reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@bennyjohnson - Benny Johnson
Tucker Carlson: Yes, the CIA killed President Kennedy. Your government is a lie. Happy Thursday! https://t.co/S0vXgpQGcH
Video Transcript AI Summary
We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We decided to find out. We spoke to someone who had access to these still hidden CIA documents. A person was deeply familiar with what they contain. We asked this person directly. Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John f Kennedy, an American president?
And here's the reply we received verbatim quote, the answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It's a whole different country from what we thought it was. It's all fake. It's hard to imagine a more jarring response than that.
Again, this is not a quote conspiracy theorist that we spoke to. Not even close. This is someone with direct knowledge of the information that once again is being withheld from the American public And the answer we received was unequivocal. Yes. The CIA was involved in the assassination of the president.
Now some people will not be surprised to hear that. They suspected it all along. But no matter how you feel about or what you thought about the Kennedy assassination pause to consider what this means. It means that within the US government, there are forces wholly beyond democratic control. These forces are more powerful than the elected officials that supposedly oversee them.
These forces can affect election outcomes. They can even hide their complicity in the murder of an American president. In other words, they can do pretty much anything they want. They constitute a government within a government mocking by their very existence the idea of democracy. As cynical as we have become after 30 years of watching government officials ignore the voters who employ them, we were shocked to learn this.
It's not acceptable. Americans have trusted their government less with every passing year since the killing of John f Kennedy. Maybe this is why. And people have known this for a long time. The people who knew would include every director of the CIA since November of 1963, and that list would include Obama's CIA director John Brennan, one of the most sinister and dishonest figures in American life.
That list would also include we are sad to say our friend, Mike Pompeo.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker holds nothing back, compares the Biden family to the Hussein dictatorship in Iraq https://t.co/PLkFn8615A
Video Transcript AI Summary
Living in a non-democratic country often means facing the wrath of those close to power, like Uday Hussein in Iraq. In the U.S., parallels can be drawn with the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden, who has faced no legal repercussions despite his troubled past and questionable business dealings. His lawyers have demanded that those who criticize him, including the owner of a repair shop where he left a laptop, face imprisonment. They claim the laptop is his property, yet they also argue its existence is uncertain. Hunter's failure to reclaim the laptop, due to personal issues, led to its current ownership status. The situation highlights the disparity in power and accountability, with Hunter Biden benefiting from his father's political connections while others face potential legal consequences.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Living in a non democracy when it's dangerous to displease the ne'er do well children of the supreme leader. If you were for example at a red light in pre invasion Baghdad and Uday Hussein came screaming up behind you drunk in his Lamborghini, You got the hell out of the way and you did not complain about it. And you didn't complain about it because Uday's dad ran the place and you did not want to make him mad. You might wind up like the members of his personal soccer team who dared to miss penalty kicks. That's what third world countries are like.
All citizens are not equal in countries like that. Power derives from proximity to power. That means the second most powerful people in a country like that are the children of the president. Very often they don't have jobs and are addicted to something. That's the way it works in places like that.
And for a long time, that system seemed very foreign to most Americans. They were used to living in a democracy. They could barely even imagine it. But then during the last presidential campaign, Joe Biden's daughter abandoned her somehow in a house she was staying at in Florida after she got of rehab and in that diary Ashley Biden recounted how her father had taken showers with her when she was young and she attributed her later sexual compulsions to that experience with her father. So by any standard that seemed like clear evidence of abuse and yet no law enforcement agency so far as we know ever asked Joe Biden about it.
Instead, once Joe Biden became president, his FBI raided the home of journalist James O'Keefe and seized the evidence. Ashley Biden's diary was taken by force and has never been seen again. So the message was unmistakable. When Uday Hussein blows Biden's Lamborghini, get the hell out of the way, peasant. Princelings have power.
You do not. By the way, Hunter Biden's whole life has been a monument to that message. Despite a decades long drug problem and no record of legitimate achievement of any kind. Hunter Biden has managed to accumulate the highest possible academic credentials. Georgetown and Yale Law.
Don't try that at home as well as what appears to be 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 and 1,000,000 of dollars. How did he do that? You couldn't do it, but then you're not Joe Biden's son and that's how he did it. He cut business deals with the corrupt countries that his father was conducting diplomacy in as vice president of the United States. And then we know from evidence that he apparently planned to kick back some of that money to his father as part of the deal.
10% for the big guy. Now that's completely illegal. And yet neither Hunter Biden nor his father Joe Biden have ever been indicted for doing that. Instead, and here's the best part. The real criminals we learned yesterday are the people who dared to talk about it.
Yesterday, Hunter Biden's legal team released a letter demanding that Joe Biden's friends imprison anyone who criticizes Joe Biden's son. So these letters call on the Department of Justice, Joe Biden controls and Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings from Joe Biden state to file criminal charges against Republicans who dared to possess and share the contents of his son's now famous laptop. And that list would include among others, John Paul McIsaac, the owner of the Mac repair shop where Hunter Biden abandoned said laptop. According to Hunter Biden's high paid lawyers, John Paul McIsaac should be in prison for doing this. Quote, Mister McIsaac chose to work with Donald Trump's personal lawyer to weaponize mister Biden's personal computer data against his father Joseph r Biden.
In other words, John Paul McIsaac didn't want Joe Biden to become president and apparently that's now a federal crime. But wait a second. Back up a sec. Does that mean we can now say with certainty the laptop is real? If we can say that, that means that Adam Schiff is now running for senate in California had better issue a statement pronto correcting his previous categorical claims about the laptop.
Here was Adam Schiff in October of 2020 when he chaired the House Intelligence Committee.
Speaker 1: Does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling, very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign?
Speaker 2: Well, we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden, comes from the Kremlin. That's been clear for well over a year now that they've been pushing this false about the vice president and his son.
Speaker 0: Uh-huh. We know this comes from the Kremlin, Adam Schiff said. And of course, Adam Schiff would know since he unlike you had access to top secret information. You weren't allowed to see it. He did see it on the basis of that knowledge told you it was from the Kremlin.
And it's exactly what dozens of former intel officials told you. They saw the evidence and this was from Russia. So now it looks like they were all lying. According to Hunter Biden's lawyers quote, Mr. MacIsaac unlawfully shared Mr.
Biden's property with third parties. His property. He owned it. It was his. Yes.
The laptop according to Hunter Biden's lawyers belonged to Hunter Biden. Did not come from the Kremlin. That's settled. Except wait. No.
It's not settled. Because today we got yet another statement from Hunter Biden's lawyers and they seem to revise the first statement. Here's today's statement and we're quoting. These letters do not confirm mick Isaac's or others versions of a so called laptop. They address their conduct of seeking manipulating and disseminating would they alleged to be mister Biden's personal data wherever they claimed to have gotten it.
So in other words, we believe the government should send these people to jail for possessing stolen property that belong to Hunter Biden, but that so called property may not actually exist and may not even belong to Hunter Biden. That's their argument. It's a novel legal theory actually. In fact, it's so novel. It's totally incoherent.
It's like prosecuting somebody for stealing your imaginary car. But even if we can agree that the laptop is real and not a deep fake produced by some diabolical Russian AI program and again neither Hunter Biden nor his lawyers have conceded that yet Maybe they will tomorrow. But even if we could all agree on that, there is another more fundamental problem. And it's this. Hunter Biden signed an agreement acknowledging that if he left his device at John Paul McIsaac's repair shop in Delaware for more than 90 days, if he didn't pick it up, he would forfeit ownership of it.
He wrote that no one disputes that he did. And then Hunter Biden violated the contract that he signed. And he violated it because he was a crackhead who was having an affair with his sister-in-law, at least 3 of his employees and countless strippers and hookers while at the same time trying to execute an illicit business deals with the Chinese. So he just didn't have time to return for his laptops. That makes sense.
He was very busy. John Paul MacIsaac meanwhile, being the small business owner called Hunter Biden again and again and tried to give the laptop back. But Hunter Biden was so busy, he ignored John Paul MacIsaac. Watch.
Speaker 3: He sort of disappears on you. So he disappears and never comes for that external hard drive that now maintains the data.
Speaker 4: So now I'm in possession of his laptop, a backup of his laptop's home folder on an external drive that he provided, and no sign of Hunter. I think I called him again the following weekend or right before the end of the month. I always call customers at the end of the month to collect on out of, delinquent bills. And then, I think I called him a couple more times over the next month after that. So just no response.
Speaker 0: Kept calling him. Kept calling him. He was smoking too much crack with too many hunkers. He didn't call me back. That was John Paul McIsaac's explanation.
So it's kind of hard to blame John Paul McIsaac for this. He tried his best to return the laptop. And yet they are blaming him. In fact, Hunter Biden is demanding the Delaware attorney general Kathy Jennings put that guy John Paul McIsaac in jail for what he did. On what grounds?
Hunter Biden is the president's son. If he smokes too much crack to follow the terms of the contract he signed, that's not his problem. It's yours. Now in a normal country, a normal prosecutor would laugh at an argument like that, But Hunter Biden is betting that Delaware attorney general, Kathy Jennings, will take that argument very seriously, and he has reason to believe that she will. Because Kathy Jennings is not just the attorney general.
She is a long time party hack audio log who can be counted on to faithfully do the bidding of Democratic leaders and donors. And even better even better than that, Kathy Jennings is a longtime friend of the Biden family. In fact, she once worked for Hunter Biden's brother, Beau Biden, and she works worships his father, Joe. We're not guessing. Here's a Facebook post from the now attorney general of Delaware, Kathy Jennings, dated April 25, 2019.
We're quoting. I've known Joe Jill and the Biden family for most of my life. Joe is one of the kindest most genuine people I've ever known. Democrats are blessed with many excellent candidates this year and I am proud of those choices and what they say about our party. I'm choosing Joe because nobody understands more what it means to heal And right now, that's what America needs.
Well, right now, the Biden family needs something very different. And Kathy Jennings may be willing to provide it. Again, this is the person that Hunter Biden's lawyers are calling on to send John Paul McIsaac to jail, and she very well may send him there. Doesn't seem like a fair fight, really. So here you have John Paul McIsaac, a small business owner who lives in a small corrupt state controlled by the Biden family.
He's the peasant in this scenario. And then you have Hunter Biden is the princeling. So with no obvious means of support, Hunter Biden has been living in a $20,000 a month
@QuantumAlteredX - Invisidon
Alex Jones Talks Trump In A Clip You Probably Havent Seen. A Few Of You May Have. https://t.co/BEYtp2Z0sZ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Those were just time space continuum reflections of the third big change I was gonna be involved in, and that was bringing Donald John Trump into us. So I'm a say that again. I said, Austin, in the office. Because this is you guys are actually really good questions. This is gonna be a really good thing, but I'm a say it again in a minute. A shrink some of sermon after I said it. Because it it is it's it's it's the truth. I'm just gonna say it that I wish I never would've met Trump. I wish it never would've happened. And it's not that the attacks I've been through. So I'm so sick of Donald Trump, man. God, I'm sick of him. And I'm not doing this because it's like I'm kissing his ass. You know? It's just like I'm
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Those were just time space continuum reflections of the third big change I was gonna be involved in, and that was bringing Donald John Trump into us. So I'm a say that again. I said, Austin, in the office. Because this is you guys are actually really good questions. This is gonna be a really good thing, but I'm a say it again in a minute.
A shrink some of sermon after I said it. Because it it is it's it's it's it's the truth. I'm just gonna say it that I wish I never would've met Trump. I wish it never would've happened. And it's not that the attacks I've been through.
So I'm so sick of Donald Trump, man. God, I'm sick of him. And I'm not doing this because it's like I'm kissing his ass. You know? It's just like I'm
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep. 2 just dropped https://t.co/DhGJOmTf2t
Video Transcript AI Summary
To control a country, one must ensure obedience from those with deadly force, starting with the military and law enforcement. Beyond physical control, influencing societal taboos is crucial. Taboos shape behavior more powerfully than laws. In America, taboos are rapidly changing, often dictated from above. Actions once deemed unacceptable, like racial discrimination or adultery, are now tolerated or even encouraged. The most alarming shift is the diminishing stigma around child molestation, highlighted by media coverage of incidents involving individuals like Joseph Rosenbaum. Meanwhile, authorities focus on perceived threats like white supremacy, often without clear definitions. This ambiguity creates fear and uncertainty, allowing for arbitrary accusations. The old system, based on clear laws and organic taboos, is eroding. It’s essential to protect these moral instincts and resist the pressure to conform to shifting societal norms.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. Let's say you wanted to control a country. How would you start? We'd wanna make sure you had the complete obedience of everybody inside your borders who was authorized to use deadly force.
You would start with the military and then federal law enforcement and move your way down ultimately to agencies like the IRS. Controlling the guns would be a top priority for you if you ever wanted to go dictatorial, if you wanted to be baby doc. But let's say you had deeper ambitions. Let's say you wanted the power not simply to control people's behavior, but to control how they think, not just their bodies, but their minds as a god would. In that case, you need to take charge of the society's taboos.
A taboo is something that by popular consensus is not allowed. A taboo may not be illegal, but it doesn't need to be. Over time, social prohibitions are more powerful and more enduring than laws. Societies are defined by what they will not permit, as are famously religions. Muslims don't eat pork, neither do orthodox Jews.
Traditional Christians oppose extramarital sex. The Amish avoid electricity and so on. American society isn't overtly religious, but it's governed by taboos, and it always has been. What's interesting is how fast our taboos are changing. This is not happening organically.
What we're allowed to dislike is being dictated to us from above, sometimes by force. Until failure recently, for example, it was taboo in this country to attack people on the basis of their race. That was the main lesson of the 2nd World War, we were told again and again. The one thing we learned from the Nazis is that it's dangerous to reduce human beings to their genetic code. There is no master race.
That made sense, but apparently, we no longer believe it. Punishing people based on their skin color is not only permitted in modern America, it is mandatory throughout business and government and higher education as long as the victims are white. At one time, that would have been unimaginable. So the current behavior of our politicians. As recently as the 1992 presidential campaign, adultery was considered disqualifying for anyone seeking higher office.
Bill Clinton was very nearly derailed in the New Hampshire primary by his affair with Jennifer Flowers. Clinton went to elaborate lengths to lie about the relationship because he had no choice, but he was the last presidential candidate who had to meet the standard. By 2008, it was obvious to anybody who was paying attention that Barack Obama had a strange and highly creepy personal life, yet nobody ever asked him about it. By that point, a leader's behavior within his own marriage, the core relationship of his life, have been declared irrelevant. It was Barack Obama's business, not yours.
1 by 1 with increasing speed, our old taboos have been struck down. Those that remain have lost their moral force. Stealing, flaunting your wealth, striking women, smoking marijuana on the street, shameless public hypocrisy, taking other people's money for not working, All of these things used to be considered unacceptable in America, not anymore. So it probably shouldn't surprise us that the greatest taboo of all is teetering on the edge of acceptability, child molestation. A generation ago, talking to someone else's children about sex was widely considered grounds for a thrashing.
Touching them sexually was effectively a death penalty offense. When Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in the bathroom of a Wisconsin prison in 1994, the Milwaukee District Attorney had to caution the public not to turn Dahmer's killer into a folk hero. Jeffrey Dahmer had molested and murdered children. People felt justified in celebrating his death. 25 years later, that standard had changed dramatically in the state of Wisconsin as in the rest of the country.
Get out
Speaker 1: of the park.
Speaker 0: In the summer of 2020 during the BLM riots in Kenosha, 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse defended his life from a convicted child molester called Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was trying to kill Rittenhouse, so Rittenhouse shot him in self defense. But it was Joseph Rosenbaum whom the media cast as the victim of the story. Kyle Rittenhouse, meanwhile, an underage boy fending off violence from a child molester, was denounced as the villain. Ultimately, he was indicted for murder.
One of the things that this tells us is the people who run our country no longer see child molesters as the worst among us. That's never been more obvious than it was yesterday when the Wall Street Journal ran a long expose about kiddie porn on Instagram. Instagram, the journal found, quote, helps connect and promote a vast network of accounts openly devoted to the commission and purchase of underage sex content. Instagram connects pedophiles and connects them to content sellers of child pornography. In one instance, the paper discovered that Instagram was recommending the phrase incest toddlers to users who'd expressed interest in similar material.
By the way, no one at Instagram denied that any of this had happened, nor did Mark Zuckerberg, who controls the company. The journal story was accurate. It was all pretty shocking, but not as shocking as what happened next, which was effectively nothing at all. The largest circulation newspaper in the United States revealed that one of the world's most influential companies was promoting pedophilia, and nobody in power did anything about it. The Justice Department did not announce an investigation.
Congress did not schedule hearings. The guy who runs Instagram, Adam Mosseri, still has his job. In fact, Mosseri's last tweet, which is pinned, is a video of himself bragging about how effective Instagram's algorithm is. Keep in mind as you watch this, it's real.
Speaker 2: People often talk about the algorithm, but there is no one algorithm for Instagram. There are many algorithms and ranking processes we use to try to personalize the experience to make it as interesting as we can for each and every person who uses Instagram. We believe in this idea of personalization. What you're interested in and what I'm interested in is different, and so therefore, your Instagram and my Instagram should be different.
Speaker 0: What you're interested in and what I'm interested in is different, Masseri patiently. So your Instagram feed will be different from mine. You're interested in children. That's why you're getting all the incest toddler posts. It's a highly personalized experience.
That tweet is still up tonight. Of course, everybody at Instagram, in fact, everyone everywhere in authority, will still claim to think that child molestation is bad, but the tone has changed unmistakably. When they say it's bad, they mean it in a kind of abstract way, bad like a civil war in Central Africa is bad. You wouldn't prefer it, but there are reasons it happens. That's why we now refer to pedophiles as minor attracted persons because, honestly, who can judge?
These people are a sexual minority, so pause before you attack them. And in any case, it's not like pedophiles are barging into the Capitol building to sit in Nancy Pelosi's chair or asking uncomfortable questions about the last election. For miscreants like that, no punishment is too harsh. So far this month, the FBI's Washington field office has issued 11 press releases. 10 out of 11 have been about January 6th.
Keep in mind that January 6th happened more than two and a half years ago. Now you know why the feds were ignoring kid touchers on Instagram. They're too busy to respond. They've got much more important things to do, like finding white supremacists. White supremacists are America's new child molesters.
We've got zero tolerance for white supremacists because no one threatens the life of this country more than they do. Here's Joe Biden once again making that very clear last month.
Speaker 3: To stand up against the poison of white supremacists, I did my inaugural address to single out as the most dangerous terrorist threat to our homeland is white supremacy. And I'm not saying this because I'm at a black HBCU. I say wherever I go. Pardon the feedback,
Speaker 0: but you heard the point. White supremacy is the most dangerous threat to the American homeland. Joe Biden just told us that. It's more dangerous than the threat of nuclear war with Russia. It's more dangerous than the threat of the Mexican drug cartels who've already killed 100 of thousands of Americans and are now in control of swaths of our southwestern states.
White supremacy is that bad, Joe Biden says. Act in fact, it's worse. But what is it? That's the question. Can anyone in authority actually define white supremacy?
What is it? Is white supremacy liking white people too much? If so, that's gonna put those of us with white children in a pretty tough spot, Or is white supremacy something much more obviously bad, like trying to expel all nonwhites from America and creating some kind of ethnostate? If that's Joe Biden's definition, what exactly is the scope of this threat? How many people are currently working on this American white ethno state project, and what are the chances they're gonna pull it off?
Our guess is not very many and precisely 0, but we can't say for sure because no one has showed us the numbers. These are not rhetorical questions. When the president of the United States describes something as the worst possible crime Americans can commit, you have a right to know what that crime is. You used to have that right. Under our pre revolutionary legal code before George Floyd, questions like these were easy to answer.
A crime was defined as something that an elected legislature had explicitly banned, usually an act that hurt somebody else. In America, crimes were described precisely with words in English and then preserved in books, which you could read yourself. If you ever wondered whether you were committing a crime, you could just look it up. You could know for sure whether you were a criminal. Now you can't, and needless to say, that's the point.
The point of the exercise is to keep you off balance, to keep you afraid. When no one's willing to define the offense, you can't be sure whether or not you're committing it. You could be accused at any time and everything you have taken from you. You live in fear. Remember this guy?
Speaker 1: Emmanuel Cafferty was driving near a Black Lives Matter protest in Poway in his SDG and E truck when he says he noticed somebody following him and trying to get his attention. Later, that person posted a picture of him making what some believed is a white supremacy symbol on Twitter. Cafferty says he had no idea about any white power symbols and was just cracking his knuckles outside his window when the picture was taken of him. Later that day, he says he was notified by SDG and E that he would be suspended pending an investigation. And a few days later, he was fired.
Speaker 0: What that man did was so offensive, as you just saw, that local news had to blur the photograph of his hand. He was fired from his job. His life was destroyed for cracking his knuckles. He didn't know cracking his knuckles was racist in his defense, but then nobody did until the day that poor Emmanuel Cafferty was unwise enough to crack them. When a crime has no definition, anyone can be guilty of it.
It's hard to relax in a country like that. The old system was better. Government operated on the basis of laws, not amorphous moral terror. Politicians couldn't accuse you of something they couldn't define. The legal code was straightforward.
Child molestation was a crime. Having unfashionable opinions was not. Outside of the public sphere, the population mostly governed itself as it does in every society and used taboos to do it. You knew what was allowed and what wasn't because the rules didn't change very often. The taboos were organic.
They derived from collective experience and instinct, the 2 most reliable guides to life. They evolved for a reason. They still do. Our job at this point is to protect them despite the hectoring, the nonstop hectoring from the people in charge. You know the outlines of right and wrong.
You're born knowing them. So don't let them talk you out of what you can smell. Don't let them rationalize away your intuitive moral sense. Cling to your taboos like your life depends on them because it does. Cherish and protect them like family heirlooms.
That's exactly what they are. The John Deere people say the news is full of lies on Canada's motorcade.
Speaker 1: 239, please. Of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just released Episode 3. A response to Donald Trump’s indictment. https://t.co/Ls6Hr48XRq
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration has arrested Donald Trump, marking the beginning of a process aimed at imprisoning him for life. This outcome was anticipated since Trump challenged the federal government's longstanding policies, particularly regarding foreign intervention. His statement during a Republican debate, where he criticized the Iraq War and called out the lies about weapons of mass destruction, sealed his fate. Washington's elite, who benefited from war, united against him. Trump's prosecution is not only political but also ideological, as dissent against established war policies is not tolerated. The broader message is that any candidate opposing the war agenda is disqualified from power. Despite the government's vast spending, many Americans face deteriorating conditions, while funds are diverted to foreign interests. The attack on Trump represents a threat to democracy and the voters' right to choose their leaders, regardless of personal opinions about him.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. The Biden administration arrested Donald Trump this afternoon. They had him arraigned and fingerprinted in a Miami courthouse like the accused felon he now technically is. These were the first steps in a process that is designed to put Donald Trump behind bars for the rest of his life.
Cable news carried every moment of it live. It's unprecedented, they told us with what looked like shock, but they weren't shocked. They knew this was coming. Everyone who's paid attention knew it was. What just happened was always going to happen.
It's been inevitable since February 16, 2016. That's the day Donald Trump made a blood enemy of the largest and most powerful organization in human history, which would be the federal government. Despite what you may remember, it wasn't anything that Trump had said about immigration or trade with China or rapists from Mexico. Those are the stories that dominated the headlines that year. Trump's a racist, they scream.
Stop him. But inside Washington, that was just noise. None of it really raided. Identity politics doesn't mean much to permanent Washington. What matters then and now is foreign policy, the invasions and occupations and proxy wars, the decisions that determine which global populations will thrive and which will die, the policies that come with $1,000,000,000,000 price tags, the ones that over time have made the counties around DC the richest suburbs in the world.
In Washington, that's what actually matters, and it's obvious when you look carefully. When there's a debate about anything else, for example, the debt ceiling, both sides take their assigned positions and they start yelling. But when Congress decides to start a war, no matter how foolish or counterproductive or obviously disconnected from America's core interests that war may be, When that happens, the leaders of both parties automatically jump behind it like circus clowns, and then they stay there sometimes for decades. They defend that war relentlessly against all evidence until somebody finally rings the all clear bell and they can begin to admit that actually, maybe it wasn't such a great idea. We meant well, but it just didn't work out.
The good news is we've learned a lot of important lessons. In the end, they usually do say something like that, but only after emotions have cooled and the damning details have begun to fade from collective memory. It's an apology that's not actually an apology, much less repentance, and it's yours too late to matter in any case. But until then, that's all you're getting. Until then, no dissent is allowed.
That's the first rule of Washington. But somehow, Trump didn't bother to follow it. He is from out of town, so maybe he didn't know it was a rule, or maybe he just didn't care. Either way, seven and a half years later, we can point to the precise moment that permanent Washington decided to send Donald Trump to prison. Here it is.
It's from the Republican candidates debate in Greenville, South Carolina.
Speaker 1: We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East. They lied.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Speaker 0: Alright. Got it. Got it. We should never have been in Iraq, Trump said. We destabilized the Middle East.
Now by the time Trump said that, a lot of Republican primary voters were starting to reach the same conclusion. How could they not? But it was the next line that doomed Trump to today's arrest. They lied, he said. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and they knew there were none.
Now when he said that a few in the crowd booed, most just sat there in silence stunned. Can he say that? We said it anyway. And by saying that, he sealed his fate. That was the one thing you were not allowed to say because it implicated too many people on both sides, which on this topic is really just one side.
Hillary Clinton was guilty of it, but so was Paul Ryan. All of them were guilty. They all knew they all lied. And to a person, they hated Donald Trump for exposing them. After that, it was pretty clear that even if he did get elected president, Trump was gonna have a very hard time controlling the federal government he was supposed to be in charge of.
Most of permanent Washington decided that thwarting Trump was the single most important mission in their lives. Everything depended on it. Many of them said so publicly, but others didn't say so publicly. In fact, the stealthier ones took another path. They ran toward Trump, not away from him.
They sucked up to him. They ingratiated themselves to the man they intuitively understood was susceptible to flattery, which Trump is, and they did this in order to subvert his new administration from the inside. There were a number of these and you could spot them immediately. They were flatterers. Invariably, the ones who flattered Trump the most hated him the most and disagreed the most strongly with his views.
You saw them in the hallways of the White House and at press conferences. They were there slobbering over their boss with elaborate self abasement as if they were addressing a monarch or a god. It was a scene from the Ottoman court. It was filthy and decadent, and it was false. Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Lindsey Graham in the Congress, they all called Trump a visionary genius up until the moment he lost power, and then they unsheathed their real agenda, as always the neocon war agenda, and they piled on with maximum force.
Here's Mike Pompeo, for example, on Fox News this morning.
Speaker 2: President Trump had classified documents where he shouldn't have had them. And then when given the opportunity to return to me, he chose not to do that for whatever reason. When somebody identifies that, you gotta turn them in. And so that's just that's inconsistent with protecting America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. And if the allegations are true, some of these were pretty serious important documents.
So that's wrong.
Speaker 0: May future historians hoping to unlock the mysteries of late Empire Washington study that clip because it will reveal everything. That very same Mike Pompeo, the one who's sneering at Donald Trump on TV this morning, that guy served Donald Trump as both CIA director and as secretary of state. It was the 2 most powerful jobs in the federal government. And as he worked in those jobs, Pompeo promised, in fact, he swore to support the president's agenda. Why?
Because that's the way a democracy works. You vote for a candidate in the belief that his appointees will carry out the policies that you voted for. It's not about the president. It's about you, the voter. But Pompeo didn't do that.
He didn't even try to do that. In fact, he undermined Trump's often stated commitment to peace and non intervention abroad at every turn. His every waking hour was devoted to fermenting war in some faraway foreign country or other. Iran, Syria, Russia, North Korea, the list goes on. But rather than telling Trump that he disagreed with his ideas as a man would, Pompeo todied up to Trump, a man he despised in the oiliest, most over the top way imaginable.
Ask anyone who worked in that White House at the time. Who is the appointee most likely to tell Donald Trump on a daily basis that he was handsome, virile, sleek, and powerful? Mike Pompeo. That will be the consensus answer. Those of us who saw firsthand Pompeo's relentless kowtowing will never forget it.
It was indelibly repulsive. No one was self respect could do something like that, but Mike Pompeo did it effortlessly with relish and verve. Now the same person is telling Fox News viewers that he fears for the safety of our military, our soldiers sailors airmen and marines in the approved phrase because Donald Trump took some classified documents home and didn't immediately return them to the National Archives What a lie that is Mike Pompeo knows that's a lie. He spent his entire life in Washington. Washington is a city where internal memos about Labor Day are classified because everything is classified.
Your government has classified more than a 1000000000 federal documents most of them boring and pointless and a danger to no one, and locked them away in secret where you can't see them because you may be an American citizen but not really, and, therefore, you don't have the necessary clearances to know what's going on. And, by the way, none of this is done in order to make America safer any more than COVID restrictions were designed to keep you healthy. No. It's a caste system. That's the point, and you're the untouchable in this hierarchy.
Mike Pompeo knows that. Everybody who works in Washington knows that. How many secret documents do you think Dick Cheney took home with him while he was running the Iraq war? How many did his wife read? She never had a clearance.
We'll never know the answer because there is no chance Dick Cheney will ever be investigated or staffers will be told to wear wires in his presence. He'll ever be indicted for this. Of course not. Dick Cheney is a neocon. Donald Trump is not.
Dick Cheney supports war with Russia. Trump does not. That's the difference. The rest is just a distraction. The prosecution of Donald Trump is transparently political.
He's literally Joe Biden's main political opponent. He's pulling over 60% among Republican voters right now. So Joe Biden is doing what no president has ever dared to do. He's using law enforcement to lock up his chief rival. That's happening right now.
Anyone who denies it's happening is lying to you. But, actually, it's worse than that. Trump's prosecution isn't just political. It's ideological. Nobody with Trump's views is allowed to have power in this country.
Criticize our wars, and you're disqualified. If you keep it up, we'll send you to prison. That's the message Washington is sending. Not just the Democratic Party is sending, but both parties are sending. Like so many Republicans, for example, the supposedly conservative governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, spent yesterday totally ignoring the destruction of the American justice system.
Instead, he signed a highly important bill called the Crown Act, which according to the celebratory tweet Abbott sent commemorating it will, quote, prohibit discrimination based on textures and hairstyles historically associated with race. In other words, in Texas, cornrows are now protected by law. Having unapproved views about Ukraine is not. That's fine with most elected Republicans. They find Trump tiresome and embarrassing.
Their donors hate him. They will not be sad if he dies in jail. But what about voters? What are they learning from this spectacle? Well, mostly, they're learning that they have no power at all because nobody cares about them, but they already knew that.
Unlike so many of our elected leaders, they have been to America recently. They know what it looks like. Have you seen it? If you've got a few days this summer, find out. Take a road trip and see for yourself.
Drive 500 miles in any direction and then come home. How are things looking? Well, they should look great. The federal government spent 6 and a half $1,000,000,000,000 last year. That's more than any government has ever spent ever.
So at the very least you would expect pristine public roads. Oh, no. That's not when you see when you drive around this country. There are potholes in Jersey barriers everywhere. Looks like Tagusagalpa before the Chinese decided to rebuild the infrastructure of Honduras.
We don't have China buying our roads, so they're falling apart. You'd think the people you would pass on your road trip would look happy and prosperous. Again, this is a very rich country, but a lot of them don't. Quite a few appear to be strung out on drugs. You see them shuffling by shuttered storefronts in small towns, and you wonder as you see all of this, where did all the money go?
It's certainly not here. Well, it's in Washington. It's in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties and in leafy, perfectly manicured Northwest DC. And, of course, a huge chunk of it went to Ukraine, to Zelensky and his friends, not because you voted for that. You didn't vote to give it to them.
You never would but because Joe Biden and his many allies from Chuck Schumer to Mitch McConnell to Paul Ryan in every single news anchor on all of television all of them believe that Ukraine its borders its future its infrastructure all more important than the town that you live in. They sincerely think that, and it's obvious. Everyone in power thinks that except for Donald Trump. Whatever else you say about him, Trump is the one guy with an actual shot at becoming president who descends from Washington's long standing pointless war agenda. And for that, that one fact, they are trying to take Trump out before you can vote for him, and that should upset you more than anything that's happened in American politics in your lifetime.
Even if you don't plan to vote for Donald Trump, even if you would die before voting for Donald Trump, which is your right and a lot of good people feel that way, even still the destruction of our democracy, which is the right of voters to support any candidate they want, even candidates who don't want war with Russia. The destruction of that should keep you up at night. Yes. Donald Trump is a flawed man, but his sins are minor compared to those of his persecutors. In this life, we don't get to choose our martyrs.
