reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 introduces a moment to hear what the crowd thinks, noting skepticism about whether there will be opportunity to see it. Speaker 1 says they don’t know who’s whispering to the speaker, likening it to Grima Wormtongue, and asserts that half the people from their movement aren’t on Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin’s team. They say: “We aren’t neocons. We aren’t war hawks. We want America first. And if you make me choose between America first and MAGA, it’s America first all day. That’s what MAGA was supposed to be. You were just the best vessel for it, bro. Don’t get it twisted.” Speaker 2 contends that despite Trump’s flaws, including insider trading, they’re glad he’s differentiating and saying “you’re not with me because I’m not with you.” They reject being associated with someone they describe as a “cool corrupt kid” and a “Jeffrey Epstein class table.” They claim Trump “wasn’t loyal to his original mission. He wasn’t loyal to America. He became a creature of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu,” and that all “his never troubled enemies are now the courtiers with the madness of King Lear” telling him the lies they want to hear, and declare they are not one of those people. Speaker 3 argues that this proves multiple things, including that “the first thing, he shouldn’t be in office anymore. Implement the twenty fifth.” They say Trump isn’t loyal to this country or to anybody except “that little country in the Middle East.” They note it’s as if he does what he’s told, and compare him unfavorably to JFK for telling that country no. They ask, “How can you call them losers when you lose to Bibi Netanyahu in Israel every single day? When’s the last time you told them no to anything?” Speaker 0 shifts to a personal jab, saying Brigitte Macron is far more beautiful than Candace Owens, and asserts he’s been blind across the Internet. They reference reactions on Truth Social, noting “they’ve turned on you.” They catalog some responses: “You are way out of line.” They remind that many were once day ones, including Alex Jones, who had Trump on his show when “no media company would have you on.” They summarize: people are telling Trump to take a step back and “get back to America first.” Others say, “You are just going against everyone that fought for him to win just because of the Epstein files and being at war with Iran for Israel.” They quote: “We didn’t leave MAGA. MAGA left them. Clearly, you are insane. Time to resign, Donald or face the twenty fifth. You are mentally and emotionally unfit to be POTUS.” Additional insults follow: “You are so childish. Clearly, the truth has triggered you being one of your biggest supporters. I am done with you and your lies.” They claim Trump bent the knee to a monster, leaving a mess in the country, and, finally, describe a recurring social media pattern: “this was the most brutal and sadly a recurring response all across social media.” Speaker 0 adds that a tweet about Charlie suggested he would be on a list if they hadn’t killed him, asserting that “there is no truth and there is no loyalty within you.”

Ashwin Ratansi presents New Order, noting that the UAE quit OPEC effective May 1, signaling a fractured cartel and positioning Abu Dhabi as a key diplomatic hub while Modi focuses on energy security ahead of Europe. Kyrgyzstan hosts Indian defense minister Rajnath Singh with Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani counterparts at Shanghai Cooperation Organization meetings, signaling new cooperation away from NATO dominance. In a world where old mechanisms are breaking down and the Strait of Hormuz could be threatened, the question becomes who stays in the room with everyone at once. Zahra Khan will take viewer questions at the end. Ashwin then welcomes Ambassador John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, former national security adviser to President Trump, and former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, joining from Washington, DC. They begin with Bolton’s reaction to the indictment of James Comey. Bolton calls it “retribution,” noting it could involve attorney’s fees and process, and labels it a “creative legal theory.” He distinguishes between retribution and rule-of-law concerns, comparing the approach to what he views as an authoritarian pattern. The conversation shifts to Iran and the prospect of regime change. Bolton says the war in Iran “isn’t over” but argues the necessary work to solve the problem through regime change hasn’t been done. He emphasizes that the Iranian regime was in trouble economically and domestically well before the war, citing water shortages and irrigation policies that have devastated groundwater, and the perception among Iranians, especially the young and women since the death of Masa Amini, that the regime’s legitimacy is undermined. He notes that 30-year-olds make up 70% of the population, and that the regime’s legitimacy is further eroded by ethnic discontent among Kurds, Azeris, Beluchis, and others. Bolton asserts a significant portion of Iranians blame the United States and argues 75–80% would oppose the regime if a free public opinion analysis were possible; those who support the regime tend to be bureaucrats and the Revolutionary Guard. On sanctions and public sentiment, Bolton argues sanctions contribute to economic hardship and that the Gulf states’ attacks on UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar have shifted attitudes toward Tehran, making Tehran a pariah. He contends the regime is under pressure from internal dissent and external pressure, and that bombing can be discriminating against the regime’s targets—state power institutions rather than the Iranian people. Bolton discusses strategic options: continue to blockade Iranian oil, open the Strait of Hormuz, and counter Iranian anti-ship missiles, drones, and swarms. He argues that Iran has conducted limited attacks so far and has alienated Gulf Arab states; he says the missiles and drones manufacturing capacity has been degraded in the first wave of attacks, though others say underground facilities remain. He asserts that defections could increase as the regime weakens, and that external support to opponents—telecommunications, resources, and weapons—could help the opposition. Regarding leadership and public support in the United States, Bolton notes isolationist voices in the administration advocating an early exit. He references his own belief that, in 1990–1991, coalition-building can be effective without boots on the ground, and that regime change in Iran could succeed if pursued decisively with allied support. Bolton observes that BRICS and the global south face divergent interests, with Delhi likely pivotal in determining outcomes. He insists the objective remains regime change in Iran, and that the administration should have briefed allies and prepared a comprehensive plan. The interview closes with Bolton leaving the segment as Zahra Khan collects viewer questions about BRICS currency, the ability of BRICS to reshape the world order during crises, and whether the US war in Iran could rank as a larger disaster than past neocon wars. The show promises to revisit these themes next week.

