Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump eyes ground invasion in Iran, Trump covers up strike on school, Ro Khanna and Massie on Epstein Act 2, majority of Dems vote to cut Israel funding.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today. When do we have Crystal?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Indeed, we do.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Latest on the Iran war as Trump reportedly explores ground options.
I'm sure that will go great. He also seemingly is
announcing a cover up of what exactly happened when we
bombed that monob Girls school in Iran. Rocana and Thomas
Massey are going to join us live in studio.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
They have a lot to talk about. They have a
new Epstein Transparency Act.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
That they are pushing that would helped to enable prosecutions
in places like New Mexico with the Azora Ranch. They
also are just coming out the heels of this big
vote in the House on Massi's amendment to strip aid
from Israel, which created a whole fraction within the Democratic Caucus.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
So very very excited to have.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Them live in person, have so many things that we
want to ask them about. We also have some news
here about Brad par Scale. I don't know if you
guys remember this guy, but he was the campaign chief
for Trump. He has now got a forty five million
dollar contract to run a pro Israel influence operation that
is effectively targeting undermining the Iranian war negotiations. So pretty
(01:35):
fascinating dynamics there, and always important to expose who is
getting paid and how these influence operations work. And I'm
taking a look at how Doge fueled the explosive diarrhea
epidemic and some other problems that are going on in
the country thanks to Doge as well.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So you definitely want to stay tuned for that one.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Excited for that one. A lot of viral panic around
this deal. Maybe it's not panic, maybe it's actually justified.
I'm excited to listen. Thank you to everybody who's been
subscribing to the show Breakingpoints at dot com. We of
course have our free newsletter, but I do want to
take a moment here to just thank all of our
premium subscribers. It's a really cool moment when you know
Thomas Massey and Rocanna. This all came together very quickly,
(02:14):
and what we were able to do is our whole
team just kicks into high gear for the studio, our producers,
people getting here early. That is only enabled by the
people who pay for our show. So Breakingpoints dot com
if you're able to do that. We actually we were
filming this a bit out of order and it was
just incredible, Like it's very rare to have that much
time with these high profile politicians here in Washington. And yeah,
(02:37):
just very thankful for our premium subscribers.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yeah, by the way, as a little teaser, you guys
are always asking us if Roe and Thomas Massey would
run together on a presidential ticket, so we doing that.
We do bring that up with them. So a lot
of interesting responses, some news that's made, etc. You definitely
want to check both of those blocks outs. As we
split it into.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Two ranking boys dot com. If you're able to support
our show. If you're watching this on YouTube, no worries,
please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. Listen to the podcast.
We share an episode with a friend. But let's go
ahead and start, as Crystal said, with the Iran war.
Let's put a one up here on the screen. Some
very troubling news out from the Wall Street Journal. Trump
leans towards expanding US military options in Iran quote while
(03:15):
preferring diplomacy. Trump was briefed this week on options including
use of ground troops and the bombing of Pickaxe Mountain.
The long time watchers of the show will know all
about Pickaxe Mountain, which has become kind of this neo
con What's that castle the Israelis took in Lebanon, a
useless castle like Bingford Castle. So the Pickaxe Mountain is
the Buford Castle of the American neo cons where they've
(03:38):
just decided this this mountain, it's gotta go alleged nuclear
linked site. And you know, we can't finish the job
until we've taken Pickaxe Mountain. But what's even more troubling
here is that in the situation room meeting they discuss quote,
potential seizure of carg Island, which Trump has talked about,
territory all along the street of horn moves using US troops,
the bombing of the tunnel complex at Pickax Mountain, and
(04:00):
expanding air strikes against more targets in Iran, including energy strikes,
all including that as a possibility. So there are some
countervailing signs which will play for all of you. But
right now, all the signs currently point towards more war.
Let's go ahead and put a two up here on
the screen. A very predictable thing is the same time
Trump is considering expanding military options, you have President Trump
(04:22):
says Ian called them a while ago, and now they
want to make a deal. And you also have, of
course the US stock market, which extended its rally immediately
upon the news. They never really learn, do they, although
they did end up closing down at the same time.
You know, and I know we do mention this quite
a bit, but you have to.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
I just feel like it's so titanic that and everything
seems like it's fine. But with the oil where it's at,
everyone who can read a chart, they're scared, and they're
beyond scared actually with the resumption of hostilities. Put a
three up here. The traders themselves, the people who have
been buying the Trump taco and all of that, largely
(05:00):
have been you know, on the side of it's not
as bad as some of the worst purveyors of doom
had said in the original war. They are now coming
out and saying we're close to running on empty as
the horn MoU straight is shut down again. So what
they write is that member countries have already released three
quarters of the planned four hundred million barrel emergency stock
(05:24):
release that was announced in March. Quote, we have burned
through all the buffers, we had everything, All of that
is gone.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Oil prices have now rebounded somewhere around eighty to eighty
five dollars a barrel. That's as highest since the original
ceasefire was announced over a month ago. And what they
also point out is that now the agreement that governments
in the West and Asia quote had pulled almost every
lever available to them to ensure a supply crunch would
(05:52):
not undermine the world economy. Western powers have already released,
you know, vast amounts of their strategic petroleum reserve. But
what they say here specifically, is that there's no more
slack left within the system. And so if we do
see another six to eight weeks or maybe even a
few more months of war, it is almost inevitable that
shortages will come up somewhere. It won't be here in America.
(06:15):
It certainly won't because we'll all just pay a very
very high price. But there's all of these other, you know,
factors that come into play. Where the Asian powers are
the ones who you know, you know, I read the
Asian press almost every day just to see what they're
saying about Iran, and they were actually pretty muted over
the last few months. We're back to panic. They're like
this is They're like, here we go. What are we
going to do? How are we going to get this
(06:36):
oil out? It's forty days away, you know, forty days
because in terms of tanker time. They're like, after that
we might run dry again. So the panic is setting
back across East Asia.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I mean, I think we should take the present's word
for it when he said, hey, another four weeks, I'm
going to be Herbert Hoover and we're going to have
all kinds of crisis because of the oil. I mean,
he said that when you signed the MoU and I
think he was telling the truth at that point. And
certainly he has analysts and also had all of the
CEOs of the large oil and gas companies who came
to him and were saying, hey, this is where we're at.
So that timeline, you know, is rapidly approaching. The clock
(07:09):
is ticking. And in this article from the Financial Times,
they have specific numbers that IEA on Friday said it's
members member countries had released almost three quarters of the
planned four hundred million barrel emergency stock release. I don't
know if you guys watch Ryan's interview with Robert Pape yesterday.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Pape was sounding the alarm about this as well.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, the idea was that Jade Vance floated, oh,
we're going to take this time to be able to refuel, restock, reload,
whatever the verbiage was. Part of that was refilling the
strategic petroleum reserve. They have not done that, so we
continue to have a dwindling of the strategy petroleum reserve
here in the US, where you're now getting down to
the literal bottom of the barrel. There isn't a lot
(07:47):
more buffer there. We don't know what China's going to do.
China has taken extraordinary measures himself to reduce the amount
of oil that they were importing from abroad. How long
is that going to last? It really, really is a
very troubling situation. And you know, so, I'm sure this
is why Trump's coming out and saying, oh, they want
to make a deal, et cetera. But I can tell
you this morning, I was just reading an article in CNBC.
(08:10):
The Iranians are threatening aggressive retaliation because Trump is once
again saying, oh, We're going to blow up their bridges,
their power plants, et cetera, with some credibility because they
have a tax civilian infrastructure with no qualms. In the past,
the Iranians said, everything in the region that is still intact,
all the infrastructure in the region will be crushed under
the steel blows of the powerful armed forces of the
(08:32):
Islamic Republic of Iran. So no trace of them remains,
and it is as if they never existed in the
first place. They added that under no circumstances and in
no way what we allow Americas, a foreign an extra
regional country to interfere in the Strait of Hormus. This
is Iran's invincible red line. Now, obviously there's a lot
of propaganda bluster there, but in terms of the Strait
(08:52):
of Hormuz being a hard red line that they will enforce,
I think they have a lot of credibility at this
point on that front.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
I think you're totally right. I think what, really, you know,
is worrisome is the disconnect in the messaging from the
US government. And so Trump yesterday gave an interview where
you know, he was said, well, maybe we'll just wipe
them out, like in terms of the IRGC, and of
course some Fox News interview, these people have, you know,
their IQ has got to be like bottom of the barrel.
(09:19):
He goes, are you just gonna wipe out the IRGC
like you did? Isis? I'm like, yeah, it's not like
we didn't just try to wipe out the IRGC. Are
you an idiot? Anyways, I digress, and Trump goes, yeah,
maybe I will. Meanwhile, the Vice President on the Joe
Rogan podcast is making this tortured effort to say diplomacy
is still on track. These are just blips in the radar, right,
(09:41):
And I mean, in some ways he does say the
truth out loud, which is for the people who want
us to keep bombing, there's nothing else that can be done.
He's like, eventually, we do have to sit across from
the table, but you have to convince Trump of that.
So here is jd vance A seven. I'm gonna start
with saying, look, the people who want us to keep
bom bombing, they have no solution. I would just add
(10:02):
the addendum is here He's trying to go after the neocons.
Trump is also one of those neo cons at least
as of right now. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
What is their proposal? The people that think you shouldn't
negotiate with you, Ron.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
I think that their proposal is to bomb and bomb
and bomb. And the honest view Joe is that they
do not actually have a solution.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
If you actually ask them, what.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Do you want us to do? What is the goal
that you're trying to achieve, They'll say things like, well,
just bomb them to oblivion. Okay, we can do that.
We can drop a lot of bombs, but what does
that accomplish if there's still a crazy person who's still
unwilling to shoot a few drones of the strait of
Horn moves? What the president has done, I think, very
very capably, is said, we're going to use military force
(10:45):
in this situation when it's connected to something we're trying
to achieve. So if you shoot at ships, we're going
to shoot at the facilities at which you used to
shoot at the ships. But we're not just going to
do something open ended indefinitely. We're not just going to
bomb and bomb and bomb. We're going to try to
use our military force as one of the many tools
that we have to solve the problem.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
So you could see there, I mean, what he's talking
about is the inevitable logic. But again, like Trump is
the person who wants to keep resumed bombing, and this
is the basic like fracture in the administration. JD's very
committed to like the negotiation track, but there are other
elements in the government which just don't care at all.
You know, our friends at drop Site, Jeremy Skahill and
(11:28):
Ryan Let's go to their story aight up here on
the screen. They say Iran sent a message to JD
warning that Kushner and witkof quote were abusing their inside
access to negotiations. By the way, the White House totally
denied it. They said this is all, you know, completely fake,
et cetera. But here's what a senior Iranian official who
said directly to drop Site, we have transmitted data and
(11:50):
assessments through an exclusive channel to mister Vance, but with
direct knowledge of the effort communicated to Vance. They believed
Wikoff and Kushner were abusing the diplomatic process, effectively disrupting
the overall negotiating atmosphere. At one point, they claim that
Iran had calculated profits from such a legend manipulation from
Wikoff and Kushner that reached nine billion dollars and formally
(12:13):
requested in writing that Iran should have to share in
the proceeds of all of their insider trading. Again, to
be very clear, Wikoff and Kushner completely deny it. The
White House says that none of this ever.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I think the American people need to formally submit our
request to share in those proceeds.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, let me in, Let me in.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
But I mean, the crux of this, the allegation here
is that their corrupt inside trading is screwing up the
effort to come to some sort of negotiated deal here.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
It's an obstacle.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
It creates a problem in terms of actually sitting down
having some sort of negotiation that is perceived as remotely
in good faith when all you see is these guys,
you know, it's got all these development deals in the region.
You see all these market manipulations from Trump and what
he tweets, et cetera. That is making it actively more
difficult to not be in this war. So it's not
(13:04):
just a question of like morality. And it's disgusting the
number of people in the Trump administration, including Trump and
his family at all, who are just using the country
as their personal piggybank. But it has a direct impact
on what is happening to our country, on the way
our foreign policy is conducted, and on what is actually
possible in terms of these negotiations.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
And what I think is the worst is we just
don't see a realistic path to actual resolution. Like do
I think there will be another fake memorandum of understanding? Yeah,
because inevitably you have to write like oil has got
to flow eventually. But can we really going to solve
the nuclearation? Like it just seems so impossible. If we
(13:46):
can't even sit without firing bombs for three weeks, how
can we possibly get to a situation where the United
States has to accept Iranian tolls and control of the
Strait of hormones and then furthermore basically guarantee Iran hundreds
of billions of dollars while they give up their nuclear
(14:07):
ambitions for fifteen years. Yeah, I mean, it just seems impossible.
And it's like, you know, I'm gonna kick right now.
I'm reading a lot of World War One and World
War II history, like more so even than normal. And
when you see what it takes to either defeat somebody
or bring them to the negotiating table, haven't bled enough.
And I know it's a horrible thing to say, but
(14:27):
it's just empirically true, either from loss of life or economically,
like the vast majority of Americans really only pay attention
when gas prices are high. How many know that as
of right now today while you and I are speaking,
Kuwait is under fire from cruise missiles, not many, and
they don't particularly care, right They're not going to care
honestly until gas is seven dollars a gallon. Iran knows this.
(14:48):
That's why they continue to close the straight of Horn moves.
But there's just enough wiggle room there and you know,
crazy stuff from the Trump administration other to try and
just push it off further. And then same on the Iranians.
I agree with treat I think they dramatically overreacted by
trying to undermine this memorandum of understanding, as in immediately
shooting instead of calling. But I also get it from
(15:09):
their perspective when Trump is like, I'm going to kill
you while you're in the middle of Geneva. Like if
somebody said that to me, you know, it's like if
I were to negotiate with a pro Israel person immediately,
I'm always like, you're lying. You know. It's like my
absolute going in. How could we ever establish any baseline
of trust this somebody who's a concerts undermind you try
to kill you.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
I understand where they're coming from too, So I just
I don't see how we can get out of this.
Like somebody has got a bleed a lot, and I
hope it's not us, but I seem to think so well.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And on the politics of it, we already recorded the
interview with Thomas Massey and Rocanna, and Congressman Massey said
something that was I think important for people to hear
because there's a lot of sense because you see the
Tuckers out there, you see the Tim Dillon's out there,
you know, who were unhappy we're on the right and
unhappy with the Zagger and Jetties of the world who
are unhappy with the Iran War. The MAGA base supports it.
(16:02):
They're all in. It's like seventy eighty percent of the
magabase that's like, yes, Iran War. And so when we
were asking Thomas Massy about the nature of his primary defeat,
he made sure to bring up, Yeah, it was Israel lobby,
it was going against Trump. It was also the Iran
War being opposed to it because it's very popular, and
we're asking about his future political ambitions.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
He's like, that's going to be a real.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Obstacle for me in the Republican Party for now. You
know that Draanine may ship, but for now it's a problem.