We can only choose our principles, and Americas are at stake. A John Deere people say the news is full of lies. Kennedy's motorcade. 139 people stole the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep. 4 just dropped. https://t.co/Q9hdYDnTKC
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration arrested Donald Trump, prompting Fox News to air a chyron labeling Biden a "wannabe dictator." This brief banner sparked outrage within Fox, leading to the resignation of a producer and a public apology. Critics, including some Democrats, expressed anger over the label, questioning why it elicited such a strong reaction if it was false. The White House declined to comment on the chyron, asserting that Biden is not a dictator. The discussion highlighted that true dictators engage in blatant self-enrichment, suppress dissent, and manipulate information, none of which Biden exemplifies. The narrative concluded with a reminder that Biden's statements about children reflect a shared responsibility rather than ownership, reinforcing that he does not fit the profile of a dictator.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. On Tuesday afternoon, the Biden administration had Donald Trump arrested. It was a pretty big news story. You may have seen it.
Just before 9 PM that night as part of its coverage, Fox News ran 2 live video feeds next to one another. On the right, Donald Trump addressed his supporters in New Jersey. On the left, Joe Biden spoke at an event for the secretary general of NATO in Washington. Beneath those videos at the bottom of the screen, Fox's banner read this way, quote, wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested. Those words are up for less than 30 seconds, but the effect was immediate.
Inside Fox, the women who run the network panicked. First, they scolded the producer who put the banner on the screen. Less than 24 hours after that, he resigned. He'd been at Fox for more than a decade. He was considered one of the most capable people in the building.
He offered to stay for the customary 2 weeks, but Fox told him to clear out his desk and leave immediately. Then the company issued a public apology for the 27 second long wannabe dictator line. Quote, the chyron was taken down immediately, Fox's PR department said, and then added ominously it was, quote, addressed. That was all true, but it was not enough to save Fox News from the ensuing scandal. For a time in the rest of the media, Fox's assessment of Donald Trump's arrest seemed to overshadow Trump's arrest itself.
Suggesting that Biden is a dictator, declared the Washington Post, quote, cross the line. Alexander Vindman agreed strongly. Vindman is the perennial MSNBC guest and full time Ukraine promoter you may remember from Russiagate. On Twitter, he demanded that the Pentagon pull Fox News from all military bases. It is quote absolutely unacceptable for American forces network to carry programming that directly spuriously attacks the commander in chief of American Armed Forces, Vindman wrote.
In other words, Joe Biden must ban all criticism of himself because that's what non dictators do. John Cusack went further still. For the crime of calling Biden a dictator, Fox should be shut down, wrote the eighties era movie star. Quote, the government has to take away their broadcasting license and so on. It was all over the Internet.
Democrats were very, very angry. But why were they angry? If the banner on Fox was false, why the hysteria? Lies don't seem to bother anyone anymore. If some cable news producer had called Joe Biden a genius or accused him of being secretly Sudanese, would anyone be yelling about it?
Would Fox News have apologized for it Probably not But calling Joe Biden a wannabe dictator that stung So you've got to wonder if you're being honest with yourself is Joe Biden a wannabe dictator That question came up yesterday at the White House briefing. Here's how it went.
Speaker 1: Last night, Fox News ran a chyron that, referred to the president as a wannabe dictator, and I'm wondering if the White House has any comment on that. So there are probably about 787,000,000 things that I can say about this, that was wrong, about what we saw last night, but I don't think I'm gonna get into it. There's no comment on White House. I I think I just commented.
Speaker 0: Oh, no comment necessary. Of course, Joe Biden's not a wannabe dictator. Just because he's trying to put the other candidate in prison for the rest of his life for a crime he himself committed doesn't mean he has a totalitarian impulse. Come on. That's absurd.
It takes a lot more than jailing your political rivals to earn the title wannabe dictator. That's the consensus in Washington tonight. And in some ways, for once, the consensus may be right. It is not a small thing to be a wannabe dictator. It's quite a process.
There are a lot of steps. First off, there is the money. The one thing that all dictators have in common is they enrich themselves and their families, their tribe, even as the countries they govern grow steadily poor and more desperate. They take kickbacks from businesses and from other dictators. They use the official functions of their government to funnel cash to themselves.
They don't bother to hide the fruits of this. They live in garish mansions with big lawns far from the teeming cities even as their own citizens languish in growing poverty, in some cases, literally living in tents on the street. So they don't really hide it. It's all pretty blatant, and ordinary people resent it. Of course, they do and wanna be dictators know they resent it, but they don't care.
There's nothing the population can do about it in a dictatorship. It's no longer possible to fight injustice in a system like that. People can't gather in large numbers to protest the rule of the dictator. If they try that, they'll be arrested by a state security services, even years after the fact. A visit for men in body armor at the breakfast table.
That happens. And if citizens persist in believing they can gather in groups to protest, they may be shot to death, a bullet to the throat. And then, just to make the humiliation complete to make the lesson gin clear to everyone else watching, their relatives can be arrested for daring to complain that their children were killed for complaining. That actually happens in some places. Ask Ashley Babbitt's mother.
Here she is in handcuffs.
Speaker 1: You're arresting Ashley Babbitt. You heard on her inside the capitol, and now you're gonna arrest her? One 01.
Speaker 0: So don't be like Ashley Babbitt's mother, much less like poor Ashley Babbitt. She's dead now. That's the message a wannabe dictator would send. And by the way, it's not just public protest that would be banned in a dictatorship. You wouldn't be allowed to complain from your own home.
Unauthorized opinions expressed on the Internet would be censored. Go too far, press too deep, tell too much truth, and they'll just erase your opinions. They have no choice, really. It's a matter, as they say, of trust and safety. You must trust the leader or else you will jeopardize his safety.
Not that you really can jeopardize his safety at this point. The leader has nuclear weapons, and you don't. He'll remind you of that from time to time. And in any case, you're in the process of being disarmed anyway along with everyone else who has shown questionable loyalty to the leader. Those who support the regime can keep their weapons and use them freely, including on public transportation.
That's a core civil right for them. But for those who dissent from the program, self defense is an unaffordable privilege. Turn in your guns, mister and missus peaceful opposition. You're a danger to society, and we know who you are. And in fact, the wanna be dictator does know who they are because he knows everything.
Technology has made him all seeing. A report in Wired Magazine just this week revealed that the highly nondictatorial Biden administration is busy tracking the phones of millions of Americans without their knowledge and without bothering to get a warrant. And at the same time, the same nondictatorial administration is stockpiling a massive trove of damaging information about these same Americans to be used at some point, we are sure, for entirely noble purposes. So the administration now knows everything, where you spend your days, who you talk to, what you think, your porn habits. Not a big deal.
The administration already knows what you buy, of course, because they've leaned on the big banks to turn over your confidential credit card information. Not because anyone here is a wannabe dictator, to be clear, but just because. It's nice to have that information, just in case, in the words of the Fox News PR department, a situation arises that needs to be, quote, addressed. It's all totally normal. It's not a dictatorship.
Okay? But in the end, the main reason you know Joe Biden is not a wannabe dictator is because he just does not fit the profile as a man. Dictators have that look. You know one when you see 1. Dictators build cults of personality around themselves, and they use those cults to deny the glaringly obvious.
In his later years, named just one example, North Korean dictator Kim Il sung developed an enormous baseball sized tumor on the back of his neck. It was huge. It was grotesque. It was right there. You couldn't ignore it.
You couldn't possibly not see it. But in North Korea, state media did ignore it. They pretended it didn't exist. And so in some important sense, it didn't. If a tumor grows on a neck but no one acknowledges it, is it really there?
Thankfully, nothing like that is happening in our country or ever will. If Joe Biden ever developed some profound physical or medical problem that was obvious to everybody, journalists would say something. This is not North Korea. We don't have state media here. If Joe Biden was, say, incapable of completing a full sentence or mistook his sister for his wife or suddenly started falling down in public for no reason, The New York Times would report on that and they get to the bottom of what was actually happening.
That would be its duty in a free country like ours. It's not like they would cover it up. The very idea of a cover up sounds like a conspiracy theory, a dangerous one, actually, so stop it. And by the way, if Joe Biden was a wannabe dictator, he'd have the family to match. All dictators do.
Saddam Hussein had Uday and Qusay. They were princelings who lived above the law indulging their most decadent fantasies with total confidence. They would be never held to account by the police. As the sons of a dictator, they knew they could do exactly what they wanted, and so that's what they did. There's no one like that around Joe Biden.
He doesn't have weird sex scandals at the heart of his family that no one in the media will ever talk about. He doesn't have a ne'er do well former nightclub owning brother who's made a living for 30 years by being related to him. Not at all. That's dictator stuff. Joe Biden doesn't award ridiculous inflated titles to his relatives that the media are then required to take seriously.
He doesn't call people doctor who didn't go to medical school and then force you to nod along like it's real when everyone knows it isn't. Nicolai Ceausescu did that with his wife, Elena. Joe Biden would never do that. Notice Joe Biden dressed like a dictator. He doesn't do photo ops and mirrored sunglasses driving a sports car to convince you that he isn't frail and senile, but instead powerful, virulent wise.
That's just not his style. If Joe Biden was a dictator, he'd be wearing epaulettes and carrying a tassel riding crop, and he isn't yet, so calm down. If he was a dictator, Biden's speeches would look like Nuremberg rallies, a blood red backdrop, armed soldiers by his side, screaming about crushing his eternal enemies. Honestly, Biden did come close to that one time last September at a speech in Philadelphia, but it wasn't in any sense, dictatory, dictator y. It was necessary.
As MSNBC assures at the time, quote, Biden aimed to showcase his faith in the military apparatus and its ability to back the democratic order. See, it was about democracy, not dictatorship. No cause for alarm. He is not a dictator. A dictator would stockpile ammunition for his own bureaucrats, including his tax collectors.
He'd redefine the legal code to make disloyalty to the regime the most serious crime. He claimed dominion over the most intimate parts of his citizens' lives. He defined what attitudes they were allowed to have about sex and religion and how to raise their families. He would even, in his final grandiose stage of dictatorship, claim ownership of their children, and Joe Biden wouldn't do that. And to prove he would never do that, Biden just this week released this video.
Speaker 2: These are our kids. These are our neighbors. Not somebody else's kids. They're all our kids, and our children are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft. It matters a great deal how we treat everyone in this country.
LGBTQ Americans, especially children, you're loved, you're heard, and this administration has your back.
Speaker 0: See? Joe Biden isn't saying your children belong to him like a dictator would. He's saying something very different from that. He's saying America's children are quote our children, not his alone, ours. You share your children with Joe Biden evenly right down the middle with alternating weekends.
You've got joint custody with Joe Biden, and you can thank heaven that you do. A nation is like a family. Every family has a head, a father. That's Joe Biden, our nation's father. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is now his fatherland.
Just don't call it a dictatorship, or we'll have to issue a statement disavowing you. John Muir people say the
Speaker 1: news is full of lies. On Kennedy's motorcade. 139 people. The death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@TranslateMom - TranslateMom
Tucker Carlson ep. 4 aspirante a dictador subtitulos en español https://t.co/bgbVPVd8hI
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration arrested Donald Trump, prompting Fox News to air a chyron labeling Biden a "wannabe dictator." This brief banner caused a backlash, leading to the resignation of a producer and a public apology from Fox. Critics, including some Democrats, reacted strongly, questioning why the outrage if the claim was false. The White House declined to comment directly on the chyron, asserting Biden is not a dictator. The discussion highlighted the characteristics of dictators, contrasting them with Biden's actions and demeanor. Ultimately, it was suggested that Biden's approach to governance and public statements do not align with typical dictatorial behavior, emphasizing a shared responsibility for the nation's children rather than ownership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. On Tuesday afternoon, the Biden administration had Donald Trump arrested. It was a pretty big news story. You may have seen it.
Just before 9 PM that night as part of its coverage, Fox News ran 2 live video feeds next to one another. On the right, Donald Trump addressed his supporters in New Jersey. On the left, Joe Biden spoke at an event for the secretary general of NATO in Washington. Beneath those videos at the bottom of the screen, Fox's banner read this way, quote, wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested. Those words are up for less than 30 seconds, but the effect was immediate.
Inside Fox, the women who run the network panicked. First, they scolded the producer who put the banner on the screen. Less than 24 hours after that, he resigned. He'd been at Fox for more than a decade. He was considered one of the most capable people in the building.
He offered to stay for the customary 2 weeks, but Fox told him to clear out his desk and leave immediately. Then the company issued a public apology for the 27 second long wannabe dictator line. Quote, the chyron was taken down immediately, Fox's PR department said, and then added ominously it was, quote, addressed. That was all true, but it was not enough to save Fox News from the ensuing scandal. For a time in the rest of the media, Fox's assessment of Donald Trump's arrest seemed to overshadow Trump's arrest itself.
Suggesting that Biden is a dictator, declared the Washington Post, quote, cross the line. Alexander Vindman agreed strongly. Vindman is the perennial MSNBC guest and full time Ukraine promoter you may remember from Russiagate. On Twitter, he demanded that the Pentagon pull Fox News from all military bases. It is quote absolutely unacceptable for American forces network to carry programming that directly spuriously attacks the commander in chief of American Armed Forces, Vindman wrote.
In other words, Joe Biden must ban all criticism of himself because that's what non dictators do. John Cusack went further still. For the crime of calling Biden a dictator, Fox should be shut down, wrote the eighties era movie star. Quote, the government has to take away their broadcasting license and so on. It was all over the Internet.
Democrats were very, very angry. But why were they angry? If the banner on Fox was false, why the hysteria? Lies don't seem to bother anyone anymore. If some cable news producer had called Joe Biden a genius or accused of being secretly Sudanese, would anyone be yelling about it?
Would Fox News have apologized for it probably not But calling Joe Biden a wannabe dictator that stung So you've got to wonder if you're being honest with yourself is Joe Biden a wannabe dictator That question came up yesterday at the White House briefing. Here's how it went. Last night, Fox News ran a chyron that, referred to the president as a wannabe dictator, and I'm wondering if the White House has any comment on that. So, look, there are probably about 787,000,000 things that I can say about this, that was wrong, about what we saw last night, but I don't think I'm gonna get into it. There's no comment on White House.
I I think I just commented. Oh, no comment necessary. Of course, Joe Biden's not a wannabe dictator. Just because he's trying to put the other candidate in prison for the rest of his life for a crime he himself committed doesn't mean he has a totalitarian impulse. Come on.
That's absurd. It takes a lot more than jailing your political rivals to earn the title wanna be dictator. That's the consensus in Washington tonight. And in some ways, for once, the consensus may be right. It is not a small thing to be a wanna be dictator.
It's quite a process. There are a lot of steps. First off, there is the money. The one thing that all dictators have in common is they enrich themselves and their families, their tribe, even as the countries they govern grow steadily poor and more desperate. They take kickbacks from businesses and from other dictators.
They use the official functions of their government to funnel cash to themselves. They don't bother to hide the fruits of this. They live in garish mansions with big lawns far from the teeming cities even as their own citizens languish in growing poverty. In some cases, literally living in tents on the street. So they don't really hide it.
It's all pretty blatant, and ordinary people resent it. Of course, they do, and wannabe dictators know they resent it, but they don't care. There's nothing the population can do about it in dictatorship. It's no longer possible to fight injustice in a system like that. People can't gather in large numbers to protest the rule of the dictator.
If they try that, they'll be arrested by a state security services even years after the fact. A visit for men in body armor at the breakfast table, that happens. And if citizens persist in believing they can gather in groups to protest, they may be shot to death, a bullet to the throat. And then just to make the humiliation complete to make the lesson clear to everyone else watching, their relatives can be arrested for daring to complain that their children were killed for complaining. That actually happens in some places.
Ask Ashley Babbitt's mother. Here she is in handcuffs. You murdered her inside the Capitol. Now you're gonna arrest her? 1 zero one.
I'm gonna transfer the spot. Alright. What's your name? What's your name? What's your name?
What's your name? So don't be like Ashley Babbitt's mother, much less like poor Ashley Babbitt. She's dead now. That's the message a wannabe dictator would send. And by the way, it's not just public protest that would be banned in a dictatorship.
You wouldn't be allowed to complain from your own home. Unauthorized opinions expressed on the Internet would be censored. Go too far, press too deep, tell too much truth, and they'll just erase your opinions. They have no choice, really. It's a matter, as they say, of trust and safety.
You must trust the leader or else you will jeopardize his safety. Not that you really can jeopardize his safety at this point. The leader has nuclear weapons, and you don't. He'll remind you of that from time to time. And in any case, you're in the process of being disarmed anyway along with everyone else who has shown questionable loyalty to the leader.
Those who support the regime can keep their weapons and use them freely, including on public transportation. That's a core civil right for them. But for those who dissent from the program, self defense is an unaffordable privilege. Turn in your guns, mister and missus peaceful opposition. You're a danger to society, and we know who you are.
And in fact, the wannabe dictator does know who they are because he knows everything. Technology has made him all seeing. A report in Wired Magazine just this week revealed that the highly nondictatorial Biden is busy tracking the phones of millions of Americans without their knowledge and without bothering to get a warrant. And at the same time, the same nondictatorial administration is stockpiling a massive trove of damaging information about these same Americans to be used at some point, we are sure for entirely noble purposes. So the administration now knows everything, where you spend your days, who you talk to, what you think, your porn habits.
Not a big deal. The administration already knows what you buy, of course, because they've leaned on the big banks to turn over your confidential credit card information. Not because anyone here is a wannabe dictator to be clear, but just because. It's nice to have that information, just in case in the words of the Fox News PR department, a situation arises that needs to be, quote, addressed. It's all totally normal.
It's not a dictatorship. Okay? But in the end, the main reason you know Joe Biden is not a wannabe dictator is because he just does not fit the profile as a man. Dictators have that look. You know one when you see one.
Dictators build cults of personality around themselves, and they use those cults to deny the glaringly obvious. In his later years, named just one example, North Korean dictator Kim Il sung developed an enormous baseball sized tumor on the back of his neck. It was huge. It was grotesque. It was right there.
You couldn't ignore it. You couldn't possibly not see it. But in North Korea, state media did ignore it. They pretended it didn't exist. And so in some important sense, it didn't.
If a tumor grows on a neck but no one acknowledges it, is it really there? Thankfully, nothing like that is happening in our country or ever will. If Joe Biden ever developed some profound physical or medical problem that was obvious to everybody, journalists would say something. This is not North Korea. We don't have state media here.
If Joe Biden was, say, incapable of completing a full sentence or mistook his sister for his wife or suddenly started falling down in public for no reason, The New York Times would report on that and then get to the bottom of what was actually happening. That would be its duty in a free country like ours. It's not like they would cover it up. The very idea of a cover up sounds like a conspiracy theory, a dangerous one, actually, so stop it. And by the way, if Joe Biden was a wannabe dictator, he'd have the family to match.
All dictators do. Saddam Hussein had Uday and Qusay. They were princelings who lived above the law indulging their most decadent fantasies with total confidence. They would be never held to account by the police. As the sons of a dictator, they knew they could do exactly what they wanted, and so that's what they did.
There's no one like that around Joe Biden. He doesn't have weird sex scandals at the heart of his family that no one in the media will ever talk about. He doesn't have a ne'er do well former nightclub owning brother who's made a living for 30 years by being related to him. Not at all. That's dictator stuff.
Joe Biden doesn't award ridiculous inflated titles to his relatives that the media are then required to take seriously. He doesn't call people doctor who didn't go to medical school and then force you to nod along like it's real when everyone knows it isn't. Nicolai Ceausescu did that with his wife, Elena. Joe Biden would never do that. Notice Joe Biden dress like a dictator.
He doesn't do photo ops and mirrored sunglasses driving a sports car to convince you that he isn't frail and senile, but instead powerful, virile, and wise. That's just not his style. If Joe Biden was a dictator, he'd be wearing epaulettes and carrying a tassel riding crop, and he isn't yet, so calm down. If he was a dictator, Biden's speeches would look like Nuremberg rallies, a blood red backdrop, armed soldiers by his side, screaming about crushing his eternal enemies. Honestly, Biden did come close to that one time last September at his speech in Philadelphia, but it wasn't in any sense dictatory, dictator y.
It was necessary. As MSNBC assures at the time, quote, Biden aimed to showcase his faith in the military apparatus and its ability to back the democratic order. See, it was about democracy, not dictatorship. No cause for alarm. He is not a dictator.
A dictator would stockpile ammunition for his own bureaucrats, including his tax collectors. He'd redefine the legal code to make disloyalty to the regime the most serious crime. He claimed dominion over the most intimate parts of his citizens lives. He defined what attitudes they were allowed to have about sex and religion and how to raise their families. He would even, in his final grandiose stage of dictatorship, claim ownership of their children, and Joe Biden wouldn't do that.
And to prove he would never do that, Biden just this week released this video.
Speaker 1: These are our kids. These are our neighbors. Not somebody else's kids. They're all our kids, and our children are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft. It matters a great deal how we treat everyone in this country.
LGBTQ Americans, especially children, you're loved, you're heard, and this administration has your back.
Speaker 0: See? Joe Biden isn't saying your children belong to him like a dictator would. He's saying something very different from that. He's saying America's children are, quote, our children, not his alone, ours. You share your children with Joe Biden evenly right down the middle with alternating weekends.
You've got joint custody with Joe Biden, and you can thank heaven that you do. A nation is like a family. Every family has a head, a father. That's Joe Biden, our nation's father, and this, ladies and gentlemen, is now his fatherland. Just don't call it a dictatorship, or we'll have to issue a statement disavowing you.
John Deere people say the news is full of lies. On Kennedy's motor case. 2 139 people killed the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@TranslateMom - TranslateMom
Tucker Carlson Ep. 4 aspirante a ditador legendas em portugues https://t.co/AI64Q2slQe
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Biden administration arrested Donald Trump, prompting Fox News to run a chyron labeling Biden a "wannabe dictator." This sparked outrage within Fox, leading to the resignation of a producer and a public apology. Critics, including Democrats and media figures, expressed anger over the label, questioning why it provoked such a strong reaction if it was deemed false. At a White House briefing, the response was dismissive, asserting that Biden is not a dictator despite his actions. The discussion highlighted the characteristics of dictators, contrasting them with Biden's behavior and suggesting that he does not fit the profile. Ultimately, the narrative emphasized that labeling Biden a dictator is unfounded, as he does not exhibit the traits typically associated with authoritarian leaders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. On Tuesday afternoon, the Biden administration had Donald Trump arrested. It was a pretty big news story. You may have seen it.
Just before 9 PM that night as part of its coverage, Fox News ran 2 live video feeds next to one another. On the right, Donald Trump addressed his supporters in New Jersey. On the left, Joe Biden spoke at an event for the secretary general of NATO in Washington. Beneath those videos at the bottom of the screen, Fox's banner read this way, quote, wannabe dictator speaks at the White House after having his political rival arrested. Those words are up for less than 30 seconds, but the effect was immediate.
Inside Fox, the women who run the network panicked. First, they scolded the producer who put the banner on the screen. Less than 24 hours after that, he resigned. He'd been at Fox for more than a decade. He was considered one of the most capable people in the building.
He offered to stay for the customary 2 weeks, but Fox told him to clear out his desk and leave immediately. Then the company issued a public apology for the 27 second long wannabe dictator line. Quote, the chyron was taken down immediately, Fox's PR department said, and then added ominously it was, quote, addressed. That was all true, but it was not enough to save Fox News from the ensuing scandal. For a time in the rest of the media, Fox's assessment of Donald Trump's arrest seemed to overshadow Trump's arrest itself.
Suggesting that Biden is a dictator, declared the Washington Post, quote, cross the line. Alexander Vindman agreed strongly. Vindman is the perennial MSNBC guest and full time Ukraine promoter you may remember from Russiagate. On Twitter, he demanded that the Pentagon pull Fox News from all military bases. It is quote absolutely unacceptable for American forces network to carry programming that directly spuriously attacks the commander in chief of American Armed Forces, Vindman wrote.
In other words, Joe Biden must ban all criticism of himself because that's what non dictators do. John Cusack went further still. For the crime of calling Biden a dictator, Fox should be shut down, wrote the eighties era movie star. Quote, the government has to take away their broadcasting license and so on. It was all over the Internet.
Democrats were very, very angry. But why were they angry? If the banner on Fox was false, why the hysteria? Lies don't seem to bother anyone anymore. If some cable news producer had called Joe Biden a genius or accused of being secretly Sudanese, would anyone be yelling about it?
Would Fox News have apologized for it probably not But calling Joe Biden a wannabe dictator that stung So you've got to wonder if you're being honest with yourself is Joe Biden a wannabe dictator That question came up yesterday at the White House briefing. Here's how it went. Last night, Fox News ran a chyron that, referred to the president as a wannabe dictator, and I'm wondering if the White House has any comment on that. So, look, there are probably about 787,000,000 things that I can say about this, that was wrong, about what we saw last night, but I don't think I'm gonna get into it. There's no comment on White House.
I I think I just commented. Oh, no comment necessary. Of course, Joe Biden's not a wannabe dictator. Just because he's trying to put the other candidate in prison for the rest of his life for a crime he himself committed doesn't mean he has a totalitarian impulse. Come on.
That's absurd. It takes a lot more than jailing your political rivals to earn the title wanna be dictator. That's the consensus in Washington tonight. And in some ways, for once, the consensus may be right. It is not a small thing to be a wanna be dictator.
It's quite a process. There are a lot of steps. First off, there is the money. The one thing that all dictators have in common is they enrich themselves and their families, their tribe, even as the countries they govern grow steadily poor and more desperate. They take kickbacks from businesses and from other dictators.
They use the official functions of their government to funnel cash to themselves. They don't bother to hide the fruits of this. They live in garish mansions with big lawns far from the teeming cities even as their own citizens languish in growing poverty. In some cases, literally living in tents on the street. So they don't really hide it.
It's all pretty blatant, and ordinary people resent it. Of course, they do, and wannabe dictators know they resent it, but they don't care. There's nothing the population can do about it in dictatorship. It's no longer possible to fight injustice in a system like that. People can't gather in large numbers to protest the rule of the dictator.
If they try that, they'll be arrested by a state security services even years after the fact. A visit for men in body armor at the breakfast table, that happens. And if citizens persist in believing they can gather in groups to protest, they may be shot to death, a bullet to the throat. And then just to make the humiliation complete to make the lesson clear to everyone else watching, their relatives can be arrested for daring to complain that their children were killed for complaining. That actually happens in some places.
Ask Ashley Babbitt's mother. Here she is in handcuffs. You murdered her inside the Capitol. Now you're gonna arrest her? 1 zero one.
So don't be like Ashley Babbitt's mother, much less like poor Ashley Babbitt. She's dead now. That's the message a wannabe dictator would send. And by the way, it's not just public protest that would be banned in a dictatorship. You wouldn't be allowed to complain from your own home.
Unauthorized opinions expressed on the Internet would be censored. Go too far, press too deep, tell too much truth, and they'll just erase your opinions. They have no choice, really. It's a matter, as they say, of trust and safety. You must trust the leader or else you will jeopardize his safety.
Not that you really can jeopardize his safety at this point. The leader has nuclear weapons, and you don't. He'll remind you of that from time to time. And in any case, you're in the process of being disarmed anyway along with everyone else who has shown questionable loyalty to the leader. Those who support the regime can keep their weapons and use them freely, including on public transportation.
That's a core civil right for them. But for those who dissent from the program, self defense is an unaffordable privilege. Turn in your guns, mister and missus peaceful opposition. You're a danger to society, and we know who you are. And in fact, the wannabe dictator does know who they are because he knows everything.
Technology has made him all seeing. A report in Wired Magazine just this week revealed that the highly nondictatorial Biden is busy tracking the phones of millions of Americans without their knowledge and without bothering to get a warrant. And at the same time, the same nondictatorial administration is stockpiling a massive trove of damaging information about these same Americans to be used at some point, we are sure for entirely noble purposes. So the administration now knows everything, where you spend your days, who you talk to, what you think, your porn habits. Not a big deal.
The administration already knows what you buy, of course, because they've leaned on the big banks to turn over your confidential credit card information. Not because anyone here is a wannabe dictator to be clear, but just because. It's nice to have that information, just in case in the words of the Fox News PR department, a situation arises that needs to be, quote, addressed. It's all totally normal. It's not a dictatorship.
Okay? But in the end, the main reason you know Joe Biden is not a wannabe dictator is because he just does not fit the profile as a man. Dictators have that look. You know one when you see one. Dictators build cults of personality around themselves, and they use those cults to deny the glaringly obvious.
In his later years, named just one example, North Korean dictator Kim Il sung developed an enormous baseball sized tumor on the back of his neck. It was huge. It was grotesque. It was right there. You couldn't ignore it.
You couldn't possibly not see it. But in North Korea, state media did ignore it. They pretended it didn't exist. And so in some important sense, it didn't. If a tumor grows on a neck but no one acknowledges it, is it really there?
Thankfully, nothing like that is happening in our country or ever will. If Joe Biden ever developed some profound physical or medical problem that was obvious to everybody, journalists would say something. This is not North Korea. We don't have state media here. If Joe Biden was, say, incapable of completing a full sentence or mistook his sister for his wife or suddenly started falling down in public for no reason, The New York Times would report on that and then get to the bottom of what was actually happening.
That would be its duty in a free country like ours. It's not like they would cover it up. The very idea of a cover up sounds like a conspiracy theory, a dangerous one, actually, so stop it. And by the way, if Joe Biden was a wannabe dictator, he'd have the family to match. All dictators do.
Saddam Hussein had Uday and Qusay. They were princelings who lived above the law indulging their most decadent fantasies with total confidence. They would be never held to account by the police. As the sons of a dictator, they knew they could do exactly what they wanted, and so that's what they did. There's no one like that around Joe Biden.
He doesn't have weird sex scandals at the heart of his family that no one in the media will ever talk about. He doesn't have a ne'er do well former nightclub owning brother who's made a living for 30 years by being related to him. Not at all. That's dictator stuff. Joe Biden doesn't award ridiculous inflated titles to his relatives that the media are then required to take seriously.
He doesn't call people doctor who didn't go to medical school and then force you to nod along like it's real when everyone knows it isn't. Nicolai Ceausescu did that with his wife, Elena. Joe Biden would never do that. Notice Joe Biden dress like a dictator. He doesn't do photo ops and mirrored sunglasses driving a sports car to convince you that he isn't frail and senile, but instead powerful, virile, and wise.
That's just not his style. If Joe Biden was a dictator, he'd be wearing epaulettes and carrying a tassel riding crop, and he isn't yet, so calm down. If he was a dictator, Biden's speeches would look like Nuremberg rallies, a blood red backdrop, armed soldiers by his side, screaming about crushing his eternal enemies. Honestly, Biden did come close to that one time last September at his speech in Philadelphia, but it wasn't in any sense dictatory, dictator y. It was necessary.
As MSNBC assures at the time, quote, Biden aimed to showcase his faith in the military apparatus and its ability to back the democratic order. See, it was about democracy, not dictatorship. No cause for alarm. He is not a dictator. A dictator would stockpile ammunition for his own bureaucrats, including his tax collectors.
He'd redefine the legal code to make disloyalty to the regime the most serious crime. He claimed dominion over the most intimate parts of his citizens lives. He defined what attitudes they were allowed to have about sex and religion and how to raise their families. He would even, in his final grandiose stage of dictatorship, claim ownership of their children, and Joe Biden wouldn't do that. And to prove he would never do that, Biden just this week released this video.
Speaker 1: These are our kids. These are our neighbors. Not somebody else's kids. They're all our kids, and our children are the kite strings that hold our national ambitions aloft. It matters a great deal how we treat everyone in this country.
LGBTQ Americans, especially children, you're loved, you're heard, and this administration has your back.
Speaker 0: See? Joe Biden isn't saying your children belong to him like a dictator would. He's saying something very different from that. He's saying America's children are, quote, our children, not his alone, ours. You share your children with Joe Biden evenly right down the middle with alternating weekends.
You've got joint custody with Joe Biden, and you can thank heaven that you do. A nation is like a family. Every family has a head, a father. That's Joe Biden, our nation's father, and this, ladies and gentlemen, is now his fatherland. Just don't call it a dictatorship, or we'll have to issue a statement disavowing you.
John Deere people say the news is full of lies. On Kennedy's motor case. 2 139 people killed the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson on Twitter Ep. 5 just dropped. https://t.co/kNcFibO4NA
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Biden family's financial dealings, revealing potential criminal behavior linked to Joe and Hunter Biden. Despite the White House's claims of separation between their business dealings, evidence suggests otherwise, including shared bank accounts and cash kickbacks. Following the investigation's findings, which indicated over $10 million received from foreign nationals, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to minor charges, avoiding serious consequences. Carlson critiques the Justice Department's selective enforcement of laws, particularly regarding foreign agent registration, highlighting Hunter's past influence peddling. He questions Hunter's current livelihood, noting his art sales and book deals, which seem to serve more as financial cover than genuine success. Ultimately, Carlson argues that the Biden administration exemplifies a troubling inversion of societal values, where traditional virtues are dismissed in favor of self-serving narratives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey. It's Tucker Carlson. This spring, word began to circulate in Washington that the house oversight committee under its new chairman, congressman Jamie Comer, had discovered criminal behavior after reviewing thousands of pages of the Biden family's bank records. Now publicly, to the extent they responded at all, the White House dismissed the investigation as, of course, politically motivated. In any case, irrelevant.
