TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JackPosobiec

Saved - October 21, 2025 at 9:42 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Posobiec

GEO-FENCING HOLDS THE KEY "The geofencing data will prove it. They can trace Tyler Robinson’s exact path—from the tunnel to the roof, the shot, and the getaway. The cell-phone trail may be the strongest evidence yet in Charlie Kirk’s murder.” https://t.co/TStSqF2MXC

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 introduced the topic of cell phone tracking and forensic geofencing data, noting that the same tracking methods used in January 6 were capable of determining whether someone went onto the steps or onto the lawn, and where they were exactly. The question was what findings exist regarding this data in the current case. Speaker 1 answered that the investigation will reveal with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area, whether the text messages involving many questions were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg, and whether Lance Twigg was in Southern Utah or also in Orem. The main point is addressing how he could have known certain details based on terrain, given that he was not a student at the school. It is stated that it would be unlikely to have planned a murder from Google Maps, and that the authorities will determine this from the cell phone pathway—whether he went the day before or weeks before, and tracking all of that. Speaker 1 relayed information from forensic expert Joseph Scott Morgan, who claimed they would be able to track Tyler Robinson from 8 Hundredth Street through a tunnel, around the Losey Building, up the stairs to the roof, from the roof to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, and run into the woods. The speaker also mentioned conspiracy videos suggesting he was seen on a café security system; although the footage is limited, it exists, and some claim the FBI tracked him to that location. The next morning, at 7:15 AM, at a Cedar City Maverick gas station, it is claimed he swiped a credit card, and the phone was followed to his home, to visits with Lance, and to his parents. All calls, texts, and other phone activity are said to be known. Speaker 1 summarized that the forensic expert states that next to the gun, the cell phone data will be the element that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on the building, and that geotracking will reveal where his phone was at all times on that day. The response also notes skepticism about trust in the FBI, but emphasizes that geotracking will demonstrate the phone’s location during the day in question.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Break. You were telling us though about the cell phone tracking, that forensic cell phone tracking geofencing data. We know the same exact method of tracking individuals was used in January 6. They were tracking, did someone go on to the steps? Did they go in? Were they on the lawn? Where were they exactly? And we know that investigators using cell phone data can do this. What did you find regarding that data in this case? Speaker 1: So we're gonna know with great clarity whether Tyler Robinson was in the Orem area, whether the text messages that many of us have questions about, whether those were sent from Orem to Lance Twigg. Was Lance Twigg in Southern Utah, or was he also in Orem? All of that is going to come out. But the main thing is people are saying, okay. How would he have known based on this weird terrain, not being a student at this school? How would he have known this? Because I don't believe you could have planned this murder from Google Maps. So they're going to know based on his cell phone, pathway whether he went on the day before, a couple of weeks before. They'll be able to track all of that. Now I was told from forensic expert a forensic expert, Joseph Scott, that they're going to be able to track him from 8 Hundredth Street down through the tunnel, up around the Losey Building, up the stairs, onto the roof, from the roof out to the roofline, take the shot, jump off the Losey Building, run into the woods. And then I started seeing all of these conspiracy videos that they were able to find him on a little cafe's security system. You can barely see his car, but you can see it. And you had all these conspiracy people saying, how does a guy kill Charlie Kirk, and twenty minutes later, he's, in his car in a parking lot? That's not consistent with what a murderer would do. Well, you don't know how a murderer thinks. Right? He might be sitting in that car amped up on adrenaline. But how did how did the cafe owner know that he was caught on his security camera? Because unless somebody breaks in, you don't just go review, you know, twenty four hours worth of video footage. It's because the FBI tracked him to that location. The next morning, 07:15AM, Cedar City Maverick gas station. How do they know it's him? He swipes a credit card, and they follow his phone. They know when he goes home. They know if he goes to visit Lance, when he goes over to his parents. They've got all of it, the phone calls, the texting, everything. So, this forensic expert, basically, Joseph Scott Morgan, he shared with me that next to the gun, the cell phone data is going to be the the thing that ties Tyler Robinson directly to the person on that building. And right now, there's a lot of doubt. Oh, I don't know if I can trust the FBI. Well, that that, geotracking, that geofencing, it's going to it's going to tell us where his phone was at all times on that day.
Saved - October 21, 2025 at 6:24 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Posobiec

BREAKING: New Footage Released of Charlie Kirk Murder Aftermath Never forget what the left did that day Vid: @RynesTime https://t.co/xrHKjrlRYh

Saved - September 26, 2025 at 10:38 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: New video of Thomas Matthew Crooks filming himself dry-firing handgun in his room https://t.co/E96yuROTUH

Saved - September 21, 2025 at 7:43 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Bill Maher says he disagrees with Jimmy Kimmel about Charlie Kirk's assassin, but then adds "Was he on the left? I don't know that either” https://t.co/hMmFdMx6HH

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 says the MAGA crowd was trying to characterize the assassin as anything but one of them because the guys the 22 year old kid in Java's family was MAGA. As if a 22 year old with a trans girlfriend never rebelled against their family. He adds, I mean but was he on the left? I don't know that either. The remarks reflect a dispute over how political identity is attributed to the shooter and reveal uncertainty about the attacker's exact political alignment, highlighting skepticism about simplifying motives to a single label. The exchange centers on how media and audiences might interpret the killer's beliefs through family affiliations and slogans rather than direct evidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He said the MAGA crowd was trying to characterize the assassin as anything but one of them because the guys the 22 year old kid in Java's family was MAGA. As if a 22 year old with a trans girlfriend never rebelled against their family. I mean but was he on the left? I don't know that either.
Saved - September 10, 2025 at 4:30 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: New GRAPHIC footage of the full murder of Iryna Zarutska He slit her throat "I got that white girl" https://t.co/nC1bVbAfnr

Saved - August 19, 2025 at 4:56 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Here is a video of @MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan calling non-Muslims animals and cattle, and comparing homosexuals to pedophiles https://t.co/hy95pfUluW

Video Transcript AI Summary
Different from the rest of the non Muslims... Once we do that, we are lost. Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. It is to remain ignorant, to cover up knowledge. Kata comes from the root word meaning to cover up, to conceal, and the Kata is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. LaMens wrote that the Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind. The Taqa, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and southern to the teachings of Islam, are described in the Qur'an as a people of no intelligence, the atheists as cattle, as cattle of those who go into craft and do not suffer wonder about this world. All of these unanimously agreed that at the very minimum, if Yazeen was not a kafir, then at the very minimum, he was a facile, a transgressor, a breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music lover, a homosexual, a pedophile, a sexual demon, someone who slept with his own mother.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Different from the rest of the non Muslims, from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals bending any rule to fulfill any desire. Once we do that, we are lost. Speaker 1: Islam, to believe is to know. To disbelieve is not to know. That is what it fundamentally comes down to. It is to remain ignorant, to cover up knowledge. After all, what is Kata? Kata comes from the root word, which means to cover up, to conceal. The Kata is the one who covers up that knowledge which is clear. The French orientalist scholar LaMens, he once wrote that the Quran is not far from considering unbelief, disbelief as an infirmity, as an illness, as a disease of the human mind. SubhanAllah. Non Muslims point this out to us. And of course the Taqa, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and southern to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Qur'an, they are described in the Qur'an as a people of no intelligence, said to us. Lot of normality, lot of no belief, people of no intelligence because they are incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran described the atheists as cattle, as cattle of those who go into craft and do not suffer wonder about this world. All of these unanimously agreed that at the very minimum, if Yazeen was not a kafir, then at the very minimum, he was a facile, a transgressor, a breaker of Islamic laws, a corrupt individual, a tyrant, a killer, a drunkard, a dog lover, a music lover, a homosexual, a pedophile, a sexual demon, someone who slept with his own mother.
Saved - August 18, 2025 at 10:59 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

They called me crazy for saying Taylor Swift was an op

@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg

NEW: Former FBI Director and 'Swiftie' James Comey releases a 5-minute video talking about how Taylor Swift inspires him and how she helps him deal with Trump. "At my second Taylor Swift concert in Hartford, CT, 14 years ago, she sang a song about this topic, asking..." "Why you gotta be so mean?" Comey said while quoting Swift's 2010 song 'Mean' as he discussed how mean people on X are. It's truly mind-blowing that this man served as the FBI director.

Video Transcript AI Summary
"I wanna talk about a truly inspirational public figure named Taylor Swift." "Of course, I watched her podcast interview with the Kelsey brothers." "I went to my first concert of hers fifteen years ago." "I know all her music, and I listened to it in my headphones when I cut the grass." "So, yes, I have a favorite of hers." "Although, honestly, for me, it's a tie between All Too Well, ten minute version, and Exile featuring Bon Iver." "Think of your energy as if it's expensive, she said, as if it's like a luxury item." "Last year, she urged Americans not to make the serious mistake of electing him." "There are far more decent, honest, kind people in America than there are mean jerks." "Thank you, Taylor Swift. Keep the faith."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to my Substack. Last week's cold turns out to have been COVID, quite a flashback, and Donald Trump is still president and still humiliating America on a national stage standing next to Vladimir Putin. It's like a dream, a bad dream you can't wake up from. But I don't wanna talk about that bad dream this week. I wanna talk about a truly inspirational public figure named Taylor Swift. Of course, I watched her podcast interview with the Kelsey brothers. Of course, I watched the whole thing. Although on YouTube, Patrice and I got kicked off for the last fifteen minutes and finished it on her phone, but I watched it. You see, Taylor Swift and I go way back. I went to my first concert of hers fifteen years ago. I've been to a second, and I have helped financially support the attendance of a lot of family members at others. I'm in a family's Swifty group chat. I know all her music, and I listened to it in my headphones when I cut the grass. So, yes, I have a favorite of hers. Although, honestly, for me, it's a tie between All Too Well, ten minute version, and Exile featuring Bon Iver. Taylor Swift has grown up with my family and provided us a soundtrack, really, as we've grown ourselves and learned and adapted and dealt with adversity and celebration. She had songs for all of it. I suspect that's something that millions of Americans have also experienced in their families. I think that's because Taylor Swift produces great art, but also because she models something. At every stage of her career, she's shown a certain way of being that resonated with my kids and also felt right to me as a parent, and she's still doing that as a grown up. Like a lot of you, I struggle with how to stand up to bullies without letting their meanness infect me and change me. You may have seen that the governor of California has been generating a lot of attention lately by posting on social media in a satirical way where he mocks Donald Trump and is all caps megalomania and his absurdity, and I find it very funny, hilarious even sometimes. But I gotta be honest, it also leaves me with a strange feeling at times because I don't want us to become like Trump and his followers. There are far more decent, honest, kind people in America than there are mean jerks. And don't get me wrong. We have our jerks, millions of them. You may have noticed. In particular, there's a stunning coarseness and ugliness in the Republican Party today. It's upsetting, but it's also a minority of America. On the whole, we aren't like that, and we don't like that. I think that's a big part of the reason so few Americans support Donald Trump when they have to see him and that up close, and why Republicans are so worried about what's coming for them next year. And to be clear, I am not an advocate for weakness. Of course, we need to stand up to jerks and defend what matters, but I think we have to try to do that without becoming like them, which is what makes me think about Taylor Swift. She's made clear that she sees Donald Trump for what he is. And last year, she urged Americans not to make the serious mistake of electing him. Of course, we're now living with the consequences of that mistake. But while our elderly makeup covered president is posting about whether Taylor Swift is still hot and declaring that he can't stand her, what's she doing? Living her best life, producing great music and, as she urged all of us to do during the podcast, not giving the jerks power over her mind. She said something about dealing with Internet trolls that stuck with me. Think of your energy as if it's expensive, she said, as if it's like a luxury item. Not everyone can afford it. I really enjoy reading Arthur Brooks who writes columns about happiness in the Atlantic. I don't know if he's a Swifty, but last week, he wrote about research on the way that being rude or snarky actually hurts the rude person. As he wrote, when you become less polite, the alteration in your conduct can make you less happy, more depressed, and angrier about life. I know you get that even without the research. Just watch Fox News or hang around an x, and you'll see what he means. We can't stop people from being jerks. What we can do is stop it from hurting us, from changing us. At my second Taylor Swift concert in Hartford, Connecticut 14 ago this summer, she sang a song about this topic, asking why you gotta be so mean. And she spoke directly to the nasty people. I bet you got pushed around. Somebody made you cold, but the cycle ends right now because you can't lead me down that road. You'll be glad I didn't sing that. That's right. Because down that road is unhappiness. Nobody should have that power over us. Thank you, Taylor Swift. Keep the faith.
Saved - July 21, 2025 at 12:13 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Been taking calls from current and former intel officers all night. They are furious. The Gabbard file shows the biggest Intel scandal in modern history. Lives were destroyed by this lie. Wars were started. “Doors should be kicked in,” one told me

Saved - July 11, 2025 at 10:34 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

They just hate white people

@AlphaNewsMN - Alpha News

EXCLUSIVE: Minnesota HR director now on leave after saying ‘white folk’ are ‘morally bankrupt’ and ‘liars’ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency HR Director Vonnie Phillips then called an Alpha News reporter a "f-cking rotten b-tch" from his official state email.

