TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker states that the United States is conducting an operation with a clear goal: to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and by Iran’s navy to naval assets. The speaker says the operation is focused on this objective and is progressing “quite successfully,” with the details of tactics and progress to be discussed by the Pentagon and the Department of War. Two reasons are given for acting now. First, the speaker asserts that if Iran came under attack by the United States, Israel, or another party, Iran would respond against the United States. According to the speaker, orders had been delegated down to field commanders, and within an hour of the initial attack on Iran’s leadership compound, the Iranian missile forces in the south and in the north were activated to launch. The speaker notes that those forces were “prepositioned.” Second, the speaker explains that the assessment was that if the United States stood and waited for Iran’s attack to come first, American casualties would be much higher. Therefore, the president made the decision to act preemptively. The speaker emphasizes that they knew there would be an Israeli action, and that action would precipitate an attack against American forces. The implication is that delaying a preemptive strike would result in greater casualties, potentially billions of dollars in losses, and more American lives at risk. The overarching message is that the preemptive operation aims to neutralize Iran’s short-range ballistic missiles and navy threats before they are used in consolidation with anticipated Israeli actions and any Iranian counterattacks against U.S. forces. The speaker frames the decision as prudent and anticipatory, intended to prevent higher casualties and to maintain safety for American personnel and assets. The speaker stops short of detailing specific tactical methods, pointing listeners to the Pentagon and the Department of War for a deeper discussion of tactics and progress.

The speaker believes the most important part of the Trump doctrine is to only commit troops when necessary, but then to "punch hard." This approach respects American service members. President Trump beat ISIS quickly with overwhelming force, accomplishing what people thought was impossible. Regarding Iran, the speaker advocates for strong action, referencing the Soleimani strike as an example. Despite predictions of broader war, the speaker claims that the Soleimani action actually brought peace and checked Iran.

The statements contend that the actions were carried out with no congressional authorization, placing them in direct violation of the Constitution, specifically Articles I and II, and that they breach international law and American law, with no concerns raised about these issues. The speaker suggests that this pattern represents a new perimeter being established by Donald Trump, portraying the current situation as lawless and characterized by an authoritarian figure in the person of Trump. It is argued that there are no remaining guardrails to constrain him, and the only limitations he follows are self-imposed, based on what might provoke a backlash or retaliation. In other words, he would only undertake operations that do not invite a response or “kickback.” According to the account, some operations have already been undertaken that did not carry potential pushback, but the Iran scenario is singled out as one of the larger cases. The contention is that, unlike previous actions, there is a solid chance that Iran could retaliate in ways the United States would prefer to avoid. There is further concern that if Iran does retaliate, the United States could be harmed back in ways that are undesirable or difficult to manage. This potential for meaningful retaliation is presented as a key reason why Trump may not have ordered certain operations up to this point. Overall, the speaker implies a shift toward more aggressive or expansive actions without the usual checks and balances, highlighting the absence of congressional authorization and the potential for significant consequences if opposing parties decide to respond forcefully. The Iran situation is emphasized as a critical turning point because of the greater likelihood of retaliation compared to previous actions, influencing Trump’s restraint or hesitation in approving further operations.

Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East, as demonstrated by the attack on Israel. The speaker was in the situation room with President Biden, monitoring the attack and ensuring the protection of US personnel. The speaker supports President Biden's order for the US military to shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. Initial indications are that Israel, with US assistance, defeated the attack. Joint defenses were effective, saving many innocent lives. The speaker will ensure Israel can defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist militias, and their commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Iran is a threat to American personnel, interests, and innocent civilians. The US will take action to defend against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists and will work with allies to disrupt Iran's aggressive behavior and hold them accountable.

He was the lone shooter. He acted alone. The binders were blank, and we didn't know the media was gonna be there, and the binders are blank. And if you don't think that they're blank, you're antisemitic. You're antisemitic. You're unamerican. Unamerican. The towers fell. The planes hit the towers. Weapons of mass destruction. There's weapons of mass destruction. War. We need to go to war. China's coming. Russia's coming. Iran is coming. Ripped to the SS Liberty. Accountability's coming. Wear your mask. Did you see my hearing? Look at my jeans. Did you see me in my pajamas? Are you asking questions? Don't ask questions. Didn't do it. It wasn't us. We didn't do it. Are you an anti Semite? Are you racist? Are you bigoted un American? You're un American.

