reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 references an email exchange between Jeffrey Leeds and former Secretary of State Colin Powell in which Powell allegedly acknowledges that Israel “has 200 nuclear weapons” and that “the nuclear non proliferation treaty has not been signed by Israel,” and asks whether under US law the United States should cut off support to Israel because it is a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Speaker 1 declines to engage: “Shouldn't you ask Colin Powell that? I I'm not gonna speak to this particular traffic, and I'm certainly not discuss doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm certainly not going to discuss matters of intelligence from the from the podium, and I'm not I have no I have no comment.” Speaker 0 reiterates: “the email says the boys in Tehran know Israel has 200. All we targeted on Tehran, and we have thousands. I mean, that that seems to indicate that that there's a knowledge of an Israeli nuclear program, which would make USA to Israel illegal.” Speaker 1 responds: “I think I've answered your question.” Speaker 0 asks again whether the understanding is correct: “am I do I have the correct understanding of US law that that we are we are not allowed to support a nuclear power that has not signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty?” Speaker 1 says: “Look, we obviously support the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. I'm not a I'm not a legal expert on all the tenets of it, and I'm certainly not going to speak about the the details that you've revealed here in this email traffic. That would be inappropriate for me to discuss one way or the other. I'm not gonna There do” Speaker 0 notes that sanctions have been imposed on North Korea and Iran for nuclear proliferation, and asks why Israel is not facing any consequences in light of Powell’s alleged email. Speaker 1 reframes: “That's a very colorful way of getting back to the same question you just asked me, but I'm going to refer you back to the transcript when you see it this afternoon to what I said before to your question. So you're familiar with this email. Right? I'm not. Oh. I have not seen it. I'm not I can't speak to the email. Frankly, even if I'd seen it, Zurich, I wouldn't engage in that kind of a discussion from the podium.”

Speaker 0 asks why President Trump unleashed Prime Minister Netanyahu to resume genocide in Gaza, resulting in the intentional killing of 400 civilians. Speaker 1 believes Trump has no choice, due to agreements with major donors beyond Miriam Adelson, obliging him to underwrite Netanyahu's actions. Speaker 1 notes Netanyahu arranged a meeting between the U.S. and Azerbaijan, not the State Department, indicating the Israel lobby's grip. Speaker 1 believes Trump is obliged to comply and won't diverge. Speaker 0 asks if Trump has no choice but to militarily back Israel if it attacks Iran. Speaker 1 thinks so, noting the possibility of Israel precipitating a war with Iran. The expectation is the U.S. will reinforce Israeli actions, with joint strike planning and intelligence sharing already in place. Speaker 1 believes it's a foregone conclusion, though the timing is uncertain.

Speaker 0 argues that Israel, through its lobby, has manifested so much power over the United States Congress that the country is embroiled in wars they believe they should not be in. He states that whenever Israel is mentioned, someone claims you’re an anti-Semite, and he contends that policies in the Middle East have been one-sided and subjective, leading to many enemies and the importing of terrorists as a consequence. He asserts: “Israel through their lobby has manifested total power of the congress of the United,” and expresses a concern that taxpayers and the citizens of the United States should control their government, not a foreign entity. Speaker 1 challenges these assertions, saying: “You did. That’s not what you said. You said they’re controlling our foreign policy. They’re controlling our domestic policy.” He presses back, stating: “That quote, they are influencing and the sole control of influencing of our domestic policy is an absurdity. It sounds like you are a kook.” He explicitly disputes the idea that Israel controls the Congress and domestic policy. Speaker 0 clarifies, “I believe they control the senate and the house foreign affairs committee.” Speaker 1 repeats that claim as insane, prompting Speaker 0 to insist: “I’m not suggesting it. I served in congress for seven…,” implying a longer service and experience to support his concerns, though the sentence is cut off. The exchange centers on claims of disproportionate Israeli influence in U.S. federal policy, the objectivity of Middle East policy, and the contention that foreign lobbies, particularly related to Israel, have undue power over congressional decision-making, contrasted with direct rebuttals labeling such claims as irrational or insane.

Speaker 0 argues that "Israel's our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them." They echo: "Protecting Israel's most important thing. They're our only real ally." They question, "If they're our only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology to China? To China?" and ask, "Why is China running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port?" They claim "From Israel's perspective, we're not a close ally" and "The loyalty is not requited. It's one way." They say Netanyahu "has pushed it too far" and that "the governor of Israel, in particular, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far." They add "I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States." They cite Trump on West Bank annexation: "No. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen." and "I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank." The speaker concludes "It's been enough. It's time to stop" and that "This is why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question."

