but at
Speaker 1: least they got their land back, and that meant that
Speaker 1: Ukraine lost their bargaining ship that they were trying to
Speaker 1: use as leverage in a ceasefire agreement. If this Belgarod,
Speaker 1: the situation is what some reports are saying. They may
Speaker 1: be trying to get another bargaining chit. Then we could
Speaker 1: also think about it this way, these attacks in Belgard.
Speaker 1: I don't believe the Ukraine's actually trying to take any
Speaker 1: land in this area, just Jacob speaking on behalf of
Speaker 1: Jacob and not being some sort of a military tactician
Speaker 1: by anyway, What I think is probably happening is they
Speaker 1: are attacking this area as a way to divert more
Speaker 1: troops and more resources to Bellgarod to try to relieve
Speaker 1: some of the other areas that they're fighting on right now.
Speaker 1: Russia only has so many troops to go around, right
Speaker 1: just like Ukraine only has so many troops to go around.
Speaker 1: I think that they are trying to hard point this
Speaker 1: offensive right now as a diversion. I could be so
Speaker 1: wrong here, but it kind of is playing out that way,
Speaker 1: and at least it reads that way on the on
Speaker 1: the chalkboard to me, I don't know, I could be
Speaker 1: go ahead, I.
Speaker 3: Totally agree with you. This actually reminds me a lot
Speaker 3: of how the Germans lashed out with V one and
Speaker 3: V two rockets towards again to World War Two, because
Speaker 3: they couldn't muster any manpower to invade England at that
Speaker 3: point that was out of the question, right, But yeah,
Speaker 3: he was in a similar situation. I also wanted to
Speaker 3: comment about Zakrivsky. I've never heard of Georghi Zakrevsky before,
Speaker 3: and I googled him. I searched for him on telegram
Speaker 3: on Google. The first results I was getting was from
Speaker 3: somebody with the same name two hundred years ago. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, he is really small potatoes compared to Pregojing,
Speaker 3: who was really famous and thought that he could pull
Speaker 3: it off because he was so famous and so well loved.
Speaker 3: And when I was following the Russian telegrams really closely
Speaker 3: for the first year of the war, most of it
Speaker 3: was very, very very pro Pregosian until the mutiny and
Speaker 3: then then suddenly public opinion didn't know what to do.
Speaker 3: But then it kind of turned against him right right
Speaker 3: at that point, because everyone, you know, just chooses the
Speaker 3: side of the winner, and Putin won that pretty quickly. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm sorry for all the noise here in the background, So.
Speaker 1: Are you fine? No, But I agree with you. Progosion
Speaker 1: was well liked and well, we're infected him and Putin
Speaker 1: were home boys on a very personal level. They were friends,
Speaker 1: and Progosion was the leader of the largest PMC that
Speaker 1: Russia had to offer. Now, this Gorge Kravitsky guy, you
Speaker 1: probably haven't heard of him, but you probably heard of
Speaker 1: the Paladin PMC. And that's a that's a big probably
Speaker 1: on that one. I don't know. I know of it
Speaker 1: because I pay attention to like PMC movements as well.
Speaker 1: It's not something that most people have heard of, Like
Speaker 1: I mean, how America's got hundreds of private military contractors
Speaker 1: that no one's ever heard of, but you've heard of
Speaker 1: like Blackwater and Triple Canopy and the you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. It's there's some there's some leeway on that one.
Speaker 1: Wagner was one of the ones that everybody's heard of.
Speaker 1: Paladin not really.
Speaker 3: I mean, now, I hadn't heard of them and I
Speaker 3: googled them and all the results are from no later
Speaker 3: than September last year. So maybe they've renamed themselves since then.
Speaker 3: Certainly that guy speaking up against Putin must have shaken
Speaker 3: things up so much. They're probably not under the same
Speaker 3: name anymore. And I'd never heard of them before. So
Speaker 3: that's just my two cents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And also, this guy, he's trying to really come
Speaker 1: up against Putin at this point in time, while he's
Speaker 1: under fire from I mean figuravely and literally. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a smooth move. I don't think it's a
Speaker 1: very smart move. Moscow getting bombed is also not a
Speaker 1: good look on Putin himself. Now, I'm sure that this
Speaker 1: will be a bit of a rallying cry and re
Speaker 1: Actually it might go against Ukraine to attack them in
Speaker 1: that way, because now they might actually gain more Russian
Speaker 1: support for the military offensive. It's very possible.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's hard to know how that'll go.
Speaker 3: But with Asad for example as an example, with Damascus
Speaker 3: getting missiles and bombs once or twice a week for
Speaker 3: like five or ten years straight, I think eventually even
Speaker 3: people who supported him just got tired of it and said,
Speaker 3: why are we supporting this guy if he can't defend
Speaker 3: us from that? Yeah, and you know, maybe HTS will
Speaker 3: relieve the sanctions, so whatever, screw it, let's I think
Speaker 3: that's why I saw'd lost support. But I think Putin
Speaker 3: is very far away from an outcome like that. I
Speaker 3: think he's gonna hold on. I think Russia is gonna
Speaker 3: win this. It is taking a lot longer than I expected,
Speaker 3: but they're just they're going slow, and I think they'll win.
Speaker 3: If I if I had to put money on what's
Speaker 3: going to happen, I think Putin retains power until he
Speaker 3: steps down from old age. I think the Olige Arks
Speaker 3: will still support Russian Unity Party. I think Russia will
Speaker 3: get new borders with Ukraine and they'll basically win like
Speaker 3: ninety percent of what they want. That's my bet if
Speaker 3: I had to put money on it.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why he backed away from the ceasefire agreement.
Speaker 1: Now they did. They did recently make a ceasefire agreement
Speaker 1: for the Black Sea that Ukraine and Russia kind of
Speaker 1: agreed for a minute there that the Black Sea was
Speaker 1: gonna be an all free zone. No, nobody's gonna be
Speaker 1: shooting at each other there because they both want trade
Speaker 1: to resume in some way, shape or forming. The Black
Speaker 1: seas kind of a big in for that one. But
Speaker 1: I don't even know if that's going to stand, to
Speaker 1: be honest with you.
Speaker 3: Exactly, yeah, I mean either. But if I had to
Speaker 3: put money down, I think it actually will. I think
Speaker 3: this war is reaching its natural end. So I'm on
Speaker 3: record now saying I'm betting this Grain or Black Sea
Speaker 3: deal will hold.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, you know what, Tony, I want
Speaker 1: to ask you, just you with your opinion, one hundred
Speaker 1: percent opinion here, if you had to guess, just full
Speaker 1: hypothetical guessing here of when you think a true ceasefire
Speaker 1: will be reached. I don't want to say a peace agreement,
Speaker 1: because I don't think that's even a proper term for
Speaker 1: it at this point, honestly, But whenever the fighting will
Speaker 1: actually stop for more than a couple of hours at
Speaker 1: a time, because it seems like that's just not happening currently.
Speaker 1: But when they finally will decide it's over. How much
Speaker 1: longer do you think we got on.
Speaker 6: This good question? Let me just say twelve months March
Speaker 6: of twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: March of twenty Okay, that's not a bad yes, that's
Speaker 1: not a bad guess at all. Honestly, I was hoping
Speaker 1: you weren't gonna say, like sometime in the next like
Speaker 1: four months or something. I don't know, but I could
Speaker 1: see another another year of it for sure, But I
Speaker 1: guess it all depends. I know, it's really hard to
Speaker 1: hypothetical something like this, because let's say Ukraine does take
Speaker 1: some sort of chunk of Russia, then they got a
Speaker 1: real leverage. Let's say Russia drafts so many more people
Speaker 1: into their ranks and just full frontal blitzkreags it and
Speaker 1: then they take half of Ukraine. Who knows what's gonna
Speaker 1: happen in the next six months, but I think March
Speaker 1: by next year could be a could be a realistic
Speaker 1: endpoint for it. I would hope, I optimistically, that we
Speaker 1: could see some sort of an agreement come before the
Speaker 1: end of this year. I'm not saying that's probable. I'm
Speaker 1: saying it's possible. So I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's possible, and I'm hoping for that too.
Speaker 3: But it's gone way longer than I thought it, and
Speaker 3: I'm just saying another year.