And I think it's very different from how people are
perceiving the politics of it, because for Trump, looking at
the mid terms, the landscape is already really bad. You know,
people are unhappy, Republicans are sort of disenchanted over the
Epstein files and other things.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
There's a lot of malaise there.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
So they're already less likely to turn up at the
polls than Democrats. We've seen that in all kinds of
special elections. You ask them to also swallow a humiliating
Iran war defeat that is actually going to make your
midterm results even worse than they already are.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
So it's danned if you do.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Damned if you don't from Trump for a political perspective,
but it actually, you know, his political incentives are not
necessarily to end the war now. His political incentives maybe
to keep it going through the midterms, so he doesn't
have to fully swallow the level of humiliation that will
be required to bring this thing to a close. And
so I think that's another dynamic here that we have
(17:21):
to take into account as well. His base wants this
war to keep going. They want to see the bombs
dropped and carg Island taken and him to be you know,
a heroic, tough guy, et cetera. They don't want to see, oh,
now we've done sanctions, relief in Iran, has all of
this newfound power in the region, that is not where
they are.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
I mean, that's where pape escalation trap, you know, model
is just so it is so obviously true at this point,
and it is also I mean, very tragically for the
US and even for Iran. You know, look, Iran is
Iran is desperate because what they're what they also knows
I was reading this morning, is the world will eventually
(18:00):
figure it out, like we did with Ukraine and Russia.
Right at the beginning it was a crisis. After a
couple of years, you figure out how to get natural
gas to different places. It's bad, but everyone kind of
moves on. Iran has got to actually force hand now,
so they have a direct incentive. And at the same time, America,
which has not bled, and Trump, who cannot admit total
(18:20):
defeat at least not yet, has got to do something extra.
And in any one of those extra maneuvers, it brings
death and immense costs to America. You know, one of
the because we had Thomas Massey and Rokana added at
last minute. You know, there was this whole segment that
I was going to do about all of the lack
of munitions. It is, it is so much worse than
(18:42):
even I thought. Five hundred million dollars we put into
a factory, it hasn't produced a single round not one,
five hundred million, and we gave three million of these
rounds to Ukraine. The whole point of the money. Remember,
Biden was like, this is good for America because we'll
make all these weapons here. They haven't been made. It's
impossible to make apparently just from a manufacturing backlog. I'm
looking at the state of the US Navy the F
(19:04):
thirty five. For the first time in twenty years, the
Pentagon is blocking an open source report about the F
thirty five. Why do you think after one just got
hit over Iran? I'm looking at this and then the
oil I mean again, you know, you have to read
only a few books to say it may not be
the Iran war that breaks us. It may be that
the total destruction and depletion of the American Empire as
a result of this. Then when the next one comes
(19:26):
completely out of nowhere, that's how you find yourself broken
completely and you lose everything in a matter of a month.
That's the stuff that just absolutely terrifies me. And you
can just see it. You know, every day, four missiles here,
cruise missiles there, drones going here, Iranian ships or Iranian
you know, the United States bombed an oil tanker which
was docking at carg Island for the first time ever.
(19:49):
We had never done that before. As a result, they
blew that up and potentially some oil infrastructure. Iran is saying, like,
very seriously, you are going to burn if you continue this.
I just I don't see a way out. The one
last you know, piece potentially of good news, you know,
I don't want to say that it hasn't happened is
let's put a nine up here on the screen. Is
(20:09):
it does appear that there was some American woman. Trump right,
Iran has allowed an American citizen who is wrongfully detained
in December twenty twenty four under Joe Biden to leave
the country. She is now safely outside of Iran and
in good condition. America appreciates this gesture of goodwill from Iran,
So that could be a good thing. I just don't know.
But my only you know, again, I have no idea
(20:31):
who this woman is. There's no open source reporting or
any of this. This could potentially try to be a
sign of, you know, putting things back on track. But
just like America has internal factions and domestic politics, so
does Iran. It's very clear their hardline faction doesn't want
to give another inch, so we'll see that. That's what
else can we say. Let's get to Minab.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
So you all will recall that in the early days
of the Iran war, we dropped a bomb on a
little girls school, the Monob School, and killed over one
hundred and fifty children. There has been an investigation internally
allegedly launched here within the US government. Trump keeps claiming though,
making this claim that, oh, we may never know what happened,
even though that appears to be patently false. It is
(21:16):
very findoutable what actually happened. We have reporting on what
actually happened. Let's go ahead and take a listen to
his latest claims.
Speaker 6 (21:22):
Democrats released a letter calling on your administration to unveil
the findings of the investigation into a strike that killed
more than one hundred children on the first day of
the war. Will you commit to releasing the findings of
this investigation?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
Well, I have to speak to the generals that are
doing the because we mostly have a general's you know,
I don't think anybody's going to ever be able to
say what happened there.
Speaker 6 (21:46):
There are images from this site that show fragments that
appear to be from US Tomahawk missiles. Is it possible
that old intelligence or a mistake during a very active
time in the war led to this event?
Speaker 7 (21:59):
It is, But it's also so possible that those images
that you have are AI generated. Now I know we're
waiting for a conclusive report. I don't think they can
be a conclusive report.
Speaker 6 (22:09):
Were there are the reports when it is finished?
Speaker 7 (22:11):
I guess so, I mean I have to ask the military,
but there might be a reason why they can.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
And I'll tell you what that is.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
That is the announcement of a planned cover up. Because
we already have reporting about what happened here, it was
not difficult to figure out. We can put let's put
this CNN report up on the screen.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
This is B three.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
They say that senior US military commanders bypassed warnings in
critical databases that intelligence about potential targets in Iran was
severely out of date and approve some strikes, including one
that hit a school, killing nearly two hundred children and adults.
According to three sources, familiar messages indicating the intelligence was
based on years old intelligence that needed to be revetted.
(22:51):
We're embedded in a system used for developing targets and
required a senior officer to approve adding a site to
the strike list. According to the sources, the decision by
senior commanders to ignore the warnings was made for expediency.
Two of the sources set in a rush to provide
targets at the start of the war. It also directly
contributed to the accidental strike on the school, according to
(23:12):
those sources. In addition, they identify the fact that Hegseth
has made drastic cuts almost to the point of eliminating
these civilian harm mitigation and response programs, slash their staff
at military commands by more than ninety percent. That included
removing civilian harms specialists from target development strike teams and
reducing the team of ten at Central Command to only
(23:35):
one full time staffer. Again, according to CNN, so you
had two separate databases, one that's older, one that they're
trying to use AI automated systems. Both of them had
instructions in there that the intelligence on these particular type
of targets was outdated. We know that the satellite imagery
shows that there were clear changes to this site, transitioning
(23:57):
it from part of a base to this girls' school.
But because they just wanted to rush and have a
massive list of targets, they decided not to go and check,
and so you end up with the worst civilian death
incident caused by the US military that we know of
since the first Gulf War. I mean, that's how serious
and how severe it is. We have the investigation, and
(24:19):
now Trump is saying, oh, we may never know, and
I'll have to talk to the generals about whether.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
I don't think that we understand how impactful this strike
was in Iran, Like the Iranians call their delegation for
negotiations the minob one sixty eight. They have pictures printed
out all the school girls in their plane on the
backs of the seats, so they know who they're fighting for.
(24:46):
The team them did a tribute to the MINAB one
sixty eight. They have pins that they wear. One of
the reasons they didn't want to shake JD's hand was
because of the Minab incident in the negotiations engine. Like,
I don't I think you can understand the psyche of Iran.
Actually maybe you can if you just you know, maybe
watch our show or not mainstream media, but like, look
(25:07):
at the crowds for the Iatola command, who by the way,
I mean, they liked him, but a lot of people
were very frustrated by his regime. Millions of people came out.
Sarabamari remember in the middle of the war, came on
our show and he was like, he said, he was
watching stay TV. He's like, all they do is just like,
you know, worship martyrdom, not just of the Iatola. They're like,
there was this janitor, he was killed in his strike,
(25:28):
and he's a national hero. Now like in Iran, these
people's names are you know, everybody knows that. In America,
we all just kind of move on. But as you said,
it's the worst civilian death incidents as a Gulf war.
It's by the way that one was handled very differently.
If you want to look at how the United States
military reacted, I covered some horrible incidents, the Taliban or
the Kundu's hospital incident. I was a Pentagon correspondent at
(25:50):
that time. Dramatic difference in the way that the lies
were the same, but the you know, reaction from Congress
and others was totally different. Like, we have have to apologize,
We have to admit that this was a massive mistake
in the generals who are involved, like somebody has got
to pay this time around Trump and the entire cover
up of it. Not only does it givey Ron you know,
(26:11):
really a moral high ground in some cases, like whenever
they come at us for their strikes, but it also
creates this culture of there will be no price paid,
and that's exactly the opposite of what you want, not
just in terms of the morality, but I just laid
out how much of a disaster it was. Like the
entire point was we want regime change. Let's murder one
(26:31):
hundred and sixty eight girls on day one of the
entire war. You think that's going to engender the whole
population to you know, they hate us for this, Like
those those schoolgirls will like everyone will know about them
fifty years from now.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, you know, inside of you, it's not hard actually
to imagine, because imagine that, you know, a foreign country
bombed one of our girls' schools.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I will tell you, think about unforgettable.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Yeah, think about Sandy Hook. Horrified.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I still remember covering that, like viscerally, how horrifying it is.
It's still just like unconscionable to imagine that was twenty children.
We're talking about one hundred and sixty eight little girls.
And here's the other thing that I don't know if
people realize, but because you know, we've had we've had
various Iranian analysts and Ranians on the show to tell
us from the Iranian perspective, they don't believe it was
(27:21):
an accident. They think that it was an intentional and
you know, I can't really blame them for this after
seeing what we ate and embedded with Israel and Gaza.
They believe it was an intentional effort to put pressure
on some of the IRGC because a lot of their
children were the ones that were going to this school.
So they think that it was intentional. So again, not
(27:43):
that they would believe the report that we put out,
but at least if you had some information out here
about Look, guys, here's how we fucked up.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We didn't actually mean to do this. Here's what happened.
It was human error, it was incompetence. Again, they may
not believe that, but that would be important to put
out to the world as at least saying we are
different than Israel. We actually do take seriously civilian deaths
and civilian casualties but I do think because of the
barbarism that Israel and Gaza has put on the table,
(28:12):
it makes it very easy for Trump to just shrug
his shoulders and say, yeah, we may never know what happened.
What happened, you know, a fog of war, et cetera, etcetera.
I guess I'll talk to the generals. But anyway, it
also could have been AI. So we're moving on really
disgusting and really quite ominous for the future of warfare
and the way that we conduct ourselves. And speaking of which,
we had another horrifying situation here. It can put before
(28:35):
up on the screen. US missiles struck a near a
children's cancer hospital. There is, you know, a dispute over
whether this was a direct hit or whether it's some
nearby debris that causes fire at the children's cancer hospital.
They say this is the first US strike on Iranian
hospital in months. Additional strikes also causing damage to residential homes.
(28:56):
Trump talks openly about committing war crimes. This is just
you know, hit civilian infrastructure. This is part of his
plan that he announces brazenly and openly.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
We've sort of gotten used to it.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I guess already again because of Gaza and because of
the way that Trump and Headseth operate. But in any
previous era this would have been a horrifying scandal. You
never would have admitted this publicly, you know, you never
would have celebrated or incorporated this as an explicit tactic.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
It's just become completely uninjined, insane.
Speaker 4 (29:23):
I know.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
And yeah, to your point, Professor Morondi, let's put B
five up here on the screen. He says, the Trump
regime is just bombed a children's hospital in the city
of of Oz. It is being evacuated. Again. You know,
it's nobody from the US side is confirming not can
you even take any of it seriously? Like that's part
of the problem. And that's exactly what all of this
(29:43):
demonstrates to us about the sheer dishonor really upon you know,
upon the American people, upon all of us. We paid
for all of these bombs, and you know, we're gonna
have to live not just with the consequences of what
they've done, but just also with our government just casually
saying that there's nothing wrong really with what they did.
If the leader really the culpability lies with Trump ordered
(30:08):
a last, you know, a very haired US operation. And
then it comes down to hag Seth and others saying
we don't care, dust off the plans from fifteen years
ago and go. I also, frankly, you have to depentagon.
You pay these guys all sorts of money. There's an
entire room that's bigger than this studio where all they
do is just talk about eron war plans all day.
(30:28):
Even when things were going well with Iran, nobody ever
updated the target set.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
I mean that is the other thing that struck me
to is how much money do we give you?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Like, what are you doing? Yeah, you know, you couldn't
get anyone to go in and hey, let's take a
look at this.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Let's go check the satellites and see if this intelligence
is still you know, to eate.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
And they knew that it wasn't and it still didn't.
I mean, it's just insane.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
There are guys in the CIA, there's a whole room
like a tackle operation center and all this where all
they do is just look at it around all day,
just update you know, all these different target sets. But
then oh somebody and tell DoD or they did tell
do d do d never updated the file, nobody updated
the package.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Well, there was a situation like that where apparently someone
had flagged that that it appeared from the satellites that
there had been changes to the site, but it was
in a different system, and it didn't map onto this system,
and this system had the flag in it of hey,
you should check it out. But then when it was
when it was go time and it wasn't done, they're like,
all right, we'll just do it anyway and hope for
the best.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Yeah, it's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
And you know, hagset part of how he ended up
in this job is because of his advocacy for war
criminals who had been turned in by their own comrades
in arms. And Trump admires him, but that I talked
about the fact that he appreciated that Hegseth was willing
to go to bat for these, you know, convicted war
criminals in the military. So it's no surprise that that
is the culture that we have instilled here. And as
(31:48):
I said before, also because of the bipartisan support for
a literal jedocide occurring before our eyes, containing the worst,
most unimaginable atrocities, you could you know that really truly
were beyond belief, beyond what anyone could have possibly pictured.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
All right, we have Congressman Rocan we recorded already, but
we're going to edit it in now. So let's throw
to our interview with congress and Rocanna and Congressman Thomas mass.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So we've got a special trait this morning in studio.
Both congressmen part of the dream team here, Thomas Massey
and Rocanna. Great to see you both, Welcome, Thanks to you.
So you guys have obviously teamed up on a number
of initiatives, but you have a new one that you
wanted to bring to us today. Congresson Massey about the
you know Epstein Transparency, tell us what you're pushing forward now.
Speaker 8 (32:35):
Well, yesterday was the one year anniversary of the introduction
of the Epstein False Transparency Act that Rocanna and I wrote,
and we thought it was time to do a sequel
because the first bill has been very successful. We've got
three million documents released, but there have been some dragging
of feet by the Attorney General and the Acting Attorney General,
(32:58):
and so you know, this is to spur the next level. Specifically,
the main thing that this new bill does that we've
introduced is forces the US Attorney General to cooperate with
state attorneys general that want to prosecute Epstein co conspirators
under state law. And it turns out in New Mexico
(33:19):
that's where the Zoro Ranch was. You hear a lot
about Epstein Island. You hear almost nothing about Zoro Ranch.