Saved - July 5, 2025 at 3:28 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Tim Walz’s daughter and the libs are freaking out about ICE raids This was Minnesota under Tim Walz just a few years ago targeting American citizens https://t.co/rbyHoUIkd3

Video Transcript AI Summary
Someone is urging others to get inside, seemingly for safety. An individual is hit, apparently hard enough to cause pain. There's concern for the well-being of others, specifically asking if they are okay after something hit the couch. Relief is expressed that someone else was targeted instead.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, there's more. Look at this. They just keep coming. Get in. Get in. In. Get in. Get in. Get in. Out. Oh, god. That hurt. You guys Are you okay? Right on the fucking couch. Are you okay? You got hit? Oh, good. They're booked for that dude. What? Okay.
Saved - June 24, 2025 at 4:23 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

You can tell how fed up Trump is Zelensky better be on his best behavior when he meets him later today at NATO

@cspan - CSPAN

President Trump on Israel and Iran: "We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing." https://t.co/xrztmebALZ

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 believes Iran violated the peace agreement, but Israel did too. Speaker 1 states that immediately after the deal, Israel dropped a large number of bombs. Speaker 1 is unhappy with Israel for doing this within the first hour of a twelve-hour window. Speaker 1 is also unhappy about a rocket that didn't land, possibly shot by mistake. Speaker 1 believes the two countries have been fighting for so long that they don't know what they're doing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Says that Iran violated the peace agreement and the cease fire agreement. Do you believe that Iran is still committed to the peace? Speaker 1: Yeah. I do. They violated, but Israel violated it too. Speaker 0: Are you questioning if Israel is committed? Is gonna Speaker 1: Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I'd never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when when I say, okay. Now you have twelve hours. You don't go out in the first hour and just drop everything you have on them. So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel's going out this morning because the one rocket that didn't land, that was shot, perhaps by mistake, that didn't land, I'm not happy about that. You know what? We have we basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing. Do you understand that? Speaker 0: Do you have do you have to respond to the law?
Saved - June 19, 2025 at 2:28 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Amen, Mr President!

@realDonaldTrump - Donald J. Trump

The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.....

Saved - June 19, 2025 at 2:13 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

One of the wildest interviews I've ever seen

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Senator Ted Cruz demands regime change in Iran. He’s not interested in the details. (0:00) Why Does Cruz Want Regime Change in Iran? (6:28) Is the US Currently Acting in Its Own Best Interest? (7:49) Was Regime Change in Syria Beneficial to the US? (12:31) Was the Iraq War a Mistake? (18:55) Why Aren’t US Politicians Focused on Fixing America’s Problems? (27:02) How Much Money Is the US Sending to Israel? (29:17) Does Cruz Think It’s Okay That Foreign Governments Spy on America? (31:47) How Much Money Has Cruz Taken From AIPAC? (38:22) To What Extent Is the US Government Influenced by Foreign Governments? (49:12) Is the Israel of the Bible the Same as the Current Israeli Government? (55:09) How Does Funding Israel Benefit the US? (1:11:54) What Happens Next in Iran? (1:13:42) What Really Is an Isolationist? (1:19:53) Are There Iranian Assassins Trying to Kill Trump? (1:30:18) Cruz Knows Nothing About Iran and Wants to Destroy It Anyway (1:32:55) Trump’s Response to Tucker’s Position on Iran (1:34:51) Cruz Refuses to Apologize for Supporting the Disastrous Ukraine/Russia War (1:46:55) Why Does Cruz Think Zelensky Is a Hero? (1:47:44) Why Did Cruz Support the Blowing up of Nord Stream? (1:50:12) Is Russia an Enemy of the US? (1:56:29) Is America the Moral Authority? Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
A senator supports regime change in Iran via popular uprising, not military force, aiming for a leader who is friendly to the U.S. He identifies as a "non-interventionist hawk," prioritizing U.S. national security interests. He opposed the Iraq War and intervention in Syria, but views Iran differently due to its anti-American stance and nuclear ambitions. The senator believes supporting Israel is in America's interest, citing intelligence sharing and a commonality of enemies. He acknowledges Israel likely spies on the U.S., but considers it acceptable. He defends APEC, stating it lobbies for a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship, not for the Israeli government. He claims Iran is actively trying to murder Donald Trump and has hired hitmen, but does not support military action, deeming their efforts ineffective. He believes stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is crucial, even if it requires military action. He criticizes the Biden administration's handling of the Ukraine war and advocates for a focus on America's interests.
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. Speaker 0: So you've come 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 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 Speaker 0: out of all. Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: We'd be 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. Speaker 0: Or So but just the way I I don't think 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. Speaker 0: And Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: May I ask what you think of how Syria wound up? Because Bashar 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. Speaker 0: But you don't think that 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. You're Speaker 1: 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? I'm not Why not use the bully pulpit? Speaker 1: 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. And 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. Good. 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 Tucker for Hillsdale dot 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 Speaker 0: can I don't? I wanna do a shallow dive if it Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: I Speaker 1: 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. I've talked with foreign 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? Speaker 0: I get that. I mean, they go to people who 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 both know that's not true. Speaker 1: 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? Speaker 0: Oh, like I'm anti Semite now. Senator, you're asking the questions tough. Me. Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: Was she that Talib? Speaker 1: 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 Speaker 0: to you. You're the one who said it. Not So Speaker 1: 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. You don't have context for it. 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. Speaker 0: No. Hold on. You're a senator, and now 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. This is important. Are you kidding? 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. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: 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. Do do you feel it? 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 Speaker 0: the table. 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. Speaker 0: Wait. Hold on. Can we Speaker 1: go back to Donald Trump because he's not president? No. It's a big deal. Speaker 0: What do you mean? 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 is one 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 Speaker 0: do that. 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. Speaker 0: Then why aren't you calling for military action against Tehran right Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: Wait. Can I just ask one last question about trying to 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 100 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 Speaker 0: I felt that way with the j six prisoners. Speaker 1: 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. Yeah. 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. So if don't like Speaker 1: 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. Okay. 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 Speaker 1: then 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 don't you 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 Speaker 0: did they 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. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I'm telling Speaker 1: 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. I've seen Speaker 1: 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. Speaker 0: You don't have a scene to have a problem with it. 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? I'm just saying it's a little weird that we waged this Speaker 0: 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 understand that. Speaker 0: 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. Right. 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? Speaker 0: What do you mean? 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 Speaker 0: ask you that. Another disaster. You don't want Speaker 1: 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. Yes. This is like After anti Semitism, this is the last refuge. You're an 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. You don't know anything about 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. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: 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. Let me just 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 Speaker 0: going I'm like, that's my point is all these 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 Speaker 0: in you. 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. Speaker 0: I I know. Speaker 1: 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 Speaker 0: are you in I guess you in what So so that leads 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. Speaker 0: I I guess what I'm saying 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 because you're focused on Iran 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 Speaker 0: How much did you vote to send to Ukraine? Speaker 1: 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. I'm not. Speaker 1: 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. How many copy those names? Thank you, senator.
Saved - June 17, 2025 at 6:04 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Jon Stewart just launched an edited video attacking the biggest MAGA voices standing against regime change war Me, Bannon, Kirk, MTG His agenda is so transparent https://t.co/0VT3Tre9lm

Video Transcript AI Summary
Some believe the president is being cagey because not all MAGA supporters embrace Netanyahu's "bomb fetishes." Some MAGA do not want the U.S. engaged in foreign wars. One person claims they don't know anyone who thinks about bombing Iran. One person applauds any group steadfast in a "diplomacy first posture," but notes their reluctance to commit America's military to foreign wars doesn't extend to America. They believe President Trump should deploy the military in the streets to "take back" cities like LA. One person claims the MAGA mindset is "we didn't vote for foreign wars, we voted for civil war." Another states the "battle for America" will take place in Los Angeles and the only way to win is to "double and triple down." One person claims the current war is being waged by Democrats and "foreign nationals waving Mexican flags." Another says Los Angeles is an occupied city and it is time to use force to retake the cities. Some believe MAGA are looking for any pretense to target Democrats, and their strategy is to inflate the threat the country faces to rile up their base and make the left a legitimate military target.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Perhaps the reason why the president is being cagey about all this is because not all of the MAGA are embracing Netanyahu's bomb fetishes. Speaker 1: We cannot be dragged into inexorably dragged into a war in The Middle East. We put America first, and that means American interests Speaker 0: first. Speaker 2: Our MAGA base, they do not want The United States to be engaged in this. Speaker 3: I don't know anyone that wakes up and and thinks about bombing Iran. Speaker 0: She doesn't know anyone who wakes up and thinks about bombing Iran. I gotta tell you. I don't think she knows anyone who wakes up and thinks. But credit. They enjoy that. But you know what? I'm gonna say this. This may surprise some people, credit where credit is due. I certainly have tremendous policy and in some instances, space laser differences with these folks. But I applaud any group that is steadfast in a diplomacy first posture. The only problem with their posture that I see with it is their reluctance to commit America's military to fighting drawn out and often pointless wars doesn't seem to extend to America. Speaker 2: President Trump should fully deploy the military in the streets. Take back the streets of LA. Do it and do it fast. Speaker 0: Doesn't wanna be in Iran. He wants to be in LA. He doesn't wanna deploy the military overseas. He wants to save the military for the real threat, us. He's not being hypocritical, just fucking mind blowing. The MAGA mindset appears to be we didn't vote for foreign wars. We voted for civil war. Speaker 1: This is a war. The battle for America was gonna take place in in Los Angeles. The only way to win here is to double and triple down. Speaker 3: The current war that we are seeing waged by the Democrats, by the foreign nationals waving Mexican flags. Speaker 1: The city of Los Angeles is an occupied city. It is time to retake the cities of this country. It is time to use force. What the Speaker 0: They are looking for any pretense. They are looking for any pretense to sick their robot dogs on Democrats. And the strategy that they're using is to inflate the threat that this country now faces. To so rile up their base as to make the left in this country represented by over 75,000,000 votes in the past presidential election as a legitimate military target for The United States Of America. It's a strategy that's been used before to gin up military conflict.
Saved - June 3, 2025 at 5:59 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
A discussion began with a video of YouTube star Ms. Rachel meeting a 3-year-old from Gaza. One participant condemned labeling her a terrorist, while another argued that the possibility of her parents being Hamas militants means she could technically be considered one until more is known.