Speaker 1: That's yeah, speculation, that's a pretty fair estimate, honestly. All right,
Speaker 1: So now moving on from the Russia conversation. Now, not Tony,
Speaker 1: excuse me, Royce actually sent this one and I think
Speaker 1: this is gonna be a fascinating one CBS News article
Speaker 1: here over and this was written March twenty second of
Speaker 1: this year. Over thirty thousand turnout for Bernie Sanders AOC
Speaker 1: rally in Denver amid push for progressive change. Okay, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, hold on, hold on, Before I even read this,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is from Vermont. AOC is from like Illinois,
Speaker 1: isn't she? Why do we have people showing up in
Speaker 1: Denver for Okay, sure, let's just better patter. Let's get
Speaker 1: at her, I guess. An estimated thirty four thousand people
Speaker 1: gathered Friday evening at Civic Center Park in Denver to
Speaker 1: hear Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and represent and of
Speaker 1: AOC of New York in New York now Illinois, excuse
Speaker 1: me push a number of progressive policies. Just hours later,
Speaker 1: they spoke before a crowd of about eleven thousand at
Speaker 1: the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. The two stops
Speaker 1: for the progressive leaders in Colorado were part of what
Speaker 1: they dubbed the quote unquote fighting Oligarchy Tour. Before I
Speaker 1: even continue reading more, Bernie Sanders is a loud and
Speaker 1: proud self proclaimed socialist. The fact that he is against oligarchs,
Speaker 1: as he calls himself a socialist, is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest feats of irony I think I've ever heard of
Speaker 1: in my life. The only way socialism and communism works
Speaker 1: is if there's oligarchs like that's okay, okay, we're just
Speaker 1: going We're just go push on here, go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 8: So just a couple quick things. First of all, I
Speaker 8: think one of the reasons why they were rowing, or
Speaker 8: why they chose Colorado for this one, is because the
Speaker 8: pushback that Colorado and Denver had with the whole migrants thing.
Speaker 8: You remember what I said you a couple of months
Speaker 8: ago that like people were protesting, you know, we don't
Speaker 8: want our we want these guys to remember. Yeah, So
Speaker 8: I think because of that pushback, that's one thing. Second
Speaker 8: of all, I think there are people that don't do
Speaker 8: their own research, and they listen to the mainstream media
Speaker 8: that says Trump is bad. And then whenever you have
Speaker 8: these politicians that are echoing that thought. And then you
Speaker 8: have like AOC who you know, the Democrats might look at, all, right, well,
Speaker 8: she's a pretty face, and you know she seems like
Speaker 8: she's charismatic, and you.
Speaker 5: Know she cares about the people. Look what's going on.
Speaker 8: I don't want to say they're using her kind of
Speaker 8: as a martyr es but it seems like they're kind
Speaker 8: of using her as a rallying point. And then you
Speaker 8: have Bernie Sanders who goes, oh, you know he's he
Speaker 8: is the old grandpa figure, but he's like in this
Speaker 8: in the same maybe a rage ish of Trump while
Speaker 8: being completely opposite and far as demeanor. Tell me how
Speaker 8: many people actually look at policies nowadays for people and
Speaker 8: what they actually stand for. It's oh, it's AOC is
Speaker 8: this or Bernie Standers? Is that, Kamala Harris is this?
Speaker 8: Very little do they actually stand for stuff? And even
Speaker 8: with that saying, they don't seem to even want to
Speaker 8: put their policies out there. How many times was Kamlarius
Speaker 8: asked about her policies. She's like, oh, we'll just rid website.
Speaker 8: And the website didn't have Jack on it, right, So
Speaker 8: they're all about like the whole feeling, you know, feel good,
Speaker 8: et cetera. It has very little to do with actual policies.
Speaker 8: And you know, it's very it's not what our policies are.
Speaker 8: It's oh, we are anti Trump, we are anti this,
Speaker 8: anti that, right one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: And I mean both of them AOC and Sanders are
Speaker 1: all about taxing the rich. That is their big thing
Speaker 1: that they can always tried and true. They're gonna come
Speaker 1: back to this. Bernie owns like nine houses in AOC
Speaker 1: in a matter of like six years, when from being
Speaker 1: worth a few thousand to a few million dollars. The fact,
Speaker 1: I don't understand. I don't understand their supporters or their constituents,
Speaker 1: or whatever fancy word you want to call their brainwashed lackeys.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why they follow them to the level
Speaker 1: and to the degree that they do. And not just
Speaker 1: those too, but I mean they're the ones that are
Speaker 1: being currently discussed. But it just it makes no sense
Speaker 1: to me that people blindly follow and I know we
Speaker 1: use the term sheeple from time to time, but like,
Speaker 1: I don't even know a better word to describe their followers.
Speaker 1: It's insane. But all right, let's oh, let's read on here.
Speaker 1: And you know, the migrants had to be up part
Speaker 1: of it, because that's a whole talking point of the left.
Speaker 1: It goes on to say they want to know if
Speaker 1: the people of America are going to stand up to
Speaker 1: Trump's trump ism archy. Uh yeah, stand up toism and oligarchy.
Speaker 1: Sanders said to cheering crowds. Yeah, that's it's crazy to me.
Speaker 1: He's oh my god. Okay.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 1: The tour is part of an effort by Sanders and
Speaker 1: AOC to push back against President Trump and the influence
Speaker 1: that they say billionaires have had on our American politics.
Speaker 1: Musk is not our Congress act lawfully, act lawfully, not awfully,
Speaker 1: said Nancy Larson, a rally attendee who feels the federal
Speaker 1: government is prioritizing corporate interests over ordinary Americans. I feel
Speaker 1: like they're prioritizing illegal immigrants over ordinary Americans, or at
Speaker 1: least they have for the past administration, but neither hand
Speaker 1: with them. Uh, she says, Uh. I feel like we're
Speaker 1: in a land of reverse robin Hood situation right now,
Speaker 1: a kind of reverse Robinhood situation right now where we're
Speaker 1: taking from the poor and disadvantage and giving more money
Speaker 1: to the rich. I don't know what she's looking at
Speaker 1: as far as that's concerned, but okay. Thousands of attendees
Speaker 1: echo concerns that the government is increasingly influenced by billionaires
Speaker 1: and large corporations. Well, I mean shocker. You know, parents
Speaker 1: of Girl Scouts, Nina and Indy said they viewed the
Speaker 1: rally as an educational opportunity. We like them to be
Speaker 1: aware of what's happening in the world. Their mother, Jennifer
Speaker 1: Walter said, Their mother, Jennifer, Oh, oh, okay. I see
Speaker 1: they're saying that's a that's a daughter, and that's a okay.
Speaker 1: I got you all right. Moving on, the crowd also
Speaker 1: cheered for union leaders representing construction, grocery and education workers
Speaker 1: as attendees' voice frustration over economic inequality. Republicans, Democrats, all
Speaker 1: Americans are feeling this, said Chris Martinez, who attended the rally.
Speaker 1: Attendees from earlier rally in Greeley also expressed dissatisfaction with
Speaker 1: both major political parties. AOC also emphasized that their fight
Speaker 1: is not just against Republicans, urging Democrats to push harder
Speaker 1: for progressive policies. Some Republicans in Colorado criticized AOC and
Speaker 1: Sanders in their message. Congressman Evans is fighting to lower costs,
Speaker 1: safer communities, and making the American dream possible for all Colorados,
Speaker 1: the spokeswoman for Republican Representative Gabe Evans, whose district includes Greeley,
Speaker 1: said to the Statesman this common sense approach stands and
Speaker 1: start contrast to AOC and Bernie Sanders extreme anti oil
Speaker 1: gas rhetoric. Yeah, they're also really against American oil an
Speaker 1: American natural gas, which I think is a whole other
Speaker 1: level of retarded. To be honest with you, we should
Speaker 1: be using our own resources rather than buying the resources
Speaker 1: from other nations. If anything, that would put America in
Speaker 1: a much better position. I don't understand why the left
Speaker 1: is so anti that, except for the fact that they're
Speaker 1: big with the globalism thing, Like they really just want
Speaker 1: that they want America to be equal to all other countries.
Speaker 1: I would like to live in a world where America
Speaker 1: is running the fucking house to other countries. You know,
Speaker 1: that's just me. It goes on to say, if Democrats
Speaker 1: want to bring a couple of avowed socialists to Weld
Speaker 1: County to talk about their Green New Deal scams that
Speaker 1: will crush Colorado oil and gas jobs, I say go
Speaker 1: for it. Republican Representative Lauren Bobert said in a statement
Speaker 1: the contrast between them and Republicans like Gabe Evans, who
Speaker 1: will stand up for energy producers, law enforcement officers, and
Speaker 1: small business owners, couldn't be clearer. Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. AOC and Sanders said they'll continue
Speaker 1: advocating for a nation where all Americans can thrive. The
Speaker 1: world is watching, Sanders said, yeah, the world is watching.
Speaker 1: The world is watching. You make a complete ass yourself,
Speaker 1: old man, it's time to go to the house, you know.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's funny to me personally to see it
Speaker 1: go to this level. Honestly, it's like Bernie Sanders has
Speaker 1: been irrelevant for a little while now. Ever since he
Speaker 1: lost out to Killery for the nomination or what ever,
Speaker 1: since they stole the nomination from him and gave it
Speaker 1: to Killery, he's kind of been relegated to like the backburner.
Speaker 1: He comes around, he says some talking points, and people
Speaker 1: seem to like him, even though they don't really understand
Speaker 1: the math of what he's saying. Socialism is a very
Speaker 1: dangerous ideology. Communism isn't even more dangerous ideology. AOC has
Speaker 1: also claimed that she herself is a democratic socialist, which
Speaker 1: is a socialism but instead of a you get to
Speaker 1: elect your slave owner. Essentially, that's the difference between a
Speaker 1: democratic socialist and a regular socialist. But yeah, the fact
Speaker 1: that they're going to Colorado to try to spit that rhetoric.