The speaker claims that during his first term, President Trump rescued over 50 hostages and detainees from around the world, which is more than every president before him combined. According to the speaker, Trump authorized operations in places like Afghanistan using Seal Team six and Delta, and approved taking out figures like Baghdadi and Soleimani. The speaker states that Trump's directive was to protect the homeland without endangering the armed forces and intelligence community. The speaker believes the media did not give credit to the Trump administration for these successes due to hatred and disinformation. The speaker alleges that the transition from Trump to Biden administrations involved a refusal to continue successful policies to avoid attributing them to Trump.

President Trump criticized Dick and Liz Cheney for advocating military interventions while remaining safe in Washington. He emphasized that they send brave service members into dangerous situations without facing the risks themselves. Trump highlighted his decisions to withdraw troops from Syria and Iraq, contrasting his approach with Liz Cheney's desire for continued military presence. He labeled her a "radical war hawk" and suggested that her views would change if she were in a combat situation. Trump argued that those who promote war from a distance should experience the realities of conflict firsthand.

I was shocked to learn that President Obama had programs to overthrow the Syrian regime. The CIA's Timber Sycamore program armed Al Qaeda to start another regime change war in the Middle East. The DOD's train and equip program spent over half a billion dollars training "moderate rebels" who were actually aligned with Al Qaeda. Regime change wars in Syria, like in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, risk the rise of Islamist extremists like Al Qaeda. We now have an Islamist extremist in charge of Syria who celebrated the 9/11 attack and is persecuting religious minorities like Christians. Every American deserves to know if our government supported our enemy, Al Qaeda.

We are no longer dealing with traditional warfare where the side with the most uniforms wins. The enemy we face now is sneaky, underhanded, and wants to harm our civilians worldwide. We must put an end to their actions. Some criticized me for saying I would bomb them, but I don't care. They need to be stopped.

We were faced with a choice: stop an attack by airstriking a terror leader. We did it with Osama Bin Laden. When asked for advice, I said not to go. President Obama made the call despite my suggestion.

Speaker 1 claims Democrats are deliberately lying to the press about the operation carried out on Saturday night by President Trump. Speaker 1 attended a classified briefing with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the head of the CIA, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They reviewed the operation, which Speaker 1 says was a spectacular success. Speaker 1 notes that Israeli intelligence, the IAEA, and even the Iranians are talking about more devastation than a leaked report suggests.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 3, Speaker 4, and Speaker 5 exchange views on U.S. policy and Middle East conflicts. The dialogue opens with Benjamin Netanyahu boasting that he can bring the U.S. along with whatever he does, followed by Speaker 1 asserting, “America … can be easily pushed, pushed to the right direction.” The exchange notes that, even if that were true, it is insulting to hear aloud, yet acknowledges that “BB has had a lot of success in pushing America.” Speaker 2 asserts, “If you take out Saddam, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” In contrast, Speaker 3 announces, “My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war.” Speaker 2 adds, “Obviously, we'd to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran just as I would like to see in Iraq.” Speaker 4 states, “Short time ago, the US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime.” Speaker 2 further claims, “Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Today, I authorize authorize the armed forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya.” The repetition of “authorize authorize” appears in the transcript, emphasizing the declaration to commence action in Libya. Speaker 5 contends that the figure has been moving around the Middle East, his region, and his own country, “telling people point blank, just stating it, I control The United States. I control Donald Trump. I'm an American. You can't treat it it's too humiliating. I can't handle that, and I shouldn't have to put up with that.” The speakers collectively discuss U.S. involvement, potential regime changes, and the perceived influence of leadership over American actions, highlighting assertions of control, imminent military operations, and strategic aims in Iraq, Iran, and Libya.

