reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @FurkanGozukara
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute bombshell. Donald Trump openly confesses that he tore up the Iran nuclear deal purely to appease Israel. He explicitly links US foreign policy to Jewish voters in New York. Washington is completely compromised by the Zionist lobby! https://t.co/QYJ0Sv0LOA
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute chaos in Washington. Trump accidentally admits he illegally smuggled weapons to protesters to overthrow the Iranian government, but they got stolen! Now he is threatening to blow everything up and "take the oil." Pure imperialist incompetence on full display. https://t.co/zfPqBdhhXi
reSee.it AI Summary
I saw a Fox News report where a National Security Analyst claims the Trump administration is purging the Pentagon, with Pete Hegseth firing over a dozen top generals, including Navy and Air Force chiefs, in the middle of a major war.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute bombshell on Fox News. An expert National Security Analyst confirms the Trump administration is completely purging the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth has fired over a dozen top generals, including the heads of the Navy and Air Force, right in the middle of a massive war. https://t.co/ufXcfMJAsL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked Army Chief of Staff General Randy George to leave his post, requesting that George retire immediately. The ouster comes as the United States is dealing with Iran.
On live commentary, national security analyst Hal Kemfort—a familiar figure and a retired US Marine—shared his reaction. He said, “Well, Marla, it’s a deal.” He noted that normally when you become a service chief, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or the vice chair, those are four-year terms, though not set in stone. He observed that there have been many changes under Pete Hegseth as secretary of war or defense, including the removal of about a dozen flag and general officers.
Kemfort recalled specific instances: Hegseth removed CQ Brown, the Air Force General who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Hegseth came in. He also removed Lisa Franchetti, who was the Chief of Naval Operations and head of the Navy. Additionally, he mentioned General Cruz, Lieutenant General Cruz, who headed the DIA, as well as others who have been removed. Kemfort emphasized that these actions show Hegseth’s willingness to remove senior flag and general officers, indicating a pattern of leadership changes at high levels within the military.
The discussion highlighted that while such removals are not unprecedented, the current move to retire General Randy George immediately is still considered a significant development. The segment linked the military leadership shakeups to ongoing strategic and security pressures, including the U.S. stance and actions regarding Iran.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And we're back, so we have two ousters today, this time from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He has asked Army Chief of Staff General Randy George to leave his post. George is the army's most senior general, a defense official says Hagsett asked General George to retire immediately. Now the ouster comes as The US, of course, is battling Iran. Joining me now is Hal Kemfort, a familiar face around here and, on live now, a national security analyst, also a retired US marine.
Thank you and thank you for your service. Let's just get your reaction to this. Is this really a big deal?
Speaker 1: Well, Marla, it's a deal. I mean, normally when you get a become a service chief or chairman of the joint chiefs or the vice chair, normally, those are four year terms. That is not set in stone. That that can change and certainly, we've seen a lot of changes, you know, with Pete Hegseth as secretary of war or secretary of defense. He is removed about a dozen flag and general officers.
Of course, you may recall, he removed CQ Brown Air Force General who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when he came in. He also, Lisa Franchetti was the CNO Admiral, head of the Navy, you know, chief of naval operations. And then of course, General Cruz, Lieutenant General Cruz, head of DIA and others have been removed as well. So they're not afraid of removing flagging general officers, but this is still a big deal.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
BOMBSHELL: Trump accidentally says the quiet part out loud. He admits the only reason the US is in the Middle East is to steal resources. He openly declares he wants to just "take their oil" from Iran, exactly like he claims they did in Venezuela. Pure imperialism! https://t.co/rABg0X2OkX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Military is so amazing. I rebuilt the military my first term. I didn't know I'd use it so much because then you also have Venezuela, which they say was one of the most lethal, incredible attacks in the history of military period, not just our military. It was a strong country, strong military. If you've ever been to Venezuela, they have soldiers all over everybody has a soldiers uniform on.
They have tough soldiers, but, it was all done in forty five minutes. The entire war was won in forty five minutes. We set a record. That's like a fighter gets knocked out in the first three seconds. And now we're working with Venezuela, and we're we've taken in many times the cost of the attack, many, many times.
And we're working with them. I it's like a joint venture, and we have tremendous amounts of oil. And we could do that with Iran very easily. We could just take their oil, but, know, I'm not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate. You know, they wanna see it end.
If we stayed there, I'd, you know, I'd prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily. I would prefer that. But people in the country sort of say, just win. You're winning so big.
Just win. Come home. And I'm okay with that too because we have a lot of oil between Venezuela and our oil.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Military is so amazing. I rebuilt the military my first term. I didn't know I'd use it so much because then you also have Venezuela, which they say was one of the most lethal, incredible attacks in the history of military period, not just our military. It was a strong country, strong military. If you've ever been to Venezuela, they have soldiers all over everybody has a soldiers uniform on.
They have tough soldiers, but, it was all done in forty five minutes. The entire war was won in forty five minutes. We set a record. That's like a fighter gets knocked out in the first three seconds. And now we're working with Venezuela, and we're we've taken in many times the cost of the attack, many, many times.
And we're working with them. I it's like a joint venture, and we have tremendous amounts of oil. And we could do that with Iran very easily. We could just take their oil, but, know, I'm not sure that the people in our country have the patience to do that, which is unfortunate. You know, they wanna see it end.
If we stayed there, I'd, you know, I'd prefer just to take the oil. We could do it so easily. I would prefer that. But people in the country sort of say, just win. You're winning so big.
Just win. Come home. And I'm okay with that too because we have a lot of oil between Venezuela and our oil.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister drops a massive truth bomb. She confirms Cuba fulfilled every single commitment in their historic peace agreement, but the US government unilaterally dismantled it all. Washington simply cannot be trusted to honor any diplomatic deal. https://t.co/jK81ZJuEss
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Remember this absolute bombshell. Declassified CIA documents openly admit that Washington orchestrated the 1953 coup in Iran. They literally wrote down their step-by-step plan to destroy a sovereign democracy and install a pro-Western puppet. Never forget. https://t.co/eAS6yJTrvw
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2000, secretary of state Madeleine Albright acknowledged for the first time the US's role in the 1953 coup in Iran. The coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. After the 1953 coup, the oil returned to British control, and the US gave increasing support to the Shah of Iran. In 2013, Iran's parliament approved a bill for the government to sue the US for its involvement in the coup. The bill followed the release of declassified documents offering details about how the CIA carried out the coup as an act of US foreign policy.
Campaign to install a pro Western government in Iran. Target: prime minister Mossadegh and his government. Objectives: through legal or quasi-legal methods to affect the fall of the Mossadegh government and to replace it with a pro Western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In 2000, secretary of state Madeleine Albright acknowledged for the first time The US's role in the nineteen fifty three coup. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. After the coup of nineteen fifty three, the oil was back under the control of the British, and The US gave increasing support to the Shah of Iran. In 2013, Iran's parliament approved a bill for the government to sue The US for its involvement in the coup. The bill followed the release of declassified documents offering details about how the CIA carried out the coup as an act of US foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Campaign to install a pro Western government in Iran. Target, prime minister Mossadegh and his government. Objectives, through legal or quasi legal methods to affect the fall of the Mossadegh government and to replace it with a pro Western government under the Shah's leadership with Zahedi as its prime minister.
reSee.it AI Summary
Absolute bombshell: I read Al Jazeera exposes how the US completely hijacked Iraq's economy. Two decades after the illegal invasion, Washington still forces all Iraqi oil revenues to be deposited in the New York Federal Reserve, giving America a permanent chokehold on the nation.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute bombshell. Al Jazeera exposes how the US completely hijacked Iraq's economy. Two decades after the illegal invasion, Washington still forces all Iraqi oil revenues to be deposited in the New York Federal Reserve, giving America a permanent chokehold on the nation. https://t.co/sjCXr3TOHx
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Mind blowing revelation. Glenn Greenwald confirms that Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater both complained on tape that the Israel lobby completely dictates American foreign policy. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented reality admitted by US Presidents. https://t.co/e8k3fbkgeu
reSee.it AI Summary
I relay a warning from a former Israeli president: the army is no longer moderate, with a new generation of radicalized settlers aiming to use the military to hasten biblical redemption—a terrifying shift.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute bombshell. Former Israeli President warns the world that the Israeli military is no longer moderate. He reveals the new generation of commanders are radicalized settlers with a messianic mission to use the army to accelerate biblical redemption. Terrifying shift. https://t.co/1s4Guyrvll
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Absolute bombshell. FBI files prove Epstein top recruiter Jean Luc Brunel offered to flip and expose the entire trafficking ring for immunity. The DOJ completely ignored him to protect the elites until he was found dead in a prison. https://t.co/baoeVNCw7P
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
OMG this is insane! A former CIA operative just admitted on camera that the US intentionally armed and relied on Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria just to serve Israel's geopolitical interests against Iran. They literally created the ISIS caliphate! https://t.co/4Oa4Y9FGya
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
BREAKING: Glenn Greenwald drops a massive bombshell. 36 states have enacted laws requiring Americans to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel just to get government contracts, healthcare grants, or even HURRICANE RELIEF. We are being held hostage by a foreign nation! https://t.co/LszHL6vIWM
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
OMG how is this not in media?? An Israeli soldier who came to Argentina posing as a tourist and set forests on fire has been caught. Israelis who used their connections fled the scene. https://t.co/e0lxIDmyE1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: One hour you get out of there. Okay. One hour you get out of there. Yes, yes, go ahead. Over there, there, the tent, over there, on the other side, on the other side.
In the forest you can't, you can't light a fire, prohibited, prohibited. I just went all the way around because I saw a cloud of smoke and an exit from there, these sons of bitches, these sons of bitches are lighting a fire in the… mother’s cunt. You’re leaving, you son of a bitch. If we don’t take care of this, who’s going to take care of it, man? There has to be someone here, look.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Una hora te vas de ahí. Ok. Una hora te vas de ahí. Sí, sí, dale. Por favor, allá, allá, la carpa, allá, del otro lado, del otro lado.
En el bosque no, no se puede hacer fuego, prohibido, prohibido. Le acabo de dar toda la vuelta porque vi una nube de humo y salida de ahí, están estos hijos de puta, estos hijos de puta están prendiendo fuego en la concha de su madre. Te vas, hijo de puta. Si no lo cuidamos nosotros, ¿quién va a cuidar esto, hermano? Tiene que haber alguien acá, mirá.
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
Damn, Tucker Carlson just exposed that Israel uses an AI program called Where is Daddy to track men and bomb them when they are with their children. The US government punished the UN expert Francesca Albanese who exposed this crime. https://t.co/fIjBhTqFg5
Video Transcript AI Summary
First Speaker argues that Microsoft provided services and access to data, including Palestinian data, which allowed Israel to set up systems to mass target and mass kill Palestinians. They mention an application called "Where is Daddy?" that allows the army to randomly track people and reach them when they are with their families in order to inflict the most harm, describing it as brutal. They state agreement with this view and emphasize the importance of understanding that this represents the end of humanity and the civilization people have pretended to belong to.
They claim Israel has the most sophisticated military in the region and has known exactly what it is doing for two years. They assert that many soldiers are breaking down and suicide rates are increasing among young Israelis who have served in the army, noting they are older than teenagers and have been turned by indoctrination into willing executioners of a genocide. They call for intervention by people who love Israel to save what remains of Israel.
First Speaker contends that the biggest harm is being done by those outside of Israel who defend the regime. They describe the regime as having imposed a military dictatorship for decades on Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and until 2005 in Gaza, and claim this regime also extends to some Israelis who are part of the system. They argue that brutality toward others undermines one's own humanity.
Second Speaker agrees and seeks clarification, asking if there is an app, possibly by an American company, called "Where's Daddy" that allows the Israeli government to murder men in front of their children. They reference the prior statements and want confirmation of that claim.
First Speaker responds that Israel has developed not just a system but an automatized system to decide targets through a computing system, and that data has been provided by technology. They reiterate that this is part of a broader system of targeting.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Microsoft who have provided their services and access to data, Palestinian data that has allowed Israel to set up systems to mass target and mass kill Palestinians. I mean there is an application called Where is Daddy? That allows the army to randomly track people and reach them when they are with their families so as to inflict the most harm? How brutal is it? And I agree with you.
This is something that people must understand because is the really, this is the end of humanity, the end of the civilization that we have pretended to belong to until now. Israel has the most sophisticated military army in the region and Israel is knowing exactly what he's doing and has been knowing this for two years. And this is why there are also so many soldiers now breaking down the level of suicide is increasing among young Israelis who have served in the army and of course so because they are just older than teenagers and they've been turned by indoctrination into the willful executioners of a genocide. This is why I'm saying we must intervene. People who love Israel must intervene to save what remains of Israel.
The the the biggest arm is being done by those outside of Israel who keep on defending this regime that not only has imposed a military dictatorship for decades on the Palestinians in the West Bank and in Jerusalem and until 2005 in Gaza, but also on the Israelis who are part of the system. You cannot brutalize the other without losing your own humanity in the process.
Speaker 1: It's exactly right. So just I I want you to clarify something. I think I heard you say that there is some kind of app maybe made by an American company called Where's Daddy that allows the Israeli government to murder men in front of their children. Did I I mean, did I dream that or did you say that?
Speaker 0: No. Said, basically, Israel has developed it's not enough. It's a system. Israel has developed this this system, automatized system to decide the targets through a computing system and the data has been provided by tech
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
@TuckerCarlson https://t.co/jhmMI6rAmw
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
The most fascinating part about the story of Nick Fuentes is how early Zionists groom their targets and how fast they attack them when out of line. And that is exactly why they could not tolerate what Charlie Kirk was doing. https://t.co/06nZnvI8Hl
@FurkanGozukara - Furkan Gözükara
@RepThomasMassie https://t.co/uBA5mTVfJl
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
The exact moment a man's entire worldview shatters. He was a member of AIPAC. He supported Israel his whole life. Then he learned the truth. His journey from anger to shame to sorrow for Palestinians is staggering. https://t.co/Y3bujoeryE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker describes a personal progression of political and emotional shifts surrounding support for Israel and the treatment of Palestinians. They begin by recalling that they had supported Israel for many years, expressing surprise and distress at what Israel is doing. This leads to anger directed at Israel for “misguiding me all my life and getting me to support the maltreatment of Palestinians.” The frustration is not only about external actions but about the sense of having been deceived, and this provokes a second wave of emotion: anger directed inward. The speaker says they became angry at themselves for being such a dupe and for being so ignorant and never checking anything out. This self-directed anger is followed by shame and embarrassment, which then give way to a deeper sorrow for the Palestinian people and all that they have endured.
amid these feelings, the speaker aligns with a particular critical perspective. They state their agreement with Noam Chomsky’s claim that “this propaganda stands on thin ground,” using that reference to support their view of the situation. They argue that one of the reasons people become so hysterical when confronted with the facts is that they know, at some level, they do not admit certain realities. The speaker notes that “most people I’ve met” do not admit that they’ve never studied the history, even if they implicitly know it. The implication is that there is a cognitive dissonance or a hidden awareness that contradicts widely held beliefs.
The speaker emphasizes that, deep down, people know they haven’t studied the history. Therefore, when confronted with a revision that proves what they believed was completely wrong, those people can become hysterical. This observation connects the emotional responses of anger, self-blame, guilt, and sorrow to a larger claim about how people react to new historical information that challenges their established beliefs. The overall narrative traces a personal journey from long-standing support and subsequent anger at external forces, through internalized guilt and shame, to a compassionate concern for the Palestinian people, all within a framework that cites a scholarly critique of propaganda and the emotional defensiveness it provokes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh my god. I've supported Israel all these years. This is what Israel's doing. Oh my god. And then anger at Israel for misguiding me all my life and getting me to support the the maltreatment of Palestinians.
Then my anger turned in on itself, and I got angry at me for being such a dupe and being so ignorant and never checking anything out. And then shame and embarrassment arose, and then finally, a great sorrow for the Palestinian people for all that they had been through. But I agree with Noam Chomsky that this propaganda stands on thin ground. That's one of the reasons why people become so hysterical when they're confronted with the facts. Because they know they they actually don't admit it, most people I've met.
They don't admit that they've never studied the history. But deep down, they know they haven't studied the history. So when you confront them with a revision that proves that what they believe was completely wrong, they can actually become hysterical.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
More Americans NEED to see this. https://t.co/7AOUy4SGrI
Video Transcript AI Summary
Checklist for summarization approach:
- Identify and preserve the core claims and conclusions expressed in the transcript.
- Maintain the original statements’ emphasis and key phrases (e.g., “take it in small doses,” demographic references).
- Remove repetitive phrases and filler content while keeping the essential arguments intact.
- Translate only if needed; here, the content is already in English.
- Avoid adding any evaluative commentary or personal judgments; present claims as stated.
- Ensure the final summary is concise yet comprehensive, aiming for the 369–462 word range.
The transcript presents the speaker’s central points as follows: The Zionists, the speaker asserts, were “particularly against anything that is to be done if they couldn't have the whole of Palestine and everything handed to them on a silver plate so they wouldn't have to do anything.” According to the speaker, such an all-or-nothing demand would render any action impossible: “It couldn't be done.” Consequently, the speaker contends, the approach had to be incremental—“We had to take it in small doses.” This refrain is repeated to underscore the proposed strategy of gradual change rather than decisive, comprehensive action.
A key assertion concerns population movement and demographic replacement: “You can't move five or 6,000,000 people out of a country and fill it up with five or 6,000,000 more.” The speaker uses this claim to argue that large-scale expulsion and replacement could not occur in a single stroke, implying a staged or incremental process rather than a sudden upheaval.
The speaker then references the famous slogan used in Zionist discourse: “it wasn't really a land without people for people without land.” The line is followed by the assertion “Absolutely not,” signaling rejection of the slogan’s purported truth, at least in the speaker’s view. The repetition of “We had to take it in small doses” reinforces the main theme of gradualism in pursuit of political or territorial objectives.
Toward the end, the transcript concludes with the claim that “We're conducting expansionist policy of Israel, and everybody's afraid to say it.” This final assertion posits an expansionist agenda attributed to Israel, coupled with a claim that such expansionist aims are not openly acknowledged by others.
In sum, the speaker characterizes Zionist opposition to actions requiring full, unconditional gains, advocates a deliberate incremental strategy, highlights the impracticality of mass population transfers in one step, challenges the legitimacy of a popular slogan regarding land and people, and concludes with an accusation of an expansionist policy that others fear to name.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Zionists particularly were against anything that is to be done if they couldn't have the whole of Palestine and everything handed to them on a silver plate so they wouldn't have to do anything. It couldn't be done. We had to take it in small doses. You can't move five or 6,000,000 people out of a country and fill it up with five or 6,000,000 more in Five or 6,000,000 people out of a country and Elijah, it wasn't really a land without people for people without land. Absolutely not.