A lot of everybody knows where John Bolton lives because this is a main drag, especially for commuters. And, you know, I was a few minutes away, so I thought, wow, I just wanna see what's going on. We'll have to see what the search warrant affidavit says. I mean, if he's got classified documents, my view as well, he has to answer for that if he's got them the way Trump should have. On the other hand, if it's just about harassment because he said on complimentary things about Trump, many of them in his book, about Trump's mental capacity and ability to understand foreign affairs and very simple things. That's not legit, and that would seem to be the real concern that Donald Trump has since he doesn't clearly clearly doesn't care about what's classified and what isn't.

Joe Biden is being criticized for his policies, with some calling him dumb, incompetent, and mentally unstable. They believe his environmental, open borders, and DOJ FBI weaponization policies are a threat to the country. They fear that his actions may lead to World War 3 without any valid reason.

The speaker argues that to understand how the American government actually works at the highest levels, you must know that Richard Nixon was historically the most popular president, elected with a massive margin in 1972, yet he was forced to resign and was replaced by Gerald Ford, an unelected president. The speaker asserts this demonstrates that the federal agencies undermine the American system, a point Nixon allegedly warned about and was right about. Key events and connections highlighted include: - Nixon’s meeting with CIA director Richard Helms on June 23, 1972, during which Nixon allegedly implied knowledge of who killed John F. Kennedy and suggested CIA involvement in Kennedy’s assassination; Helms reportedly remained silent. - Four days earlier, the Washington Post published the first Watergate break-in story; the speaker notes that four of the five burglars worked for the CIA and that Bob Woodward, the reporter, had a background in the classified realm and worked with intelligence agencies; Woodward’s main source was Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI, who allegedly ran COINTELPRO to discredit Nixon and other political targets. - The FBI’s COINTELPRO program is cited as a mechanism used to take down Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, who was indicted for tax evasion in 1973 and forced to resign; Ford, a Warren Commission member, replaced Agnew, with the claim that Ford’s qualifications were tied to his involvement with the Commission’s conclusion that the CIA bore no responsibility for Kennedy’s assassination. - The speaker alleges that Nixon was strong-armed into accepting Gerald Ford as president by Democrats in Congress, with the claim that Ford’s rise demonstrated a systemic pattern in which the presidency could be controlled by federal agencies and political elites rather than by elected representatives or voters. The narrative then shifts to the Trump era, stating that Michael Flynn—an Army intelligence veteran who had led the Defense Intelligence Agency—was targeted by the FBI shortly after Trump’s inauguration, lured into a meeting without legal counsel, and pressured to resign based on fabricated crimes; this is presented as evidence of how the system operates against national-security-minded figures who seek to push back. The speaker contrasts this with Joe Biden, claiming he was similarly harmed by the justice system and portraying Biden as deserving neither sympathy nor special treatment, while contending that the broader electorate deserves a genuine democracy in which people who are not elected to lead do not run everything. The overarching claim is that “democracy becomes a joke” when unelected actors wield real power.

Mark Levin and others are using a "Trump skin suit" despite disliking him personally and disagreeing with his agenda, economic views, and foreign policy. Some at Fox News harbor contempt for Trump. It's frustrating to see figures like Levin and Laura Loomer, described as bizarre, championing Trump and claiming to define American interests, despite their lack of interest in the United States. Allowing such individuals to control a movement focused on serving America is an offense against reality and dangerous for the country. These people washed out of the Democratic party and now they're trying to take over the Republican party. Figures like John Bolton and Bill Crystal shouldn't be allowed to take over the Trump White House. The speaker doesn't want to relive past mistakes like Iraq and accuses Levin, Loomer, and others of being ignorant and irresponsible in their demands for military action, lacking understanding of the consequences.