Speaker 0: The speaker questions the pretexts for international interventions, starting with Yugoslavia. “В какой предлог? Что, санкции Совета безопасности, что ли? Где Югославия, где США? Уничтожили страну.” The speaker acknowledges internal conflict in Yugoslavia but asks who gave the right to strike the European capital, insisting, “Никто. Просто так решили,” with satellite powers following and cheering. They label this as “всё международное право.” Next, the speaker asks about the pretext for entering Iraq (referred to as “Рак”). They describe the action as “Разработка оружия массового уничтожения” used to invade, destroy the country, and create “очаг международного терроризма,” only to later claim that a mistake had been made. They recount the line: “нас разведка подвела. Ничего себе! Разрушили страну разведка подвела.” They say, “И всё объяснение,” arguing that “Оказывается, не было там никакого массового оружия поражения, никто не готовил.” They state, “Наоборот, когда-то было всё как положено уничтожили.” Finally, they ask about Syria: “А в Сирию как зашли? Что санкций Советой безопасности? Нет. Что хотят, то и делают.” The speaker contends that in Syria, as with the previous cases, the actions were taken without regard to UNSC sanctions, with force used to satisfy unspecified objectives. In summary, the speaker challenges the legitimacy of military interventions by citing Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Syria, highlighting claimed pretexts of weapons of mass destruction, UNSC sanctions, and the perceived disregard for international law, suggesting that decisions are made arbitrarily while authorities and precedents are cited as justification.

Speaker 0: Nobody knew there'd be a pandemic or an epidemic of this proportion. Speaker 1: There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure, not just here at home but globally, that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. So that if and when a new strain of flu like the Spanish flu crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we've made the investment, and we're further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It's not just insurance. It is knowing that down the road, we're gonna continue to have problems like this, particularly in a globalized world. Speaker 2: The CIA, they really love it when a new president is elected, and he has no background in intelligence or foreign policy. Barack Obama, no experience in foreign policy, no experience in intelligence. The day after an election, the director of the CIA authorizes a president-elect to begin receiving a PDB, a president's daily brief. And so the day after the election, they go with this this 16 page document and they say, Mr. President-elect, wait till you see the cool things we're doing all around the world. And they've sucked him in. They made him one of the guys. And then we get the feedback at the CIA. Oh, the president loved this. The president had a follow-up question on that. Oh, the president said, oh my God, when he read this. Speaker 3: It almost sounds like you're psychologically profiling the president. Speaker 2: Oh, I think that's exactly what they do. Speaker 3: And so they use the tools that they have employed for decades to subvert foreign governments, to subvert their own government. Speaker 4: 02/2008, something unbelievable happened for us in the FBI. We were getting lots of rumors about this high level asset that worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time. He worked for the Saudi Intelligence Service. He worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not even a United States citizen, but it was said that he was a student visa and that he was a a national from another country. In 02/2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. Speaker 1: And I will faithfully execute. Speaker 3: The office of Speaker 2: president of the United States. Speaker 1: The office of president of the United Speaker 4: One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sartaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within, one institution at a time. One of the things he did, of course, was he he defunded our military. He brought down he brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ICEs. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your Speaker 0: order. Forty four and one before that, '43, Bush and Obama. Well, there are pictures of Bush with his arm around eight year old Barack Obama because his stepdaddy, adopted daddy, Lolo Sotoro, had done a lifetime where the business with the Bushes. Wow. Uncle George Herbert Walker, after whom George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush won president, was named, founded Halliburton in 1946 in Oklahoma. And Lolo Sotoro had been international executive vice president for Standard Oil. There there was talk of him being a CIA asshole. Well, yeah. See, he ran the death squads for the Indonesian army. On his own call, anyone could be assassinated. So when George Herbert Walker Bush became head of the CIA under the Ford administration, he just got with his old buddy in the oil business, Lolo Sotoro, and pulled off the hits. See, Barack's grandmother has been acknowledged as being the woman that operated the channels through which CIA money went to the Southwest Pacific. So she introduced her daughter who had just had Barry Barack to Lolo Sotoro, and they got married and Lolo Sotoro adopted Barack Obama. The name was changed to Barry Sotoro. Mhmm. Speaker 0: Now when he went to high school in Hawaii, I know about that high school. I almost sent my oldest son to it. I could afford it, but I didn't think he observed deserved it. Twenty years ago, the tuition was $95,000 a year, not including room and board. When Obama went there, I've talked to two of his classmates. They independently state that the tuition, not including room and board, was 45,000. Now Business Insider reports his income for 2017 at over 200,000,000 net. That's after taxes, deductions, write offs. For this last year, 2018, they've reported it as 570 plus million dollars, and that's after all deductions tax. Right? Speaker 2: Trump doesn't make that net. Speaker 2: All these other ones who thought they were untouchable, now they're gonna have to answer for their actions. In the Obama administration, John Brennan had the Tuesday morning kill list meetings because the tech got sophisticated enough that you could just write up a list of people that you wanna kill that week, and you dish out the assignments. The teams go out. They kill everybody that's on the list, and then they meet next Tuesday and get that kill list. And you just do it week after week. Well, if you're not having to devote armies of targeting analysts, to to finding these guys, if if your computers can find them just based on their, you know, email messaging, text messaging, whatever, metadata. There. Your job's easy. You just fire a missile from the drone or you drop a guy in that does a close in shot, and then you get back Speaker 4: on the helicopter and fly home. Speaker 2: I hate to sound cynical like that, but that's just the way it is. Speaker 5: I think that's, just calling it how it is. What, what year or years was that was Brennan doing that Tuesday morning kill list? Speaker 2: He started in o nine and kept it going. I have no idea if Donald Trump kept it or Joe Biden kept it or revived it, But it was something that they were very proud of in the Obama administration. They were just going out whacking everybody. Speaker 5: Yeah. Well, no nobody dropped more missiles from drones than Obama did. Speaker 2: No. Nobody.