But it was expansive, it was massive that people were
going there all the time. Crimes were committed there, and
some of those aren't barred by statute of limitations, and
so the Attorney General in New Mexico would like to
prosecute those crimes, and so we're making it easier with
(33:40):
this bill.
Speaker 4 (33:41):
That's one of the things it does.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
What's really interesting about this is that it did create
a political crisis for the Trump administration. The Vice President JD.
Vance actually was on the Joe Rogan podcast just yesterday.
I do want curious for both of your response. Congressman Connae,
you've can start. The Vice President said that it was
quote nonsense that the President was forced to sign the
Epstein Files Transparency Act. He said that he did it
(34:04):
completely of his own volition, that the idea that the
two of you kind of dragged them to it was
ridiculous because nobody controls Donald Trump. I'm curious for both
of your reactions, Congress, mcconnor you could start.
Speaker 9 (34:15):
When the history of the Trump administration has written, what
Massey and I did will be seen as the most
decisive blow to Trump that began the unraveling of his presidency.
I mean, no one had stood up to Donald Trump
before effectively. And Trump tried everything from including intimidating Thomas's
(34:37):
colleagues Lauren Boubert and Nancy Mays and Marjorie Taylor Green,
some of them he brought into the situation room to
get them not to support this. They adjourned Congress, they
didn't swear in at Alita Grihova. They tried everything. Then
what happened, Not only did they realize that we were
(34:57):
going to pass the Act, Donald Trump realized that he
was going to get probably eighty to ninety Republicans to
be willing to overturn his veto. And that's when he
signed the Act and he told Jade Vince to go
into the situation room and start the cover up. But
what this did, it's not just about justice for survivors,
which is important. After this, now there were was one
(35:19):
hundred discharge petitions. Now suddenly everyone is willing to defy
Donald Trump, and we changed the entire culture in the Congress.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
Do you agree with that, Carson?
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Yeah? Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (35:31):
I mean we dragged him kicking and screaming to signing this.
I asked to be invited to the bill signing. I
think I'm the first congressman who's ever got a bill
passed that wasn't invited to the bill signers. I did
the big fat sharkney, and they did it in secret,
like in a room with no cameras.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
Mean, you never see that happen.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
And at one point the White House said that it
would be a hostile act towards the President for any
Republican to co sign the discharge petition. And you had
Jeff Freeland, who's the Legislative Affairs director for the President
on Capitol Hill. I saw him going up and down
the street and through the halls, running around trying to
get people's names off of this bill, trying to keep
(36:12):
people from sponsoring it. There's no way they wanted this
to happen. And then what was the fallout? I mean,
Howard Blutnik. We found out that the guy who's.
Speaker 10 (36:21):
Behind Donald Trump on Air Force one and behind the
Resolute desk, the guy who's always standing there. That guy
took his family to Epstein Island for a little picnic
after claiming on TV that he had nothing to do
with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
The man was so disgusting, he would have nothing to
do with him.
Speaker 8 (36:37):
And you know, but what we need right now is accountability,
and that's what this bill gets to. There's a couple
other things that bill does that I'd love to explain.
So you know, in the hearings we saw yesterday, what
was with Todd blanche with his nomination. What was painfully
obvious is he's ignoring the victims and they can't even
(36:58):
get their own files. Still withholding files the testimony that
the victims gave to the FBI, and we know it
exists on three h two forms. The victims, the survivors,
the ones who are still alive, they know it's there
and they can't get it. So our bill gives those
victims standing in the US court to sue the Attorney
General to get their own files. That's really important. The
(37:21):
other thing it does is the DOJ. This hasn't been
widely reported, but twice they've told us in Congress and
like these little notes or memos to Congress that we're
using deliberative process privilege in order not to give you
some of these documents. And our bill, our original bill,
said you've got to tell us about your decisions on
whether to prosecute or not prosecute.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
But they're withholding all those files.
Speaker 8 (37:44):
That's the nub of this is why didn't they prosecute
people like Leslie Wexner, Leon Black, Jess Daley, people who
in their own files showed that they had information on
enough that at one point Leslie Wexner was listed on
an FBI document as a co conspirator and a child
sex trafficking rank.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Also, so was Leslie Groft, that.
Speaker 8 (38:05):
You know, the Epstein's main assistant who helped traffic the women.
So what this will do is it takes away unambiguously
we believe our first bill did anyway, but unambiguously it
says you don't have these special privileges that you can
exert to withhold files. And finally, it gives Rowani standing
(38:25):
to go to a court, get in front of a
judge and have a judge. Have the third branch of
government adjudicate whether the executive branch is complying with the
law that the legislative branch wrote and the president signed.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And Conmerstan MASSI, you know, you were successfully defeated in
your primary.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Thanks successfully defeated. What a jump trum there?
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Yeah, that respective.
Speaker 9 (38:46):
By the way, if Trump wanted to voluntarily sign this,
he should have been endorsing Massy, not campaign and not.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
The point is, you know, you cross Trump, and you
cross the Israel lobby. They dumped what thirty million dollars
in against you there effort from their perspective was successful
in getting you out. But I am curious if you
agree with Kyrasmoncanna that your efforts on Epstein were a
blow to the Trump administration. And I don't think that
that was your goal. That's not the way you have
framed it. But it does seem like it created a
(39:15):
fracture in the base and was kind of, you know,
the start of his approval rating really beginning to fall off.
Speaker 8 (39:20):
Well, I think it was self inflicted by the president.
He went on TV and said, if you think there's
any there there in these Epstein files, you are no
longer a supporter of mine. I don't want your support.
He told Maggot, you're no friend of mine if you
still want to pursue this promise that I made. Right,
So he basically fractured right in half Maggot, and he
(39:41):
lost Marjorie Taylor Green on this.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I mean this was he called her a trader for
pursuing the.
Speaker 8 (39:46):
Epstein Files Transparency Act, right, like I might have had
other infractions like voting against the Big Beautiful Bill or
not voting for Mike Johnson. But Marjorie Taylor Green had
been loyal to the president and the only place that
she deviated was on the Epstein files. He told her
on the phone, and she related this to me immediately
when it happened, that you're going to hurt my friends
(40:07):
if you persist in getting these files released, and so it.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
Was I wouldn't. I don't. Ro gives us too much
credit for inflicting this damage.
Speaker 8 (40:18):
At MIT, we called this ballistic pedietry, which is shooting
yourself in.
Speaker 4 (40:22):
The foot right.
Speaker 11 (40:26):
The original cause, right, We gave him the opportunity, But
also I really think the credit goes to the survivors,
And it was it was Roe who invited them for
the first time to be heard on the steps of
the Capitol.
Speaker 8 (40:42):
Right there in front of the Capitol, we gave him
a voice. There were people who had never been public before.
It wasn't worth the risk to them. They came out
it said that they were you know, had been victims,
were survivors and told their stories. And I think that's
what motivated our colleagues eventually to nearly unanimously to pass this.
Speaker 9 (41:03):
Now, one thing I haven't said one of the reasons
the partnership with Massey and I works. Thomas is an
MIT guy.
Speaker 4 (41:11):
He knows all the details.
Speaker 9 (41:12):
You know, you want to understand discharge petition, this rule,
that rule. Thomas knows all of that, and you need
to know all of that achieve what we did. I
helped bring the survivors and organize that press conference twice
in front of the Capitol, and that changed public opinion,
and that helped make sure that we could pass it.
(41:33):
And it was the teamwork with different complementary skills, not
just across the aisle, that allowed us to get the
Epstein files passed.
Speaker 8 (41:41):
Well, one more thing, if the president is so gung
ho to get these files out, why are they still
dragging their feet and exerting every privilege they can to
redact anything they can.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
Well to both of your point, you know you met
Christ mentioned the Israel lobby. There's been a lot of
speculation about Jeffrey Epstein's connection to Israel. The administration is
officially denied it. I believe Todd Blanche in this interview
with Gleainne Maxwell, and yet the Vice President again yesterday
on the Joe Rogan experience, said it is clear that
Jeffrey Epstein had connections to the highest levels of American
intelligence and Israeli intelligence. Let's take a listen and we'll
(42:13):
get both of your reactions.
Speaker 5 (42:14):
He clearly had connections to the upper the highest levels
of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest
levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact, one of the interesting stories,
one of the interesting things the Epstein saga reveals about,
and I try to make this point is one of
the reason why I'm always careful and I say there
are some elements within the Israeli government who don't like
(42:38):
our peace process, because there are a lot of elements
within the Israeli government that actually do like our peace process.
They recognize that this indefinite campaign is not good for them.
Either the Epstein thing is interesting because as much as
I know, you know, Prime Minister nt Yahoo not a
particularly popular person in the United States of America right now,
(42:59):
Epstein seems to be connected to the elements of the
Israeli deep state that were left of center. Like I've
always found that fascinating. It wasn't like he was super
connected to the right of center of Israeli politics.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
So an interesting clip there, you know, both Conft well,
at least you know he's the highest fewest official on
record to say connections to the US intelligence and to
Israeli intelligence never been confirmed before either by the most
actually been denied by Mosad and definitely also been denied
by the US intelligence. But he also seems to try
and to separate Epstein from the current coalition government in
leading Israel. Congressman Condom. I'm just curious for your reaction considering,
(43:36):
you know, these comments from the vice presidents.
Speaker 9 (43:38):
All, he's not a pundit, he's the sitting vice president.
He could release the remaining files, he could declassify the
documents and explain to the American public what exactly happened
with Epstein, who he was. He should if he believes this,
he has an obligation to release the files and have
a report on Epstein's tied to intelligence. And this is
(43:59):
a state under line where he politicizes everything. Oh that
were connected to the left, not the right, but the revant.
Speaker 3 (44:06):
But anyway, But the relevant.
Speaker 9 (44:08):
Point is, Okay, why isn't he taking action? Instead he
was in the situation room covering up at every step
of the way the release of the files and transparency, and.
Speaker 8 (44:19):
To some degree he's just admitting or curating what's in
the files.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
Right.
Speaker 8 (44:23):
We got an audio tape now of Ahoud Barock asking
Jeffrey Epstein while Ahudbrock was still the defense minister for Israel,
how am I going to make money? What's my grift
going to be on the outside once I'm no longer
a public official? And you get Epstein telling him, well,
think of everybody who owes you something because of your
public position and leverage. That told him to get on
(44:44):
the boarder pallunteer. Right, So, and that's all audio. So
for the vice president to admit that it's no big revelation,
I think it's a political admission on his part that
it's he's being tainted. It's toxic his association with the
present cident and this administration that's trying to cover these
things up. So he's giving you something that's already known.
(45:07):
But also Epstein was he met with Obama's CIA director,
you know, acting CIA director. Can't remember his name, right, Barns, Yeah,
that's right. So obviously he was tied to the highest levels.
That stuff needs to come out as right.
Speaker 9 (45:22):
I just to take Van seriously, not much more concerned
Massy is going to be the nominee. On the other side,
I mean, look, the vance was tainted with Epstein. He's
literally running the cover up for Epstein. He's been tainted
on this war in Iran. He's literally now cheerleading, and
he's been tainted on Israel, as even he knows. So
he's going out well, no, no, no, I'm not terrible
(45:44):
on Epstein. No, no, no, I'm not terrible on Israel.
But you know it's actually a contradiction to some of
the things he said before he had to do.
Speaker 4 (45:51):
Donald Trump spidding no question conson.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
I'm curious connorson Massey, I'm curious if what you learned
in the Epstein files changed your worldview at all, because
you know, as a leftist I'm looking at this, I'm like, oh,
a bunch of billionaires showing a lot of class solidarity here.
Very much comports with my view, although it was much
more explicit than perhaps I even had imagined. You're giving
the examples of like, hey, let's connect you with Palenti. Here,
here's you know, a country's resources you can go and exploit,
(46:16):
et cetera. But I wonder, as a libertarian, if it
shifted your view or if it changed your perspective at all.
Looking at some of the revelations here.
Speaker 8 (46:24):
Well, I joke, I tell people more of a conspiracy
theorist than I was before I got elected. Now that
they let me in the skiff and I can hear
the top secret stuff, I'm like, yeah, well that was true.
But my opinion on the Epstein thing definitely has shifted
over time.
Speaker 4 (46:40):
Like I you know.
Speaker 8 (46:42):
In Congress, people want you to solve healthcare, they want
you to take care of taxes, national defense, all of
this stuff, And so I didn't give it enough attention.
Speaker 4 (46:52):
For the first several years.
Speaker 8 (46:53):
It was one of those things to me on the internet,
maybe it's a conspiracy. And then as I started paying attention,
and then particularly when I saw that Pambondy did sort
of this spoof, almost a caricature of releasing these binders.
And then I personally asked Pambondy to her face at
a dinner, when are you going to release the rest
of the Epstein files, just as and I looked her
(47:14):
in the face. And her answer to me was, oh,
there's nothing left but child, you know, sexual exploitation material,
and you'd be a pervert if you'd want to see
any of that stuff. And she tried to shut me
down that way, and I thought, all right, there's there
there right.
Speaker 4 (47:28):
That's what raised my suspicion.
Speaker 8 (47:31):
And then in the last summer, they said closing the case,
no prosecutions, there's nothing here, it's done. And that's when
Row and I said, no, it's not done, and we
filed the bill. But that moment, that audio tape of
Epstein talking to Ahudbarock, it gave me some insight into
(47:52):
Jeffrey Epstein. That's when I decided he probably didn't kill
himself like he had so much levery. I believe he
thought his time in the prison was temporary. Either he
had enough blackmail material or he was friends with enough people.
If you just sat there and didn't say too much
that they would eventually get him out. And so that's
(48:13):
the one thing that also transitioned in my mind. I
went from Okay, maybe this is a conspiracy that he
was killed or he's still alive or whatever, to no,
that's probably true. He is probably killed or somehow sprung
from the jail because he had that much leverage over
these powerful people.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Yeah. Interesting. So one of the things you mentioned there
is blackmail. The vice president also addressing a claim that
the president is being blackmail. Obviously this connects to the
war in Iran, which you're both against as well. Let's
take a listen to that. We'll get your reaction.
Speaker 5 (48:42):
What I have seen, and I've looked at most of
the files is that they're just wasn't dispositive evidence, and
if that dispositive evidence ever existed, it was probably destroyed
after two thousand and six, two thousand and seven. Now,
look again, in our defense, Yes, was there some you know,
bitching and moaning, and was there some back and forth, Yes,
(49:03):
but there we eventually collected six million documents as part
of the effort the president. People say the president was
forced into releasing the documents. Like again, the idea that
Donald Trump could not have killed that legislation, especially with
the United States Senate, is a joke. He absolutely could
have killed it.