Hunter Biden was an adult, so his business dealings had nothing at all to do with his father, in this case, the president of the United States. But in private, everybody understood it wasn't quite that simple. There has long been overwhelming evidence that Joe and Hunter Biden's financial lives are not separate at all, but deeply intertwined. On a Hunter Biden's laptop, there's a suggestion the 2 of them even at one point shared a bank account. And, of course, Hunter Biden wrote himself that he kicked back cash from his foreign business deals to his father.
He wrote that bitterly. So the Oversight Committee's investigation was potentially a disaster for the White House, a scandal, possibly even the prelude to criminal charges. So in order to get ahead of all of that, Joe Biden's handlers did the one thing they could do. They set up an MSNBC interview to preemptively whitewash whatever Jamie Comer might find. Here's the results of that.
This aired on May 5th.
Speaker 1: Sir, there is something personal that's affecting you. Your son, while there's no ties to you, could be charged by your department of justice. How will that impact your presidency?
Speaker 2: First of all, my son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him, and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.
Speaker 0: Okay. Time for the master class for free. You can audit it. Here it goes. Sir, showing appropriate respect says the shill, there is something personal that's affecting you.
Note the wording. Personal, not of public concern. Nothing law enforcement might be interested in, but personal, a sad family tragedy. That's the framing. And then this, a sentence choreographed to the letter.
Your son, while there's no ties to you, could be charged by your Department of Justice. Got that? Well, there's no tie to you. So the answer is in fact in the question, whatever Hunter Biden goes down for, and we know he is gonna be charged because MSNBC said so. But when that happens, that's Hunter's problem.
It's got nothing to do with Joe Biden. Rest easy, America. 5 days later, the oversight committee released its findings and they were in fact devastating. Quote, bank records show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies, their many companies, received over $10,000,000 from foreign nationals and their related companies, the committee wrote. Investigators had, quote, identified payments to Biden family members from foreign companies while Joe Biden served as vice president and after he left public office.
So actually there was something there. It was a scandal. Racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, those are some of the crimes the Biden seemed to have committed in addition, of course, to selling out the United States for cash. So what would happen to them? Well, Donald Trump had an idea.
Quote, they'll hit Hunter with something small to make their strike on me look fair. Trump wrote that about 2 weeks ago, and it turned out those were prescient words. This morning, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to pretty much nothing. Biden plead to 2 misdemeanor tax evasion charges then entered a diversion on a federal gun charge. That's it.
As far as Merrick Garland's justice department is concerned, Hunter Biden is done. There was no predawn raid carried live simultaneously on CNN. There was no perp walk, no handcuffs, no press conference. Above all, there was no felony. Hunter Biden who broke federal gun laws can still carry a gun.
It's like it all never happened. In fact, the Justice Department just baptized Hunter Biden. A lifetime of sins washed away in an instant. It was a secular miracle. Most miraculous of all, Hunter Biden somehow escaped a FARA charge.
FARA is the foreign agent registration act and it is exactly what its name suggests. Under federal law, if you are acting as an agent of a foreign nation in Washington, you are required to register with our government to let everybody know. Well, for decades, pretty much nobody in Washington did register under FARA and precisely no one was ever prosecuted for it. No one. But starting several years ago, the Justice Department began sending people to prison on FARA violations.
The official explanation was we're cracking down on foreign influence in Washington. And, of course, privately, everyone in Washington laughed. They knew that was absurd. In fact, it's the opposite of the truth. Foreign powers have never had more power in Washington.
Their agents are everywhere in every federal agency and throughout business, down to and including in executive positions at various social media companies. The Biden administration knows all of this, and it's not a problem. In fact, it's their policy. From the administration's perspective, the concerns and the demands of, say, the Chinese government or particularly the Ukrainian government are far more important than the needs of American voters. We're cracking down on foreign influence, please.
The point, the only point of enforcing FARA after decades of ignoring it, is to harass and imprison high profile political opponents. Trump donor Elliot Broidy pled to a FARA violation a few years ago, So did Trump campaign manager famously Paul Manafort. He went to prison. Last year, the DOJ went after Trump confidant Steve Wynn under FARA. But in the end, the Biden administration overreached so comically that the whole thing was thrown out by a judge, but they tried.
So as long as they're trying, if it was a fair system, Hunter Biden would be first on the list of those next to be charged with a FARA violation. In fact, many of them. Hunter Biden was a foreign agent. He never registered as one. But for years, that's exactly what he was.
He sold access to his father and other lawmakers to the Chinese and the Ukrainians and countries throughout the world. There's no debate about that. The FBI has known about it for years. For years, they've had possession of Hunter Biden's laptop, but they didn't charge him for it today. They never will.
Why? Well, you know the answer. Hunter Biden has good genes. A more interesting question, though, which is another question the feds will never consider, is what does Hunter Biden do for a living now? This is a man with no obvious job and, of course, zero skills.
He spent midlife smoking crack. Yet somehow, he's managed to live pretty well despite rising inflation. He's been living in big houses in the costliest residential neighborhoods in the world. He's been paying a stripper baby mama 20 grand a month in child support, and he has retained a team of the most expensive lawyers in the country who spend quite a bit of time sending threatening letters to anyone who asks questions about how they're being paid. We can confirm that firsthand.
So, again, what does Hunter Biden do for work? That's a fair question. And so then we have the answer. For years, Hunter Biden was an influence peddler. Now Hunter Biden is a self actualizer.
He self actualizes for a living. He gets in touch with himself, his feelings, and he follows his muse. Here he is explaining his new vacate vocation in a 2019 ABC News interview.
Speaker 3: This is new? Yeah. Studio. Yeah. But now he's opening the doors to a place never captured by a paparazzi's lens.
His refuge, an art studio where he finds solace in painting. What's the goal eventually? No no goal. That's the perfect part about it. It's just it literally keeps me sane.
Speaker 0: His refuge, far from the paparazzi's lens. In other words, we're not the paparazzi. We're ABC News. What's the goal of this? Your refuge.
There's no goal, he says, grinning with those fake teeth. It just keeps me sane. But, actually, there was a goal. And if you didn't know what a virtuous person Hunter Biden was, you might think it looked a lot like money laundering. 2 years after that interview, Hunter Biden was selling prints of his art.
And to be clear, just the prints, not the quote art itself, but effectively photocopies of it for $75,000 a pop. Apparently, Hunter Biden moved 5 of these repros in just days. That's $375,000 in less than a week for signing copies of your fake art. As for the paintings themselves, childish self indulgent blots, those sold for half a $1,000,000 a piece. So the question is who bought them and why?
It'd be interesting to know. There's a story there for sure, but, of course, we have no right to know. There's no public policy implication. It's not like Hunter Biden's finances have anything to do with his father's finances. Meanwhile, once his father did become president, corporate publisher Simon and Shuster lined up as well to pay Hunter Biden's bills.
According to news reports, Simon and Shuster gave Hunter Biden 1,000,000 of dollars for his highly selective account of his wholly unaccomplished life. And then the publisher lined up brainless celebrity endorsers like Dave Eggers and Stephen King to promote it. King who apparently will say anything if it helps the party called Hunter Biden's silly manuscript a quote harrowing and compulsively readable memoir, And then Stephen King described Hunter Biden himself as beautiful. Needless to say, the book sold miserably, but Hunter Biden got to keep the 1,000,000, and that was the point and so on. This kind of thing apparently happened a lot.
Again, there seems to be a story here, and we think it's probably worth learning a lot more about it and bringing it to you. In the coming weeks, we will. In the meantime, though, the question is what can we learn from Hunter Biden's plea deal today? First off, the obvious. For the children of the people in charge, there are no penalties.
There are only upsides. They're princelings. They can do what they want. You are not. Therefore, you can't.
So don't get any ideas about cheating on your taxes or violating federal gun laws unless you wanna celebrate next year's Father's Day through the glass in the visitors room. The rules definitely apply to you, including rules you don't yet know exist. But there's also a deeper lesson here, a more disturbing one. What we're watching through Hunter Biden's life and through the Biden administration now entering its 3rd year is the total inversion of virtue. What was once considered admirable is now derided as stupid, if not racist.
That would include achievement, intelligence, honesty, self control, humility. Those are features of the old America. Those were yesterday's virtues. They are gone. In their place, all that we once considered contemptible and repulsive were told to worship that now.
Here's a small example, but we think a revealing one. In addition to his many other sins, Joe Biden has hired what has to be the single dumbest, nastiest, most dishonest, most ridiculous person he could possibly find for the very public position of White House press secretary. There's a point to it, of course. It was a humiliation exercise. It was designed to degrade the country and to spirit the rest of us.
That's the White House press secretary. Shut up. But here's the thing. The White House press secretary herself has no idea why she's in the job. She thinks she's amazing.
Here she is in a clip we just saw.
Speaker 4: A year in this role, there's been a couple of things that I that has made me incredibly proud. Many things many things that made me incredibly proud to be at that podium, during this historic moment. Again, this is a historic administration. I'm a historic figure, and I certainly walk in history every day. I'm a
Speaker 0: historic figure? Imagine saying that. I'm a historic figure but she does and she says it in a burst of sincere self congratulation marked by her signature bad grammar illiterate but proud. Of course, she's proud. Karine Jean Pierre is now a historic figure just like Hunter Biden is now an important artist.
He makes you feel stupid for going to work. Jean Pierre people say the news is full of lies. And Kennedy's motorcade. 139 people. The death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson just dropped an 80-minute interview with Democrat presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr: "Ukraine, bio-labs, and who killed President Kennedy." https://t.co/IbzdJ8Gv5T
Video Transcript AI Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. discussed his lack of Secret Service protection despite receiving numerous threats. He applied for protection but was denied, which he believes reflects political maneuvering by the DNC. He expressed concern over the ongoing war in Ukraine, emphasizing the complex historical context and U.S. involvement. Kennedy criticized the portrayal of Russia and the motivations behind the conflict, arguing that the U.S. has provoked Russia through NATO expansion. He also highlighted the humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, noting that many migrants come from various countries, not just Latin America. He called for a more compassionate approach to immigration and criticized the exploitation of migrants. Kennedy concluded by sharing his commitment to advocating for the marginalized and addressing the economic struggles faced by many Americans today.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We decided to do the only interview with Robert f Kennedy junior conducted in the last 15 years that doesn't mention vaccines. But if you're interested in why we have found ourselves at war with Russia or who killed his uncle, president Kennedy, and why, it's worth watching. Bobby Kennedy Junior, thank you for joining us. So I noticed when you showed up, you've been on the road for weeks, you had no secret service with you, which is a little weird given your well, that your father was murdered while running for president as you now are. Why wouldn't you have secret service protection?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I did do a tweet on that that got, 30,000,000 views when when we got rejected. I we applied in May for secret service protection. There are actually secret service protection was only allocated to the nominees of the parties prior to 1968. When my father was killed, they changed the law immediately. And all of the people who were running against him, including, including George Wallace immediately got Secret Service protection.
So the law says that you're entitled to secret service protection automatically a 100 days out. But the president also has discretion to give secret service protection to any candidate any candidate for any reason. And there are criteria, which is that you have to have 15% of, polling results for a limited period of time. But he even can overrule that. For example, president Obama was given secret service protection 441 days out or 5 no.
551 days out even though he had only, I think, 5% support at that time. My uncle Teddy was given the Secret Service protection 450 days out, even though he had not even declared for his presidency. And so Carter he and Carter hated each other. Carter was president Carter was, you know, the president of his own party, and Teddy had been enormously critical of him. And, personally, they had a they had a very personal antipathy for one another.
Teddy ended up running against them. But when he was moving into that decision to run, Carter in a very classy move, gave him Secret Service protection, we applied for it. I get a lot of threats, a lot of death threats, and I get, you know, a lot of people who are for example, about 2 weeks ago, a mentally ill person made it to the second story of my house. And that is a very, very common occurrence.
Speaker 0: Inside your house?
Speaker 1: Inside my house before, you know, somebody who was working there, stopped them and then called the police. And we have a we gave the Secret Service a 67 in fact, Gavin De Becker, who you've had on this show Yeah. Who's the premier runs the premier security service in the world, put together a 67 page report, which included 28 pages of, you know, of all the threats of you know, typical threats against me and, and other indicia that I should have Secret Service protection. And we I assume the president would give it to me because, you know, it just seems like bad judgment not to give it to me. You know?
If you go even on my Twitter feed, probably one out of, I don't know, every 30 or 40 comments says, oh, you're gonna get killed or something like that. You know? It It takes notice of the peculiar threats to my family who family members who are in this business. Oh, it's something that, you know, the the average American is aware of.
Speaker 0: And your name is Robert f Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And the and so it was an odd decision. I got a letter. Gavin actually got the letter because he had been doing and by the way, I wanna say this. The Secret Service themselves were wonderful.
They were very, very encouraging, and they were very helpful at every step along the way. And I I believe, and I can't speak for them, but I believe that their assumption was that they that we're gonna get a safe and service protection. In fact, they told Gavin we're gonna send somebody out there within 10 days to interview Cheryl and Bobby and, to, you know, to tell them, what it's gonna look like because there's a lot of questions about, you know, do I go to the gym? Do I have them you know, all of these questions that I don't know the answers to. And they they come and they have a they have a standard process for informing you.
But then they went dark, And they said, a decision is made very quickly within 14 days is what they told us. And they said, we have 8 details standing by ready to go, so we can do this very quickly. And then they went dark. And for 88 days, we didn't hear from them. And then I got the letter from Mayorkas, Alexander Mayorkas, who's the director of DHS, saying that we've determined that you don't need a safe service protection.
Speaker 0: It it's very obvious, and you confirmed it, that there are threats against your life, against your family. That's known. And so if they deny you protection and they know that, what message are they sending?
Speaker 1: I don't really know what they're they're doing. And by the way, we've looked. And, there's a guy called Jeremy Hammond who's done a really good article, a really thorough article about the past. And he was not able and we were not able to find a single presidential candidate who had requested Herman Cain got it, I think, 500 days out. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, George Bush and Ronald Reagan got it something 5 or 600 days out when they first ran.
So it's just standard operating procedure. And particularly people who are polling around the aisle, anywhere over 15%, which I have been for 4 or 5 months now, are regarded as, it's been treated as pro form a. And I am the outliner. I'm the single outliner that we could find that that was denied Secret Service.
Speaker 0: Why do you think that is?
Speaker 1: I think the DNC is playing hardball. And let's say this, I think the least malevolent interpretation that you can put on it is that, they know that I'm gonna have to have some kind of security service. And that typically would cost me, you know, to do to do real security service between a 100,200,000 dollars a month because you have to pay the protectors. You have to pay for their transportation.
Speaker 0: Of course. So tell me what to do.
Speaker 1: The cars and, the hotels, the foods, and all of this, and it's very expensive because I'm traveling every day. So I think they, you know, they probably feel like they can bleed me white by, you know, making making sure that I'm not, that I'm not spending that money on advertising or organization, but then I have to raise a lot of money for my own protection. But I don't know. I mean, I'm just speculating about that.
Speaker 0: Does it strike you that the Biden administration pays for personal security for Zelensky, but not for you? No.
Speaker 1: Well, they you know, listen. John Bolton has still got has a secret service detail. Still? Yeah. Still.
He hasn't been in government in years.
Speaker 0: And he didn't do a good
Speaker 1: job in the world. All the president's family, have secret service details. You know, Hunter has a secret service detail when he goes to court every day. He has 4 or 5 cars that are coming with him in a very, very big detail. Oh, and many government officials who are ex government officials what the Secret Service told us and you can go look at Jeremy Hammond's report, which you can find on, I think you just go on the internet and put Jeremy Hammond in RFK Secret Service.
But he shows that literally nobody, no presidential candidate, many, many other people are receiving it. But I and I'm really like an outlier.
Speaker 0: So, I mean, that raises the larger I mean, you're running against Biden. Right? So, obviously, you're not on his Christmas card list anymore, but it does raise the bigger question. Why do people in Washington have this and not just in government, but also in media, have this kind of special loathing for you, this hatred of you?
Speaker 1: I don't know that. I cannot answer that question. I I am I'm kind of I'm shocked even though, you know, I've been, I'd say maligned for many years because the stuff that I was doing with vaccines, the kind of the uniformity of the vitriol against me in the mainstream media and the dishonesty of it that virtually every article contains not just outright not just mischaracterizations, but also just outright lies, things that any fact checker could look up and determine were not true. And they all are doing it, whether it's Vanity Fair or whether it's the Atlantic Monthly or Washington Post, Boston Globe. There's just, there's virtually no exception.
Speaker 0: What do you think your crime is?
Speaker 1: I think part of it is that there's been, and again, I don't know. I can't explain it. Somebody else, I know somebody will explain it in a way at one point where I'll go, ah, that makes sense. But right now, what it seems to me is that there's been this alignment, this political alignment that I think really started with Fox News back, when Roger was running things there where he overtly made it a political network. He aligned it with the Republican party, and he said we're gonna push their agenda.
And up until then, that has been considered a journalistic ethical breach. The networks were supposed to at least pretend neutrality and the newspapers as well. But now I think that business model works so well for Fox. And again, I think MSNBC and CNN adopted the same business model. And then there's been this big consolidation in the media where there really is no independent media.
You have every newspaper in this country, every radio station, every TV station, almost all the billboards and most of the large internet content providers that are now owned by 5 companies. That was illegal under the 1928 Communications Radio Act. Today, it's been that has been what's happened. We've had this big consolidation. And I think the profit models for Wall Street, which now is BlackRock and Vanguard and Safe Street, which own them all and they have to the news divisions have become business models, business profit centers.
And they've aligned themselves. They've figured out that their strategy is to align themselves with the DNC or the RNC. That's the only thing I can that's the best explanation, and it's probably not a very good one. But And you're the where is this deal with uniformity?
Speaker 0: Oh, well but its effect is to ignore stories that are objectively the most important stories. I mean, wherever you fall on those questions, there's no, like, denying that the war in Ukraine is changing the world. It will change history. Most of the stuff is a footnote. That's a that's a book, and yet the coverage of it is, like, not even so for example,
Speaker 1: the president That's much more consequential.
Speaker 0: Well, it's the most consequential, but
Speaker 1: it's coverage of me, which is there's no questioning of these orthodoxies. And when it comes to the Ukraine war, I mean, we're being lied to about it.
Speaker 0: In what way?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, we were lied to from the beginning. You know, we had this comic book depiction that which we see on every war. There's a bad guy who's like, you know, unspeakably evil
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Who's planning world conquest or terrorist attack on, you know, the on America. And we have to be the good guys and go in and stop it. And Ukraine, the background of Ukraine war is much more complex than that. The US has been involved particularly the neocons and the white out. I wouldn't say particularly.
I'd say a group of people that are known as neocons since 2,001 have been talking about putting NATO in Ukraine. Now in and I'll give you some back the background. In 1992, the walls came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev went to Tony Blair and to president Bush, who were, you know, the British the UK and US presidents at that time and said, I'm gonna do something extraordinary that basically is gonna have the rest of Russian history branding me as a traitor to my country. I'm gonna withdraw 400,000 Soviet troops from East Germany, and I'm gonna allow you to reunify Germany under NATO troops.
So you're gonna move NATO troops to a hostile a hostile force into our barracks and our bases. I'm gonna do that. And the only commitment I want from you is that once I allow Germany to reunify to become part of NATO, that you will never move NATO further to the east because we're gonna now release all of these, Soviet states that were part of the Soviet Union. They're gonna become independent states, and we don't want NATO moving into those. And James Baker, who was Secretary of State at that time famously said, we promise that we will not move NATO 1 inch to the east.
So Gorbachev now did that and he's now, you know, despised in Russia. And then in 1996 and 1997, so 5 years later, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the first kind of the father of the neocon movement, the neocons where the neocons represent in a sentence is that they were a group of people who believed and Donald Rumsfeld and Jonathan Yu and Paul Wolf, who heads Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland who's now at the top State Department official, their belief was that the US had won the Cold War and that victory gave us the privilege of dominating the world using our superior military uni power status and our superior military status for the next century. So their principal blueprint document is called Project for a New American Century. In other words, America would own the 21st century. So Brzezinski says, okay.
We should start start this process by moving NATO into all the former satellite states. Well, that and this was 1997. At that time, George Kennan was still around. Now George Kennan, as you know, was the principal architect of the Cold War containment policy. He's arguably the most important, most respected diplomat and statesman in American history.
Oh, he said, if you do that, you are gonna provoke a violent response from Russia. They cannot live with NATO on their borders. They cannot. Any more than we would live with, you know, with the Soviet alliance in Mexico and Canada. The at that time that the, Bill Perry was Clinton's secretary of state.
And Bill Perry said, if you do this, you go forward with this plan, I'm gonna resign because it's so foolhardy. You are you are forcing Russia into a violent military response. And the so the US ambassador, the Soviet Union, on at that time, who is now ahead of the of the CIA, said the same thing. It it it is it's the worst mistake America can make to move NATO to the east. So we went ahead and did it.
We moved it not at 1 not 1 inch, but 1,000 miles, 14 countries, and then we put nuclear ready missile launchers, Aegis missile systems, which are made by Lockheed and can take Tomahawk missiles 12 minutes from Moscow. We could, in 12 minutes, decapitate the entire leadership of Russia. And we put those in Poland and Romania, and we then tried to move it into Ukraine NATO into Ukraine. So you remember when my uncle, when when Russia puts up put missile systems nuclear missile systems in Cuba, and my uncle would have had to invade. He was able the reason Russia put them there then is because we had put nukes, Jupiter missiles, in Turkey and Italy.
My uncle and father made a, a secret deal with ambassador DelBrenin where we where they said, and look. We understand you're angry. You cannot live with Jupiter missiles in Turkey. That's why you put your missiles in Cuba. If you remove your missiles from Cuba within 6 months, we will remove ours from Turkey, but nobody says what the deal was.
And that's what happened. So now we're back, and we've again put, nuclear ready missile systems along right next to Russia. And now we wanna go through the one thing that Russia has said and Putin said again and again and again, this is a red line. Before Putin, the Russian leadership was saying, it is a red line. You cannot go into Ukraine.
The Russians have been invaded 3 times from you. Our country's never been invaded. The Russians were invaded 3 times through Ukraine. The last time they were invaded, Hitler killed between 20,040,000,000 Russians. Hitler killed 1 out of every 7 Russians.
In my uncle's speech to his most famous speech in in American University in in 1963 in July of 1963, he said to the American people, he said, you know, we're all taught we won won World War 2, but we didn't win World War 2. The Russians want it. And the sacrifice they made to destroy Hitler was beyond anything Americans can imagine. He was trying to tell the American people, you have to put your yourselves ourselves in their position and understand what they're doing. And he said, he said, a third of the country was leveled.
Every city, a forest burned. The cities were leveled. The forest and fields burned. Imagine if that happened from the coast the East Coast of the United States to every city, forest, and field from here to Chicago. That's what the Russians put up with.
Oh, we have to understand this. That Ukraine is a red line. The invasion came through Ukraine, and they can't live with it. It's an it's a security issue for them that is beyond our almost beyond our comprehension. And so, you know, we've had
Speaker 0: So that suggests the point is war with Russia.
Speaker 1: The point was war with Russia. And in fact, you know, the neocon said that again and again that our and and Biden, when he was at so and and let me get back to that. Okay? Because that is absolutely true. The, Biden, you know, was as well, first of all, in 2014 to go through with the modern history, 2014, there are riots, and it's called the Madone rebellion in Ukraine, which we're not told that we are financing those riots.
The the newspapers never told us. Our government never told us. USAID, which is a CIA front, put $5,000,000,000 into funding those riots. Those riots lead to the to a coup d'etat against the 1st elected democratically elected government of the Ukraine. It was government that refused to choose sides and to say we're gonna be on the side of the west, so we wanted them out.
A month before that government is overthrown, Victoria Nuland, who's, you know, the part part of the the centerpiece of Neocont ideology and who is now a high level official in the state department, has a secret call with the US ambassador, which is tape recorded and is now public, which anybody can go and look up, where she is picking the new cabinet for the Ukraine, which for Ukraine, which is, you know, which is a US Western cabinet. So they're picking a new government a month before the old government is overthrown.
Speaker 0: Is that how democracy is that democracy when Troy Noland fix your government?
Speaker 1: Well, that's that's the point is USAID doesn't really do and the CIA don't do democracy. You know, the CIA has overthrown, I think, 83 governments between 1947 and 1997. That's a third of the governments on Earth, and most of them were democracies. Oh, it doesn't do it doesn't do democracy. It does.
But then, you know, to put the rest of this history, and we put in a US a western government, the Russia everybody says, oh, the Russians started this by invading Crimea. But put yourself in Putin's position. And I'm not an apologist for Putin, by the way. He went into Ukraine. It was illegal.
My son went over there and fought against it, you know, and and risked his life in the u in Kharkiv rebellion. I'm not making excuse for him. What he did was brutal. It was illegal, and it was unnecessary, but we have to understand our role in the provocations. And so so if you're in Putin's position, now you're looking at Ukraine and Ukraine is being run by a pro US government.
What's the first thing he thinks? They're gonna take Vladivostok, which is the port in the Crimea on the Black Sea, which has been a Russian port, their only warm water port for 347 years. It's where the Russian navy is. Their sub base, it's everything else. And he says, now this new government is gonna invite the US navy in to take over our facilities.
We gotta go in there and take it back. So he goes into Crimea. He goes in and takes Crimea without killing without firing a shot or killing a certain a single person. The corrupt the Crimean population is is largely Russian, and they welcome the invasion. So, you know, again, I'm I'm making excuses for him, but I'm saying we have to understand my uncle always said we have to understand the rep the the, the position of our adversaries and, you know, what what forces are they dealing with.
So so then in 20 then the Russians now now there's, you know, as soon as we put it in that new government, the first rule they pass is to make the Russian language essentially illegal in Donbas and Lukas where 90% of the population are Russian. And they and there there's a peaceful uprising which people begin dying, you know, they're they turn violent. Now which side made them violent is a dispute, but it's not a dispute. The Russians were now being treated. The Russian ethnic Russian population in Ukraine is now being treated like red headed sepsis.
They're not you know, they're being slapped around. They're being abused, and they're not being allowed to practice their culture or their language. And so there's a vote then in the in, Indomass Lugans where they vote 90 to 10 to join Russia. Russia says no. Putin said no.
I don't want you, but let's sign an agreement that protects you. So they put together an agreement with France, Germany, and Russia called the Minsk Accords. The Minsk Accords say, leave Donbas and Lukhansk as part of Ukraine, but make them semi autonomous so they can speak their own language. And so the Russians who live there are gonna be protected from violence by the government. And, and the the only the Russian parliament or the Ukrainian parliament won't ratify the Minsk Accords, but France agreed to it.
Germany agreed to it, and Putin agreed to it. So then Zelensky runs in 2019. Zawinski is a comedian and he's an actor. And I'm not saying that in a derogatory way because my wife is a comedian and actor, but I'm saying it because here's a guy with no political background who wins the election with 90% of the vote. Why did he win the election?
He won the election because he ran on a peace platform. He ran promising that he would sign the Minsk of courts. He gets into office. The minute he gets there and he's told everybody, I'm gonna sign the Minsk Accords and settle the peace with Russia. He he suddenly pivots.
And the we don't know what happened, but the the rational assumption is that the US government told him he could not do that. So the Victoria Nuland and Anthony Blinken and April Haines, oh, who's the DNI director of National Intelligence, told them you cannot have a peace with Russia. Plus, people within, you know, ultra nationalists within Ukraine told them if you sign that, we're gonna kill you. And a lot of people say, anyway, they threatened him with death, and that is pretty well documented. Then Russia invades, but Russia only invades.
And so we say, oh, look. He you know, Putin is trying to take over Europe, but but they only send in 40,000 troops. I think there's 3 and a half 1000000 people in Kyiv, so they clearly did not wanna take the country. He he wanted he clearly wanted to bring people to the negotiating table. Table.
He did not send in enough troops to take all of of Ukraine. So so then and they and Liz Zelensky comes to the negotiating tables, and we now know this, and this is recent information. In March of 2022, Zelensky and Putin agree on a peace agreement that's based upon the Minsk Accords. There's it's like Minsk Accords 2 point o. And Zelensky initials it.
The Russians initial it, and Russia begins withdrawing its troops from Ukraine. And what happens? President Biden sends Boris Johnson over there to torpedo the agreement and make make Zelensky tear it up. And then we go to war, 350,000 Ukrainian kids are now dead. And, and, you know, 40 or 50,000 Russians.
So and and and that month, April, that April is when they signed it in March. April, we Boris Johnson was sent over there to torpedo it. And that month, Lloyd Austin, who is the secretary of defense under, under Biden, is asked why are we at war with with, in Ukraine? He said, our purpose in this war is to exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight anywhere else in the world. That is not what they're telling us.
Speaker 0: But but
Speaker 1: today, Biden, that month, says when he's asked about the war in Ukraine, he says our purpose is regime change in Russia. So, again, that has nothing to do with Ukraine. What that means is that Ukraine is a proxy and essentially a struggle between 2 superpowers, between Russia and the United States. And, you know, we've now committed a $113,000,000,000 over there. And just to put that in perspective, the total budget of EPA is 12,000,000,000.
The total budget of the CDC is 12,000,000,000. We're sending a 113,000,000,000 over. When when, Mitch McConnell was asked, how can we do this? You know, when our country when you're cutting food stamps and cutting Medicare cutting food stamps to 30,000,000 Americans, cutting Medicare to 15,000,000 Americans, Americans, but they're not gonna have any health insurance. How can we spend a 100% to a 113,000,000,000 over there?
If we if we don't if we had that 113,000,000,000 here, we wouldn't have had to cut one food stamp payment. And he said, well, don't worry. The money is not staying in Ukraine. It's all coming back to military contractors in the United States. Well, so that's interesting because then you look at, you know, who owns those military contractors and and you see who gets on CNN to to bump up the Ukraine war.
It's a bunch of former generals and colonels and Pentagon people. But if you go in and and CNN never and MSNBC never do this. If you go look at those guys, they're all people who are working for Raytheon and General Dynamics and Boeing and Lockheed. So they're generals, but they're not identified that, you know, they're actually working for the military contractors who are cashing in on the war. And and, you know, those military contractors in turn are owned by 3 companies.
All of them are owned by 3 companies, by BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard. And and, you know, the inflation that from printing the money to fund the war and to fund the 2016,000,000,000,000 we spent to fund the lockdowns, COVID lockdowns, 8,000,000,000,000 we've spent on these wars since 2020. All of them losing wars. All of them that made our country less safe. Look at what this war is doing.
We push Russia into the embrace of China, which is the worst foreign policy outcome imaginable. It is not good for the national security of our country, and we're now have have have Putin's back to the wall. Well, Putin is the world's leading nuclear superpower. We aren't. He's got a 1,000 more nukes than we do, and their nukes are much better than ours.
They can shoot down our nukes. We can't shoot down theirs. Oh, you know, we're we are going up against it. It. You know, we are provoking a a a a confrontation that could very easily lead to nuclear war.
You know? And I've I've talked to
Speaker 0: Wait. Can I ask you to pause there for a second? Everything you've said is checkable and rational, and you're extrapolating out toward the future, which is easy to envision. Like, I don't really see I don't understand how our policymakers aren't reaching the same conclusions you just reached. Like, they think that war with Russia is where we're gonna win?
Speaker 1: We we cannot win this war. Well, of course, so what are they doing? I don't understand. Like Mexico beating us in a war. They're not gonna let the Ukraine.
They cannot lose this war. And, you know, anybody who thinks Russia is not up to the war, go look at the Netflix documentary on the Stalingrad and look at the sacrifice they were willing to that Russians are willing to make. Putin today, you know, we thought this was gonna hurt him. He's more popular than he's ever been. All the US polling firms show him polling at 90% popularity.
And and, you know In Russia. In Russia. The Russians are supporting him, and he also you know, we were we were gonna break him with the sanctions. We did the opposite. We made him more powerful.
He's now insulated from the, you know, from the trade and the international banking system. He's now got this great trade agreement with China. He's now, you know, engineering the creation of of BRICS, which we which has 40 leading nations around the world turning against the US currency, his reserve currency, and adopting his petro currency or the Chinese currency. That is the worst threat to the United States. That will plan if we lose that status world's reserve currency, you know, it the great depression will look like a cakewalk.
Speaker 0: So I agree with all of that and and all of its I mean, your position to my ears sounds moderate and obvious. I just don't understand how the secretary of state, how the president, how is it his competent advisers can't have reached the same conclusions. Like, what are they thinking?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, unfortunately, I think, and I, you know, I share your your sense of ministry about that.
Speaker 0: But I don't, you know because what you're saying is not crazy. It's on some far out theory.
Speaker 1: I mean, the only way I can explain it, and I'm not you know, I don't like to put look in other people's heads and and tell why they're doing one thing or another. But president Biden has always been a very pro war president, and, you know, he was the one senator that stood out supporting the Iraq war, my uncle, and Obama, and and many many and, you know, Hillary also. But Biden has always been a reliable, you know, gung ho, let's go to war guy. And, so I don't think, to the extent that he's thought this all through, I just I think it it follows. It's consistent with his historical instincts.