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

YouTube Superstar Ms Rachel meets a 3-year-old from Gaza https://t.co/2Ymzc2UGvC

Video Transcript AI Summary
Raah is encouraged to go back to sleep. The speaker notes that they are tired and points out a bunny sleeping until near the moon. The speaker then asks if they should wake the bunny with a merry sound.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's go back to sleep, Raah. We're so tired. See the bunny sleeping till it's near the moon. Shall we wake them with a merry

@jakeshieldsajj - Jake Shields

@JackPosobiec Anyone who sees this and wants to call her a terrorist has lost all humanity

@Dr_MikeOx - Dr Mike Ox, PHD

@jakeshieldsajj @JackPosobiec The probability that her parents could be Hamas militants still exists, Jake. So yes she is technicly a Terrorist, at least until we know who her Parents are

Saved - May 12, 2025 at 2:08 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Rep. Nadler's Shady Ties To Qatar Exposed https://t.co/bcLV8DCj9L

Video Transcript AI Summary
Congressman Nadler's campaign hired Ezra Friedlander of the Friedlander Group for consulting services. Friedlander is a registered foreign agent known for working with foreign regimes hostile to the U.S. to find politicians in D.C. to push their interests. Friedlander attempted to bring Hassan Ali, a Qatari regime insider, to Congress in 2018 after the Trump administration targeted Qatar. The regime of Qatar is known for its oil wealth, funding of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ties with Iran. The meetings were canceled after Hassan Ali's extremism was exposed. In 2015, Nadler voted for the Iran nuclear deal. Friedlander noted that a nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv could destroy the homeland of the Jewish people. However, Friedlander defended Nadler's decision to support the Iran deal. Records from the FEC show Nadler has been paying Friedlander one thousand dollars a month.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Congressman Nadler's campaign hired high powered lobbyist Ezra Friedlander of the Friedlander Group to provide consulting services to them. Now you may not have heard of Ezra Friedlander before, and that's because he prefers to do his work behind the scenes. Friedlander got into over the past few years because of his work on helping foreign regimes that are hostile to The United States to find politicians in DC who will push for and work for their interests. Friedlander himself is a registered foreign agent, and we know this because he filed his fire registration forms. Here they are for you to take a look. Let me call your attention to the name Hassan Ali bin Ali. Hassan Ali is an important Qatari regime insider and businessman. In fact, you might even refer to him as a Qatari oligarch. The regime of Qatar is known for a few things: their sheer amount of oil wealth as a petro state their funding of the Muslim Brotherhood extremist organization, and their close ties with Iran. Friedlander attempted to go so far as to bring Hassan Ali to congress last year in late twenty eighteen after the Trump administration targeted Qatar for its extreme actions and other nations in the region, like Saudi Arabia and The UAE, cut them off. Those meetings were canceled after Hassan Ali's extremism was exposed by conservative bloggers. This isn't the first time that Friedlander and Nadler have worked together. In 2015, Nadler voted for the Iran nuclear deal, a program that would have made it much easier for Iran to expand its nuclear weapons program. Friedlander himself noted that a single nuclear bomb on Tel Aviv could destroy the homeland of the Jewish people, causing a catastrophic and irrevocable loss of Israeli lives. However, Friedlander went on to defend Nadler's decision of voting to support Obama's disastrous Iran deal, which president Trump later reversed. Now you might be asking, is this relationship between Nadler and Friedlander something new? Or perhaps they don't know each other very well. They just work together. Well, one American news investigation of records obtained from the Federal Elections Commission, the FEC, shows otherwise. Nadler has been paying Friedlander one thousand dollars a month.
Saved - May 11, 2025 at 2:44 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

So she admitted it

@gatewaypundit - The Gateway Pundit

“I Touch Whoever I Want Motherf*cker!” ICE Bodycam Footage Shows Dem Rep LaMonica McIver Verbally and Physically Assaulting Federal Agents (VIDEO) READ: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/i-touch-whoever-i-want-motherfcker-ice-bodycam/

"I Touch Whoever I Want Motherf*cker!" BREAKING: ICE Bodycam Footage Shows Dem Rep LaMonica McIver Verbally and Physically Assaulting Federal Agents (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila           Lock her up and expel her from Congress! thegatewaypundit.com
Saved - April 29, 2025 at 2:02 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Someone had to say it so it might as well be me DEI Ends Lives The pilot of the BlackHawk ignored her co-pilot and the tower telling her to get out of the way of the plane and 11 children were killed https://t.co/T5vx9V6dPO

Video Transcript AI Summary
A helicopter crash resulted in 67 fatalities, including 11 children and their parents. The NTSB report indicated the cause was pilot error. The pilot, Rebecca Lobach, who also worked in the Biden White House, reportedly ignored orders and warnings to move, get out of the way, or descend before crashing. President Trump commented on the crash, suggesting that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives may have played a role. He stated that air traffic control requires brilliant people and complex computer systems, and he claimed that a system rebuild was halted due to the election outcome. The speaker concludes that President Trump was right and "DEI ends lives."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This was a horrific crash. Sixty seven people lost their lives, including 11 children and their parents. Let me be clear about this. 11 children and their parents. The next day, I actually had the opportunity to travel to Reagan National Airport where this took place and was there with NTSB. We reported this at the time, and we were on a visit with the secretary of homeland security, for the coast guard recovery efforts, interviewed secretary Noam right just just feet away from where this helicopter and where the bodies lay. Well, now the report has come out, and the New York Times posted this yesterday. Many people were asking what could it be. Well, it was pilot error. That was the that was the case. The pilot email, Rebecca Lobach, who also worked in the Biden White House, ignored orders and warnings to move or to get out of the way or to descend right before she crashed into the airplane. President Trump talked about this as well and blamed it at the time. Let's play the clip. Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure out how you can come to the conclusion right now that diversity had something to do with this crash. Because I have common sense. Okay? And, unfortunately, a lot of people don't. We want brilliant people doing this. This is a major chess game at the highest level. When you have 60 planes coming in during a short period of time and they're all coming in different directions and you're dealing with very high level computer, computer work and very complex computers. And one of the other things I will tell you is that the, systems that were built, I was going to rebuild the entire system, and then we had an election that didn't turn out the way it should have. But, they didn't build the systems prop Speaker 0: And there you go, folks. President Trump called it out at the time, and it turns out president Trump was right. DEI ends lives.
Saved - April 19, 2025 at 4:49 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Why is Earl Matthews attacking a patriot like Gen Flynn?

@realtoriabrooke - Toria Brooke

ICYMI — President @realDonaldTrump appointed General Counsel for the Department of Defense Earl Matthews @EarlMat55106636 reposts song slamming General Flynn’s "network". @CaPiTanJacko1 https://t.co/c1OvWNqb7w https://t.co/pETmGVA35W

Video Transcript AI Summary
Earl Matthew testified truth, but the Flynn network is trying to erase him. Michael Flynn is allegedly avoiding Earl. Earl's testimony exposed a game, and Charles Flynn's moves on J6 are under scrutiny. Anne VanderSale is allegedly attacking Earl's name. The speaker claims the Flynn network is shaken and doesn't want people to believe Earl Matthew. They accuse Brian Kate of framing traitors as heroes and question the lack of a report on Earl's J6 actions. Patricia Bynes is accused of avoiding connecting Charles Flynn to the plot. Kyle Flike, Owens, Peters, and Jones are called out for not supporting Earl. The speaker suggests a pact of silence exists and the Flynn Network is nervous. Major platforms won't give her a mic, and there are alleged under-the-table deals. The speaker claims the Flynn network is betraying the circle and losing their grip. The speaker says they clocked the whole game and in 2025, masks will fall.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Listen up. Let's peel back the curtain. Truth's coming hard. No lies. No flirting. Earl Matthew stood tall, dropped bombs on the scene. Testified truth, Speaker 1: but they wiped it clean. Flynn network shook, yet they feeling the heat. Reasons they dodge them, let's break that beat. Michael Flynn's crude, playing it slick. Pretend Earl's ghost like he don't exist. Testimony hit hard, expose the game. Charles Flynn moves on j six, who's to blame? Anne VanderSale, she's throwing that shade, searing his name, trying to make it fade. Why the attack? Why the venom to spin? Because Earl's truth cuts deep exposing they sins. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weed. Flynn Network shook, can't let you believe Earl Matthew's name. They won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots opposers, let's look in their eyes. Hive and breakling. Man, he's dodging the light, won't lift Earl up. Something don't feel right. Claims covered ops, j six, no badge. Running rogue moves, now he's bragging on swag, Brian Kate's. Yo, he's spinning the tail. Framing traitors as heroes setting sail. But where's the report on Earl's j six fire? Silent of shadows because the truth's too dire. Patricia Bynes, she's mom on the plot, won't touch Charles Flynn connecting no dots. Now, Kyle Flike, Owens, Peters and Jones, big names, big platforms, but Earl's all alone. They claim they back Trump wave flags act tight, but stab at his crew when they're out of sight. Strange, ain't it? The silence, pact. Flynn Networks nervous, that's a stone cold fact. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weave. Flynn Networks sure can't let you believe. Earl Matthews' name, they won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots, opposers, let's look in their eyes. Trump's got Earl clothes standing right by his side, but Flynn's whole squad got nowhere to hide. They never saw me. I clocked every move. Networks unraveling. I'm bringing the groove. Major platforms, Dodge won't give her a mic. Under table deals, yo, something ain't right. They scream patriot, put their loyalty's thin. Betraying the circle while they're grinning within. Splitting network scrambling, they're losing their grip. Earls, troops, a wave, sinking their ship. I clocked the whole game, every name, every lie. Twenty twenty five, watch the mask fall, no disguise. Reasons they run, reasons they sweat. Troops

@CaPiTanJacko1 - Captain Chaos

@SuaSponte_1776 @EarlMat55106636 🚨 “The Flynn Network” sound on 👇 🔥

Video Transcript AI Summary
Earl Matthew testified truth, but the Flynn network is trying to erase it. Michael Flynn is allegedly pretending Earl doesn't exist. Charles Flynn's moves on J6 are questioned, and Anne VanderSale is attacking Earl's name. The speaker claims they are dodging and weaving because Earl's truth exposes their sins. The speaker questions why Brian Cates is allegedly framing traders as heroes and why there's no report on Earl's J6 fire. Patricia Bynes is accused of not connecting dots to Charles Flynn. Big names are allegedly ignoring Earl while claiming to back Trump. The speaker states the Flynn network is nervous and won't let Earl Matthews' name shine. Trump has Earl close, but the Flynn squad has nowhere to hide. Major platforms allegedly won't give the speaker a mic due to under-the-table deals. The speaker claims these individuals are betraying the circle while grinning within, and Earl's troops are sinking their ship. The speaker believes in 2025, there will be a mass fall with no disguise.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Listen up. Let's peel back the curtain. Truth's coming hard. No lies. No flirting. Earl Matthew stood tall, dropped bombs on the scene. Testified truth, Speaker 1: but they wiped it clean. Flynn network shook, yet they feeling the heat. Reasons they dodge them, let's break that beat. Michael Flynn's crude, playing it slick. Pretend Earl's ghost like he don't exist. Testimony hit hard, expose the game. Charles Flynn moves on j six, who's to blame? Anne VanderSale, she's throwing that shade, searing his name, trying to make it fade. Why the attack? Why the venom to spin? Because Earl's truth cuts deep exposing they sins. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weave. Flynn Network shook, can't let you believe Earl Matthew's name. They won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots opposers, let's look in their eyes. Hive and breakling. Man, he's dodging the light, won't lift Earl up. Something don't feel right. Claims covered ops, j six, no badge. Running rogue moves, now he's bragging on swag, Brian Cates. Yo, he's spinning the tail. Framing traders as heroes setting sail. But where's the report on Earl's j six fire? Silent of shadows because the truth's too dire. Patricia Bynes, she's mom on the plot, won't touch Charles Flynn, connecting no dots. Now I'm cow flick, Owens, Peters and Jones, big names, big platforms, but Earl's all alone. They claim they back Trump wave flags act tight, but stab at his crew when they're out sight. Strange, ain't it? The silence, pact. Flynn Networks nervous, that's a stone cold fact. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weave. Flynn Networks shook, can't let you believe. Earl Matthews' name, they won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots are posers. Let's look in their eyes. Trump's got Earl close standing right by his side, but Flynn's whole squad got nowhere to hide. They never saw me. I clocked every move. Networks unraveling. I'm bringing the groove. Major platforms, dodge won't give her a mic. Under table deals, yo, something ain't right. They scream patriot, put their loyalty's thin. Betraying the circle while they're grinning within. Splitting networks scrambling, they're losing their grip. Earl's troops are waves sinking their ship. I clocked the whole game, every name, every lie. 2025, watch the mass fall, no disguise. Reasons they run, reasons they sweat. Troops coming hard, you'll