Absolutely not. We had to take it in small doses. We had to take it in small doses. We had to take it in small doses. You can't move five or 6,000,000 people out of a country and fill it up with five or 6,000,000 more and expect both sets of We're conducting expansionist policy of Israel, and everybody's afraid to say it.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Tucker Carlson Bravo Great Strength Speaking Truth so Loudly https://t.co/PjbcpIIFS1
Video Transcript AI Summary
"this is a good thing because it brings The United States into a conflict that we've been involved in on an existential level for decades."
"There was an Israeli spy ring in The United States, and they clearly knew nine eleven was coming."
"They aired it."
"They're real people."
"They're not crazy."
"Those are factually true statements."
"How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in The United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math."
"Zero."
"Don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie."
"You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power."
"Iran is not even in the top 10 list."
"Our problems would include tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country."
"Nobody knows their identities."
"A drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans over the past twenty years."
"My family was attacked."
"It's true."
"And everyone kind of knows it's true."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Benjamin Netanyahu on camera right after said this is a good thing because it brings The United States into a conflict that we've been involved in on an existential level for decades. Mean, he said that out loud. I'm not guessing you can pull the tape. We know that a group of Israeli art students who clearly were not art students, clearly some of them were aligned Israeli intelligence, were arrested and held for quite some time in The United States before being released without charges. And we know that a group of them, again, I'm quoting an FBI document here, not the Internet, filmed the attacks on nine eleven, and I'm quoting, seemed to have foreknowledge of those attacks.
Now you were not allowed to follow-up in any of this. Fox News did a series with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron, which many people have seen in a bootleg version on the Internet, but they did it, like, within weeks saying, what is this? There was an Israeli spy ring in The United States, and they clearly knew nine eleven was coming. This is Fox News. They pulled that under pressure.
They pulled that off the Internet. It's not searchable in any Fox News archive, but they aired it. I know the people who who did it. Of course, I worked with them for years. They're real people.
They're not crazy. In fact, they're pro Israel, but they had a fact set before them, and they reported it, which is called journalism, and subsequent generations have been forbidden from noting what is now factually true. Those are factually true statements. Now we tried to interview some of those people. One lives in The United States in California and made no headway whatsoever, and we knew as we did it, the way, that we're gonna be attacked as anti Semites.
It's very unwise to use military force without a clear achievable object objective that serves the American national interest. In fact, it's not it's not allowed to use it under any other circumstances. And in that case, I was concerned and remain concerned that this focus on Iran is not actually connected to our national security. How many Shiite terror attacks have there been in The United States in my lifetime? Let me do the math.
Zero. So don't tell me that the greatest threat we face is Iran. That's a lie. You're telling it on behalf of a foreign power. Maybe they feel the greatest threat they face is Iran.
It's not the greatest threat we face. It's not an endorsement of Iran. Okay? Doesn't make me a simp for the Shiites. It just makes me an American who's trying to think clearly about what our problems are.
And our problems would include tens of millions of foreign nationals living illegally in my country. Nobody knows their identities. They would include a collapsing economy that makes it very hard for my children to have children and live the life that they grew up with and and their friends and all American kids. Would It include a drug crisis that's killed millions of Americans over the past twenty millions of Americans over the last twenty years. Iran is not even in the top 10 list.
So you can scream at me all you want and call me names and call me a bigot or whatever, but I just there's no evidence to support that. And so if the energy of the US government is focused on a threat that's not the primary threat to us, it is by definition ignoring threats that are, and that's a kind of negligence. And so I pointed that out. I was, you know, roundly attacked. My family was attacked.
Whatever. I don't care. It's true. And everyone kind of knows it's true.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
This 14 years old girl has more courage than cumulative of Arab world leaders https://t.co/RHiJgMid1E
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
I guess this explains why Mr Beast didn't say a word about starving and 100k+ murdered kids in Gaza https://t.co/7ki8PM95jT
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims MrBeast is not independent but owned by a web of powerful media owners and investors. They say he’s connected to the same people who own other creators and were once under a group called Scale Lab. At one million subs, the speaker says MrBeast sought more money and became involved with Reed Dusher, described as the CEO of Knight Media, who allegedly facilitated a honey sponsorship and a sponsorship with Aspirian, an entity linked to a money-lending network run by a prominent family. The narrative continues that Knight Media allegedly steered MrBeast toward major deals, including a recent NBA-related arrangement and an Amazon partnership. The speaker claims Alpha Wave Gamma invested $300 million, run by Rick Gerson, who purportedly knows high-profile figures. The closing question asks why MrBeast refused an interview and what the mentioned entities have in common.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: MrBeast really doesn't want you to know who owns him. He commented on my last video acting all oblivious, so now I really have to expose who raised him $300,000,000. He's owned by the same people that own Kai Sanat, Hassan Piker, Rizzler Kids, these people, Drusky, Playboy Max. He used to be owned by Scale Lab and made videos like these. At 1,000,000 subs, he needed more money and became friends with Reed Dusher, the CEO of Knight Media, who slept in 19 year old Jimmy's when he was 30, quickly got Mr.
Beast a honey sponsorship, then a sponsor with Aspirian, owned by a credit business that works with bankers and money lenders, started by the Wolfson family. And suddenly, all of his videos were about money. Night Media's CEO is Ezra Cooper Stein. Their investor is Peter Chernan, who owned Barstool Sports, Cameo, and was Rupert Murdoch's right hand man, who worked closely with Ari Emanuel, who owned all these people. On record, Night Media scrubbed MrBeast's channel and told him what to Night Media got him an NBA deal with the Chicago Hornets, got him a deal with Amazon recently, guess who the CEO of Amazon is, and MrBeast got a $300,000,000 investment from Alpha Wave Gamma, run by Rick Gerson, who personally knows Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, the CEO of Blackwater, and the Prince of The Emirates.
Why do you think mister beast never accepted the interview with me? What do you think everyone I mentioned has in common?
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Salute to George Galloway. Very simple explanation and to the point. https://t.co/JX5MIpOYLO
Video Transcript AI Summary
DNA tests are allegedly prohibited in Israel because they would reveal that virtually no Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic or have ancestral connection to Palestine. The speaker claims to have met Chinese, Vietnamese, and African Jews, none of whom are native to Palestine. The speaker states that some Ashkenazi Jews are entirely European in their DNA. The speaker recounts being assaulted by a BBC manager who had recently converted to Judaism. The speaker believes that converting to Judaism does not give someone the right to displace Palestinians.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're not allowed to have a DNA test in Israel. There are Chinese Jews, I've met them. There are Vietnamese Jews, I've met them. They're not native to the land of Palestine. There are African Jews, they are not native to the land of Palestine either.
There are Ashkenazi Jews who are entirely European in their DNA. That's why you're not allowed to have a DNA test in Israel because it will reveal that virtually none of them are Semitic, virtually none of them have any ancestral connection to the land. I was viciously assaulted by a manager in the BBC who had recently converted to Judaism. It's fine. I love all religions, but you can't say I've now converted to Judaism and therefore I have a right to go to the land of Palestine and live in the house of someone whose ancestors have been living in it for thousands of years again.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
The interview Senator Ted Cruz literally cooked published https://t.co/pcMTH2jECl
Video Transcript AI Summary
The senator supports regime change in Iran via popular uprising, not military force. He defines his foreign policy as a "non-interventionist hawk," prioritizing US national security interests. He opposed military action in Syria and the Iraq War, viewing Iran as different due to its threat to the US.
The senator believes supporting Israel is in America's national security interest, citing intelligence sharing and a commonality of enemies. He acknowledges Israel likely spies on the US, as do other allies. He defends APAC as lobbying for a strong US-Israeli relationship, not for the Israeli government.
He believes Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump and has paid hitmen to do so. He also believes that the US should protect the president and take out our enemies, and that Israel is doing that right now.
He attributes the war in Ukraine to Biden's weakness and the waiving of sanctions on Nord Stream 2, and thinks Zelenskyy is behaving horribly. He thinks blowing up Nord Stream 2 was a good thing. He accuses the interviewer of defending Russia, while the interviewer says that he is defending Western Europe.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator, thank you very much for spending the time to have this conversation.
Speaker 1: It's good to be with you. So you've come
Speaker 0: out for regime change in Iran as distinct just from taking out the nuclear sites. What does regime change look like in Iran?
Speaker 1: Somebody else in charge.
Speaker 0: How do you get there?
Speaker 1: Look, that ultimately has to be a popular uprising for the people. And it's not a complicated question. Is America better off with a country that has a leader who hates us and wants to kill us or or to have a country with a leader who likes us and wants to be friends with us. Well, definitely the latter is better. Of course.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And so that's not a complicated statement. Look, I believe you look across the world when you have countries that have dictators that are viciously anti America. Venezuela, Maduro hates us. Would we be better off with Maduro out of power? Absolutely.
I I want our enemies out of power and I want our friends in power.
Speaker 0: That I could not agree more. The question is how do you get there? Of course. And we've been trying to kill Maduro for quite some time. We have troops there as I don't
Speaker 1: know that we've been trying to kill Maduro.
Speaker 0: We we have. And I think you know that.
Speaker 1: Okay. I don't know that.
Speaker 0: Okay. Well, As a statement of fact, we have.
Speaker 1: So We do have massive sanctions. We try to pressure them out of all. Yeah. I'm not not aware of it.
Speaker 0: I'm just saying there's a lot of pressure coming from various parts of the US government on that government and it's still there. Yeah. Same the country of various ancestors Cuba. You know, 1959, we've been working on that. Hasn't worked.
So it's it's I believe both agree it's hard
Speaker 1: to do. It absolutely is hard. And look, think you're reasonable to ask how do we produce that? And I think there's a distinction between what your objective is and the means to get it. There are all sorts of things I would say we would be better off.
We'd be better off in China without Xi there. Should we invade China and topple Xi? Of course not. We'd be
Speaker 0: better off with no national debt.
Speaker 1: You know? There are lots of things. Totally. But but it's good to say, alright. What are our objectives?
Right. And so with the Ayatollah in Iran saying you're for regime change, I don't view as complicated. I mean, the guy literally leads mobs chanting death to America. So that's not good.
Speaker 0: Definitely not good. But the reason I think it's important to get a little more detailed about how that might happen is because there's military action and progress which we're supporting. And the president has said clearly, including last night, that he is focused on eliminating the capacity of the Iranian government to produce nuclear weapons. You are saying we need to use military force to affect regime change.
Speaker 1: I have not said that.
Speaker 0: Oh, I must have not
Speaker 1: that once. I don't think we need to use military force to do regime change. I said I support it. I would like to see it happen. You asked me how should it happen.
A popular uprising. So what I've advocated for. Let's step back a second. You and I, we've known each other a long time. I would say we agree on about 80% of the things on earth.
For sure. And there are a lot of things, and we can get into the nitty gritty of foreign policy as much as you want. There are a lot of things on which you and I agree, not just a little bit, but violently.
Speaker 0: I totally agree. I was rooting for you in your last campaign for sure.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you. Look, you have been heroic the border. You have been one of the clearest and best voices in the whole country on securing the border and on the absolute crisis we're facing. And in Texas, I see it and live it every day. In COVID, in fact, you may recall in the middle of the COVID lockdown, I was out walking my dog when the whole world was shut down and we were living in lunatic times.
And I called you and said, Tucker, your nightly monologues are the single best thing on television. Like, I watch them like an injection of crack. Okay. I'm mixing my metaphor because you don't inject crack. You get what I'm saying.
Just try. No. I mean, it was you were standing up and speaking like, what the hell are we doing in a way that we desperately, desperately needed. And so whether it's securing the border, whether it's the insanity of COVID lockdowns and the vaccine mandates, whether it is the second amendment or the first amendment, you and I agree on a ton of stuff. The 20% where we disagree, I do think is meaningful.
And it's mostly in the foreign policy space. And what I would say, if you'll allow me to get a little theoretical and then I'm happy to get specific. For a long time, people have perceived two different poles of Republican foreign policy. There have been interventionists and those have been people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, George W. Bush.
And there have been isolationists. And the most prominent of those have been Ron Paul and Rand Paul and there are others. And people perceive those are the two choices. You've got to be one or the other. I've always thought both were wrong.
I don't agree with either one. The way I view my own foreign
Speaker 0: power I'm with you by the way, for whatever it's worth. I agree with you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good.
Speaker 0: I don't know who set up that binary, but there are lots of choices actually.
Speaker 1: I mean, people sort of naturally fall into I think they want to classify people and they're like, okay, you're one or the other and you've got to be all or nothing. And the interventionists, it seems, have never seen a country they didn't want to invade and that doesn't make any sense to me. And the isolationists, I think, don't take the threats to America seriously. And I think that's naive and it doesn't work. So my view, I consider myself a third point on the triangle.
And what I describe that as is that I am a non interventionist hawk. Which sounds a little weird, but what do I mean by that? I mean the central touch point for US foreign policy and for any question of military intervention should be the vital national security interest of The United States. How does this make America safer? How does this protect Americans?
If it does, we should be strong. And actually another way of conceiving what I'm saying, I'm speaking theoretically. But Reagan referred to it as peace through strength. And actually, I think Donald Trump's foreign policy is very much what I'm describing a non interventionist talk. Where he understands that, and I think this is historically true, the best way to avoid war is being strong.
That weakness and isolationism, I think, encourages war. So going back to regime change, where you started in Iran. Or So but just the way I I don't think
Speaker 0: I disagree with anything you've said. So we may not be that far apart really because you said that the single criterion for making decisions about America's foreign policy is America's national interest. Yes. That's
Speaker 1: it. Yeah. Which is also America first. That's another way of putting that as I guess
Speaker 0: the definition of it. Yeah. It's hardly breaking news. The US dollar has been gravely devalued by Washington money printing. You print money out of thin air and the currency becomes weaker.
You can purchase less with the same amount. The entire system is backed by nothing but the government's word. What is that worth? People around the world are beginning to ask. So one of the results of this is that a lot of people want to invest in crypto.
Many don't know where to start. That's where iTrustCapital comes in. Their platform makes the crypto game smarter, easier, safer, and you can understand it. With iTrustCapital, you buy and sell crypto inside a tax advantaged IRA. That means the same long term tax benefits of a retirement account paired with the freedom to invest in digital assets.
They also offer secure nonretirement accounts, use an airtight security system, and have real human beings, experts on call if you ever need them. You just call up and you can talk to them in person. Creating an account is very simple. It takes just a few minutes. Click the link below or visit itrustcapital.com to start today.
The question is, are we watching that now?
Speaker 1: So I think we are. And from what you've said publicly, think on Iran in particular, you and I disagree. And Alright. Let me contrast it when Obama was president. When Obama was president, you remember he talked about wanting to have military action against Syria.
And at the time, I tried to keep an open mind to it. I said, okay, let me listen to the commander in chief describe to me how this is in America's interest and what your plan is. And and Bashar Assad was a bad guy. He was killing his own citizens and and he had chemical weapons that were very dangerous. I could conceive of a commander in chief laying out a plan for, okay, we're gonna go in and say, grab the chemical weapons and leave.
Like I could see that if there was a real threat to America and there was a plan to prevent that, I could see supporting that. So I wanted to hear what he said to say. And I listened both in classified briefings and public questioning. And number one, their public defensive, it was incoherent. So John Kerry said, we're going to engage in an unbelievably small strike.
I think that's a quote. I'm like, okay. And and to do what? At the time, there were nine major rebel Islamic groups in Syria. I'm like, okay.
I agree, but Shah Assad's a bad guy. You topple him. And one of the nine other groups takes over. Seven of them were affiliated with radical Islamic terrorism. You had Al Qaeda and Al Nusra.
Like, how is it better to have lunatics who hate us in charge? Assad's a bad guy but I don't want worse guys in charge. Obama administration couldn't give an answer to that. And ultimately when you press them, John Kerry in particular I pressed and he would say, well, we need to defend international norms. What the hell is an international norm?
I don't know what it is but I'm not interested in putting US servicemen and women in harm's way to defend one.
Speaker 0: Amen.
Speaker 1: So I opposed the Syri attack and opposed it vocally. And it was interesting Rand and I agreed. Rand's a friend of mine. But we agreed with that position for different reasons. What I was asking is is I think the question we should ask, how does this make America safer?
The Obama administration couldn't give me an answer, so I posed it. I think Iran is very different. May I ask what you think of how Syria wound up? Because Bashar
Speaker 0: al Assad now lives in Moscow. Yeah. He was taken out by
Speaker 1: our
Speaker 0: allies. And he's been replaced by a radical Islamist who was affiliated with ISIS. So is that a win or no?
Speaker 1: Unclear. Look, Syria's a mess, so I've consistently opposed
Speaker 0: But we had a secular leader in a religious and ethnically diverse country. Now we have a religious extremist, Islamic religious extremist, who's overseeing the purge of Christians and Alawites. Is that better or that doesn't seem like a Well,
Speaker 1: one of the things you said is you said he was taken out by our allies. I don't think that's right. Israel didn't take Assad out. What happened, and I'll tell you What
Speaker 0: about Turkey?
Speaker 1: Turkey didn't take him out. So it was interesting. I had a long
Speaker 0: How did Assad get kicked out? When
Speaker 1: Netanyahu was in DC a couple of months ago, he and I sat down for a couple of hours. He's a good friend of mine. We talked actually about Syria. He made an interesting point that I've not heard anywhere else in that he said he believes what toppled Assad was when Israel took out Nasrallah. Nasrallah was the head of Hezbollah.
They took him out. He made an interesting point. He said, It's fascinating how a charismatic leader And Bebe said, look, Nasrallah was a very effective terrorist leader. And when they took him out, that power base was supporting Assad. And that ultimately in Bebe's analysis removed the support from Assad and toppled him.
But they weren't trying to take out Assad. My view now, I don't know. But you don't think that
Speaker 0: And I don't It is very confusing and I don't know that anyone really knows all the details. But you don't think that Israel or Turkey or NATO ally Turkey played any role in toppling Assad?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know that they did. Look look, my understanding of that, they clearly took out Nasrallah and Hezbollah. They've decimated Hezbollah, but Hezbollah is waging war on So so decimating Hezbollah was very good for Israel and very good for for America too. I mean, Hezbollah hated us.
I I would put Assad in the category of an unintended consequence. And whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I think time will tell
Speaker 0: For The United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for The United States. I think time will tell the new leadership there. You're right to be concerned. Let me step back and let's talk regime change generally. I mentioned Syria.
I also opposed the Iraq War. I think the Iraq War was a serious mistake. And we have a pattern and going back to this binary of the interventionist and the isolationist. The interventionists advocate over and over again. There's a bad guy.
There's a dictator who's doing bad things to his people. And they say, let's go topple him. And you have dictators in The Middle East who are killing radical Islamic terrorists. We come in and topple them. The radical Islamic terrorists take over and they start killing Americans.
And mind you, how the heck does that help us? Like, Saddam Hussein was a horrible human being. He murdered and tortured people. I unequivocally bad guy. But it got much worse after we toppled him.
And you ended up having ISIS rise up. I mean, that was the cause of ISIS was toppling Saddam Hussein. Same thing in in in Libya. You had Qaddafi, another horrible guy that that under Obama, we toppled him. And you ended up having radical Islamic warlords taking over.