And then he's surrounded by people who are you know, these are the same people who got us in the Iraq war. I know. Look at what happened. Let let's just let me go through what happened in Iraq just for give me one minute to summarize the you know, we were tricked into Iraq by the neocons who told us that Saddam had something to do with the World Trade Center, which was a lie, And he had planted the anthrax attacks that came 5 days after the World Trade Center, which was a lie. That turned out to be, you know, the intelligence agencies in the US military at Fort Detrick.
That anthrax, the FBI found, came from Fort Detrick. So it was somebody in the US government who sent it to Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, who were the 2 senators in the week after 911 who were trying to block the Patriot Act. And they shut down congress, and the Patriot Act went through. And oh, so the the and then they told us Wait.
Speaker 0: Wait. Wait.
Speaker 1: Really? Yeah. Yes. And the FBI, after a year of investigation, traced the anthrax. It was a kind of Ames anthrax that was weaponized, and the only source of that in the world could be the US government.
And they traced it to Fort Detrick. And a bio lab there? Yes. The bio lab at Fort Detrick. The CIA bio lab at Fort Detrick.
Oh, somebody sent that in at the time the Patriot Act was being debated, and the 2 leading guys who were blocking it was Patrick Leahy and Tom Naschel were the recipients of it. It shut down congress. The Patriot Act goes through. And what does the Patriot do? 2 things.
I mean, it it it basically gets rid of a lot large part of the United States Constitution Bill of Rights and allows spying by intelligence agencies on the American people. And it reopens the bioweapons arms race because bioweapons were shut down in 1969 by, we we saw, you know, Nixon did this incredible thing of closing Fort Detrick shutting them down and saying we're no longer making bioweapons and then got everybody to sign a treaty in 73. Well, to to ban it bioweapons. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that says we're not walking away from the Geneva Convention, which makes you it's a hanging offense to develop bioweapons. We're not walking away from, from the bioweapons charter of 19 72, 1973.
But we are adopting a new rule that any federal official who violates those acts cannot be prosecuted. So it reopened. It effectively got rid
Speaker 2: of I'm
Speaker 0: sorry without a punishment.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But, anyway, you know, anyway, I forgot where we So
Speaker 0: so let me add this to an interesting segue because Tori and Newland kind of blithely announced during congressional testimony last year that, oh, by the way, we have these bio labs in Ukraine. Yeah. And that was, like, kind of ignored, and the people who covered it got attacked for covering it. But the fact remains there are US bio labs in Ukraine. Why would we have bio labs in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: We have bio lab labs in Ukraine because we're developing bioweapons. And, you know, and those bioweapons are using all kinds of new synthetic, biology and CRISPR technology and genetic engineering techniques that were not available to previous generation. They can make frightening, frightening stuff. What happened was, you know, when we walked away from when the Patriarch reopened the bio weapons arm brace in 2001, the Pentagon began putting a lot of money into bio weapons, but they were nervous at that time. Because if you violate Geneva, the Geneva Convention, it's a hanging offense.
And they weren't sure that that provision in the Patriot Act would actually hold up as a loophole to treaties that had been ratified by congress. So they were nervous about actually going full force into bioweapons development. Run by Anthony Fauci. So Anthony Fauci got all the responsibility for bioweapons development. He got at that time a 68% raise from the Pentagon in order to do that work.
So and that's why he was the highest paid official in American in the American government of, you know, 4 4000000 people in the American he's the high. He has more money. He got more money. $450,000 a year than the president. That any supreme court judge, any any member of congress, he was the highest paid.
And it's because he got that 68% raise from the Pentagon to do bioweapons development. Now when you do bioweapons development, every bioweapon needs a vaccine. So you develop them side by side. Because in a 100% of the cases, when you deploy a bioweapon, there's blowback. Your side also gets sick.
So in order to deploy one offensively, you need a vaccine to, to counter it. So you need to vaccinate your team before you deploy it. So those two things are are developed through it. I, a field of science called gain of function science where you take infectious where you take an infectious microbe and you amplify its infectivity, or you make it jump species. So it may kill monkeys.
Now you make it kill humans, And you adopt it that way, and there's all kinds of methods. And then you make it immune to antibiotics and to therapeutic drugs and to other therapies. So it's actually the inverse of medicine. For 28 100 years since Hippocrates, doctors have been trying to figure out how to make microbes less infectious and less deadly and develop antibiotics and therapeutics to do that. Well, this the guys who are involved in this, there's 36,000 what are called life scientists, but they're actually death scientists, who are now employed full time in developing, you know, microbes that will can be used to kill people.
Speaker 0: But given the experience we just had 3 years ago Yeah. Where a virus from a biolab Yeah. Upturned
Speaker 1: a little bit. Let me just finish this brief history about what happened. In 9 2014, 3 of those micros escaped. Fauci built labs all over the country in Galveston and Boston and everywhere. There are BSL 4 labs.
We don't even know how many there are. BSL 3, BSL 4. We have no idea how many there are. There's, you know, we've counted them. I have a new book coming out that goes through the ones we know, but there are many secret ones that people don't know about.
And they're doing it here in the United States. But in 2014, 3 bugs escaped from 3 different labs. And they were high profile breaks, and they were very dangerous in the smallpox and, and a couple of other bad bad bad microbes. The public learned about it, and there was a lot of publicity. Congress held the hearings.
300 scientists wrote president Obama and said you've gotta shut down Anthony Fauci because he's gonna create a microbe that will, that will cause a global pandemic. And so Obama signed a moratorium that shut down the 18 worst of Anthony Fauci's experiments where most of them were taking place in Galveston and in North Carolina by a scientist called Ralph Barrick down there. And and instead of obeying that law, Anthony Fauci shifted a lot of his operations offshore. And those operations ended up, most of them, in the Wuhan lab, which is a military lab. And that the Chinese run, the People's Liberation Army.
And, and then a lot of them went to the Ukraine. So a lot of that science now and it's funded not you know, Fauci was funding lots of it, But then the the other government agencies began to get confidence in, you know, their ability to get away with it. And most of it is being funded by the Department of Defense. The most of all, the biggest single funder is USAID, which is, you know, a CIA cutout.
Speaker 0: Do you think the lab leak was a leak or was it intentional?
Speaker 1: Well, I the best science shows that. It indicates that the people who were working on a particular coronavirus technology that was taught by Ralph Barrick, funded. It was developed by the US government, by with NIH money. It was then taught to a group of scientists, Shizheng Li, who's famous, the bat lady, and then her assistant Ben Hu, and a couple of other scientists at the Wuhan lab. Eric taught them 2 things.
He taught them, 1, how to engineer the spike with a fern cleave that could attach the ACE 2 receptors of the human lungs and make people sick and spread, you know, through the air. He taught them another trick that has nothing to do with public health conceivably, which is a technique called seamless legation, which is a technique for disguising the evidence of human tampering. So you can make the microbe and then you can erase the evidence that human beings actually made that microbe. And, and and and Ben Hu was leading that research. Ben Hu then got sick with 2 other of his fellow researchers, and they ended up in the hospital with COVID symptoms in November of 2019.
So it it appears that Ben Hu and then Ben Hu, the subway line that goes has the Wuhan lab and goes straight to the airport. All the original cases were along that subway line. And so the intelligence the intelligence agencies that are actually being honest about that and most of them are not, believe that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers got sick in that the most likely scenario is that Ben Hu and 2 other researchers who were working on infectious coronavirus bioweapons got sick and got with and they didn't know it. And so they were riding that subway line every day and infecting people before they actually got symptoms. And that's probably what happened, but we nobody knows.
Speaker 0: You've said a number of times publicly, many times publicly, and I I think it's now being confirmed that CIA had knowledge of at at best had knowledge of your uncle's assassination, new things. It's still being hidden now. What do you think, and that's obviously true. What do you think the motive was in that killing?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the people who were involved in it the specific people who were involved in it were, were almost all associated with the Miami station, which was the largest CIA station at that time. It was basically it was a Cuban station. And the people who were involved in that station were people like Bill Harvey, and David Atlee Phillips who was clearly involved in my uncle's assassination. He was by all evidence, he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler at the CIA. And and then E Howard Hunt who made a confession, David Morales, who is the, you know, the chief hitman.
He ran the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam. He killed 10,000 people, civilians over there, murdered them. And he he also gave a confession of being in Dallas. And then there were most of the people were associated with Cuba, and the, you know, the and and the impetus came from that group of people who were who were angry at my uncle for not sending an air cover during the pigs invasion and even more so after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My uncle then developed this friendship with Khrushchev and he shut down all of the Cuban attacks by Alpha 66.
And these other groups that were harassing Cuba, they were sinking ships, sinking Russian ships. They were operating flintillas out of South Florida and and doing raids on and uncle and father sent the coast guard down to confiscate their boats and their weaponry and to arrest the ones that continue to do it. And those people, those individuals, were also you know, have been traced and and tracked the assassination, and and, you know, over the years. And they're now there's been, you know, there's millions of documents. I mean, they you know?
Speaker 0: But why not really sell the what doesn't make sense to me is why not just admit it now? I mean, no no one you described would be is still alive or
Speaker 1: is living in the city. Everybody now, all virtually So
Speaker 0: why wouldn't Biden declassify these documents?
Speaker 1: I don't know why. And why would Trump not try
Speaker 0: to I agree. I totally why I know why Trump wouldn't because he was convinced by Mike Pompeo not to. So and it's not an excuse. We're not
Speaker 1: you know? Yeah. So we don't we don't know what what what what Mike Pompeo said to him then.
Speaker 0: No. But that's the point.
Speaker 1: Like, what what would possibly be requires them to do it. So they they they if he has assassinations law require that all documents be released by 20 17.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And, and yet they refuse. So they
Speaker 0: But it suggests that there's something about big there.
Speaker 1: 4,000 of them, that are left. And you you have to assume. And, again, I don't try I try not to talk about things that I cannot document. Right. But I I think there's a it's a fair assumption that they're not protecting individuals, that they're protecting some institutional interests.
Speaker 0: What's the most powerful institution in America?
Speaker 1: Well, I, you know, I I again, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna I I I don't know. I don't know. And I and, you know, I
Speaker 0: You don't know? Yeah. It's but it's it's there must be something because, like, why wouldn't they just release it?
Speaker 1: And by the way, for people, you know, you you and I having this conversation about who did the assassination and why they did it, a lot of that is the stuff that I've told you. And I've tried to stick to things that, you know, that are documentable and the names, etcetera. But for people who want real, you know, kind of a panoramic view of what happened, I think the best book that's been written about this is Jim Douglas's book, which is called The Unspeakable because he's done something that, you know, after the Warren Commission, that became the orthodoxy. And the New York Times and all the major news organizations have enforced that orthodoxy. And anybody who challenged that orthodoxy becomes a conspiracy theorist.
And in fact, in 1967, the CIA sent a letter out to an e a telecom out to all of its operation Mockingbird people, which are all the the assets it had in the American press. More than 400 people, editors, senior editors, senior writers in the American press saying, from now on, anybody who questions the single gunman theory of the of the Kennedy assassination be should be characterized as a conspiracy theorist. So they didn't coin the word conspiracy theory, but they popularized it with that memo. They sent a memo out to all their stations saying that talk should be discouraged. So those, you know, what happened after that is then in 1979, the House Assassinations Committee met for a year and a half, and they looked at much more evidence than the Warren Commission did, including, you know, Alan Dulles.
Alan Dulles had run the Warren Commission. He was the head of the CIA, and my uncle fired. When my uncle died, he said, I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god. That's what he said to a young reporter.
And then he becomes head of the commission that you know, it shouldn't have been called the Warren Commission. It should be called the dollar because Earl Warren was had a full time job at the Supreme Court. The only and all the other guys on the Warren Commission had full time jobs as senator and congressman. The only guy who went to every meeting and, you know, looked at every piece of evidence and developed the questions for the witnesses was Alan Dulles. He was running the entire Warren Commission, and he should have been the prime suspect in the in the crime.
And he was communicating secretly with the people at the CIA, with David Hadley Phillips, with George Hahnadees, who was the CIA liaison, telling them what, you know, what questions were gonna be asked and what they should reveal, and with J. Edgar Hoover at the same time. The whole thing was a coordinated kind of, kabuki theater, but then congress goes back and investigates it in 79. And congress then comes back after a year and a half seeing a lot more stuff and says, and they conclude this was a conspiracy.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: So they make that official. You know? So anybody who says it was just Lee Harvey Oswald is is different from the people who actually made the investigation.
Speaker 0: So so get
Speaker 1: get not of the people on that staff who I've talked to believe that it was the CIA. And as you know at that time, the dip dispute between them was was it the mob or the CIA because there was a lot of mob involvement. You know, Johnny Rizzelli, Sam Giancana, who was the Chicago boss, Santo Straficante, who was the Tampa boss, and Carlos Marcello, who was New Orleans boss, were all involved. And they all had casinos in Havana, and they were working with the CIA to assassinate Castro. So they had a hitman at their disposal, and they were training Cubans who were sharpshooters for Batista as a hitman.
And I've talked to some of the hitmen. I've talked to Antonio Veggiano, who was involved and who was also David Atlee Phillips, handler. David Atlee Phillips was his handler, and he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler. So Veggiano met Oswald in Dallas in, I think in September of of of 1963. I've talked to, you know, the people who were actually working for the CIA and the mob at that time, you know, to kill Castro and how they were then pivoted to this.
You know, some of them were pivoted to this new project.
Speaker 0: If you became president if you become president, what do you do about those 4,000,000 federal employees, about the agencies which are running effectively as autonomous governments within our government? Like, how do you the last president can when was the last president who controlled the agencies? And how would you do it?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I I feel like I'm probably and I don't wanna seem like, you know, I'm being vague, but I feel that because of the the confluence of my experience over the past 4 years that I'm actually probably the only one that can unravel that agency capture. And and let me tell you this. My doctor-in-law who is co running my campaign with Dennis Kucinich, Amaryllis Fox, was a CIA agent in the client and service for most of her career. And, what she'll tell you and, you know, she has a very sanguine view of the CIA, the same as mine.
And also understands all this evidence that the agency, you know, was involved in the in the murder of my uncle and and the cover up, continues to be involved in the cover up. But what will tell you is that of the 24,000 people who work for the agency, 20,000 of them are patriotic Americans and good public servants. And that there's there's some people mainly in a plant station. The espionage division of the CIA is, you know, is made up of extraordinary people principally who are, who are doing an important job of protecting our country. The espionage division is the division that does, that does, information gathering and analysis, and the president needs that.
The plans division is the action division. They are the ones that assassinate people, fix elections, you know, overthrow governments, and do all the, the things that I think we're paying for in our foreign policy today and in our domestic policy. My father was gonna separate those divisions. My uncle ultimately was gonna do that too. My uncle thought the CIA you know, he came out of his office during the big pigs, and he said, I wanna take the CIA, shatter it into a 1,000 pieces, and scatter it to the winds.
He then asked my father to run the agency. He said, you're the only one I trust to do this. And my father said it and my grandfather said, you can't do that. You can. It it would be like Molotov and you can't do that.
You can't. It it would be like Molotov and Stalin. You can't have the the brother of the president running a secret spy agency with all this extraordinarily hidden power. But they brought in John McComb to run it, but John McComb, you know, was not able to handle it. And, and my father, a week before he died, taught told one of his closest friends, Pete Hamill, who you may have known.
Speaker 0: But he was Pete Hamill, the journalist?
Speaker 1: Yeah. The journalist. Yeah. Of course. He told Pete Hamill Pete Hamill said, what are you gonna do about the CIA?
And my father said, I'm gonna separate the plans division from, espionage, and that's the only way to make it work. And that still makes a lot of sense today. Incidentally, I had dinner with Mike Pompeo, I don't know, 3 weeks ago. And he said something really interesting to me, which
Speaker 0: is Wait. You had dinner with Mike Pompeo? Yeah.
Speaker 1: He was famous. And he said something. What was that? It was it was it was the weirdest dinner I've ever been to. If I told you the other people were at that dinner Well, because
Speaker 0: I just can't imagine too if I know Mike Pompeo. I'm not attacking Mike Pompeo, but I can't imagine too. To talk to people who have more different views.
Speaker 1: No. No. I've always, you know, my my I have a kind of natal hostility toward Mike Pompeo, but I never knew him. And but, you know, just because he was from people who don't know know he was the CIA director, and and he was secretary of state under Trump. And, but he's a he's an interesting guy.
He's smart. Very smart. He's a Harvard. I think he went to Harvard Law School. I ended up at Harvard undergrad, and then I think he had a military career.
Army
Speaker 0: officer. Yep.
Speaker 1: And he, you know, he's he's by all on paper, he's kind of a great American by all you know, his CV is extraordinary. Oh, and you never know. You know, you make judgments about people before you meet them. And my judgment about them, I still don't know what to think of them, but I but this what he said
Speaker 0: wound up at dinner I'm sorry. Bobby Kennedy and Mike Pompeo in Vegas It wasn't just the 2 of us. If I'd stumbled across that, I would've stopped.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just the 2 of us. It was me. The rest of the group makes the story even even weirder. So I'm not I'm I'm not even gonna I don't know if I'll even go there. But but he said to me before dinner, you know, I was I had a moment with him.
And he said to me, he said, you know, when I was at the CIA, I did not do what I should have done to fix that agency. And he said, you know, I and he he was expressing regret. And he said, and then he turned to me and like looked me down in the eye and he said, the entire upper edge line of that agency is made up of individuals who do not believe in the democratic institutions of the United States of America. That's a quote. And
Speaker 0: But so it was Mike Pompeo who, convinced Trump not to release this file, and it was a guy who worked for Mike Pompeo texted me the day after I revealed that those files showed CIA complicity in your uncle's death, which they do because I talked to someone who read them. And I said that on Fox News, and I got a text from a guy who works for Mike Pompeo informing me that I have just broken federal law and that anyone who had told me that was a felon, because we had revealed classified information. And I said, wait a second. That classified information suggests the US government was involved in the murder of an American president. Yeah, that that's Mike Pompeo's position on that.
Yeah. So it's a little bit weird for him to say, I think.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a 1000000000 documents classified Yeah. I know. In the top secret. So, you know, they can call it they can stamp that stamp on anything they want to. That's a lawyer's trick, you know, to
Speaker 0: to put. And he was also behind keeping, convincing Trump not to pardon Assange.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you know, that confirms my earlier assessment of, of Mike Pompeo.
Speaker 0: That's interesting. You like him? No. It says a lot. Okay.
So you have, there's a documentary called Midnight at the Border, about your visit to the border, California, Arizona border with Mexico, and I just wanna play a clip from it for our, for people who haven't seen it.
Speaker 2: We did 2 weeks to travel from Senegal to Nicaragua. After Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and here. I'm going to New York to join my uncle. My dream is to leave the to dream Americans, to live in America, to work and to help my family.
Speaker 1: We coordinate with the airport in Phoenix, and then out they go to the final destination the same day.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I hope to begin a new life. Yeah. My brother, Lucia, he's a citizen. K.
Good luck. Goodbye.
Speaker 1: Most people bring the money or have a sponsor that buys their ticket. What happens if if, families don't have the money to buy the blind ticket? Well, FEMA reimburses us. We can we can buy that ticket and and, send that buy the ticket for. Yeah.
Speaker 0: What did you learn from that?
Speaker 1: Okay. You know, what I saw was so extraordinary that it took me 3 days to even understand what I was looking at on because the first night I I land I go to Yuma, and I get to the wall at, at 2 AM. And I watch the first group. There's a gap in the wall there. And I watched the first group come across, which was about 110 men from West Africa, mainly from Ghana.
They're all sort of military age men from Ghana. And by calling them military age men, I'm not making any implications about what they're here for. I'm just saying it's just a way of describing them. They were people between 1825 I've got it. So I expected to see a lot of Central Americans coming up, you know, and then, and that was not what I saw.
And then the next group was, again, about the same number. There were 2 busloads of people, and I interviewed every one of them. I talked to each one. And I wanna say this, what we're seeing there, a lot of people come from the to this issue of you know, I I think we need to close that wall. We need to close the border right now.
And I'm gonna explain to you why. A lot of people come to this issue from a sort of nationalistic or even a racist or xenophobic pet posh. And I'm not coming from that place. I'm coming from a place of compassion and a place of, you know, just concern for our country. And and, you know, this is a this is a heartbreaking humanitarian crisis, and everything that happens to these migrants along the way is terrible.
Oh, the next group that came and what what's happening to our country is a a catastrophe. And by the way, I was a person who ridiculed Trump's wall. Okay? So and now I've been down there, and I've talked to everybody down there. And, you know, I have a different position.
I don't think you need to build a 2,200 mile physical barrier from San Diego at Brownsville, Texas. But we definitely need physical barriers in densely populated area. We definitely because this, we cannot survive what's happening there now. The next group that came over were, again, about 110 people. There are 2 busloads.
The cartels dropped them on right on the other side of the wall in these buses, and there's 50 5 people per bus. Oh, the next group, there were people from Azerbaijan and from Kazakhstan, from Uzbekistan, from Afghanistan, from Pakistan, from Tibet, Nepal, and many from India, and the most came from China. There were only 2 families we met the entire night who were from, who were from Latin America, none from Central America. Interesting. One from Colombia and one from Peru.
And they were the only ones
Speaker 2: who
Speaker 1: had legitimate claims. They you know, of asylum claims. Everybody else we talked to said I'm here to have a better life. Well, that is not if you want if that's why you come to America, then you have to go through the front door. You know?
Go to the embassy. Yeah. You gotta go to the embassy. Well, they don't even have a legitimate any legitimate plan to be in the United States. Nevertheless, the the border patrol and the border patrol is so, disillusioned and discouraged.
I think there's 9 of the border patrolmen we were told had committed suicide in the last year because of what they're being forced to do. They're not protecting the border. They what they do is they fingerprint they can hold the hold the the migrants for 72 hours. They fingerprint them, and they see if they're if they have a criminal record. If they have a criminal record, they're put in a different process.
But, otherwise, they're then asked where they wanna go. And if they don't have a plane ticket, they are brought to the airport. The DHS purchased them a ticket and sends them anywhere they wanna go in the United States.
Speaker 0: So the country's getting poorer every year. Our country's getting poorer every year. We're in a poor place right now. What how who came up with I mean, why do we owe plane tickets to people who come here illegally?
Speaker 1: It it it it's it as far as I can tell, and there's a lot of evidence for this, and it's in our film, is that the Biden administration came in, you know, in the same position I was, which is any which is the wall is bad. But more import more importantly, anything Donald any idea that Donald Trump had is a bad idea. So they just opened the border, and they've had this open border policy where, where, they they have not hired the judges. That's the most important thing that needs to be done. The judges need to be hired so that these cases, if the asylum case cases can be adjudicated right at the border, and people who are not entitled to asylum are sent back.
But that's not what's happening. What happens is they're all given claims, and they're told to appear in court, and they go to an arraignment fairly soon after arriving in Boston or New York or Miami or wherever Minneapolis, wherever they're going. And then they're given a court date, which on average is 7 years out. So they're, there's so then they're they're in
Speaker 0: I hope next time I get arrested, I get the same courtesy.
Speaker 1: Oh, they're in our country then for 7 years, but and let me just tell you from their point of view what's happened. First of all, the cartels are now controlling our immigration policy in the United States. All of these people who came across came across knowing exactly what was gonna happen to them because they had seen it on advertisements. The cartels are sending around the world on TikTok and on YouTube. It tells you what you need to do to get in, where you what airports you fly into, what visas you get, how to get them, and how to get to the cartel parking lots where the buses will take you.
Some of them fly into Nicaragua. Most of them fly to directly to Mexico City and from anywhere in the world. These are not, you know, Central American, Latin American. They're coming from everywhere. They come to they fly to Mexico City.
The cartel has a system getting a Mexican visa, and then they are put on a domestic flight to Mexicali. And in Mexicali, there's a big parking lot with, with buses operated by the cartels. The cartels charge them between 10,000, $15,000 a piece to get through, and then they drive them up to the wall and they unload them. We watch them unloading them on the other side. They, large numbers of them get, get abused.
They get extorted. They get exploited. They get robbed, raped, beaten. The Peruvian family that I met had every, penny taken from. And he said my whole life savings was taken from me.
There's a tree that we could see from where we were in the day when it was daylight. It's called the rape tree, where the cartels extract final payment from women who are crossing the border. If there are attractive women that they in their view, and I I don't mean physically attractive, but if it's attractive for whatever their purpose is, to sell or to, you know, to traffic or whatever or children, Those children are separated out. We the Colombian family had lost a child girl and a teenage girl. And, you know, the father was desperate, and they they she had been separated from them by the cartels before they passed.
Oh my gosh. And 85,000 children have disappeared in this process. It it's it's monstrous. Sue, all the But then let me tell you this. They get into our country and there's a lot of people who are well meaning, mainly liberal people who care, who, you know, see themselves as deeply caring people who say, we should have sanctuary cities and we should you know, these people should be treated with dignity.
But what really happens to them in real life is that they get here and then they for for 7 years, none of them are legal. So they are now subject to terrible exploitation by unscrupulous employers all over this country. They're getting paid $6 or $5 an hour because they have no leverage in their employer. Of course. And that damage the wages where every other That's exactly right.
It steals the leverage from American workers. And and there's 16,000,000 of them here now, and they're crushing the social safety systems social safety nets in cities like New York has 95,000 of them have landed in New York. New York is now thinking of turning Roosevelt Island into an open air refugee camp, And there's a proposal that was on Bloomberg of turning Central Park or parts of it into open air camps for, for migrants. Oh, and that, you know, Eric Adams, who's the mayor, has been saying, this has gotta end. You know, we have to close the border.
And a lot of these mayors who were people who were saying we, you know, we're sanctuary cities and getting that, you know, you know, aligning themselves with that are now seeing what it really means. And it it does not mean human treating people humanely. It is the worst possible thing we can meanwhile, 7,000,000 have come across in 3 years. 7,000,000 illegally. In that same time, there's only been 3,100,000 legal immigrants.
So these are the people who waited in line. For every one of them, there are more than 2 illegal ones coming across and taking those places. And that, you know, a lot of the, anyway, that, you know, it's not it's not something that's sustainable. It's something that needs to end right away. And that that the if it the the cartels which are making Billy, the cartel, the Mexican drug cartels are literally running US immigration policy.
This time, not the president of the United States.
Speaker 0: And and corrupting the southwest United States. Last question. Will you succeed in getting a debate with Biden, do you think?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't I don't know. I mean, I think it's not very democratic to not do the debate. I hope that he will debate me. And I I can tell you this, and I I also hope that he'll come out and campaign because I'm seeing a vision of America in the you know, both Trump and Biden are are boasting about the economic prosperity that they've brought to our country. It's unusual to have 2 former presidents running against each other.
Both of them are are proclaiming their their their economic record. But I'm seeing things in this country that I never believed that I would see. I mean, I'd say, people living in a level of desperation that I you know what? I I I don't know. I've I've talked about I have a friend called Keith Amato who is and, you know, I represent a commercial fisherman for almost all my career as an environmental lawyer.
And he's one of my closest friends. And he, he's been he ran he worked hard his whole life fishing out of Wellfleet and peatown and, and Chatham. And but and his his son-in-law now owns a fishing business, but he has no pension and he has no and he's on full disability. You know, a lot of injuries and a lot of damage during his life. Oh, he was collecting food stamps.
$283 he was getting a month, and it's critical to his arrival. Even then, he was saying he was telling me, you know, I have to switch recipes to make to be able to get through the through the checkout line. You know? I have to buy cheaper recipes and get fillers, etcetera. And in the last 2 years, the price of food, because to fund these wars that we're, you know, we're funding, they print money and that means inflation, and that's a tax on the poor.
Oh, the price of food has gone up by 38%. The price of of basic food stuff, chicken, eggs, and milk have gone up 78%. So his food stamps were 78%, you know, less valuable. On March 1st this year, he got a phone call from the a government phone call, robocall. The recorded voice told him that he was getting his food stamps cut to $23 a month, so 90%.
30,000,000 Americans got that phone call. And, you know, that's the same month we ratcheted up our contributions to the Ukraine at at to Ukraine at 30 a 113,000,000,000. And we print the Fed printed 300,000,000,000 unanticipated dollars to pay for the failure of the Silicon Valley Bank. There's lots of money for for and we and we we began cutting 15,000,000 people from the rat welfare rolls. Since then, 4,000,000 have been cut.
This is on political this morning from from the Medicare rolls. Those oh, there's no money for poor Americans. And the people that I see are living because of the inflation and because of what's happening at this with this desperation. The average wage in this country is now $5,000 left less than the cost of, of basic goods of food, transportation, and housing. So half of Americans are making up that gap by putting it on their credit card bills.
And this week, we passed $1,100,000,000,000 in credit card debt. That's the first time in history. Most of that or 330,000,000,000 of that has been in the Biden and Trump administration. 2 men were saying I you know, I'm I'm helping America. The $1,000,000,000,000 in credit card debt, and those people are paying 22% interest.
If the mafia did that, it would be called loan sharking.
Speaker 0: Not dischargeable in bankruptcy, by the way.
Speaker 1: Right? And it can't be discharged. Oh, you're I'm meeting people who are, you know, couples who are sitting at their dining room tables and trying to figure out how how this math works for them because they can't. They're they're having to make choices. People in this country are choosing between food and gasoline and and food and medicine.
And they're they're listening to a a little baby crying in the room next door, young couples, and having to have them wonder whether that baby is $50 sick or $100 sick or 500 or $1500 sick before they bring them to a hospital. And, you know, my wife and I were talking about the other night, and we were talking about this epidemic of depression and mental illness and anxiety that is afflicting Americans in a deterioration, the sense of the wheels are falling off. And she said, you know, that's the way I felt when she was living in poverty. She said, that's the way I felt when the engine light came on my car because I knew there was no money to pay it. And you have all these Americans now who are living hand to mouth and they do not feel that anybody is listening to them in the political process.
They feel they've been completely abandoned by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and that those parties are now serving elites. And, and that, you know, their voices aren't being heard. And particularly now, you know, the Democratic Party has had this very interesting shift where when I grew up, my when my uncle's friends and my father was in, the Democratic Party was where the people who are poor and working people are. And today, 70% of the wealth in this country is owned by the Democratic Party and only 30% the Republican Party. The top ten counties, the top richest counties in this country, 9 of the 10 are democratic counties.
So there is this kind of shift in in, in wealth that maybe is one of the reasons that, democrats do not seem to be talking to or for working people anymore. But I'm you know, the people that I talk to both through my job of representing them, you know, in you know, I'm representing a 1000 families in Columbiana County, Ohio, Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, Western West Virginia, whose lives were abandoned by the Norfolk Southern spill. And, you know, they are just living in a level of desperation that I never thought I'd see in the United States. And, you know, my father used to bring us to, to Southeast Washington. He'd load us in in a station wagon and bring us to Southeast Washington to to meet people who were who were poor.
Or he'd take us to Mississippi Delta or West Virginia to Appalachia or the Indian reservations. And he'd always said to us, these these are your people. He said the people are wealthy and the people who have, you know, the big corporate leaders and titans, they don't need the Kennedys. They have, they have lawyers and they have PR firms and they have lobbyists. And he said, these are your people.
And he came back from from, the Mississippi Delta one night, and he said to we were all eating. There were like 9 of our kids in the dining room at that time. And he said, I was in a tar paper shack today. There were 2 families there and they eat one meal a day, and the kids go to bed hungry. And he said, when you grow older, I want you to do something about those people.
And, you know, that's one of the reasons that I'm running.
Speaker 0: Robert F. Kennedy junior, thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: Thank thank you.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it. It. John here, people say the news is full of lies.
Speaker 2: On Kennedy's motorcade.
Speaker 0: 139 to the death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@simonateba - Simon Ateba
Flashback: @TuckerCarlson warning that "We're speeding toward assassination" of Trump. WATCH https://t.co/aNi31KCy6A
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses uncertainty about the future and questions if Trump will be allowed to be president again. They mention the protests, name-calling, and two impeachments that Trump faced, but highlight that his popularity increased despite these actions. The speaker suggests that the next step could be assassination, although they acknowledge that no one openly discusses it. They believe that both parties in Washington fear Trump and are determined to keep him out of power. The speaker criticizes the upcoming trial in March, which they claim aims to imprison Trump for complaining about the last election. They also mention concerns about President Biden's mental state and express their worry about the current situation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think the future holds? Is it I don't know. I mean, are they going to let Trump be president? No. Of course.
I mean, look. If you know, they protested him. They called him names. He won anyway. They impeached him twice on ridiculous pretenses.
They Fabricated a lot about what happened on January 6th in order to impeach him again. It didn't work. He came back, Then they indicted him. It didn't work. He became more popular.
Then they indicted him 3 more times. And every single time, his popularity rose. So if you begin with criticism, then you go to protest, then you go to impeachment, now you go to indictment, and none of them work, what's next? I mean, let you know, graph it out, man. We're speeding toward assassination, obviously.