Speaker 4 (49:24):
What did he do?
Speaker 5 (49:24):
He actually said, no, we're going to release these files.
He thought, you know, he was annoyed by the story.
He was annoyed by the Democrats accusing him of doing
things bad. By the way, like, do I think there
is any I've never seen a single piece of credible
evidence that the president of the United States engaged in
wrongdoing with minors.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Ever, so that was the claim there about blackmail. It
is later connected also to the war with Iran. I'm curious,
you know, for both of your reactions, because the Epstein files,
transparency becomes a political crisis, and of course the war
gets launched with Iran. It's impossible not to at least
look at that and be like, is there some connection,
Like what exactly is how in Congress mc conna curistory reaction.
Speaker 9 (50:02):
Well, I think they both are terrible decisions. The way
you believe that he went into Iran to distract from
the Epstein No, I don't think it was that. But
I think he broke a fundamental ledge of not getting
into foreign wars. But he got talked into conquest, and
he saw what happened in Venezuela and he said, okay,
(50:24):
I can turn around the regime in Venezuela. I was
opposed to what he did in Venezuela, and he thought
he could just march into Iran and ultimately betrayed his
fundamental promise to the country of not getting into foreign wars.
Speaker 8 (50:36):
I know it's easy to pick apart something like a
Joe Rogan interview, but I have to take issue with
the fact that he said they found six million files.
Why have they released only three million? And then also
the vice president says he's read or seen most of them.
I don't believe that. I've spent hours at the DOJ
and we barely just like scratching the surface. Three million
(50:56):
files is hard to consume, and then to connect all
the dots, so.
Speaker 4 (51:01):
That on its face the claim that he makes there,
and then.
Speaker 8 (51:04):
Also the ridiculous claim that the president this was something
the president wanted to do or wanted to do is fosse.
If he still wanted to do it, he would direct
his attorney general and acting Attorney General to just go
ahead and release all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (51:18):
Right when is a transition to talk about this amendment
that was a big vote in the House yesterday. Congressman Massey,
you offered this amendment, we can put d one up
on the screen here. Ultimately, it failed, but created quite
a lot of intrigue in the Democratic caucus. In particular,
you are the only Republican that voted yes on this amendment,
(51:40):
which cut all funding for Israel. You actually had a
narrow majority of Democrats who did vote for the proposal,
which is just such a sea change in the positioning
of the Democratic Party. I mean, previously, the relationship with
Israel was really lockstep across the board. So I'm curious
for your reaction to how this vote broke down, and
if you're surprised that none of your colleagues are where
(52:03):
you are right now on this issue.
Speaker 8 (52:05):
Well, the reason I was able to get this vote
on the floor of the House I sincerely wanted to vote.
I offered three amendments to defund foreign aid to Egypt,
foreign aid to Jordan, and foreign aid to Israel, and
the Republican leadership, to my surprise, allowed me to get
the vote on Israel. But I think that's because they
made a political calculation. I believe it's a miscalculation, but
(52:27):
they made a political calculation that this would be a
hard vote for Democrats, and it did turn out to
be a hard vote for Democrats. It should have been
a hard vote for Republicans because now they've all locked
into this idea that American taxpayers should give weapons and
billions of dollars. I pointed out in my floor speech,
we spend more on offensive weapons to Israel than we
(52:48):
do on homeless veterans in the United States, and so
every Republican has voted to send offensive weapons to Israel
three point three billion dollars. The vote was successful, though
my litmus test. We've had votes like this in the past.
You get maybe six or ten people to vote for
amendments like this. In fact, my vote to defund Jordan
(53:10):
got six votes. But this was different. This moment in
time is different because you can't objectively look at what's
happening in Gaza and say that there's no moral hazard
here for American taxpayers. Seventy thousand people have died in
a country of two million people. I mean, it's it's incredible,
(53:30):
it's horrific, and so but the fact that I thought,
let me just say, my own secret number in my
head was people were like, how many votes are you
going to get? I would say dozens, because I thought
I would get twenty four votes and sixty. If I
got sixty, I would have considered it a success. And
one hundred was beyond what I imagined we could get.
(53:53):
But eventually Nancy Pelosi endorsed the amended.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
Now it was shock.
Speaker 8 (53:58):
I can only say that because I lost my prime
like I think part of the reason I lost my primaries, Rotekanach.
But you know, Nancy Pelosi came out for it, the
minority whip came out for it, but the minority leader
(54:18):
came out against it. So it really did split the Democrats.
I think in time, this for the one hundred and
three Democrats and myself who voted not to send this
money to Israel, it's as time goes on, that's going
to be a better and better vote. And the people
that were on the other side of that, including all
of my conference except for me, are going.
Speaker 4 (54:39):
To regret this vote.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
Congress Mcconnach, Yeah, curious for your react. This was a
major intrademocratic war. The House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries, who
voted for you the majority of Whip, who then, of course,
you know, said that they would cut to vote eight.
I'm curious for your reaction here about this split within
the Democratic Caucus. You were an original leader on a
movie meant like this to watch a significant portion of
(55:02):
your Democratic colleagues eventually come to your position. What does
that foretell for the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 9 (55:09):
I was joking with Thomas that we had more caucus
meetings discussing his amendment than any Democratic legislation.
Speaker 1 (55:14):
Wow, that's crazy.
Speaker 9 (55:16):
Yeah, like Sunday afternoon calls to discuss the Massi Amendment
and caucus meetings. But this should have been a such
a simple vote. I mean, there are we have to
go beyond this. But obviously we shouldn't be giving them
US tax dollar aid for military weapons. In my view,
we shouldn't be giving them military weapons to be killing civilians,
(55:37):
and we need to be sanctioning the banks and government officials,
or engaged in the settlement and work on recognizing the
Palestinian state. But in my view, you had one hundred
and three folks, and the new Congress you're going to
have even more, and that it's going to become a very,
very small minority eventually that is going to be saying
(55:58):
let's just have a continue to Israel.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
It's pretty wild to see Nancy Pelosi vote for it
and Haiqem Jeffries vote against it, and Pelosi people are
sharing all kinds of clips of her now saying like,
if the capital were to crumble, the one thing that
would remain is our you know, solidarity with Israel. And
now here she is on her way out, She's like, yeah,
we'll vote to defund this, and I think she sees
the writing on the wall. She's a very savvy political
(56:22):
operator of where things are going.
Speaker 3 (56:24):
I cannot, for the life of me, really understand HIKEM.
Speaker 2 (56:26):
Jeffries calculus here, because while there is such a split
in the House Democratic Caucus, there is not a split
among the Democratic base overwhelmingly. You know, it is now
a small minority that want to maintain the status quo
with regard to our relationship with Israel. So you know,
(56:46):
what were those internal conversations like to the extent that
you can share some of the details, because it's just
very hard for me to understand why any cynical politician
would look at this landscape on the Democratic side at
this point and say I want to stay with this
position that has like fifteen percent support among my own
voters at this point.
Speaker 9 (57:06):
Look, people were saying, oh, you're going to cut the
Middle East diplomacy program. I said, by definition, that's probably
one of the programs that should be cut through something you.
Speaker 4 (57:18):
Want to look at.
Speaker 9 (57:19):
Government don't work or something. But beyond that, okay, fine,
you want to have those programs. That was less than
one percent of the AID. And you could have voted
for Massy's bill and then still said an amendment saying well,
we want to keep the program for Middle East pace.
But I do think it's a mistake for anyone who
voted this way.
Speaker 4 (57:40):
Morally but also politically.
Speaker 9 (57:42):
If you look at Claire Veldez, you look at Brad Lander,
you look at Millot, you look at an Alilia, you
look at Adam Amawi, you look at the Platinum before
the scandals, Abdul. The driving line in these issues is
the funding on Israel and Gaza, and the Democrats want
to kind of whitewash that part.
Speaker 4 (58:02):
Oh is oroan or.
Speaker 9 (58:03):
These candidates won because of affordability. They won because they
wanted free childcare, frees the rent or medicare for all.
All that matters, But the first point of the animating
difference that is motivating these candidates and the energy is Israel.
I mean a lot would have been no shot to
be to get to get was good on all the issues.
(58:23):
She was for medicare for all, living wage. Why did
she lose? She lost on this issue?
Speaker 4 (58:29):
Wow?
Speaker 9 (58:29):
And I just think that the political leadership hasn't grappled
with that reality.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Congressman Matt, Yeah, I was come to you because you
were the only Republican voted for it. I knew you
speak to many of your colleagues. You and I both
know you're not the only person who thinks something like this.
So why do they all, well, like, why do they
still see political utility in supporting Israel?
Speaker 4 (58:50):
Because I just lost my election.
Speaker 8 (58:52):
I mean thirty million dollars and ninety eight percent of
that came from APAK or Republican Jewish Coalition or Miriam Adelson.
It was all the race against me was fueled and
funded by the Israeli lobby, and they made an example
out of me, and it worked. I mean, you're getting
senators who are changing their positions, You're getting House representatives
(59:15):
folks who are just going underground on the Republican side
not saying anything about it. But the one thing I
want to talk about. Two things they're trying to They
realize this.
Speaker 4 (59:24):
Is a political liability, the Israeli lobby.
Speaker 8 (59:26):
So they're trying to take away the transparency of this
money that's being spent, and they're trying to integrate it
into our military budget, so it won't be a line
item that Congress votes on. It'll be inside of one
of these giant military omnibus type programs and we won't
even know because we'll just instead of giving them gift
certificates for Raitheon and Lockheed Martin, will give them the
(59:47):
bombs from Raitheon, and that would developed.
Speaker 4 (59:50):
Them with us right almost integrated.
Speaker 8 (59:52):
Well, that's the second part is that Section two nineteen
of the NDAA is now it's very toxic, and I'm
trying to get a vote on that to strip that
Section two nineteen is I think what Rose was alluding to,
which is integration of our intelligence and military with supply
chains to supply lines and technology with Israel.
Speaker 4 (01:00:16):
It's a country of ten million people.
Speaker 8 (01:00:18):
It's not even like NATO, where they're at least the
third of the size of us, and there might be
some reciprocal arrangement that could help in a world war.
Speaker 4 (01:00:26):
That's not going to help with Israel. Can't help us in.
Speaker 8 (01:00:29):
A war of a scale where our sovereignty is affected.
It's only going to hurt us anyways. I'm trying to
get an amendment in order to strip to nineteen from
the NDAA, and if I can't get that done or
they don't allow us to have that vote, I think
they're jeopardizing the NDAA. That stands for National Defense Authorization Act.
It's one of the most pass pieces of legislation, like
(01:00:52):
a farm bill or a highway bill, that passes every year.
Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
Commerson masse I wanted to ask you some about that
money that was spent against you, and I think you're right.
They definitely wanted to make an example of you. A
lot of that money came from the Israel lobby. They're
now trying to do a similar thing with Abdulah Sayad
in the Michigan primary on the Democratic side. I think
fifty million dollars have come in and again, Ads have
nothing to do with Israel.
Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
They're claiming he's the sexist.
Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
Because he one time mildly criticized Michelle Obama. I mean,
this is the sort of stuff that they're going with here,
and I do wonder, you know, again, from your perspective
as a libertarian, if that changes any of your view
of the ability for democracy to coexist with billionaires, the
impact of money and politics, you know, what are your
views there? Has that shaped your philosophy or thinking about
(01:01:39):
how we handle this flood of money, which is not
just Israel Liab, is big pharma, its big oil, it's
the banks, it's all sorts of interests.
Speaker 4 (01:01:47):
Are you asking that?
Speaker 8 (01:01:48):
Did the ass whipping I took from the billionaires change
my perspective?
Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
I should have asked it that way.
Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
It was a beat.
Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
How are you feeling about billionaires in these days?
Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (01:02:00):
Well, you know, we were able to raise twenty million,
and so we had enough money. It's just they played
dirtier than we were willing to play. They made artificial
intelligence ads that showed me in a three way relationship
with AOC and ilhan Omar, and you know, people fell
for those ads they thought they were real. So again
(01:02:20):
there's another libertarian conundrum that I have in addition to
campaign finance, which I do equate with speech but also
here's another.
Speaker 4 (01:02:27):
Example of speech.
Speaker 8 (01:02:28):
Should they be able to make ai ads and run
them with my image in it? There you have to
think very carefully about the legislative solutions that you don't
make the situation worse. I think I could be okay
with campaign finance. That said, if you're running a congressional race.
Speaker 4 (01:02:46):
Only the money.
Speaker 8 (01:02:47):
The only people who can donate are the people who
can vote in your district. Now, Miriam Madelson may have
moved to Kentucky.
Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Casino on top of your house.
Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
I think that is interesting because I know in the
past you've pushed for transparency, which I think is an
important first step. But you know, at this point there's
a lot of mass education about who a pack is
and what they are, et cetera. It's not that transparency,
you know, isn't there necessarily. But the problem is that
just when you have so much money, of course it's
(01:03:21):
going to impact outcomes. And we can see it, you know,
in the in this vote from yesterday too. So many
of your colleagues take money from APAC or other similar groups,
so many of the Democratic Caucus. You know, it should
be based on the Democratic base, It should be overwhelming
and not a problem for Democratic congressmen to vote, you know,
for an amendment like that, so you can see the
impact of this money in the legislative process, not just electorally.
Speaker 8 (01:03:42):
Well, ultimately, there was a win in my loss, which
is I knew they would have to spend insane amounts
of money. This is the most expensive congressional primary in
the history of the United States, and I knew that
if they would have to spend insane amounts of money,
and if they did an I law, it would sort
of proved the point that they have too much influence
(01:04:03):
in our own government that the Israeli lobby does. Now
they'll argue these are American citizens or dual citizens who
are donating the money, But I would still say they're
operating on behalf of a foreign country, and so they
are foreign agents. I think they should have to register
as such. But there was a victory in it. It's
really there was a big waking up. I don't think
(01:04:24):
we would have gotten as many votes on my amendment
if people hadn't watched me lose because there was thirty
million dollars of Israeli lobby money poured into a little
Kentucky race.
Speaker 4 (01:04:36):
But yeah, I don't know what the solution is. And
then also on these ai ads.
Speaker 8 (01:04:40):
This fall is going to be the wild West, like
I got a taste of it in my own race,
and you don't.
Speaker 4 (01:04:45):
These weren't online ads.
Speaker 8 (01:04:47):
These were like local you know, Fox Cable affiliates running
these ads, so not a lot of people saw what's happening.
But this November, both parties are going to run the
most ridiculous ai ads. And if you write a piece
of lledge that says you have to put a disclaimer
on there, it doesn't help.
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
That gives them a safe harbor to do anything. They
could show you.