The speaker contends that the European Union does not have the authority to determine international law or dictate how the United States defends its national security. They assert that the United States is actively responding to threats to its security, describing the country as being “under attack from organized criminals in our hemisphere” and stating that the president is taking measures to defend the nation in this operation. The speaker notes a contrast in international reactions: many countries advocate for the United States to supply and deploy nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles to defend Europe, yet those same countries view the United States placing aircraft carriers in the hemisphere near the speaker’s location as problematic. This juxtaposition is highlighted to illustrate perceived inconsistencies in support or criticism from other nations. Overall, the speaker emphasizes that the president’s stated mission is to protect the United States from threats against the United States, and asserts that the current operation aligns with that objective by defending the country.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on phony pretenses and that focus groups were conducted to determine how to sell the war to the American people. They claim the war originated with Netanyahu, who believed toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran was the only way to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of continually trying to instigate a war with Iran and characterizes him as responsible for involving the U.S. in endless wars. They conclude that the concepts of "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible terms.

Ordered Cambodian genocide. Sent cruise missiles to Sudan. Gave the orders to do drones Friday.

The speaker stated the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi in power. Iraq used to kill terrorists immediately, but now it's the "Harvard of terrorism." The speaker said that while Hussein was a horrible guy, Iraq was better then than it is now, as it is currently a training ground for terrorists. The speaker stated nobody even knows Libya, and there is no Iraq and no Libya anymore because it's all broken up. Human rights abuses are happening now and are worse than under Hussein or Gaddafi. Libya is a catastrophe, Iraq is a disaster, and the whole Middle East blew up around Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker states the US used phony pretenses and focus groups to sell the war to the American people. They claim Netanyahu wanted the war to topple governments supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, specifically Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the US into endless wars and still trying to get the US to fight Iran. They conclude that the terms "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible.

The speaker claims the war in Syria began with Obama tasking the CIA to overthrow the Syrian government four years before Russia intervened. They allege the New York Times rarely reported on Operation Timber Sycamore, which was the presidential order to the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. Regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speaker asserts it was based on phony pretenses and that focus groups were used to determine how to sell the war to the American people. They claim the war originated with Netanyahu, who believed toppling Iraq, Syria, and Iran would eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker accuses Netanyahu of pushing the U.S. into endless wars and trying to instigate a war with Iran. They conclude that the concepts of "democracy versus dictatorship" are not sensible terms.