Speaker 1: Good luck, dude. I think I know Colorado is traditionally
Speaker 1: correct me if I'm wrong here. Colorado traditionally is a
Speaker 1: blue state.
Speaker 5: Yeah, coracked Denver.
Speaker 1: That's because of Denver and Aspen in the big cities.
Speaker 1: The majority of the state is red. But the big
Speaker 1: cities kind of make this way happen. Did they go
Speaker 1: blue in the last election, Yeah, yeah, yeah, Okay, so
Speaker 1: maybe that's why they they're going where they know they'll
Speaker 1: have a good talking point. You notice you don't see
Speaker 1: Sanders come to Texas to have a big rally. I
Speaker 1: wonder why that might.
Speaker 8: I mean, how many blue states are there now?
Speaker 5: They don't really have so many options.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not anymore, even the swing states. Trump won every
Speaker 1: single one of the swing states that mattered. So it's like,
Speaker 1: and I mean those are still swing states. They can
Speaker 1: swing back the next direction in the next election. But
Speaker 1: I really have a hard time envisioning a world where
Speaker 1: that's going to take place, especially now that you see
Speaker 1: what's happened with Doge, Now that you see what's happened
Speaker 1: with the government corruption being brought to light, now that
Speaker 1: the Epstein list is allegedly about to be released. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about that here in a moment. I just have
Speaker 1: a hard time believing that if the Democrats can't pull
Speaker 1: off something drastic right now. Now I don't mean today,
Speaker 1: I mean like in the next election, if they cannot
Speaker 1: put up somebody who is generally likable and also not
Speaker 1: a sociopath, like doesn't identify with the crazy far far
Speaker 1: leanings of the left, if they can find somebody who's
Speaker 1: left of center and generally likable and has to be
Speaker 1: more likable than whoever the Republicans put up, I have
Speaker 1: a hard time seeing a Democrat ever winning an election
Speaker 1: in this country, or at least not for the next
Speaker 1: few decades. Because the entire Obama administration screwed the country.
Speaker 1: We had a brief reprieve from that, and then the
Speaker 1: Biden administration screwed the country even more. I just have
Speaker 1: a hard time believing that these people in these swing
Speaker 1: states are gonna allow that to take place again, unless
Speaker 1: unless Trump just does something so egregious that it ruins
Speaker 1: it for the entire Republican party. But at this point,
Speaker 1: he stands by his rhetoric, like he if he says
Speaker 1: something he does it, and he's he's the taflon Don.
Speaker 1: Nothing sticks to him. He just does it and everybody
Speaker 1: loves him for it. So I just have a hard
Speaker 1: time seeing it. I don't know anyway. All right, let's
Speaker 1: get to the chat here. Alex sent hungover. Alex sent
Speaker 1: a picture of a very angry cat. Very angry cat. Okay,
Speaker 1: Bernie and AOC are fucking brainless? Retard is a good
Speaker 1: thing to call them? Yeah, No, I agree, I agree, yes, indeed.
Speaker 1: All right, So before we go on to the next thing,
Speaker 1: does anybody have anything else they would like to add
Speaker 1: into the conversation at this time? Chilling? All right, dope. Well,
Speaker 1: then let's go ahead and share the screen again this one.
Speaker 1: As we're talking about the government corruption, as we're talking
Speaker 1: about the things that are being brought to light these days.
Speaker 1: Boy oh boy, Doze just keeps on finding the wild
Speaker 1: things and bringing it to light, don't they. Children allegedly
Speaker 1: scored millions in small business administration loans. Yeah. I heard
Speaker 1: a brief little thing about this. I didn't know to
Speaker 1: what level it was. I heard something about over three
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars have been given in small business loans
Speaker 1: to people under eleven years old.
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: I heard that, didn't know how true it was? My god,
Speaker 1: is it true? A nine month old was given a
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand dollars loan. Yeah, tax dollars. Let's get
Speaker 1: into it, shall we. This was published March twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. Either children are getting a major head
Speaker 1: start on their careers or something fishy is going on
Speaker 1: at the Small Business Administration. According to the Department of
Speaker 1: Government Efficiency aka DOGE. Elon Musk and his team at
Speaker 1: DOJE have already exposed how millions and even billions of
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars have been siphoned off to bankroll LGBT agendas,
Speaker 1: abortion advocacy, diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives. But doje's latest
Speaker 1: find is a real head scratcher. Over three hundred million
Speaker 1: in SBA loans have been handed out to children under
Speaker 1: eleven years old. This direct quote, as a matter of
Speaker 1: fact from Musk. A case of fraud was with the
Speaker 1: SBA where they were handing out loans three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty million dollars worth of loans to people under the
Speaker 1: age of eleven. He said this during a cabinet meeting
Speaker 1: on Monday. I think the youngest was a nine month
Speaker 1: old who got a one hundred thousand dollars loan. That's
Speaker 1: a very precocious baby we're talking about here. How a
Speaker 1: nine month old security one hundred thousand dollars loan without
Speaker 1: race red flags until now remains mysterious, doesn't it? Just
Speaker 1: those one of those great mysteries that might get answered,
Speaker 1: who knows, But those as new rules aims to stop
Speaker 1: it from happening going forward. In a post on x
Speaker 1: Doze wrote that from now on, the SBA would require
Speaker 1: data birth collection for all direct loan applications and pause
Speaker 1: the direct loan process for those under eighteen and above
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty years old. Well, I'm glad we're
Speaker 1: at least putting a left and right lateral limit on that.
Speaker 1: You know, with all those people getting Social Security checks
Speaker 1: that are over two hundred years old and all that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a wild time, y'all. Anyway, basic sanity
Speaker 1: checks like these are initial steps towards minimizing fraud and
Speaker 1: the government paid payment programs. The Department wrote, the news
Speaker 1: comes after dose already discovered millions of people over the
Speaker 1: age of one hundred and twenty still marked as alive
Speaker 1: in the Social Security database. In fact, earlier today, the
Speaker 1: department posted on x for the past three weeks at
Speaker 1: Social Security has been executing a major cleanup of their records.
Speaker 1: Approximately seven million number holders, all listed aged one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty plus, have now been marked as de ceased.
Speaker 1: Another five million to go, y'all there have been seven
Speaker 1: million and five million more on that. So we're talking
Speaker 1: about twelve million people who are no longer here that
Speaker 1: have been receiving Social Security checks. And this is why
Speaker 1: they say the Social Security is going to be bankrupt
Speaker 1: by the time we get to retirement age. Like I mean,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, I already thought it was going
Speaker 1: to anyway. I didn't realize it was because of this
Speaker 1: many people collecting checks that were, you know, dead. But yeah, okay. Uh.
Speaker 1: Musk emphasized on his own posts, no more loans to
Speaker 1: babies or people too old to be alive. Fox News
Speaker 1: reported in greater detail that nearly five thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: loans were issued in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: while the world struggled with the COVID nineteen pandemic, and
Speaker 1: it is unclear what they were used for. Those had
Speaker 1: stated in response that while it's possible to have a
Speaker 1: business arrangement where this is legal, that is highly unlikely
Speaker 1: for these fifty six hundred loans, as they all also
Speaker 1: used a Social Security number with the incorrect name Oohkay shocker,
Speaker 1: that they were using fake numbers and fake names to
Speaker 1: get government loans that checks out, again, suggesting widespread identity
Speaker 1: fraud rather than a sudden boom in toddler entrepreneurs. President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump referred to this as nothing short of a
Speaker 1: pure fraud, adding we would like to use the words
Speaker 1: waste and abuse. According to Fox, Dose know that they
Speaker 1: are working alongside the SBA to solve this problem this week.
Speaker 1: In in addition to the SBA money waste, Dose continues
Speaker 1: to find waste within the US Department of Agriculture. In fact,
Speaker 1: also during Monday's cabinet meeting, USDA Secretary Brook Rawlins explained
Speaker 1: how they have canceled a three hundred thousand dollars contract
Speaker 1: educated contract educating on food justice for queer and transgender
Speaker 1: farmers in San Francisco. Bro What a similar contract we
Speaker 1: canceled in New York, again educating transgender and queer farmers
Speaker 1: on food justice and food equality. I'm not even sure
Speaker 1: what that means, but apparently the last administration wanted to
Speaker 1: put our taxpayer dollars towards that. Yo. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that there's not LGBTQ plus two a question mark ELEMENTOP
Speaker 1: farmers out there. I'm sure there are. I'm sure they
Speaker 1: are in San Francisco. I have a hard time seeing
Speaker 1: it certain parts of New York maybe, But why, what
Speaker 1: is is what kind of educational material are you providing
Speaker 1: for food justice and equality?
Speaker 5: Food?
Speaker 1: Food justice and food equality? I didn't like, Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: like you know, give me an example of that. Like,
Speaker 1: all right, so let's say you're like a cow farmer.
Speaker 1: You got you got heads of cattle? Cool? And do
Speaker 1: you think the cows care if the cow han that's
Speaker 1: doing the work on the farm identifies that the alphabet
Speaker 1: people are not Like I just I don't understand, Raven,
Speaker 1: Please help me out here.