And no one will say that, but I don't don't know how you can reach that conclusion. You know what I mean? Like, they have decided, permanent Washington, both parties have decided That there's something about Trump that's that's so threatening to them, they just can't have him. I mean, they're putting him on trial in March of next year in the j six case, Which basically consists of trying to send him to prison for the rest of his life for complaining about the last election. That's literally what it is.
Again, if this were happening in Moldova, the state department would issue an all hands on deck order to let the world know this is not a legitimate Government. And yet, our government is doing it. It's like it it's it's really it's hard to overstate how bad this is. And I'm not I I don't I don't know where it's going, but there's a collision that's clearly imminent. And by the way, the president is senile in a way that's impossible to deny.
Biden's not running the government. You know? So, like, I don't know. I mean, I've never been this worried about anything as I am about where this is
@TPostMillennial - The Post Millennial
New Tucker Carlson episode just dropped…and it’s spicy! Former police officer, congressman exposes truth of Jan. 6 https://t.co/M81l8Pi9Yb
Video Transcript AI Summary
Three years after January 6th, questions remain about the events of that day and the FBI's involvement. Congressman Clay Higgins directly questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray about whether the FBI had undercover agents among the protesters, particularly inside the Capitol. Higgins asserts that evidence suggests FBI assets were present, potentially instigating actions that led to the chaos. He believes there were over 200 FBI agents involved, manipulating the situation to entrap Trump supporters. Higgins emphasizes the need for transparency and calls for the release of all digital evidence from January 6th to the public, asserting that the American people deserve to know the truth about what transpired. He expresses concern over the implications of government actions and the need for accountability within federal agencies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It has been exactly 3 years since January 6th, the events of January 6th. The racist insurrection that shocked this nation to its core, more profoundly than anything since Pearl Harbor plus the civil war. And it has taken a while, honestly, even for people who aren't on the side of the professional liars to realize there's something amiss about what happened that day. Not just the response, the largest law enforcement mobilization in the history of the United States that was obviously disproportionate, because it wasn't the worst riot that year, not even close. But the day itself, there was something about January 6th that didn't feel right, and hovering over that day has remained the question to what extent was it a setup.
And we still don't really know, but what's interesting is how few people have asked that entirely legitimate question. One of the very few, really one of the only in the United States Congress, is a member called Clay Higgins from Louisiana. In case you haven't seen this clip, it's worth rewatching. This is from 2022 at Homeland Security Committee hearing where he asked it just directly of the FBI director. Why?
Speaker 1: Did the FBI have confidential human sources embedded within the January 6th protesters and on January 6, 2021?
Speaker 2: Well, Congressman, as I'm sure you can appreciate, I have to be very careful about what I can say about when
Speaker 1: Even now, that's what you told us a few
Speaker 2: years ago. Matt finish. About when we do and do not and where we have and have not used confidential human sources. But to the extent that there's a suggestion, for example, that the FBI's confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6th, that's categorically false.
Speaker 1: Did you have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol on January 6th prior to the doors being open?
Speaker 2: Again, I had to be very careful
Speaker 1: with what be a no. Can you not tell the American people no? We did not have confidential human sources dressed as Trump supporters positioned inside the capitol. Gentlemen, Pam has expired. You should
Speaker 2: not read anything into my decision not to share information Director Ray. Confidential.
Speaker 1: Gentleman's time has expired.
Speaker 0: What a sleazy, repulsive, little authoritarian liar Chris Wray is. That's obvious when you watch that tape. The sad part is so few tapes like that exist because so few have confronted him directly and asked questions to which the entire country has a right to know the answer like that one. Clay Higgins did that. Congressman from Louisiana Louisiana Lafayette joins us in studio.
Congressman, thanks so much for coming up.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tuck.
Speaker 0: So that was over a year ago that you asked that question, which is a central question, and you asked it as I think is appropriate without any embarrassment at all on behalf of your constituents and the rest of the country. Are you any closer to the answer now?
Speaker 1: Well, we're closer to being in a position where we can reveal the answers that we already have. Much of the evidence that we have compiled from investigative effort over the the course of the last couple of years. Some offices like my own would have operated in silos of investigative endeavor, have now been able to come together now that we have a republican majority and we have access to the to the to the staffs of the appropriate investigative committees. And so I sit on the oversight committee and we republicans run that committee now, therefore we control the staff. So when you can magnify the efforts that individual, members of congress have have have pushed within our own offices.
When you can magnify those efforts by the the skill and the numbers of staff from the committees, you you get a lot of evidence reviewed professionally and aligned and assembled into essentially a case file. And in in this case, this is a big file because the the the involvement of of certain actors, and you could say deep state actors within the federal government, to set the stage for, what happened in in j 4, 5, and 6, and and to, entrap thousands of Americans from across the country and lure them into this this set stage on j 4, 5, and 6. The people that were involved in that is is is quite a large web. So, yes, sir. We do have a great deal of evidence compiled, and we are we are gradually, professionally, rolling that evidence out.
So you sort
Speaker 0: of answered the question right there in larger terms. You just said that elements within the federal government, I assume law enforcement intel and military, and I'm using your words, lured Americans to Washington into what you called a trap. Yes, sir. So that would I mean, that's a shocking and I assume that's a that's a sober conclusion based on the evidence. That's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: That's that would be my sober assessment as an investigator, and I'm, you know, I'm quite a I love my country, and and I've I've always been a staunch defender of the thin blue line. And I I would proudly count the FBI amongst that number. They're just like brothers to me. So to find that level of, of conspiratorial corruption at the highest levels of the FBI has been very troubling to me as a man, as a cop, and and yet did you know, you follow the evidence wherever it leads, and Yes. This is what investigators do.
So, when I asked Christopher Wray that that question, for instance, I already knew the answer. I had reviewed compelling evidence that the that FBI had assets, human assets, dressed as Trump supporters inside the capitol prior to the doors being open and the masses allowed in. So now I I knew that the FBI was deeply involved. I'd seen evidence even at that time with, that the FBI had embedded themselves into various groups online across the country of Americans who were essentially voicing their their concerns and airing their grievances with each other about COVID oppression. Those Americans were targeted by the FBI, almost universally, Republicans and and, largely Trump supporters, but the FBI worked undercover to infiltrate those conversations and become a significant part of those individual Americans' communications.
And when you dig into the evidence that we've we've had revealed through through some criminal cases that I've I've followed and worked with the families of j six political detainees and Americans that have been persecuted for their involvement in in the capital that day. And some of that evidence is shockingly reveals that the the the FBI agents that were operating undercover within the online groups across the country were were the first ones to plant the seeds of of, suggestions of of a more radical occupation of the capital and and they were sort of testing the waters of who amongst that group would would begin acknowledging that, you know, yeah, may maybe we should do that. Maybe we should plan for an occupation like that. But if you look at the the origins of those conversations, it it was started by the the FBI undercover guy that was operating inside the group. And then months later, on January 4th, 5th, 6th, many of those Americans met for the first time in person when they gathered for the massive rally where American patriots assembled to object to to everything that had happened during 2020, the COVID oppression, and the the stunning results of what we believe was a compromised election cycle in November 2020.
So Americans gathered at their own capital to to appropriately air grievances and protest at their capital, but embedded amongst their number was an FBI asset that had been working from within their group online for many months. So this was the level of of manipulative effort that the FBI invested into American citizenry and our our assembly online to, and to exercise our rights under the first amendment, to talk to each other about whatever we wanna talk about, including the the the insidious suppressions of COVID that we were suffering across the country. So and our concerns about where the election was going, the whole mail in ballot thing, we could see the stage was being set for a compromised election cycle possibly, and to our horror that's what happened. So FBI had fingerprints on this thing from from many months prior to j 4, 5, and 6.
Speaker 0: I wanna go back to something you said in the first sentence, which is you have seen evidence and that's for your questions to Chris Wray that there were FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters within the capital. So that is proof of entrapment because, of course, the federal government could have prevented entry into the capital building. Aren't that many doors. You work there, you know. But they allowed people in on purpose to entrap them.
That's what that proves, I think. Does it not?
Speaker 1: Well, it's certainly condemning. It's another piece of the of the strategy that the that the government employed to sort of complete the entrapment of Americans that they had had, infiltrated and then prodded and provoked with online with the with the those original seeds planted of of, actions like, you know, what type of gear to wear and and and just in language that incited behavior that could go the wrong way. You know, pushing actions of of legal and legitimate peaceful protest to an edge where where those Americans would likely not have gone had they not been been, you know, encouraged by the FBI plant amongst their number that they didn't know was there. So by the time it was actually j 6 and you had you had, masses of Americans assembled outside the capitol, almost, like, 99.9%, 100% peaceful. On the inside, you had FBI assets dressed as Trump supporters that knew their way around the capitol.
Before the doors even open. Before the doors open. Or else how are you gonna get around the capitol? You've been there many times. You need a guide to get from whatever door you go in.
It's a labyrinth. It's, yeah, it's it's a maze inside there. So you that's right. So there's no way just Americans, most of which, had never been to the capitol, There's no way they can come in some random door that gets opened and then get their way directly to the to the statuary or the house chamber or the senate chamber. It's just not possible.
So the the the FBI assets that were dressed as Trump supporters that were inside the capitol were there, I believe, and evidence indicates that they were there to to specifically waive in the the Trump supporters that had gathered outside the capitol, and the doors open and they were allowed in. And on the inside were were oh, there's some more Trump supporters, but really those were FBI assets, law enforcement assets that knew their way around the capital. And they they waved those guys in, said, come on. Follow us. And they they're the ones that led them on the path directly.
Now how do you think of guys? Never been to the capital. Gotta gotta come into the capitol all amped up on on emotion and make his way straight to Nancy Pelosi's office. Come on. It's like I couldn't get to there's no way.
I've been there for 7 years. Could come in some random door at the capitol and make my way to Nashville. Everything is unmarked.
Speaker 0: I mean, those leadership offices are unmarked. So how would
Speaker 1: you know? It's confusing to get around in the capitol. Every American that has been there knows this. When you go on a tour, you bring your family to DC, you go through the capital, you have to have a guide. And and on January 6th, the guides were FBI assets, the law enforcement assets, and they were dressed as Trump supporters.
They were positioned inside the capitol prior to the doors being open so that the Americans that had assembled outside the capitol, once allowed in, could be brought directly to the areas where the FBI, the DOJ, and the deep state actors knew would be the most, the most sort of condemning criminal action of of Americans being a lot being inside the capital, protesting without permit and things. So they knew they were setting the stage for arrest and prosecution. It's such a crime. Who who planned this, do you think? I think factions planned this.
I wouldn't say who talked about it because that, yeah, I don't think there was one person that that planned this, but I believe the the faction of, establishment liberals within the FBI and the Democrat Party and our intelligence services to to another extent, use their massive powers of surveillance and, investigative, assets that they have across the country, confidential informants, registered informants, non registered informants, voluntary informants. It's a it's a complex web of of FBI assets across the country that can be activated. So if you have authority at some of the highest levels in the FBI, it doesn't take much, the faction within the FBI and within our intelligence services that would coordinate with with the most extreme liberal, factions within a Democrat party that were desperate to keep Trump out of office, and and, you know, worked within the the theater of operations, shall we say, that had been that had been set by the COVID alleged medical emergencies nationwide and millions and millions of mail in ballots. There's no daylight between the the compromised election cycle of November 2020 and ultimately what happened on on on j6. So you ask who planned this?
This would be the combination of several several of the most extreme liberal anti Trump, anti America First factions that, that were in positions of authority within our federal law enforcement organizations and the the Democrat party across the country.
Speaker 0: Can when you say that there were FBI assets in the crowd, it in the building beforehand and and certainly outside, What's the scale of this? You're talking, like, 10, 20? No.
Speaker 1: Based upon some very conservative, but, like, hard investigative effort evaluation of of the numbers from putting together eyewitnesses and and videos and, and affidavit statement, and whistleblower statements, and court records that have been revealed through individual criminal cases where j6 defendants have been prosecuted, and smart attorneys have forced, admissions by the DOJ and the FBI, but those admissions have been sealed within the parameter of that criminal case by protective order by the judge, so they I I can't share them, but I've seen them. So real hard objective and conservative, estimates would would put the number of FBI assets in the crowd outside and working inside at at well over 200. 200? Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you're in law enforcement. Yeah. Yep. Before you came to congress in the military as well, that seemed that's an extraordinary number.
Is it?
Speaker 1: Well, no. When you think about the scope of the operation, if you were gonna do this, you would need you would
Speaker 0: need that relative to so like when, I don't know, Minneapolis burned down or when Saint John's, the Episcopal Church of Carson, the White House in Lafayette Square was set ablaze, and all the secret service agents were injured. Were there 200 FBI assets in the crowd among Antifa then?
Speaker 1: I mean, I I don't know how many undercover agents FBI would have in a situation like that, but but but but j 6 was the was the was the final act prior to arrest and prosecution of of Americans that that were identified as as Trump supporters. I mean, the objective was to destroy the entire MAGA movement, to to forever stain the, the patriotic fervor that was associated with with the America First Mega Movement that had won in 2016 and we believe won again in 2020, and the the establishment on both sides, both major parties were determined to smash that out of existence, not just by defeating Trump, but by destroying the reputations of the movement itself by creating this narrative that was totally false, but was heavily pushed that mega Republicans, America First Republicans are somehow a danger to our republic and a a domestic terror threat, which is a whole another story about what the FBI has done to tagging Americans as, suspected domestic terrorists and and following us as we travel across the country. But the the bottom line is that, 200 as a I I believe is a conservative number. First of all, I think there were there's many more, But a number that I'm comfortable going on record with is that we believe that there were that there were easily 200 FBI undercover assets operating in the crowd, outside the capital, embedded into groups that entered the capital or provoked entry of the capital, and working with FBI assets that would have included Metro Police and Capitol Police that would dress as Trump supporters inside the capital because those were the guys that knew their way around the capitol.
So given the scope of the operation and the number of doors where entry was allowed or even encouraged, and the number of people that were actually outside the capital and it entered, we believe 200 is a conservative number. Yes, sir.
Speaker 0: It's it's shocking what you're saying. It confirms everyone's worst suspicions about this. It's clearly true. Did you come across any evidence that the the DOD, the military, either Defense Intelligence Agency or National Guard or any part of the US military played any role in this at all?
Speaker 1: I have not seen that. I've heard the echoes of that suspicion, and I have I have observed, circumstantial evidence that that has been presented to me, that I've that I have reviewed, but to but to me, it does not rise to the level that I would call actionable from an investigative perspective. So there's some there was some suspicion, but in in in law enforcement the thresholds you're looking across is reasonable suspicion that would prompt a criminal investigation, and then the next threshold is probable cause, which you need for arrest. And then of course in our system, finally, the last threshold is is, is conviction, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So the I I did review evidence, Tucker, regarding some suspicions of military involvement in some way, but and I and I've I have reviewed some of that evidence that that had been that I've been able to get my hands on, and, I do not think that the the military was, was involved, not at the level, most certainly not at the level of the of the FBI and, over the course of all of 2020.
And then on j 4, 5, and 6, the FBI working in coordination with other law enforcement assets that that they roped into the operation Right. From Metro PD, from DC, and and, the Capitol Police was sort of sort of tricked into participating with the with what the FBI had been staging for, you know, 10 months. Just a bit
Speaker 0: if you take 3 steps back, this is not democracy. So the federal agencies serve under the oversight of the elected president, and then on under the oversight of the elected congress. Their elected people get to make the decisions. You have a Republican president. You now have a Republican congress, and neither one can get a straight answer from the FBI.
No no one has any control of the FBI. You're describing a government within a government.
Speaker 1: Well, in America, a question becomes reasonable men would would would ask when we face a crisis like this, who investigates the investigate? Right. And the answer in America is is congress. So we we have the responsibility to investigate through the appropriate committees, which would we're certainly we're certainly doing that now that we have a republican majority in control of the committees, but we don't have the power to arrest. We can we can give criminal referrals based upon our investigative efforts, but we have to have a DOJ that's receptive to the criminal referrals.
So we we've hit quite a a brick wall, have we not? Constitutionally, we we have the responsibility to investigate objectively, and and and anyone that knows me know that's exactly what I'm I'm pursuing. I do not have I'm not trying to create a crime to fit a narrative to blame on the FBI. I'm following the evidence, and and to my horror, it implicates our FBI at the highest level, and a and a a conspiracy within our government at the highest level to create the the, to set the stage for a compromised election cycle in 2020, and then the the the actions that took place on j 4, 5, and 6, and then the the criminal investigation, arrest, and prosecution of Americans that they were able to entrap and document with the thousands of cameras that were operating that day and use that evidence that they knew they were setting up to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the Americans that they had entrapped. So Congress can investigate these things, and we and we are, and we will reveal these horrific truths, and we will have criminal referrals.
But until you have a a a president running the executive branch that will clean house at the DOJ and FBI at the highest levels and put American patriots in place that will be that will act upon the criminal referrals that that congress provides, then none of those guys are gonna get arrested because they're not gonna arrest themselves, and we don't have arrest authority.
Speaker 0: I'm a little surprised and don't expect to be critical of your colleagues in the Republican conference, but, I mean, they do control the house. Impeachment is a thing. Chris Wray is still the FBI director. I watched Republicans, some of whom I know, cheer the murder of Ashley Babbitt who was unarmed woman less than 55, by Michael Byrd. They were Michael Byrd side, and it I have to say for a lot of Republican voters and I count myself among them.
Very clarifying. If you're cheering Ashley Babbitt's murder shooting women now, that's okay because she likes Trump. And the Republicans were like, yeah. I was happy. Like, a lot of them thought that.
What the hell?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was and it it made me sick. Me too. You know, I'm there's a a great responsibility when you when you wear a badge in America. I mean, think about it.
To be to be the to be the designated servant of your community that has that has the the authority to, to deny the freedom of a fellow American in the land of the free. Like, that's a heavy responsibility. So the the escalation of of force is must be appropriate in order to affect a lawful arrest, and and a a bad a bad shoot is the worst thing that an officer can possibly be involved in in his in his career. It's it's, you know, we it's it's it's the thing of nightmares for for good police officers. So to take what was what was from a law enforcement perspective was clearly a bad shoot because there's some basic rules you just cannot violate.
You have to attempt to effect an arrest before you can go to deadly force. There was there was no attempt to arrest Ashley Batman. There were there were officers on the other side of the window she was climbing through. There were officers on the interior side of the window she was climbing through. There was no indication that had been that this had been going on for an hour, and there was there was no reports on the radio or anywhere else of of gunfights.
So there was no reason at that point to expect that Ashley Babin or anybody else in the in the crowd was gonna produce a firearm and start firing on police officers. Why? Because it had not happened. So that's part of the totality of circumstance that a police officer is responsible for knowing. We stay in constant communication with our radios.
We know what's going on. That officer that that that pulled that trigger would shot a a American woman who was clearly in a in like a physically compromised position climbing through the broken glass of a of a window is not, you know, it's not like she just stepped into the cage in MMA and she was ready to fight. She was climbing through a window draped in a flag. There's police officers on the other side of the window. There's police officers on the interior side of the window.
So you have plenty enough officer presence. If you wanna arrest that woman, then by all means, pull it through the window, you know, put flex cuffs on her and throw her in the corner. We'll get to you later, ma'am. We're kinda busy right now. That's what you do.
You'd have grabbed that woman and pulled her through the and threw her in the corner, or handed her back to somebody that could pull her back, you know, from that front line right there. So understand that very well, I understand officers have to make split second decisions, but you never you never make a decision to use lethal force unless it's absolutely called for and required, if you're losing a fight attempting to effect an arrest, then then, yeah, if if there's if if the officer's life is in danger and he's all by himself, but there's never should be a circumstance where you just pull the trigger and a woman climbing through a window that's clearly unarmed. There's no evidence of gunplay from the crowd that she's coming from. You got officers on both side of where she is. If you gotta arrest her, then by all means, arrest her.
You know, to put flex cups on her and and move on. So, you know, she'd nannle the next person trying to come through the window, but she don't shoot her. So that was a
Speaker 0: bad issue. An invest a reveal investigation. Was cheered.
Speaker 1: Yep. Why do you think that was? And there's this in there's this insanity that has taken hold in the in the the minds and hearts of many otherwise reasonable American citizens where they did they they hate Trump so much. Like, they're they're so deeply embedded, and they're they've sold their souls to the establishment that when we had an America first president and and he and he, like, stopped the, the military industrial complex forward momentum and and he and he began restoring power to individual members of congress and restoring individual rights and freedoms and sovereignty of the state, and he took away the actions of the cartels and and brought this this real common sense approach to the executive branch and was leading our country in that beautiful direction. This was interfering with the business model of the establishment.
So many career politicians on both sides of the aisle, and I, you know, I don't like those guys, man. I'm not one of them. And I I served my country in congress, but, I I don't consider myself a politician by any means. I'm a servant to We The People. Some of these guys, man, they pop out of the womb to be to be politicians.
They get groomed their whole life, you know, to be a a career politician. And those are the ones that had this instinctive cheer for something really bad happening to a Trump supporter. You know, they their true color showed in that moment and was an ugly color. Yeah. That's it.
Speaker 0: We shouldn't be shooting women, number 1. I couldn't agree more. So where where does this go from here? You have this corpus of information. It sounds like it's definitive.
When does the public see the detail, and what's the process after that?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. So evidence from criminal investigations by nature is rather secretive, but there is a, a tremendous compilation of data that I think should be made completely available to the public, and that's the digital files from from j 4, 5, and 6. This is where, speaker Mike Johnson can be a champion for for that will be remembered for throughout history as the speaker of the house that fully released unredacted, digital files from j 4, 5, and 6 completely to the American people. And within that data, there is full truth, and and the American people, it is the only staff large enough to, you know, frame by frame, go through 80,000 hours of digital evidence. Nobody has a staff big enough to do that, but we can crowdsource it to the American people.
So you ask when will this evidence be released? I'd I've I've been encouraging speaker Johnson, as I did speaker McCarthy, to, my god, man, release this data to the American people.
Speaker 0: Why won't why won't they?
Speaker 1: I believe speaker Johnson will, but but Mike is a is is quite a skilled constitutionalist attorney himself, and he's a very measured, patient, faithful man. So, I have I extend trust to to speaker Johnson when he says that it's his intention to fully release the the call the j6 tapes, but really it's digital evidence, it's more than it's more than just video evidence, it's it's a lot. You know, radio transcripts, the whole thing. I I believe my speaker Johnson knows that this is a significant, duty that he must he he he must perform for the American people. It's a moment in history where where, you know, I believe our lord and savior has placed him in that in that position of service to the country, and he has a responsibility to to fully release that data.
And then the American people will see for themselves what some of us have already learned to our horror to be true.
Speaker 0: Congressman Hinggens, thank you very much. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson says the 2020 Election was "100% stolen" from President Trump. https://t.co/hd2eHBb1yU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes the election was rigged due to COVID changes in voting. Censorship of COVID discussions is seen as undemocratic. In a democracy, people need all information to make informed decisions during elections. Without access to all information, there is no true democracy or free elections.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was a a 100% stolen. Like, it was rigged to that large of a Yeah. They they completely change the way people vote right before the election on the basis of COVID, which had nothing to do with that way it was rigged. Meaning sick. And then Manipulated.
Then you censor the information people are allowed to get. Anyone who complains about COVID, which is like by the way, it might have hurt Trump. But, I mean, it's like whatever. I mean, you could play it many different ways. You can't have censorship in a democracy by definition.
Here's how it works. The people rule, They vote for representatives to carry their agenda to the capital city and get it enacted. That's how they're in charge. And then every few years, they get to reassess the performance of those people in an election. In order to do that, they need a they need access, unfettered access to information.
And no one, particularly not people who are already in power, is allowed to tell them what information they can have. They have to have all information that they want. Whether the people in charge want it or don't want it or think it's true or think it's false, it doesn't matter. And the second you don't have that, you don't have a democracy. It's not a free election.
Period.
@JDunlap1974 - JOSH DUNLAP
WOW! Tucker Carlson Reveals That The Director Of The CIA Threatened Him, and Said It Was A Crime To Expose The CIA for Murdering A Sitting United States President https://t.co/iEwLDkLtx5
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker accuses Mike Pompeo of covering up US government involvement in a president's murder and plotting to kill Julian Assange. Pompeo pressured Trump to keep documents secret. Pompeo's employees reported his illegal actions to a journalist. Pompeo's behavior is deemed criminal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Committed a crime. He's threatening me. He's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to him, I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud?
That's the crime. What about the actual crime, just murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all. And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret.
And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo is a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that he was caught. Yahoo News, Micah Isikoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago.
His employees went to Mike Isikoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange, who has never even been charged with a crime in the United States as CIA director. That's illegal. You're not allowed. Federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like.
Okay. Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is. But he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay.
That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior.
@TheBabylonBee - The Babylon Bee
Party That Called Trump 'Hitler' For 8 Years Shocked As Someone Tries To Assassinate Him https://buff.ly/4d0fZHm
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
buff.ly
@TheBabylonBee - The Babylon Bee
Trump Indicted For Inciting Assassination Attempt https://buff.ly/462CV6o
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
buff.ly
@JzeViewing - Jimbo
Tucker Carlson is CIA https://t.co/IE9nmm6dcf
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson has given varied responses regarding his connections to the CIA. He stated that he applied to the CIA as a college senior wanting to work in operations, influenced by his father's friends who were operations officers. He claimed he "had no idea what the CIA was, actually" at the time.
Carlson acknowledged his father's work in conjunction with the CIA. According to Alan MacLeod, Carlson's father, Richard Carlson, directed the US Information Agency (USIA) under Ronald Reagan, overseeing Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which the New York Times called a CIA-built "worldwide propaganda network." Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA until the 1970s. Richard Carlson ran Voice of America, essentially the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine, at the height of the Cold War.
Carlson now claims to be a "sworn enemy of the CIA." When asked about the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, Carlson denied involvement, but the CIA was implicated. The speaker questions whether it is a coincidence that the son of the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of Voice of Liberty for the CIA is one of the most influential political pundits in America.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When Tucker Carlson is asked about any of his connections to the CIA, he always seems to give a very confusing mix of responses. In an interview with a former member of the CIA, Sean Ryan, he was asked about it. He recounted how everyone around him growing up was in the CIA because his father was. Despite this, he also says that he had no idea what the CIA really was.
Speaker 1: You were trying to get into CIA? Yes. Vladimir Putin reminded me. I don't know how he knew that. Yeah.
I applied to CIA when I was a senior in college. What did you want to do for the CIA? Operations. Yeah, it was completely different. Completely different organization.
Well, who knows what it was, actually? I don't know. I mean, I was operating on the basis of a lot of my father's friends served as operations officers, some really wonderful guys, who I guess I probably shouldn't name, but who were always at our house and were just legit interesting people. So I applied to CIA and that whole application process then, this was 1990, and I should just say, for the record, that I, like, had no idea what the CIA was, actually. And I didn't believe any of the I think Kermit Roosevelt actually lived right down the street from us.
Are you kidding? No. Oh, man. That's cool.
Speaker 0: This isn't particularly relevant other than this being like a CIA super spy. Kermit Roosevelt Junior is a very famous intelligence officer who worked in the OSS and then the CIA. He was best known for his role in orchestrating the nineteen fifty three coup in Iran.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know I mean, but that was just the world you live in in Northwest DC. Like, I didn't I I never thought any of it was bad. And so when I applied to CIA, and I've taken a lot of crap, including from Putin, Oh, you're from a CIA family. Well, yeah, obviously my father worked in conjunction with CIA. Mean, that's what that is.
And I tried to join the CIA, but I'm not being false about it. I am a sworn enemy of the CIA at this point. No doubt about that. I just wanted a life that was interesting. I wanted to see stuff.
Speaker 0: This would all be a lot more believable conspicuous if he hadn't ended up becoming one of the most influential conservative news pundits in American history. Tucker Carlson himself says that he comes from a CIA family and that his father worked for the CIA. Alan MacLeod of Minton Press writes, Richard Carlson is an important journalist and high state official who was appointed by Ronald Reagan as director of the US Information Agency, USIA, which oversees Radio Liberty and Voice of America, which Dick was also the director. Together, these outlets are part of what The New York Times called a worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA. Their goal is to bombard enemy countries with regime change propaganda.
Until the nineteen seventies, Radio Free Europe was directly funded by the CIA. Richard Carlson would have been running Voice of America and then the branch of the CIA that oversaw Voice of America at the height of the Cold War, basically the broadcasting wing of the CIA's propaganda machine.
Speaker 2: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
Who
Speaker 1: blew up Nord Stream?
Speaker 2: You for sure.
Speaker 1: I was busy that day. Nate, do you have do you I did not blow up Nord Stream.
Speaker 2: Thank you though. You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi. Is
Speaker 0: it a coincidence the former head of the US intelligence agency and director of voice of liberty for the CIA's son is one of the most influential political pundits in America?
@TheQuartering - TheQuartering
Newsweek Romania interviews Trump Assassin. (Before Youtube Deletes it) https://t.co/Pu2LClwk5s
@TheWakeninq - 1776
Tucker Carlson Goes Absolutely Nuclear On Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And More At Georgia Trump Event https://t.co/UcS3qhllqS
Video Transcript AI Summary
I’ve never spoken at a political rally before, but here I am at a Donald Trump rally, thrilled to follow Bobby Kennedy. I believe Trump will win, which is a triumph of the human spirit after years of attacks against him. The narrative that only misfits support Trump is false; the real majority loves their country and obeys its laws. This rally represents the end of fear and the awakening of normal Americans. We can no longer tolerate the Democratic machine that insults our values and rewards the unworthy. It's time for accountability and justice. The shift in sentiment is palpable, and I believe Trump’s victory will reflect the return of freedom and the rejection of the lies that have dominated our discourse. Enough is enough; we must stand firm and reclaim our country.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. I have never I have never in my life spoken at a political rally. I've covered a million of them for over 30 years, and I've never spoken to one, never thought I would. And I'm so thrilled. I'm honored to be here.
I really am. And I am. It's totally without shame and entirely with gratitude I'm standing here, and I can't believe I just spoke after Bobby Kennedy. So cool. So here we are at an enormous Donald Trump rally less than 2 weeks before the presidential election.
I'm following Bobby Kennedy junior, and somewhere in a half empty union hall in a cold state is Dick Cheney's creepy little daughter campaigning with Kamala Harris. And I have to say that is a thrilling trade as far as I'm concerned. I never thought I would live to see the day when Bobby Kennedy would be one of the most beloved figures in a, you know, room full of republicans, and mister Burns from the Simpsons and his criminal daughter would be democrats. It it's just absolutely wonderful. So here's my perspective.
I I I think Donald Trump's gonna win, which is amazing. And, that's why I'm here. I'm not here because he's gonna win. I'm here because I'm so thrilled by what I've watched over the past 9 years. This is the end of a redemption arc.
I've I've really never seen anybody treated like Donald Trump was treated ever. Anybody ever. Attack him. I watched this all up close. Defame him.
Indite him. Arrest him. Let him get shot in the face, and he's gonna win anyway. It is a triumph. It's it's a triumph.
The phrase triumph of the human spirit has been turned into a cliche by the people who write movie posters, but it doesn't make it any less real. Donald Trump's victory will be a triumph of the human spirit. It will be a triumph of Americans over the machine that seeks to oppress them. It'll be a middle finger wagging in the face of the worst people in the English speaking world who are leaders. It will be a moral victory, the size of which I never thought I would live to see.
And it's essential. It is so important that that happens for a couple of reasons, and here's what they are. The first is to to dissolve for all time for the world to see the primary lie about Donald Trump, which is that only freaks and misfits like him. That's a lie. And they've been telling that lie since the second he came down that escalator 9 years ago.
If you like that, there's something wrong with you. You're the only person you know who likes that. You're a freak. Be ashamed. Do not talk about Donald Trump in public.
Don't wear wear his dangerous little red hat. And if you're in the media, how dare you speak to him? And that was a lie from day 1. It was a big lie. It was January 6th is an insurrection.
What? It's the kind of lie that they tell relentlessly. They punish anyone who contradicts the lie because it is so preposterous. It can only be upheld through force. And in the last 3 months, we have seen that lie dissolve like the wicked witch of the west under a bucket of water.
Look around. Is this a room full of freaks and misfits? No, it's not. This is a room full of people who love their country enough to obey its laws, who sincerely believe in its founding precepts, who pay their taxes, who go to work. The ever shrinking percentage of Americans who work a 40 hour week, who expect nothing from the system, and who have given their lives for the system, who are born in this country and plan to die here.
And they're the most mistreated group in this nation, and they're also the biggest group in this nation. They're not some weird subculture of MAGA, they're America itself. And the only people who are denying that are the freaks and the misfits who it turns out are themselves a tiny bizarre minority, a cult, who have controlled the rest of us through fear and aggression. And that has ended, And it has ended thanks to the heroic stand that a couple of individuals have taken. 1st among them, Elon Musk.
Elon Musk, who single handedly saved the first amendment to the constitution, which let me remind you, it's not just a feature of America. It's the basis of America. It's the first amendment for a reason. It's what separates the free from the enslaved. Slaves are not allowed to say what they think.