Speaker 8 (01:05:07):
Doing anything and say, by the way, this was made
with artificial intelligence, and people are still going to believe
it because people watch videos and they don't read the
little stuff at the bottom.
Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
Yeah. My last question for you starting running a bit
short on time is about Senator Mitch McConnell. Do you
believe the proof of life photo and do you there's
a lot of speculation that they're continuing to keep him
in his Senate seat in order to prevent you from
being able to run or in a special primary or
special election in the state.
Speaker 8 (01:05:36):
Your reaction, well, the special term would be less than
six months. Sure, and I'm not interested for that. I
just broke news. I guess to help people.
Speaker 3 (01:05:45):
You did, Yeah, Now they didn't come clean about McConn.
Speaker 1 (01:05:49):
Tell us what's going on.
Speaker 8 (01:05:51):
I mean, I think the public does deserve to see
somebody walk up to a podium and say something. Now,
whether we can believe that this day in a is
also another question. Yeah right, But you know I've said
I'm going to introduce term limit legislation called three strokes,
and you're out because we've seen this in the House.
(01:06:13):
We saw one of our colleagues disappear for four months. No,
by the way, he won his primary and I lost mine.
Maybe that was the answer. He was depressed, right, depressed,
which is a catch all. It could mean, I mean,
what do you do when you're depressed. Maybe you drink,
Maybe you're doing something. I'm not saying that he did.
But and then we had Kay Granger who was basically
(01:06:35):
had dementia and was still a congress person for many months.
Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
One hurt, the one who was in a memory care facility.
Speaker 12 (01:06:42):
Yes, yes, remember that, yes, yes, uh, you know we
had yesterday we marked up a bill in Judiciary called
the National Fossils Act, and I asked him if this
was about senators?
Speaker 1 (01:06:56):
This is what?
Speaker 3 (01:07:01):
Well, that is.
Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Actually my last question. It's kind of for both of you.
I'm you know, we get every time we do an Ama,
we get a question. Do you think that Thomas Massy
and Rokonic could run for president together and have some
bipartisan kumbaya.
Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
I've been skeptical of.
Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
That because I know you guys collaborate on a lot,
but I also know there are a lot of ideological
differences there would be hard to sort out.
Speaker 3 (01:07:19):
But what are you thinking about your future politics?
Speaker 4 (01:07:22):
Still?
Speaker 3 (01:07:22):
In your future senate run, presidential run?
Speaker 2 (01:07:25):
What are the sorts of things that you're podcast all
sorts of things you don't do a lot.
Speaker 4 (01:07:29):
Well, I'm not going to rule anything out, how about that?
Speaker 8 (01:07:33):
But the political terrain right now in Republican primaries is
uphill for me. Yeah, the war and I ran. This
doesn't get reported enough. Is seventy percent popular among Republicans?
Speaker 4 (01:07:45):
Yeah? Still is.
Speaker 8 (01:07:46):
And you know that's in Kentucky where you have Ram
Paul and Thomas Massey. In Oklahoma, where you don't have us,
it's eighty percent popular. According to the polster that I used,
so you know there's still And then you saw the
vote on Israel sending the four or a people. Republicans
say they're conservative, they all want to send money overseas,
but then they have a little asterisk and they say, except,
we'll give Israel as much money as they need, you know,
(01:08:09):
and we'll empty our coffers for that. So that I
do have a few political positions that I think are
going to be right in four.
Speaker 4 (01:08:18):
Years, eight years.
Speaker 8 (01:08:20):
Maybe it only takes two years, but right now I'm
against the grain of where you can win certain races.
So yeah, I'm going to watch for the terrain see
if it changes. Do I eventually get the high ground
or not? But in the meantime, I am just so
happy to have my life back. I should send Miriam
(01:08:41):
Madelson a thank you card.
Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
Sometimes these things work out in a way that you
don't expect. So appreciate both of you guys for coming in.
We've been wanting to have you here. We have role
all the time. We always appreciate your time too, but
to have you both together, you really are sure.
Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
Exit interview before you go, you'll come back here.
Speaker 8 (01:08:58):
Yes, and Roue and I have decided to run against
each other.
Speaker 4 (01:09:04):
I thought you were going to endorse my reelection. You
did that for me.
Speaker 1 (01:09:08):
We see what that happened, Like the Dynamic Duo themselves.
Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Seriously, Yeah, I'd love for you to come back so
I can fight with you more about libertarianisms.
Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
Okay, yeah, we'll do it.
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today. When do we have Crystal?
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Indeed, we do.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Latest on the Iran war as Trump reportedly explores ground options.
I'm sure that will go great. He also seemingly is
announcing a cover up of what exactly happened when we
bombed that monob Girls school in Iran. Rocana and Thomas
Massey are going to join us live in studio.
Speaker 3 (00:55):
They have a lot to talk about. They have a
new Epstein Transparency Act.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
That they are pushing that would helped to enable prosecutions
in places like New Mexico with the Azora Ranch. They
also are just coming out the heels of this big
vote in the House on Massi's amendment to strip aid
from Israel, which created a whole fraction within the Democratic Caucus.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
So very very excited to have.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Them live in person, have so many things that we
want to ask them about. We also have some news
here about Brad par Scale. I don't know if you
guys remember this guy, but he was the campaign chief
for Trump. He has now got a forty five million
dollar contract to run a pro Israel influence operation that
is effectively targeting undermining the Iranian war negotiations. So pretty
(01:35):
fascinating dynamics there, and always important to expose who is
getting paid and how these influence operations work. And I'm
taking a look at how Doge fueled the explosive diarrhea
epidemic and some other problems that are going on in
the country thanks to Doge as well.
Speaker 3 (01:49):
So you definitely want to stay tuned for that one.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Excited for that one. A lot of viral panic around
this deal. Maybe it's not panic, maybe it's actually justified.
I'm excited to listen. Thank you to everybody who's been
subscribing to the show Breakingpoints at dot com. We of
course have our free newsletter, but I do want to
take a moment here to just thank all of our
premium subscribers. It's a really cool moment when you know
Thomas Massey and Rocanna. This all came together very quickly,
(02:14):
and what we were able to do is our whole
team just kicks into high gear for the studio, our producers,
people getting here early. That is only enabled by the
people who pay for our show. So Breakingpoints dot com
if you're able to do that. We actually we were
filming this a bit out of order and it was
just incredible, Like it's very rare to have that much
time with these high profile politicians here in Washington. And yeah,
(02:37):
just very thankful for our premium subscribers.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Yeah, by the way, as a little teaser, you guys
are always asking us if Roe and Thomas Massey would
run together on a presidential ticket, so we doing that.
We do bring that up with them. So a lot
of interesting responses, some news that's made, etc. You definitely
want to check both of those blocks outs. As we
split it into.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
Two ranking boys dot com. If you're able to support
our show. If you're watching this on YouTube, no worries,
please hit subscribe to our YouTube channel. Listen to the podcast.
We share an episode with a friend. But let's go
ahead and start, as Crystal said, with the Iran war.
Let's put a one up here on the screen. Some
very troubling news out from the Wall Street Journal. Trump
leans towards expanding US military options in Iran quote while
(03:15):
preferring diplomacy. Trump was briefed this week on options including
use of ground troops and the bombing of Pickaxe Mountain.
The long time watchers of the show will know all
about Pickaxe Mountain, which has become kind of this neo
con What's that castle the Israelis took in Lebanon, a
useless castle like Bingford Castle. So the Pickaxe Mountain is
the Buford Castle of the American neo cons where they've
(03:38):
just decided this this mountain, it's gotta go alleged nuclear
linked site. And you know, we can't finish the job
until we've taken Pickaxe Mountain. But what's even more troubling
here is that in the situation room meeting they discuss quote,
potential seizure of carg Island, which Trump has talked about,
territory all along the street of horn moves using US troops,
the bombing of the tunnel complex at Pickax Mountain, and
(04:00):
expanding air strikes against more targets in Iran, including energy strikes,
all including that as a possibility. So there are some
countervailing signs which will play for all of you. But
right now, all the signs currently point towards more war.
Let's go ahead and put a two up here on
the screen. A very predictable thing is the same time
Trump is considering expanding military options, you have President Trump
(04:22):
says Ian called them a while ago, and now they
want to make a deal. And you also have, of
course the US stock market, which extended its rally immediately
upon the news. They never really learn, do they, although
they did end up closing down at the same time.
You know, and I know we do mention this quite
a bit, but you have to.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
I just feel like it's so titanic that and everything
seems like it's fine. But with the oil where it's at,
everyone who can read a chart, they're scared, and they're
beyond scared actually with the resumption of hostilities. Put a
three up here. The traders themselves, the people who have
been buying the Trump taco and all of that, largely
(05:00):
have been you know, on the side of it's not
as bad as some of the worst purveyors of doom
had said in the original war. They are now coming
out and saying we're close to running on empty as
the horn MoU straight is shut down again. So what
they write is that member countries have already released three
quarters of the planned four hundred million barrel emergency stock
(05:24):
release that was announced in March. Quote, we have burned
through all the buffers, we had everything, All of that
is gone.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Oil prices have now rebounded somewhere around eighty to eighty
five dollars a barrel. That's as highest since the original
ceasefire was announced over a month ago. And what they
also point out is that now the agreement that governments
in the West and Asia quote had pulled almost every
lever available to them to ensure a supply crunch would
(05:52):
not undermine the world economy. Western powers have already released,
you know, vast amounts of their strategic petroleum reserve. But
what they say here specifically, is that there's no more
slack left within the system. And so if we do
see another six to eight weeks or maybe even a
few more months of war, it is almost inevitable that
shortages will come up somewhere. It won't be here in America.
(06:15):
It certainly won't because we'll all just pay a very
very high price. But there's all of these other, you know,
factors that come into play. Where the Asian powers are
the ones who you know, you know, I read the
Asian press almost every day just to see what they're
saying about Iran, and they were actually pretty muted over
the last few months. We're back to panic. They're like
this is They're like, here we go. What are we
going to do? How are we going to get this
(06:36):
oil out? It's forty days away, you know, forty days
because in terms of tanker time. They're like, after that
we might run dry again. So the panic is setting
back across East Asia.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
I mean, I think we should take the present's word
for it when he said, hey, another four weeks, I'm
going to be Herbert Hoover and we're going to have
all kinds of crisis because of the oil. I mean,
he said that when you signed the MoU and I
think he was telling the truth at that point. And
certainly he has analysts and also had all of the
CEOs of the large oil and gas companies who came
to him and were saying, hey, this is where we're at.
So that timeline, you know, is rapidly approaching. The clock
(07:09):
is ticking. And in this article from the Financial Times,
they have specific numbers that IEA on Friday said it's
members member countries had released almost three quarters of the
planned four hundred million barrel emergency stock release. I don't
know if you guys watch Ryan's interview with Robert Pape yesterday.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
Pape was sounding the alarm about this as well.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, the idea was that Jade Vance floated, oh,
we're going to take this time to be able to refuel, restock, reload,
whatever the verbiage was. Part of that was refilling the
strategic petroleum reserve. They have not done that, so we
continue to have a dwindling of the strategy petroleum reserve
here in the US, where you're now getting down to
the literal bottom of the barrel. There isn't a lot
(07:47):
more buffer there. We don't know what China's going to do.
China has taken extraordinary measures himself to reduce the amount
of oil that they were importing from abroad. How long
is that going to last? It really, really is a
very troubling situation. And you know, so, I'm sure this
is why Trump's coming out and saying, oh, they want
to make a deal, et cetera. But I can tell
you this morning, I was just reading an article in CNBC.
(08:10):
The Iranians are threatening aggressive retaliation because Trump is once
again saying, oh, We're going to blow up their bridges,
their power plants, et cetera, with some credibility because they
have a tax civilian infrastructure with no qualms. In the past,
the Iranians said, everything in the region that is still intact,
all the infrastructure in the region will be crushed under
the steel blows of the powerful armed forces of the
(08:32):
Islamic Republic of Iran. So no trace of them remains,
and it is as if they never existed in the
first place. They added that under no circumstances and in
no way what we allow Americas, a foreign an extra
regional country to interfere in the Strait of Hormus. This
is Iran's invincible red line. Now, obviously there's a lot
of propaganda bluster there, but in terms of the Strait
(08:52):
of Hormuz being a hard red line that they will enforce,
I think they have a lot of credibility at this
point on that front.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
I think you're totally right. I think what, really, you know,
is worrisome is the disconnect in the messaging from the
US government. And so Trump yesterday gave an interview where
you know, he was said, well, maybe we'll just wipe
them out, like in terms of the IRGC, and of
course some Fox News interview, these people have, you know,
their IQ has got to be like bottom of the barrel.
(09:19):
He goes, are you just gonna wipe out the IRGC
like you did? Isis? I'm like, yeah, it's not like
we didn't just try to wipe out the IRGC. Are
you an idiot? Anyways, I digress, and Trump goes, yeah,
maybe I will. Meanwhile, the Vice President on the Joe
Rogan podcast is making this tortured effort to say diplomacy
is still on track. These are just blips in the radar, right,
(09:41):
And I mean, in some ways he does say the
truth out loud, which is for the people who want
us to keep bombing, there's nothing else that can be done.
He's like, eventually, we do have to sit across from
the table, but you have to convince Trump of that.
So here is jd vance A seven. I'm gonna start
with saying, look, the people who want us to keep
bom bombing, they have no solution. I would just add
(10:02):
the addendum is here He's trying to go after the neocons.
Trump is also one of those neo cons at least
as of right now. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (10:09):
What is their proposal? The people that think you shouldn't
negotiate with you, Ron.
Speaker 5 (10:13):
I think that their proposal is to bomb and bomb
and bomb. And the honest view Joe is that they
do not actually have a solution.
Speaker 4 (10:22):
If you actually ask them, what.
Speaker 5 (10:23):
Do you want us to do? What is the goal
that you're trying to achieve, They'll say things like, well,
just bomb them to oblivion. Okay, we can do that.
We can drop a lot of bombs, but what does
that accomplish if there's still a crazy person who's still
unwilling to shoot a few drones of the strait of
Horn moves? What the president has done, I think, very
very capably, is said, we're going to use military force
(10:45):
in this situation when it's connected to something we're trying
to achieve. So if you shoot at ships, we're going
to shoot at the facilities at which you used to
shoot at the ships. But we're not just going to
do something open ended indefinitely. We're not just going to
bomb and bomb and bomb. We're going to try to
use our military force as one of the many tools
that we have to solve the problem.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
So you could see there, I mean, what he's talking
about is the inevitable logic. But again, like Trump is
the person who wants to keep resumed bombing, and this
is the basic like fracture in the administration. JD's very
committed to like the negotiation track, but there are other
elements in the government which just don't care at all.