Speaker 10: It's actually about food justice and equality is about when
Speaker 10: people will have the ability to be able to get
Speaker 10: access to seeds, plants have a location to grow food
Speaker 10: in having the community have enough diversity because there is
Speaker 10: actually equity in food. Because a popular thing that is
Speaker 10: well known is like if you go into a hood,
Speaker 10: you're going to find tons of gas stations and pretty
Speaker 10: much mini marts, and you will find hardly any places
Speaker 10: to buy fresh food, period And if it is there,
Speaker 10: it is actually increased in costs because it's better to
Speaker 10: put the liquor stores in the hood than it is
Speaker 10: to put a natural grocery store. And it's actually a
Speaker 10: form of discrimination, and there's a lot to it, especially
Speaker 10: in California. So when they talk about food justice, it's
Speaker 10: being able to have the same accessible products and education
Speaker 10: and stuff for LGBTQ plus community that isn't being hindered
Speaker 10: by the CIS gender population pretty much is what it's
Speaker 10: talking about.
Speaker 1: In that point. As far as like like for example,
Speaker 1: like you said, in certain inner city communities, right, you
Speaker 1: have liquor stores and fast food chains, but you don't
Speaker 1: have access to like really fresh produce. And I get that, right,
Speaker 1: I get the food justice and all of that with you.
Speaker 1: I was not. I was unaware that the LGBT alphabet
Speaker 1: people were facing food discrimination. I honestly did not know that.
Speaker 10: It's more or less the it's more or less the
Speaker 10: farming and agricultural aspect of it, because outside of San Francisco.
Speaker 10: You have knapp the valley and everything. And so if
Speaker 10: the majority of the land is owned by CIS people
Speaker 10: or straight leading people and they're shunning the LGBTQ plus
Speaker 10: group and or block access to them because of their
Speaker 10: sextual preference, that's what inherently those things are in place for.
Speaker 10: And because it's outside of San Francisco, it's going to
Speaker 10: be super liberal about giving a much like extra programs,
Speaker 10: extra funding, extra dot dot dot is pretty much what's
Speaker 10: in place with those type of programs for that marginalized community.
Speaker 1: I hear you, and I fully hear what you're saying.
Speaker 1: In San Francisco, being as liberal as it is, I
Speaker 1: understand that talking point as well. I just the alphabet
Speaker 1: people can't get access to decent farmland or produced beings.
Speaker 10: Not It's not that it's that it's a it's an
Speaker 10: equality measure that's been put into place. So it's not
Speaker 10: stating that they can't, it's ensuring that they can. So
Speaker 10: like if they are being discriminated for their sexual preference
Speaker 10: or their gender or whatever they identify as those type
Speaker 10: of policies are put into place to where they can't
Speaker 10: be discriminated against because of dot dot dot, so it
Speaker 10: allows them more accessibility to things if they would have
Speaker 10: been blocked because of their because of that. So all
Speaker 10: along the West Coast you have lots of policies like
Speaker 10: that and like extra funding and things like that too.
Speaker 10: I guess help in some way, but realistically I've never
Speaker 10: seen it in San Francisco. I mean, yes, they do
Speaker 10: have a lot of farmers that are of you know,
Speaker 10: the community that sell natural lake, that sell groceries and stuff.
Speaker 10: So it's just more or less it's instead of providing
Speaker 10: it for the marginalized groups that have been inherently impacted
Speaker 10: and have statistically been impacted, this is kind of like
Speaker 10: a boost up because they get more votes and stuff
Speaker 10: from that group, but they really should be looking. I mean,
Speaker 10: I'm not saying to take that from them. I'm just
Speaker 10: more or less saying that there is other groups that
Speaker 10: have been stigmatized and for a long time proven that
Speaker 10: they have been discriminated against.
Speaker 1: So I agree, most of the gay people I know
Speaker 1: are some of the cleanest eaters I know as well.
Speaker 1: That's I guess I'm missing the connection here. I agree
Speaker 1: that there are certain marginalized groups that like they need
Speaker 1: to get better food and better nutrition. I am completely
Speaker 1: missing how the Alphabet crew is a part of that
Speaker 1: marginalized group. I maybe I'm just maybe I'm just like
Speaker 1: got a horrible perspective on this one. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but okay, okay, fair enough, Tony Well.
Speaker 3: I grew up in the Sanford Cisco Bay Area from
Speaker 3: nineteen eighty eight to twenty twenty, and I would totally
Speaker 3: agree with you that it's a pretty gentrified area. And
Speaker 3: most of the time it was the more left leaning
Speaker 3: people who were more into eating whole foods and they
Speaker 3: were into the what is now make America Healthy Again
Speaker 3: ten or twenty years ago, when right wingers were more
Speaker 3: okay with I don't know, processed foods at that time.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, and personally, I don't think that gay
Speaker 3: people have been very discriminated against in the Bay Area
Speaker 3: in my lifetime. But I can totally understand why business
Speaker 3: owners would check that box to say, oh, yeah, I'm
Speaker 3: combating discrimination against you underprivileged communities so that I can
Speaker 3: get a loan at a better interest rate from the
Speaker 3: government than having to go to my bank. So I
Speaker 3: think that's all that's going on here. Yeah, the Bay
Speaker 3: Area there's not much agriculture, and especially around San Francisco,
Speaker 3: I guess it's getting very gentrified too in general. But
Speaker 3: pour neighborhoods I think, are the place where you would
Speaker 3: find more of these food deserts and inability.
Speaker 6: To access.
Speaker 3: Grocery stores as opposed to convenience stores. But then again,
Speaker 3: part of me thinks that that also comes down to
Speaker 3: individual choice too, So I don't know whether to blame
Speaker 3: the system or the individual on that front when I see.
Speaker 1: People by the look for sure, but I mean it's
Speaker 1: hard to argue whenever a slice of pizza costs you
Speaker 1: a dollar fifty, when a salad cost you four dollars.
Speaker 1: So mean, I see that as well. Even if it
Speaker 1: is available, they jack of the price is so high
Speaker 1: that only certain people can even afford to eat it,
Speaker 1: and especially in certain downtronic communities. I see the arguments.
Speaker 1: I absolutely do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's also become an issue recently. You probably saw
Speaker 3: on Twitter last week conservative influencers saying that we shouldn't
Speaker 3: remove coke cola and pepsi from Snap benefits. I don't
Speaker 3: know if that came up already, but yeah, I'm all
Speaker 3: in favor of removing it because it's pretty cheap anyway,
Speaker 3: and if people want to buy it, you know they
Speaker 3: can do that.
Speaker 6: But what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 1: Okay, knee jerk reaction. I agree that junk food should
Speaker 1: not be allowed to be bought with snap benefits and
Speaker 1: wick and these things. I agree. Right that being said,
Speaker 1: when we get into the business of deciding what foods
Speaker 1: can and cannot be bought with these things, there's going
Speaker 1: to be people at the top that are going to
Speaker 1: say it's only going to be beans and rice or
Speaker 1: rice and beans, and they're only going to go off
Speaker 1: of the subsistence foods, which we can agree to a
Speaker 1: certain level here, but also that's a whole other way
Speaker 1: of keeping the nutrition down. You see what I'm saying now,
Speaker 1: I'm not when you start doing blanket policies on shit
Speaker 1: like this, it never goes in a positive direction. So
Speaker 1: while I agree that we could restrict certain things, like
Speaker 1: nobody who's doing snap benefit should be buying steak and
Speaker 1: lobster like, I think we can at least acknowledge that much,
Speaker 1: But I also don't want them relegated to only buying
Speaker 1: the cheapest materials in the grocery store either. There's got
Speaker 1: to be a little bit of a balance here. You know,
Speaker 1: it's I don't know, I don't really have the answers
Speaker 1: for it. I agree with the overarching theme here, go ahead, Raven.
Speaker 10: There's when I lived in Colorado, the SNAP people that
Speaker 10: got food stamps and stuff, they actually had a program
Speaker 10: where if they bought healthy food, they would actually get
Speaker 10: a portion of return back to promote a healthy household.
Speaker 10: So they got like everything was every item was added
Speaker 10: up and they would get a portion of it and
Speaker 10: then you would get a little like kick back at
Speaker 10: the end of the month showing how much like healthy
Speaker 10: food that you bought. I think that's a really good
Speaker 10: way to support buying healthier food. I think it's really
Speaker 10: difficult for a lot of people in those circumstances that
Speaker 10: need to buy a massive amount of food. And it's
Speaker 10: challenging because you're talking like they want to buy chicken,
Speaker 10: but those, you know, instead of real chicken, chicken nuggets
Speaker 10: are so much cheaper and they can get more. And
Speaker 10: it's kind of like a weird situation of like, you know,
Speaker 10: you want to eat healthy, but also you can't afford it.
Speaker 10: Like the rest of everybody that's struggling. I like the
Speaker 10: kickback program, but I also think that like buying candy,
Speaker 10: buying pop, buying things like that shouldn't be allowed because statistically,
Speaker 10: if you look at the data, it shows that the majority,
Speaker 10: vast majority of people that are on some type of
Speaker 10: wick or or snap or something like that is overweight
Speaker 10: and struggling with obesity and health problems. And is that
Speaker 10: due to a cultural thing, is that due to the
Speaker 10: environment what they can and can't afford. Like, there's not
Speaker 10: enough data on that really to show truthfully what's causing it.