Free men have God given right to do so and will. And this is the only country on Earth in which that is guaranteed. And without Elon Musk, it wouldn't be because he stands alone as the owner of a media platform that is still open. There's only one and it's x. It's foreign born Elon Musk.
And then for him to come out And by the way, just for the record, I've taken not a dollar from Elon Musk. Okay? It's not a paid advertisement. It's just an observation. And this is heartfelt gratitude.
And when you see the richest man on planet Earth stand up there in a t shirt, start jumping around on stage. He's also one of the biggest federal contractors. Gonna have to do that. And so we're gonna have to do that.
Speaker 1: And so we're gonna have to do that. And so we're gonna have to do that.
Speaker 0: And so we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to do that. And so we're gonna have to
Speaker 0: do that. And so we're gonna have to do that. By taking the position that he did and he did it anyway. And so what's the message? If the person who's created the most, not just piles of cash, he's not Larry Fink.
He's not worshiping money like our finance class. He's building things. And if that guy is for Donald Trump and not only not ashamed of it, he's jumping around on a t shirt. I can see his belly button. He's so excited.
Then maybe I'm not alone. Maybe I'm not the freak. Maybe it's the maybe what you're really watching is the tyranny of MSNBC. A channel with virtually no viewers. A channel in which almost every single person has a personal life so grotesquely weird.
If you knew the details, you'd call for their arrest. That's just true. And those people, the unhappiest people in this nation are defining the terms of the conversation? I don't think so. How'd they get away with that?
The same way they got away with calling January 6th an insurrection for 3 years by repeating it and by attacking anyone who disagreed. But it's an illusion. It's the wizard of us. And once you pull back the curtain, the only thing back there is Joe Scarborough. You're like, wait a second.
Why am I taking orders from this guy? He's a freak. I'm a normal person. And that realization has settled on this country, on the whole country, and you feel it. People are not afraid anymore at all.
I've got a bunch of kids. I texted them. I'm gonna go speak in a Trump rally. My kids, you go. I said, do you know any do you have a lot of friends who are voting for Carmela or whatever her name is?
No. Of course not. That's embarrassing. It has flipped. The story the country tells itself about reality has flipped.
None of the normal people are supporting the democratic machine. Tim Walz is supporting the democratic machine. A man you would never allow to babysit your own children. That's the archetype. It's the party of weirdos, of envy, of hate, of resentment, of bitterness, of weakness, of a total lack of creativity.
It's a party of conformity. It's a party of the machine where it doesn't matter who the candidate is because individuals are immaterial. All that matters is the collective. That's the Soviet model. And opposing them is the rest of the country, slowly waking up to the fact that these people have no moral authority whatsoever.
They have no legitimacy in a democracy where the government must rule by the consent to the government. They have no consent. And the way that they've treated this country over the past 4 years is the most shocking thing I've ever seen in 55 years. To allow millions of people, mostly young men with no skills and no English into our country illegally, and then fly them around at our expense and give them phones and put them on welfare programs that no American citizen can get. It is the most insulting.
Yeah, boo. But it's worse than boo. That's the biggest crime in the history of the United States of America. And it takes incredible it takes incredible stones. It incredible gall for the people who did that to stand up there on a stage and give you a lecture about how you're immoral.
It's too much. And so that's the second important thing about the selection. Okay? The first is every person in this room needs to understand you are not in a despise minority. You are in an incredibly gentle and tolerant majority who put up with this crap for way too long.
As they insulted not only you, but the memory of your ancestors who died for this country. They tore down statues to their memory. People have never built anything in their lives. They went out of their way to humiliate you and spit on you and the graves your ancestors. And that's not an exaggeration.
They did that. And then this country is so nice. It's so polite. It's so thoughtful and empathetic and sweet. It's the kind of country that loves dogs and gives directions to strangers that we put up with it for 4 years, but we can't anymore.
We just can't. And we can't for two reasons. The first reason that we can't put up with it for one more minute is because it's just not justice. No. It's not.
It's not. It's not justice. It's unfair. You cannot reward the most parasitic, useless, violent, nasty, aggressive people in your country. You can't make them the richest.
You just can't. It's just wrong. In a fair decent country, the people who work the hardest, who have the highest level of talent, who are the most creative for the most decent to their neighbors, who give the biggest tips to waitresses, those people should be successful. Those people should be revered. It shouldn't be Larry Fink.
Are you joking? Kamala Harris shouldn't have a job. She has no skills. How did we wind up with a system where Kamala Harris couldn't change the tire on your truck much less drive it? How did she wind up at the top of the pyramid?
And then once she's there, she lectures you like you did something. It's too much. You can't allow that. It's an offense against the truth, against reality, and against justice itself. And the second reason you can't allow it is very familiar to anyone who has children, which is if you allow it, you will encourage more of it.
If you allow people to get away with things that are completely over the top and outrageous, if you allow your 2 year old to smear the contents of his diapers on the wall of your living room and you do nothing about it, if you allow your 14 year old to light a joint at the breakfast table, if you allow your hormone addled 15 year old daughter to, like, slam the door of her bedroom and give you the finger, you're gonna get more of it. And those kids are gonna wind up in rehab. It's not good for you, and it's not good for them. No. There has to be a point at which dad comes home.
Yeah. That's right. Dad comes home, And he's pissed. Dad is pissed. He's not vengeful.
He loves his children. Disobedient as they may be, he loves them. Because they're his children. They live in his house. But he's very disappointed in their behavior, and he's gonna have to let them know.
Yes. He's gonna have to get to your room right now Yes. And think about what you did. Yes. Yeah.
And when dad gets home, you know what he says? Yeah. You've been a bad girl. You've been a bad little girl and you're getting a vigorous spanking right now. And no, it's not gonna hurt me more than it hurts you.
No, it's not. I'm not gonna lie. This is gonna hurt you a lot more than it hurts me. And you earned this. You're getting a vigorous spanking because you've been a bad girl.
And it has to be this way. It has to be this way because it's true. And you're only gonna get better when you take responsibility for what you did. That's not said in the spirit of hate. It's not said in the spirit of vengeance or bigotry, far from it.
It's said in the spirit of justice, which is the purest and best thing there is. And without it, things fall apart. The democratic party machine and notice I'm not beating up on Kamala Harris who's just a hapless victim who happened to be there in the right color, so they grabbed her. Tim Walz, they needed some, you know, whatever whatever Tim Walz is. They needed a weak man because it is the party of weak men and unhappy women.
One of which leads to the other, by the way, where you find weak men, you will inevitably find unhappy women. Sorry. And they make them on purpose. They weaken the men to drive the women insane to have the most consistent voting block ever in the history of politics, unhappy women made unhappy by weak men. But it could be anybody.
It could be anybody. Kamala Harris is just a stand in. She's a cardboard cutout. Is I mean, I'm you know, I she is a soul. God created her.
I'm not attacking her for humanity. But there's nothing there. It doesn't matter. If it wasn't Kamala Harris, it would be I don't know, Pete Buttigieg or what you know, who are these people? The it doesn't matter.
They're the cutouts. They work for the machine. They're totally dispensable. They're replaceable. And they need to have limits set for them.
And so on election day, and I've sincerely believed Donald Trump's gonna win. And if I thought he was gonna lose, I'd be here anyway, by the way. I would. In fact, I would have been here earlier if I thought he was gonna lose just to make the point. I mean it.
I don't like people who jump on the winning train. Okay? I think Donald Trump's gonna win. And not only do I think Donald Trump's gonna win, I think that the vibe shift has been so profound. I mean, the numbers suggest he's gonna win.
He's ahead in all 7 battleground states. But much more important and the early voting seems to be favoring him. But more important even than the conventional political markers is what you smell around you, and it's the return of freedom. It's the return of the country you grew up in where you could say things like I like that guy, maybe like the other person. That's fine.
That was not allowed for 9 years, and it's allowed now. And I think and it's because of what they did by the way. They deserve this. But I think the vibe is so strong right now. I don't think you can get away with pretending something else happened.
I don't think we can have another 2020 at this point. I just don't. I don't. Where they hid relevant facts from you, they prevented you from knowing about their candidate and then claim victory. But 37,000,000,000 votes or whatever the claim he got.
That's rigging the election. Period. If you end if the government prevents people from knowing critical information about a candidate, they have rigged the election. And they did that. Period.
Oh, you're not allowed to say that. I'm not allowed to say it because it's a 100% true. And every person who hears it knows it's true including the people who did it. I don't think they can do that again. I don't.
And I don't think no matter what they pull 2 weeks now, 13 days from now, I don't think they can get away with standing up and being like on MSNBC. No. Actually, Kamala Harris is a historically popular, it turns out. Woman who's never had a job who can't even pronounce her own first name consistently. That's how false she is.
Some woman who grew up in Montreal, Canada is lecturing me about America. Okay. I don't think they can do that because I don't think people are gonna sit back and take it. I don't. It's enough.
It's enough. That's the point at which you say no. I'm sorry. I put up with this crap for a long time. I indulge your little fantasy.
It's like when your teenage girl becomes a vegetarian, you're like, okay. That's, you know, well, okay. It's fine. No. I totally understand.
You're like, it's a phase. But if that phase goes on for 9 years and includes destroying your major cities and allowing your country to be invaded by millions of foreigners who identities you don't know, and his purpose in this country is unclear by the way. Why shouldn't we feel threatened by that? If they go out of their way to crush families, to make it impossible for your kids to buy a house, and getting involved in the sex lives of your children, which they are, if they do all of that, they need to lose. And at the end of all of it, when they tell you they've won, no.
You can look them straight in the face and say, I'm sorry. Dad's home, and he's pissed. Thank you.
@JoHoo40469540 - JoeHoo
Steve Bannon interviews Tucker Carlson on the WarRoom https://t.co/r3Rj6LnnZR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses the current political landscape, emphasizing that Trump would win a fair election but questions the integrity of the electoral system. He highlights a coalition against Trump, including the deep state, businesses reliant on government, and a threatened social class. Carlson reflects on the spiritual dimensions of the ongoing struggle, noting a personal experience that deepened his understanding of the unseen battles at play. He argues that the focus should be on eternal truths rather than just winning elections, stressing the importance of discussing mortality and the consequences of actions, particularly regarding issues like abortion. Carlson concludes by urging a deeper examination of America's historical actions and their implications.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Honored to have our next guest, Tucker Carlson, joins us. Tucker, you've been on the road. You've been doing these huge, events in stadiums. You had the president around the other day in, I think Glendale, Arizona absolutely mesmerizing. I think the president was up there for 2 hours.
Give us your sense of, of where you think we are in this whole thing.
Speaker 1: Well, I just had the same first of all, welcome back, and I I just wanna say directly to you what I've said to everyone, you and I are friends with in common, which is that your courage right before you went into prison was one of the most amazing and inspiring things I've ever seen. You were you were you behaved like the man I wanna be, on your way into prison unfairly on fake charges, and you never wind. And I just I've never really seen anything like that. So I just wanted to say that directly to you. Thank you for that.
I my sense of where the race is has oh, I mean it too. It hasn't changed in the past several months. Trump is the choice of the country in a free and fair election. Without cheating, he would win. The question is, do we have that system?
Obviously, we don't. And what I'm really struck by is how virtually every Trump voter I talk to and and maybe even some on defense voters says basically the same thing. You know, it's just a question of how much the Democratic Party cheats in this election, which is another way of saying the whole country seems to have accepted the reality that, you know, one of the 2 big political parties doesn't believe in democracy, is willing to cheat and ignore the will of the population of the citizenry. That's really dark. You know, you hate to think you live in a place where people just, you know, accept that as normal.
It's not normal. It's criminal. It's immoral, and we should do everything we can to fix it. Right? And the and the last thing I would say is as someone who spent, you know, I don't know, something like 15 hours in depositions, imposed on me by voting machine companies, and I was never named in any suit by a voting machine company, but they went out of their way to harass me, I think funded by Reid Hoffman, stole all my text messages, leaked into the New York Times.
I'm bitter about it still, but the you know, for the last year and a half, the whole, you know, conservative media has been cowed into ignoring what's really obvious, which is we should not have electronic voting machines. They don't work. They're not more efficient. They're they're not better at counting, and they don't produce the result faster. The only reason to have electronic voting machines is if, you know, you wanna subvert them.
It's insane that we have them, and no one feels free to say that. So I just wanted I wanna and I think I've been proven right on this. And we have every reason to be suspicious of electronic voting machines and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. What
Speaker 0: in seeing the opposition that we have here, it's deeper than just a political party, and it's deeper even than and you you've come out of and know the media as well as anybody. We have a there's this apparatus that used to be called the military industrial complex, but now it's the intelligence community, it's the tech community, and it's the legal apparatus that has gotten into a formidable beyond an administrative state and and something that know, people call the deep state, but it's not really that deep. It's up in your face. What is gonna the victory that we have here is a populist uprising and really grassroots because Trump didn't have a lot of support at the beginning of this of this of this part of the journey. How do we confront that?
Because that's what's gonna be quite evident, I think, starting in the next couple of days. And because, Tucker, you know this. They're just not gonna sit there and pat us on the head and say, hey. This is great. No.
You guys turned out more voters in North Carolina and Arizona and Wisconsin and ended lovely, you know, that Tucker and Elon and, Tulsi Gabbard and RFK and all these new people who come to this to this movement, think they have ideas about the country. They're just not gonna sit there and say this is great. Here's the keys. You guys take it out for a spin, and, and we'll just watch what happens. Your thoughts, sir?
Speaker 1: I mean, there are 3 components to the coalition that Trump is facing off against and all 3 of them see their very existence threatened by his candidacy. The the first is, you know, the actual deep state, the the bureaucracies, that control our country and have since at least November of 1963. And they're utterly vested in the current system, and they fear above all disclosure. In other words, they've committed a lot of crimes. We have the outline of some of those crimes beginning with the murder of the president 60 years ago, but a lot subsequent to that.
And, you know, where did all the Ukraine money go? There's never been an audit. And so if Trump has declassification power, some of them risk going to jail and and they know that. That's the first part. The the second part of the coalition is business and that's simply a function of the size of the federal government.
It's the largest human organization in history. It has the most money, and there are businesses particularly in the finance sector that are totally dependent on, on this system in order to to get rich. I mean, if you're Larry Frank Fink or anybody in Larry Fink's category, you know, you can't continue, to make 1,000,000,000 of dollars without the pension funds who are all, you know, public employee pension funds. They're all part of the system. And so you're really vested in this for financial reasons.
And the 3rd and most obvious part of this coalition is an entire social class, upper middle class, mostly white, urban people who have jobs that are basically going away because they're not necessary. This would be the entire NGO sector, the education sector, all the soft jobs, the marketing jobs, that that our economy doesn't actually need that are in fact a drain on the economy. They're not productive in any sense. They're not creative. They don't build anything.
They basically just leech off the system already in place. And these people, most of whom I don't think understand this consciously, but they know it on a gut level, these people are really threatened by any change. And by the way, change is coming in the form of AI anyway. All these people are gonna be out of work. They will never make it into the class they aspire to join, which is the ruling class ever.
But in all the you drive through the suburbs of our cities, Washington, most famously, but also New York and Philadelphia, and you see an Eastern seaboard or on the West Coast, and you see clusters of Kamala Harris signs. What is that? And these are, you know, upper middle class white families. Why are they so vested in Kamala Harris? Because they understand that their membership in this class is at stake.
They feel deep social anxiety, status anxiety. I know these people. You do too. You've lived around them. I have as well.
And they understand that their world is collapsing. It's all going away. It's all about to be revealed as unnecessary. AI will reveal that their jobs are just unnecessary, and that includes lawyers and some physicians too. And that's why they are so emotional about this election because it's not simply about Trump, and they'll say, oh, he's orange.
He's vulgar. He's a rapist. Now they'll make up some justification for it. But what's really happening is their world is collapsing, and they know it's collapsing. And they're panicked, and very few of them are thoughtful enough or altruistic enough to put aside, you know, that fact, which is to say, you know, the their future, and try to make the country better.
So, really, it's everybody with power against Trump and Elon. That's the way I see it. If he wins, it will be it'll be a miracle. It'll be a historical event.
Speaker 0: The historical event in in closing the win. Right? Because remember, go back to 16 where it's immediately the nullification project of Russian, you know, interference, all of that. When you have those forces of the established order aligned against you, and this is obviously, I think, gonna take us a while to work through on the voting, all that, what would be your recommendation to president Trump? Because you have to be maniacally focused.
This is where you can't just be throwing out. So you had to be maniacally focused of how you close this victory and then rapidly because you're not gonna have unlimited amount of time. You're gonna have some limited amount of time to start to make some pretty fundamental changes. What is Tucker Carlson's recommendation?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's enormously complicated. You know? In other words, what does Wednesday look like and Thursday, Friday, Saturday for the next 2 months until until inauguration day? It's really hard to know. Here's the difference between what we saw in 2020, which is someone who's on the periphery of that watching carefully.
He was hosting a daily show, at the time. It was enormously frustrating to watch because the response was incompetent. I think the difference between then and now, 4 years later, is that Trump is not alone. I mean, as you'll remember very well in 2020, he couldn't get a lawyer. He couldn't get a lawyer, and he was roundly criticized for hauling Rudy Giuliani out there in front of the microphones, and I, you know, I thought Giuliani did his best.
It's not his area. It's not what he does, but he he tried and was mocked for it, and ultimately, they tried to send him to prison for it. But that was that was a a decision made in desperation. I mean, there was, like, no competent lawyers who were gonna represent Trump. They weren't allowed to, as we now know.
This time, Trump has, an actual coalition. I mean, the country has changed. American politics has changed. The things that you predicted in 2016 are finally coming to pass. I think you can't overstate the significance of Elon Musk joining this.
The guy, not only the richest person in the world, but the man with the most to lose is involved in this, the largest federal contractor. I mean, Elon Musk joked to me and he has, I think, many times that he's gonna go to prison if Trump loses. You know, I don't know if he's going to prison, but he'll he'll be destroyed for sure, and he's doing it anyway. So that gives a lot of different people heart, people who are vested in the system, Marc Andreessen. I mean, you see David Sacks.
I mean, you see people with a lot to lose on Trump's side, and they've said so publicly. And they're they're marked for destruction if this doesn't work, and so they will be at Trump's side, I think, in the aftermath. If if this is contested, I pray that it isn't. You know, I think all of us do on both sides pray that it's not contested. But if it is, it's not gonna be Trump out alone with Jenna Ellis, you know, sort of holding press conferences and hoping for the best.
Right?
Speaker 0: Yes. A 100%. Something it it's come up in the last couple days. I know because, obviously, I followed you for years. You were a daily caller, and Andrew had Breitbart, then at Fox.
You've been very hesitant in the past to talk about your spiritual journey or to talk, you know, to get off topics of politics and culture and and power and media. But I was fascinated about this revelation of of this event that happened in your life. Do you think that there are deeper forces at play here? Is this more than just Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk and a bunch of guys running around, talking about in this material world, you know, politics and the beating Democrats and taking on the intelligence, legal, financial apparatus. Is there something deeper going on here?
Speaker 1: Well, Breitbart, who I was just thinking about yesterday. What a what a good man who's been gone for, gosh, 12 years anyway, I think. Used to say famously say, that politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from the spiritual battle. So not only is the is this the the battle in the unseen world, not only is it part of what we're seeing, it is it is actually what we're seeing.
We're seeing the physical manifestations of something that's been going on, for eternity. As for why I don't talk about that stuff. I mean, on the one hand, I'm a WASP, sort of trained not to talk about that kind of stuff. And, no, I'm just trying to cultural thing. And you just don't talk about money or religion in public ever.
It's hard for me to talk about it with my wife. And for another, I never wanna hold myself out as some paragon of virtue because I'm very non virtuous and have led a really pretty spotted. Have a pretty spotted record I would say. So I don't I don't want to be I don't want to discredit in any way the faith that I have, but I will say yes. I have experienced that personally.
That sort of popped out in a conversation I was having with an old friend of mine called Scooter Downey, and it went up on camera. I was a little bit shocked to see it. But, yeah, no, I was on February 20, 2023, I was attacked in my bed by a spiritual being and clawed and left bleeding and scarred. And do I understand what happened? No.
Of course, I don't. I don't really understand anything, but that did happen to me. I don't care if people believe me or not. It it did. And I think it was just a just a a momentary glimpse of something that's happening at all times, which is again this war between forces that we can't see but that has been ongoing and has been in fact described by every culture since the beginning.
Every culture that we know about has described this battle and in fact it's been the basis of every religion. It's certainly the basis of Christianity which I think is true, by the way. Factually speaking, Christianity is true. But even if you don't, I think you can acknowledge that we're the only culture that hasn't been really absorbed in thinking and talking about this. Not since we dropped the atomic bomb in Nagasaki, the second one in August of 1945 and decided that we were gods and the god himself no longer existed.
Since then, we have been a secular society and that's why we're now being destroyed in my view. But even if you don't buy any of that, you you have to acknowledge that we're living in an anomalous time. This is the only period these 80 years where people haven't been daily discussing the spiritual battle around them. Every other culture has, and in fact, the remote ones still do. And they're all right, and we're wrong.
And the big change in the moment that we're living in is people are awakening to this fact that we've been on this vacation from reality, a vacation from spiritual reality. And of course it's not just a part of what we're seeing, it's definitive. And I and I'm not just saying that anyone who disagrees with me is evil. I'm not saying that. I have been evil many times in my life and unfortunately will be again.
So I'm not again I just want to be really clear that I'm not sort of holding myself up as like you know as a great person or a perfect christian or anything like that but this this exists quite apart from me or my behavior. It's true. And, and now it's sort of unmasked and anyone who's paying any attention at all. I mean, look, if you're making the case that, you know, sometimes we need to have an abortion, okay. If you're making the case that abortion is an affirmative good, you are evil.
You're practicing child sacrifice, and that is exactly what they're doing as every culture before us has. But to see the treasury secretary that dwarf Janet Yellen get up and say, you know, you can do your part to help the American economy by killing your child, that's no different than the Canaanites, actually. So if people who don't see that clearly, that's exactly what it is. Worshipping abortion, the killing of kids, not as something that, like, needs to happen unfortunately, but it's something that is good. That's pro abortion.
You know? People and I have to say, I'm I'm sure I'll be attacked for saying this, but I really believe it. People are like, oh, well, we had another hurricane, must be global warming. No. It's probably abortion actually.
Just being honest. Like, you can't do that. You can't kill children on purpose knowing that you're doing that in exchange for power or freedom or happiness, whatever you think you're getting in return. You can't participate in human sacrifice without consequences. You just can't.
Sorry. I'm sorry to say that. Trust me. I'm a secular person from La Jolla, California who was baptized in the Episcopal church. And if I can see that, if it's obvious to me, then I think it's very obvious to a lot of people.
Speaker 0: Well, how does how is that event then, how is it informed your life today and and what you're trying to do? Because I find this the most of all your insights and things on on politics and power and everything like this, I'll be blunt. I think this is the most profound, you know, direction of your thinking. I mean, it's when I read the other day, I would say, wow. Because, yes, Tucker is a wasp.
Tucker is one of those guys. He's not gonna get emotional. You said about me not whining. You don't hear Tucker whining. He's not that type of guy.
I think this is absolutely fascinating. How has it informed not just your life? How's it informing you as one of the most significant, figures, public intellectuals on the world stage?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I I I think it's just reminded me of what I don't understand, which is always a good starting place to wisdom. I mean, if you seek to be wise, not just informed, which is simple, but to be wise to make sense of the facts that you've accumulated, which is is the goal of adulthood, then you really have to begin with a profound understanding of your own ignorance, lack of foresight with your own with your own lack of wisdom. The root of wisdom is knowing how unwise you are, I guess, is another way of putting it, and this has just reminded me of that. I this happened to me. I don't again, I don't really know what it means.
I have a lot of suspicions, but I can't confirm them. It was spiritual. I'm I'm positive of that. I know that. And but what does it mean?
I don't know. So that is that's it's just very helpful to be reminded of all that you don't know. It's very very helpful. And human disasters always begin in the same place which is in hubris which is in the the false certainty that you know what's going to happen. You know the consequences of something.
You know what the future will be. And you know that you're God basically is what you're saying. And this is just another reminder to me that I'm not. So that's I'm really grateful for that. 2nd, I would say it's an it's another, reminder of what the goal is.
And the goal is to get right with eternity. The goal is not just to win an election. And elections do come and go. I think this is the most significant in the history of the United States. That's obvious.
The crimes being committed against the country are more profound than ending to the the open border invasion is a larger crime that's been committed to get committed against than than imperial Japan or Nazi Germany committed against the United States. It's the worst thing that's ever happened to the US. That's my opinion. But it's still nothing compared to, I don't know, the end of history or eternity. And so it's just important to keep your eyes on the bigger on the bigger prize, on the only prize, that matters.
The only question that matters is what happens when you die? And it's crazy to me that I haven't spent every day for the last 55 years meditating on that. That I grew up in a culture that actively suppressed questions like that. That didn't want to talk about death. That considered any conversation about what happens when you die offensive or out of bounds.
I can't believe I grew up in a place like that because it's so dumb. It's it's just ridiculous actually. The only thing that unites every person on earth is death. That's it. That's the only thing we all have in common.
Every one of us. We will die. And so the fact that we're not daily discussing what happens then is just like insane. Trust me that's like a secular rational position on it. You don't have to be a Christian or or religious in any sense to acknowledge that that's just true no one ever talks about that and so I just want to approach that this election with that perspective and and that that event that attack on me has helped me to do that so again I'm really grateful for it I wouldn't I wouldn't change it if I could.
Speaker 0: You said someone go back to the about the dropping of the atomic bomb at the beginning of secular society. You might my dad and and your the greatest generation fought on the battlefields of of that conflict and and were the one of the driving forces with, obviously, the Russian people and the Chinese people to deliver us from that time from imperial Japan and fascist rule in in Europe. But the same time, Oppenheimer, and this is what's so chilling when you say that secular, he used I think it was the Hindu god Vishnu. They called the they called the project the Trinity Project. Right?
And at the very test there in New Mexico, he quoted, what the the the god Vishnu about now, you know, I have I'm I'm the destroyer of worlds. Right? Don't you find that chilling, or or is that tied to yours? Since that time, it's been all we've now dropped the spiritual, which even Oppenheimer realized in the greatest generation. We kind of went to what is a totally materialistic secular society that leads America to this place in 2024.
And the the the instrument of its turnaround or or its rejuvenation is a guy like Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: Well, we didn't drop the spiritual. We just embraced, you know, another element of it. I mean, if you're quoting a pagan god as you're incinerating civilians with a nuclear weapon, I mean, I think it's pretty clear, that that was the pivot point in America's history and it's just so interesting how resistant a lot of people who I consider friends, who I agree with on most things, are to acknowledging that. You know, they'll call you pro Hitler. You're a holocaust denier if you question the nuclear weapons or whatever.
I I don't care. Of course, I'm I'm none of those things. I, it goes without saying or it should. No. I'm just noting the obvious, which is that American society changed profoundly in August of 1945, and it's reflected in the culture.
It's reflected in the architecture, the art, the design, the literature. Nothing was the same after the end of the second world war. Again, it's not a pro Nazi statement. I couldn't be more anti Nazi, obviously. I'm an American.
I care about this country and what happened to it after 1945. It's a very clear demarcation line and seems obvious to me that nuclear weapons are demonic. There's no upside to them at all, and that anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or doing the bidding of the forces that created nuclear technology in the first place, which are not human forces, obviously. And let me just ask you this, which I have asked a 1000000 people at dinner parties but never in public. What was the moment we can point to that nuclear technology was invented?
You know we can we can point to Isaac Newton and say what happened fell on his head or we can you know we can point to Albert Hoffman in his lab messing around with the you know ergot bacteria that's when LSD was made. I don't I've never met a person who can isolate the moment where nuclear technology became known to man. And so where did it come from exactly? Oh german scientists in the thirties. Really when?
Name the date. And I've never heard anybody do that. It's it's very clear to me that these are these are demonic. I mean, these are evil. Their only purpose is to destroy the innocent, to murder the innocent.
They've only been used once. And in the and, you know, I think there's an interesting ethical debate about their use, was Truman right or whatever. But if you take 3 steps back, you could say, well, wait a second. If you end up killing, incinerating tens of thousands of civilians there, that's just a bad thing. Let's let's just be honest.
That's just a bad thing. And anyone who does that is gonna pay consequences. It's just true. And by the way, the fact the second bomb was dropped on the Christian population of Japan, which was majority in Nagasaki in fact it was cited in on a church in Nagasaki was that an accident? Why Nagasaki exactly?
And by the way why has every subsequent American war resulted in disproportionately the deaths of Christians That would include Vietnam, by the way, where the Catholic population was decimated up to and including Iraq and Syria. Now in Russia, why is it that our use of force consistently since the end of the 2nd World War has been against Christians? That's been the effect to kill Christians. The bombing of the Balkans in the nineties under NATO. Why is that?
And I just don't think it's an accident. Clearly, it's not an accident, and, I'm very distressed by it, and I it's not anti American. My family's been here since the freaking founding of the country. I'm not gonna stand and take that. I'm not hardly anti American.
I'm the most pro American person. I know I love America, and I certainly have to say that. It's not anti American. I'm distressed about what's being done to my country. I feel an ownership stake in this country.
I was born here. I'm a citizen in my name and with my money. Why wouldn't I? In a much more profound and emotional way that I than I do when I say look at the CCP's treatment of the Uighurs, which is clearly bad. I'm not would never defend it, but I don't feel as emotional about it because it's not my country.
It's not being done in my name with my money. And so everything went wrong then, And there are bad things in America before 1945, but the dissent has been precipitous. And you could hardly say that this country won that war in what meaningful sense. Why don't you go to Kyoto or Tokyo and then come back to New York and LA and and tell me in what sense we won. These are very obvious observations.
I just picked them up from traveling. I didn't read them in a book. I've just noticed. And why is that controversial to say it? Why does the entire staff of the Daily Wire call me a Nazi for saying that?
I don't really get it. What is that? What are you defending and why? What are you defending and why? And let let me just say with humility, you shouldn't be defending the killing of innocents.
You really shouldn't. And if you are, you ought to ask yourself why you are.
Speaker 0: Tucker, absolutely amazing. How do people get the show is, is is the best it's ever been. How do people get to your your show on Twitter, and how do they get to the rest of your content, the, your new network?
Speaker 1: Just, via my name, my now widely discredited name, which is Tucker Carlson. You go to Tucker Carlson dotcom or take a soccer Carlson on x or whatever. It's it's there. It's easy to find.
Speaker 0: Brother, you think it was hard before. Wait till they wait till they hear this where their heads will be blowing up all day. So it's fantastic and, deeply profound, sir. Deeply profound. I wanna thank you for coming
Speaker 1: on today.
Speaker 0: Appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Congrats, man, on getting out.
Speaker 0: Thanks, Tuck. Thank you, sir. Wow.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
"Criminally Insane" - Tucker Reacts to Bombshell Report that Biden Knew About Nuclear Risk https://t.co/XBO7ZrUdqT
Video Transcript AI Summary
According to the Pentagon, providing weapons to Ukraine that could strike targets within Russia carried a 50% chance of nuclear exchange. Despite this assessment, the US proceeded. Russia warned that a large aerospace attack would be considered a first strike, triggering a nuclear response.
The speakers discuss the implications of attacks on the Kremlin and the potential consequences of nuclear war, including the vulnerability of nuclear power plants. They claim that a nuclear meltdown would render the Earth uninhabitable for millions of years.
They also discuss European leaders' willingness to continue the war against Russia, despite the risk of escalation. They assert that globalists are willing to risk nuclear war for a "reset" and believe it is survivable. They criticize the current approach as "insanity" and "rolling the dice" with nuclear war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This just came out the other day. The Pentagon wrote an assessment saying that they calculated that if we gave weapons to Ukraine that allowed the Ukrainian military or our military using Ukraine as a proxy to hit targets within Russia. They judged the likelihood of a nuclear exchange at 50%. Mhmm. And they did it anyway.
At that point, like, you should be in prison for the criminally insane.
Speaker 1: Well, that's right. If Russia moved,
Speaker 0: You're risking nuclear war? Like, you should be locked up? I don't under like, that's the I couldn't even believe that. I mean, I, of course, intuitively knew that.
Speaker 1: And say that again because I interrupted. That's important to say again for people.
Speaker 0: That the that the Pentagon under Joe Biden assessed, like because they assess the likelihood of everything, they guess you know, they guess, they sort of work out how they think things will progress, but in every scenario globally, they do this. This is what they do at the Pentagon. And they assess that if we gave certain weapons, weapons that allowed the Ukrainians to strike targets within Russia, if we did that, which we did, the chance of a nuclear exchange, nuclear holocaust that killed everybody on Earth would be 50%, and they did it anyway. So imagine the brain. Imagine the evil.
Like, you would have to be controlled by, like, supernatural forces to do so. I think there's a 50% chance every person on Earth could be killed in a nuclear exchange, but I'm doing it anyway. Like, why aren't you how are you still walking free? I'm serious.