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence in US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of singling out Israel and implying Jewish control over foreign policy, labeling it an antisemitic trope. Speaker 0 denies antisemitism, stating the concern is about a foreign government's influence, not Jews or Judaism. Speaker 1 challenges Speaker 0 to provide another reason for focusing on Israel. Speaker 0 cites the potential for war with Iran and Speaker 1's stated goal of defending Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend any foreign government's interests, regardless of ancestry, and condemns the antisemitism accusation.

Speaker 0 says Tom Cotton introduced a bill that would merge U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence. Speaker 0 claims the bill would mandate the United States to share a significant amount of intelligence with Israelis, and that it could only be prevented if the president stops certain elements of the measure. Speaker 0 also says people are trying to take away aid because aid is public and scrutinized. According to Speaker 0, this would still result in the continuation of intelligence sharing and “probably even more money for Israel,” but with the funds and arrangements “hidden” without congressional oversight. Speaker 0 concludes that the people involved should be in prison.

The discussion centers on an arrangement involving Israel’s missile systems and technology, with one participant describing Israel as being framed as doing the United States a favor by allowing access to Israel’s technology “for the Iron Dome level of stuff.” One participant counters that Israel “is getting a lot of that” and that the relationship is not accurately characterized as one-sided generosity, adding that Israel has received “a lot” of military technology and weaponry. One participant argues that Israel is not the “giver” in the relationship, especially in intelligence, describing Israel as “the taker” and the U.S. as “the host,” referencing John Kiriakou and others from their perspective. They say that everyone they have spoken with, including people they mention (including Kiriakou and Bustamante), has told them versions of this same idea, concluding that the notion of Israel’s role as purely a nice thing for U.S. benefit “doesn’t feel like what I’ve seen in reality.” They also address the demeanor of a media-trained individual they spoke with, describing him as “impressively media trained” and “unflappable,” even while being pressed. The conversation includes uncertainty about specifics, including the formalization of Israeli companies being on U.S. soil, which the speaker says they “didn’t quite still get.” A key moment is the speaker stating that “none of us want this,” calling it unpopular and saying they feel the U.S. is “teaming up with the most diabolical country.” They describe the other person reacting with “interesting,” while still referencing Iran as a threat. The speaker contrasts the framing, saying that the war is branded with Iran even though Iran is the one attacked, and that the person attacked gets branded with the label “Iran war.” The speaker concludes by saying the situation is “ass backwards,” asserting that the narrative outcome was predictable, and that objective observers would see that it was “not in our interest.” They argue the framing places “people” listening in a position where the U.S. has to “defend the Iranian regime,” which they say no one wants to do.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about the population and ethnic mix of Iran, which Speaker 1 is unable to answer. Speaker 1 defends his lack of knowledge, stating he doesn't memorize population tables. They then argue about whether Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump and whether the U.S. is supporting Israel's military actions. Speaker 0 claims the U.S. government denied acting on Israel's behalf. The discussion shifts to whether it is acceptable for Israel to spy on the U.S., including the president. Speaker 1 says allies spy on each other and that it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel, despite the spying. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1, as an American lawmaker, doesn't object to the spying. Speaker 2 criticizes Speaker 1's stance, calling it insane and not conservative to defend being spied on.

In 2002, before the Iraq invasion, Netanyahu testified to US Congress, stating Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons and hiding facilities underground. This was allegedly false and led to war. Netanyahu also stated he wanted regime change in Iran and questioned how to achieve it. Speaker 0 asks: How can we trust someone who goaded the US into war in Iraq based on falsehoods? Given recent events, why are we confident Netanyahu won't do the same with Iran, given his 20-year call for regime change? Speaker 1 says the President and Secretary have close working relationships with Netanyahu. The US commitment to Israel's security transcends any government. The US condemns Iran's attacks. Speaker 0 notes Netanyahu heads the Israeli government and there's a difference between condemning actions and the US getting into a war with Iran. Speaker 1 says the US is not interested in an all-out conflict with Iran, but is committed to Israel's security.