@CaPiTanJacko1 - Captain Chaos

@SuaSponte_1776 @EarlMat55106636 🚨 “The Flynn Network” sound on 👇 🔥

Video Transcript AI Summary
Earl Matthew testified truth, but the Flynn network is trying to erase it. Michael Flynn is allegedly pretending Earl doesn't exist. Charles Flynn's role on J6 is questioned, and Anne VanderSale is allegedly smearing Earl's name. The speaker claims this is because Earl's truth exposes their sins. The speaker questions why figures like Brian Cates are allegedly framing traders as heroes while ignoring Earl's J6 account. Patricia Bynes is accused of avoiding connections to Charles Flynn. Major platforms are allegedly avoiding Earl, while figures like Owens, Peters, and Jones ignore him despite claiming to support Trump. The speaker suggests a pact of silence exists because the Flynn Network is nervous. Trump supports Earl, while the Flynn squad has nowhere to hide. The speaker claims to have observed their moves and says networks are unraveling due to under-the-table deals and betrayal within. The speaker predicts a mass downfall in 2025.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Listen up. Let's peel back the curtain. Truth's coming hard. No lies. No flirting. Earl Matthew stood tall, dropped bombs on the scene. Testified truth, Speaker 1: but they wiped it clean. Flynn network shook, yet they feeling the heat. Reasons they dodge them, let's break that beat. Michael Flynn's crude, playing it slick. Pretend Earl's ghost like he don't exist. Testimony hit hard, expose the game. Charles Flynn moves on j six, who's to blame? Anne VanderSale, she's throwing that shade, searing his name, trying to make it fade. Why the attack? Why the venom to spin? Because Earl's truth cuts deep exposing they sins. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weave. Flynn Network shook, can't let you believe Earl Matthew's name. They won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots opposers, let's look in their eyes. Hive and breakling. Man, he's dodging the light, won't lift Earl up. Something don't feel right. Claims covered ops, j six, no badge. Running rogue moves, now he's bragging on swag, Brian Cates. Yo, he's spinning the tail. Framing traders as heroes setting sail. But where's the report on Earl's j six fire? Silent of shadows because the truth's too dire. Patricia Bynes, she's mom on the plot, won't touch Charles Flynn, connecting no dots. Now I'm cow flick, Owens, Peters and Jones, big names, big platforms, but Earl's all alone. They claim they back Trump wave flags act tight, but stab at his crew when they're out sight. Strange, ain't it? The silence, pact. Flynn Networks nervous, that's a stone cold fact. There's a reason, yo, they duck and they weave. Flynn Networks shook, can't let you believe. Earl Matthews' name, they won't let it shine, but the truth's breaking free. It's a matter of time. Reasons they hide, reasons they lie. Patriots are posers. Let's look in their eyes. Trump's got Earl close standing right by his side, but Flynn's whole squad got nowhere to hide. They never saw me. I clocked every move. Networks unraveling. I'm bringing the groove. Major platforms, dodge won't give her a mic. Under table deals, yo, something ain't right. They scream patriot, put their loyalty's thin. Betraying the circle while they're grinning within. Splitting networks scrambling, they're losing their grip. Earl's troops are waves sinking their ship. I clocked the whole game, every name, every lie. 2025, watch the mass fall, no disguise. Reasons they run, reasons they sweat. Troops coming hard, you'll
Saved - April 18, 2025 at 7:24 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Austin Metcalf's last tweet

@AMetcal - Austin Metcalf

Faith that god got me ❤️ and my work will pay off.

Saved - April 16, 2025 at 11:42 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Chris Van Hollen flew all the way to El Salvador and the VP shut him down https://t.co/Xh1xodAvyX

Saved - April 16, 2025 at 11:42 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/human-events-daily-with-jack-posobiec/id1585243541?i=1000703784707

The Maryland Man Hoax is Falling Apart Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Stay prepared with a Medical Emergency Kit from The Wellness Company. Visit https://www.TWC.HEALTH/P podcasts.apple.com
Saved - April 14, 2025 at 12:12 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Seems like there were lots of tents there at the track meet where Karmelo Anthony killed Austin Metcalf Be interesting to see what he was doing in the time before he decided to pick that tent to sit down in https://t.co/XlgufJns2s

Saved - April 7, 2025 at 11:49 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Imagine being a Panican in Trump's America https://t.co/46Ah8EoOlp

Saved - March 27, 2025 at 11:18 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

One year ago. The bridge has not been rebuilt and the highway remains closed and disconnected

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: Live from Baltimore Harbor, Site of Francis Scott Key Bridge Disaster Search and Rescue helos active, the Dali stationary amid bridge wreckage https://t.co/ttNgU8bXX7

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Dali, a Singapore-flagged, Maersk-chartered ship, struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Harbor, causing its collapse around 1:30 AM. Helicopters are conducting search and rescue operations for potential survivors near the stationary ship, which is positioned where the bridge once stood. Road 695 is completely cut off, and the port is silent with no ship movement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Jack Pacific here in Baltimore Harbor. You can see just behind me the ship, the Dali Singapore flagged, Maersk chartered, the remains of the Francis Scott Quay Bridge here in Baltimore Harbor. Helicopters are up search and rescue coast guard looking for any potential survivors. You can hear the helicopters circling the area of the ship. Course is stationary. It is stopped directly where the bridge, where it struck the bridge where the bridge once stood. This Road 695 of course completely cut off now from the Baltimore area and as you can see behind me the port is completely silent. No ships are moving, gantries are quiet. It's a quiet day that started out with a catastrophic early morning where overnight the bridge collapsed due to this catastrophic incident which took place around 01:30 in the morning. You can see one of the helicopters here coming in closer. And they're flying very low now. Gonna zoom in for a closer shot.
Saved - March 27, 2025 at 11:12 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Son of Snow White producer UNLOADS on Rachel Zegler: ‘Narcissistic, immature’ https://t.co/6gDgCjg5FK

Saved - March 20, 2025 at 11:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a reminder about Disney's Snow White actress expressing her strong feelings against Donald Trump after the election, saying "F*CK DONALD TRUMP" and wishing "May Trump Supporters Never Know Peace." I also noted the play on words with "Snow WOKE."

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Reminder that Disney's Snow White actress posted: F*CK DONALD TRUMP after the election And she wrote "May Trump Supporters Never Know Peace"

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Snow WOKE https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snow-woke-disney-cultural-vandalism-set-to-flop/id1585243541?i=1000700178834

SNOW WOKE: Disney Cultural Vandalism Set to Flop Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Stay ahead of what’s coming and secure your privacy today. Go to https://www.SLNT.COM/POSO for 15% off podcasts.apple.com
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 9:41 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Every day's a good day for Miller Time

@RapidResponse47 - Rapid Response 47

WATCH IN FULL: White House Deputy Chief of Staff @StephenM schools Fake News CNN's @kasie on the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. https://t.co/2TMnKyBLwk

Video Transcript AI Summary
The administration believes the president has the constitutional right to conduct national security operations, citing the Alien Enemies Act. They argue a district court judge cannot interfere with the president's authority to repel an alien invasion or a predatory incursion directed by a foreign government. The administration claims Trane de Aragua (TDA) was sent by the Venezuelan government, triggering the Alien Enemies Act, and that the president alone makes the determination of what triggers the statute. The administration states that under the Alien Enemies Act, an act of war, an invasion, or a predatory incursion can trigger the act. They argue a district court judge cannot enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists, direct troop movements, or restrain the president's authority under the Alien Enemies Act or foreign affairs. The administration believes the Supreme Court will agree that the president's commander-in-chief powers are not subject to judicial review. They question how to expel illegal alien invaders if each deportation requires adjudication by a district court judge. The administration states there is no conflict between the judge's order and the actions taken by the departments of defense, justice, and homeland security.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you called the judge's order just earlier today, quote, patently unlawful, end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order, and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out? Speaker 1: The president of The United States and his administration reserve all rights under the constitution to conduct national security operations and defense The United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the president the authority to repel an alien invasion of The United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review. Speaker 0: So, Steven, when you when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment and I I I fail to see how there's any other way but to start with where we're starting here before you get to eventually the supreme court. Speaker 1: Well so first of all, there's a there's a term in law, justiciable. This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not the president is exercising his article two powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his court article two powers as commander in chief. Speaker 0: Is Venezuela invading The US? Speaker 1: This is this is a very important point. This is a title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority. So just to ask you a simple question. You you talk about how the system works. Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no? Speaker 0: Well, Steven, my question I Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. Speaker 0: It's If you could answer my question Speaker 1: first. In other words, Speaker 0: the Is Venezuela is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would T t t t a. Speaker 1: So under the so I'll answer yours, and you'll answer mine. Under the terms of the statute, Trane de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by Speaker 0: a foreign government. Right? Are they a state or Speaker 1: a government? This would be yes. It is it is documented. The the TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here's an even more important point. Under the constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander in chief of the army and navy? The president and the president's alone makes a decision of what triggers that Speaker 0: determination statute. Actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela? Speaker 1: You're not hearing understanding me. Read the statute. Alien Enemies Act seventeen ninety eight. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government so it lists a three three qualifying actions. It could be an act of war. In the Speaker 0: very beginning, there has to be declared war against a nation or Speaker 1: a state. That's what it says. Wrong. Look up the statute. It's on my account on social media. You can see it? The yes. It says or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alley Enemies Act. One is a act of war, which, by way, an invasion is an act of war, but put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute, it's the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute. So but no. But this is a very important question because no. No. No. Hold on. It's a very important question. You said the way our system works is the president of The United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to district court review. That is Speaker 0: fundamentally not true. I never said that, Steven. I did not say Speaker 1: never been true. Speaker 0: This was not a military upper I mean, the Speaker 1: A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil, that he can direct the movement of air force one, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, that he can direct Marco Rubio to engage the diplomacy in a Speaker 0: country. Or not? Like, does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here? Speaker 1: I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the president's conduct here is not subject to Speaker 0: judicial review. You are acknowledging that they do in fact have a say here. Well Even though you think they may agree with you. Speaker 1: What we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the president's designation of as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no Speaker 0: way what point in Speaker 1: this system, how how are you going to expel illegal illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls if each and every deportation has to be adjudicated in a district court judge? And that means you have no country. Sovereignty. It means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. Speaker 0: I'm just trying to figure out at what point Speaker 1: in the Speaker 0: system do you because what does the Trump administration believe? Because we do have separation of powers in this country. I hear what you're saying. Speaker 1: Yes. Of powers. Speaker 0: This is Speaker 1: the judiciary interfering Steven. Let me finish. Executive function. Speaker 0: Let me That Speaker 1: is the separation of powers. That is Speaker 0: order here because you thought you could? Speaker 1: So the judge's order and the actions taken by the departments of defense, justice, and homeland security are not in conflict. And the department just has been clear that they are not in conflict. But I So you think that Speaker 0: you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration I agree. This order? Speaker 1: As the justice department said, there is no conflict between the judge's order, and the action is taken by the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. Yeah. The district Speaker 0: court has to, Speaker 1: in any way, restrain the president's authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct the foreign affairs of United States. Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and secretary of state Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge So can join that bilateral security agreement Again. Then we do not have a democracy. Major argument. Got it. Policy. Speaker 0: Heard you say this. I've Did did you ignore did the ignore the order from the district judge? Speaker 1: I've It's Speaker 0: a simple question. Speaker 1: I've and I've answered it. I've I've answered it because this the department has made a filing in the court. But let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lives of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that? No. This judge violated the law. He violated the constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country. Speaker 0: Courts because that does to Speaker 1: be what you're arguing. The same the same district court judges didn't do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. Do these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Mungry, Blake, anyone Speaker 0: courts. Is that what you're saying? Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a separation of powers. The the the judiciary exercises Speaker 0: judgment and relief. I don't speak for the White House. You you are here to speak Speaker 1: for the White House. Speaker 0: Will I just want you to answer that one simple question. I am. Speaker 1: Ready? Here we go. Under a proper reading of the constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch, but their authority is at its lowest point when the president is exercising his powers as commander in chief. And I asked you a question. You never answered it. Can a judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Can a district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Stephen? Speaker 0: Yes, sir. I I am not gonna get into the the Speaker 1: the This And then you'll know that I'm right. Speaker 0: Is a separate question. Speaker 1: You'll know that I'm right. Speaker 0: Okay. We're not talking about other other truths of me. I need to ask you about something else. The president Speaker 1: issued a proclamation d delineating delineating in detail how the Venezuelan regime sent this gang, this terrorist organization to our shores. And by the way and I and I love being here, but all the outrage that we are seeing from the Democrat party and from the corporate Speaker 0: media
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 9:41 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