And and so the and it's the question I asked in Syria. Okay. Well, what's the plan? And and and how is this good or bad for The United States? And and so I don't think with Iran I I view Iran as very different from Iraq.
Speaker 0: But up to that point, you say we disagree. I I don't hear really anything. I'm not quite sure what happened in Syria, but I I don't know. So Right? But other than that, I don't hear anything I disagree with at all.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Sounds like we're in a complete agreement. I wonder though, is there a successful regime change that The United States supported that you're aware of in the last hundred years?
Speaker 1: Sure. Defeating the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union collapsing, winning the Cold War. That that was the most consequential step for US national security interests of our lifetimes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you would classify that as a regime change that we affected?
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: And look, and I are in my office, we're sitting next to a painting of Reagan in front of the Brandenburg Gate. And up top are the words tear down this wall in German in the style of the graffiti. Right. And I think those are the most important words any leader has said in modern times. And if you look at how Reagan waged the Cold War And Reagan is very much my model for how to I actually think how Reagan took on the Soviet Union is exactly how we should take on China.
Now, starting from the point, look, Reagan was not an interventionist. In eight years, the biggest country Reagan ever invaded was Grenada. He was very reluctant to use US military force.
Speaker 0: He didn't respond after the eighty three barracks bombings.
Speaker 1: You're right. He made the judgment that the risk exceeded the benefits. And that's a very rational decision to make. And it's reflected Trump has made those same decisions where he is willing to use military force. But he very much asks, okay, is this good or bad for America?
Does this endanger US servicemen and women or not? And one of the points about the Cold War. Look, nobody in their right mind wanted a shooting war between America and The Soviet Union. The two biggest nuclear powers on earth firing bullets at each other is really unhealthy for human beings. Same thing is true with China.
Nobody with any sense says, hey, let's go to war with China. That's dumb and a whole lot of people could die. But the Cold War showed we've got lots of tools short of sending the marines to fight against a regime. And one of the most important tools is the bully pulpit. And so when I say I support regime change, actually think just simply laying out what the Ayatollah does.
And so I spend a lot of time, I speak to Iranian dissident groups. I speak out against human rights abuses. I think shining a light on the depravity of leaders is a really powerful tool that America has.
Speaker 0: Should we limit our activity to that?
Speaker 1: It depends. Again, the
Speaker 0: Because the US government pays opposition groups, militarized opposition groups in Iran overthrow the government. We've done it in a lot of different places, as you know. I'm not saying it's bad, but that's very different from what you're describing. You're saying we're making a moral case as we did for seventy years with the Soviets. Our system works, yours doesn't.
Yep. And I think we made a credible case for that. And we beat them over seventy years economically.
Speaker 1: And that was a huge part of it.
Speaker 0: Right. I think everyone would agree that was the main part of it. We didn't beat them in Vietnam or North Korea.
Speaker 1: The main part of it, but it was tied to a military buildup. So I think it was two things. It was one, the clarity. So Reagan came in and he described the Soviet Union as an evil empire. And all of the intelligentsia in DC, all the Democrats, all the media, they're like, what a horrible thing to say.
You can't say that. Reagan went to The United Kingdom and he said, Marxism, Leninism will end up on the ash heap of history. People were horrified. They asked him, All right, what's your strategy in the Cold War? He said, Very simple.
We win, they lose. And that was all viewed as sort of a Philistine simplicity. And I think it was exactly right. And laying that out, speaking Do you know the backstory behind the Berlin Wall speech?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I do. Yes.
Speaker 1: You probably know Peter Robinson, who was a speech Of course. Yes. So three times the State Department deleted those words from that speech. And three times Reagan wrote it back And the State Department argued. They said, mister president, you can't say this.
This is too bellicose. This is too provocative. And my favorite, they said, this is too unrealistic. The Berlin Wall will stand till the end of time. And Reagan said, look, this is the whole point of the speech.
And less than three years after Reagan gave that speech, the Berlin Wall was torn to the ground. And it wasn't knocked down by American army tanks. We didn't shoot missiles at it. It was shining truth and light that tore it down. It was also rebuilding the American military.
It was what was then pejoratively called Star Wars where the Soviet Union, their economy couldn't match our military buildup and it bankrupted them. That's an example of peace through strength.
Speaker 0: I wonder, I mean is there anybody who was alive in 1989 who wouldn't trade that America for the one we live in now? There's not one person, I don't think. Oh sure. But I mean just the basic metrics, debt, suicide rate, life expectancy, it was I wonder why after that victory, America didn't thrive in the way that we thought that it would, that I thought that it would. My family was involved in that.
I mean, we were very focused on it in my house.
Speaker 1: Like, for
Speaker 0: one, and I wonder two things, why didn't The United States kind of declare victory and make some sort of arrangement with Russia that allowed like mutual prosperity rather than continuing a cold war? And second, I wonder why The United States didn't get a lot better. Like, why don't we have better infrastructure? Why don't we have fewer homeless? Why do we have all these drugs?
Like, if we won, why does our country look like this? I walked across from Union Station this morning, as you do, I'm sure, every day. And there's people lying in the street and sleeping outside. It's like, what is that? We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country.
Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah. Good luck. So most people, when they think about this, wanna carry a firearm, and a lot of us do. The problem is there can be massive consequences for that.
Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious once on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti gun movement will do. They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm, and that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Berna.
It's a proudly American company. Berna makes self defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away. There are no background checks, are no waiting periods.
Berna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Berna pistol. Visit byrna.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your stay. Berna.com.
Speaker 1: Look, there's no doubt there are really dangerous forces in our society. Some of it is politics and some of it is culture. One of the mistakes people make in politics is thinking everything is politics. So the political answer which I happen to believe is is we went much further down the road of liberalism. You look at Bill Clinton who inherited the peace dividend of the cold war being over and and moved us more to the left and then Obama accelerated it a lot.
So there are lots of I agree. Bad economic policies. But I also think they're cultural things. You know, the loss faith The loss family
Speaker 0: I know what you're gonna say and I agree a 100%. I bet there's not one word that I would disagree with. All I'm saying is, I think it's important to step back and ask
Speaker 1: But actually, think Russia has very little to do with it.
Speaker 0: Well, that's kind of the point that I'm trying to make, which is like we're all sort of focused on beating our adversaries abroad, but what is victory worth if our own country becomes what it is now? And maybe we're spending a little too much time focused abroad and not enough time focused on the people sleeping outside Union Station.
Speaker 1: So look, I absolutely think we need to focus at home emphatically and we need to focus on prosperity, we need to focus on reducing the debt, reducing spending, empowering people, low taxes, small businesses. American free enterprise. It's the most powerful force for fighting poverty the world has ever seen. I'm a thousand percent there. I also recognize it is a dangerous world.
And and part of the responsibility of leaders, part of president Trump's responsibility is to keep America safe. Let's go back to where we started
Speaker 0: with But can I ask you've been in the district a long time in DC, so have I? And the city's way more dangerous and congress runs
Speaker 1: this city. It's a complete crap hole.
Speaker 0: So what I'm saying like, the date no Iranians ever gonna kill me, but I could get carjacked here.
Speaker 1: No. It was
Speaker 0: And I just don't understand how the congress could run this city and focus on the dangers of Iran when the city is like garbage.
Speaker 1: It's garbage. But but congress doesn't run the city. They we could.
Speaker 0: Congress does run the city. It's in the constitution.
Speaker 1: It's in the constitution but they've given home rule so it's a democratic You
Speaker 0: can it back. You control the congress.
Speaker 1: I'd vote for it but but but it is a question of math.
Speaker 0: Okay. But I'm just saying like, why how can people ignore it's like, if my own kids are drug addicts, but I'm focused on my neighbor's kids, it's like I'm neglecting my own kids. And there's a sense in which the congress is neglecting the country that elected them in favor of this relentless focus on other people's problems. That's the way it feels as an American. Look,
Speaker 1: there are lots of problems in America that we need to fix. Why is is DC a pit? Because you have a mayor and a democrat city council that won't let police officers bad guys. And in every city you see across the country, whether it's New York, whether it's Chicago, whether it's LA, whether it's San Francisco, if you have democrats we see the LA riots where they won't let people be arrested.
Speaker 0: Alright. Then why not work in regime change here?
Speaker 1: I'm not Why not use the bully pulpit? What do you think I do every day? Need you to
Speaker 0: hear Republican senators stand up and say, I just walked to work this morning over people dying of drug ods. We're gonna shut this place down unless they fix it. There's they're mad about Putin. Like, what did Putin do to Washington? Nothing.
Speaker 1: Look. In terms of regime change, let's let's talk this week. The the the the riots in LA, I've made very clear that the cause of those riots are Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass. And when you elect communists who hate America, who stop law enforcement from arresting criminals, you get what you get on the streets. I agree.
My in laws are Californians and they're wonderful people that Heidi grew up on the Central Coast Of California. I remember I was texting with my mother-in-law and I think I sent her a video of criminals going to a store and just looting in California. And her response, she said something like, Well, is really terrible. It's a shame we can't do anything about this. So yes, you can.
Go in and arrest them. Throw their butts in jail. Put them in handcuffs and it Exactly. And so we know how to fix these things. DC is, I think DC voted, if I remember right, 92% Democrat.
Democrat policies don't work and they destroy every community that they are in charge of.
Speaker 0: They destroy Republicans assert their constitutional authority over the city? Don't they control the congress? Yes.
Speaker 1: I'd be all for it.
Speaker 0: Who's against it?
Speaker 1: Collins is really vocally against it. So on questions of home rule. So for example, let's take an issue you and I care a lot about, the COVID lockdowns. I had a couple of years ago in the middle of them. DC was proposing the DC school district was proposing throwing out of school any child that was not vaccinated.
And at the time, if I remember correctly, it was something like forty percent of the African American students in DC were not vaccinated. So they're talking about literally throwing out forty percent of the kids at public school. And so I had a vote on the senate floor to say, look, they can't throw kids out of school for this. And we ended up having a big argument and part of the argument was home rule where there were and Susan was the most vocal republican. It's like, no.
No. No. We have to let DC run. And I'm like, why? Constitution gives us the power to do it.
And it ended up by the way, every single democrat, all of them voted in favor of the DC public schools being able to throw out 40% of the black kids from school. And I said, look, you throw a kid out of school. You got a 14, 15 year old boy. You throw him out of school. You know what's gonna happen next.
He's gonna join a gang. He's gonna engage in crimes. He's gonna engage in drugs. He could be dead within five years if that kid doesn't get an education. And the Democrats were more than happy to say, we don't care.
Right now, our religion is get get the vaccine or we're to hell with you.
Speaker 0: But can you I mean, again, once again, I couldn't agree with you more, but can you feel the frustration of people, including your voters, every, you know, every American at the emphasis on foreign countries and the threat we supposedly face, a lot of which is fake, obviously, over the kind of slowly unfolding tragedy of what's happening to our country. The dollars spent, the aid packages to Ukraine to pay the retirement of civil servants in a country that we have nothing to do with. The endless support for Israel, very expensive. When people are literally buying groceries on credit in The United States, can you feel like it's nothing against Ukraine or Israel or any other countries?
Speaker 1: Alright, let's stop. You said the support for Israel, very expensive. How much support do we give to Israel?
Speaker 0: Well, you tell me. You vote for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's about 3,000,000,000 a year, the military assistance.
Speaker 0: Mhmm. Was that the only assistance?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We we just have military assistance. Israel does not have additional assistance. There's there's an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, and it's 3,000,000,000 a year.
Speaker 0: So what is it costing to support the bombing campaign to protect Israel right now from Iran?
Speaker 1: So I don't know right now, but I'll tell you this. Let's go back to the touchstone on foreign policy. American interest. Our support, our military support for Israel is massively in America's national security. And it benefits us enormously.
Well, before we
Speaker 0: can make independent judgments about whether or not that's true, and I'm certainly open to it, I think we need to know what it costs. So what's the annual cost of defending Israel? Do you know?
Speaker 1: 3,000,000,000 a year. No, no,
Speaker 0: that's the aid. But I mean, the cost of the weapons, for example, the cost of US personnel there, the cost of moving ships to the region, which we're doing right now, the cost of moving tankers to region, all of that. Do we know what the cost is?
Speaker 1: So look, the last week, I don't know. And and there's some lag when the administration on the constitution, the commander in chief has control of the armed forces. And so president Trump has made some decisions that we'll know the cost over time, but I don't know the last week. I don't have visibility on that. The annual cost is 3,000,000,000.
It's a ten year memorandum of understanding and that's the principal driver of the cost. But let me make a point. We get massive benefits from Israel. Israel shares the Mas'ad as one of the best intelligence sources on the planet. The enemies of Israel, the people who hate Israel, they all hate us.
It's a perfect overlap. And so if we tried to recreate, if we're just trying to defend America, we tried to recreate the national security benefits of our alliance with Israel, it would cost, I don't know, 30,000,000,000, 300,000,000,000. So can
Speaker 0: you elaborate? And again, I'm going into this as someone who's always liked Israel and still does, but I also think at this point, given where we are, it's fair to ask rational questions about what the benefits are.
Speaker 1: Good.
Speaker 0: So does Mossad share all of its intelligence with us?
Speaker 1: Oh, probably not, but they share a lot. We don't share all of our intelligence with them, but we share a lot. It's a close alliance.
Speaker 0: Do they spy domestically in The United States?
Speaker 1: Oh, they probably do and we do as well. And friends and allies spy on each other. I assume do? Why? I assume all of our allies spy on us.
Speaker 0: That's okay with you?
Speaker 1: You know what? One of the things about being a conservative is that you're not naive and utopian. You don't think humans are all Part of the reason socialism doesn't work is the the the mantra from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs doesn't work. As a conservative, I assume people act in their rational self interest.
Speaker 0: It's why conservative to pay people to spy on you?
Speaker 1: It's conservative to recognize that human beings act in their own self interest and every one of our friends spies on us. And I'm not
Speaker 0: Do you like it? That's my question. I'm not asking whether they have motive to do it. Of course, they do. I understand that.
And I And by
Speaker 1: the way
Speaker 0: I'm not mad at them. And you're an American lawmaker, so I just wanna wanna know hold on. I wanna know your attitude. You said that your guiding principle, in fact, only principle, the only criterion
Speaker 1: I said guiding. The the overwhelming. I wouldn't say only.
Speaker 0: Is is it in America's interest? Is it in America's interest for Israel to spy on us, including on the president?
Speaker 1: It is in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because we get huge benefits for it. And you want us you wanna see the clear
Speaker 0: But but I just wanna stop on the spying for a second. That it it takes place, as you know, including on the president of The United States and several precedents, and I just want to know if that's okay and why is it okay? Wouldn't an American lawmaker say to a client state, you're not allowed to spy on us? I'm sorry. I know why you want to.
I'm not mad at you, but you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to. Sure. And I don't care
Speaker 0: for it. I don't wanna be spied on by you. Is that it's kinda weird not to say that, but you don't seem able to say that.
Speaker 1: Sure. I would say don't spy on us. They're going to anyway. And by the way, the Brits are, the Canadians are, like, I don't think Well, I'm not for
Speaker 0: that at all. I think it's disgusting. But we don't actually pay their You know, we're not their most meaningful sponsor. We're not sort of paying for the operations of
Speaker 1: the British I gotta say, and this is It's weird. We're talking about isolationists. The obsession with Israel. Why is Israel
Speaker 0: Oh, I don't think I'm obsessed with Israel. Okay. But
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are and like the question, Israel spies on us. Well, so does every other country. Why are you mad at Israel?
Speaker 0: I guess no. No. No. I'm I'm the one who's I've never taken money from the Israel lobby. Have you?
Speaker 1: Taken money from the Israel
Speaker 0: From APAC.
Speaker 1: So APAC raises a lot of money for me, it's actually a misnomer because the people who raise money are individuals. So it's not the PAC itself but they're individual members who believe in the American Israeli friendship and Is
Speaker 0: it PAC of foreign lobby?
Speaker 1: No. It's an American lobby. It's the APAC stands for the America Israeli Political Action.
Speaker 0: What is it lobby for?
Speaker 1: So to be honest, not a whole lot effectively. Listen, I came into to Congress thirteen years ago with the stated intention of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate.
Speaker 0: Great.
Speaker 1: I've worked every day to do that. APAC a lot of times APAC I wish were much more effective. They're But when they do, I'm terrified of APAC and APAC.
Speaker 0: I'm not terrified of APAC at all. I I'm You're the one who seems a little uncomfortable when I'm asking.
Speaker 1: No. Not uncomfortable at all.
Speaker 0: I'm just asking what APAC does. My understanding having known a lot
Speaker 1: of people who are you about
Speaker 0: Is that lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government. Wrong. Oh, okay. That it's America has thousands of colleges and universities, and a lot of them, unfortunately, are basically just scams. It's one of those things nobody really wants to talk about, but everybody on some level knows that it's true.
What's an impressive college in 2025? There aren't many at all. Hillsdale is one of them. It is the exception. They cut straight through the woke garbage.
They give their students a real education, an actual education. Meet a Hillsdale student and ask yourself, is this the best educated '22 year old I've met in
Speaker 1: a long time?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Because they don't have propaganda in their education. Just the truth, facts, history, English, math. If you think it sounds good, because it is good, think of this. Hillsdale is offering over 40 free online courses you can enroll in today.
There's no catch at all. You don't have to pay anything. I can hit you up for anything. It's free. You can learn about the constitution, the bible, the basis of western civilization, Rome's rise and fall, early Christian church, things that actually matter, not 1 dime.
Free. They have a new class called understanding capitalism that teaches Americans basic economic ideas, describes our own system, a system that is falling apart. A lot of people want you to hate, but for two hundred fifty years has been the best and most productive in the world. You'll understand the basis of our economy from founding till president. He also not afraid to preach the message our country has forgotten, which is freedom is good, Christianity is good, markets are good, and they make this country better by raising well educated students.
We endorse this as a college hater. I love Hillsdale. Go to tuckerforhillsdale.com to sign up for Understanding Capitalism Today, the course Understanding Capitalism, zero cost, just the truth. That's tucker forhillsdale.com to enroll for free. When was the last time APAC took a position that deviated from prime minister Netanyahu?
Speaker 1: All the time. Anyone? Okay. Let me go back and give a little history. If you wanna do a deep dive on APAC, we can I don't?
I wanna do a shallow dive if it gets No. No. I wanna get
Speaker 0: to the core question. APAC is lobbying for a foreign government. And I don't. It's not. It's lobbying for The United States.
Speaker 1: It is lobbying for a strong US Israeli relationship. Okay. So it's not It has nothing to do
Speaker 0: with the foreign government.
Speaker 1: It it wants America and Israel to be closely allied.
Speaker 0: Okay. But it's lobbying on behalf of the interests of another country.
Speaker 1: So that's not true at all.
Speaker 0: That's not true. No. How much contact do you think APEC leaders have for the government of Israel?