Speaker 10: I mean, we all have our bias and opinions on it,
Speaker 10: but realistically we don't know for certain what is causing it.
Speaker 10: But we do know that statistically it does show that
Speaker 10: a lot of people are struggling with being obese that
Speaker 10: are getting benefits. Though, I think that there should be
Speaker 10: some type of regulation and program put into place to
Speaker 10: try to help push towards healthier options for people.
Speaker 1: Now I didn't know that there was a kickback program
Speaker 1: in place. That's a brilliant idea as a matter of fact,
Speaker 1: and just let let the tips fall where they may.
Speaker 1: But then not most states, right, not in most states,
Speaker 1: But I could see a world where every state takes
Speaker 1: on a version of that one hundred percent. But then
Speaker 1: even still, then we get into the argument like, well,
Speaker 1: steak is healthy, why can't I use it to get steak?
Speaker 1: And it's like, okay, you see what. There's gonna be
Speaker 1: people that are trying to gain the system in any
Speaker 1: way they can, and you're gonna have that with every system, right,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna have somebody classify, well, what is considered
Speaker 1: quote unquote healthy. But look at the balloons. Apparently when
Speaker 1: you do this, that's how you get the balloons to
Speaker 1: come up out of nowhere. Y'all the air quotes that
Speaker 1: makes it happen. Who knew. But there's gonna be people
Speaker 1: trying to game the system, and I don't like that either,
Speaker 1: But that's the thing. When there's a blanket policy in place,
Speaker 1: there's always gonna be that area of grain those people
Speaker 1: trying to skirt it. I do think that every state
Speaker 1: doing like that, having a kickback program would be an
Speaker 1: excellent way to at least get the ball rolling in
Speaker 1: the right direction. But yes, also, Tony, to answer your point,
Speaker 1: I agree that uh, soft drinks and candy and overtly
Speaker 1: junk food items should absolutely not be allowed to be
Speaker 1: bought with these types of these types of government checks
Speaker 1: for sure, or ebt cards or whatever the case is,
Speaker 1: for sure. So anyway, Yeah, so as far as the
Speaker 1: business loans to children, that's that's a whole new thing. Now,
Speaker 1: three hundred and thirty million isn't that much in comparison
Speaker 1: to all the other wasteful spending that has been going on.
Speaker 1: But again, I feel like that's more of a symptom
Speaker 1: of the problem than the actual problem itself. Tony, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got one other comment on this from about,
Speaker 3: you know, ninety years ago. My grandfather told me he
Speaker 3: grew up near a Capuchin monastery and they would this
Speaker 3: was in Bavaria, Germany. They would have a policy never
Speaker 3: to turn away a hungry baker, but if you ever
Speaker 3: asked them for food, they would give you a place,
Speaker 3: a piece of plain bread with no butter or anything
Speaker 3: on it, because the whole idea was, if you're really hungry,
Speaker 3: you'll be happy with this. Yeah, and you know, I
Speaker 3: know it's an old timey, you know, nostalgia story, but
Speaker 3: you know, I'm not advocating anything quite that's strict for
Speaker 3: people on snap sure, but there's got to be some understanding,
Speaker 3: you know, something along those lines.
Speaker 6: Anyway, That's all I got.
Speaker 1: No, No, I think there's something to be said for that,
Speaker 1: for sure, right. It's I've said this story before too.
Speaker 1: When I was stationed in d C. Right when I
Speaker 1: would go down to the little local seven eleven, there
Speaker 1: would be homeless people outside begging, and it was very
Speaker 1: rare that I would give them money. But usually with
Speaker 1: the seven eleven was across the street from the subway,
Speaker 1: and if these people were asking for food or for
Speaker 1: money or whatever, I would say, hey, look, I don't
Speaker 1: have any cash. Owing back out my card. If you want,
Speaker 1: I'll bring it over to the subway here and I'll
Speaker 1: get you a sandwich. Most of them would be grateful
Speaker 1: and they would go and they would get a sandwich.
Speaker 1: And I had no problems doing that. Of course, not
Speaker 1: somebody's hungry. I'm not going to turn them away. But
Speaker 1: there were a few that whenever you would do that
Speaker 1: and say, they'd be like, no, no, I need food, man,
Speaker 1: I need money, And it's like, well, I don't have
Speaker 1: that for you, and then they would start cussing you out,
Speaker 1: and it's like, well, I guess you really don't need
Speaker 1: it that badly Because I can't help you pay your
Speaker 1: rent tonight or buy your next hit of your addiction.
Speaker 1: I can make sure you don't starve today. But you're
Speaker 1: right one hundred percent. I think.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And my grandpa and his friends being somewhat delinquent and
Speaker 3: you know, troublemakers, they would go and just ask for food,
Speaker 3: and the monks knew they were faking it, and they
Speaker 3: would just say, okay, okay, here's your slice of plain bread.
Speaker 3: Have fun with that. So discouraged too many kids from
Speaker 3: doing that.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I love it. I love it so Uh.
Speaker 1: Back to the small business loan thing, I had no
Speaker 1: idea that there was no age restrictions on business loans
Speaker 1: up until this point. And I guess it depends on
Speaker 1: the the loan officer and the bank itself for the
Speaker 1: credit union stuff or whatever the case may be. But
Speaker 1: even still government loans for small businesses over three hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars. That is ridiculous. But I'm also glad that
Speaker 1: it has been brought to light. Dose is still doing
Speaker 1: dose things, and it's bringing up more of this waste,
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse. And as we're talking about money going
Speaker 1: in these crazy locations and crazy directions. Let's take a
Speaker 1: little segue into what North Korea just did. This the
Speaker 1: biggest crypto heist in history, which I mean granted crypto
Speaker 1: hadn't been around that long, so I mean take that
Speaker 1: forward as forth. But one point five billion. Let's learn more.
Speaker 7: North Korea just stole one point five billion dollars of
Speaker 7: cryptocurrency in the largest crypto heist in history. Wait, North Korea,
Speaker 7: this hermit kingdom that looks like it's like stuck in
Speaker 7: the fifties.
Speaker 1: How did they do this?
Speaker 7: Well, the target was by Bit, this crypto trading platform
Speaker 7: which bolds billions of dollars worth of its customer's assets
Speaker 7: in a reserve. They routinely transferred some of this money
Speaker 7: from their reserve vault into the active exchange. But North
Speaker 7: Korean hackers used a sophisticated combination of malware fishing, credential theft,
Speaker 7: and a bunch of other techniques to quietly infiltrate the system.
Speaker 7: It allows them to hijack this process of transferring money
Speaker 7: from the reserves to the exchange and divert a ton
Speaker 7: of the cryptocurrency ethereum to their wallets, instantly, making North
Speaker 7: Korea one point five billion dollars richer so one nor
Speaker 7: Crea is kind of stuck in the past. They have
Speaker 7: an army of very sophisticated hackers, if you want to
Speaker 7: better understand.
Speaker 1: Okay, so North Korea is not just the hermit kingdom
Speaker 1: that's living in the Stone Age anymore. They have figured
Speaker 1: out some technology as far as how to do crypto heists.
Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and read this little article here. Ethereum,
Speaker 1: by the way, is not a small crypto coin. I
Speaker 1: don't know much about crypto. I am not somebody who
Speaker 1: deals in it. I don't own any of it. I
Speaker 1: don't really deal with it, right the same way I
Speaker 1: don't really deal with the stock exchange. I'm so notoriously
Speaker 1: bad at gambling that if I put any money into
Speaker 1: a coin or into a stock, it's almost a guarantee
Speaker 1: it's gonna tank. So I just don't mess with it personally.
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of people that have put
Speaker 1: a lot of their nest egg into crypto these days
Speaker 1: in North Korea, just through hacking, and apparently this is
Speaker 1: all able to be tracked through the blockchain, so they
Speaker 1: know for a fact that it was North Korea hackers
Speaker 1: who stole one point five billion and that's just gone.
Speaker 1: That is just off the market. They're not getting that
Speaker 1: money back, so who Let's learn more about it here
Speaker 1: how North Korea pulled off a one point five billion
Speaker 1: dollar crypto heist, the biggest in history. And again crypto,
Speaker 1: I've been around that long, so I mean how deep
Speaker 1: of a history we're talking. But neither here nor there.
Speaker 1: The cryptocurrency industry and those responsible for securing it are
Speaker 1: still in shock following Friday's heist, likely by North Korea,
Speaker 1: that drained one point five billion from Dubai based exchange
Speaker 1: by bit, making the theft by far the biggest ever
Speaker 1: in digital asset history. By Bit officially disclosed the theft
Speaker 1: of more than four hundred thousand ethereum and staked ethereum
Speaker 1: coins just hours after it. The notification said the digital
Speaker 1: loot had been stored in a mold yeah, mullstig cold wallet.