Speaker 1: No. And and I'm glad you brought that assessment up because I I really tried to be able to focus on that, and and I agree I agree with that assessment. I mean, let's let's pull that down. Imagine if Russia had the equivalent of attackers and storm shadows in Canada, in Mexico, on our border that they can fire above the trees that can't be shot down that are nuclear capable. And Putin said this, he said, if you shoot a few missiles once it started, we'll we'll just shoot them down.
But if we see a large aerospace attack with a whole bunch of these, we have to believe it is a first strike to take out our nuclear deterrent. And so when we see a large signature of a large aerospace attack, be it cruise missiles, be it glide bombs, be it a mix of aircraft or all of them, we will do a total commitment. And then Russia and TV said, here's the government, you know, scenario, and it showed nukes hitting all the NATO countries and submarines, you know, hitting on from there. And we're talking about world destroyed in thirty minutes, folks, for sure. Submarines off our coast, two minutes New York's gone, you know, five minutes Dallas is gone.
This is real. What would happen if Russia was bombing DC with conventional bombs, with large heavy cruise missiles that that
Speaker 0: that Droning the capital. As The US did through the Ukrainians, they droned the Kremlin.
Speaker 1: You were there once when you saw one blow
Speaker 0: up? Was there. I was actually driving by when I was over there last winter to interview Putin. I was driving by the Kremlin just like on the street in Downtown Moscow, smoke coming out of the top of the of the Kremlin. And so I called the, like, the guy at the press office who I was dealing with for just the Putin interview from the vehicle, and I was like, I think your Kremlin's on fire.
And he's like, oh, no. No. No. It's not. I was like, I'm right there.
I'm looking at it. Russians never want to admit that they have been unable to defend their capital city, so they You know, a lot of murder has taken place by the Ukrainians of Russians in of attempted murder of Americans, by way.
Speaker 1: And just think about the provocation here.
Speaker 0: But the Russians in every case are like, oh, that's not happening. They don't want to admit because for a bunch of reasons, but it would force them to respond. But, anyway, I called up, and I'm like, I I think you guys just got droned. No. No.
Didn't happen. But it did happen. I saw it. I personally saw it. So, like, there's been a ton of that stuff.
What would we do if the Russians droned the US Capitol or the White House? Like, that's so freaking crazy.
Speaker 1: How can you see that happen? Russia knows it's a provocation. The globalists want a reset. Their financial system's going down, and they're willing to roll the dice, and they think a nuclear war is survivable, as you know, as the Pentagon has said. So it it's complete madness.
Speaker 0: Nuclear war is not survivable. That that's a fact. It's not. By the way, nuclear weapon explodes over a nuclear power plant. What happens?
Anyone
Speaker 1: Massive meltdown that makes Fukushima look like Exactly.
Speaker 0: And we have a lot of nuclear power plants around the world.
Speaker 1: So There's over 450 that we big that are big industrial, thousands of small ones. And when society breaks down, they all melt down different ways, much worse than Fukushima and Chernobyl combined.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And it makes the whole surface of the earth, that it's mainline science unlivable for hundreds of millions of years.
Speaker 0: I agree. And I know everyone's for nuclear power and it's like obvious we need nuclear power. Right? I don't okay. I'm not against nuclear power in theory, but until someone can answer the question you just posed, like, what about that?
I mean Plus,
Speaker 1: they're never run right. They always have scenarios where they're not gonna leak. Basically, they all win.
Speaker 0: You see all these stupid concerns. Like, the answer is nuclear. You want more AI data centers, comma, which I don't. The answer is coal. Obviously.
But I don't understand why everyone this is such a sidebar, and I'll stop in one sentence, but, like, those of us who grew up in the seventies and eighties remember that all the opponents' nuclear power were, like, you know, furry armpit dumb people and, you know, all the Greenpeace people. And so you're just like, oh, shut up. Nuclear's obviously the solution. Like, you just don't understand science. How can you be against climate change and also against nuclear power?
I've said that myself, like, a hundred times on TV. But it's not about the spent fuel rods when we do it with nuclear waste. That's easy. Put it in Yucca Mountain. It's about what if these things are untended?
What if they're, you know, the subject of a conventional or nuclear attack?
Speaker 1: And you look at all the mismanagement.
Speaker 0: Vulnerability. Like, why doesn't anyone mention that? Before we put nuclear power plants all over my country, which I think a lot of people are psyched to do because they wanna get rich from AI, like, they should answer the question. Like, that's really freaking scary. No?
Speaker 1: Well, you have to also ask, why do they build so many in here and in, like, Japan, the plants ride on fault lines? I mean, there's a real we see a lot of ineptitude in industry and things. So you don't wanna have things that have the potential to be so dangerous. And when coal creates carbon dioxide that plants breathe and the earth used to have a lot higher carbon dioxide than it does now, and it makes plants live longer, yields are up, it it it will green the planet, all the studies show it. We're actually terraforming the earth to make it better.
It's it's like God given when you actually get the real studies and and talk to the real climatologist, the people they'll tell you, no, no, no. It's great that we're bringing this old carbon back up and putting it back in the atmosphere. This is fabulous. More carbon is good. Carbon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, and sunlight are the four ingredients of life on this planet, and the globalist created a way to tax and regulate one of the four pillars of life on this planet.
It is good. I mean, again, they're trying to convince us cows' methane is bad. You actually look at the carbon equation, it all turns right back into the gases it came from. It's a good gas. But again, if the cows are bad, well, what else releases methane?
We do. We're the carbon that they want to reduce. They wanna teach us to hate ourselves, teach us not to have a life force, and their new religion is they will give us all these indulgences and all these flagellations and all these things we have to do to atone for how bad we are to the priest class that is the big satanic green church.
Speaker 0: So the threat of nuclear war overhangs any conflict with a country that has nuclear weapons, of course. You push someone far enough, you you don't know what could happen, and it could result in the extinction of humanity. So that's, like, the main fact. That's why people wanna run, not to have nukes. Right?
Obviously. So with that in mind, what do you make of the public repeated public statements by a bunch of European leaders, particularly Stormer in The UK and and the president of France, that they're ready to, like, continue the war against Russia with their own feeble armies. Like, what that seems crazy to what what is that actually about?
Speaker 1: And they've said that now they're sending their troops that if they get killed, then that's direct war with NATO. They admit that the EU population wise is collapsing. Those they brought in, most of them, 80%, never even get jobs. That all the different ministers defense ministers, as you know, last few years have said, our business model is a twenty year war. They think they can continue that and somehow bankrupt Russia and again break it up into five parts.
So they've made it existential for themselves. They made it existential, for Russia. And you go back to the Pentagon assessment that was public that 50% chance that if we start bombing, and that's the West doing it, mainly The US inside Russia, they would strike back with nukes. And then Putin clarifying, well, if we see a large launch, it could be a sneak attack with nukes, we're gonna have to go ahead and nuke you at that point. Please don't do that.
So at least they limited, you know, to to to four or five big cruise missile attacks a day, and then, you know, maybe a hundred drones a day going into major cities and attacking their nuclear bases, their nuclear bomber bases. I mean, extreme provocation, testing the line, and not playing Russian roulette where you have a six shot revolver and you put one three fifty seven magnum casing in round in. But this is three out of six, and they're like, well, that's a safe bet. Let's roll the dice, spin the cylinder, and then click it to our head every day. It just goes the fundamental insanity that you see escalating.
I mean, if you go back to the But
Speaker 0: actual ins like, insanity. Not, you know, I don't know, will tariffs work or, you know, whatever you could argue. But, like, risking nuclear war? I mean, that's so fucking crazy that I can hardly believe it's real.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. They say Trump saying our surrender to these one-sided trade deals, is totally true, and deindustrialized this and destroyed our morale and is a huge national security issue that he's rolling the dice there. No. No. No.
Would be rolling the
Speaker 0: dice with nuclear war? Again, I think you should be in prison for even having that that's like the craziest thing I could imagine. Thanks for watching. You can go to TuckerCarlson.com for our entire library of everything we've done, and we hope you will.
@ScienceGuyPhD - Science Guy PhD
An interesting Tucker Carlson interview with previous Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon ! https://t.co/GYYQJ8Hfbv
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tucker Carlson discusses his concerns about potential US involvement in another Middle Eastern war, particularly with Iran, and the forces driving this push. He criticizes media outlets like Fox News for promoting such conflicts, despite claiming to like the Murdochs personally. He believes a war with Iran would undermine Trump's domestic agenda and fears the US is sleepwalking into a larger conflict.
Carlson expresses frustration with the political system, which he feels is ignoring the will of the American people and is being influenced by a "deep state" that has existed since the Kennedy assassination. He suggests Trump should resist being "bum rushed" into a war and prioritize American interests. He also accuses some individuals and groups of misrepresenting Trump's motives regarding peace in the Middle East. Carlson emphasizes his desire to avoid becoming consumed by hate or obsession with the topic, but feels compelled to speak out due to his concern for the country's future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've got Dee Tucker Carlson in the war room. Brother, thank you. It's good to see This is by the way, you were here years ago, Andrew Breitbart. When Andrew Breitbart lived here, you were up at the top.
Speaker 1: I was joined the day it opened,
Speaker 0: and Yes.
Speaker 1: It looks exactly the same. I can't believe you're still here. I mean, that was fifteen years anyway.
Speaker 0: Fifteen years. So 02/2011, fourteen years going on fifteen to ten. Crazy. I know since you left DC, you're you're very hesitant to spend a lot of time here. Yes.
This is you're not you're this is not your favorite town anymore.
Speaker 1: I spent my whole life here. I have family here. I have close family here, so I I come back to see them, but not not very often.
Speaker 0: Why are you in town? You're gonna spend a couple days in town, which is quite
Speaker 1: I'm interviewing various people. The president's gone, but I'm seeing a bunch of people and, you know, there's a lot going on and I feel like there aren't many people representing the, hey, let's have less violence and focus on America side of things. So it's worth coming just to say that out loud. Of course, you're hated for it. It's crazy how the people who are against killing are the criminals all of a sudden.
It's wild. And I thought the other day, you know, this is accelerating and I was hearing all this, you know, I'm going to war with Iran and I was the party was like, oh, we're not really gonna do that. After we have this election whose core point was, hey, can we just pay attention to this amazing nation that we have that's suffering and people are taking loans out to buy groceries? And, like, we need attention and money. Micropayments.
Speaker 0: They they buy now and they pay micropayments over time Food. For food.
Speaker 1: For food. But, hey, let's pay for somebody else's missile defense. No. So I I start to think I start to hear this stuff and I'm like, this can't be real. But then it's it becomes obvious to me that it is real.
And I think that is the last conversation I wanna be part of. I have zero interest in this conversation at all. I know it's all downside for me. It's like I'm gonna get, you know, rich and make more friends trying to stop
Speaker 0: But why why why why is the the the argument that you're making I'm making a slightly different argument, but it's trinity. Why are you being vilified? So maybe we just had Tom Cotton. We played clips before he got here. We had Mark Levin, Tom Cotton, we had BB.
BB said last night to Brent Baer, oh, it's twelve to thirteen months away from you know, we're supposed there was supposed the bomb was supposed to be on Friday or Saturday. Now he's telling Brent Baer on Sunday, really, we got intelligence, but it's twelve to thirteen months away, which is something they've been saying forever.
Speaker 1: Why funny that Beebe's more honest about it than than his water carriers here in The United States. Like, you would never get Barry Weiss or Tom Cotton to admit that.
Speaker 0: Well, Tom Cotton took a shot. He said the, you know
Speaker 1: He's mad at BB now. BB's No. No. No. He took a shot.
Took a He's
Speaker 2: not from Israel enough.
Speaker 0: He took a he took a shot at the same podcasters and influencers, right, or don't have the accountability, the responsibility here.
Speaker 1: You know, yes. I I really try I've spent a lot of my life being cruel and really cruel, and I'll have to answer for that someday and at times dishonesty. What do
Speaker 0: you mean cruel?
Speaker 1: Just going after those weaknesses. No. That's my instinct always. I mean, I grew up as a debater and I'm nasty in some ways. And so I look at some of the players in this whom I've known since they got to Washington, since, again, I'm from here.
I had breakfast at the Metropolitan Club this morning, alone. And, no. This is like my city. Right? My dad worked for the government.
This is where we're from. And and I look at these people who I've known since they, you know, came in from the provinces, including the senator you mentioned, who's from a state I used to live in. And, you know, you could really be mean about it, and they are mean. You know, they've attacked my family and all this stuff a lot. But I'm trying not to respond that way.
My interest is really simple. I don't want The United States enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war that doesn't serve our interest. I saw that last time. I covered that war. I had a friend killed in that war.
Speaker 0: Talk about Iraq because Iraq is saying some of the same voices at the Fox platform who was so
Speaker 1: You know, the Fox platform is just it's so disgraceful. What's you know, there's so many good people at Fox. I worked for the Murdochs for, you know, all in over twenty years. I always liked them. I like them now.
I'm not attacking them personally and tons of people at Fox are my friends. And I there's a lot about Fox that I love, and they were kind to me, always. Even when they fired me, they were nice. I just wanna say that. But the one theme that runs longitudinally through the history of Fox is the promotion of wars that don't help The United States.
And I don't know is why is that? It's the owners are committed to that vision, and, and they are elaborately polite, nice people. You know them, Rupert and Laughlin. I mean, they were sitting here. There's no chance you wouldn't like them, and they're interesting, and they're smart, and they're just nice.
They're super nice, but we disagree fundamentally on that. And the claws really come out at moments like this. You know, most of the time, it's, you know, it's fine. But when it really comes down or when it's a question of whether US military power will be exerted on behalf of a foreign country thousands of miles from here, they are all in and anyone who stands in the way will be destroyed. I don't think it's personal, by the way.
I like Tom Cotton. I always like Barry Weiss. Barry Weiss is very charming person. I like all these people. I always like Mark Levin.
Like, I got along with him. I mean, he's blowhard, sad personal life and all that, but I I was never mad at Mark Levin or Hannity. I like Brilliant
Speaker 0: brilliant constitutional guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There there are great things about all these people. I don't think they hate me personally. They know I'm not working for Qatar. I feel like maybe I should be working for Qatar.
Like, what the hell at this point? I've never taken a dime from any foreign country or anybody, actually.
Speaker 0: In fact, you just bought out I think it was announced you bought out your investors.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Not a money guy. Mean, they're projecting. If you could see my house, like, I've made more money than I deserve, but I've not gotten rich. And I don't live like a rich person.
Everyone knows that. They're money people. That's why they're projecting or they're people with opaque motives. My motives are I'm, like, autistic about my whole life. I just I'm totally happy to tell you why I'm doing what I'm doing and I wanna be transparent and I think pretty much I am.
They're the ones who have these weird complex motives and so they project onto everyone else the same. Oh, you're getting paid by somebody. You you're not sincere. You don't really think that you're saying it in order to get clicks or it's also dumb In my case, untrue. You may dislike my views and you may have good reason to dislike my views and I understand that.
But they're totally sincere. Anyway, my temptation in a moment like this is to go low and to note that a lot of the people pushing for this stuff have really empty tormented personal lives. That's true of many in Washington. And that this is a way to kind of feel powerful. I mean, nothing makes you feel more powerful than killing other people.
That's the ultimate power. And and we talk so much about money and sex and those are drivers of human behavior. Of course, those are powerful impulses in people to accumulate more of both. But really, the ultimate power, the Promethean power, the core power is the power to kill. And when you deny that to people or you seek to deny that to people or you raise the point that actually you can't kill people and that when you do, you will suffer for that.
As you said the other day and I and I just I loved it. I meditated on it in That moment in Matthew, and it's not just in Matthew. It's in John. It's in a number of gospels where Jesus scolds Peter for raising the sword in his defense. They're they're hauling off Jesus to torture him to death for no reason.
All he did was heal people. And his closest disciples seeks to defend him with violence, and Jesus scolds him and then gets hauled off
Speaker 0: to a They torturous could have made a break. They would would have stood up, and Jesus wouldn't have been seized, and it had all gone on. But he told him right there, live by the sword. Die by
Speaker 1: the scolds him. It's unbelievable. He's mad at Peter. It's just incredible. Anyway, whether or not you believe in Christianity, whether or not you're a Christian, it doesn't matter.
It is true that people who espouse violence suffer in the end. They do. I have seen it a lot. And I grew up in a world that have espoused violence. That's what the US government does.
My dad was involved in it. And I just I just believe that. And maybe you don't believe that. That's fine. That is my core belief.
I I sincerely think that. But why the hate towards someone who's just like, hey, I I'm not I'm hard if you think and I said this to an Israeli official. If you think I'm anti Israel, man, you are you have lost the plot, son. If you think I'm your enemy, not at all. I like Israel.
Are you kidding? I've spent a lot of time there. I continue to like it. I pray that Jerusalem is not damaged. I feel so sad for the Israelis who've been killed in the last couple days and the Iranians who've been killed in the last couple days with nothing to do with any of this.
But the point is, if you think that saying, hey, let's focus focus on my country where I was born, where my family's been for hundreds of years, that was the promise of the last election, please do it. If you think that's hate, you know, you've really lost perspective, I guess is what I would say. But they do think it's hate and I've and what's happened is what I knew it happened, which is just like, oh, attacks I don't wanna deal with that are affecting personal friendships that I care about. The viciousness and the dishonesty is almost unbelievable. Anyway, not to whine.
I never whine about stuff like that. It's just that I knew this was gonna happen. I didn't wanna talk about it at all. I'd much rather talk about immigration. I'd much rather talk about keeping the dollar stores out of rural America.
There are all kind I'd much rather talk about people taking out loans to buy groceries. These are the declining life expectancy in this country. Fentanyl? I mean, someone else I know just died of fentanyl last week. It's like all of that is now ignored because a leader of a country who does not have majority support in that country, probably 30% support, wants a course of action that includes The United States.
And I just disagree. And, anyway, I think it's gonna happen. I don't know, here's what I
Speaker 0: You you think that do you think we're enjoying the combat offensive combat opera? Well, we have to we have to we can't assume that we have
Speaker 1: to stop the product of, like, look
Speaker 0: We have to stop that.
Speaker 1: You've actually helped run the governments. I don't need to tell you. You've been there. Decisions like this are never explicitly made. They just sort of happen.
Yes. Sort of like living with your girlfriend. Like, you you you know, you wake up hungover one morning and she's there, and then she just kind of doesn't leave. And then next thing you know, you get married and have kids. Like, that's how most people make decisions, just sort of on the basis of facts on the ground.
And these things move inexorably toward what they're moving to now, which is full scale war that includes lots of other countries, either explicitly or not, but the effect is the same. It's a world war. It's a war in which the world is participating.
Speaker 0: Well, we're we're I think we're in the kinetic part from Ukraine, but today, they just moved the carrier battle group from the South China Sea. The Nimitz is heading toward the North Arabian Sea. So they're they're they're they've got the the the tankers have flown over there. So we're prepositioning the assets Of course. To get involved.
And you think that this is gonna happen. There's no way we can stop it.
Speaker 1: It's too I mean, I think there are ways to stop it. Oh, you are such a nice person. Sorry. I needed the sacred beverage. No.
Of course, there are ways to stop it. It's just that unless you take it's like gaining weight, which I have, you know, lived with. It's like unless you are a crazy person devoted to being thin, you will get fatter in your fifties. Like, you have to take active steps to prevent the inevitable, something that is inevitable otherwise. And in this case, what's inevitable absent those active monomaniacal steps toward preventing it is is a is a much larger war.
It's too easy to pull The United States into. Have too many assets in that region. We're too dependent on the energy from that region. International oil markets are mean, there's so many things that could go wrong, actually. It's horrifying as the the exchange between Israel and Iran has been.
Horrifying in the sense that innocents have died, which, let me remind you, is horrifying always and everywhere.
Speaker 0: No. Have to believe that. Tehran's got hit. Civilians are dead.
Speaker 1: In both places. Right. And if we don't think that that's sad, then we're not fully human. Like, you have to believe that's sad and you have to really mean it. Whether or not, you know, you can hate the Iranian government.
I'm not for the Iranian government. But if you don't see the death of innocence anywhere is sad, then you are gravely diminished, certainly as a Christian. Hey, whatever. But there are so many ways to pull The United States into this, and the incentives to pull The US in are so profound. I guess, if I could just say one political thing, the watching Donald Trump, who, of course, you know very well, who I think at core is sincere about peace.
Oh, big time. Yeah. Big time. Yeah. Big time.
I mean, that's that's real. Watching him done so wrong, the lies, oh, he knew all along, you know, that the peace process was fake. Steve Witkoff was playing along. That is a lie. That's a lie.
I know. That's a lie. Those guys meant it.
Speaker 0: Bald faced lie.
Speaker 1: It's a total lie. And all these people that that Mark Levin and and all of the minions who are running cover for a foreign government, they're all telling that same lie. And I just I feel for president Trump, and I think I don't know this. I'm just guessing. But at this point, I feel like he just has to kinda roll with it.
You know, what do you say? You can't you don't wanna get in an argument about that right in the middle of a war.
Speaker 0: No. I think he reiterated last night that we gotta get back to the peace part. They gotta lay down the
Speaker 1: lying about him. He sincerely even now, he sincerely believes whether he's right or or not, I I can't say. But that this could be a predicate to a peace deal, what we're seeing now. He really thinks that and wants that, and the and the other side is just like, no. We a peace deal is the world.
Speaker 0: It's the other side, but the other side also has app the apparatus here. This is
Speaker 1: what happened in The US.
Speaker 0: When Ukraine attacked when Ukraine attacked, we still haven't asked Ratcliffe. Was the CIA involved? That is zero probability Ukraine could attack that deep into Russia Exactly. With without without some involvement. Here, the exact same thing.
Why was Tulsi Gabbard not invited to the Camp David meeting all day? You know why? Why Tulsi Gabbard still to the American public is is has said the last public statement is that the the program was not back up and running. And now we have from from Beebe by himself on Fox by Brent Bear that the thing was twelve to thirteen months away. It wasn't this weekend.
Speaker 1: I know.
Speaker 0: And this is by his own thing. And we also know that it was a decapitation. As we said on Friday, it wasn't just about the nuclear program. It's a decapitation of total leadership. So this is a total regime change, which, by the way, you may have a plan for regime change is fine, but you gotta bring the American people on.
Let me go back.
Speaker 1: I by the way, I said that publicly last week. This is the point of this is regime change. I know everyone involved. I know I'm I'm telling the truth. I have no weird motive here at all.
I don't need Israel. Let's have a rational conversation about what our aims are here, and maybe you can convince me that we need to support a regime change war in Iran. Tell me how that plays out in a country of 90,000,000 people. Have you thought it through? Do you even care?
And the answer is no. We have a economic and political and demographic crisis in Europe because of US backed, Israel backed
Speaker 0: Syria.
Speaker 1: Wars Yes. In The Middle East. That's what's destroyed Europe where my ancestors came from. And I I spend a lot of time there, and I love European culture, which is Christian culture. And it's destroyed that.
And, you know, shut up. You're not allowed to care. Who's making the rules here? You know, I I don't hate anyone. I don't see conflict with anyone at all.
I have no weird biases. All my biases are out in the open. And but I I I really resent being told who my enemy especially with foreigners. Some foreigner shows up and tells you who your enemies are? Really?
I've been here a long time. I live across from my parents' graves. You can't tell me who America's enemies are. At least I have a right to weigh in on that also. Oh, shut up, says Mark Dubowitz or something.
It's like, you are you even
Speaker 2: from here? What do you who are you anyway? This is so bonkers.
Speaker 1: I don't hate Mark Dubowitz. I don't hate his agenda. What I hate I disagree with his agenda. I'm not mad at him. I'm not mad at any of these people fundamentally.
But what I seek is an honest, open, transparent conversation about what we're doing and why. And I don't think that's too much to ask for considering it's my tax dollars and my money that you're seeking to use to achieve it. If that's radical, then, you know, we've distorted the terms beyond recognition.
Speaker 0: If you look at the debt, $9,000,000,000,000 associated with Iraq and Afghanistan. I wanna go back to Iraq. We played on Friday. We did the whole opening thing of the bombing, everything going everybody on TV beating their chest because at that time, it looked like Israel was telling, hey. This thing's over now.
People jumping in. And we finished with shock and awe from February. And I said, hey. Look. If you go back in that time, they're all beating their chest then in the march up country to Baghdad, and they couldn't be better.
Remember, they're throwing roses on the ground, all that. And it was twenty years later, a complete fiasco because it's always a law unintended consequences. That's what we face here. This thing has not been thought through. Right?
It does not have the commitment of the American. We have to bring the American people. The American people are not there to get into another war right
Speaker 1: now. And why is the congress not actively debating this? There's one person. Marjorie Taylor Greene is, like, the only oh, and now Levin says this morning, she's not MAGA. Okay.
Alright now. Now we're really in the last scene of Animal Farm.
Speaker 0: No. She she's just she's just some tiny congressman from rural Georgia.
Speaker 1: She's some liberal from Suburban Atlanta. I mean, it's also mind bending. And I have to say, you know, the the level of unanimity, the sort of instantaneous response from 535 members of congress that we're gonna do this one thing, No debate. Anyone who says otherwise is evil. It does make you wonder, like, what is this system?
Are you an appeaser?
Speaker 0: You've been called now an appeaser? An appeaser? What? And a pacifist.
Speaker 1: Right? A pacifist.
Speaker 0: Why why why have they thrown what have both Well, they're literally a fact
Speaker 1: that my family
Speaker 0: What have you said here in the last seventy two hours as a factual matter that would make you an appeaser
Speaker 1: and make you American above all. I am not a genius. I'm not a prophet. I've been wrong many many times, and I it's possible I'm wrong now, but my motives are transparent. I love this country.
Have nowhere else to go. I don't I will not go anywhere else, and I just want what's best for it. We can debate what's best for it. But to tell me that I'm working for a foreign nation is like by people who are literally working for foreign nations, it's like so nuts. I will say this.
Our political system is paralyzed in the face of this completely. It's not doing what it was designed to do, which is channel the views of the people through the apparatus of government. It's not doing that at all. It's short circuiting and ignoring their opinions. And you have to kind of wonder why, and I don't fully understand it.
I know that our system is not working, and I don't think there's any country in the planet looking at us saying, oh, I want that system. Oh, wow. That version of democracy, I think What if
Speaker 0: look at Trump as that trade deals to bring jobs back, seal the border, and deport the illegal aliens, and no more forever wars as the basic planks in November of last year that won Yes. I wanna speak with back. It it is at least working at that level that the message can get out, and we have a new coalition. We have African American men, Hispanics, families, know, Star County, Texas, the the most Hispanic county in the country, 97% hard bitten, blue collar Hispanic citizens. We lose by to Hillary by 60 points.
Trump wins in November by 16 points. It's coming our way in this new coalition. Incredible. Including even the summit, and I get limited appetite from even the tech bros in that crowd. It's a new coalition like 1932, right, where FDR had professors at Harvard and cracker democrats down down South and ranchers out West and and people in inner cities and Irish and Italians and all that.
A new coalition that could govern for
Speaker 1: fifty years.
Speaker 0: One one one. But it's something that could govern for fifty years. That's out. Now we're into the governing of it where those are the priorities. And particularly, president Trump has now tripled down with the ice raids and saying, hey.
These sanctuary cities are gonna go. We're gonna get these people out of here. That to me is the top battle in this third world war. That we've had 10,000,000 illegal aliens just on Biden's watch. Is it not able to go able to win elections, but not able to govern?
Is that the issue?
Speaker 1: You know, I really don't know. I I there's something really wrong. There are certain red lines that you can't cross, and and they're almost all foreign policy related. I do think that, you know, the people pushing hardest for American involvement in a war with Iran really hate Trump's domestic agenda. Mark Levin was a never Trumper in 02/2016, of course.
They all do, the Bill Crystals. They all hate what Trump is trying to do in The United States.
Speaker 0: Which is populist economics. Yeah.
Speaker 1: They hate it. They hate it. That's exactly right. Look. We'll see this in the tax bill.
For Trump with Trump. I I I gave up this sounds so whiny, but, like, grouse season, which is my favorite time of year in in October and left my dogs at home suffering. Like, where are you? And I went on the road with Trump, and I loved it. And I was with him.
I was standing right next to him when he won. I have a picture of phone of that, which I would never show anybody else, but I look at it because it was one of my happiest moments. It was the happiest moment in politics and I've seen a lot that I've ever participated in. And look, of course, governing's really hard and you're never gonna do everything you promised you would do, but on the big things, it's really important that they not get totally subverted because it makes people lose faith in the system. And I do think
Speaker 0: But the systems run this is the deep state part of it.
Speaker 1: What is the system?
Speaker 0: We we barely have a grip. We have two good guys. Cash Patel is like a brother to me and Dan Bungino, great guy. We have two people at FBI. We barely have a grip there.
We have a handful of people at justice. We barely have a grip there. We have two people at Ellis and and Radcliffe at CIA. Right? We have a handful of people with with Tulsi.
On the security, we have Christie and and Corey and a couple other people, you know, the home and at DHS, but DHS is still getting people out here the old fashioned way. That's where they're burning through cash. In these central apparatuses of the deep state, we barely have a grip on it, and they're running the deal.
Speaker 1: The Kennedy files out sixty two years later. And by the way, somebody murdered the president of The United States and lied about it for sixty years. Okay? And we still can't get those files. There we there are thousands of documents that have not been released as of today.
And everyone seems
Speaker 0: to All of it related all of it related to somehow CIA activity or CIA suppressing information with the FDA.
Speaker 1: Just CIA. Okay? So until look. We're living in a post coup country. The coup from Everything the that happened After that.
Post 1963. Every elected official, certainly every official elected at the national level lives with that hanging over him. They took out this guy, and whoever did it is so powerful that we can't even know today when John McCone is fifty years in the grave, head of CIA then. Everyone's gone, and we still can't find out exactly what happened today.
Speaker 0: Sources and methods.
Speaker 1: They don't even say that anymore. They don't say anything. They're just like, we released y'all. No. You didn't.
You lie. You lie. I know. I'm from here. I, you know, I I know.
So I do think there's a sense in which some of our leaders feel the presence of a physical threat.
Speaker 0: I don't think that I know it. So Well, to when Trump is a two assassination attempts.
Speaker 1: Well, at least two. And you can't have Not
Speaker 0: from Iran. Two that were Not from Iran and for For BBSA's got two.
Speaker 1: It's That's that's reaching. I mean, I do think that Netanyahu could make his case by telling the truth. I don't think there's any reason to lie. Again, that's a lie. He knows that Iran and then he Brett Bear pressed him and he's like, oh, it's your proxies anyway.
But the but the point is the point is you know, as a high school debater,
Speaker 0: I know how this works.
Speaker 2: Pivot. But the point is over here, it's it's
Speaker 1: a three card money. It's the gypsies. You know? Okay. No.
Iran did not try to assassinate the president during the last election. And by the way, if Iran did try to assassinate Trump and we know that, then why are we not at war with Iran? What are you saying, Bibi? Are you saying that the president of The United States is such a cuck that a foreign country can try and murder him and he won't do anything about it? Is that what you're saying?
I mean, if if the administration believed Iran was behind two assassination attempts against Donald Trump, trust me, We nuked the country. You can't do your own murder an American president. So, we that's not true and everyone knows it's not true. But what is true is that the American president was murdered and we're still not allowed to know who did it and why. And I just think until that is cleared and I've never been a Kennedy obsessive or whatever, not interested in the Kennedys especially.
I'm not I'm not Irish. But as a matter of like governance, how can you have a president or a senator who truly does his best to uphold the core idea of a democratic republic, which is like the people's opinions matter? You can't have that because he's worried about getting killed. That's just true. And nobody says that.
I don't know why don't they say that. Oh, you know. If this were happening in Liberia, you'd be like, it's not a real government because whenever the president try and, you know, strays outside the pre prescribed boundaries, he gets murdered or worries about getting murdered. Pretty much the same thing. You would not describe that as a functioning democracy.
And yet, we just pretend that this is not happening, but it is happening. And, boy, do you see it on foreign policy? It's the only issue they care about. You really think that ended Mark Levin, like, cares how many Somalis are in Minnesota? No.
Not at all. The more the better. What he all he cares about is the projection of force using American service personnel to fight faraway wars that have no material benefit, in fact, massive downside for The United States. That's his whole orientation.
Speaker 0: But why is that the platform of Fox, though? It's just not Mark. So but why is Fox, like, all weekend, it's just cheerly it's the same it's exact you can play side by side Iraq in 2003 Oh, I was there. In here. And and what's happening today?
Why is it that why is this apparatus?
Speaker 1: Well, Levin's the funniest because he's terrible on TV. And, again, I never had any problems with him at Fox. He kinda controls Hannity in this weird way. I never understood what that was about. I never really cared to learn.
Sean was great to me, always nice, and so was Levin. So I just, like, kinda stayed away. But they didn't wanna put him on TV because he's, like, screechy and he's just not a coming president. Michael on TV. Like, oh my unless you're literally floating in and out of consciousness and the attendant has taken the remote to go have a cigarette, you're gonna flip the channel when my Michael Levin gets on TV.