He had "a military mind" but around 2009, "Obama came in" and he was "beside himself that he had to say, yes, sir, to this guy," so he started "working immediately against him." He "built up this whole network of people" as the "Muslim threat was not being taken care of." "You know, he was black. He was this." After Obama left office, he "decided to use that network for his own self." "A lot of people in intelligence and the military" decided to work against them, and "they would code stuff and send it out." "That was a military takeover and eventual handover to foreign interests" and "He is very much a one world government, one world religion guy." They tried to promote Trump: "January 6 vice president, remove Trump, and then he'd be president," but "that didn't work. Huge backlash. So they stopped." "We know what your intentions are, and everybody's on to them now." "It's coming out."

Some leaders feel a physical threat, including at least two assassination attempts against Trump, possibly by Iran. However, if Iran had tried to assassinate Trump, the U.S. would be at war with them. The American president was murdered, and we're still not allowed to know who did it and why. You can't have a president or senator who truly does his best to uphold the core idea of a democratic republic because he's worried about getting killed. If this were happening in Liberia you'd be like it's not a real government because whenever the president strays outside the pre prescribed boundaries, he gets murdered or worries about getting murdered. Foreign policy is the only issue they care about. They only care about the projection of force using American service personnel to fight faraway wars that have no material benefit.

Donald Trump's foreign policy failures are highlighted, including inaction after Iran's attacks and drone downing. Criticized for surrendering American interests to Russia and Iran, he is deemed the worst foreign policy president of the speaker's generation. Supporters' claims of avoiding wars are dismissed as surrendering. Trump is portrayed as weak and fearful, not a master of foreign policy.

Larry Johnson and the host discuss the current trajectory of U.S. policy under Donald Trump and its implications for international law, NATO, and the global balance of power, with frequent emphasis on Greenland as a flashpoint. - They suggest Trump is making a case for peace through overwhelming strength and unpredictability, implying that international law is seen by him as a restraint US power. Johnson argues that Trump’s stance includes threats and pressure aimed at annexing Greenland, and he questions whether this represents a genuine peace strategy or a coercive strategy that disregards international norms. - Johnson catalogs a sequence of Trump-era actions and rhetoric: Donald Trump “launched the coup against the Iranian government,” was involved in discussions with Zelensky, helped Ukraine, and then “kidnapped Nicolas Maduro,” followed by an escalation that included the suggestion of a military attack on Iran. He says Trump has “declared openly” that he does not recognize or respect international law, describing it as “useless. It’s whatever he thinks is right and what needs to be done.” - The conversation notes that Trump’s position has been reflected by close aides and allies, including Steven Miller, Marco Rubio, and Scott Bessette. Johnson claims this broad endorsement signals a shift in how major powers might view the U.S. and its approach to international law, with Putin, Xi, Macron, and others watching closely. - They argue this marks a breakdown of the international system: “a complete breakdown of the international system,” with NATO potentially coming apart as the U.S. claims a threat to Greenland from China or Russia and insists that NATO is unnecessary to protect it. The debate frames Europe as being in a toxic relationship with the United States, dependent on U.S. security guarantees, while the U.S. acts with unilateralism. - The European response is discussed in detail. The host describes European leaders as having “ Stockholm syndrome” and being overly dependent on Washington. The letter to Norway’s prime minister by Trump is cited as an astonishing admission that peace is subordinate to U.S. self-interest. The question is raised whether NATO is dying as a result. - They compare the evolution of international law to historical developments: Magna Carta is invoked as a symbol of limiting rulers, and Westphalia is discussed as a starting point for the balance-of-power system. The hosts consider whether modern international law is viable in a multipolar world, where power is distributed and no single hegemon can enforce norms as unilaterally as in the past. - They discuss the economic dimension of the shift away from U.S. hegemony. The U.S. dollar’s status as the global reserve currency is challenged as BRICS-plus and other nations move toward alternative payment systems, gold, and silver reserves. Johnson notes that the lifting of sanctions on Russia and the broader shift away from dollar-dominated finance are undermining U.S. financial hegemony. He highlights that Russia and China are increasing gold and silver holdings, with a particular emphasis on silver moving to new highs, suggesting a widening gap in global finance. - The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is discussed as another instrument that could provoke a financial crisis: Johnson cites reports of European threats to retaliate with massive tariffs against the U.S. and references the potential for a broader financial shock as gold and silver prices rise and as countries reduce their purchases of U.S. Treasuries. - The discussion examines Greenland specifically: the claim that the U.S. wants Greenland for access to rare earth minerals, Arctic access, and strategic bases. Johnson disputes the rare-earth rationale, pointing out U.S. processing limits and comparing Arctic capabilities—Russia has multiple nuclear-powered icebreakers. He characterizes Trump’s Greenland gambit as a personal vanity project that could set off broader strategic consequences. - They touch on the role of European defense commitments, with German and other European responses to defend Greenland described as inconsequential or symbolic, and a suggestion that Europe might respond more seriously by hedging against U.S. influence, though current incentives make a real break difficult. - A broader warning emerges: the possibility of a new world order emerging from multipolarity, with the United States weakened economically and politically. They foresee a period of adjustment in which European countries may reorient toward Russia or China, while the United States pursues a more fragmented and confrontational stance. - The conversation ends with mutual concerns about the trajectory toward potential geopolitical conflict and a call to watch the evolving relationship between the major powers, the role of international law, and the coming economic shifts as the global system transitions from unipolar to multipolar.