Speaker 1: For a second, I couldn't sell if that was an
Speaker 1: l or just a really weird looking tea. My eyes
Speaker 1: are going bad, ladies and gentlemen, I need to get glasses.
Speaker 1: Neither he nor there. Uh, it was stored in a
Speaker 1: cold wallet when somehow it was transferred to one of
Speaker 1: the exchange's hot wallets UH. From there, the cryptocurrency was
Speaker 1: transferred out of by bit altogether and into wallets controlled
Speaker 1: by the unknown attackers. This wallet is too hot, This
Speaker 1: one is too cold. Researchers for the blockchain analysis from
Speaker 1: oh jeeseus I gotta get close to this elliptic, among others,
Speaker 1: said over the weekend that the techniques and flow of
Speaker 1: the subsequent laundering of the funds bear the signature of
Speaker 1: threat actors working on behalf of North Korea. The revelation
Speaker 1: comes as a little surprise since the isolation nation isolated
Speaker 1: nation rather has long maintained a thriving cryptocurrency theft racket,
Speaker 1: in large part to pay for its weapons of mass
Speaker 1: destruction program UH. The coal wallets, also known as mulstig
Speaker 1: multi sig safes excuse me, are among the gold standard
Speaker 1: for securing large sums of cryptocurrency well obviously not obviously not.
Speaker 1: More shortly about how the threat actors cleared this tall hurdle. First,
Speaker 1: a little about coal wallets and multi sig coal wallets
Speaker 1: and how they secure cryptocurrency against theft wallets are accounts
Speaker 1: that use strong encryption to store bitcoin, ethereum, or any
Speaker 1: other form of cryptocurrency. These wallets are assigned to encryption
Speaker 1: key pair and encryption keypair. The public key servers serves
Speaker 1: as the wallet addresses, so others know how to find it,
Speaker 1: although some account holders opt to keep it private. The
Speaker 1: private portion of the key pair, meanwhile, is a long
Speaker 1: alphanumeric string required to move funds out of the wallets,
Speaker 1: transfers require hot wallets. These are accounts that are always
Speaker 1: connected to the Internet and store the private key. Over
Speaker 1: the past decade, hot wallets have been drained of digital
Speaker 1: digital coins, supposedly worth billions, if not trillions of dollars. Typically,
Speaker 1: these attacks have resulted from the thief somehow obtaining the
Speaker 1: private key and emptying the wallet before owners know that
Speaker 1: the key has been compromised. Given the vulnerability of hot
Speaker 1: wallets to theft, many account holders store the private keys
Speaker 1: offline so they are kept separate from the addresses. These
Speaker 1: coal wallets can store jeez, I Hate the Things moves
Speaker 1: because of an ad These coal wallets can store the
Speaker 1: offline private keys in different ways. The most secure practice
Speaker 1: is to secure the key in a special purpose piece
Speaker 1: of hardware, often in the form of a USB dongle.
Speaker 1: Dongle is that what they call a flash drive these days, okay,
Speaker 1: that will decrypt them only when certain authentication steps occur.
Speaker 1: Multi sig coal wallets go a step further, in much
Speaker 1: the same way that the nuclear arm systems are designed
Speaker 1: to require two or more authorized people to successfully authenticate
Speaker 1: themselves before a missile can be launched. Multi sig wallets
Speaker 1: need the digital signatures of two or more authorized people
Speaker 1: before assets can be accessed by bit was largely followed
Speaker 1: best practices by strong only as much currency as needed
Speaker 1: for day to day activity in warm and hot wallets
Speaker 1: and keeping the rest in a multiicig coal wallet. Transferring funds
Speaker 1: out of the coal wallet required coordinated approval from multi
Speaker 1: multiple high level employees of the exchange. Again apparently not
Speaker 1: immediate speculation was that somehow the drained coal wallets or
Speaker 1: the infrastructure hosting it provided by a company called Safe,
Speaker 1: had been somehow compromised. This theory was plausible enough, since
Speaker 1: these sorts of thefts are usually accomplished by exploring vulnerabilities
Speaker 1: in the code enforcing cryptocurrency smart contracts or the infrastructure
Speaker 1: hosting them. The speculation was also consistent with the accounts
Speaker 1: from bybit employees that according to Safe the user the
Speaker 1: user coal wallet interfaces for the affective by bit employees
Speaker 1: displayed the correct appearing transaction information, yet a malicious transaction
Speaker 1: that had all valid signatures was executed on chain. Safe
Speaker 1: also paused that safe wallet services following the attack, and
Speaker 1: this story went live on ours has begun a phased
Speaker 1: rollout to restore them. This theory was ruled out after
Speaker 1: a subsequent investigation by Safe found no signs of unauthorized
Speaker 1: access to its infrastructure, no compromises to other safe wallets,
Speaker 1: and no obvious vulnerabilities in the safe codebase. An investigator
Speaker 1: continued to dig in, they finally settled on the true cause.
Speaker 1: By Bit ultimately said that the fraudulent transaction was a
Speaker 1: manipulated by a sophisticated attack that altered the smart contract
Speaker 1: logic and massed the signing interface, enabling the attacker to
Speaker 1: gain case control of the etch cold wallet.
Speaker 6: Wow.
Speaker 1: Okay, shattering assumptions. Now. What that means is that the
Speaker 1: multiple systems inside by a bit had been hacked in
Speaker 1: a way that allowed the attackers to manipulate the safe
Speaker 1: wallet UI on the device of each person required to
Speaker 1: approve the transfer. That revelation, in turn, has touched off
Speaker 1: something of a Eureka moment for many in the industry.
Speaker 1: There's a quote here. The by bit hack has shattered
Speaker 1: long hailed assumptions about cryptosecurity, researchers at the security firm
Speaker 1: Checkpoint wrote on Sunday, no matter how strong your smart
Speaker 1: contact logic or multi sig protections are, the human element
Speaker 1: remains its weakest link. This attack proves that UI manipulation
Speaker 1: and social engineering can bypass even the most secure wallets.
Speaker 1: It's still unclear how the attackers managed to hack the
Speaker 1: UIs of multiple by bit employees whose signatures were required
Speaker 1: for the funds to be moved out of the cold storage,
Speaker 1: but as researchers Dan Guido, Benjamin Samuels and a Niche
Speaker 1: Nike Nick Whatever of security firm Trail of Bits noted,
Speaker 1: hackers working on behalf of the North Korean government have
Speaker 1: long deployed sophisticated malware tools that operate seamlessly across Windows,
Speaker 1: mac os, and various wallet interfaces, show minimal signs of
Speaker 1: compromises while maintaining persistence, function as back doors to executive
Speaker 1: arbitrary commands, download and execute additional malicious payloads, and manipulate
Speaker 1: what users see in their interfaces.
Speaker 10: WHOA.
Speaker 1: These hackers have also been long known for the relentless
Speaker 1: social engineering prowess. They often spend weeks or months building
Speaker 1: online personas that ultimately win the trust of targets. The
Speaker 1: persistence likely allowed the thieves who hit by bit to
Speaker 1: somehow tamper with the UIs of each company employee whose
Speaker 1: digital imprinture im premature sure was required to move the
Speaker 1: funds out of cold storage and ultimately into the wallets
Speaker 1: of the hackers controlled at all, all at breakneck speed.
Speaker 1: As both Checkpoint and Trailer Bits pointed out, the lessons
Speaker 1: learned here bring cryptocurrency security back to some of the
Speaker 1: most basic elements, such as segmenting internal networks, adopting defense
Speaker 1: in depth practices that include multiple overlapped in controls for
Speaker 1: detecting and preventing sophisticated attacks, and preparing for scenarios precisely
Speaker 1: like this one. WHOA. So essentially they went all the
Speaker 1: way through to Essentially, I might be misunderstanding here. They
Speaker 1: went as far as to show up with the correct
Speaker 1: identifiers as if they were the employees themselves and backdoored
Speaker 1: it that way to steal this. Wow. I didn't know
Speaker 1: North Korea was that that tech literate. You know, you
Speaker 1: wouldn't think so much as we see them falling on
Speaker 1: their faces with their like missile programs and stuff. But
Speaker 1: I guess missiles and crypto are not in the same ballpark.
Speaker 1: I get that, but like, wow, okay, well there you
Speaker 1: have it. North Korea absolutely just jacked one point five
Speaker 1: billion from a Dubai based cryptocurrency and there is nothing
Speaker 1: that can be done about this. Wait a minute, hold on,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm gonna go ahead and stop sharing for
Speaker 1: just a second so we can I'm gonna catch up
Speaker 1: on the check. There's been a few a few memes
Speaker 1: shared as well, so technically most of the first man
Speaker 1: to download files from the cloud using a tablet.
Speaker 10: Ah.
Speaker 1: I like that, Royce. Wat's see here all the guns
Speaker 1: I would buy with that much money? Yoh, no doubt.
Speaker 1: I briefly worked on a farm, but that was in Pa.