She had no idea what she was walking into

@Geiger_Capital - Geiger Capital

Stephen Miller on CNN talking about the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Absolute must-see TV. https://t.co/aDd2jPvkfq

Video Transcript AI Summary
The administration believes the president has constitutional authority to conduct national security operations, citing the Alien Enemies Act. They argue a district court judge cannot interfere with the president's power to repel a foreign terrorist in the country. The administration claims Trane de Aragua (TDA) was sent by the Venezuelan government, constituting a predatory incursion or invasion under the Alien Enemies Act. They assert the president alone determines what triggers the statute, not a district court judge. The administration states a district court judge cannot enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists, direct the movement of Air Force One, or influence foreign policy. They expect the Supreme Court to agree that the president's commander-in-chief powers are not subject to judicial review. The administration questions how to expel illegal alien invaders if each deportation requires adjudication by a district court judge. They believe the judiciary is interfering with executive function, violating the separation of powers. They maintain there is no conflict between the judge's order and the administration's actions. The administration argues the judge put lives at risk and defied the system of government.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So you called the judge's order just earlier today, quote, patently unlawful, end quote, and said that it was an assault on democracy itself. Does that mean that the administration is ignoring this order, and might you ignore future court orders that meet the criteria you laid out? Speaker 1: The president of The United States and his administration reserve all rights under the constitution to conduct national security operations and defense The United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country, men like John Adams, was written explicitly to give the president authority to repel an alien invasion of The United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, restrict, or to restrain any way. You can read the law yourself. There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review. Speaker 0: So, Steven, when you when you say that this person has no authority at all, this is how our system works. It starts with these judges and then continues up. At what point does it become, in your view, legal for the justice system to be looking at this and making a judgment and I I I fail to see how there's any other way but to start with where we're starting here before you get to eventually the supreme court. Speaker 1: Well so first of all, there's a there's a term in law, justiciable. This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not the president is exercising his article two powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he's exercising his court article two powers as commander in chief. Speaker 0: Is Venezuela invading The US? Speaker 1: This is this is a very important point. This is a title 50 authority. It's a commander in chief authority. So just to ask you a simple question. You you talk about how the system works. Does a district court judge have the right to direct or enjoin troop movements overseas? Yes or no? Speaker 0: Well, Steven, my question I Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. Speaker 0: It's If you could answer my question Speaker 1: first. In other words, Speaker 0: the Is Venezuela is Venezuela invading our country in a way that would T t t t a. Speaker 1: So under the so I'll answer yours, and you'll answer mine. Under the terms of the statute, Trane de Aragua is an alien enemy force that has come here as detailed at length in the proclamation at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a president has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by Speaker 0: a foreign government. Right? Are they a state or Speaker 1: a government? This would be yes. It is it is documented. The the TDA was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here's an even more important point. Under the constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the commander in chief of the army and navy? The president and the president's alone makes a decision of what triggers that Speaker 0: determination statute. Actually at war with Venezuela, the nation state of Venezuela? Speaker 1: You're not hearing understanding me. Read the statute. Alien Enemies Act seventeen ninety eight. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government so it lists a three three qualifying actions. It could be an act of war. In the Speaker 0: very beginning, there has to be declared war against a nation or Speaker 1: a state. That's what it says. Wrong. Look up the statute. It's on my account on social media. You can see it? The yes. It says or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alley Enemies Act. One is a act of war, which, by way, an invasion is an act of war, but put that aside. One is an invasion, which this is. One is a predatory incursion, which this is. So it actually meets all three statutory criteria. But with respect to this particular statute, it's the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute. So but no. But this is a very important question because no. No. No. Hold on. It's a very important question. You said the way our system works is the president of The United States commands the armed forces of the country, commands the foreign policy of the country, and that's subject to district court review. That is Speaker 0: fundamentally not true. I never said that, Steven. I did not say Speaker 1: never been true. Speaker 0: This was not a military upper I mean, the Speaker 1: A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil, that he can direct the movement of air force one, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier, that he can direct Marco Rubio to engage the diplomacy in a Speaker 0: country. Or not? Like, does the Supreme Court of the United States have any say over the things that you were just outlining right here? Speaker 1: I believe what the Supreme Court will say is what I just said, which is that the president's conduct here is not subject to Speaker 0: judicial review. You are acknowledging that they do in fact have a say here. Well Even though you think they may agree with you. Speaker 1: What we are expecting is the Supreme Court to say what has always been the case, which is when the president is using his powers as commander in chief, those determinations are not subject to judicial review. In other words, the president's designation of as a foreign terrorist organization and as an alien enemy are part of his inherent plenary authority. There is no Speaker 0: way what point in Speaker 1: this system, how how are you going to expel illegal illegal alien invaders from our country who are raping little girls, who are murdering little girls if each and every deportation has to be adjudicated in a district court judge? And that means you have no country. Sovereignty. It means you have no future. It is fundamentally incompatible to have a country and have individual expulsions adjudicated by a single district court judge. Speaker 0: I'm just trying to figure out at what point Speaker 1: in the Speaker 0: system do you because what does the Trump administration believe? Because we do have separation of powers in this country. I hear what you're saying. Speaker 1: Yes. Of powers. Speaker 0: This is Speaker 1: the judiciary interfering Steven. Let me finish. Executive function. Speaker 0: Let me That Speaker 1: is the separation of powers. That is Speaker 0: order here because you thought you could? Speaker 1: So the judge's order and the actions taken by the departments of defense, justice, and homeland security are not in conflict. And the department just has been clear that they are not in conflict. But I So you think that Speaker 0: you did go along with the order that the judge put out? You do not think that the Trump administration I agree. This order? Speaker 1: As the justice department said, there is no conflict between the judge's order, and the action is taken by the departments I just listed. But I'm making a deeper and more fundamental point. Yeah. The district Speaker 0: court has to, Speaker 1: in any way, restrain the president's authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct the foreign affairs of United States. Let me paint a picture for you. President Trump and secretary of state Marco Rubio had engaged in intensive intensive diplomacy to obtain a bilateral security agreement with the nation of El Salvador. If a district court judge So can join that bilateral security agreement Again. Then we do not have a democracy. Major argument. Got it. Policy. Speaker 0: Heard you say this. I've Did did you ignore did the ignore the order from the district judge? Speaker 1: I've It's Speaker 0: a simple question. Speaker 1: I've and I've answered it. I've I've answered it because this the department has made a filing in the court. But let me make another point. The judge in this case put the lives of every single person on those aircraft at risk. Did he know how much fuel was in those planes? Did he know the flight conditions? Did he know the weather conditions? Did he know how many crew hours? Did he know the need for crew rest? Did he know any of that? No. This judge violated the law. He violated the constitution. He defied the system of government that we have in this country. Speaker 0: Courts because that does to Speaker 1: be what you're arguing. The same the same district court judges didn't do a damn thing to stop Joe Biden from flooding this nation with millions of illegal aliens. Do these district court judges didn't issue any injunctions to save the lives of Jocelyn Mungry, Blake, anyone Speaker 0: courts. Is that what you're saying? Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that what you said, there's a separation of powers. The the the judiciary exercises Speaker 0: judgment and relief. I don't speak for the White House. You you are here to speak Speaker 1: for the White House. Speaker 0: Will I just want you to answer that one simple question. I am. Speaker 1: Ready? Here we go. Under a proper reading of the constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority as a general matter to enjoin the functioning of the executive branch, but their authority is at its lowest point when the president is exercising his powers as commander in chief. And I asked you a question. You never answered it. Can a judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Can a district court judge enjoin troop movements overseas? Stephen? Speaker 0: Yes, sir. I I am not gonna get into the the Speaker 1: the This And then you'll know that I'm right. Speaker 0: Is a separate question. Speaker 1: You'll know that I'm right. Speaker 0: Okay. We're not talking about other other truths of me. I need to ask you about something else. The president Speaker 1: issued a proclamation d delineating delineating in detail how the Venezuelan regime sent this gang, this terrorist organization to our shores. And by the way and I and I love being here, but all the outrage that we are seeing from the Democrat party and from the corporate Speaker 0: media
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 9:41 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

He's like the raptor watching the human from the bushes waiting for the final moment to strike

@cspan - CSPAN

Stephen Miller (@stephenm): "If a district court judge can be involved in the conduct of our foreign policy, under no definition do we have a democracy in this country we no longer have a democracy." https://t.co/Qe6q8U6kT1

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the administration believes the court order is unlawful, and that a district court judge shouldn't interfere with foreign policy or military decisions. They argue that power has become too concentrated in the unelected bureaucracy and judiciary, shrinking the scope of democracy. They state that judges protect bureaucrats, preventing the president from implementing policy shifts. As an example, they claim that bureaucrats collude with the ACLU and the judiciary to prevent the deportation of aliens. The speaker asserts the president has the authority to remove terrorist gangs from the country under the Constitution, the Alien Enemies Act, the INA, and Article Two powers. They conclude that a district court judge cannot direct the expulsion of terrorists who are also in the country illegally.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The difference between the written order and a verbal order. Caroline was asked about this in the briefing, and she sort of suggested that maybe the administration doesn't necessarily view visas having the same weight. Is it the administration's understanding that he would comply with the verbal order? Speaker 1: Well, at the I mean, again, the whole the whole thing is just preposterous. So as the Department of Justice has said in writing, nothing that the administration did conflicted with the court order. But there's a bigger issue here, which is the court order is patently unlawful. And if we got into a place in this country where district court judges could, for example, help help is the wrong word could interfere and direct specific targeting or non targeting in, say, Huti controlled territory. Could direct which general on the battlefield is gonna be in charge of making which decisions. Could direct, for example, where we can send this military asset to this country, but not this country. Could direct what intelligence we could share with Israel versus with Saudi Arabia. If if a if a district court judge can be involved in the conduct of a foreign policy, under no definition do we have a democracy in this country. I mean, know, not to get too philosophical, but the for a long time in this country's power has been concentrated principally in, in two areas, the unelected bureaucracy and the unelected judiciary. And power has been increasingly concentrated in these two areas. And in the case of, the hard left, the the judiciary takes steps to protect the bureaucracy and that further it it shrinks the circle in which democracy is occurring. So take an example just like firing recalcitrant bureaucrats. So bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of the president. The president is elected by the American people. So you have you have unelected judges protecting the jobs of unelected bureaucrats to pursue their own policy preferences. So when Americans vote for big shifts in policy, they're voting for the president. And so we tend to think about executive power as this well, it should be, and we ought to think about it as as being a unified power. But what has become increasingly is a severed power, and more and more of it has been accumulated in the bureaucracy. And then when unelected judges empower the bureaucracy. So, for example, there's a large section of our bureaucracy that doesn't want to deport any of these aliens. Right? And they collude with, the ACLU and the judiciary to try to keep them here in this country. So this is really about the restoration of democracy and saying that the person that's elected by the whole American people can implement these big policy shifts. Otherwise, what you have, which is unfortunately afflicted a lot of the Western world, is a situation where voters can't vote for the change that they want. And so this is really fundamentally about democracy. The American people said to get these terrorist gangs the hell out of our country, the president has plenary authority under the constitution, under the Alien Enemies Act, under the INA, under core article two powers to achieve that, And no district court judge who who who presides over to some small, like little geography of the whole country could possibly presume to have the authority to direct the expulsion of terrorists from our soil, who, by the way, are also here illegally. Thank you, everybody.
Saved - March 18, 2025 at 9:35 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