- In 2008, rumors circulated in the FBI about a high-level asset who worked for several intelligence agencies at the same time: he worked for the Saudi intelligence service and he worked for the CIA, and he was being developed as a political asset in Chicago, Illinois. He was not a United States citizen, said to be on a student visa and a national from another country. - In 2008, everyone in the intelligence structure found out who he was. It was this individual whose name I don't like to say, who became president in 2008 of The United States. I will faithfully execute. The office of president of the United States. The office of president of the United States. - One of his code names was Renegade. His real name was Barry Sortaro, but he adopted a different name for his political career. When they ran him for president, the cabal, basically, this was the culmination of so many of their plans for so many years. His mission was to destroy The United States from within one institution at a time. - One of the things he did, of course, was he defunded our military. He brought down the resources that they got. But then he ordered our military in many, many instances and in various theaters to attack our allies and to defend and supply and help our enemies. That's exactly how he created ISIS. He would say publicly that the military were gonna bomb our enemies, but then he would have the military actually bomb enemies of ISIS, our allies. He gave ISIS funding and equipment by basically ordering our military to take equipment into a certain theater and then abandon it. - And the commanders would say, that's ridiculous. We'd just be handing that stuff over to ISIS. And the president's office would say, don't question orders. Just follow your orders. And that...

Speaker 0 describes a high-stakes geopolitical confrontation framed as a poker match between the United States and BRICS, especially China. He asserts that the early 2026 period is explosive and that US actions against Iran are imminent, escalating the stakes. He then lays out a narrative beginning with Venezuela, a key Chinese trading partner, where the United States not only sanctioned and condemned Venezuela but launched “devastating strikes,” captured Nicolas Maduro and his wife, and brought them to New York City for prosecution. He claims the Chinese delegation was meeting Maduro in Venezuela on Saturday, but Trump’s actions disrupted the meeting, and the Chinese delegation remains in Venezuela as of Sunday morning. He argues that this is not about narcoterrorism or fentanyl but a larger strategic move, and notes the apparent lack of resistance from Maduro’s side, suggesting direct CIA involvement and a stand-down agreement to allow the operation. He condenms what he calls “phony outrage,” arguing Democrats are not truly anti-war and contending that the incident marks a dangerous precedent for militarized actions in sovereign nations. Speaker 1 contributes by agreeing that China and Russia are not stupid enough to threaten the United States militarily in the homeland, but contends they will act through economic and financial measures. He predicts China and Russia will liquidate debt holdings and trigger negative impacts on the U.S. bond market, while avoiding direct military confrontation. He emphasizes that the response will be economic rather than kinetic. Speaker 0 returns to the 30,000-foot view, stating that the Venezuelan event signals an open head-to-head between the U.S. and China, with globalization receding and regionalization rising. He highlights two key leverage moves: the United States using tariffs as a market-access tool, while China employs choke points through export controls on critical materials. He notes that China quietly moved nearly $2 billion worth of silver out of Venezuela before Trump’s invasion. He points to China’s January 1 policy implementing a new export license system for silver, requiring government permission and designed to squeeze foreign buyers, which coincided with a sharp rise in silver prices. He connects this to broader concerns about supply chains and critical inputs like rare earths and magnets, noting that China produces over 90% of the world’s processed rare earth minerals and magnets, a powerfully strategic lever. He argues that China has tightened rare earth export controls targeting overseas defenses and semiconductor users, and that these factors contribute to a shift from globalization to regionalization where supply chains become weapons. He frames Trump’s tariff strategy as a means to gain access to the U.S. market, branding April 2 as “liberation day” for tariffs due to how markets reacted, and mentions discussions of a tariff dividend proposal to fund a new economic model, as floated by the administration. Speaker 0 concludes that Venezuela is a focal point where resources, influence, and dollars collide, with potential implications for the U.S. dollar, and asserts that the geopolitical chessboard is being redrawn as the U.S. and China move into open competition. He ends by forecasting further moves, including a controversial note about Greenland, and invites viewers to subscribe for coverage of stories the “Mockingbird media” will not discuss.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.

The speaker claims that an individual lied before Congress and the media, stating that Obama's targeted assassination program killed no civilians on the Afghan or Pakistan border, when the speaker believes 50-75 innocent people were killed. The speaker says the individual was caught in that lie. Three years later, the speaker says the same individual lied emphatically to Congress about tapping CIA staffers' computers, initially denying it, then admitting to the lie. The speaker notes that in both instances, there were no perjury charges.

President Trump is commended for acting decisively. The military strike was meticulously and precisely carried out. Servicemen and women traveled far, deposited 14 bunker buster bombs, destroyed targets, and returned home safely without any casualties. The mission was flawless.