Speaker 1: This point is shut up, Alex. One of the painful
Speaker 1: signs of years of dumb down education is how many
Speaker 1: people are unable to make a coherent argument. They convent
Speaker 1: their emotions. Question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans,
Speaker 1: anything except reason. Yeah, I gotta agree with that, Royce. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: my good buddy is currently working outside the border in
Speaker 1: North Korea. Oh, no doubt in the navy. Um, I
Speaker 1: can't tell what that picture is there, Alex Liberal Lou
Speaker 1: for sensitive assholes. Ha, that's funny. I do love the memes.
Speaker 1: And again, for anybody listening to this on the following day,
Speaker 1: if you would like to see these memes, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to read them. I'm not doing them justice. You should
Speaker 1: come and check us out on Patreon at the Cajun
Speaker 1: nightlink in the description below. I say again, Okay, so
Speaker 1: essentially no crypto is secure. I'm personally not shocked by this.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of crypto. Again, I gave my
Speaker 1: whole bias to that at the beginning of this, But yeah,
Speaker 1: North Korean hackers just stole what was Ethereum is a
Speaker 1: bigger coin if I'm not mistaken, and you would think
Speaker 1: that that would be relatively secure, and that's just gone now.
Speaker 1: I doubt that anybody is there even such a thing
Speaker 1: as crypto insurance, Like if some sort of a crypto
Speaker 1: theft happens. Is there any kind of safety net to
Speaker 1: where you can get some of your investment back or
Speaker 1: is that just gone to the wind? I feel like
Speaker 1: it's just gone right.
Speaker 5: Who knows? But did they try to steal from everybody?
Speaker 5: Or was it who did they steal it from? Like
Speaker 5: which individual?
Speaker 1: I don't think it was a one individual. They stole
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand Ethereum coins, so I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: there's a whole group of people.
Speaker 8: So I guess the reason why I'm asking. So I
Speaker 8: dabble a little bit in it, just to try to diversify.
Speaker 5: A little bit.
Speaker 8: And I'm not that I have a whole lot in there,
Speaker 8: but like buy money didn't get taken, so maybe they're
Speaker 8: just for those who have a lot, or you would
Speaker 8: think that maybe they would take a little bit out
Speaker 8: of everybody's account.
Speaker 5: Who knows?
Speaker 1: Do you have any Ethereum I do? Okay? Has it
Speaker 1: gone up or down in price in the last week?
Speaker 1: Just curious now that one point a billion.
Speaker 4: Dollars isn't gone you know, so it's been fluctuating, but
Speaker 4: I mean it just hit over the two grand mark,
Speaker 4: not like last week, so it's gone up.
Speaker 1: Wait, so was it before Friday.
Speaker 11: I don't remember when, but like it was with these
Speaker 11: last two weeks where it finally hit over the two
Speaker 11: grand market I think right now is about two fifty six,
Speaker 11: but it fluctuates.
Speaker 8: I mean that bigcoin, all the other wonderful stuff too.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 1: So they waited until it got to a certain level
Speaker 1: and then they made their move.
Speaker 11: Wow.
Speaker 1: So it seems that's that's pretty crafty old North Korea.
Speaker 1: Kim Jong has got some extra things going on in
Speaker 1: the back burner that we had no idea about. But okay,
Speaker 1: so now as potential crypto investors need to be worried
Speaker 1: about North Korean hackers for one, but this proves that
Speaker 1: it's hackable on all fronts. Nothing is really that secure.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Tony.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this reminds me of the mountain Gox hack back
Speaker 3: in twenty thirteen for bitcoin, and that drove Bitcoin's priced
Speaker 3: down a little bit, but it was in the hundreds
Speaker 3: of dollars at that time, and yeah, it was through
Speaker 3: an exchange, So the fundamentals behind the cryptocurrency are still
Speaker 3: pretty solid in my opinion. It's just that if an
Speaker 3: exchange does a bad job of securing them, securing the
Speaker 3: private keys, then a hacker can steal them, and Ethereum
Speaker 3: has a more complicated way of doing it than Bitcoin,
Speaker 3: and I thought that would make it safer, but maybe
Speaker 3: it hasn't made it safer. Ethereum is into having multiple
Speaker 3: signatures to transfer the whatever they're called, the coins, the
Speaker 3: the unspent outputs, and Bitcoin I think just uses one
Speaker 3: password to do that instead of multiple ones. It's been
Speaker 3: a while since I really studied this, but I remember
Speaker 3: I really tried to study cryptography for about a year
Speaker 3: before I started. I bought some way back then, and
Speaker 3: it was I got really lucky. Of course, I haven't
Speaker 3: bought any ethereum, but I think the fundamentals are still
Speaker 3: solid enough, and it's it's just an exchange, for example,
Speaker 3: or an untrustworthy person or a person you know, if
Speaker 3: you if you're if your device is compromised in any way,
Speaker 3: that's that's what you need to worry about. But the
Speaker 3: fundamentals of cryptographic hashing are still solid enough that as
Speaker 3: long as you stay safe and maybe even generate your
Speaker 3: key pair offline, which you can do, then there's no
Speaker 3: way anyone can derive it just by guessing and checking.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it's just like these hackers did right,
Speaker 1: because you're right, Ethereum. We read in the article they
Speaker 1: do have the multi key situation and a lot of
Speaker 1: people have stored their stuff offline. They were able to
Speaker 1: mimic the if I read correctly here, they were able
Speaker 1: to mimic the employees, the people who are actually the
Speaker 1: ones that oversee the movement of this and hack it
Speaker 1: that way.
Speaker 3: So I to me, it sounds like they installed spywear
Speaker 3: on these employees' phones and computers. That's kind of what
Speaker 3: it sounded like to me.
Speaker 1: It's very possible. It's very possible. Yeah, go ahead, Royce.
Speaker 8: All I was gonna say is just checking prices now,
Speaker 8: And actually I was wrong, sho Ethereum. In the beginning
Speaker 8: of January was over thirty six hundred dollars her per coin,
Speaker 8: and then over the past in a couple of months,
Speaker 8: it just dropped down to the eighteens, and now it's
Speaker 8: finally back into the twos. So it seems like it's
Speaker 8: been fluctuating a lot over these past months. Well that's
Speaker 8: even without looking you know, farther back.
Speaker 1: Okay, now, again, me being such a just I'm clueless
Speaker 1: in this realm. They stole one point five billion in ethereum.
Speaker 1: That's not cash, right, Like, that's not that's not cold
Speaker 1: currency that they can now go spend. They would have
Speaker 1: to like transfer it out and do all these things.
Speaker 1: How could North Korea use that as money at this time?
Speaker 8: Can't you convert it from the coin back to whatever
Speaker 8: couragion you're in. Isn't that the whole idea of it?
Speaker 5: Yeah, another question.
Speaker 3: I mean, some people have raised the possibility of blacklisting
Speaker 3: coins that are registered as stolen sure, and people have
Speaker 3: talked about doing that for bitcoin.
Speaker 6: I don't know if they've ever.
Speaker 3: Actually successfully applied it. It would require the agreement of
Speaker 3: the whole community, and they're never going to get that
Speaker 3: because anonymity is more important than security or something.
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I forget the trade off. But in the mount Gox
Speaker 3: thing in twenty thirteen, I was paying attention to that
Speaker 3: Bitcoin went from a little over one thousand dollars a
Speaker 3: coin down to about two hundred to coin, so and
Speaker 3: now it's up to what like ninety thousand, So it
Speaker 3: fluctuates just way more than any other investment. But that's
Speaker 3: kind of a rough idea of the values we're talking about.
Speaker 1: But that's what I'm saying. So it's not like North
Speaker 1: Korea could sell these now on the black market to
Speaker 1: make that money, right, they can't, Like maybe they could
Speaker 1: ransom them.
Speaker 3: Well, if they're blacklisted, they can't. But they probably will
Speaker 3: find a way to sell them for money for other currencies.
Speaker 6: That's probably what they'll do. I bet they'll find a way.
Speaker 1: But isn't that all shown on the blockchain? So like
Speaker 1: anybody who follows it will be able to tell that, like, oh,
Speaker 1: this was one of the ethereum that was stolen, and
Speaker 1: they'll know that, Oh, you're dealing in stolen crypto and
Speaker 1: all these things, and like the it's not like gold
Speaker 1: bars where regardless, there's only a few signifiers that would
Speaker 1: tell you that this gold bar was stolen in this heights,
Speaker 1: like the Italian job that movie, right, and that's like
Speaker 1: scratch off. This is not something you could scratch off
Speaker 1: like that. So even if they were to sell it
Speaker 1: in some sort of a backdoor deal, so to speak,
Speaker 1: it's it's not like that could go anywhere really, Or
Speaker 1: maybe I'm completely wrong and there's totally away and there's
Speaker 1: like a whole underground circuit for buying stolen an illegal crypto.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's assuming there's some system that will blacklist it worldwide,
Speaker 3: but I don't think there is, so they there's a
Speaker 3: good chance they will get away with it.
Speaker 1: Damn.
Speaker 5: Well, So here's a question.
Speaker 8: If you could just cash out, why wouldn't once that
Speaker 8: you cash out of one account, then take the money
Speaker 8: that you made and theoretically either I either reinvest or
Speaker 8: just take that money. Why would you even want to
Speaker 8: reinvest it or to try to sell it like that
Speaker 8: they sold? Are they stole billions like at one point
Speaker 8: whatever billion of dollars? So why not just cash out?