It's like listening to your ex wife screaming about alimony payments. It's like not appealing. So they wouldn't put him on TV and then, you know, Sean pushed and they gave him some kind of weekend show that nobody watched. Now, I don't have a TV, but someone was just who had who owns a TV was just telling me that he's, like, all over prime time. So what is that?
That's not by popular acclaim. It's not like their viewer surveys. Like, you know, we need a lot more Mark Levin. Less Jesse Waters, more Mark Levin. Mark Levin.
Speaker 2: What they're doing is what
Speaker 1: they always do, which is just turning up the propaganda hose to full blast and just trying to, you know, knock elderly Fox viewers off their feet and make them submit
Speaker 0: This is this is where the this is where the population, the voters are ahead of the political class in the media. The American people do not want any more engagement in a foreign war. They just they saw Iraq. They saw Afghanistan. We're just out.
I think twenty
Speaker 1: years racist. I think is that what you're saying? They're just bigots.
Speaker 0: So so so why is why is Fox continue to pound that?
Speaker 1: Because they really really mean it. And you saw they really mean it. I mean, there is a kind of sincerity there that I respect. It's I I don't know why they fired me, but I think it no one ever told me. And I just wanna say for the fifth time, they could not have been nicer when they fired me, and they couldn't have been, you know, more friendly.
I I talked to them recently to the owners recently because I still like them even though we disagree. So I'm not whining about them as people, but I think they can me from Fox or shut down my show because I criticized Zelensky and Zelensky's close to the owners of the company. It's like, well, how did that happen? Why is Zelensky I don't know. I don't understand.
There's a lot I don't understand. All I know is and it's not just Fox News. It's the American media generally. It's it's government institutions. It's this city.
It's the people I used to live next to on Cambridge Road Northwest in DC. They are deadly serious on the subject of projection of force abroad. That is the one they have no sense of hearing about at all. They'll lecture you all day about the gays and the black people and, you know, in this house, we believe in science. They don't give a shit about science or black people or gays or transgender.
What they care about is the projection of force against their enemies on the other side of the globe. That's why the Pentagon has a trillion dollar budget when the country is protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Speaker 0: And and president Trump's strategy is a hemisphere defense. What then are the steps that you're recommending if the if the program is we must take down the deep state or at least make some effort at at it? What would be your recommendation to the
Speaker 1: process? Under control.
Speaker 0: And how would you do that?
Speaker 1: By adding the number of political appointees. You know, I think CIA has know, it's a federal agency whose budget we don't know, of course. And it's not just a federal agency.
Speaker 0: And I say this in all Syrians. The the special government employee where you still had your podcast, you still had your the Tucker Carlson network, would you go assist the president like Elon did with Doge? Would you go assist him to say, hey. Give me a hundred and twenty days. I will give you advice.
CIA? No. I've the whole thing. CIA, Pentagon, DIA, the the DNI, all of it, FBI, DOJ to say, hey. Look.
Here's the battle map. Here's what we have to do, or we're not gonna have we don't really have a constitution republic.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm unable to organize a sock drawer, so I don't think that I have the temperament. I don't think I have the skills for that. I'm doing Do you
Speaker 0: have the insight to do that if you had other people who can organize it?
Speaker 1: Grew up around it. Yeah. I know.
Speaker 0: I know a lot about it. And I think this has to happen. And I'm being some very serious.
Speaker 1: Killed immediately, of course.
Speaker 0: I mean, you think you would be subject to assassination?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think I I think that would be perilous. I would do it. I would do look. I feel like what I'm doing now, I love Trump, and I mean that.
I've never Does Trump frustrate you? Of course. I mean, you've you've certainly been through that. But my dog's frustrated. My kid's frustrated.
I mean, you get frustrated when you deal with people you love. But I'm my core feeling about Trump, I think it's obvious in the way I talk about him, and I didn't I don't I don't need any more money. I don't need anything from anybody. If I didn't like Trump, I'd just say so. I actually really love Trump.
I think he's a deeply humane, kind person. And I am saying this because I I'm really afraid that my country's gonna be further weakened by this. I think we're gonna see the end of American empire, obviously. Other nations would like to see that, and this is a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the shoals of Iran. But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency and effectively end it.
And and so that's why I'm saying this.
Speaker 0: What do you mean by that? That's that's coming from you.
Speaker 1: That's You get look, I knew Bush. I knew George w Bush. We family connections to Bush. I knew Bush. Personally, I still see Bush sometimes.
And, know, of course, he he hates me and he does because I criticized him on Iraq. And that war is the sum total from historical perspective of his administration. But I knew him and he had all kinds of plans for the things that he wanted to do. But once Domestically. Domestically.
Right. To improve the country. Right. And you may agree or disagree, but like in his mind, he wasn't just about the invasion of Iraq in March of
Speaker 0: twenty He was gonna redo Social Security. He had all his 100%. Aug types of he was gonna take care of the entitlements issue.
Speaker 1: And he really thought it was gonna work. Yep. And you could laugh at that or whatever, but the point is the second you get enmeshed in a real war, not a fake, let's go bomb the villagers and declare success, though we don't even have a good track record. Like, why are the Houthis still there? I mean, there's a whole other question, which is how prepared is the US military for real conflict?
And the answer is totally unprepared. Scary unprepared. I don't think people understand that. But anyway, the only reason I'm saying any of this is because I really, really care. And it's been what a disaster for me personally.
I mean, it's like the last thing I wake up, you know, there are all these texts going, well, I can't believe you're so evil. You hate this and that. I I just wanna restate. I don't hate anybody. And to the extent I do hate people, I try to repent of it.
I don't want to hate anybody. I really don't. I just don't want my country to be further weakened or destroyed by another one of these wars. And, boy, if you can't connect the dots after twenty five years of this shit, you're either too dumb to participate in the conversation or you're, like Mark Levin, just a liar who doesn't care.
Speaker 0: I know you gotta bounce. We're gonna hang up this afternoon. One question. If you were able to see the president in the next couple days when he gets back, what would be the two or three things you would tell him? Mister president, this is my this is my heartfelt advice about where we are right now for
Speaker 1: the country. Because I think I try to speak exactly the same well, you know me. I speak exactly the same in private. I use the f word more. But in in general, I say the same things.
And I would say to him, like, you're the only person who can bring peace. You should continue to try and do that. It's difficult. It takes a long time, but your timetable is the only timetable that matters. Don't get bum rushed.
You don't need to fix this because there's political turmoil in Bibi's coalition. Right. It's not relevant
Speaker 0: to the military. He's at 30% approval is not your problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Just because some ultra orthodox party doesn't wanna be conscripted or whatever's going on in Israel, these are long time problems that that country has had. That's not relevant to our plans or to your plans as the leader of the free world. Okay? A.
B, if you get involved in a war that includes American troops and force, if you're lobbying missiles from submarines into Iran
Speaker 0: Or combat sorties. You're doing combat sorties. You're I actually say we're combatant now, but, I mean, you could basically argue maybe not what the air
Speaker 1: defense I just wanna pretend we're not.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Because Yes. Of course, we are. And but I wanna pretend we're not because we're in the final stages of being able to pull back, and pretty soon, there's no pulling back. You know, we're still sending money to Ukraine to fight Vladimir Putin. Like, how did that happen?
It happened because nobody just stopped it. Nobody said, hey, Zelensky. You're not even elected. You're a dictator. Off the stage.
Run to Switzerland. You know? Get out of
Speaker 0: The intelligence services are helping from to plan the 3,000 mile strike into their strategic assets in the country.
Speaker 1: The US services are also fully aware of the many assassinations and assassination attempts against opponents and critics of the Ukrainian regime. Many, including someone I know. So, The U this is super dark, man. The more you know about it, it's like The U The US the IC, American Intel community, is aware that the Ukrainian Intel community is murdering people, including Americans? Like, how can that even happen?
So there's a lot. But the last thing I'll say is the second I've seen it. The second the killing starts, the calculations change. People become much less principled, much less reasonable, much less able to
Speaker 0: see Vengeance and annihilation. And they can't
Speaker 1: see their own interest clearly, and so don't don't go there.
Speaker 0: And you think right now we're on the cusp of that?
Speaker 1: I'm an optimistic man, and I think that we could I think we could pull back. And I I wish the president wasn't in Canada. I don't wish a trip to Canada on anyone because I think it's a really dark country. Hope I he gets home soon because you don't want any of that Canadian to rub off on you while you're there. But, yeah, I mean, I think that this can be can be stopped, but it it it's gonna require a really tough step, which is to say to our client state, we love you.
We wanna help you. We don't think you're acting in your own interest, but, you know, we could debate that. But what we're not gonna do is imperil American national security or the American economy or America itself on your behalf. We're not gonna do that because that's that's immoral for us to do that. Our population doesn't want it and we're saying this with love, but no.
No. As you would say to a child. I mean, you've got a bunch of kids, you say no to them? Of course, do because you love them. It's okay to do that and and, you know, there are proxies in The United States and Barry and that Levin character will jump.
You hate them. Don't hate them at all. I like them. This is crazy. What's the endgame here?
The endgame, of course, is to topple the regime and just have this 90,000,000 person civil war and further destroy Europe and the world. You know, it's like, we're not doing that again. We've already been through this. We're not doing that again. And this is big boy stuff.
This is not Gaza. And I, you know, I never say anything about Gaza because I really try. I'm very offended by it. They blow up a church in Gaza with my money. I'm a Christian.
Like, no. How about no? I said one thing about that, man. I've never heard the end of it. But I've tried to stay away from Gaza, but now we're talking about a huge country.
We're talking about Southwest Asia, one of the biggest energy And and
Speaker 0: and ancient civilization. This is not
Speaker 1: Also, since you're not gonna convince me that the Iranians I don't like I'm not a Shiite. I'm not, like, on the side of the Shiite clerics. I'm a freaking Episcopalian. Settle down. However, you're not gonna convince me that the Iranian people are my enemy.
Again, we're going down this here. Here's who you're required to hate. It's it's Orwell, man. You're not I'm a free man. You're not telling me who I have to hate.
I'll decide who I'd like and don't like on the basis of my values and what I believe my interests are. They spent, you know, five years telling me, Vladimir Putin is your enemy. No. He's not. I'm not mad at Vladimir Putin.
Tell me why I should be. I'm mad at you. You know what I mean? I'm just like whatever. It's all so fake.
I'm not playing along.
Speaker 0: And here, you're gonna be doing interviews to take this actually take it up a couple of notches.
Speaker 1: I really just wanna get away from this topic because it's one of those topics that intersects with a lot of other things. So it's not like Belgium is getting frisky with Liechtenstein and, like, I have an opinion on that. This is a country that's the, you know, the very center of the three biggest religions in the world that is, you know, a Jewish state. So whatever that means exactly. And so it it has an emotional resonance for Jewish people in America, some of whom are my close friends, that is different from any other country.
It's not like, you know, when things happen in Sweden or The UK where my ancestors are from, people aren't quite as emotional. It's very emotional. So, I don't want anything to do with it at all. I don't wanna criticize. Bibi, I don't wanna talk about Gaza.
I don't want look. I feel completely backed into a corner here where it's like we are on the cusp of entering a war on behalf of a political leader in a faraway country that's going to really hurt my country. I've got four kids. I wanna have grandkids. Like, are you even joking?
Stop. And I tried to be, like, quiet about it. I don't I don't wanna get involved in any of this because, again, people are so emotional. How could you I mean, you should see my text this morning. I got threatened by someone this morning, actually, who I
Speaker 0: Threatened as by a friend, a colleague, or somebody that just came and said you're it's too much.
Speaker 1: It's very careless what you said. It's very careless. Careless. I was like, hey, asshole. I know what you're saying.
I got it. Very careless. Anyway, whatever. I don't wanna get I'm not whining. I'm not AOC.
Oh, I'm under such threat. I'm not under threat. I'm but what I'm saying is I don't want to be involved in this at all, and I think most Americans don't. And it's only because We're actually getting drawn into a war. A tiny and by a tiny minority of people, like, know a million people who are pro Israel and Jewish or pro Israel and not Jewish like me.
I've always been pro Israel. Who are like, I don't think this is good. It doesn't like, why do we allow 3% of the participant or the participants in this conversation to define the terms? You know, if you are okay with any, you know, Iranian enrichment at all, you're for the Ayatollahs and you're against Israel. Shut up.
No. I'm not gonna allow you to define the terms. You're a total liar. I mean, these are liars, like, real will say anything. I'm working for Qatar.
Trump was actually pretending to go through a peace process and
Speaker 0: No. That thing was terrible.
Speaker 1: And Steve Witkoff was, like, who I know very well, who's one of the most pure hearted people, whether you agree with him or not. If you're calling into question Steve Witkoff's motives, like, Witkoff doesn't need any of this. He's just doing it because he wants to help. That's it. That's the only he's paying for himself.
And if you're telling me that Steve Witkoff is working for Qatar, that's what set me over the edge because I know Witkoff well and I really love Steve Witkoff and I think he's I agree with him on everything, but I think he's like a decent man who wants what's best for Donald Trump, his best friend, and The United States. And that's enough for me. Like, I see his motive as pure. It is pure. I know him well.
And when they're calling him an anti Semi, it's like so nuts. That's when I was like, ugh, I can't believe I have to get involved in this, but because it's too much. It's just too much. You can't let that go unresponded to you. You have to stand up and say, I'm sorry.
That's just not true. That's a lie and you know it's a lie.
Speaker 0: But you're not gonna back down from this. You're gonna you're gonna I
Speaker 1: wanna back down immediately. I just wanna get away from this. I wanna go back. You know, I'm missing a lot of my favorite things and a lot of my favorite people. I don't wanna argue about Israel of all subjects.
Oh my gosh. And I don't wanna become I'm not gonna become a crazy person or a hater. Part of the dynamic here is you become the things they accuse you of being. Like, I've seen this happen to many people, not many, but I have seen it happen, where they say, you love Putin. That to me for years now.
And then one day you're like, fuck it. I love Putin. Okay. I I just mean, I actually I kind of I think Putin's, an amazing leader. I'm not I've always thought that, but I'm not, like, a close friend of Putin's.
They can drive you to become a worse version of yourself by accusing you of being it. You sort of grow into the attack. And there's no chance I'm not letting that happen to myself. There's just no chance. I'm not gonna become a hater.
I'm not gonna become obsessed with Israel. I just wanna get away from the topic. Lot of other things going on. Just stop trying to drag my country into war. That's it.
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson, thank you so much for coming by. Good
Speaker 1: to see you.
Speaker 0: I'm just in the neighborhood. Drop by. Tucker and I will be hanging out this afternoon. I guess we'll meet
Speaker 1: I can't wait. I'm gonna ask you lots of hard questions.
Speaker 0: Lots of hard questions. Hopefully, I have some answers. Let's take a short commercial break. We got a rolling break. Let's go and take a short commercial break.
Tucker, thank you for coming by.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Oh my gosh. I love it.
Speaker 0: We'll see you here this afternoon. Thank you for remember the old days? The the right party
Speaker 2: at all. Like, at
Speaker 1: all.
Speaker 0: It's still very gonzo.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Tucker Addresses the Viral Rumors About Donald Trump Being Dead https://t.co/ZqvjsdFDqF
Video Transcript AI Summary
Trump is not an ideologue; he ascribes to "Trumpism" or "Americanism" and has "brought together a disparate coalition" and "won the popular vote for the first time in twenty years as a Republican" with a "vision" and "force of nature." The dialogue notes anxiety about a reprieve from "crazy" politics and questions succession, with "JD Vance" and, "Rubio's done a great job in the 15 jobs that he's doing in the admin. At least 15," and "I frankly hope you never run for another office because I want you to do this for the rest of your life." Trump drops provocative lines: "Israel lobbies totally control congress like nobody else," and in Netanyahu’s presence, "The United States is gonna take over Gaza"—"a big Trump casino there" and "the Riviera Of The Middle East."
In a cabinet exchange, he cites a "'definitive conclusion' to the war," then says, "we're taking it" and seeks "some modicum of political order" and preservation of holy sites. The Gaza options include "'Israel take over Gaza,' 'Arab League take over,' or 'ship all of the residents to South Sudan'"—to achieve "some semblance of peace" rather than a permanent solution. He argues that "the purpose of empire is to just have peace and order" and that "we're not suited for this at all" due to lacking "self confidence" and an "evangelical spirit," a critique of neocons who would "turn Baghdad into Belgium."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is what I love about Trump. Is Trump is Trump an ideologue? No. Do you what what kind of ism does Trump ascribe to? Trumpism.
Trump Trump that's what he ascribes to. Americanism, I guess. I don't know. This is a man who has brought together a disparate coalition of, like, weirdo crunchy hippies and bow tie wearing traditionalists and libertarians and Silicon Valley tech futurists. And, like, it's the craziest coalition ever.
Yes. And he has brought them together and won the popular vote for the first time in twenty years as a Republican. And it's it's an amazing thing to see in action because he's got a vision, and he's just a force of nature. And so the question, I think, on a lot of our minds now I think this is what all this Trump is dead discourse is about. There's this viral meme that Trump died because he got a bruise on his hand or something.
He went to play golf one day. They said he was dead.
Speaker 1: No. He's still around.
Speaker 0: He's around.
Speaker 1: He's not verified there. Yes. You know, he's still around.
Speaker 0: And I think a lot of that is an anxiety of, wow. We got this reprieve from all the craziness and all the decay and all the division, and we were actually we won the popular vote. You know? Things are on track. And what happens next?
When the patriarch's gone? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, what happens in families when the Yeah. It can be really hard. Yes. It can be really hard. I I have a lot of confidence in JD Vance.
Speaker 0: Yes. I think he's quite clearly at this point set up the vice president as the successor.
Speaker 1: I hope that's right.
Speaker 0: It seems like in the cabinet meeting the other day, he said, look. Rubio's done a a great job in the 15 jobs that he's doing in the admin. At least. At least 15. And but he said in the cabinet meeting the other day, and I noticed it, and I no one no one around me seemed to have heard this line.
He goes, everyone's talking about what a great job Rubio was doing. And he said, wow, Marco, you've you've just been amazing. I frankly hope you never run for another office because I want you to do this for the rest of your life. And I said, well, that that seems like a way if those are the two most not pop abulae. They're most like presidential abulae, you know, of the for 2028.
So that seems like he's saying no. He's the vice president is my natural successor.
Speaker 1: Trump drops these bombs in every conversation you have with him. I I don't I don't inter I haven't interviewed him that many times because it's so difficult. Dizzying? Dizzying because he does the weave famously. But every time I've interviewed him, like, three days later, I'll think, what did he just say that right in the middle of the right?
Yes. Yesterday, he was doing an interview with The Daily Caller. Right in the of the interview, was talking about Israel, and I love Israel, and I've no one's done more for Israel than I've done. And, you know, rooting for Israel. He's very pro Israel, of course.
And then he goes
Speaker 0: They used to own congress or whatever.
Speaker 1: He said that. And he goes, you know, the Israel lobbies totally control congress like nobody else. That's not
Speaker 0: true anymore. I'm like,
Speaker 1: did you just say that?
Speaker 0: Yeah. It was you I mean, I remember in the
Speaker 1: Wait. What?
Speaker 0: The interview or the press conference with Netanyahu. This was months ago. And I I don't think I was taken in by theatricality. I think this was real when he said, and look. What we're gonna do is The United States is gonna take over Gaza.
And you look at Netanyahu, and he sort of he looks at Trump. He kind of looks nervously at the audience. He's kind of laughing, but kind of not laughing. And he's like, what is it? He goes, we're gonna take over Gaza.
We're gonna build a big Trump casino there or whatever. I don't know what he's gonna do. You know? Hey. We're gonna build it.
It's gonna be beautiful. It's gonna be the Riviera Of The Middle East. And it was it was it was so apparently out of left field. And I'm not even convinced he's totally sincere on that. I think he's a great negotiator, and he's working other ranks.
Speaker 1: It was weird. I was actually in The Middle East that day when that happened, and I was eating with a bunch of, you know, local residents who run the government in the country I was in. And I'm like, did what? You know? And I was actually sitting at the table and they played that.
Everyone's staring at this. And I thought, I don't know what the hell is that? Yes.
Speaker 0: What what do we have to
Speaker 1: do with Gaza? Like, my instinct is always like, we had nothing to do with this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm out. I'm good.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like when girls fight. Like, I don't wanna get involved.
Speaker 0: I'll take Monica. I'll take the French Riviera. I don't need the Gaza Riviera. That's exactly right. But
Speaker 1: their reaction was is I have no idea if this is true or not, but it was so interesting. They're sophisticated, very sophisticated. And they're like, oh, no. That's an attack on Netanyahu. Yes.
That was their gut reaction. He's basically tweaking that niani. It wasn't it wasn't a a,
Speaker 0: you know, a haymaker.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a niani.
Speaker 0: He wasn't clobbering on that. It was a little poke. And I think So you think that too? Yes. I think it was a little poke.
Speaker 1: In what way?
Speaker 0: In the sense that it's in the cabinet meeting the other day, Trump was asked. He said, you promised that this war would be over permanently in five seconds after you were inaugurated. And so when are we gonna get a definitive conclusion to the war? And he laughs. Definitive.
A definitive conclusion. He turns to Steve Wickoff. He says, hey, Steve. How long this this this conflict, this has been going on thousands of years, is it? Yeah.
There's no definitive conclusion. We're just trying to stop the bloodshed. We're trying to establish some kind of peace. And it's this brilliant move because in what other way are you going to get the Israelis and the Arab League and the and the Iranian regime all united in not liking this one plan is by suggesting we're gonna go in and take it. And and so, you know, it's it's a it's a basically an intractable situation.
There will not be any permanent resolution probably until the second coming. So what you wanna do is just establish some modicum of political order. What I would especially like to see happen is a preservation of the holy sites and, you know, pilgrimage access and all that. But you
Speaker 1: just demand that. I mean, that's not even it's like no one owns Jerusalem. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course. But there's easier said than done in a messy neck of the woods.
Speaker 1: When you're paying for it, you can just be like, look. Our first demand is Christians seem to be able to visit the church holy sepulchre.
Speaker 0: So Of course.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, I don't know. I don't know. It it seems to me that the the holy sites still seem to be okay. In Gaza, there was unfortunately the attack on Saint Porphyrias, which I I grant was accidental. I don't think it was I I don't I don't see why from a strategic perspective it would be beneficial to the Israelis to, like, particularly stick a finger in the eye of the Christians when America is your last political protector.
Speaker 1: A lot of it. I don't know. I don't understand it. I think it's self destructive behavior, but but what I care about is the effect on Christians, and it's just not not good at all.
Speaker 0: Well and you you have to ask yourself too. Okay. What's the conclusion? You could either have the state of Israel take over Gaza again. Had Gaza from what?
'67 until o five, then just gave it away in o five. Hamas gets elected. Hamas runs it for a little bit. And then there's the October. Israel's gonna say now, okay.
This is an unacceptable security risk. We're not dealing with this anymore. So you could have Israel take it over. That's going to be probably an unsatisfactory resolution. You could have the Arab League take it over, some of Egypt take it over.
I don't I don't know that they really wanna do it. No one wants to touch that hot potato. You could have and then Trump just drops out of the air. And he says, yeah. We're taking it.
And we're gonna develop condominiums, and we're gonna ship all of the residents to South Sudan that was floated, I think, in the Israeli government. South Sudan, the one place on earth that's less pleasant than Gaza. And I don't think that's gonna work out well at all. And and what what is I think Trump is totally sincere in what he says. He goes, my solution here is not some permanent answer that will totally make the Israelis happy and totally irritate all the Arabs and the Persians.
My answer is not gonna totally make the Israelis unhappy and totally satisfy Egypt or whatever, the Arab League. It's I just want some semblance of peace, which is where I I feel totally vindicated on this. I've said for years, when everyone is calling Trump the n word you know, always call him the n word? A nationalist? Oh, yeah.
Always. They call him the n word. And I said, I don't really think he's a nationalist. He loves the nation. He's a great patriot.
He supports strong borders. I said, I don't think he's really a nationalist. I think he's kind of an imperialist. He wants to acquire Greenland and invade Canada. I I don't think that's not generally what, like, yeoman farmers do in some no.
Speaker 1: No. That's a Teddy Roosevelt move.
Speaker 0: Yes. I think his vision of America first is that America will take due care to prioritize her national interests, part of which is accepting the political reality that we're the global hegemon, and we need to maintain some modicum of world order. And this goes back to the really a really ancient conception of the political order, which is that the purpose of empire is to just have peace and order. This is, you know, this is in the Aeneid, in book six of the Aeneid. Aeneas goes down to his dad in the underworld, and and the dad gives him this whole view of what's gonna happen to Rome.
And he says, you know, look. Different peoples are given different arts. The I don't know. The Greeks are good at making soufflaki. The the Chinese are good at making bad soup.
And the Romans awful soup. Awful. I I've not you know, I've I've never even tried the pangolin is good, I've never tried the And he says the Romans, their art is to govern. And it's it's not governing is not, like, fun. It's not the most glorious necessarily thing.
You know? In some ways, it'd be more fun to be a writer, be more fun to be a poet, be more fun to go. But that's what the Romans are given is to govern. And it's just a job in the world, and someone's gotta do it. And you just need to establish relative peace and protect the rights of nations and just keep on keeping on.
Speaker 1: Do you think we're suited for that?
Speaker 0: I think I think Trump is quite suited for it as a as an individual, as a national leader. Is America suited for it? That's not how we started. We weren't we weren't looking for it when the country began,
Speaker 1: but we we got it. I mean, I I totally agree. Someone's gotta be dad. I mean, that is absolutely just the nature of man, and there's no getting around it. In shirking, it doesn't make it go away.
So I completely agree with that. That's where I do agree with the neocons, I guess. Kind of. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But but in a different way. Like because the neocons, at at their most extreme, would say we have an obligation because of the demands of history with a capital h to spread liberal democracy around the world. It's fine
Speaker 1: for stupid.
Speaker 0: It's crazy.
Speaker 1: But, like, the smart like, I remember David Brooks, who was impressive. I know it's hard to believe, but at one point, when I knew him thirty years ago, he was smart. And he he would say, look. You know, someone's gotta take control because there has to be order at the center. And I that's not stupid.
Where I began to really hate the neocons, where my whole politics began to revolve around opposing them as an ideology, not as not as individuals, but just the idea is bad. Some of
Speaker 0: the individuals. Some of them. Yeah. Well, yeah. John Padaras.
Speaker 1: But no. It's when I went
Speaker 0: to Iraq. And the
Speaker 1: main takeaway for me is we're not good at it. Yeah. We're just, like, leaving aside the dumb spread democracy and all that nonsense, turn Baghdad into Belgium. It's stupid. But what's not stupid is the idea that you can't have disorder because it metastasizes.
And I'm getting there. My assessment, and has not changed in twenty five years, is we're just not we're not suited for this at all because we don't have the self confidence required to do it because our society at its core is really thin. There's nothing really there, actually, other than some distorted version of capitalism, which is kind of disgusting actually.
Speaker 0: Do you do you think that was true, say, in the fifties and sixties, and it's changed? Or I think the fight you know, the Cold War,
Speaker 1: the battle against the Soviets gave a kind of clarity and purpose. Yeah. But even then, you know, The US sided with the Viet Minh, actually Yeah. In 1954 at Dian Bien Phu against the French. Like, there was never really a kind of consistent that's Yeah.
Little But not even grand strategy, but, like, a consistent worldview or instinct. Like, the English, for all their many faults at the height of empire, the height of the Victorian period, like, they really believed they were superior. Now we derive that as racist, but you have to have that. You have to believe my way is the better way, or why are we doing this in the first place? To extract minerals?
Like, that's not over time, people can't sustain that. You really have to have an evangelical spirit, and we don't have that.
@joeroganhq - Joe Rogan Podcast News
Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan on Julian Assange. https://t.co/4PCQPN7YHC
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker discusses Trump’s stance on JFK assassination files, saying Trump claimed that if you knew what I know, you wouldn’t tell people either, and notes that this is his position on UAP as well. He asserts that the CIA had knowledge of the JFK matter and that the conspiracy industry around JFK is an industry with many wackos, but emphasizes that the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. He mentions that documents are still classified sixty-one years later and argues that both Trump and Joe Biden have kept those documents secret in violation of his reading of federal law. He states there is no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination, only an institution or possibly countries involved, and indicates there may be something worth protecting.
He relays a conversation with someone who had seen the documents two years earlier, from whom he learned that yes, the CIA was involved, and notes James Jesus Angleton, head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this. He says this was news to him and he discussed it on TV. The next day, while quail hunting, he received a phone call from Mike Pompeo’s lawyer, who, as then-CIA director and later Secretary of State, had plotted the murder of Julian Assange. The lawyer told him that anyone who reveals contents of classified documents has committed a crime, and the speaker recalls driving with his dog and asks if revealing that the U.S. government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president constitutes the crime, while suggesting Pompeo is protecting the murder. The speaker says Pompeo had no response.
The speaker asserts Pompeo pressed Trump to keep the documents secret and calls Pompeo sinister and criminal, citing that Pompeo was caught—referencing Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff’s piece—where Issachoff’s sources claimed Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange, who had not been charged in the U.S. as CIA director. He states federal employees are not allowed to kill people they don’t like. He contends Pompeo pressured Trump to withhold information the public has a right to know and that Pompeo plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime.
Finally, the speaker questions how Pompeo is treated in Republican Washington, noting he is treated as a respected figure and potential secretary of defense in a Trump administration, despite being described as criminal for keeping information secret and for plotting a murder. He finds it mind-bending that Pompeo is treated as a pillar of Republican Washington.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did you hear Trump's take on the JFK assassination, why he didn't release the files? Yeah. I know what Trump's take is. He said that if you knew what I know, you wouldn't tell people either, which is crazy. Well, and What does that mean?
That's his position on the UAP thing as well Yeah. Actually. And that's a lot of people's position on it. I mean, you know, Trump is saying, of course, the CIA had knowledge of it. That is known.
I mean, I mean, the whole it sounds like it's so funny. There's so many levels and there's so much I don't understand. But the whole JFK conspiracy industry, and it really is an industry, more books written on that than almost any historical topic, is is filled with wackos. Right? There are a lot of wackos in there.
But it obscures that fact obscures the larger fact which is the facts themselves tell an unbelievable story. Yeah. And so whatever. I could get into it at great length. But yeah.
Yeah. They're they're still classifying documents sixty one years later. Both Trump and Joe Biden have, in violation of my read of federal law, kept those documents secret. There's no living person connected to the Kennedy assassination. It was a couple generations ago.
There's no one person whose whose secrets are being protected. It's an institution or maybe countries. There may have been countries involved too. I mean, don't know the answer, but there's clearly something worth protecting. And I know that when I I spoke to someone who'd seen the documents, okay, two years ago and I got I got one fact out of him, which is, yes, the CIA was involved.
And by CIA, CIA is a huge organization, but James Jesus Angleton, the head of the operations directorate, had knowledge of this, which I think is well known. But that that's the view of someone who saw the documents. So I thought that was news, so I went on TV and said that. The next day, I'll never forget it, I went quail hunting, and I was driving back and I got a phone call from Mike Pompeo's lawyer. Mike Pompeo was the secretary of state, but before then he was the director of the CIA.
And in that position, he plotted the murder of Julian Assange, so he is a criminal as far as I'm concerned. But his lawyer called me and said, you know, you should know that anyone who tells you the contents of classified documents has committed a crime. He's threatening me. He's in my car. I'll never with my dog sitting next to me.
I'll never forget this. And I said, are you really saying that to reveal that the US government had a role in the murder of a democratically elected president to say that out loud, that's the crime? What about the actual crime which is murdering a president? Like, you're covering up for that, Mike Pompeo. He had no no response at all.
And so Mike Pompeo is the one who pressed Trump to keep those documents secret. And so it's like, what's crazy to me is not just that Pompeo did that. I think Pompeo was a really sinister person and a and a criminal. I think that. I think that because the facts suggest that.
He was caught. Yahoo News, Mike Issachoff wrote a long piece on this several years ago. His employees went to Mike Issachoff and said, hey. Mike Pompeo was plotting to murder Julian Assange who's never even been charged with a crime in The United States as CIA director. That's illegal.
You're not allowed federal employees are not allowed to just kill people they don't like. Okay? Just to set the baseline here. So that's who Mike Pompeo is, but he somehow intimidated Trump into not releasing this. Well, okay.
That's all bad. Right? I think it's criminal behavior. What's crazy is how Mike Pompeo is treated. He's treated as like a republican pooh bah in good standing.
He fully expects to become the secretary of defense in a Trump administration, which is like completely insane. Why would you get criminal and give him nuclear weapons? Okay. That's my view. I think it's a common sense view.
And like he goes to fundraisers and dinners and everyone's like, hey, Mike Pompeo. It's like, no. You're the guy who kept information the public has right to know secret. You're the guy who plotted the murder of someone who committed no crime. You are the outlaw.
You are the bad guy. But no. He's treated as like, you know, like a pillar of republican Washington. I think that's I think it's mind bending to watch that.
@Milajoy - Mila Joy
CNN cameraman admits to being a part of the cabal trying to overthrow Trump while secretly being filmed. https://t.co/bxjhx9xCUi