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. It'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.

The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president. So is this picking up where that left off, David? It's possible. I don't know with a 100% certainty, but it is notable, guys, that John Bolton, ambassador Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by president Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, took that security clearance away. They had concerns. The administration had concerns about ambassador Bolton still being able to access some of these documents and have some of those security clearances. It's also notable that John Bolton had a security detail as well because of the threats from Iran on his life. That security detail, that government federal paid security detail was also taken away, by president Trump's

The speaker dismisses the idea that Iran would be responsible if something were to happen to Trump, stating they have a long list of other suspects. The speaker suggests blaming those who spied on Trump, created the fake Russian dossier, and the FBI for legitimizing false claims. They also mention those who impeached him, the 51 intelligence officials who dismissed Hunter Biden's laptop, and those who allegedly rigged the 2020 election. Further, the speaker includes those who raided Trump's house and charged him in multiple jurisdictions, like Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Letitia James. Neocon warmongers who were upset that Trump didn't want to initiate wars are also on the list. The speaker believes Iran is a scapegoat and that the real threat is in DC.

The speaker believes Trump is a "crazy person." They feel that someone wants to be remembered in history as holding the line against Trump. When Trump was president and wanted to stimulate the economy, this person allegedly raised interest rates and did the opposite of what Trump wanted. The speaker concludes that "we don't want Trump to be in the clean government."

They are trying to remove Trump before the election, which should upset you. The indictment is indefensible, along with a recent rape conviction in New York. There are also concerns about what's happening in Georgia. Mainstream media reporters were allegedly mocking and laughing at Trump, which angers the speaker. Trump's support is growing, with 61% favorability compared to Ron DeSantis' 23%. The speaker believes Trump will never quit and wants to remove "rhinos" from the Senate and House, as well as defund the DOJ and FBI. Trump is seen as a savior in the political arena. The speaker praises Trump for uniting Americans from different backgrounds. They express frustration with the media and believe Joe Biden will be remembered as a corrupt president. The speaker questions if Biden accepted bribes.

John Bolton's security clearance was removed because it's not meant to last a lifetime. While he was considered ineffective, he was used strategically in meetings to project strength. Bolton, along with others, played a role in the decision to engage in conflicts in the Middle East, which resulted in significant loss of life and no beneficial outcomes. The expectation of lifelong security clearance is unreasonable.

Senior officials at the National Security Council (NSC) were reportedly fired, including Lieutenant General Timothy Hawk, the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and commander of CyberCom. These firings were allegedly not due to incompetence or involvement in the Signal Group chat. Instead, a right-wing influencer and conspiracy theorist purportedly advised the president to remove them based on claims from an internet troll who alleged the officials were not sufficiently loyal to the president. The speaker suggests this action betrays national security and indicates a pattern of turning away from allies.

Trump was considered good on foreign policy, including getting out of Syria and defeating ISIS, but he was always hawkish on Iran. Zionists wanted a full conflict with Iran but only got the Soleimani assassination. Despite popular belief, Trump was allegedly pursuing regime change in Iran throughout his term, even getting close to overthrowing the Iranian government. This was also happening in Venezuela. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, and the rhetoric now suggests that such events wouldn't occur if Trump were president. Trump is trying to run even further to the right, making it hard to say no to war with Iran. Iran will be in the crosshairs regardless of the administration, especially for Israel, making them more of a target for the United States.