The transcript discusses objections to merging defense bases and describes a preference for a “voice vote,” suggesting leaders want to avoid directly identifying “collaborators.” It then shifts to intelligence-sharing concerns, asking how proposed changes would be worse than “the Mossad running the CIA right now,” and stating the proposed change “enhances that control… by codifying it into law.” The speaker explains that, “right now,” the U.S. relationship with Israeli intelligence services is “mostly transactional,” and that the U.S. “pick[s] and choose[s]” what it shares, unlike the level of sharing with “those Five Eyes countries.” They claim that under the new law being pushed—citing “Section six twenty-two in the Senate”—the U.S. would “open up a floodgate of intelligence and information into the Israeli intelligence services, whether they ask for that intelligence or not,” and that “right now” Israel “have[s] to ask for it technically.” The transcript also argues that the new law would “hem in future presidents,” because intelligence sharing is currently controlled by a “pre— a given president,” who could restrict access. The speaker says the law would remove that “freedom of movement,” making presidential discretion less flexible. The speaker claims there is a “groundswell of people in both parties,” including “younger people,” who are skeptical of the alliance with Israel “in its current form,” and that, in response, “the Israelis and the Zionists in Congress” are “fearful” that future politicians from either party will limit intelligence sharing. They say efforts are being made to “rein in the president’s freedom of authority on this” and to “hermetically seal this.” A second speaker interrupts to say “It’s not gonna happen” and “We will never allow this to happen… to the United States of America.” The transcript then mentions an upcoming discussion with “Finell,” described as “one of the most renowned naval intelligence officers in the history of the United States Navy,” who is said to have warned the country about the rise of the PLA Navy and “gave up his career” during the Obama administration. The speaker connects this to “Intelligence in the year nineteen forty-one and forty-two,” referencing “Pearl Harbor” and “Midway,” and says the discussion will involve “investigations” into “what was the real intelligence and what was fed to the president back in June of last year,” including “who is responsible for presenting it,” with the claim that there will be continued efforts “till we get to the bottom of it.”

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1's focus on defending Israel, suggesting it represents foreign influence over US politics. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of obsessing over Israel and implying Jewish control of foreign policy, which Speaker 0 denies. Speaker 0 refutes being antisemitic, stating the concern is with a foreign government's influence, not Jewish people. Speaker 0 points out Speaker 1's stated goal to defend Israel upon entering Congress. Speaker 0 asserts that a lawmaker's job isn't to defend foreign governments, and accuses Speaker 1 of being "sleazy" for implying antisemitism. Speaker 1 questions why Speaker 0 is only asking about Israel. Speaker 0 reiterates that the issue concerns a foreign government, not Jewish people.

Speaker 0 describes a 2021 claim by the commander of Israeli intelligence to design a machine to resolve a human bottleneck in locating and approving targets in war. A recent investigation by Plus 972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army developed an AI-based Lavender system to designate targets and direct airstrikes. During the initial weeks of the Lavender operation, the system designated about 37,000 Palestinians as targets and directed airstrikes on their homes. The system reportedly had an error rate of about 10%, and there was no requirement to verify the machine’s data. The Israeli army systematically attacked targeted individuals at night in their homes while their whole family was present. An automated component, known as “where’s daddy,” tracked targeted individuals and carried out bombings when they entered their family residences. The result, according to the report, was that thousands of women and children were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Israeli intelligence officers allegedly stated that the IDF bombed homes as a first option, and in several cases entire families were murdered when the actual target was not inside. In one instance, four buildings were destroyed along with everyone inside because a single target was in one of them. For targets marked as low level by Lavender, cheaper bombs were used, destroying entire buildings and killing mostly civilians and entire families. It was alleged that the IDF did not want to waste expensive bombs on “unimportant people,” and it was decided that for every low-level Hamas operative Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; for a senior Hamas official, more than 100 civilians could be killed. Most AI targets were never tracked before the war. Lavender analyzed information collected on the 2,300,000 residents of the Gaza Strip through mass surveillance, assessing the likelihood of each person being a militant and giving a rating from 1 to 100. If the rating was high enough, the person and their entire family were killed. Lavender flagged individuals with patterns similar to Hamas, including police, civil defense, relatives, and residents with similar names or nicknames. The report notes that this kind of tracking system has existed in the US for years. Speaker 1 presents a counterpoint: a “fine gentleman of the secret service” claims to provide a list of every threat made about the president since February 3 and profiles of every threat maker, implying that targets could be identified through broad data collection including emails, chats, SMS. The passage suggests a tool akin to a Google search but including private communications. Speaker 0 adds that although some claim Israel controls the US, Joe Biden says Israel serves US interests. Speaker 2: A speaker asserts, “There’s no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3,000,000,000 investment we make,” and claims that without Israel the United States would have to invent an Israel to protect its regional interests. Speaker 0 closes reporting for Infowars, credited to Greg Reese.