God Bless Stephen Miller He has taken it up on himself to restore civics in America, one legacy media journalist at a time https://t.co/J43LZSrL01

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker defends government cuts and reforms, questioning why they aren't celebrated if waste, abuse, and corruption are acknowledged. They claim many failed to cover Joe Biden's mental incompetence and misunderstand Elon Musk's role in government. President Trump is removing federal bureaucrats defying democracy by not implementing his lawful orders, which represent the will of the American people. Taxpayer-funded, empty government buildings are criticized. The speaker asserts that illegal aliens brought in by Joe Biden are not doing farm work but are collecting welfare. The speaker supports a guest worker program and automation for farms. They oppose allowing the previous president to flood the nation with millions of illegal aliens, especially those who rape and murder citizens. USAID is described as an entrenched power center of unelected bureaucrats funneling money to cronies. Democrats are accused of opposing democracy by opposing President Trump's reforms. The speaker states that President Trump is on the side of democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You may assert there's no waste in the Pentagon. You may assert there's no waste in treasury. I'm not Steven. Steven, I don't think anyone are you not celebrating these cuts? If you agree there is waste, if you agree there is abuse, if you agree there is corruption, why are you not celebrating the cuts, the reforms that are being instituted? It is true that many of the people in this room for four years failed to cover the fact that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent. It is also true that many people in this room who have used this talking point that Elon is not elected failed to understand how government works. So I'm glad for the opportunity for a brief civics lesson. What president Trump is doing is he is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people. You have these giant cavernous office buildings in Washington DC carved out of marble stone and granite in the Greek classical style, some of those gorgeous buildings on earth. The taxpayers fund that they pay for, they upkeep, they provide electricity to, and no one's showing up. And what what are they doing at home? Watching their favorite streaming shows? It's crazy. Of course, they have to get back into the office because they work for everyone watching me today Pat and Pat Pat and Pat. Today. The illegal aliens that Joe Biden brought into our country are not full stop doing farm work. They are not. The illegal aliens he brought in from Venezuela, from Haiti, from Nicaragua, they are not doing farm work. Are in our cities collecting welfare. As for the farmers, there is a guest worker program that president Trump supports. Over time as well, you will transition into automation, so we'll never have to have this conversation ever again. But there's no universe in which this nation is going to allow the previous president to flood our nation with millions and millions of illegal aliens who just get to stay here, and we are especially not going to allow a subset of those illegal aliens to rape and murder our citizens. There is probably no entity in the government that is more of an entrenched power center of unelected bureaucrats with less accountability, less oversight than USAID. They funnel money to their cronies all over the world through a swampy network of NGOs, nongovernmental nongovernmental organizations. What Democrats are saying is they oppose democracy itself. They oppose the idea that the American people can elect a man, in this case, our president Donald Trump, to reform the government according to the will of the people. This a battle between the will of the people through their president Donald Trump. No. And the will of an unelected federal bureaucracy. So we and president Trump are on the side of democracy.
Saved - March 14, 2025 at 2:53 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

This is correct and the data bears it out Christ is King is a much older and far more common phrase than Jesus is Lord

@csharpner - Election Integrity Watcher

I've been hearing "Christ Is King" my ENTIRE life, all the way back to the 1970s. I grew up in the SouthEast, in Chattanooga, TN, the literal buckle of the Bible Belt. "Christ is King" is a VERY COMMON term used and has been for at least decades going back to the 1970s. My personal experience is I've heard it far more than "Jesus is Lord", (could be a regional difference) but Google Trends backs your claim that "Jesus is Lord" is more common. Per Google Trends, BOTH terms have seen a slight increase beginning around January 2022. Likely due to more people becoming religious, more people becoming less afraid to be public about it, and as a response to the increasing hostility from anti-Christian rhetoric. Note that "Jesus is Lord" has seen more of a rise than "Christ is King", though they both seem to be rising in the same percentage.

Saved - March 6, 2025 at 2:01 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: DJ DANIEL JOINS WAR ROOM AND CALLS OUT ANYONE MESSING WITH DONALD TRUMP! https://t.co/f82txF2sjx

Video Transcript AI Summary
I love President Trump! I even gave him a note saying he's the best president. It was great to see him in real life. My advice to the Secret Service is to stop being mean to him, or I'm coming after them. I might be acting like Candice Matthews from Houston, Texas. May God bless America! I might look 13, but I'm 50. I rub bald heads for good luck. It's the first time I ever shook a woman's hand.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Have can I call you officer or agent, DJ Daniel, all of the above? Speaker 1: It really don't matter to me. I love women, so I don't care. Speaker 0: That's amazing. DJ Daniel, I want to ask you, first and foremost, do you love president Trump, and are you so excited to be here on the White House grounds? Speaker 1: Obviously, because I gave him a great note that says Donald Trump is the best president of The United States Of America. Speaker 0: And why do you feel that way? Speaker 1: Because honestly, I honestly wanted wanted to see Donald Trump in real life, and now it's actually came true. And to my friends I know one of my friends told me to say this to Donald Trump, but I didn't say it to him. So good luck, buddy. Speaker 0: Last thing because we know you Speaker 1: gotta bounce. What would your one piece of advice for the Secret Service be? Please stop being mean to president Trump because if I see you being mean to him, I'm coming after you. Speaker 0: I love that. I think you need to become the director of the Secret Service. DJ, it is such an honor to have met you. Speaker 1: Hold on. But I got one more thing to say. Speaker 0: What he has one more thing to say. Speaker 1: I won't interrupt you. You're a Jimmie Pratt and you're being mean to president Trump, I'm on your bumper. Speaker 0: You are about to go so viral, and you went viral last night. Speaker 1: I I ain't gonna lie. I'm kinda I'm kinda acting like miss Candice Matthews from Houston, Texas. Speaker 0: That's amazing. Do you have anything else that you wanna say? Do you should just take my job at this point. Speaker 1: May bless America. Speaker 0: How about that, Steve? I think we found my replacement, your replacement. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Would you ever run for president? Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I'm a little bit too young if he well, really and truly, I'm not young. I'm a 13 I'm a I'm a 50 year old trap in a 50 year old body. I'm a I might look 13, but I'm 50. Speaker 0: I love that, and it sounds like you gotta go. The war room posse loves you. It's an honor to have met you, sir. Speaker 1: I can't go yet because I see a little bald spot. I rub bald head for good luck if you know. Speaker 0: I think they want you to go, so I think you're Speaker 1: gonna have to go. Okay. Never Speaker 0: mind. Very nice to meet you. Speaker 3: DJ Daniels, so amazing. I just really love That's the first Speaker 1: time I ever shook the woman's hand. Speaker 0: That's crazy. Speaker 3: Oh, man. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Jack, for some Natalie, thank you Speaker 3: so much. DJ Daniels, who Speaker 0: stole the show last night, stealing Speaker 3: the show again here. You know, I've always had a I'm like W. C. Fields. Don't work with dogs or kids. They'll always steal the show from you. DJ Daniels, absolutely incredible. You see that, Jack, back to unhuman. Wallace, Nicole Wallace, who's one of the biggest stars now at MSNBC, saw that young man, saw the saw the lovers in the room, saw that he wanted to be a police officer. He's come through this horrible situation with brain cancer. They make him a secret service agent. He then high fives the West Point kid later just to show what a what a how much, you know, camaraderie this guy has, and she still does it. That's and you see him right there. How can you I mean, that's the problem with these people. They are unhuman, but you've tracked it through history, have you not? Speaker 2: Well well, we have, Steve. And and, you know, it's it's I just gotta say when you, you know, when you get a guy like that, you know, I think a lot of people are thinking, oh, here's this, you know, here's this poor kid. But, you know, he clearly doesn't view himself as some poor kid. He clearly doesn't view himself as a victim. He clearly has so much agency. He has so much human potential. He has so much potential as an American. I don't even know if if president Trump and the team even realized that that this guy had so much potential when they when they put this all together. I haven't even gotten the backstory yet. But when you see like that, how many more DJ Daniels are there out in this country? How many more people like this are there out there that president Trump can go and find? And we get these folks who say, oh, the American people are done. They're spent. We need to import people to, you know, to help out with these jobs, to do this, to do that. And then you get a 13 year old kid who's been through abject just just a terrible tragedy, terrible, horrible thing that's happened to I think of I think of my kids. Right? I think of this as a dad in in, you know, in in looking at this and to have a kid who goes through that. But to just hear how absolutely in command he is of his own presence, how command he is of his own future. He's not sitting there. He's not, feeling sorry for himself. No. He's not complaining about it. No. This is the difference. This is the difference between being an American and being someone who has that absolute victim mindset who becomes resentful at the world Yeah. Like one of these antihuman Democrats or one of these antihuman leftists and communists. This is what being human, and this is what being American is all about. That's DJ Daniel. Speaker 3: The the this is a whole Trump's about we're on the verge of
Saved - March 3, 2025 at 9:55 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

https://t.co/jwQpWnZIIn

Saved - March 3, 2025 at 9:55 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

EXCLUSIVE: Attempted Trump assassin Ryan Routh appeared in a propaganda video for the AZOV BATTALLION in May 2022 https://t.co/eugjHXHXqw

Saved - March 3, 2025 at 9:55 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Why was one of the Trump assassins in an Azov Battalion propaganda video?

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

EXCLUSIVE: Attempted Trump assassin Ryan Routh appeared in a propaganda video for the AZOV BATTALLION in May 2022 https://t.co/eugjHXHXqw

Video Transcript AI Summary
Слава Україні! I am grateful to everyone who is protesting in Ukraine and around the world. Everyone understands how critical the situation is in Mariupol. Every day at Azovstal there are new deaths and injuries, and there is no way to treat them here. The attention of the whole world is now focused on Mariupol and Azovstal, but this is not enough. A green corridor must be created to evacuate our wounded so they can immediately receive qualified medical care. These soldiers deserve evacuation. Allow us to retrieve the bodies of our fallen brothers. We call on the entire civilized world to join the security guarantees and evacuate our soldiers, who have done the impossible and continue to defend the homeland. The homeland must do everything so that all the heroes can return alive to their families. There may be no other chance to save lives at Azovstal. We, the families of the military in Mariupol, appeal to our president. Volodymyr Oleksandrovych, please officially appeal to the UN representatives and submit lists of our wounded military garrison and take the bodies of the dead soldiers. All families and all of Ukraine are asking you to do this.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Слава Україні! Я вдячний кожному, хто сьогодні виходить на акції в Україні і в світі. Всім, хто розуміє наскільки критичною є ситуація в Маріуполі. Всім, хто кричить про Маріуполь. Кожен день на Азовсталі це нові загиблі та нові поранені, яких немає можливості тут лікувати. Увага всього світу зараз прикута до Маріуполя та Азовсталі. Але цього недостатньо. Потрібно зробити зелений коридор для евакуації нашим пораненим. Потрібно негайно надати їм кваліфіковану медичну допомогу. Повірте, ці хлопці заслуговують на евакуацію. Дайте нам також вивести тіла наших загиблих побратимів. Ми закликаємо весь цивілізований світ долучитися до гарантій безпеки та евакуації наших бійців, які зробили неможливе та продовжують захищати батьківщину, яка повинна зробити все, щоб всі герої змогли живими повернутися до своїх рідних. Іншої можливості врятувати життя людей на Азовсталі може й не бути. Слава Україні! Speaker 1: Героям слава! Ми родинні військових які зараз знаходяться в місті Маріуполь звертаємося до нашого президента. Володимир Олександровича будь ласка зверніться офіційно до представників ООН та внесіть списки наших поранених військовий гарнізон та заберіть тіла загиблих воїнів. Всі родини та вся Україна вас просить це зробити. В дитячий.
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 8:47 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: HERE IS THE FULL EXCHANGE BETWEEN TRUMP, ZELENSKY, AND JD VANCE https://t.co/EiC43Vt2zl