You know, our friends at drop Site, Jeremy Skahill and
(11:28):
Ryan Let's go to their story aight up here on
the screen. They say Iran sent a message to JD
warning that Kushner and witkof quote were abusing their inside
access to negotiations. By the way, the White House totally
denied it. They said this is all, you know, completely fake,
et cetera. But here's what a senior Iranian official who
said directly to drop Site, we have transmitted data and
(11:50):
assessments through an exclusive channel to mister Vance, but with
direct knowledge of the effort communicated to Vance. They believed
Wikoff and Kushner were abusing the diplomatic process, effectively disrupting
the overall negotiating atmosphere. At one point, they claim that
Iran had calculated profits from such a legend manipulation from
Wikoff and Kushner that reached nine billion dollars and formally
(12:13):
requested in writing that Iran should have to share in
the proceeds of all of their insider trading. Again, to
be very clear, Wikoff and Kushner completely deny it. The
White House says that none of this ever.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
I think the American people need to formally submit our
request to share in those proceeds.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
What do you think?
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Yeah, let me in, Let me in.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
But I mean, the crux of this, the allegation here
is that their corrupt inside trading is screwing up the
effort to come to some sort of negotiated deal here.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
It's an obstacle.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
It creates a problem in terms of actually sitting down
having some sort of negotiation that is perceived as remotely
in good faith when all you see is these guys,
you know, it's got all these development deals in the region.
You see all these market manipulations from Trump and what
he tweets, et cetera. That is making it actively more
difficult to not be in this war. So it's not
(13:04):
just a question of like morality. And it's disgusting the
number of people in the Trump administration, including Trump and
his family at all, who are just using the country
as their personal piggybank. But it has a direct impact
on what is happening to our country, on the way
our foreign policy is conducted, and on what is actually
possible in terms of these negotiations.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
And what I think is the worst is we just
don't see a realistic path to actual resolution. Like do
I think there will be another fake memorandum of understanding? Yeah,
because inevitably you have to write like oil has got
to flow eventually. But can we really going to solve
the nuclearation? Like it just seems so impossible. If we
(13:46):
can't even sit without firing bombs for three weeks, how
can we possibly get to a situation where the United
States has to accept Iranian tolls and control of the
Strait of hormones and then furthermore basically guarantee Iran hundreds
of billions of dollars while they give up their nuclear
(14:07):
ambitions for fifteen years. Yeah, I mean, it just seems impossible.
And it's like, you know, I'm gonna kick right now.
I'm reading a lot of World War One and World
War II history, like more so even than normal. And
when you see what it takes to either defeat somebody
or bring them to the negotiating table, haven't bled enough.
And I know it's a horrible thing to say, but
(14:27):
it's just empirically true, either from loss of life or economically,
like the vast majority of Americans really only pay attention
when gas prices are high. How many know that as
of right now today while you and I are speaking,
Kuwait is under fire from cruise missiles, not many, and
they don't particularly care, right They're not going to care
honestly until gas is seven dollars a gallon. Iran knows this.
(14:48):
That's why they continue to close the straight of Horn moves.
But there's just enough wiggle room there and you know,
crazy stuff from the Trump administration other to try and
just push it off further. And then same on the Iranians.
I agree with treat I think they dramatically overreacted by
trying to undermine this memorandum of understanding, as in immediately
shooting instead of calling. But I also get it from
(15:09):
their perspective when Trump is like, I'm going to kill
you while you're in the middle of Geneva. Like if
somebody said that to me, you know, it's like if
I were to negotiate with a pro Israel person immediately,
I'm always like, you're lying. You know. It's like my
absolute going in. How could we ever establish any baseline
of trust this somebody who's a concerts undermind you try
to kill you.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
I understand where they're coming from too, So I just
I don't see how we can get out of this.
Like somebody has got a bleed a lot, and I
hope it's not us, but I seem to think so well.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
And on the politics of it, we already recorded the
interview with Thomas Massey and Rocanna, and Congressman Massey said
something that was I think important for people to hear
because there's a lot of sense because you see the
Tuckers out there, you see the Tim Dillon's out there,
you know, who were unhappy we're on the right and
unhappy with the Zagger and Jetties of the world who
are unhappy with the Iran War. The MAGA base supports it.
(16:02):
They're all in. It's like seventy eighty percent of the
magabase that's like, yes, Iran War. And so when we
were asking Thomas Massy about the nature of his primary defeat,
he made sure to bring up, Yeah, it was Israel lobby,
it was going against Trump. It was also the Iran
War being opposed to it because it's very popular, and
we're asking about his future political ambitions.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
He's like, that's going to be a real.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Obstacle for me in the Republican Party for now. You
know that Draanine may ship, but for now it's a problem.
And I think it's very different from how people are
perceiving the politics of it, because for Trump, looking at
the mid terms, the landscape is already really bad. You know,
people are unhappy, Republicans are sort of disenchanted over the
Epstein files and other things.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
There's a lot of malaise there.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
So they're already less likely to turn up at the
polls than Democrats. We've seen that in all kinds of
special elections. You ask them to also swallow a humiliating
Iran war defeat that is actually going to make your
midterm results even worse than they already are.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
So it's danned if you do.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Damned if you don't from Trump for a political perspective,
but it actually, you know, his political incentives are not
necessarily to end the war now. His political incentives maybe
to keep it going through the midterms, so he doesn't
have to fully swallow the level of humiliation that will
be required to bring this thing to a close. And
so I think that's another dynamic here that we have
(17:21):
to take into account as well. His base wants this
war to keep going. They want to see the bombs
dropped and carg Island taken and him to be you know,
a heroic, tough guy, et cetera. They don't want to see, oh,
now we've done sanctions, relief in Iran, has all of
this newfound power in the region, that is not where
they are.
Speaker 1 (17:39):
I mean, that's where pape escalation trap, you know, model
is just so it is so obviously true at this point,
and it is also I mean, very tragically for the
US and even for Iran. You know, look, Iran is
Iran is desperate because what they're what they also knows
I was reading this morning, is the world will eventually
(18:00):
figure it out, like we did with Ukraine and Russia.
Right at the beginning it was a crisis. After a
couple of years, you figure out how to get natural
gas to different places. It's bad, but everyone kind of
moves on. Iran has got to actually force hand now,
so they have a direct incentive. And at the same time, America,
which has not bled, and Trump, who cannot admit total
(18:20):
defeat at least not yet, has got to do something extra.
And in any one of those extra maneuvers, it brings
death and immense costs to America. You know, one of
the because we had Thomas Massey and Rokana added at
last minute. You know, there was this whole segment that
I was going to do about all of the lack
of munitions. It is, it is so much worse than
(18:42):
even I thought. Five hundred million dollars we put into
a factory, it hasn't produced a single round not one,
five hundred million, and we gave three million of these
rounds to Ukraine. The whole point of the money. Remember,
Biden was like, this is good for America because we'll
make all these weapons here. They haven't been made. It's
impossible to make apparently just from a manufacturing backlog. I'm
looking at the state of the US Navy the F
(19:04):
thirty five. For the first time in twenty years, the
Pentagon is blocking an open source report about the F
thirty five. Why do you think after one just got
hit over Iran? I'm looking at this and then the
oil I mean again, you know, you have to read
only a few books to say it may not be
the Iran war that breaks us. It may be that
the total destruction and depletion of the American Empire as
a result of this. Then when the next one comes
(19:26):
completely out of nowhere, that's how you find yourself broken
completely and you lose everything in a matter of a month.
That's the stuff that just absolutely terrifies me. And you
can just see it. You know, every day, four missiles here,
cruise missiles there, drones going here, Iranian ships or Iranian
you know, the United States bombed an oil tanker which
was docking at carg Island for the first time ever.
(19:49):
We had never done that before. As a result, they
blew that up and potentially some oil infrastructure. Iran is saying, like,
very seriously, you are going to burn if you continue this.
I just I don't see a way out. The one
last you know, piece potentially of good news, you know,
I don't want to say that it hasn't happened is
let's put a nine up here on the screen. Is
(20:09):
it does appear that there was some American woman. Trump right,
Iran has allowed an American citizen who is wrongfully detained
in December twenty twenty four under Joe Biden to leave
the country. She is now safely outside of Iran and
in good condition. America appreciates this gesture of goodwill from Iran,
So that could be a good thing. I just don't know.
But my only you know, again, I have no idea
(20:31):
who this woman is. There's no open source reporting or
any of this. This could potentially try to be a
sign of, you know, putting things back on track. But
just like America has internal factions and domestic politics, so
does Iran. It's very clear their hardline faction doesn't want
to give another inch, so we'll see that. That's what
else can we say. Let's get to Minab.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
So you all will recall that in the early days
of the Iran war, we dropped a bomb on a
little girls school, the Monob School, and killed over one
hundred and fifty children. There has been an investigation internally
allegedly launched here within the US government. Trump keeps claiming though,
making this claim that, oh, we may never know what happened,
even though that appears to be patently false. It is
(21:16):
very findoutable what actually happened. We have reporting on what
actually happened. Let's go ahead and take a listen to
his latest claims.
Speaker 6 (21:22):
Democrats released a letter calling on your administration to unveil
the findings of the investigation into a strike that killed
more than one hundred children on the first day of
the war. Will you commit to releasing the findings of
this investigation?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
Well, I have to speak to the generals that are
doing the because we mostly have a general's you know,
I don't think anybody's going to ever be able to
say what happened there.
Speaker 6 (21:46):
There are images from this site that show fragments that
appear to be from US Tomahawk missiles. Is it possible
that old intelligence or a mistake during a very active
time in the war led to this event?
Speaker 7 (21:59):
It is, But it's also so possible that those images
that you have are AI generated. Now I know we're
waiting for a conclusive report. I don't think they can
be a conclusive report.
Speaker 6 (22:09):
Were there are the reports when it is finished?
Speaker 7 (22:11):
I guess so, I mean I have to ask the military,
but there might be a reason why they can.
Speaker 3 (22:15):
And I'll tell you what that is.
Speaker 2 (22:16):
That is the announcement of a planned cover up. Because
we already have reporting about what happened here, it was
not difficult to figure out. We can put let's put
this CNN report up on the screen.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
This is B three.
Speaker 2 (22:28):
They say that senior US military commanders bypassed warnings in
critical databases that intelligence about potential targets in Iran was
severely out of date and approve some strikes, including one
that hit a school, killing nearly two hundred children and adults.
According to three sources, familiar messages indicating the intelligence was
based on years old intelligence that needed to be revetted.
(22:51):
We're embedded in a system used for developing targets and
required a senior officer to approve adding a site to
the strike list. According to the sources, the decision by
senior commanders to ignore the warnings was made for expediency.
Two of the sources set in a rush to provide
targets at the start of the war. It also directly
contributed to the accidental strike on the school, according to
(23:12):
those sources. In addition, they identify the fact that Hegseth
has made drastic cuts almost to the point of eliminating
these civilian harm mitigation and response programs, slash their staff
at military commands by more than ninety percent. That included
removing civilian harms specialists from target development strike teams and
reducing the team of ten at Central Command to only
(23:35):
one full time staffer. Again, according to CNN, so you
had two separate databases, one that's older, one that they're
trying to use AI automated systems. Both of them had
instructions in there that the intelligence on these particular type
of targets was outdated. We know that the satellite imagery
shows that there were clear changes to this site, transitioning
(23:57):
it from part of a base to this girls' school.
But because they just wanted to rush and have a
massive list of targets, they decided not to go and check,
and so you end up with the worst civilian death
incident caused by the US military that we know of
since the first Gulf War. I mean, that's how serious
and how severe it is. We have the investigation, and
(24:19):
now Trump is saying, oh, we may never know, and
I'll have to talk to the generals about whether.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
I don't think that we understand how impactful this strike
was in Iran, Like the Iranians call their delegation for
negotiations the minob one sixty eight. They have pictures printed
out all the school girls in their plane on the
backs of the seats, so they know who they're fighting for.
(24:46):
The team them did a tribute to the MINAB one
sixty eight. They have pins that they wear. One of
the reasons they didn't want to shake JD's hand was
because of the Minab incident in the negotiations engine. Like,
I don't I think you can understand the psyche of Iran.
Actually maybe you can if you just you know, maybe
watch our show or not mainstream media, but like, look
(25:07):
at the crowds for the Iatola command, who by the way,
I mean, they liked him, but a lot of people
were very frustrated by his regime. Millions of people came out.
Sarabamari remember in the middle of the war, came on
our show and he was like, he said, he was
watching stay TV. He's like, all they do is just like,
you know, worship martyrdom, not just of the Iatola. They're like,
there was this janitor, he was killed in his strike,
(25:28):
and he's a national hero. Now like in Iran, these
people's names are you know, everybody knows that. In America,
we all just kind of move on. But as you said,
it's the worst civilian death incidents as a Gulf war.
It's by the way that one was handled very differently.
If you want to look at how the United States
military reacted, I covered some horrible incidents, the Taliban or
the Kundu's hospital incident. I was a Pentagon correspondent at
(25:50):
that time. Dramatic difference in the way that the lies
were the same, but the you know, reaction from Congress
and others was totally different. Like, we have have to apologize,
We have to admit that this was a massive mistake
in the generals who are involved, like somebody has got
to pay this time around Trump and the entire cover
up of it. Not only does it givey Ron you know,
(26:11):
really a moral high ground in some cases, like whenever
they come at us for their strikes, but it also
creates this culture of there will be no price paid,
and that's exactly the opposite of what you want, not
just in terms of the morality, but I just laid
out how much of a disaster it was. Like the
entire point was we want regime change. Let's murder one
(26:31):
hundred and sixty eight girls on day one of the
entire war. You think that's going to engender the whole
population to you know, they hate us for this, Like
those those schoolgirls will like everyone will know about them
fifty years from now.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
Yeah, you know, inside of you, it's not hard actually
to imagine, because imagine that, you know, a foreign country
bombed one of our girls' schools.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
I will tell you, think about unforgettable.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Yeah, think about Sandy Hook. Horrified.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
I still remember covering that, like viscerally, how horrifying it is.
It's still just like unconscionable to imagine that was twenty children.
We're talking about one hundred and sixty eight little girls.
And here's the other thing that I don't know if
people realize, but because you know, we've had we've had
various Iranian analysts and Ranians on the show to tell
us from the Iranian perspective, they don't believe it was
(27:21):
an accident. They think that it was an intentional and
you know, I can't really blame them for this after
seeing what we ate and embedded with Israel and Gaza.
They believe it was an intentional effort to put pressure
on some of the IRGC because a lot of their
children were the ones that were going to this school.
So they think that it was intentional. So again, not
(27:43):
that they would believe the report that we put out,
but at least if you had some information out here
about Look, guys, here's how we fucked up.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
Right.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
We didn't actually mean to do this. Here's what happened.
It was human error, it was incompetence. Again, they may
not believe that, but that would be important to put
out to the world as at least saying we are
different than Israel. We actually do take seriously civilian deaths
and civilian casualties but I do think because of the
barbarism that Israel and Gaza has put on the table,
(28:12):
it makes it very easy for Trump to just shrug
his shoulders and say, yeah, we may never know what happened.