The discussion centers on claims drawn from “Epstein files.” Speaker 1 says they found information “nobody else found,” highlighting Catherine Rumler, described as Barack Obama’s White House counsel and later general counsel for Goldman Sachs. Speaker 1 claims Rumler was “very, very close to Jeffrey Epstein,” with “constant” email exchanges. They cite emails in the latest tranche where Rumler tells Epstein that John Brennan, director of the CIA, “gave me the CIA’s highest honor this morning,” and where she tells Epstein she will arrange for him to be in Washington next Tuesday and sets up a meeting with Brennan. Speaker 1 asks whether there was contact between Jeffrey Epstein and John Brennan, noting Brennan “is not talking,” and states that “3,000,000 more documents” have not yet been released, and “of the ones that haven’t been deleted possibly” suggests permanent deletion may have occurred. They say people are expected to “take their words for it.” Speaker 0 suggests focusing narrowly on portions of the files involving sex trafficking and billionaires abusing kids, but Speaker 1 argues that zooming out shows “arms deals” and “collaborations across intelligence.” Speaker 1 says the theme everyone should focus on is that Epstein was “an Israeli access agent,” claiming certainty about this position. Speaker 1 says the next tranche (described as “3,000,000,” “like 2,700,000 documents”) shows Epstein trying to work for the CIA and possibly doing something with the CIA. They state they “don’t know yet” and that Epstein “didn’t authorize that.” Speaker 1 adds that Epstein was also working with MI5 and MI6 in the UK, “possibly the Germans,” and “definitely the Israelis.” They claim Epstein repeatedly tried to secure a one-on-one meeting with Vladimir Putin, was denied repeatedly, and eventually was offered a meeting with Putin and three others; Epstein declined and wanted only Putin alone, after which “the Russians walked away.” The conversation concludes with discussion of “Israeli connections,” including Speaker 0 saying that when they asked Congress people about it “today and yesterday,” they “run screaming from the room.” Speaker 0 also notes that the topic is sometimes turned into a Democrat-versus-Republican issue rather than something broader, and Speaker 1 replies: “And it’s not. They’re both corrupt.”

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Speaker 0 says a piece about Israel’s “obscene treatment” of Speaker 0’s country has an obvious takeaway that America’s “special ally is not actually an ally,” and that NBC News did not want readers to realize this. Speaker 0 claims the report’s authors repeatedly inserted “globalist propaganda” into the story, including the neocon talking point that Israelis are America’s “special friends,” while still presenting “eye-opening” information about Israel spying. Speaker 0 argues that throughout the entire NBC News piece, there is continued praise for Israel as “our greatest ally” and “special friend.” Speaker 1 says the piece lays praise on Israel and is about Israel spying, which they find “reprehensible.” Speaker 1 describes decades of belief that Israel is America’s best ally, an “island of democracy” amid “sea of chaos” in the Middle East, and that many Jewish people Speaker 1 personally knew seemed “like really good people.” Speaker 1 says that as “growing physical evidence” has emerged that Israel is “not quite who we thought they were” and that Israel “definitely” abuses America, the situation has become normalized. Speaker 1 claims that even when things have come out, “no action has been taken,” leading Israel to be “a little bit more bold,” doing actions “out in the open.” Speaker 1 cites an example involving Netanyahu and Lebanon: Speaker 1 says Netanyahu stated that a stop to fighting in Lebanon is a “non-negotiable requirement” for Iran to end the war, and that Speaker 1 believes Netanyahu will “do what I want anyway,” even if President Trump intervenes. Speaker 1 says Speaker 1 expects Trump may “hold off for a day or two,” but that Israel “they’re fighting again today.” Speaker 1 asks why the U.S. continues to support Israel and provide it with ammunition, weapons, political cover, and diplomatic cover “to keep doing things directly antithetical to our interests?” Speaker 0 responds, “It’s so frustrating.”