Speaker 1: No idea. Imagine some, I think the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC. Do think that that's not nearly strong enough?
Speaker 0: Do you think there's any coordination between the government of Israel and APAC?
Speaker 1: Do they talk? Sure. If you're lobbying for more US Mexico trade, would you talk to people in The US and Mexico and the government? Sure. Like like if
Speaker 0: So I'm not mad about that. There are a million countries that lobby Washington. I like a lot of those countries including
Speaker 1: But APAC are Americans, but not Israelis.
Speaker 0: Hold on. There are tons of Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments. I know them. I'm related to some of them. I know how it works.
I'm I'm from here. So my question is not, is it outrageous that foreign governments lobby The United States? They all do, okay, including Israel. My only question is why don't we admit that is what's happening? You're denying it, but it's true.
Speaker 1: And why aren't they you're saying is false.
Speaker 0: Why aren't they registered as a foreign lobby?
Speaker 1: Because they're not. They're not a foreign lobby. No. They're not. And this is the there's a fever swamp.
Look.
Speaker 0: It's not a fever swamp. These are very reasonable questions and you've accused me of being obsessed with Israel, which I'm not.
Speaker 1: I I actually haven't. Seen an isolationist.
Speaker 0: About it, which I'm not at all. I'm just I find it it's a very tender spot when you ask it and I don't know why.
Speaker 1: So, Tucker, alright. Let's go back. I was first elected to the Senate in 2012. I came in in Obama's second term. And I actually saw AIPAC be badly wounded in a way they never came back from.
And the second term is when Obama did the Iran nuclear deal. The Iran nuclear deal, I think, was catastrophic. And APAC went all in lobbying against it.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And they failed. And I was the leading opponent of the Iran nuclear deal.
Speaker 0: Oh, know. They definitely failed. Yes.
Speaker 1: They failed. And what happened, the Obama White House told every democrat. When I got here, there used to be real bipartisan support for Israel. That has largely disappeared. And it's the Obama nuclear deal that caused it because the Obama White House told every Democrat, pick.
You either stand with Israel or you're a Democrat and you stand with the Obama White House. And almost every single Democrat member of Congress said, I'm a Democrat first to hell with Israel. And then I watched as APAC every one of those Democrats got reelected and APAC did nothing about it. And and it dramatically reduced APAC's influence.
Speaker 0: I agree. Watched it happen. And and by
Speaker 1: the way, I told APAC. I said, look. The analogy, if the NRA was supporting a bunch of politicians and cared about the second amendment, and you had politicians that vote to confiscate people's guns, and the NRA turned around and raised money for the people who voted to confiscate guns, you know what? No one would ever care what they said again.
Speaker 0: Sue, you're making the case that APAC is not as powerful as people say it is and I completely agree
Speaker 1: with you.
Speaker 0: I've watched that and I'm not making the case that APAC is all powerful and they're running everything and putting Florida in the water. I'm not making the case at all because it's not true. I'm only trying to get to the question of what APAC is and I don't think you're being straightforward about it. APAC is lobbying on behalf of the interests of a foreign country and they're not registered and you're saying, no, that's not true. You're saying that they don't coordinate with the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Of course, I coordinate. They do they talk with them. I don't know what they do. I can
Speaker 0: tell But why don't you care? Isn't it meaningful if a foreign government
Speaker 1: Hey. I've talked with with Israel all the
Speaker 0: time.
Speaker 1: I've talked with foreign
Speaker 0: countries all the time. But the law is and a lot of people prosecuted under this law, that if you are lobbying on behalf of foreign government, you must register. That's it. It's really simple. And I don't know why if I'm working for Malaysia or Qatar or Belgium k.
And I'm working on behalf of its government's interest through a group of Americans who are representing the friendship between those two nations, I have to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and if I don't, I can go to jail. People have gone to jail, including people I know. So I don't understand why we don't just be honest and say they're lobbying on behalf of foreign government. They're coordinating with the government. You know that that's true.
Speaker 1: That is not only not true. That is false.
Speaker 0: They're not coordinating with the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Do you know how APAC raises money? What? For for elected officials, like what they do, like what the actual mechanics is? I get that. I mean, they go to people who
Speaker 0: are sympathetic to Israel and raise money and then send it to candidates who agree with So
Speaker 1: what they'll do is So in my last election, APAC endorsed me and they'll host a fundraiser. They'll host a fundraiser in Dallas or Houston or Atlanta or New York or LA. And they'll do a fundraiser and they'll get someone who'll host it. And it's usually a business owner, lawyer, doctor, someone who'll host it. And you get typically at an APAC fundraiser thirty, forty, 50, maybe 100 people who live in that city who care about a strong US Israel relationship.
And and if they have, you know, 50 people, each of them writes a thousand dollar check and you raise 50,000. Yeah. Been to an Apex fundraiser. I know what it looks like. But but but that is not and by the way, there's no representative of the Israeli government there.
You have when you're in Dallas, you're meeting with This just
Speaker 0: a false and silly conversation. I know all this. I know all this. The question is is are APEC's goals shaped by the goals of the Israeli government to any extent?
Speaker 1: Okay. That's really simple question.
Speaker 0: Lobbying on behalf of. It's a simple question. Is a are APAX goals shaped by the goals of the Israeli government? And I'm just gonna ask you a question straightforwardly. And if you say no, I think we
Speaker 1: both know that's not true. Hey. Are they shaped by? Is that an
Speaker 0: Are they coordinating with the Israeli government?
Speaker 1: Are they talking The Israel government? Them. What are you wanna talk about Farah, the law on lobbying on behalf of someone? Yeah. It is I hire you and you lobby on behalf of me.
I direct you. Does Israel direct APAC? No. They're not lobbying on behalf of them. Do they care about them?
Yes. But
Speaker 0: Do you think that it's just interesting because what you're now describing in a very defensive way, will say, is foreign influence over our politics. No. And you began And it's so transparently obvious to everybody. I don't know why you'd be embarrassed of it. You've said that you are sincerely for Israel.
I believe you. I don't think you have some weird agenda. You seem to be sincere.
Speaker 1: By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing. The obsession with Israel When we're talking about foreign
Speaker 0: countries It's hardly an obsession.
Speaker 1: You're not talking about Chinese. You're not talking about Japanese. Not talking about the Brits. You're not talking about the French. The question, what about the Jews?
What about the Jews? Oh, like I'm anti Semite now. Senator, you're asking the questions tough. Me. You're asking, why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?
Senator, I'm
Speaker 0: hardly saying that. And I have That
Speaker 1: is exactly what you just said.
Speaker 0: Well, actually, I can speak for myself Good. And tell you what I am
Speaker 1: saying. Good.
Speaker 0: On behalf not simply of myself, but on of my many Jewish friends who would have the same questions, which is to what extent and I it's interesting you're trying to derail my questions by calling me an anti Semite, which you are.
Speaker 1: I did not. Of course, are.
Speaker 0: And and rather than be honorable enough to say it right to my face, you are in sleazy feline way implying it or just asking questions about the Jews. I'm not asking questions about the Jews. I have there's nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. It has to with foreign government.
Speaker 1: Isn't Israel controlling our foreign policy? That's not about the Jews? You said, I'm asking you You're the one that just called me, I think, a sleazy feline. So let's let's be clear.
Speaker 0: Sleazy to imply that I'm an anti Semite, which you just did.
Speaker 1: No. I just asked you. Answer it. Give me another reason. If you're not an anti Semite, give me another reason why the obsession is Israel.
Speaker 0: I am in no sense obsessed with Israel. We are on the brink of war with Iran, and so these are valid questions.
Speaker 1: But you're not just if I
Speaker 0: can finish, you asked me why I'm obsessed with Israel. Yep. Three minutes after telling me that when you first ran for congress, you elucidated one of your main goals, which is to defend Israel. Yes. And I'm the one who's obsessed with Israel.
I don't see a lawmaker's job as defending the interests of a foreign government, period. Any government, including the ones that my ancestors come from. So that's my position. That does not make me an anti Semite, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise, and I mean that. And that's low, and you know it's low.
So why don't you just answer my questions
Speaker 1: straight forward and rational way?
Speaker 0: You certainly have the IQ to do it.
Speaker 1: Shame on you is is cute by the way, Tucker.
Speaker 0: It is. It's not cute. I'm offended.
Speaker 1: You're you're I'm
Speaker 0: obsessed with the Jews. You just told me that you feline. It is sleazy to imply that I'm an antisemite for asking questions about how my government
Speaker 1: is count how many questions you asked about. What about the Jews? What about Israel? What about
Speaker 0: You never asked about the Jews. I I have this has nothing to do with the Jews, whatever that means. This has to do with a foreign government. And once again, shame on you for conflating the two. They have nothing to do with each other.
I'm talking about the influence
Speaker 1: of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with each No.
Speaker 0: All Jews are an attack on all Jews, which I am not nor would I ever be undertaking now. I'm not attacking anybody.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's that's who who Iran wants to kill is all the Jews and all the Americans.
Speaker 0: And I'm totally opposed to that. Okay? But now because Except you don't wanna do anything need to be made.
Speaker 1: We can talk about those And
Speaker 0: I plan to. Good. But I just wanna get a sense of whether you think having described yourself as an America first person whose only criterion for judgment on foreign policy is America's national interest to what extent you're influenced by a foreign government, which gives you a lot of money through its lobby and you're claiming this has nothing to do with the foreign government. They're not courted Yes, they're spying on us, but doesn't bother you. And I'm sort of wondering like, what is this?
This is the one of the weirdest
Speaker 1: conversations I've ever I'll tell you what, and I'll answer any question you like, but let's try to
Speaker 0: Are you gonna call me an anti Semite again or no?
Speaker 1: Let's try to ratchet down the temperature a little.
Speaker 0: You're the one who went to motive. I'm asking honest questions. Yeah. I'm Just asking questions. Yes, that's it.
That is what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: Let's try to ratchet down the temperature a little bit.
Speaker 0: Picture the house of your dreams. Maybe it's got an outdoor pool, a huge front porch, an inviting fireplace for a cold winter's night. No matter what you prefer, there's little doubt that an American flag waving out front enhances the whole thing. What better way to welcome your guests than with a flag outside your home? But wait, there's a problem.
The American flags you're likely to buy at some big stores were made in China. An American flag made in China? Come on. PureTalk, America's wireless company, believes every American deserves an American flag that was made in America, and that's why they're determined to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, to a thousand veterans in time for summer. Pure Talk is using a portion of this month's sales to honor flag day and provide these American flags to American veterans.
With plans from just $25 a month for unlimited talk, text, plenty of data, you can enjoy America's most dependable five g network while cutting your cell phone bill in half for real. Go to puretalk.com/talker to support veterans and to switch to America's company, wireless from pure talk.
Speaker 1: And did you ever see an Eddie Murphy movie called The Distinguished Gentleman?
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: It's a great movie. It's actually a fun comedy about politics. And Eddie Murphy in the movie is a con man who gets elected to congress. And he's literally a con man who the congressman dies, he has the same name and so he runs and they get elected. And there's a there's a scene in the movie where where Eddie Murphy is a freshman member of the of congress and he's sitting down with a sleazy lobbyist.
And he's asking the lobbyist, alright, what should my positions be on I think they were talking about power plants and and electrical transmission lines. And and the lobbyist like, well, what do you believe? And Eddie Murphy's comment said, don't care. Whatever gets me the most money. I'll do whatever gets me the most money.
And the lobbyist says, no. No. Pick a side. Doesn't matter what you pick. If you pick one side, we'll go shake down everyone who supports that size and they'll give you money.
If you pick the other side, that's fine. We'll just go to the other side and shake down that. That's a little bit the way it works. And and you often get get leftists in the media who say, for example, if you support the second amendment as you do and I do, well, you're just bought bought and paid for by the NRA. And that actually is backwards.
I believe in the second amendment because I believe in the constitution. Now am I proud that the NRA supports me? Sure. Because people who care about the second amendment wanna support leaders who fight for it. But it gets it backward.
Look, APAC, when I ran for the senate, APAC didn't support me. I supported Israel before they supported me. I'm I'm happy to have their support because they share my objective.
Speaker 0: No. But you're missing it. I'm not suggesting that you're bought and paid for. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: You actually wanna go back
Speaker 0: and take You are sincere.
Speaker 1: I wanna go back and take the transcript because you just said a minute ago, are you I'm paraphrasing, but are you are you lobbying for a foreign government because they pay you a lot of money? That's basically what you So you were suggesting that.
Speaker 0: Let me let me just be clear about what I think. Your views seem totally sincere.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: You take money from people who agree with you. Yeah. I believe that. I'm only
Speaker 1: trying I take money from people who disagree with me, Mitch.
Speaker 0: I'm trying to get to the question of to what extent is the US government influenced by other governments? And it's a lot.
Speaker 1: Of course. It's
Speaker 0: hardly just Israel. It's hardly just Israel. I don't think Israel's the main one. There are lots of governments. China is a massive influence on this city.
Speaker 1: And it's a huge problem.
Speaker 0: As you know, I couldn't agree more. And there are lots of other. The UK, which is a truly sinister place in my opinion, as an ethnic Brit, I can say. I think it's that's my view. Maybe you disagree.
Speaker 1: I think they're on the wrong path. Love the Brits, but but their government has
Speaker 0: given all Without getting into that. I'm just saying I don't think Israel's the only one, but it's the only one where you're instantly called an anti Semite for asking questions. And it's also the only government that no one will ever criticize.
Speaker 1: And I find You criticize Israel every minute of every day. Like, the only government that people will not criticize? Rashida Tlaib just tweeted Who do know? Calling Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal. Was she that Talib?
No. You said no one will criticize him.
Speaker 0: I'm talking about Republicans that I would vote for, including you. And I'm saying, you know, whatever. I I don't even like talking about Israel. What I care about, I never do because it's not worth being called anti Semites from APAC recipients. But now we are on the verge of joining a war and I just want to be clear about why we're doing this.
Speaker 1: All right. And let's get into Iran momentarily. But but you suggested it was a strange thing that I said a minute ago that when I came into the senate, I resolved that I was gonna be the leading defender of Israel. And what you didn't ask is why. So let me tell you why.
Speaker 0: No. You said I was obsessed with Israel and you had just told me that like your driving motive to get to the senate was to defend Israel. Like, I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: the one who's obsessed with Israel. Okay. So Tucker, words matter.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh.
Speaker 1: The and you know that. I said I resolved to be the leading defender of Israel. You said your driving motive, the reason you're in the
Speaker 0: senate You wanna be the leading defender of Israel. I would think if I ran for senate, I'd be like, there are people dying of drug duties on the street.
Speaker 1: My driving motive is to fight for Texas and America and to fight for jobs and to fight for the constitution. And you played a very very careful word game of a lie to you.
Speaker 0: You're the one who said it.
Speaker 1: Not So you still haven't asked why, but I'm gonna tell you why.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: The reason is twofold. Number one, as a Christian, growing up in Sunday school, I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. And from my perspective, I wanna be on the blessing side of things.
Speaker 0: Of the those who bless the government of Israel?
Speaker 1: Those who bless Israel is what it says. It doesn't say the government of it. It says the nation of Israel. So that's in the bible. As a Christian, I believe that.
Speaker 0: Where is that?
Speaker 1: I can find it to you. Don't have the scripture off the tip of my You pull out the phone and use it in Genesis.
Speaker 0: It's in Genesis. But So you're quoting a Bible phrase. Don't have context for it and you don't know where in the Bible it is, but that's like your theology? I'm confused. What does that even mean?
Tucker. A Christian. I wanna know what you're talking about. Where
Speaker 1: does where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel. But number two Hold on. No. Hold on.
You're a senator, and now
Speaker 0: you're throwing out theology, and I am a Christian. I am allowed to weigh in on this. We are commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel?
Speaker 1: We are commanded to support Israel. And we're What does that mean, Israel? We're told those who bless Israel will be blessed.
Speaker 0: But what hold on. Define Israel.
Speaker 1: This is important. Are you kidding?
Speaker 0: This is a majority Christian
Speaker 1: Define Israel? Could do you not know what Israel is? I I That would be the country you'd have asked like 49 questions about.
Speaker 0: So that's what Genesis that's what God is talking about
Speaker 1: The nation of Israel.
Speaker 0: Yes. And and he's so does that the current borders, the current leadership? He's talking about the political entity called Israel?
Speaker 1: He he's talking about the nation of Israel. Yeah. Nations exists, and he's discussing a nation. A nation was the people of Israel.
Speaker 0: Is the nation They're
Speaker 1: the descendants of Abraham.
Speaker 0: To in Genesis, is that the same as the country run by Benjamin Netanyahu right now?
Speaker 1: Yes. It is. Okay. And by the way, it's not run by Benjamin Netanyahu as a dictator. It's it's a democratic country that elected it.
He's the prime minister. Right. But just just like, you know, America is the country run by Donald Trump. No. Actually, the American people elected Donald Trump.
The same principle
Speaker 0: This is silly. I'm talking about the political entity of modern Israel.
Speaker 1: Yes. And that is a You
Speaker 0: believe that's what God was talking about in Genesis.
Speaker 1: I do.
Speaker 0: But but That country's existed since when?
Speaker 1: For thousands of years. Now there was a time when it didn't exist and then it was recreated just over 70
Speaker 0: I'm saying, I think most people understand that line in Genesis to refer to the Jewish people, God's chosen people.
Speaker 1: That's not what it says.
Speaker 0: Okay. Israel. But you don't even know where in the bible it is. So I
Speaker 1: I don't remember I don't remember the scriptural citation. But k. I keep It's like Genesis
Speaker 0: 16 or something like that. But yes, it's in the earlier part of the book. But the
Speaker 1: point is Alright, Tucker, you keep interrupting me before I finish my
Speaker 0: It's important to know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're So you're saying as a Christian, if I believe in Jesus, I have to support the modern state of Israel?
Speaker 1: No, I'm not saying that. I'm explaining for me what my motivation is.
Speaker 0: But you Okay. So I'm just trying to understand. You said God tells you to support the modern state of Israel in the bible, in some place in the bible that you heard about, but you don't know where it is. That's your theology?
Speaker 1: You're going back. Am I a sleazy feline again? I mean,
Speaker 0: don't If confuse me of antisemitism again, will say that, but I don't think you will.
Speaker 1: Just try to be a little less condescending. I'm trying to have a You're condescending.
Speaker 0: You're throwing this stuff out and it's my job to figure out what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Okay. But I
Speaker 0: don't understand.
Speaker 1: But you're not letting me.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm sorry. I wanna be polite. That
Speaker 1: is for me a personal motivation. But I also, what I was about to say, I don't believe my personal faith, not everyone who I represent as a Christian. It's not an argument for me to give that that we should do this because of my faith. And so as as an elected official, I don't give that as the reason we should support Israel. That is a personal motivation for me, but but I don't think it is the reason we should.
The reason that I am the leading defender of Israel is because Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, an incredibly troubled part of the world. And supporting Israel benefits America. And the clearest illustration of that is what is happening right now. Let me just make this point and then Okay.