Speaker 1: But how like, how would you cash that out without
Speaker 1: also showing that this was the stolen funds?
Speaker 6: Well, here's another thing.
Speaker 1: At the moment, I guess it wouldn't matter, because it's
Speaker 1: still if they were to do that right now, right
Speaker 1: cash it out before people have the opportunity to follow
Speaker 1: it and on the blockchain and all these things, then
Speaker 1: maybe they could, like Tony said, maybe they could get
Speaker 1: away with it, but like they wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: hold these for like the next six months to a
Speaker 1: year and then try that. But again that's only assuming
Speaker 1: that this on the blockchain would be blacklisted in some way,
Speaker 1: shape or form. There's enough greedy people out there that
Speaker 1: may not even care if it was stolen or not,
Speaker 1: like you know, finders keepers kind of situation. I don't know.
Speaker 6: M Yeah.
Speaker 3: Another way to mask this whole blacklist problem is that
Speaker 3: if you buy some legitimate bitcoin or legitimate ethereum and
Speaker 3: then mix it with the stolen stuff that's already been
Speaker 3: you know, theoretic marked is stolen. Then the unspent outputs
Speaker 3: all mixed together in some new address, and then if
Speaker 3: you transfer them out of there, nobody knows how to
Speaker 3: deal with how to trace which on spent outputs or
Speaker 3: stolen and which ones weren't.
Speaker 6: So that's another strategy that North.
Speaker 3: Korea could use that other people have already used to
Speaker 3: get around this problem. Now for one point five billion
Speaker 3: dollars forth, maybe it's less doable.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 1: Launder, for sure, that's going to take a little more blending,
Speaker 1: but it's not impossible, I would assume.
Speaker 6: Right, Yeah, I bet film get away with it.
Speaker 1: That is insane, dude, I don't. I'm with you, Alex,
Speaker 1: I saw the cryptocurrency makes no goddamn sense to me, Yo,
Speaker 1: same same, I don't even understand how you launder ethereal dollars.
Speaker 1: I understand how to launder green money. This makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense to me. I understand how you wouldlaunder bullion and gyms,
Speaker 1: and how you fence stolen goods. That all makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense to me. In the realm that I live in.
Speaker 1: I have no idea how people are supposed to fence
Speaker 1: Internet money like that. There's ways, there's absolutely ways, but
Speaker 1: good god, the amount of hoops you have to jump through.
Speaker 1: But I mean, at the same time, for a one
Speaker 1: point five billion dollar payday, yo, I could learn how
Speaker 1: to jump through some hoops, like for real, nothing's impossible. So,
Speaker 1: oh my god, I don't know. I think you're right, Tony.
Speaker 1: They'll probably get away with it. But even that's the thing,
Speaker 1: the world knows that they're the ones that did it.
Speaker 1: There's no hiding it. I also don't think they care.
Speaker 1: It's not like North Korea is already social pariahs, international pariahs.
Speaker 1: It's not like this is gonna hurt their reputation any
Speaker 1: you know. So, I mean, they might even fence it
Speaker 1: through Russia. To be honest with you, Russia or China,
Speaker 1: they both have very good working relationships in North Korea,
Speaker 1: I could see them absolutely fencing it through their crypto
Speaker 1: markets in some way, shape or form, or hiding it
Speaker 1: in with their IP addresses or whatever the case is.
Speaker 3: So, and here's one other thing, just thinking about central
Speaker 3: banks and government banks and the whole worldwide banking system,
Speaker 3: I think the overall worldwide banking system doesn't like cryptocurrency
Speaker 3: that much. Still, they don't have a way to transform
Speaker 3: it into a central bank digital digital currency. So I
Speaker 3: think that the worldwide banking system, the traditional establishment banking system,
Speaker 3: is secretly a little happy when stuff like this happens.
Speaker 3: And they don't want governments to try to enforce, you know,
Speaker 3: laws against theft for cryptocurrency. They want cryptocurrency to be delegitimized.
Speaker 3: They want, you know, any time of theft like this happens,
Speaker 3: they're happy because it says, okay, yeah, people aren't going
Speaker 3: to be looking seriously into getting away from fiat currencies.
Speaker 3: They're gonna probably be more skeptical of the crypto if
Speaker 3: they know it can be stolen so easily.
Speaker 6: So that's another angle.
Speaker 1: On this that helps delegitimize it one hundred percent. The
Speaker 1: traditional banking system, the traditional economy system, does not like
Speaker 1: crypto because it's another way that they can't control. It's
Speaker 1: something that puts the power to the person rather than
Speaker 1: to the banking conglomerates and things. So I think you
Speaker 1: might be onto something here. Now this goes into the
Speaker 1: realm of conspiratorial talk, right. Is it possible that any
Speaker 1: number of these international banks would be more than happy
Speaker 1: to cash this crypto currency for North Korea if it
Speaker 1: helps further the point that people shouldn't trust crypto and
Speaker 1: should more trust brick and mortar banks. I could absolutely
Speaker 1: see them helping North Korea cash this out to further
Speaker 1: their goal in that regard, one hundred percent. Wow, Royce
Speaker 1: just typed in here. That's how I feel when you
Speaker 1: guys talk about what goes on in the world. Sometimes
Speaker 1: I'm in a bubble that doesn't have time to get
Speaker 1: into much unfortunately. Make reference yo. I feel that Raven says,
Speaker 1: I'd rather trade em barter for goods than money online. Yo,
Speaker 1: same same. I know. I'm just I'm just an old
Speaker 1: man in that regard. I don't do good with technology.
Speaker 1: Even though my former job was to deal with some
Speaker 1: cutting edge technology. Sometimes I sucked at the that type
Speaker 1: of like a really in depth tech world stuff. Crypto
Speaker 1: has never made sense to me. Help the stock market
Speaker 1: barely makes sense to me. Honestly. The only way it
Speaker 1: makes sense is that it's all gambling. And I understand
Speaker 1: the crypto is gambling as well, but like I don't
Speaker 1: even understand the I don't understand the gambling aspect of it.
Speaker 1: If you when you put stock into a company, you
Speaker 1: are gambling on that company doing well or that the
Speaker 1: value of that company will go up, right, that's the gamble.
Speaker 1: This makes sense to me in my mind here, I
Speaker 1: don't understand how you would be gambling on an ethereal
Speaker 1: dollar or an ethereal thing, coin, n ft, whatever the
Speaker 1: case is, that has no value other than what the
Speaker 1: Internet tells you the value of it should be, and
Speaker 1: how that's supposed to go up or down based off
Speaker 1: of what other people all feel like it should go
Speaker 1: up or down. That's how you have all these crypto
Speaker 1: pumping dumps that happen like it. It doesn't. I don't
Speaker 1: get it. I don't get it. Therefore I do not
Speaker 1: deal with it. It just doesn't go well for me.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, speaking of gambling out sent in, I
Speaker 1: mean gambling addicts send me twenty dollars, I might send
Speaker 1: back one hundred dollars Jimmy Neutron dunking on them. I
Speaker 1: like it. I like it. And then Zombie says, I'd
Speaker 1: rather hold my quote unquote stocks than figure out what
Speaker 1: this wild shit. Yo, same, same I and I don't
Speaker 1: even deal with the stocks, and I'm that's there's whole
Speaker 1: people that made their entire careers off of the stock market,
Speaker 1: and I'm not knocking it. I just suck at it,
Speaker 1: so I just stay in my own little bubble of
Speaker 1: earning my money.
Speaker 3: Well, here's another thing, people, I think gambling is a
Speaker 3: biological need. Almost people have been gambling since the beginning
Speaker 3: of time, with things like, well, there's baseball trading cards,
Speaker 3: there was the tulip mania people really, and there's diamonds
Speaker 3: and things that'll just go up and down. But people
Speaker 3: love to gamble. And if if cryptocurrency hadn't been invented,
Speaker 3: we would just be doing it with other stuff.
Speaker 1: On Oh God, Royce, that's a good one. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna steal that one. Dude, Jesus saves Jews invest wisely,
Speaker 1: that's fun. I like it. Oh, I like it all right, y'all.
Speaker 1: On that note, I think we're gonna wrap this episode up.
Speaker 1: As always, I want to thank everybody for coming out
Speaker 1: for this conversation and this edition of the Cajun Night Live.
Speaker 1: For anybody who is listening to this on Thursday and
Speaker 1: would like to be a part of the conversation again,
Speaker 1: go to the link below Cajun Night on Patreon. There's
Speaker 1: just one tier. It's just to get everybody involved in
Speaker 1: this conversation. Let's talk about what's going on in the
Speaker 1: world around us, y'all. Let's open form discuss everything. Let's
Speaker 1: have a little bit of growth, a little bit of
Speaker 1: education across the board, and let's make this even bigger
Speaker 1: than it's already grown. Again, I am the Cajun Knight,
Speaker 1: and I thank y'all for everybody for listening and coming out,
Speaker 1: and as always, God bless