Speaker 1 describes the damage: at least three bases in the Gulf have been devastated, including the fifth fleet headquarters; satellite imagery suggests the base in Bahrain looks like Gaza and has been “moonscape.” He says he doesn’t know about casualties because he isn’t sure if the base was evacuated, but the imagery indicates it has been flattened. He notes the base was expensive and long a hub for the U.S. Navy in the Middle East and has been “completely taken offline.” He mentions a Middle East expert who doubts a quick rebuild, suggesting that Arabs will be irate and not want the U.S. to build back in their countries after the war ends. Speaker 0 adds that the Arabs “give us billions in foreign investment” and in exchange the U.S. promised to protect them, but asks why we would defend them given the current actions. Speaker 1 states there are credible reports that whatever air defense systems were in Arab countries were sent over to Israel and left American bases and people vulnerable, implying the U.S. prioritized protecting Israeli targets over U.S. troops. He reflects that, a year or two ago, he wouldn’t have believed this, but after watching a Huckabee interview, he thinks the United States is being led by its proxy and calls it the proxy being the housekeeper while the U.S. is the homeowner. He says the U.S. is “being led around the nose… by what should be its proxy.” Speaker 0 questions the dynamic, saying, “they’re the housekeeper. We’re the homeowner,” and asks for clarity on the situation. Speaker 1 adds a personal note: a Gulf-based colleague sent a State Department warning to get out, with the message that people are “on your own” for evacuation—no flights provided. He contrasts this with the British government evacuating its people “no questions asked” until twenty-four hours ago. He concludes that the sole superpower is picking a fight with Iran’s missile city and not providing exfiltration for its people, and asserts that this indicates a decline of the empire. He mentions that the Chinese view is that their time is at hand due to what he calls national suicide with this insanity.

In this exchange, Speaker 0 raises the issue of the USS Liberty attack in 1967, arguing that if truth matters, the Israeli government must be held accountable because the American flag was flying on that ship. Speaker 0 presses why, in a discussion of modern Israeli–American relations, Speaker 1 would deem the attack “irrelevant” to current ties. Speaker 1 responds that when assessing today’s relations, citing the 1967 attack as a basis for judgment is irrelevant—comparable to using evidence from World War II or 1776 to define present-day relations with Britain or Germany. He emphasizes that while the attack was horrible and tragic for those involved, and that Israel paid reparations, the actual naval record indicates the incident was a mistaken and tragic event. He notes that those who reference the USS Liberty often do so to suggest Israel deliberately harmed America, and asks if that is Speaker 0’s broader point. Speaker 0 reiterates that truth requires accountability from the Israeli government, given the American flag on the ship. Speaker 1 points to the naval investigations, stating that multiple investigations exist and that the Israeli military at the time was flying Mirage planes and the USS Liberty was operating off-grid. He explains that the Israeli forces mistook the ship for an Egyptian vessel and believed it was shelling Al-Arish, which was not true. He describes the sequence: the American flag was knocked down in the initial attack, the engagement lasted about ninety minutes, and once it became clear the vessel was American, the attack was halted and a ship was dispatched to assist the Liberty. He also notes there have been other unfortunate friendly-fire incidents in war, such as during the Gulf War when US forces killed British troops. Speaker 0 asks about the broader agenda behind raising the incident, suggesting that it is not limited to that specific event. Speaker 1 acknowledges the question but questions the motive and implies that it is not an appropriate basis for evaluating current U.S.–Israel relations. Speaker 0 asserts that there are ongoing problems in the relationship, but again emphasizes the six-decade-old incident as relevant to the discussion. Speaker 1 maintains that, in the same way that many histories exist, there are many countries and contexts, and reiterates that the question is not answered satisfactorily. The exchange ends with Speaker 1 indicating this will be the last question.

The discussion centers on US support for Israel, with Speaker 0 stating that the US provides Israel with $3 billion annually in military aid, which benefits US national security through intelligence sharing, particularly from Mossad. Speaker 1 questions the cost of military actions to protect Israel and whether Israel spies on the US, including the president. Speaker 0 acknowledges that allies spy on each other and defends the alliance with Israel as beneficial for the US. The conversation shifts to AIPAC, with Speaker 1 questioning whether it lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government and why it isn't registered as a foreign lobby. Speaker 0 denies this, stating that AIPAC is an American lobby that promotes a strong US-Israeli relationship. Speaker 1 suggests AIPAC's goals are shaped by the Israeli government, while Speaker 0 denies coordination and accuses Speaker 1 of being obsessed with Israel. Speaker 1 denies being anti-Semitic and defends their right to question foreign influence on US politics.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