Speaker 0: And then I'll just ask what you mean and that's it. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Look, Iran, I think the most acute national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran. I think China is the biggest long term threat, but acute and near term is a nuclear Iran. Okay. And I think Israel is doing a massive favor to America right now by trying to take out Iran's nuclear capacity. And the reason I view Iran differently we talked before about Iraq.
I opposed the the Iraq war. We talked about Syria. I opposed military intervention in Syria. The reason for that is those did not pose a threat to The United States. I think Iran is markedly different.
Number one, the Ayatollah is a religious zealot. He he is a lunatic but but a particularly dangerous kind of lunatic because he's driven by religious fervor. When he says death to America and death to Israel, I believe him. And I think Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon because there there is a very real possibility they would use a nuclear weapon. So you wanna ask how does supporting Israel benefit us?
Right now, this tiny little country, size of the state of New Jersey, is fighting our enemies for us and taking out their top military leadership and trying to take out their nuclear capacity. That makes America much safer.
Speaker 0: So the president has said repeatedly, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon Yes. And he will do whatever it takes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. He said that like a 100 times. He clearly means it. I think he will use force to affect that if he feels he has to.
I think he's been
Speaker 1: really clear about that.
Speaker 0: I don't know, but it seems that way.
Speaker 1: Do do you feel it?
Speaker 0: Do you think that's correct?
Speaker 1: Whether he would use force to stop a nuclear weapon, I think he he has put that option on the table.
Speaker 0: He certainly suggested. I mean, I have literally no idea what's gonna but just reading his statements, he's made that really clear.
Speaker 1: So what he has been very clear about, and I I spoke with the president on Sunday, is he has been very clear to Iran that if they attack US servicemen and women Of course. Will be real consequences and and and I think very serious military
Speaker 0: By the way. This is a sidebar, but I just can't resist. The prime minister of Israel said that Iran tried to assassinate Donald Trump twice.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I read your newsletter this morning and and
Speaker 0: But do you believe that's true?
Speaker 1: Again, I think it was sort of a word game. What is true is Iran is trying to assassinate Donald J Trump and they have hired hitmen. Now, you pointed out
Speaker 0: No. He said that they tried had tried twice to kill him and I I don't know that I don't have any evidence that's true. I sort of wonder if that is true, why aren't we at Wortham already?
Speaker 1: Okay. And I read your newsletter this morning and I thought it was was playing word games to draw a political point.
Speaker 0: How's that a word game? It's my president. Can I tell you? Yeah, please.
Speaker 1: Okay. You rightly pointed out there's no evidence that this clown in Butler, Pennsylvania who shot the president was working for the Iranians. I don't think he was. There's no evidence of that. Although I would like to know more about who he was and what's going on.
Agree. I don't find it plausible that he was working for the Iranians. So was that caused by the Iranians? No. But what is true and what your newsletter didn't acknowledge, is it true or false that Iran is currently trying to murder Donald j Trump and has paid hit men to do so?
Speaker 0: Well, that's that's the question. And I don't know the Butler Pennsylvania thing. Butler Pennsylvania was that aside. I don't know.
Speaker 1: So so not not to misspoke when he said those two assassinations were because of Iran. But what he was saying that is right is they're actively trying to murder Donald Trump. Is there
Speaker 0: okay. So you're aware of a Yes. Plot to kill Trump.
Speaker 1: Yes. Iran is paying for
Speaker 0: and by the way Wait.
Speaker 1: When when? It it has been over the last, I'd say eighteen months to two years.
Speaker 0: In The United States?
Speaker 1: In The United States. Yes. They they and and let me put out
Speaker 0: Has anyone been arrested?
Speaker 1: For the Trump attempted assassination, no. But they are also actively paying Iranian hitmen to murder Mike Pompeo when he was president Trump's first secretary of state, the first term rather. John Bolton when John Bolton was national security adviser to president Trump, and a guy named Brian Hook who was assistant secretary of state.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: During the Biden administration Wait. Wait. Hold on. Can we go back to Donald Trump because he's not president? No.
It's a big deal. What do you mean?
Speaker 0: No one has been arrested for these assassination attempts on Yes. They've hired hitmen. How do we know that?
Speaker 1: Alright. Let me let me break it down. People have been arrested. So the reason I brought up Pompeo Boltman Hook who are under active assassination attempts because of their service of the first Trump administration, under the Biden Well,
Speaker 0: they say that. I've never seen any evidence of it.
Speaker 1: Can I give you the evidence?
Speaker 0: Well, let's just stick with Trump.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. Because these are interrelated. So let me make a bloody Under the Biden administration, the State Department was spending $2,000,000 a month providing security for Pompeo, Bolton, and Hook.
And they did arrest Iranian hitmen at John Bolton's apartment complex who rented, I think, the apartment next to him and were actively trying to assassinate him and then went and arrested them. So yes, they caught Iranian hitmen. Now, it so happens Iran's not very good at it. And so they but they are actively trying. And in fact But
Speaker 0: what about Trump? He's the president. If there's an plot to kill Trump by the Iranians
Speaker 1: Okay. So you you dispute that the Iranians are trying to kill Trump?
Speaker 0: I of course. I mean, that's the most important question. The prime minister of Israel just said there have been two assassination attempts against Donald Trump by the Iranians. And I think it's a very fair question, maybe you disagree, to ask what are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Okay. And and I agree with you that he misspoke.
Speaker 0: So there weren't those two attempts?
Speaker 1: There were two attempts, but the the clown in Butler, Pennsylvania and the other guy on the golf course were not connected to the That's the part that that he misspoke. But by the way, when you speak all the time, occasion what he said that was accurate is that Iran is actively trying to murder Donald j Trump and has paid hitmen. Okay. But right. Okay.
That's fine. He was explaining it with the with the two attempts.
Speaker 0: I understand. But I just wanna pull that thread because it's so important. I voted for Donald Trump. I campaigned for Donald Trump. Yeah.
He's our president, and we're on the cusp of a war. So if Iran if there's evidence that Iran paid hitmen to kill Donald Trump and is currently doing that, where is the like, what are you even talking? I've never heard that before. Okay. Where is the evidence?
Who are these people? Why haven't they been arrested? Why are we not at war with Iran?
Speaker 1: That's a great question to ask. How do you know that that's true? We know that it's true because we have been told that by the military and our intelligence community for the last two years. We meaning who? Congress has and the public.
I mean, had multiple testimonies. Can send you testimony.
Speaker 0: We know the names of the people or where this happened or what they tried to do to kill Trump?
Speaker 1: We do not. We have not apprehended an Iranian hitman trying to kill him. We know that Iran is trying to do so.
Speaker 0: In The United States?
Speaker 1: Yes. And and by the way, like Iran This just
Speaker 0: seems like a huge headline and you're acting like everyone knows this. I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: Iran put out a whole video about murdering Trump.
Speaker 0: Right. But I've never heard evidence that there are hitmen in The United States. I mean, trying to kill Trump right now. We should like have a nationwide drag down on this and we should attack Iran immediately if that's true. Don't you think?
No. If they're trying to assassinate our president?
Speaker 1: They have been for two years.
Speaker 0: Are in the war with them.
Speaker 1: Well, we are trying
Speaker 0: to Why don't we just nuke Tehran if they're trying to murder our president? There's nothing that you could do that would be worse for The United States than murdering Trump. And I just don't understand why you're not calling for the use of nuclear weapons against the ayatollah right now.
Speaker 1: I'm serious. If they're if you really believe there's a murderer nuclear weapons. Whatever is of the
Speaker 0: problem of What do mean? You don't seem to take the allegations seriously. I do. You believe they're trying to murder Trump, we need to stop what we're doing and punish them.
Speaker 1: Can I ask something? I mean this sincerely. So alright. Twenty years ago, you were, I think it's fair to say in the interventionist world. Were a vocal Big time.
You were a vocal defender of the Iraq War.
Speaker 0: I was a promoter of the Iraq And
Speaker 1: you now and I I think you think you were mistaken. I think you were mistaken. That's okay. Look, people change and learn and that's that's part of the journey of being human. Your views have moved though.
In my view, they've gone way too far the other end. And and and so I'm totally confused why.
Speaker 0: I'm saying hold on. This
Speaker 1: is one
Speaker 0: of the weirdest conversations I've ever had. I'm saying if it's true that Iran is trying to murder Trump, we need to move militarily against Iran immediately. That's not isolationism. That's the most act. That's a cult of violence, which I am calling for.
If we believe that Iran is trying to murder our president, we need to strike Iran.
Speaker 1: Okay. But isolationists say things like, well, just nuke them, which is what you just said. Which is kind of a
Speaker 0: weird Because I'm upset because I'm taking you seriously. You don't take your own statements seriously.
Speaker 1: I take my statements very seriously.
Speaker 0: So I've asked you where's the evidence this is true? And you said, well, they're trying to assassinate Brian Hook or something. Oh, which I'm against by the way. I'm against hurting any American period no matter
Speaker 1: So you dispute that they're trying to murder
Speaker 0: Bolton. I'm not disputing it And
Speaker 1: they literally arrested the hitman with Bolton.
Speaker 0: I'm not I don't know why that's even relevant. I'm asking about the president of The United States.
Speaker 1: Wait. It's not relevant that Iran hire hitmen to murder cabinet members in Trump's administration. That doesn't go to I've already said they're willing to spend money to do that.
Speaker 0: Opposed to that, it's awful. I am against killing anybody actually, especially foreign Okay. I'm asking about your allegation and the Prime Minister of Israel's allegation that
Speaker 1: Iran is trying to murder the president. Killing terrorists is a good thing. Killing people who are trying to murder Americans is a good thing. Because if you're America first, you want to protect Americans. So taking out killing Osama bin Laden was a fantastic day for law.
Speaker 0: That they're trying to murder Trump.
Speaker 1: You saying? Yes. I do. Then why aren't you calling for military action against Tehran right now? Because they're not very effective.
In terms of hitmen, their hitmen are not very effective. I do think
Speaker 0: So they're hitmen but not the bad kind, the efficient kind.
Speaker 1: No. They're just What are
Speaker 0: you saying?
Speaker 1: They're a weak country who is on its knees and I think we need to
Speaker 0: Then why are we so afraid of them? Why are they the biggest threat if they're a weak country that's on its knees?
Speaker 1: Because they're trying
Speaker 0: I'm trying to keep track.
Speaker 1: They're trying to develop be a little less snarky.
Speaker 0: I know. You're right. That is a problem that I have.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. They're trying to develop nuclear weapons. They are close to developing nuclear weapons. And even a weak company country with a nuclear weapon. Look.
I believe there is a very real possibility if the Ayatollah develops a nuclear weapon that he would detonate it either in Tel Aviv or New York or Los Angeles. And that would be utterly catastrophic.
Speaker 0: And I
Speaker 1: don't know what the chances are of that. Let me compare and contrast Iran to North Korea. Wait. Can I just ask one last question about trying to
Speaker 0: kill president? Sincerely believe, you promise, that right now the Iranian government is trying to murder our
Speaker 1: president. Yes.
Speaker 0: You sincerely believe right now. Absolutely. And yet you were not calling for military action against the government that's trying to murder our president. Can you explain that?
Speaker 1: I don't think they're very effective. I do think we should by the way, America is support
Speaker 0: You're willing to take that risk? I
Speaker 1: think we should protect the president and we should take out our enemies. Israel is doing that right now.
Speaker 0: But aren't they why would we
Speaker 1: outsource it Israel if they're trying to question was why four regime change? That's a pretty good example of why have four regime change.
Speaker 0: Okay. So you're saying we should just go in and take out the government of Iran. Why would we outsource it to Israel if they're trying to murder a president? Okay. You sound like the isolationist.
What
Speaker 1: I'm saying on any military judgment is there needs to be a cost benefit analysis of what are the risks versus what are the are the are the benefits. In this instance, I think it is enormously in America's interest to do what Israel is doing right now. Take out Iran's senior military leadership and take out their nuclear capacity. That is benefiting America and it is a good risk reward. I would oppose invading Iran and putting boots on the ground to topple the government.
If the risk got severe enough, I would support that. But I think the relative risk is not severe enough to justify that step at this time. What I would absolutely oppose under any circumstances is invading Iran and then staying and trying to turn them into a democracy. And part of where Iraq really went off off the rails is not only did we topple someone who was fighting radical Islamic terrorists who's a bad guy, but then we tried the vision of interventionist, it actually overlaps with the vision of a lot of democrats. Let's go promote democracy in the world.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And it is our military's job to kill the bad guys, to defend America. It's not their job to defend international norms. It's not their job. So I have zero desire for the US military to turn Iran into Switzerland. Look, would it be nice if they suddenly became Switzerland?
Sure. If I could wave a magic wand, great. But I'm not gonna send your kids or my kids to be in front of guns to go make that happen.
Speaker 0: Well, bless you for that. I think that is the lesson that I learned from Iraq. I promoted that war. Apparently, unlike you, I was dumber. And I think that you just articulated the main lesson of it, is it's hard to do that and we're not good at it.
Speaker 1: But I will And so we are agreeing on that. Will say as a
Speaker 0: Vehemently agreeing.
Speaker 1: As a corollary, that doesn't mean that that horrible evil dictators are okay. And going back to Reagan and the Cold War, we have lots of weapons. I am happy to highlight the brutality, the oppression, the human rights abuses of regimes, even though I don't want to invade them. Because I think the bully pulpit of American leadership is really powerful. And I think dictatorships are terrified.
So I've spent thirteen years in the Senate. One of the things I do frequently is highlight dissidents in Iran and North Korea and China. In Venezuela, people are being tortured. Miriam Ibrahim in Sudan who was sentenced to a hundred lashes and then to be killed for the crime of being a Christian. And I repeatedly went to the Senate floor and shined a light on the government of Sudan.
It was corrupt. It was evil. I practically begged Barack Obama, say her name. Ultimately I felt that way with the j six prisoners. Look, yes.
And we Look, there is power to speaking out. And ultimately, the international Obama never did say her name. He would not say her name. Ultimately, there was enough international condemnation. The government of Sudan let her go.
And so she was not executed. And and I actually I I met her. So she had a two year old son Martin and she gave birth to a little girl named Maya. And she was in leg irons in prison waiting for the death sentence. They were not gonna kill her until she gave birth.
And they told her, we will not kill you if you will renounce Jesus. And she refused. I met her. She was in D. C.
Speaking at a conference after she was released, obviously. She's a tiny woman, a small woman. I asked her, I said, When you were in that prison cell with your kids, how did you have the strength not to just give in to despair? I've never been threatened with murder unless I renounce my faith. And she just said to me with a real peacefulness, she said, Jesus was with me.
And I mean, you and I have not faced that circumstance. But I do think there is a responsibility.
Speaker 0: There's still time.
Speaker 1: There is and I hope we don't. And actually, I'll use another example. John McCain, who you and I disagreed with on a lot of issues. I respected and admired him for his service and time as a prisoner of war. I think his policies I disagreed with vehemently and fought against them.
But the man fought for America and he was thrown in prison and he was tortured by Vietnam. And he was given the opportunity to be released early. And he turned it down because he thought it would be dishonorable to lead before his fellow servicemen and women. And when I first got here
Speaker 0: There were no women there, but
Speaker 1: Okay, man, you're right. When I first got here, McCain hated my guts and he actually referred to me and Rand as wacko birds.
Speaker 0: I remember.
Speaker 1: Have up on the shelf, I have a baseball cap that a grassroots supporter gave me with a picture of Daffy Duck and labeled Wacko Birds, which I liked and laughed with. But when he did that, I went to the Senate floor and I gave a speech praising John McCain. And it was the day he had attacked me publicly. And it happened to be it was the fortieth anniversary of his release for the Hanoi Hilton. And I was consciously I just talked about what a privilege it is to serve with someone who suffered for his country, who served.
And I didn't get into where we disagreed on policy on that speech. I just said, you know, the man is an American hero and I'm proud to serve with him. But that was meant to be a statement also. That if you attack me, I'm gonna praise you not for things that are not praiseworthy. I disagree with you, will not be shy about saying it, but for things that are praiseworthy.
Speaker 0: I remember that. It was 2013. Yeah. And I felt the same way. I went to his cell at the Hanoi Hilton and I Oh, wow.
I agree with you about McCain. I just want to end by asking you specifically about what's going to happen next in Iran and what should happen next. So you've called for regime change. You said you don't favor the US military participating in any kind of regime change. You said you don't think, and bless you for saying this, that the US military should try and turn it into Belgium.
Yeah. Thank God. But there is a third option where it turns into Syria, where it's this open wound and it causes massive migration and further destroys Europe as Syria has.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And that's a huge cost. And where lots of people die and just minorities get murdered in Syria again. Are you worried about that?
Speaker 1: Sure. And listen, that lots of bad things can happen. But going back to what we talked about the principle of defending America. I agree with President Trump that Iran with a nuclear weapon is an unacceptable risk to America and we need to stop it. I agree with president Trump and I'll make a point.
Speaker 0: But he's not for regime change.
Speaker 1: He's not. So he and I disagree. Look, I think he thinks it would be better. He has not said he's for it. And you know what?
Look, is consequential when the president of The United States says, I'm for regime change. So I understand why he hasn't. What he has said is he's drawn a red line and said, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon and the only acceptable outcome is complete dismantlements. They have centrifuges. They're enriching uranium right now.
They're trying to develop a nuclear weapon. He said they they must have complete dismantlement. I led 52 senators, Republican senators in a letter where we said, we agree with president Trump. That's the red line. Complete dismantlement.
I agree with president Trump. I agree with him supporting Israel, taking out Iran's military leadership, taking out their nuclear capability. And I'll point out, look, if you look the first term, I am hard pressed to think of a single foreign policy decision Donald Trump made the first term that I disagree with. And that's not entirely accidental because I spent a lot of time the first term in the Oval Office with him. And what happened in the first term often is you would have in the administration, you had interventionists in the administration, you had isolationists.
And they disagreed. They would fight within the administration. And often what it would give is an opportunity for me to come in and say, hey, there's a middle path here that President Trump agreed with frequently. And it's worth noting in the first term, he most assuredly was not an isolationist. Look, he took out General Soleimani, which I emphatically agree with.
And in fact, I introduced a resolution that we voted on the Senate floor commending him for taking out General Soleimani, was the leader of the IRGC, and who was responsible for killing over 600 American servicemen and women. When Trump came in, ISIS had a caliphate that had grown up under Obama that was about the size of the state of Indiana. And Trump came in and utterly decimated them. He killed the terrorists, took away their caliphate, and defeated them. And he also took out Baghdadi, the head of ISIS.
I mean, those are not the actions of an isolationist. But at the same time I don't know what
Speaker 0: an isolationist. It's just a slur designed to control. I mean, I've never met an isolationist. Don't even know what
Speaker 1: that means. Okay. Rand Paul is my colleague. Rand is an isolationist. And Tucker, you've become one and I don't mean it as a You consistently say you have said Actually, I wanna read from your newsletter because if you ask what an isolationist is, your newsletter a couple of days ago, you wrote Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we're hoping to get back to the negotiating table.