What happened, you know, a fog of war, et cetera, etcetera.
I guess I'll talk to the generals. But anyway, it
also could have been AI. So we're moving on really
disgusting and really quite ominous for the future of warfare
and the way that we conduct ourselves. And speaking of which,
we had another horrifying situation here. It can put before
(28:35):
up on the screen. US missiles struck a near a
children's cancer hospital. There is, you know, a dispute over
whether this was a direct hit or whether it's some
nearby debris that causes fire at the children's cancer hospital.
They say this is the first US strike on Iranian
hospital in months. Additional strikes also causing damage to residential homes.
(28:56):
Trump talks openly about committing war crimes. This is just
you know, hit civilian infrastructure. This is part of his
plan that he announces brazenly and openly.
Speaker 3 (29:04):
We've sort of gotten used to it.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
I guess already again because of Gaza and because of
the way that Trump and Headseth operate. But in any
previous era this would have been a horrifying scandal. You
never would have admitted this publicly, you know, you never
would have celebrated or incorporated this as an explicit tactic.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
It's just become completely uninjined, insane.
Speaker 4 (29:23):
I know.
Speaker 1 (29:23):
And yeah, to your point, Professor Morondi, let's put B
five up here on the screen. He says, the Trump
regime is just bombed a children's hospital in the city
of of Oz. It is being evacuated. Again. You know,
it's nobody from the US side is confirming not can
you even take any of it seriously? Like that's part
of the problem. And that's exactly what all of this
(29:43):
demonstrates to us about the sheer dishonor really upon you know,
upon the American people, upon all of us. We paid
for all of these bombs, and you know, we're gonna
have to live not just with the consequences of what
they've done, but just also with our government just casually
saying that there's nothing wrong really with what they did.
If the leader really the culpability lies with Trump ordered
(30:08):
a last, you know, a very haired US operation. And
then it comes down to hag Seth and others saying
we don't care, dust off the plans from fifteen years
ago and go. I also, frankly, you have to depentagon.
You pay these guys all sorts of money. There's an
entire room that's bigger than this studio where all they
do is just talk about eron war plans all day.
(30:28):
Even when things were going well with Iran, nobody ever
updated the target set.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
I mean that is the other thing that struck me
to is how much money do we give you?
Speaker 3 (30:36):
Like, what are you doing? Yeah, you know, you couldn't
get anyone to go in and hey, let's take a
look at this.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
Let's go check the satellites and see if this intelligence
is still you know, to eate.
Speaker 3 (30:47):
And they knew that it wasn't and it still didn't.
I mean, it's just insane.
Speaker 1 (30:50):
There are guys in the CIA, there's a whole room
like a tackle operation center and all this where all
they do is just look at it around all day,
just update you know, all these different target sets. But
then oh somebody and tell DoD or they did tell
do d do d never updated the file, nobody updated
the package.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
Well, there was a situation like that where apparently someone
had flagged that that it appeared from the satellites that
there had been changes to the site, but it was
in a different system, and it didn't map onto this system,
and this system had the flag in it of hey,
you should check it out. But then when it was
when it was go time and it wasn't done, they're like,
all right, we'll just do it anyway and hope for
the best.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
Yeah, it's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
And you know, hagset part of how he ended up
in this job is because of his advocacy for war
criminals who had been turned in by their own comrades
in arms. And Trump admires him, but that I talked
about the fact that he appreciated that Hegseth was willing
to go to bat for these, you know, convicted war
criminals in the military. So it's no surprise that that
is the culture that we have instilled here. And as
(31:48):
I said before, also because of the bipartisan support for
a literal jedocide occurring before our eyes, containing the worst,
most unimaginable atrocities, you could you know that really truly
were beyond belief, beyond what anyone could have possibly pictured.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
All right, we have Congressman Rocan we recorded already, but
we're going to edit it in now. So let's throw
to our interview with congress and Rocanna and Congressman Thomas mass.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So we've got a special trait this morning in studio.
Both congressmen part of the dream team here, Thomas Massey
and Rocanna. Great to see you both, Welcome, Thanks to you.
So you guys have obviously teamed up on a number
of initiatives, but you have a new one that you
wanted to bring to us today. Congresson Massey about the
you know Epstein Transparency, tell us what you're pushing forward now.
Speaker 8 (32:35):
Well, yesterday was the one year anniversary of the introduction
of the Epstein False Transparency Act that Rocanna and I wrote,
and we thought it was time to do a sequel
because the first bill has been very successful. We've got
three million documents released, but there have been some dragging
of feet by the Attorney General and the Acting Attorney General,
(32:58):
and so you know, this is to spur the next level. Specifically,
the main thing that this new bill does that we've
introduced is forces the US Attorney General to cooperate with
state attorneys general that want to prosecute Epstein co conspirators
under state law. And it turns out in New Mexico
(33:19):
that's where the Zoro Ranch was. You hear a lot
about Epstein Island. You hear almost nothing about Zoro Ranch.
But it was expansive, it was massive that people were
going there all the time. Crimes were committed there, and
some of those aren't barred by statute of limitations, and
so the Attorney General in New Mexico would like to
prosecute those crimes, and so we're making it easier with
(33:40):
this bill.
Speaker 4 (33:41):
That's one of the things it does.
Speaker 1 (33:42):
What's really interesting about this is that it did create
a political crisis for the Trump administration. The Vice President JD.
Vance actually was on the Joe Rogan podcast just yesterday.
I do want curious for both of your response. Congressman Connae,
you've can start. The Vice President said that it was
quote nonsense that the President was forced to sign the
Epstein Files Transparency Act. He said that he did it
(34:04):
completely of his own volition, that the idea that the
two of you kind of dragged them to it was
ridiculous because nobody controls Donald Trump. I'm curious for both
of your reactions, Congress, mcconnor you could start.
Speaker 9 (34:15):
When the history of the Trump administration has written, what
Massey and I did will be seen as the most
decisive blow to Trump that began the unraveling of his presidency.
I mean, no one had stood up to Donald Trump
before effectively. And Trump tried everything from including intimidating Thomas's
(34:37):
colleagues Lauren Boubert and Nancy Mays and Marjorie Taylor Green,
some of them he brought into the situation room to
get them not to support this. They adjourned Congress, they
didn't swear in at Alita Grihova. They tried everything. Then
what happened, Not only did they realize that we were
(34:57):
going to pass the Act, Donald Trump realized that he
was going to get probably eighty to ninety Republicans to
be willing to overturn his veto. And that's when he
signed the Act and he told Jade Vince to go
into the situation room and start the cover up. But
what this did, it's not just about justice for survivors,
which is important. After this, now there were was one
(35:19):
hundred discharge petitions. Now suddenly everyone is willing to defy
Donald Trump, and we changed the entire culture in the Congress.
Speaker 3 (35:28):
Do you agree with that, Carson?
Speaker 4 (35:29):
Yeah? Absolutely.
Speaker 8 (35:31):
I mean we dragged him kicking and screaming to signing this.
I asked to be invited to the bill signing. I
think I'm the first congressman who's ever got a bill
passed that wasn't invited to the bill signers. I did
the big fat sharkney, and they did it in secret,
like in a room with no cameras.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
Mean, you never see that happen.
Speaker 8 (35:50):
And at one point the White House said that it
would be a hostile act towards the President for any
Republican to co sign the discharge petition. And you had
Jeff Freeland, who's the Legislative Affairs director for the President
on Capitol Hill. I saw him going up and down
the street and through the halls, running around trying to
get people's names off of this bill, trying to keep
(36:12):
people from sponsoring it. There's no way they wanted this
to happen. And then what was the fallout? I mean,
Howard Blutnik. We found out that the guy who's.
Speaker 10 (36:21):
Behind Donald Trump on Air Force one and behind the
Resolute desk, the guy who's always standing there. That guy
took his family to Epstein Island for a little picnic
after claiming on TV that he had nothing to do
with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
The man was so disgusting, he would have nothing to
do with him.
Speaker 8 (36:37):
And you know, but what we need right now is accountability,
and that's what this bill gets to. There's a couple
other things that bill does that I'd love to explain.
So you know, in the hearings we saw yesterday, what
was with Todd blanche with his nomination. What was painfully
obvious is he's ignoring the victims and they can't even
(36:58):
get their own files. Still withholding files the testimony that
the victims gave to the FBI, and we know it
exists on three h two forms. The victims, the survivors,
the ones who are still alive, they know it's there
and they can't get it. So our bill gives those
victims standing in the US court to sue the Attorney
General to get their own files. That's really important. The
(37:21):
other thing it does is the DOJ. This hasn't been
widely reported, but twice they've told us in Congress and
like these little notes or memos to Congress that we're
using deliberative process privilege in order not to give you
some of these documents. And our bill, our original bill,
said you've got to tell us about your decisions on
whether to prosecute or not prosecute.
Speaker 4 (37:43):
But they're withholding all those files.
Speaker 8 (37:44):
That's the nub of this is why didn't they prosecute
people like Leslie Wexner, Leon Black, Jess Daley, people who
in their own files showed that they had information on
enough that at one point Leslie Wexner was listed on
an FBI document as a co conspirator and a child
sex trafficking rank.
Speaker 4 (38:03):
Also, so was Leslie Groft, that.
Speaker 8 (38:05):
You know, the Epstein's main assistant who helped traffic the women.
So what this will do is it takes away unambiguously
we believe our first bill did anyway, but unambiguously it
says you don't have these special privileges that you can
exert to withhold files. And finally, it gives Rowani standing
(38:25):
to go to a court, get in front of a
judge and have a judge. Have the third branch of
government adjudicate whether the executive branch is complying with the
law that the legislative branch wrote and the president signed.
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And Conmerstan MASSI, you know, you were successfully defeated in
your primary.
Speaker 4 (38:41):
Thanks successfully defeated. What a jump trum there?
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Yeah, that respective.
Speaker 9 (38:46):
By the way, if Trump wanted to voluntarily sign this,
he should have been endorsing Massy, not campaign and not.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
The point is, you know, you cross Trump, and you
cross the Israel lobby. They dumped what thirty million dollars
in against you there effort from their perspective was successful
in getting you out. But I am curious if you
agree with Kyrasmoncanna that your efforts on Epstein were a
blow to the Trump administration. And I don't think that
that was your goal. That's not the way you have
framed it. But it does seem like it created a
(39:15):
fracture in the base and was kind of, you know,
the start of his approval rating really beginning to fall off.
Speaker 8 (39:20):
Well, I think it was self inflicted by the president.
He went on TV and said, if you think there's
any there there in these Epstein files, you are no
longer a supporter of mine. I don't want your support.
He told Maggot, you're no friend of mine if you
still want to pursue this promise that I made. Right,
So he basically fractured right in half Maggot, and he
(39:41):
lost Marjorie Taylor Green on this.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
I mean this was he called her a trader for
pursuing the.
Speaker 8 (39:46):
Epstein Files Transparency Act, right, like I might have had
other infractions like voting against the Big Beautiful Bill or
not voting for Mike Johnson. But Marjorie Taylor Green had
been loyal to the president and the only place that
she deviated was on the Epstein files. He told her
on the phone, and she related this to me immediately
when it happened, that you're going to hurt my friends
(40:07):
if you persist in getting these files released, and so it.
Speaker 4 (40:12):
Was I wouldn't. I don't. Ro gives us too much
credit for inflicting this damage.
Speaker 8 (40:18):
At MIT, we called this ballistic pedietry, which is shooting
yourself in.
Speaker 4 (40:22):
The foot right.
Speaker 11 (40:26):
The original cause, right, We gave him the opportunity, But
also I really think the credit goes to the survivors,
And it was it was Roe who invited them for
the first time to be heard on the steps of
the Capitol.
Speaker 8 (40:42):
Right there in front of the Capitol, we gave him
a voice. There were people who had never been public before.
It wasn't worth the risk to them. They came out
it said that they were you know, had been victims,
were survivors and told their stories. And I think that's
what motivated our colleagues eventually to nearly unanimously to pass this.
Speaker 9 (41:03):
Now, one thing I haven't said one of the reasons
the partnership with Massey and I works. Thomas is an
MIT guy.
Speaker 4 (41:11):
He knows all the details.
Speaker 9 (41:12):
You know, you want to understand discharge petition, this rule,
that rule. Thomas knows all of that, and you need
to know all of that achieve what we did. I
helped bring the survivors and organize that press conference twice
in front of the Capitol, and that changed public opinion,
and that helped make sure that we could pass it.
(41:33):
And it was the teamwork with different complementary skills, not
just across the aisle, that allowed us to get the
Epstein files passed.
Speaker 8 (41:41):
Well, one more thing, if the president is so gung
ho to get these files out, why are they still
dragging their feet and exerting every privilege they can to
redact anything they can.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
Well to both of your point, you know you met
Christ mentioned the Israel lobby. There's been a lot of
speculation about Jeffrey Epstein's connection to Israel. The administration is
officially denied it. I believe Todd Blanche in this interview
with Gleainne Maxwell, and yet the Vice President again yesterday
on the Joe Rogan experience, said it is clear that
Jeffrey Epstein had connections to the highest levels of American
intelligence and Israeli intelligence. Let's take a listen and we'll
(42:13):
get both of your reactions.
Speaker 5 (42:14):
He clearly had connections to the upper the highest levels
of American intelligence. He clearly had connections to the highest
levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact, one of the interesting stories,
one of the interesting things the Epstein saga reveals about,
and I try to make this point is one of
the reason why I'm always careful and I say there
are some elements within the Israeli government who don't like
(42:38):
our peace process, because there are a lot of elements
within the Israeli government that actually do like our peace process.
They recognize that this indefinite campaign is not good for them.
Either the Epstein thing is interesting because as much as
I know, you know, Prime Minister nt Yahoo not a
particularly popular person in the United States of America right now,
(42:59):
Epstein seems to be connected to the elements of the
Israeli deep state that were left of center. Like I've
always found that fascinating. It wasn't like he was super
connected to the right of center of Israeli politics.
Speaker 1 (43:13):
So an interesting clip there, you know, both Conft well,
at least you know he's the highest fewest official on
record to say connections to the US intelligence and to
Israeli intelligence never been confirmed before either by the most
actually been denied by Mosad and definitely also been denied
by the US intelligence. But he also seems to try
and to separate Epstein from the current coalition government in
leading Israel. Congressman Condom. I'm just curious for your reaction considering,
(43:36):
you know, these comments from the vice presidents.
Speaker 9 (43:38):
All, he's not a pundit, he's the sitting vice president.
He could release the remaining files, he could declassify the
documents and explain to the American public what exactly happened
with Epstein, who he was. He should if he believes this,
he has an obligation to release the files and have
a report on Epstein's tied to intelligence. And this is
(43:59):
a state under line where he politicizes everything. Oh that
were connected to the left, not the right, but the revant.