The discussion centers on how the CIA allegedly carries out “false flag” operations and how they are meant to be understood by the public. Speaker 0 brings up the idea that Google searches in Israel occurred before a shooting, specifically searching for the name of the shooter, and asks whether these operations are becoming sloppy. Speaker 0 also asks how false flags “unfold” and how long beforehand they are prepared before being carried out. Speaker 1 says these operations are planned “for months.” They reference the events of 9-11 and argue that “a legitimate criminal investigation was never done there,” disagreeing with the 9-11 report. Speaker 1 describes a CIA planning pattern: operations are said to choose a “boogeyman,” always one person, so that it is framed as not a conspiracy. They claim that if the target can be selected, then authorities can later point to that single individual as the explanation—“There is the boogeyman… We got the boogeyman… No conspiracy, nothing to see here.” Speaker 1 also claims that these chosen individuals are often portrayed as having had “no indication previously” of criminal tendencies, and that, in their view, evidence in later cases supposedly does not align with the official narrative, but is still dismissed because the individual is presented as the “boogeyman.” Speaker 0 then argues there is “very little daylight” between the CIA and Mossad, stating that when “Mossad” is mentioned, it “really” means CIA and MI6. Speaker 1 agrees, claiming the CIA considers Mossad its “chief intelligence asset in the Middle East,” and that they are “woven in” together with “sister organizations” that share intelligence at “massive high-level scale” with high-level clearances. Speaker 1 also describes a “frenemies” element, saying Mossad sometimes targets the CIA to steal information, and concludes they are “joined at the hip.” Speaker 0 asks whether these narratives still work, suggesting mainstream media coverage—citing CNN and Axios—links anti-Semitism to attacks, and they wonder if the “false flagship has sailed.” Speaker 1 responds that the agency conducts psychological studies and understands that the average American is exhausted and mostly receives information from news programs, implying the public is more likely to accept repeated claims without critical thinking. Speaker 1 gives an example from 9-11, saying the Bush administration claimed a paper passport could be recovered despite the plane being incinerated, calling it “stupid… disinformation.” Speaker 0 adds that they believe “nanothermite” and “lava” were involved in the controlled demolition of the towers, contrasting that with paper passports. Speaker 1 says the passport claim was repeated enough for many Americans to accept it and argues that people need critical thinking rather than passive consumption of televised narratives.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that while intelligence is shared between the U.S. and Israel, it is likely not all intelligence. They also assume that allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and vice versa. Speaker 1 states that conservatives recognize people act in their own self-interest. Speaker 0 asks if it is in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president. Speaker 1 responds that the close alliance with Israel provides huge benefits to the U.S. Speaker 0 asks why Speaker 1 won't say that Israel is not allowed to spy on the U.S. and that they don't want to be spied on.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about Iran, including its population, which Speaker 1 does not know. Speaker 1 defends his lack of knowledge, stating he doesn't memorize population tables. Speaker 0 suggests this information is relevant given Speaker 1's stance on the country. The discussion shifts to whether Iran is trying to murder Donald Trump, which Speaker 1 believes. They also discuss military strikes and US support for Israel. Later, they discuss whether Mossad shares all intelligence with the US, and whether they spy domestically in the United States. Speaker 1 says allies spy on each other, which Speaker 0 questions. Speaker 0 asks if it's in America's interest for Israel to spy on the US, including the president. Speaker 1 says it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel, and Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 won't say he doesn't want to be spied on.

Speaker 0 asserts that Donald Trump decided to bomb Iran because Israelis said, for the first time, that if Trump did not bomb Iran to take out deep bunkers, Israel would use nuclear weapons; they had never threatened that before, and bombing Iran might save them from the start of World War III by preventing Israeli nuclear use. Speaker 1 asks for clarification, restating that Israelis told the U.S. president to use military power to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or Israel, acting on its own, would use nuclear weapons. They note the problem with that statement, since Israel has never admitted having them. Speaker 0 concurs, and Speaker 1 points out the contradiction: they are saying Israel just admitted to having nuclear weapons, yet the U.S. does not have them in the IAEA treaty. Speaker 0 adds that, if Israeli nuclear whistleblowers are to be believed, Israel has had nuclear weapons, and began working on them in the 1950s.

Speaker 1 acknowledges that Mossad likely doesn't share all intelligence with the U.S., just as the U.S. doesn't share everything with them, but emphasizes it's a close alliance. Speaker 1 assumes all allies, including Israel, spy on the U.S., and attributes this to people acting in their rational self-interest. When asked if it's in America's interest for Israel to spy on the U.S., including on the president, Speaker 1 states it's in America's interest to be closely allied with Israel because the U.S. gets huge benefits from it. While acknowledging the spying takes place, Speaker 1 does not express disapproval, but rather focuses on the benefits of the alliance.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.