We will see. There are several people in leadership in Iran that will not be coming back, Trump said, following the strikes. It's worth taking a step back and wondering how any of this helps The United States. We can't think of a single way. Okay, that to me is the essence of isolationism.
And let me just ask you, the Ayatollah chants death to America, believe him. Do you not believe him? Do you think he doesn't mean it when he says death to America?
Speaker 0: Well, I think he hates America for sure. And I'm opposed to that. And do
Speaker 1: you think he's willing to on it? It's not just hate America, he also is leading a country and trying
Speaker 0: to develop a certain circumstances for sure. So the question is, do you act in a way that makes that more or less likely? And that's a tough call. It's something that you can debate. One of the ways you shut down debate is by calling people names like isolationists, pretending they're like pro Nazi or something, or as you did, claiming I'm an anti Semite.
That's not a way to get to a solution or have a rational conversation. That's a way to make people be quiet. And I I'm against that.
Speaker 1: So if don't like the label isolationist, how would you look, Rand, and I served with Rand. Rand is a friend of mine, but Rand opposes every military action in every circumstance.
Speaker 0: You don't oppose every military This whole thing is infantile, and you know that it is. It's a way it's a way to call people
Speaker 1: names and make them And make
Speaker 0: them be
Speaker 1: Give them another name. If you don't like that, I'm not trying to have you be quiet. We've been talking an hour and a half. I'm asking, if you don't like the name isolationist, what would how would you describe it?
Speaker 0: I would I would describe myself in the same way you falsely described yourself in this conversation.
Speaker 1: Falsely. Yes, falsely. What did I say false?
Speaker 0: You said that the only thing that matters in a foreign policy decision is whether it helps The United States.
Speaker 1: I didn't say the only, I said the predominant.
Speaker 0: That's what I understood.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 0: So let me revise what you said and apply it to myself and say the only thing that matters is whether or not it serves The United States. And I feel very stung by what happened in Iraq if I'm being honest. Possibly because unlike you I guess, I supported it and I saw us get drawn into it in a way that nobody anticipated and I saw the cost just a month. $3,000,000,000,000? The cost on so many levels to The United States was just so profound and I It was clearly a Gosh.
It reminds me of Kaiser Wilhelm in 1914 saying, my men will be back by the time the leaves turn. And of course, that destroyed destroyed Christian Europe. So it's like you don't really know where these things are going once the shooting starts. That's my only point. And calling people names, anti Semite, isolationist, to get them to stop talking is not the way to serve your country.
That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: So I'm trying to have a real and serious conversation. And look, a lot of this has been contentious. Wish it had not because as we started out by saying, you and I agree vehemently on 80% of the issues. This discussion is focused on the 20% where we don't. You know, I I will say, look, on Iraq, you look at the twenty sixteen presidential campaign where you had 17 Republicans running.
If you set Rand aside and his views are are on one side, There were only two candidates on that stage that opposed the Iraq war. Me and Donald Trump. We're the only two. Everyone else thought the Iraq war was a great thing. I think it was a disaster.
So you and I agree on that as well. In my view, you went I think your foreign policy has gone too far. So I mean, let me ask you. Is there a military action Trump has undertaken that you agree with? Because I've heard anything
Speaker 0: A military look, I would say it's really simple. I believe in self defense. That's why I keep firearms at home. I think it's morally justified to defend yourself, your family, your property, your nation. And so to the extent that you can deter a threat through violence, violence always being the least appealing choice, violence always being, if I can finish, always being a tragedy, I think you can justify the use of violence in self defense.
That is my personal view, and that applies to me and to the country that I
Speaker 1: live in. Those are my views. That's not an
Speaker 0: isolationist view. It's not an anti Israel view. It's not an anti Semitic view with apologies. It is, I think, a pretty common sense view. But my problem is that lawmakers in Washington are light on detail with these things, and they speak as you do entirely in moral terms.
These people are bad. These
Speaker 1: people are I'm not speaking entirely in moral terms. I'm not getting interested in killing bad guys. Not interested in killing people who are trying to kill us. If we That's different. I'm not engaging morale.
Speaker 0: Are you are you now? Because you told that the government of Iran is presently trying to assassinate Donald Trump, and then
Speaker 1: he said is undisputed. There's literally nobody who disputes that Then why
Speaker 0: don't you support military action right now against Iran
Speaker 1: We are engaged in military action right now.
Speaker 0: Then why
Speaker 1: don't you
Speaker 0: why don't you support offensive military action?
Speaker 1: We're bombing the crap out of them. Israel is and we're supporting them. Israel is.
Speaker 0: Okay. So Why shouldn't the US military defend its own president? I don't understand that.
Speaker 1: Look. And it goes back
Speaker 0: to Because you don't really believe it's true. That's why
Speaker 1: Everyone Kate, nobody disputes it Tucker. Did did you all get you laid on the moon? What other conspiracy do you not believe? Was nine eleven an inside job?
Speaker 0: I mean, like, what? So where I've asked you the names of these people. I've asked
Speaker 1: how many of the Iranian hitmen. I know it because the US military and the intelligence agencies have testified before congress repeatedly And what did they say? Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump Oh. And has hired hitmen. Do I know the name of the hitmen?
No. I'm sorry. And and I don't think we do either because we would apprehend them if we knew their names.
Speaker 0: Then why don't you take it seriously enough to support killing the Ayatollah in response to protect our president? But you don't. I this doesn't make even make any sense. And you're calling me an isolationist. If I believed that that was true, I would support military action against the government of Iran.
Speaker 1: Okay. That's interesting because there is literally
Speaker 0: You can kill our president.
Speaker 1: Alright. Out of 535 members of congress, I am not aware of one who disputes that Iran is trying to murder Donald j Trump. That's not even the lunious democrat doesn't dispute that. So so I I I don't you're saying if if if you believed what what is I think a fact that they are trying
Speaker 0: to You think it's a fact? Yes. What is the fact exactly?
Speaker 1: That they've hired Where did they
Speaker 0: In The United States. Yes. Americans?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's not in Iran. So they haven't hired hitmen
Speaker 0: Are they the hitmen American?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Oh, okay. I'm telling you what. And and by the way, I'm I'm not the CIA. I'm not I'm not the Department of Defense.
I'm telling you what they have told I'm not disputing it.
Speaker 0: I'm merely saying
Speaker 1: We are.
Speaker 0: I'm not. I'm saying the logic train has a massive hole in it. If you believe that's true, then you should by definition support killing the people trying to kill our president. You don't support that. So I'm wondering what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Tucker, you took offense to the word isolationist. And I genuinely don't mean it as a pejorative. I disagree with it. But if you don't like that term, I don't know how else to describe Okay. What is a coherent foreign policy that says I believe we're surrounded by two giant nations.
By the way, isolationism has long been a school of
Speaker 0: foreign policy defense. I I'm not Okay. But but not into the slurs, the anti semite stuff. I I I just don't like that. I I'm telling you what I believe.
Speaker 1: So it but is there a single military action Trump took that you agree with? So do you agree with taking out general Soleimani?
Speaker 0: Oh, I don't know. I it turned out better than I thought, I guess.
Speaker 1: I mean, you said at the time it would like lead us to World War three.
Speaker 0: I thought I was worried about it.
Speaker 1: I've seen that happen. That proved not the case.
Speaker 0: I was wrong. As I have been many times.
Speaker 1: Did you agree with taking out the ISIS caliphate?
Speaker 0: But my well, if we took out the ISIS caliphate, why are they running Syria right now? And you're for that. Why is that?
Speaker 1: What what do mean? I didn't say I'm for that. You don't have a scene to have a problem with it.
Speaker 0: I did say But ISIS is now running Syria? You're like, oh, we'll see.
Speaker 1: No. I did I did Look. I mean, I know why. But by the way, know why. Asad toppled.
It's hilarious. It's like Assad Oskar
Speaker 0: is bad, but no. ISIS runs Syria, but that's that's fine. We'll just kinda wait and see on on ISIS. It's not a big deal.
Speaker 1: Know why Hold on a second. I wanna get back. You know why I don't care and and and why and you do your like trademark smirky laugh. I know
Speaker 0: why you don't What are even talking about?
Speaker 1: Why don't I care?
Speaker 0: I don't know why. You tell me. Because you think it's okay because they're not making angry noises or something, but by your own standards, their ISIS is so immoral that they must die. But now they're running Syria and you don't think that we should take military action against the government of Syria because why?
Speaker 1: They're ISIS. What I said is I don't know how good or bad it'll be. Look, I wasn't pushing Assad out. He fell. He fell on his own in part because he was heavily supported by Hezbollah.
And and when Israel took out the Hezbollah leadership, he lost his basis
Speaker 0: for But the current ISIS leadership, you don't think is bad? You can't say it's terrible that ISIS runs a country?
Speaker 1: I am concerned about it. Concerned? Aren't you horrified? I wanna see what they do. But they You gotta wait
Speaker 0: and see attitude on ISIS now?
Speaker 1: On the government of Syria, they are not actively, that I am aware of, trying to murder Americans. And and that's a real dividing line. Are you trying to murder Americans or not?
Speaker 0: I'm just saying it's a little weird that we waged this war against ISIS and now they're running a country in the Mediterranean. I think that people would be very very upset about that. But don't see the very upset about that.
Speaker 1: You agree with Trump taking out al Baghdadi, the head of ISIS?
Speaker 0: I'm totally opposed to ISIS and what I care about is results actually. And if taking out the head of ISIS ends ISIS, I guess I'm for it. But now ISIS runs serious. Okay. I'm wondering
Speaker 1: mean, my point is
Speaker 0: Word at the time, I mean, I've taken so many different positions over the years, some of which have been wrong. I really do my best to be honest and correct if they are and admit that I was wrong. I'm not one these people who's like, I've always been consistent. No. My views change all the time because the facts change all the time.
You're not gonna get consistency from me. You're only gonna get sincerity.
Speaker 1: Well, look, I will say this. And and look, I believe you're sincere.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But I'm not God. I'm just some guy watching trying to figure out the right thing for America.
Speaker 1: And and I think because you believe you were mistaken and I agree previously, I think you've
Speaker 0: overcorrected. Really? Overcorrected? I'm worried about turning this mess in Iran into a much larger mess. That's the concern
Speaker 1: By the way, that's a reasonable worry.
Speaker 0: Look. I know it's reasonable and I know you've been like, you're like ready to call me all these names for asking you're just asking questions. Yes, I am. So here's my question to you. If the Ayatollah is killed in Iran and he very
Speaker 1: well could Well,
Speaker 0: I have just read in the paper this morning that Israel tried to take him out twice and Trump told them not to.
Speaker 1: I have read that. I don't have independent confirmation one way or
Speaker 0: the Do you think that they should take him out?
Speaker 1: So I actually talked about it. As you know, do a podcast every week, Verdict with Ted Cruz. And I actually talked about it in the latest podcast. And I said, look, I've seen the reporting that says that Trump asked them not to take out the Ayatollah. And what I said in the podcast is, I think it's reasonable for them to decide not to try to take him out.
What they've done is targeted just about the entire top level of the military, the people that actually conduct the war. I I can see an argument that taking out both the head of state and a religious leader could make him a martyr and and could cause more problems than it's worth. And by
Speaker 0: the way, if you take
Speaker 1: out the Ayatollah, I don't know if the next guy isn't just as bad. And and so I am
Speaker 0: What happens to the country?
Speaker 1: I I don't know. But you mentioned before, I wanna go back to this. You said something like, you, like most other politicians, are are engaged in in moral terms. And let me be clear. I am talking about national interest.
I am talking about protecting America. So there are bad guys on planet Earth that I don't think we should take out even though they're bad guys. Good. I'll call them bad guys, but but I'm not willing to use US military force to take them out. In this instance, what Israel is doing is taking out their capacity to build nuclear weapons.
Why? Because they judge judge the the risk is too high if they've done nuclear weapons. I
Speaker 0: understand that. I I mean, I understand that. I think it's in progress. I think it'll probably be achieved probably with US military support. Who knows?
But the president said he's for that.
Speaker 1: And by the way, where military support is most needed is Fordow, which is the under. It's a bunker that's built under a mountain. Right. And Israel's taken out most of the rest like Natanz, which is their big enrichment site. They bombed the hell out of it.
Fordow was deliberately built deep into a mountain so that Israel couldn't take it out. And and there's an active discussion because The US has bunker buster bombs that are big enough to take out Fordo.
Speaker 0: 30,000 pounds. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes. And Israel doesn't. So so the one military piece Nor
Speaker 0: the aircraft to fly them. But but here's I guess what bothers me is that I said two weeks ago, the real goal here is regime change in Iran. It's not don't
Speaker 1: think that's Trump's goal.
Speaker 0: And then I don't It's your goal. It's Israel's goal. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just saying it's important to be honest and not lie and not attack people for telling the truth.
Speaker 1: So I believe I've been assiduously honest in this. But words matter. You said the real goal here is regime change and it's your goal. And I wanna be clear.
Speaker 0: Well, you said it was your
Speaker 1: I wanna be clear because words matter. Do I support regime change and would I like a government that doesn't hate America and isn't trying to kill us in Iran? Yes. That's a good outcome. Is that the objective of these military strikes?
I don't think necessarily. I I don't know if it's It's not my objective. My objective is taking up Should it be
Speaker 0: The US If Israel decides we're going to decapitate the government and try to foment an uprising against it, should The United States participate in that operation in any way?
Speaker 1: Look, I have not called for killing the Ayatollah. And there is nations in war generally refrain from attacking and killing heads of state. Now, the Ayatollah doesn't. He's trying to kill Trump. We talked about that.
Speaker 0: But we shouldn't punish him for it.
Speaker 1: Look, There has been a long standing nations in war have refrained from from killing heads of state. I have not publicly called for killing the Ayatollah. What I've called for is doing whatever is necessary to stop him from getting nuclear weapons. In the first Trump term, what that meant was maximum pressure. So in the first Trump term, I spent a lot of time urging the president to withdraw from the disastrous Iranian nuclear deal that Obama had.
President Trump agreed with me. He did that. And then I urged him to end the oil waivers and to sanction the hell out of the country, and it ended up crippling their economy. So so Iran at the time was selling 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day 1,000,000 barrels I'm sorry. 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day.
When president Trump ended the oil waivers, it cut their sales to 300,000 barrels a day. At the end of the Trump term, the Iranian economy was in shambles. They had massive inflation. I think the regime was teetering. I think it might have fallen.
I would use economic sanctions and I would use moral suasion to try to effectuate the regime Okay.
Speaker 0: You topple the regime by whatever means. What happens then? How many people living around by the way?
Speaker 1: I I don't know the population.
Speaker 0: At all?
Speaker 1: No. I don't know the population.
Speaker 0: You don't know the population in the country you seek to topple?
Speaker 1: How many people living
Speaker 0: around? 92,000,000. Okay. Yeah. How could you not know that?
Speaker 1: I I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
Speaker 0: Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
Speaker 1: Why is it relevant whether it's 90,000,000 or 80,000,000 or 100,000,000?
Speaker 0: Why is that Because if you don't know anything about the country
Speaker 1: I didn't say I don't know anything about the Okay.
Speaker 0: What's the ethnic mix of Iran?
Speaker 1: They are Persians and predominantly Shia. Okay. No. It's not even you
Speaker 0: don't know anything about Iran. Okay. I am
Speaker 1: not the the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.
Speaker 0: You're a senator
Speaker 1: who's calling people to throw
Speaker 0: in the government. You're the one who claims claims the country.
Speaker 1: No. You don't know anything about the country. You're the one who claims they're not trying to murder Donald Trump. No. I'm saying that.
Who can't figure out General Soleimani and you said it was bad.
Speaker 0: They're trying to murder Trump. Yes. I you're not calling for military strikes against them in retaliation. If you really believe
Speaker 1: that carrying out military strikes today.
Speaker 0: You said Israel was.
Speaker 1: Right. With our help. I said we. Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.
Speaker 0: Well, this you're breaking news here because the US government last night denied the National Security Council spokesman Alex Pfeiffer denied on behalf of Trump that we were acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.
Speaker 1: We're not bombing them. Israel's bombing them. You just said we were. We are supporting
Speaker 0: Israel
Speaker 1: as
Speaker 0: You're
Speaker 1: a
Speaker 0: senator. If you're saying the United States government
Speaker 1: is
Speaker 0: at
Speaker 1: war with Iran right now, people are listening. Hey. We are not bombing them. Oh, okay. Israel is bombing them.
Why do you do the snide, oh, okay? What do you mean?
Speaker 0: Because it's this is super high stakes stuff. It's this is a huge country that borders a lot of other important countries. A lot of world's energy comes from there.
Speaker 1: So we have Let me ask you that. Another disaster. You don't want be in reckless Ayatollah refers to Israel as the little Satan and America as the great Satan. Do you believe him? When he says the great Satan, do you think Of course I believe if the Ayatollah could murder both of us right now that he would?
I do. I believe him.
Speaker 0: Okay. I I assume no good faith in the part of the Ayatollah.
Speaker 1: They're not But say implication is
Speaker 0: like I'm pro Ayatollah or
Speaker 1: something No. It's not good faith. It's that I'm
Speaker 0: just saying you're a lawmaker. You're a powerful person in Washington. This is the most powerful country in the world. If you're calling for toppling in government, it's incumbent on you to know something about the country and to think through the consequences of that. And you have it and you don't.
And I'm saying
Speaker 1: that reckless. Sorry. Okay. You are you engage in reckless rhetoric with no facts. And to be clear I'm not calling you to overthrow
Speaker 0: a misleberman. You are.
Speaker 1: You out a newsletter attacking Donald Trump and calling him complicit. I've never attacked
Speaker 0: Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Yes. You have. And and and by the way pained
Speaker 0: for Donald Trump. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. This is like After anti Semitism, this is the last refuge. You're an
Speaker 0: anti Semit and you hate Trump. Okay. I love Trump.
Speaker 1: I I will read. You put out a whole newsletter saying Trump has abandoned America first. And here's what Trump said in response. Well, considering that I'm the one that developed America first and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one who decides that. For those people who say they want peace, you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon.
So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon, that's not peace. That was directed at you.
Speaker 0: Man, this is you got me.
Speaker 1: Busted. No. I'm just saying.
Speaker 0: My views look, I I like Trump. I campaigned for Trump. I know Trump. I talked to him last night. I'm not against Trump and you know that.
I think that we should be very careful about entering into more foreign wars that don't help us when our country is dying.
Speaker 1: When you say
Speaker 0: don't help us dying.
Speaker 1: Look. Yes. Focus on our country. I'm all for it. But but the the the naivete
Speaker 0: You don't even know how much money this costs.
Speaker 1: You don't know anything about
Speaker 0: the country whose government you wanna throw overthrow, and you're calling me reckless.
Speaker 1: I want to stop a lunatic who wants to murder us from getting nuclear weapons that could kill millions of Americans. Fair. You say, can't see how that benefits America anyway. That is bizarre. And by the way It's not bizarre.