Video Transcript AI Summary
Russia occupied parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, starting in 2014. During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, no one stopped him as people died on the contact line. In 2019, I signed a ceasefire deal with Macron, Merkel, and him, but he broke it, killing people and not exchanging prisoners. We need diplomacy to end the destruction of Ukraine. We have problems during the war, like everyone else. We are staying strong and thankful for the support, but we are not winning. You have given us billions of dollars in military equipment. I have said thank you many times to the American people. We want to stop the war, but we want a ceasefire with guarantees. Ask our people about a ceasefire. Obama gave us sheets, but Trump gave us javelins. Without your support, we have no cards.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Can I ask you? Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So he occupied it, our parts big parts of Ukraine, parts of East and Crimea. So he occupied it on '14. So during a lot of years, so I'm not speaking about just Biden, but those time was Obama, then president Obama, then president Trump, then president Biden. Now the president Trump, and god bless. Now president Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the contact Speaker 1: 2015. Speaker 0: 20 14. Speaker 2: 20 14. Speaker 1: 20 14. Yeah. Yeah. So I was I was not here. Speaker 0: Yeah. But He's a secular Yes. But during 2014 till 2022, you know, the well, the situation the same that people are been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know, that we had conversations with him. A lot of conversation, my bilateral conversation, and we signed with him, me, like a new president in 2019. I signed with him the deal. I signed with him Macron and Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Seasefire. All of them told me that he will never go. We signed him with gas contract. Gas contract. Yes. But after that, he broken this ceasefire. He killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners, but he didn't do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What what do you have what do you what do you mean? Speaker 2: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's gonna end the destruction of your country. Speaker 0: Yes. But if you Speaker 2: are not president, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president bringing into this conflict. Speaker 0: Ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have? Speaker 2: I have been to You come once. I have actually I've actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, mister president. Are do you disagree that you've had problems? What? Bringing people into your military? Speaker 0: And do Speaker 2: you think that it's respectful Speaker 0: I will answer. To come to the Speaker 2: Oval Office of The United States Of America and attack the administration that is trying to trying to prevent the destruction of Speaker 0: your country. A lot of a lot of questions. Let's start from the beginning. Sure. First of all, during the war, everybody has problems. Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future. God bless. Speaker 1: You don't know that. Speaker 0: God bless. God bless. Speaker 1: You will not have war. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel. We're trying to solve a problem. Don't tell us what we're gonna feel. Speaker 0: I'm not telling you Speaker 1: Because you're in no position to dictate that. Speaker 0: Remember this. I'm not dictating Speaker 1: You're in no position to dictate what we're gonna feel. You will We're gonna feel very good. Speaker 0: Feel influence. Speaker 1: We're gonna feel very good and very strong. Speaker 0: You will feel influence. Speaker 1: You're right now not in a very good position. You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position, and he happens to be right about it. From the Speaker 0: very beginning of the war You're Speaker 1: not in a good position. I was You don't have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards. Right now, you don't yeah. You're playing cards. You're playing You're cards. You're gambling with the lives of millions of people. Speaker 0: You're thinking Speaker 1: You're gambling with World War three. Speaker 0: What do Speaker 1: think You're gambling with World War three. And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country. I'm with you. Respect to your Far more than a lot of people say Awareness. They should Speaker 2: have. Have you said thank you once? Speaker 0: A lot of times. No. Even today. You said thank you. Even today. Speaker 2: You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October. Offer some words of appreciation for The United States Of America and the president who's trying to save your country. Speaker 0: Please, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war you got Speaker 1: not speaking loudly. He's not speaking loudly. Your country is in big Speaker 0: trouble. I Speaker 1: ask No. No. You've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble. Speaker 0: I know. Speaker 1: You're not winning. You're not winning this. Speaker 0: I Speaker 1: You have a damn good chance of coming out okay because of us. Speaker 0: President, We are staying in our country, staying strong from the very beginning of the war. We've been alone, and we are thankful. I said thanks. Speaker 1: You haven't been Speaker 0: alone. Cabinet. You haven't been alone. This cabinet Speaker 1: We gave you through this stupid president three hundred and fifty billion dollars. You won't me your military You won't give brave, but they had to use our military Speaker 0: What about you asking? You didn't have Speaker 1: our military equipment Speaker 0: You invited me Speaker 1: this our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks. Speaker 0: In three days. I heard it from Putin. In three days. This is something Speaker 1: Maybe less. Speaker 0: In two weeks. Of course. Yeah. Speaker 1: It's gonna be a very hard thing to do business like this. I tell you. Speaker 2: Say thank you. Speaker 0: I said a lot of times here to American people. Speaker 2: That there are disagreements, and let's go litigate those disagreements rather than trying to fight it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know that Speaker 1: you're wrong. But you see, I think it's good for American people to see what's going on out here. I think it's very important. That's why I kept this going so long. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. You're buried there. You're you're people are dying. I can't tell you anything. Know. Soldiers. Listen. Don't You're running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing. And then you then you tell us, I don't wanna cease fire. I don't wanna cease fire. I wanna go and I wanted this. Look. If you could get a cease fire right now, I tell you, you take it so the bullets stop flying and you meant stop getting killed. Speaker 0: Of course, we want to stop the war. Speaker 1: But I said you don't wanna ceasefire? Said to you I wanna ceasefire. With guarantees. Because you'll get a ceasefire faster than a degree. Speaker 0: Ask our people about ceasefire. What they think? That wasn't me. For you what Speaker 1: That wasn't with me. That was with a a guy named Biden who was not a smart person. That was your Speaker 0: that was with Obama. It was your president. Speaker 1: Excuse me. That was with Obama who gave you sheets, and I gave you javelins. Yes. I gave you the javelins to take out all those tanks. Obama gave you sheets. In fact, the statement is Obama gave sheets and Trump gave javelins. You gotta be more thankful because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards. But without us, you don't have any cards.
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 8:47 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: ZELENSKY THROWN OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE https://t.co/sYkwKYrjIu

Saved - February 28, 2025 at 8:47 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

It was @brianglenntv

@WojPawelczyk - Wojciech Pawelczyk

Reporter to Zelensky: Why don’t you wear a suit? https://t.co/Xe2eEI6IHC

Saved - February 27, 2025 at 11:49 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Norm MacDonald on the View with Barbara Walters in 2000 when he repeatedly called Bill Clinton a murderer https://t.co/obFvQd0T90

Video Transcript AI Summary
I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get a fresh start, because we don't want any more murderers. Clinton murdered a guy. That's going a little too far. This is not the place to make those accusations, and you're supposed to be funny. I thought it was a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Let's talk football. Where did you ever hear that? Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? We're on the millionaire today. People always told me Hollywood was incredibly liberal and biased, and I thought it was untrue about it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Not a a lie or a crook murderer or anything like that. So it'd be good to get the see, I I don't I think we should get the homicide out of the White House and get, like, a a a fresh start because we don't want any more murderers. Speaker 1: I think we should just go on to the next question. Oh, who's murderers? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Clinton, Speaker 0: he murdered a guy. Speaker 2: Yeah. You know, we're not No. You're not talking about losing accusations without Speaker 1: That's a little too far. Speaker 2: Swear it does work. Let's just Speaker 1: let's just go on to the next question. Yeah. This is not my week. What can I tell you? Speaker 2: Oh, it's not mine either. Speaker 1: And I'm Speaker 2: being very nice. Okay? Uh-huh. Be a good boy. Now, Norm? Speaker 0: Did you never Speaker 1: hear that? No. Speaker 2: No. Listen. We don't need to Speaker 1: I don't wanna get out of this. And I don't wanna hear it. And this is not the place to make those accusations and you're supposed to be funny. Oh, come on, Brady. Exactly. Get with me. There you go. This is a live show. Speaker 2: Why? But you have been properly chastised by barbaco. I'm now going to ask the next Speaker 0: question. I thought it was a matter of record. Speaker 1: Shut up. Up. Speaker 2: Look, babe. Speaker 1: Let me Speaker 2: do this. Okay? I'll tell you what's a matter of record. You will not be invited back if you don't shut up. Speaker 1: Alright. Now, let's talk football. Alright. Speaker 0: Man manslaughter. Speaker 1: Let's talk football. Norm. Norm. Where did you ever hear the word Speaker 2: oh, a bonus raise. He's Speaker 0: my hero, you know, just like you. Maybe George or Bill Clinton would be your hero. Speaker 1: I I love I love There's no stopping you, isn't it? No. Speaker 0: I seem to like Bill Clinton. Speaker 1: There really are. And this man leaps into our show on Friday night. I know. Speaker 2: It's alright. His career is over after this. Anyway, who cares? Speaker 1: We're on the millionaire today. Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Speaker 2: Well, tell him about that. How how you thought he's dumb today. Why do you see Speaker 1: him today? Speaker 0: People always told me Hollywood was like incredibly liberal and biased and I thought it was untrue about it. Speaker 1: You wanna talk about the millionaire? Speaker 0: Yes. I Speaker 1: do. You have 10 Speaker 2: sons. Don't tell Speaker 1: him what I want. Speaker 0: Don't tell him what I want? Speaker 1: No. Oh. Speaker 2: You're not allowed to tell anything like that. Speaker 1: Well, what are you trying to ask him then? Speaker 2: I don't know. He doesn't answer anything anyway. So Okay. Speaker 1: So he's on the millionaire tonight.
Saved - February 25, 2025 at 10:05 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: @KevinPosobiec on War Room with Steve Bannon discussing the Gulf of America and telling the story of how the name came out What is happening! https://t.co/vtSpWS2mAO

Video Transcript AI Summary
I was out on the Gulf with my buddy Johnny, just riding wave runners after church on a sunny Sunday. It was a real Americana, 4th of July type of moment, especially with Trump's stance against Mexico. Suddenly, it hit me – instead of the Gulf of Mexico, why not the Gulf of America? I posted a selfie with the idea, tweeting that the name would be official by 2025. The idea gained traction, retweeted by prominent figures, and picked up on Capitol Hill and in the White House. January 9th, Trump mentioned it at Mar-a-Lago. January 20th, he included it in his inaugural address and made it a Day One executive order. Before the Super Bowl, he even said it was bigger than the Super Bowl.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Biggest stories in the Washington Post today is about Posobic, back Posobic, but it ain't Jack. Kevin Posobic joins us with, I think, the story of the day about the Gulf Of America. The individual came up with that name is our own Jack Kevin Posobic. Kevin, tell me about this story. It's it's pretty crazy, but I think you've changed not just map making. You've changed people's kind of really upbeat, hey. It is the Gulf Of America. How'd you do it, sir? Speaker 1: Hey, Steve. Thanks for having me on. I got my America shirt on right here. And, it was a great sunny afternoon, great sunny Sunday afternoon. I was just with my buddy out of church and we came down and he said, let's go get Rave Runners. It was a fourth of July moment, Americana moment. And it really, really took another meaning once Trump really came in, especially against Mexico. It was like a slap in the face to the cartels. And I think we really need that. But yeah, it's just amazing to see the progression now from Marjorie Taylor Greene taking it on, turning it into legislation, and then Stephen Miller came in and said, why stop there? You know, we gotta get Mount McKinley back. But but but hold it. Speaker 0: But hold it. Kevin. Kevin. Kevin, hang on. Don't bury the lead. Tell me, how did you actually get the idea? Where did it happen? This is what's so amazing about the story. Tell me about it. So Speaker 1: so my buddy Johnny and I, give him a shout out. We did rent wave runners out in the Gulf of formerly known as the Gulf Of Mexico, and we rented these wave runners on that afternoon and we're just cruising around in the Gulf. And you know, it didn't I honestly first thought it was going to be the Gulf Of Florida, and it just came to me. I mean, you always bring up divine providence on the show, so I can't say it was much less than that. I was really just hanging out and having a great time on the water, so it did come to me while I was on the Wave Runner and I just took a little selfie while I was there and posted it. And lo and behold, I said the proper name come twenty twenty five, and I tweeted it. And as you know, in the posse, he knows, like, Jack Jack retweets a lot of us, and and we got a a a pretty, significant audience elsewhere and on Capitol Hill and in the White House now. So somebody must have picked up on it. Hey. This is, this is a good idea. It's got a nice ring to it. And it was, what? January I I put a timeline up on my Twitter. It's, January 9, Trump says it in Mar A Lago. January Twentieth, he adds it in the inaugural address and does the day one executive order of it. And here we are. Then then right before the Super Bowl, he says it's bigger than the Super Bowl. We're gonna we're gonna make it a the Gulf Of America
Saved - February 25, 2025 at 3:13 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