Scott Ritter discusses the Iran talks, U.S. and Iranian positions, and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy. - He states the talks aren’t over, describing them as a process. The United States came in crudely and with a stunt, while the Iranians were well prepared with technical papers and talking points. The talks remain ongoing, with both sides leaving technical teams behind after high-level visits; the ceasefire is two weeks and has not been terminated, so the process continues. - Ritter characterizes the situation as “the theater of the absurd” and warns it’s dangerous and could spin out of control. He criticizes Donald Trump’s approach as bluster and high-stakes posturing, saying the Iranians haven’t budged and that the U.S. has no clear objectives in the negotiations. He notes the president allegedly has “hard commitment” to Iran not producing a nuclear bomb, but asserts the fatwa against nuclear weapons remains in place and U.S. actions have undercut that position by killing the official who put the fatwa on the table. - He argues the easiest deal would be to sit down with the Iranians and “shut the door on any potential of Iran ever producing a nuclear weapon,” provided genuine experts were involved, but claims the U.S. isn’t there to make that deal. The aim, he says, is to project U.S. control and to frame Trump as the winner, irrespective of the actual outcomes. - Ritter contends Trump’s inner circle includes JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and others; he asserts Trump is using public appearances (e.g., an MMA event) to signal who is in charge and to replace others who opposed the war. He claims JD Vance did not support the war and is being sidelined or publicly discredited. He also criticizes Rubio as nominally in charge of foreign affairs but notes the State Department has been gutted, lacking a full team and interagency process. - He predicts the next two weeks will yield a deal that makes Trump the winner and Vance the loser, suggesting Rubio isn’t being promoted much and that Trump will throw everyone under the bus. He asserts there is no real change in U.S. capabilities, noting the stockpiles of missiles have not been rebuilt. - On NATO and the Ukraine war, Ritter argues drones are redefining warfare: the Ukrainian and Russian use of drones is changing battlefield dynamics, with drone operators becoming central to military effectiveness. He asserts NATO and the U.S. do not fully understand how to fight this war, and claims the conflict demonstrates the end of NATO and a broader “empire terminating event” linked to America’s failure in Iran. He stresses that drone dominance could break the battlefield’s traditional dynamics, leaving tanks and infantry less decisive. - He claims the Ukraine war’s drone innovation is the most significant development in warfare since dynamite, saying without drones you cannot prevail on the battlefield. - On Melania Trump and Epstein, Ritter declines to engage with the specifics of Melania’s personal involvement, but discusses Epstein as emblematic of America’s elite rot. He argues that Melania normalized relationships with Epstein and Maxine and that she will be seen as an enabler, whether or not criminal liability is established. He contends this politics of normalization reflects deeper decay in American power elites.

Trump criticized the military industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment, blaming them for the current war. He specifically mentioned Victoria Nuland, comparing her to Fauci in terms of responsibility. Nuland was involved in backing an insurrection in Ukraine in 2014, which led to strained relations with Russia and the subsequent seizure of Crimea. Trump's willingness to address this issue is noteworthy.

The judge in Trump's trial is biased and unfair, threatening Trump with arrest if he doesn't attend court daily. The judge has connections to Biden and is targeting Trump supporters as potential jurors. The goal is to convict Trump before the 2024 election to prevent him from running again. Democrats are using the legal system to destroy Trump out of fear of losing to him in future elections.

The probe dropped when Joe Biden became president. So is this picking up where that left off, David? It's possible. I don't know with a 100% certainty, but it is notable, guys, that John Bolton, ambassador Bolton's security clearances were stripped earlier this year by president Trump. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, took that security clearance away. They had concerns. The administration had concerns about ambassador Bolton still being able to access some of these documents and have some of those security clearances. It's also notable that John Bolton had a security detail as well because of the threats from Iran on his life. That security detail, that government federal paid security detail was also taken away, by president Trump's

In 2016, it was stated that only the best and most serious people would be hired, which led to the best economy ever. However, multiple former high-ranking officials are now not supporting a potential presidential run. These include former Vice President Mike Pence, former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former Attorney General Bill Barr, who called the person a "consummate narcissist," also do not offer support. The person in question has used disparaging terms to describe many of these former staff members, including calling Barr a "gutless pig," former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly "weak and ineffective," and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson "dumb as a rock." Others were labeled "born loser," "milquetoast," and "China-loving." The question is posed: why were these people hired in the first place?

I made mistakes in choosing some advisors. While I picked some great people, I also selected a few who were disloyal or gave bad advice. For instance, I hired John Bolton despite warnings from a friend, Phil Ruffin, who said he was trouble. I wish I had listened sooner. Bolton had a reputation that made other countries wary, thinking I might go to war. He was involved in the controversial Middle East decisions during the Bush administration. I often received more attention than others, possibly due to my outspoken nature.