Isolationism. Your foreign policy is the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Absolutely. And it doesn't work.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm a big leftist. You mean this is so silly. Now I'm Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Okay.
Speaker 1: Let me just
Speaker 0: say one last thing.
Speaker 1: How is your foreign policy different from Jimmy Carter's? Seriously. Please. May I ask that question seriously?
Speaker 0: I don't even know what you're talking about. Jimmy Carter? So What century is this? I am the product of the last twenty five years watching carefully, being involved in the periphery, and I see an unending string of foreign policy disasters that have impoverished and hurt our country. Unending string.
An unending string. They would include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and our inability to stop the Houthis, by way, in Yemen, which exposes us as weak, and I grieve over that. So these are failures. You helped preside over some of them as a member of the senate.
Speaker 1: What what failures foreign policy failures have I presided over?
Speaker 0: Well, we were unable to beat Russia in the war that you supported against Russia. You you've been spending the last three years telling us that Vladimir Putin is evil and we're gonna beat him with other people's children and a million of those kids are now dead. You've never apologized for that. That was a false statement.
Speaker 1: By the way, look. The the level of number of falsehoods you you lay out just in one statement are are are rather
Speaker 0: You haven't supported the war against Russia?
Speaker 1: Are are rather stunning. So the war against Russia was caused, which I have explained in great detail, by Joe Biden's weakness.
Speaker 0: But you supported the war.
Speaker 1: If you wanna talk talk Russia and Ukraine, I'm happy to talk about it.
Speaker 0: I Do you think that's been a success? No. It's been an absolute disaster. Okay. But you supported it.
Shouldn't you apologize?
Speaker 1: No. You should apologize. Not going to engage in the demanding of apologizing. So I'm going to I'm going I'm like, that's my point is all these
Speaker 0: failures and no one ever says I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Do you just throw out If you want to talk, we can talk.
Speaker 0: Okay. I do. I want to know why that seems like a true disaster for The United States. You have supported it.
Speaker 1: Do you believe Joe Biden's weakness caused the war in Ukraine?
Speaker 0: I think Joe Biden's aggression
Speaker 1: caused it. His aggression? What aggression?
Speaker 0: He demanded that Ukraine join NATO. How does that help The United States?
Speaker 1: It would It's a terrible idea and I have vigorously opposed Ukraine joining NATO.
Speaker 0: Okay. So that's what caused the war?
Speaker 1: No, it's not. Alright. Did you want to know what caused the war? Look, you do the dismissive. You're not actually interested in facts.
You're like, okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. Tell me It seems super op You're you're absolutely right, and I'm sorry. That is a tick of mine that is wrong, and I mean this with sincerity. I'm sorry to do that to you. I just think it seems so obvious that sending Kamala Harris to the NATO Security Conference to say, you're gonna join NATO is what triggered the invasion days later.
Speaker 1: Okay. So can I this will take a few minutes to lay out because it's complicated, but I think the facts matter? I think two things caused the war in Ukraine. Number one, I think Biden's incredible weakness and the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Now, I believe we need to leave Afghanistan, but not with the incompetence that involved that led to 13 servicemen and women being murdered by terrorists there.
The way Biden did that was disastrous, and I think our enemies looked to the commander in chief and said, this this president is weak. And when when that that withdrawal was so disastrous, I said publicly at the time, the chances of Putin invading Ukraine have just risen tenfold.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: But secondly, and this is critically important.
Speaker 0: Well, agree that was awful, the And
Speaker 1: it was a major cause of our enemies all said, hey, this president is weak. And so it invited And by the way, look, I despise war and and I think weakness and isolationism produces war because it it invites aggression from our bad guys. It's why I agree with Ronald Reagan's Peace Through Strength. The best way you avoid war is being strong enough that your enemies don't wanna mess with you. But let's get back to Ukraine and and Russia.
Look. Putin didn't wake up two years ago and decided he wanted to invade Ukraine. He's wanted to invade Ukraine for decades. Putin has referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as quote, the greatest geopolitical disaster of the twentieth century. And Putin has long been explicit.
His desire is to reassemble the old Soviet Union and in fact, reassemble the the Russian Empire that was even bigger than that. If you wanna reassemble the Soviet Union, the natural place to start is is Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Do do you really believe that Putin has territorial designs on Eastern Europe? Yes. What countries?
Speaker 1: He has said that you can go and read his hold on. I I don't wanna lose the narrative of what happened, I we can go back and do that, but I I don't wanna lose telling the story first. So let me let me explain this and then if you wanna go back, we can take all sorts of digressions. But just give me a couple of minutes to lay out the facts of what happened. He has wanted to invade Ukraine a long time.
And he's done it before. In 2014, he invaded Ukraine, invaded Crimea. When Barack Obama was president, he invaded the southern portion. He did not invade the rest of the country. Why?
And the reason is the principal source of revenue for Russia is oil and gas and the natural gas pipelines run right through the country of Ukraine. And he didn't wanna jeopardize his ability to get gas to Europe.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: So in 2015, Putin started a project called Nord Stream two.
Speaker 0: Did anything happen in 2014?
Speaker 1: In terms of what? Wasn't there a
Speaker 0: coup in Ukraine run by the Obama administration?
Speaker 1: Let me finish telling I I told you, we'll take lots of digressions in a second. Let me finish telling the the the narrative. 2015, Putin began building Nord Stream two. Nord Stream two is an undersea pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany. The entire purpose of Nord Stream two is when it was completed and turned on, it would let Russia circumvent Ukraine and get its gas straight to Europe.
In 2019, Nord Stream two was almost complete. And the conventional wisdom in Washington was this is terrible, but there's nothing we can do about it. I didn't believe that. So I drafted sanctions legislation that was targeted to stop the pipeline. My legislation passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
It passed the House, and Donald Trump signed it in law.
Speaker 0: Why would Can I just ask, why wouldn't you want Germany to have cheap energy?
Speaker 1: Because it empowers Russia. And I believe in making our enemies weaker and our friends stronger.
Speaker 0: Has blowing up Nord Stream made Germany stronger?
Speaker 1: Not being dependent on Russia has made Germany stronger.
Speaker 0: So you think Germany is stronger now than it was four years ago?
Speaker 1: I think not being dependent on Russia. Germany has all sorts of problems and many of them are domestic to their own politics. Hold on. Let me let me finish. I'm I'm trying No.
Speaker 0: But what you're saying, it doesn't Germany seems so much weaker now that its energy costs have spiked and the manufacturing sector is collapsing because of that. Let
Speaker 1: me finish. I'm focused on America's interest. I don't want Russia stronger because I believe Russia is our enemy. You and I disagree on that. We can talk about that.
But I want our enemies weaker. I don't wanna go to war with Russia, but I want our enemies weaker. I don't want Europe dependent on Russia. I don't want Putin rich with oil and gas revenues and able to invest in his military and pose a threat to America. So the sanctions legislation that I authored, it passed.
Putin stopped building Nord Stream two literally the day that president Trump signed my sanctions legislation in law. He signed it, if I remember right, at 7PM on a Thursday, Putin stopped construction at 06:45PM. So the sanctions legislation worked and it killed the pipeline. The pipeline lay dormant for over a year, just a hunk of metal at the bottom of the ocean. Joe Biden came into office.
He was sworn in on 01/20/2021. Putin resumed deep sea construction of Nord Stream two four days later, January 24. He did so because Biden had foreshadowed weakness on that this issue. That foreshadowing was accurate because several months later, Biden formally waived the sanctions on Nord Stream two and let Putin complete the pipeline. In January of twenty twenty two, I forced a vote on the senate floor to reimpose sanctions on Nord Stream two.
The week of the vote, president publicly called on the Senate, please pass this sanctions legislation. It is the last best hope of stopping Russia from invading Ukraine. At the same time, the government of Poland put out a formal statement from the foreign ministry to the Senate calling on the Senate to pass my sanctions legislation and said, if you do not, Putin will invade Ukraine. The day of the vote, Joe Biden came to Capitol Hill. It's the first time in his presidency he had done that.
He went to the Democrat senators lunch, and he personally lobbied them on this issue. Not any other issue. This was his number one issue that he came to lobby them on. They came out of that lunch. Every Democrat had voted with me twice against Nord Stream two.
44 Democrats flipped their vote. They voted in favor of Russia, in favor of Putin, and four weeks later, Russia invaded Ukraine. That was the direct cause of the war. And if Trump had been president, there would be no war in you.
Speaker 0: May I ask I, of course, disagree with your analysis completely, but I wanna be respectful.
Speaker 1: Okay. So tell me what you disagree with.
Speaker 0: It's it's such a long conversation. I've spent the last couple of years on this, and I just respectfully disagree with with your analysis. But I don't doubt your sincerity that you believe that Putin is our enemy, that it's Western Europe should not be allowed to use Russian energy. I mean, you seem to really believe these things. My question is about results because I think it's relevant to what we're seeing now in Iran.
You look back after having you personally voted to send billions and billions and billions of US tax dollars to Zelensky to support a civil service in the war against Russia and all this stuff. Can you say that what you did worked?
Speaker 1: So I can say what I did personally, sanctioning Nord Stream two worked and prevented a war. And if Trump had still been there, if the sanction had been in effect, there would be no war. I'm in favor of avoiding wars.
Speaker 0: But once the war broke out, you voted to fund it to the tune of billions and billions and billions.
Speaker 1: And to be clear And did that work? Okay. To be to be clear, what I voted for, I voted for the initial tranche of funding and then I voted against the subsequent ones. So it hasn't worked. So I've been in between.
I haven't been on the full Ukraine, full throated hawk side or the anti from day one. I voted for the initial tranche of funding because I wanted Russia to lose. I think the Biden administration administered it in a horrible way. I think they wasted a ton of money. And I think what they did was actually incoherent because they were funding both sides of the war.
I I know. And I was very vocal. And and among other things, flooding a $100,000,000 to Iran, which was used among other things to help the nuclear program, but also to make drones that Russia used
Speaker 0: to fight against my concern. I'm not gonna defend the Biden administration. Really did a lot to wreck The United States.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Did the most damaging administration
Speaker 0: has Where we sit now, Russia is stronger. It's closely allied long term with China.
Speaker 1: I don't know that Russia is stronger. I don't think that's right. Okay.
Speaker 0: I think it's pretty obvious that it is. But it's certainly not destroyed. And it's allied long term with China.
Speaker 1: Maybe. That look. That there's no doubt Biden's foreign policy drove Russia into the arms of China and that's what's been occurring. Also have a long history of animosity.
Speaker 0: Western Europe is weaker and more in debt. The United States is weaker and much more in debt. Look. Hold hold on. So you You and are agreeing on a lot.
We're agreeing. We're agreeing. Here's my question. Have you questioned any of your previous assumptions? Did you play any role in this at all?
Are you responsible at all?
Speaker 1: Of course. And like you,
Speaker 0: you said What have you learned?
Speaker 1: Like you, you said you've changed your mind. Yeah. I voted for the first funding of the Ukraine war, and I voted against every subsequent funding stream because it wasn't working. And I looked at what was happening and said, this is not working. And had the money been spent in an intelligent way and not wasted, and had it been successful, I might have been willing to fund more.
But it wasn't successful so I voted no. And and the war is going to end. Look, president Trump campaigned on ending the war. I think he's frustrated because Putin has been less than eager to reach a deal to end the war, but it's going to end. You're not gonna see another dollar coming from Do think he
Speaker 0: wants to end
Speaker 1: the war? I think Zelenskyy has behaved horribly. I think his Oval Office meeting will go down in history as the worst Oval Office meeting of any leader that has ever come to the Oval Office. I think he behaved like a pompous ass. And I think he is unrealistic.
I think Zelensky spends his time with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the New York Times and he believed he was going to the Oval Office as a resist figure. And I think he's doing real damage to his country right now.
Speaker 0: You described him many times as a hero. Do you
Speaker 1: I don't believe I don't recall ever using the word hero. I will
Speaker 0: say I do.
Speaker 1: Look. I'm not I'm not a Zelensky cheerleader. And and I'm not in the business of saying everyone we support has to be a sage and everyone we oppose has to be a villain. I'm not in the morality game. I'm in The US interest game.
Why did I want Nord Stream two stopped? Because it would strengthen Russia and Russia's our enemies. It's entirely US interest.
Speaker 0: Did you support the industrial sabotage against it? Blowing it up?
Speaker 1: So I think you believe America did that. Is that right?
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think the chances of that are zero.
Speaker 0: You think Russia did it?
Speaker 1: No. I think Ukraine did it. So I don't know who did it. In terms of the theories that had been put out there, the idea that Russia blew up their own pipeline never made any sense to me at all. That that just I I can't even articulate why they would do that.
The idea that Biden did that look. I could see it being in US interest to do that, to blow up Nord Stream 2. I just think Biden was too weak. I don't believe Joe Biden But are you in I guess you in what So so that leads
Speaker 0: The Norwegians, the the Ukrainians, NATO, whatever.
Speaker 1: Look. Look.
Speaker 0: That leads
Speaker 1: me to, you you know, who benefits? And and it leads me to think either the Ukrainians blew it up or Ukraine's allies. I don't think Biden did because I just Biden was so weak. I don't think he would give the order. I I find that implausible.
Speaker 0: But you're in favor of it.
Speaker 1: Look. I was in favor of stopping it. I think I think blowing it up is is a was a good thing. So so I'm I'm supportive of that, but I don't think America did that. I I don't think Biden gave that order.
Speaker 0: But in general I
Speaker 1: see Trump giving that order, but he wasn't in office.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And you think that the largest acts of industrial sabotage in history helped our allies in Western Europe or other fellow NATO members?
Speaker 1: Look, I gotta say, I don't understand. For some reason, you are really invested in defending Russia. You with that. I'm genuinely like I don't get why you're so passionate about defending Russia.
Speaker 0: Actually, was defending Western Europe, the home of my ancestors, and that tripling their energy costs and destroying their industrial No. No. Not like. You just accused me of being an antisemite, an isolationist, and a Russia lackey. I've not called you a neocon once, which you are, but I
Speaker 1: haven't said And that's absurd. I I Those neocons that oppose the Iraq war and and Right. But like that that's
Speaker 0: the song. But so okay. But I haven't called you that because name
Speaker 1: calling said, which you are. I see. Just called that. Okay. Called me that.
You just did. I I guess what I'm saying
Speaker 0: is you're triggered because I use name calling. I get it. I was triggered when you called me names. And I'm triggered once again that you're calling me a Russia defender when in fact I'm defending Western Europe. And I don't think that you can Do you think
Speaker 1: Putin's our enemy? I
Speaker 0: well, he's well, he's literally our enemy. You are funding a war against Do
Speaker 1: you think he is our no. You're saying we're his enemy. Do you think Putin is our enemy?
Speaker 0: I think it is a tragedy that your policies your policies, specifically yours, helped drive Putin into the arms of China forming a block that's larger
Speaker 1: than So you won't answer that question?
Speaker 0: I don't. He is literally our enemy right now. That is a tragedy for The United States.
Speaker 1: No. No. You're saying but you won't say he is our enemy. Look. Like, I don't You know what saying?
Speaker 0: Don't want to be enemies with Russia. It doesn't help us at all. It may help some people in The United States, but in general, I don't want to be.
Speaker 1: I don't wanna be at war with Russia. I don't think it is in our interest to be at war with
Speaker 0: Russia. With China. That is a disaster.
Speaker 1: But listen. No doubt. And I want Russia and China attention. So I agree with you there. But but I think Putin is a KGB thug.
I think he is a bad man. Now, I don't wanna go to war with him over that. Okay. But but I'm not naive. And and, like, I watched your He's bad man.
Speaker 0: He's a bad man. Okay.
Speaker 1: Look, I watched your episode where you went to the Russian grocery store and I'm I'm
Speaker 0: genuinely Was that disloyal do you think?
Speaker 1: It was just weird. Was weird. It was like a promo video for Russia. And I don't understand. I'm not attacking you when I ask why because I'm genuinely like I don't get
Speaker 0: when you called me and I said something, you weren't attacking me. You were just noticing. No. But may I ask you a question? So here well, me just answer yours by saying The United States, the Biden administration, with your help, full support, began this war on Russia in response to their invasion of Ukraine.
And one of the things there was they kicked Russia out of SWIFT, out of the international financial system. And my first response was, this is gonna really hurt the US dollar, which it has, and I hope someday we can have a conversation about that. It's really, really hurt the one thing that we needed, which was to retain dollar supremacy. So I was interested in the economic condition.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's a reasonable point and a serious conversation to
Speaker 0: be aware. I'm aware. And I was
Speaker 1: But I can agree with you. Like like No.
Speaker 0: No. But I was accused of being I think it's weird that you went to a Russian grocery store and said it was prosperous. No. My point
Speaker 1: is It looked like a commercial. Looked like a commercial. Isn't this wonderful?
Speaker 0: No. Was an argument against the efficacy of sanctions. Sanctions against Russia, which you casually and enthusiastically imposed, scoring a little moral victory every time, had no material effect that helped The United States. Russia is backstopped by China, and when you and I recommend that you go and see it, it is way nicer than Washington DC. Way nicer.
To me, that's a tragedy. I was horrified and angry at my leaders including you. It's like, I wanna live in a country this nice with low food costs and no homeless people. I I don't understand why that's too much to ask.
Speaker 1: So do I.
Speaker 0: Instead, I get worse with Iran. No. I just want lower food costs. How's that?
Speaker 1: So look, it's a weird argument that you do often which is, listen, things are crappy in America. Liberal wait. Liberals have done bad things to America, so we shouldn't worry about any other Republican senators don't
Speaker 0: care about us. They're focused on other countries.
Speaker 1: You wrote
Speaker 0: that in is dying, and you don't care
Speaker 1: because you're focused on Iran
Speaker 0: or Putin.
Speaker 1: So so you believe that I don't care about America. I guess you believe Donald Trump doesn't either. Like, nobody cares.
Speaker 0: I believe that your focus is way too on other countries. It's way too focused outward. The money that you send abroad could be used here and should be.
Speaker 1: What money that I send abroad? By the way, emphatically agree
Speaker 0: with with Ukraine. You don't even know.
Speaker 1: I emphatically agree with with Donald Trump's, for example, dramatically slashing USAID. I think the only reason we should be deploying that is to benefit US interest, national security interest and keep Americans safe. So How much did you vote to send to Ukraine? Look, you're in about $80,000,000,000. 80,000,000,000.
Yeah. So you're in You love just giving these broad characterizations that are not accurate. I'm genuinely puzzled. Look. I don't wanna go to war with Russia.
I I I but I don't think they're our our friend. I think Putin
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: I think Putin is a murderer. I think he's a liar. And I think he does not wish well on America. Okay. And there's a difference between saying that just like Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an evil empire and Putin was in the KGB.
Look, my father was imprisoned and tortured in Cuba. I hate communists. It was actually Batista that tortured my dad. My aunt was imprisoned and tortured by Castro. I hate communists.
I think communism is evil. And so I think there is a value to there is nobody who stands up to communist China more in the senate than I do because I think they're evil. Do I wanna go to war with China? Of course not. That would be ridiculous.