This you? https://t.co/3E5svMG4Tp

@TristanSnell - Tristan Snell

Unelected bureaucrats who aren’t responsive to the people are bad, says the multi-billionaire unelected bureaucrat who isn’t responsive to the people. https://t.co/rJz03HqaXq

Video Transcript AI Summary
If there isn't a solid feedback loop connecting the people to the government, and the bureaucracy is in charge, what does democracy even mean? If the people can't vote and have their will enacted by their elected officials like the president, senate, and house, then we're not in a democracy, we're in a bureaucracy. It's crucial to fix this feedback loop so that the public's elected representatives decide what happens, not a large, unelected bureaucracy. There are good people in the federal bureaucracy, but it can't be autonomous. It must be responsive to the people; that's the whole point of a democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If if there's not a good feedback loop from the people to to to the government, and if if you have rule of the the bureaucrat or if the bureaucracy is in charge and then then what meaning does democracy actually have? If the people cannot vote and have their will be decided by their elected representatives in the in the form of the president and and the senate and the house, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy. So it's incredibly important that we close that feedback loop, we fix that feedback loop, and that the public the public's elected representatives, the president, the house, and the senate, decide what happens as opposed to a large unelected bureaucracy. This is not to say that there aren't some good there are good people who are who are in the federal bureaucracy, but but you can't have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that's responsive to the people. That's the whole point of a democracy. And so
Saved - February 24, 2025 at 5:14 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

FLASHBACK: Here is Joy Reid mocking police officers who were fired for refusing the COVID mandate https://t.co/yHjLbM4sTO

Video Transcript AI Summary
New York City will mandate vaccines for all city workers, without a testing option, including police officers, 69% of whom are vaccinated. Police unions across the country are protesting mandates. Seattle's union called it a public safety crisis. In other parts of the country, police and firefighters who were fired for noncompliance marched to City Hall. The Los Angeles County Sheriff won't enforce the city's mandate. Chicago's union president urged officers to ignore the mandate, leading to a judge's order to stop public comments about the policy. Republicans are attempting to recruit Chicago officers to other states. COVID-19 has caused 64% of all police officer deaths this year, more than gun violence. Some officers refuse to comply with mask laws, as happened in a New York subway. Officers and unions fighting vaccine mandates are endangering Americans.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: New York City announced today that vaccines would be mandated for all city workers with no testing option. That includes police officers who are currently sixty nine percent vaccinated. Their union is already vowing to fight the mandate anyway. It's a pattern that we've seen across the country with police unions and officers coming out against mandates. Seattle's police union called the mandate a public safety crisis, as if vaccines aren't for the public's safety. The city's police and firefighters who were fired for noncompliance made a very dramatic exit marching to City Hall to turn in their boots. And a trooper went as far as to attack governor Jay Inslee over the radio while claiming that he was being asked to leave because I'm dirty. I mean, no one said not being vaccinated was dirty, but okay then. Then there's the Los Angeles County Sheriff who said he won't enforce the city's mandate, though there's still a two month grace period for employees to get their shots. But there's no place like Chicago where the union president directly urged officers to ignore the city's mandate, making the prediction that it would lead to a 50% cut in cops on the street. He also threatened that officers could lock in a pension and walk away today. That kind of rhetoric led to a judge's order that he stopped making public comments about the city's vaccine policy. Of course, Republicans are taking advantage of the situation in Chicago with Indiana senator Mike Braun trying to recruit Chicago Officers to Indiana, saying, you deserve respect. Bring the COVID here. And none other than Jim Jordan mentioned the Chicago police in a tweet along with Kyrie Irving and parents at school board meetings saying freedom is contagious. You know what's actually contagious? The coronavirus. COVID nineteen has caused sixty four percent of all police officer deaths so far this year, more than quadruple the number who died from gun violence. But go off, assistant coach. Make your political point. Police officers are supposed to protect and serve, but they're actually putting themselves ahead of the citizens they could infect. We constantly hear that police brutality cases wouldn't even have happened. If only everyone just complied and followed all of their commands. But it's clear that some officers don't hold themselves to that same standard. They're literally refusing to comply with the law. Just take what happened in at a New York subway stop yesterday where a rider says he was harassed and then thrown out of the station for asking officers to wear masks, which, by the way, is the law. The NYPD says the event is under internal review. Guess all the cops former governor Cuomo sent into the subway system are really making an impact. So for putting Americans in danger, officers and unions who are fighting against vaccine mandates, which essentially means fighting to make the public sick, are tonight's absolute worst.
Saved - February 24, 2025 at 5:08 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Here is Joe Biden telling coal miners to 'learn to program' after his green policies would take away their jobs https://t.co/jtC9FOtYIS

Video Transcript AI Summary
I come from an area where coal mining was the way of life. I was tasked with helping Detroit out of bankruptcy and discovered that the city lacked the tech skills to even turn on streetlights or manage the sewer system. All the talent had left when things got tough. So, we hired an IT company that found 54 people in the neighborhoods, mostly women of color, and put them through a 19-week programming training program at the community college. Some people doubted they could do it, but I knew that anyone who could handle the physical demands of coal mining could certainly learn to program. The women excelled.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I come from a family where an an area where there's coal mining in Scranton. Anybody who could go down 300 to 3,000 feet in the mine sure in hell can learn how to program as well. But we don't think of it that way. Even my liberal friends know. President asked me to get Detroit out of its problems. Remember Detroit went bankrupt? And he gave me authority to do whatever I needed to do. So I set up with all the agencies. What is all the money out there Detroit could qualify for they didn't ask for? They didn't know how to get it. Didn't know how to get it. The end result was, not just because of me, but because of the the team I put together, Detroit got out of bankruptcy, started to come back. We're able to provide everything from street lighting for them that they didn't know they could have and to high excuse me, intercity rail that because 60% of the people had jobs out of town, but only 60% the people had jobs out of town where most of them are now manufacturing jobs didn't have vehicles to be able to get to work. So we put in a rail system. Anyway, make a long story short, things really started to move. And then we found out something interesting. Everybody, when things hit, went bankrupt, everybody who had any talent in terms of technology left. Black, white, Hispanic, men, women. We didn't have anybody, not a joke, who could turn on the streetlights. You hear me? Not a joke. No one who knew how to turn on the sewer system because it requires computer capability and programming capability. And so we went out and hired this outfit that the major corporations are in the need IT. They went out into the neighborhoods. They found 54 happened to be all women, not by intention, mostly women of color with a few exceptions, ages 24 to 20 yeah. 24 to 52 or four. They went through a nineteen week training program at the community college there, learning how to program. And I remember telling people this, and my liberal friends were saying, you can't expect them to be able to do that. Give me a break. Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program for god's sake.
Saved - February 24, 2025 at 5:01 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

Here is Jen Psaki in 2021 telling oil pipeline workers that got laid off by the Biden Admin that they could go get green jobs https://t.co/GDY5k5U1qW

Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm asking when the Biden administration will provide green jobs for fossil fuel workers who are out of work due to a Biden EO. When can these people count on these jobs? I welcome you to present data showing thousands won't get green jobs. Richard Trumka noted the need to pair the Keystone EO with job creation plans. The Laborers International Union of North America estimates the Keystone decision will cost thousands of jobs. The President plans a climate plan with transformative investments in infrastructure, creating millions of good union jobs and addressing the climate crisis. He intends to share more details in the weeks ahead. People need money now; when will those who lost jobs due to the Keystone pipeline get their green jobs? The President and many in Congress believe that investment in infrastructure creates good-paying union jobs, boosts the US economy, advances our climate and clean energy goals.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, Jen. I do have a question on COVID, but first on energy. When is it that the Biden administration is gonna let the thousands of, fossil fuel industry workers, whether it's pipeline workers or construction workers, who are either out of work or will soon be out of work because of a Biden EO, when it is and where it is that they can go for their green job. And that is something the administration has promised. There is now a gap. So I'm just curious when that happens, when those people can count on that. Speaker 1: Well, I'd certainly welcome you to present your data of all the thousands and thousands of people who, won't be getting a green job. Maybe next time you're here, you can present that. Speaker 0: But you said that they would be getting green jobs, so I'm just asking when that happened. Richard Trumka, who is a friend, longtime friend of Joe Biden says about that day one Keystone EO, he says, I wish he, the president, had paired that more carefully with the thing that he did second by saying, here's where we are creating the jobs. So there's partial evidence from Richard Trumka. Speaker 1: Well, you didn't include all of his interview. Would you like to include the So Speaker 0: how about this? The Laborers International Union of North America said the Keystone decision will cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs. Speaker 1: Well, what mister Trump got also indicated in the same interview was that president Biden has proposed a climate plan with transformative investments and infrastructure and laid out a plan that will not only create millions of good union jobs, but also help tackle the climate crisis. And as the president has indicated when he gave his prime time address to talk about the American Rescue Plan, he talked about his plans to also put forward a jobs plan in the in the weeks or months following, and he has every plan to do exactly that. Speaker 0: But there are people living paycheck to paycheck. There are now people out of job once the Keystone pipe out of jobs once the Keystone pipeline stopped construction. It's been twelve days since Gina McCarthy and John Kerry were here, it's been nineteen days since that EO. So what are these people who need money now? When do they get their green jobs? Speaker 1: Well, the the president and many Democrats and Republicans in congress believe that investment in infrastructure, building infrastructure, that's international interests, and that boosts The US economy creates good paying union jobs here in America, and advances our climate and clean energy goals are something that we can certainly work on doing together. And he has every plan to share more about his details of that plan in the in the weeks ahead.
Saved - February 21, 2025 at 1:43 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

WE ARE LIVA AT CPAC!! https://t.co/I3CYZKQVrM

Saved - February 21, 2025 at 1:37 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

http://UnhumansBook.com

Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) This First Edition of Unhumans has been personally signed by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec. It includes a COA from Premiere Collectibles. premierecollectibles.com

@JamesKMillsIII - James Mills

Wait wait wait. You're telling me we have Donald Trump as president because of Joseph McCarthy? 🤯 @JackPosobiec @JoshuaLisec https://t.co/JHkH3hdRrE

Saved - February 18, 2025 at 4:43 AM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

BREAKING: THE TRUMP PEACE TALKS WITH RUSSIA AND UKRAINE HAVE BEGUN https://t.co/L7It5XL9Fp

Saved - February 17, 2025 at 1:50 PM

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

The fact these South Africans needed police protection to apply for refugee status proves exactly what Trump said about South Africa

@PSAFLIVE - PSAFLIVE

BREAKING NEWS: More than 200 white racist settlers lined up US Embassy in Tshwane to apply for Donald Trump refugee status. https://t.co/U888Ao548p

Saved - February 16, 2025 at 8:31 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
US Senators gave Zelensky a standing ovation, prompting a response highlighting that the woman who orchestrated the 2008 stock market crash was appointed by Biden and Blinken in 2023 as the special representative to Ukraine for economic rebuilding.

@JackPosobiec - Jack Poso 🇺🇸

US Senators give Zelensky a standing ovation https://t.co/eXPp6hKGEt

@MudDck85 - Muddy duck 85

@JackPosobiec The woman directly involved in orchestrating the 2008 stock market crash was appointed as the special representative to Ukraine for economic rebuilding by Biden and blinkin in 2023. https://t.co/fCo4lFxEOj

View Full Interactive Feed