But I think we have all sorts of tools to stand up to our enemies. And I think China is engaged in a thousand year war against The United States. They're trying to defeat us.
Speaker 0: So all over the map where your family imprisoned in Cuba and China and all this stuff. I just I agree with you. I'm totally opposed to communism, always have been. I don't think that Putin loves us. I'm distressed by the moral condition of most leaders around the world, most of them.
They all kill people. I'm against that. I'm just saying I wish the focus here
Speaker 1: more on the actually don't agree with that statement. They all kill people. There's a moral relativism. I don't think Donald Trump is a murderer. He doesn't kill people.
We don't have concentration Donald
Speaker 0: Trump a murderer.
Speaker 1: I'm You just said world leaders all kill people. And and there's a a moral relativism. I'm hardly a moral relativist. But you are. You just that statement was the essence
Speaker 0: I'm anti Semite and isolationist to moral relativist. Okay. No.
Speaker 1: I'm not. Did you just say world leaders all guilty?
Speaker 0: I'm saying I'm against killing people in general. And hyperventilating about how Putin was in the KGB or whatever. But I just wanna serve American interest and pushing into China is not in our interest at all. But And you helped do it and you haven't apologized.
Speaker 1: And and by the way, you're the cheerleader. I helped drive him into China. You did. A complete lie. You funded the war against him.
No. I I authored the legislation that shut down Nord Stream two that prevented the war. And and if Trump had still been in the White House, we would have had the war. And and look, the comment you made, the the reason things like moral relativism are so dangerous, oh, everyone kills people. No.
There is a difference. The United States moral relativism. We don't have concentration camps. We don't torture and murder people. You look at China where they've got a million prisoners in concentration camps.
You look at Putin where he's got prisoners in Siberia. He he tortures and murders his political opponents. Donald Trump doesn't do that. America doesn't do that. And by the way What
Speaker 0: are you
Speaker 1: most other countries don't do that.
Speaker 0: I see the game. It's like I'm No. You're the one playing again.
Speaker 1: I'm distressed. No. I'm responding with facts. You don't like the facts?
Speaker 0: The I don't even know what facts you're talking about. I'm not saying that Trump puts people in concentration camps. I vote I campaign for Trump. I love Trump.
Speaker 1: So did I.
Speaker 0: Okay. So this has nothing to do with Trump. I'm merely saying When you
Speaker 1: said every world leader kills people, it drops a small
Speaker 0: emphasis emphasis on what's happening inside the country. That's it.
Speaker 1: There a moral difference between America and our enemies? Is there a moral joke in America? And what is it? Articulate it. It's valuable to say why.
Why are we a better country founded on better values than China? Tell you what's the difference between why. I know I
Speaker 0: Because the whole purpose of America is to protect the God given rights that each person possesses by virtue of being created by God. Amen. By being human. That's the point of our founding documents, and no other country articulates that in the way that we do. And that's what I love about America.
My family's been here a long time. I'm never leaving. So I really love the country. Despite going to a Russian grocery store, despite asking questions about APAC, I love America, is the truth, and I love Trump. So But I just want more emphasis on America.
That's it.
Speaker 1: I emphatically agree with America first. I think Donald Trump does as well. And I think his foreign policy has been vigorously protecting that and I agree with the press.
Speaker 0: Good. Well, I appreciate you're taking all this time. Sure. And I know you didn't mean it.
Speaker 1: How many copy those names?
Speaker 0: Thank you, senator.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@TuckerCarlson https://t.co/5HtTGvy0am
reSee.it AI Summary
A user claimed that media coverage showing captives as healthy and happy undermines accusations against them. In response, they noted that some of these women were IDF members involved in ongoing crimes, suggesting a complex narrative surrounding the situation.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Zionists will go crazy as media shows how these captives are healthy, happy and mentally good. All of their accusations and propaganda collapsed today. https://t.co/kXzrVHPS3z
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Also remember these woman were IDF members who commits crimes non-stop https://t.co/dVkqAkrBol
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
"Israeli soldiers say they have been ordered to target and kill innocents arbitrarily, including children." MSNC news https://t.co/UoeEBvgDas
Video Transcript AI Summary
Since World War II, two competing visions of America's role in the world have emerged: one advocating for international human rights and law, and another asserting that might makes right. The latter, exemplified by Henry Kissinger's support for authoritarian regimes, has led to significant human rights abuses. The Leahy Law, established by Senator Pat Leahy in 1997, aimed to prevent U.S. assistance to human rights abusers. However, recent actions by the Biden administration, including a proposed $8 billion arms transfer to Israel amidst allegations of war crimes, raise concerns about the application of this law. Critics argue that Israel receives special treatment, undermining the credibility of U.S. human rights advocacy. This situation reflects a troubling legacy for both the Biden and potential Trump administrations, challenging the principles of the liberal international order.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Since the end of the last World War, there have been basically 2 kinda competing visions of America's role in the world, at least among the 2 major parties. There's a international liberal international view, right, that that human rights should matter, that there should be a uniform standard globally that applies to every nation, including us, the US, and our allies. A regime of international norms and, most importantly, international law, like real international law that the US could shape and strengthen. Now to be clear, I wasn't born yesterday. I'm not completely naive.
Yes. That standard is one that is very very often only given lip service to while the US pursue pursues pure power politics. But it is a meaningful and important standard as is the aspiration towards reaching it and the people that advocate holding it as a standard. So that's one vision. And then there's a kind of standard reactionary vision, right wing vision, which is that might makes right, universal norms are fictions that can never really constrain us, we're the greatest country on Earth, and because we are the greatest nation, it's just definitionally impossible for us or our allies to be on the wrong side of international law, which doesn't exist.
And that view is strong. It has a very long tradition. You can say it might have peaked or reached reached its apogee in the Cold War under Henry Kissinger, who sold successive administrations on dirty wars and proxy wars, funding, training, and arming right wing militaries to oppose left wing governments or activists. He enabled deadly terror in Chile and Argentina and South Africa and Indonesia, where, to be clear, Kissinger's support for a right wing dictator led to the genocide of 200,000 Eastern Maurice people by a US equipped army, one of the great moral stains of US foreign policy in the last 60 years. In El Salvador, where US backed forces fueled a civil war and murdered Catholic bishops, Catholic nuns, and social workers, an outrage that led the Carter administration to suspend military aid to the nation.
And as the Cold War finally wound down, there was one lawmaker who made an indelible contribution to rolling back these abuses and attempting, again, attempting to set a standard for American behavior abroad and the behavior of our allies that we learned. That was senator Pat Leahy, democrat of Vermont in 1997.
Speaker 1: So called Leahy law expands our current law and seeks to ensure the United States assistance does not go to individuals who abuse human rights to do everything possible to assure that in our efforts to support foreign security forces that we respect human rights, we also prevent those who abuse human rights from receiving our assistance.
Speaker 0: Seems straightforward. Leahy law barred the Pentagon and the Department of State from transferring US arms to countries that we thought were committing human rights abuses. And that is what I keep thinking of as I process the news that on the way out the door, the Biden administration is going to transfer $8,000,000,000 more in weapons to Israel, including fighter jets and attack helicopters, bombs, warheads, and artillery shells. $8,000,000,000 in weaponry given over to an ally waging, what I think can only be described as total war in Gaza, that has, according to, I think, multiple independent experts and reports, reporters, and NGOs been committing war crimes, And ethnic cleansing, according to a former Israeli defense minister, where Israeli soldiers say they have been ordered to target and kill innocents arbitrarily, including children. And that they have used Palestinians as human shields for their operations in Gaza.
As whistleblowers and detainees say the Israeli authorities regularly torture Palestinian prisoners. The UN says Israel is using starvation as a strategy in Gaza. Amnesty International says Israel is committing a genocide. Dozens of doctors, nurses, and paramedics who volunteered in Gaza and were there and saw up close told the New York Times they'd seen, as you see the images there in front of you, multiple children who were shot in the head or chest, in the head or chest, bullets. And they even brought back the x rays you're seeing right now to prove it, so people would believe that they had seen children with bullets lodged in their skulls.
As congresswoman Katie Porter pointed out in a house hearing last year, the US ban on arms transfers to human rights abusers, the lay law, has one big exception.
Speaker 2: State department says that aid should stop immediately if there's a problem. Does it?
Speaker 3: It totally depends on the circumstances and situation. Does it
Speaker 2: depend on the country that's getting the aid?
Speaker 3: It also depends on the country get receiving the aid. Yes, ma'am.
Speaker 2: So what country does aid not stop immediately under Leahy?
Speaker 3: I'd have to go back and look through my notes.
Speaker 2: You you don't know what country that is? It's only one in the entire world. Guess what? Except for Israel.
Speaker 0: Even now, former senator Patway, who's no longer in the senate, says Israel is getting a pass in violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the law, that he helped pass. Beginning in the early 2000, I wrote to successive Secretaries of State about the failure to apply the Leahy law to Israel. The responses were either inconclusive or inaccurately claimed the law was being applied to Israel the same as to other countries, which the state department continues to insist today. Leahy added the state department's dismissive response not only beggars credulity, it also makes a mockery of the law. This is Pat Leahy, liberal senator, not a radical.
Right? Not a fringe voice in American politics. Someone who knows this issue, who spent decades working on this issue. And not just about Israel, but all kinds of American allies. And yet here we are.
President Biden is gonna hand a blank check for Israel over to the incoming Trump administration. I don't think it's coincidental that yesterday on Capitol Hill, the house overwhelmingly passed a bill to sanction officers of the International Criminal Court to punish them for moving to charge top Israeli leaders, including prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with war crimes. Keep in mind, the ICC also indicted leaders of Hamas for their war crimes appropriately and their holding of Israeli hostages, which continues to this very day. And 45 Democrats joined all Republicans to support this bill. We know which vision of American global engagement the Trump administration will carry out.
But it isn't just Trump who this week is making an absolute mockery of every last lecture we deliver to the Russians or the Chinese or anyone else about respecting human rights in international law. It is president Joe Biden too leaving a disgraceful legacy, a liberal president doing untold damage to the liberal international order.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Israeli soldier posted this video on his private account, making fun of civilians he murdered and cut their hands off https://t.co/7bhYp8Xv7E
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Al Jazeera has acquired leaked IDF drone footage showing the IDF killing 4 unarmed Palestinians in Khan Yunis using drone strikes. The footage clearly shows to terrorize and instill fear in Palestinians, as a means to coerce them into leaving Gaza permanently. https://t.co/Ui2yJoxHYF
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Here is the footage of Israel murdering people who are trying to get aid from trucks https://t.co/HfAZWMnLvY
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
The complete list of orders from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to Israel regarding the South African genocide case against Israel. https://t.co/NRBploz4t4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The court has issued provisional measures against Israel in relation to the Palestinians in Gaza. Israel is required to prevent acts of genocide, including killing, causing harm, inflicting conditions of life for physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births within the group. Israel must also ensure that its military does not commit these acts, prevent and punish incitement to genocide, provide basic services and humanitarian assistance, preserve evidence, and submit a report on the measures taken within one month.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I shall now read out the operative part of the order. For these reasons, the court indicates the following provisional measures. 1, by 15 votes to 2, the state of Israel shall, in accordance with Obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide in relation to the Palestinians and Gaza, Take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of the convention. In particular, a, Killing members of the group. B, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.
C, deliberately inflicting on the group Conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. N d, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Banuna, Youssef, Shway, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Ad hoc Moseneke against Judge Sabatinde, Judge Ad hoc Barak. By 15 votes to 2, the state of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit Any acts described in point 1 above. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Benuna, Yusuf, Shweh, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Adhoc Masenike, against Judge Sabatinde, Judge Adhoc Barak.
By 16 votes to 1, The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Banuna, Youssef, Shwe Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, judges ad hoc, Barack, Masenike against judge Sabatunde. By 16 votes to 1, the state of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Banuna, Youssef, Shway, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judges Ad hoc, Barak, Messenike, against Judge Sabatinde. By 15 votes to 2, the State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article 2 and Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.
In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Banuna, Youssef, Shuei, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Ad hoc Masenike against judge Sabatinde, judge Ad hoc Barak. By 15 votes to 2, the state of Israel shall submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within 1 month as from the date of the order. In favor, President Donahue, Vice President Gevorgian, Judges Tomka, Abraham, Banuna, Youssef, Shuey, Bandari, Robinson, Salam, Iwasawa, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brandt, Judge Adhoc Museineke. Against, Judge Sabatunde, judge Etak Barak. I shall now call upon the registrar to read the
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Piers, you really should take this woman into your show. https://t.co/edFbckj34w
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker, who identifies as Jewish, questions the notion that the conflict in Israel-Palestine would end if Hamas were eliminated or if Palestinians abandoned the group. They argue that people who have lost everything are more likely to join a fight against oppression. The speaker references scientific studies that suggest marginalizing certain ethnic groups can lead to radicalization. They argue that Israel is aware of this and uses Hamas as a convenient villain to justify their actions. The speaker also highlights the structural violence faced by Palestinians in Gaza, including limited access to water and healthcare. They urge listeners to consider the consequences of Israel's actions and to contact their representatives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I have a question for the people who are saying if they just kill all of Hamas, this will be over. If the Palestinians gave Hamas up, this would be over. So it'll be over as soon as they get rid of Hamas. I have a question for you. And hi.
I'm Jewish. I analyze Israeli rhetoric where I can. I have a question. Of these 2 groups of people I'm about to describe, who do you think you think would be more likely if a terrorist walked up to that group, will have more people go, yeah. Sure.
I'll join. A group of people who have a job, a life, a house, wife and kids, maybe. You know, they can go to the doctor when they need to. They definitely have food and water. Or a group of people whose neighborhood was just flattened.
All the water they try to drink is contaminated with chemicals and bombs, dust. Their family is dead. They've been relocated to refugee camp. They definitely don't have a job anymore. Someone walked up to those 2 groups of people and was like, we can fight this even if they were super vague and didn't even say it was violence that they were gonna do.
We can fight this. We can stop this. Who do you think is more likely to join? Because I think it's the people who have nothing left to live for. I don't think anybody would look at me and say the 1st group would be more likely to join.
And, oh, what's that? Studies scientific studies showing that that's true, showing that, oh, NCBI, National Library of Medicine, Social determinants of health and violent radicalization. Oh, the psychology of terrorism initiative saying that the creations of ethnostates And marginalizing certain ethnic groups will be more likely to radicalize those groups. So wait. What's the cause of terrorism?
Is it that those people are violent, terrible people who just wanna hurt others the way they portray Hamas, or is it that A bigger oppressing group pushed them and pushed them and took away more and more of their rights and their liberties and their access to a normal life, push them and push them and push them until a couple of those people snap and lash out violently. And then and then they can turn around and say, oh my god. See? They're violent. They're terrible people.
They need to be controlled. We need to keep them here. We we can't let them have this. We can't let them leave. We need to make sure that they're away from us because they're all evil when it was the violence that they did To them that push them to that point.
Do you think Israel doesn't know this? Want you to think about it. Do you think that Israel doesn't have access to these studies? That Israel doesn't know what causes terrorism? That it's the lack of civil rights?
Do do you? I think they know. I think it goes hand in hand with them funding Hamas in the 1st place. I think they need a villain Because it's a lot easier to justify keeping a group of people in a concentration camp if you say, well, there's some of those people are bad. We can't let them out than it is if they were just living their lives.
It's a lot easier to justify going in with soldiers and hurting them if you say some of them are bad, especially if you made some of them bad, which means that every time you go in and hurt them more, more of them snap because they have nothing else to turn to. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is that for doing the violence first? I also want you to think about the fact that even before this bombing, Gaza had rampant structural violence issues. Structural violence is something like I'll just give you an example.
Like, oh, we can't let you Have this treatment from this hospital because you need this ID and these documents, then it's almost impossible to get those ID and those documents, which means that it's not a person hurting you or killing you and doing the violence. It's the rules that are hurting people and killing people. In Gaza, before the bombing, people were rationing water because Israel didn't let them have enough water. The hospitals couldn't take everyone. You know, sometimes there's things that those hospitals couldn't treat, so they'd have to be on a wait list to get into an Israeli And they would die on those wait lists.
That's structural violence. That's, well, the rules are you need to do this and this and wait and get into an Israeli hospital this way. Gonna die if you don't. That's structural violence everywhere in Gaza, in America too. You'll recognize the American health care system.
Absolutely. And it is violence. It hurts and kills people. That's violence. It's called structural violence for a reason.
So I want you to think about that fact. I want you to think about the fact that Israel definitely knows definitely knows that its actions of taking away their civil rights, of shoving them in this place, of making sure they don't have water and food, of making sure that everyone has a relative who's died because they couldn't get into a hospital get medical care. They know that those people are more likely to snap. And once they snap, it's see, they hurt me. They hurt me.
They did violence against me. I'm the victim here when it was them who pushed them to do it. They know. Israel knows this because they need a villain. Think about it.
Do you truly, honestly believe That carpet bombing all of Gaza without actually targeting any terrorist groups and making sure that civilians are feeling the worst of these effects. What do you think that's going to do? Don't you think that if Israel can keep saying, oh, but Hamas is in there, they can keep bombing it until they get all of it, until they take all the land they wanted to Begin with, don't you think so? Because to me, that seems like a very convenient excuse. We push these people.
We are violent to them until they're violent back to us. And once they're violent back Us, we keep just hurting them so that more of them keep snapping and being violent to us. So we can keep saying, see, they're bad, and we can just keep hurting them. Whose fault is that? Do you think that if someone said we can change this without saying that it was gonna be bombs or rockets, just we can change this, would you not join them?
Not every single one of those people is literally firing rockets. If all your family was dead, Think about it. Just think about it. Israel knows what it's doing. It wants its villain.
It needs to be the victim. And please call your representatives, please. What's happening is more and more horrific by the day, And don't look away.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Israeli government continues to commit war crimes, with over 24+ unprecedented incidents reported. These include bombings of residential areas, media offices, and hospitals, resulting in numerous casualties, including innocent children. The international community must raise awareness and take action to stop these atrocities. Resources for human support, food, and medicine are running out in Gaza, exacerbating the crisis. It is crucial to condemn these acts and demand justice for the victims. Let us unite and bring their voices to the world. #StopIsraeliWarCrimes
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
Unfortunately, the Israeli government has not ceased or paused its war crimes since October 7th. Below is a list of over 24+ unprecedented war crimes (latest ones): 🧵 Please share to raise awareness worldwide.
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@Timesofgaza - TIMES OF GAZA
Cancer patient and paralyzed mother from Gaza gets stuck in the rubble of her bombed house along with her daughter. https://t.co/tIEB7Awc5y
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
31 : https://x.com/UncapturedNews/status/1722259844961591397?s=20
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara
@SprinterX99880 - S p r i n t e r X
Even resources for human support, not to mention food and medicine, are running out in Gaza... https://t.co/P1OmMvY6Ur
@GozukaraFurkan - Furkan Gözükara