Speaker 3 (44:06):
But anyway, But the relevant.
Speaker 9 (44:08):
Point is, Okay, why isn't he taking action? Instead he
was in the situation room covering up at every step
of the way the release of the files and transparency, and.
Speaker 8 (44:19):
To some degree he's just admitting or curating what's in
the files.
Speaker 4 (44:22):
Right.
Speaker 8 (44:23):
We got an audio tape now of Ahoud Barock asking
Jeffrey Epstein while Ahudbrock was still the defense minister for Israel,
how am I going to make money? What's my grift
going to be on the outside once I'm no longer
a public official? And you get Epstein telling him, well,
think of everybody who owes you something because of your
public position and leverage. That told him to get on
(44:44):
the boarder pallunteer. Right, So, and that's all audio. So
for the vice president to admit that it's no big revelation,
I think it's a political admission on his part that
it's he's being tainted. It's toxic his association with the
present cident and this administration that's trying to cover these
things up. So he's giving you something that's already known.
(45:07):
But also Epstein was he met with Obama's CIA director,
you know, acting CIA director. Can't remember his name, right, Barns, Yeah,
that's right. So obviously he was tied to the highest levels.
That stuff needs to come out as right.
Speaker 9 (45:22):
I just to take Van seriously, not much more concerned
Massy is going to be the nominee. On the other side,
I mean, look, the vance was tainted with Epstein. He's
literally running the cover up for Epstein. He's been tainted
on this war in Iran. He's literally now cheerleading, and
he's been tainted on Israel, as even he knows. So
he's going out well, no, no, no, I'm not terrible
(45:44):
on Epstein. No, no, no, I'm not terrible on Israel.
But you know it's actually a contradiction to some of
the things he said before he had to do.
Speaker 4 (45:51):
Donald Trump spidding no question conson.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
I'm curious connorson Massey, I'm curious if what you learned
in the Epstein files changed your worldview at all, because
you know, as a leftist I'm looking at this, I'm like, oh,
a bunch of billionaires showing a lot of class solidarity here.
Very much comports with my view, although it was much
more explicit than perhaps I even had imagined. You're giving
the examples of like, hey, let's connect you with Palenti. Here,
here's you know, a country's resources you can go and exploit,
(46:16):
et cetera. But I wonder, as a libertarian, if it
shifted your view or if it changed your perspective at all.
Looking at some of the revelations here.
Speaker 8 (46:24):
Well, I joke, I tell people more of a conspiracy
theorist than I was before I got elected. Now that
they let me in the skiff and I can hear
the top secret stuff, I'm like, yeah, well that was true.
But my opinion on the Epstein thing definitely has shifted
over time.
Speaker 4 (46:40):
Like I you know.
Speaker 8 (46:42):
In Congress, people want you to solve healthcare, they want
you to take care of taxes, national defense, all of
this stuff, And so I didn't give it enough attention.
Speaker 4 (46:52):
For the first several years.
Speaker 8 (46:53):
It was one of those things to me on the internet,
maybe it's a conspiracy. And then as I started paying attention,
and then particularly when I saw that Pambondy did sort
of this spoof, almost a caricature of releasing these binders.
And then I personally asked Pambondy to her face at
a dinner, when are you going to release the rest
of the Epstein files, just as and I looked her
(47:14):
in the face. And her answer to me was, oh,
there's nothing left but child, you know, sexual exploitation material,
and you'd be a pervert if you'd want to see
any of that stuff. And she tried to shut me
down that way, and I thought, all right, there's there
there right.
Speaker 4 (47:28):
That's what raised my suspicion.
Speaker 8 (47:31):
And then in the last summer, they said closing the case,
no prosecutions, there's nothing here, it's done. And that's when
Row and I said, no, it's not done, and we
filed the bill. But that moment, that audio tape of
Epstein talking to Ahudbarock, it gave me some insight into
(47:52):
Jeffrey Epstein. That's when I decided he probably didn't kill
himself like he had so much levery. I believe he
thought his time in the prison was temporary. Either he
had enough blackmail material or he was friends with enough people.
If you just sat there and didn't say too much
that they would eventually get him out. And so that's
(48:13):
the one thing that also transitioned in my mind. I
went from Okay, maybe this is a conspiracy that he
was killed or he's still alive or whatever, to no,
that's probably true. He is probably killed or somehow sprung
from the jail because he had that much leverage over
these powerful people.
Speaker 1 (48:30):
Yeah. Interesting. So one of the things you mentioned there
is blackmail. The vice president also addressing a claim that
the president is being blackmail. Obviously this connects to the
war in Iran, which you're both against as well. Let's
take a listen to that. We'll get your reaction.
Speaker 5 (48:42):
What I have seen, and I've looked at most of
the files is that they're just wasn't dispositive evidence, and
if that dispositive evidence ever existed, it was probably destroyed
after two thousand and six, two thousand and seven. Now,
look again, in our defense, Yes, was there some you know,
bitching and moaning, and was there some back and forth, Yes,
(49:03):
but there we eventually collected six million documents as part
of the effort the president. People say the president was
forced into releasing the documents. Like again, the idea that
Donald Trump could not have killed that legislation, especially with
the United States Senate, is a joke. He absolutely could
have killed it.
Speaker 4 (49:24):
What did he do?
Speaker 5 (49:24):
He actually said, no, we're going to release these files.
He thought, you know, he was annoyed by the story.
He was annoyed by the Democrats accusing him of doing
things bad. By the way, like, do I think there
is any I've never seen a single piece of credible
evidence that the president of the United States engaged in
wrongdoing with minors.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Ever, so that was the claim there about blackmail. It
is later connected also to the war with Iran. I'm curious,
you know, for both of your reactions, because the Epstein files,
transparency becomes a political crisis, and of course the war
gets launched with Iran. It's impossible not to at least
look at that and be like, is there some connection,
Like what exactly is how in Congress mc conna curistory reaction.
Speaker 9 (50:02):
Well, I think they both are terrible decisions. The way
you believe that he went into Iran to distract from
the Epstein No, I don't think it was that. But
I think he broke a fundamental ledge of not getting
into foreign wars. But he got talked into conquest, and
he saw what happened in Venezuela and he said, okay,
(50:24):
I can turn around the regime in Venezuela. I was
opposed to what he did in Venezuela, and he thought
he could just march into Iran and ultimately betrayed his
fundamental promise to the country of not getting into foreign wars.
Speaker 8 (50:36):
I know it's easy to pick apart something like a
Joe Rogan interview, but I have to take issue with
the fact that he said they found six million files.
Why have they released only three million? And then also
the vice president says he's read or seen most of them.
I don't believe that. I've spent hours at the DOJ
and we barely just like scratching the surface. Three million
(50:56):
files is hard to consume, and then to connect all
the dots, so.
Speaker 4 (51:01):
That on its face the claim that he makes there,
and then.
Speaker 8 (51:04):
Also the ridiculous claim that the president this was something
the president wanted to do or wanted to do is fosse.
If he still wanted to do it, he would direct
his attorney general and acting Attorney General to just go
ahead and release all this stuff.
Speaker 2 (51:18):
Right when is a transition to talk about this amendment
that was a big vote in the House yesterday. Congressman Massey,
you offered this amendment, we can put d one up
on the screen here. Ultimately, it failed, but created quite
a lot of intrigue in the Democratic caucus. In particular,
you are the only Republican that voted yes on this amendment,
(51:40):
which cut all funding for Israel. You actually had a
narrow majority of Democrats who did vote for the proposal,
which is just such a sea change in the positioning
of the Democratic Party. I mean, previously, the relationship with
Israel was really lockstep across the board. So I'm curious
for your reaction to how this vote broke down, and
if you're surprised that none of your colleagues are where
(52:03):
you are right now on this issue.
Speaker 8 (52:05):
Well, the reason I was able to get this vote
on the floor of the House I sincerely wanted to vote.
I offered three amendments to defund foreign aid to Egypt,
foreign aid to Jordan, and foreign aid to Israel, and
the Republican leadership, to my surprise, allowed me to get
the vote on Israel. But I think that's because they
made a political calculation. I believe it's a miscalculation, but
(52:27):
they made a political calculation that this would be a
hard vote for Democrats, and it did turn out to
be a hard vote for Democrats. It should have been
a hard vote for Republicans because now they've all locked
into this idea that American taxpayers should give weapons and
billions of dollars. I pointed out in my floor speech,
we spend more on offensive weapons to Israel than we
(52:48):
do on homeless veterans in the United States, and so
every Republican has voted to send offensive weapons to Israel
three point three billion dollars. The vote was successful, though
my litmus test. We've had votes like this in the past.
You get maybe six or ten people to vote for
amendments like this. In fact, my vote to defund Jordan
(53:10):
got six votes. But this was different. This moment in
time is different because you can't objectively look at what's
happening in Gaza and say that there's no moral hazard
here for American taxpayers. Seventy thousand people have died in
a country of two million people. I mean, it's it's incredible,
(53:30):
it's horrific, and so but the fact that I thought,
let me just say, my own secret number in my
head was people were like, how many votes are you
going to get? I would say dozens, because I thought
I would get twenty four votes and sixty. If I
got sixty, I would have considered it a success. And
one hundred was beyond what I imagined we could get.
(53:53):
But eventually Nancy Pelosi endorsed the amended.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
Now it was shock.
Speaker 8 (53:58):
I can only say that because I lost my prime
like I think part of the reason I lost my primaries, Rotekanach.
But you know, Nancy Pelosi came out for it, the
minority whip came out for it, but the minority leader
(54:18):
came out against it. So it really did split the Democrats.
I think in time, this for the one hundred and
three Democrats and myself who voted not to send this
money to Israel, it's as time goes on, that's going
to be a better and better vote. And the people
that were on the other side of that, including all
of my conference except for me, are going.
Speaker 4 (54:39):
To regret this vote.
Speaker 1 (54:40):
Congress Mcconnach, Yeah, curious for your react. This was a
major intrademocratic war. The House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries, who
voted for you the majority of Whip, who then, of course,
you know, said that they would cut to vote eight.
I'm curious for your reaction here about this split within
the Democratic Caucus. You were an original leader on a
movie meant like this to watch a significant portion of
(55:02):
your Democratic colleagues eventually come to your position. What does
that foretell for the future of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 9 (55:09):
I was joking with Thomas that we had more caucus
meetings discussing his amendment than any Democratic legislation.
Speaker 1 (55:14):
Wow, that's crazy.
Speaker 9 (55:16):
Yeah, like Sunday afternoon calls to discuss the Massi Amendment
and caucus meetings. But this should have been a such
a simple vote. I mean, there are we have to
go beyond this. But obviously we shouldn't be giving them
US tax dollar aid for military weapons. In my view,
we shouldn't be giving them military weapons to be killing civilians,
(55:37):
and we need to be sanctioning the banks and government officials,
or engaged in the settlement and work on recognizing the
Palestinian state. But in my view, you had one hundred
and three folks, and the new Congress you're going to
have even more, and that it's going to become a very,
very small minority eventually that is going to be saying
(55:58):
let's just have a continue to Israel.
Speaker 2 (56:00):
It's pretty wild to see Nancy Pelosi vote for it
and Haiqem Jeffries vote against it, and Pelosi people are
sharing all kinds of clips of her now saying like,
if the capital were to crumble, the one thing that
would remain is our you know, solidarity with Israel. And
now here she is on her way out, She's like, yeah,
we'll vote to defund this, and I think she sees
the writing on the wall. She's a very savvy political
(56:22):
operator of where things are going.
Speaker 3 (56:24):
I cannot, for the life of me, really understand HIKEM.
Speaker 2 (56:26):
Jeffries calculus here, because while there is such a split
in the House Democratic Caucus, there is not a split
among the Democratic base overwhelmingly. You know, it is now
a small minority that want to maintain the status quo
with regard to our relationship with Israel. So you know,
(56:46):
what were those internal conversations like to the extent that
you can share some of the details, because it's just
very hard for me to understand why any cynical politician
would look at this landscape on the Democratic side at
this point and say I want to stay with this
position that has like fifteen percent support among my own
voters at this point.
Speaker 9 (57:06):
Look, people were saying, oh, you're going to cut the
Middle East diplomacy program. I said, by definition, that's probably
one of the programs that should be cut through something you.
Speaker 4 (57:18):
Want to look at.
Speaker 9 (57:19):
Government don't work or something. But beyond that, okay, fine,
you want to have those programs. That was less than
one percent of the AID. And you could have voted
for Massy's bill and then still said an amendment saying well,
we want to keep the program for Middle East pace.
But I do think it's a mistake for anyone who
voted this way.
Speaker 4 (57:40):
Morally but also politically.
Speaker 9 (57:42):
If you look at Claire Veldez, you look at Brad Lander,
you look at Millot, you look at an Alilia, you
look at Adam Amawi, you look at the Platinum before
the scandals, Abdul. The driving line in these issues is
the funding on Israel and Gaza, and the Democrats want
to kind of whitewash that part.
Speaker 4 (58:02):
Oh is oroan or.
Speaker 9 (58:03):
These candidates won because of affordability. They won because they
wanted free childcare, frees the rent or medicare for all.
All that matters, But the first point of the animating
difference that is motivating these candidates and the energy is Israel.
I mean a lot would have been no shot to
be to get to get was good on all the issues.
(58:23):
She was for medicare for all, living wage. Why did
she lose? She lost on this issue?
Speaker 4 (58:29):
Wow?
Speaker 9 (58:29):
And I just think that the political leadership hasn't grappled
with that reality.
Speaker 1 (58:36):
Congressman Matt, Yeah, I was come to you because you
were the only Republican voted for it. I knew you
speak to many of your colleagues. You and I both
know you're not the only person who thinks something like this.
So why do they all, well, like, why do they
still see political utility in supporting Israel?
Speaker 4 (58:50):
Because I just lost my election.
Speaker 8 (58:52):
I mean thirty million dollars and ninety eight percent of
that came from APAK or Republican Jewish Coalition or Miriam Adelson.
It was all the race against me was fueled and
funded by the Israeli lobby, and they made an example
out of me, and it worked. I mean, you're getting
senators who are changing their positions, You're getting House representatives
(59:15):
folks who are just going underground on the Republican side
not saying anything about it. But the one thing I
want to talk about. Two things they're trying to They
realize this.
Speaker 4 (59:24):
Is a political liability, the Israeli lobby.
Speaker 8 (59:26):
So they're trying to take away the transparency of this
money that's being spent, and they're trying to integrate it
into our military budget, so it won't be a line
item that Congress votes on. It'll be inside of one
of these giant military omnibus type programs and we won't
even know because we'll just instead of giving them gift
certificates for Raitheon and Lockheed Martin, will give them the
(59:47):
bombs from Raitheon, and that would developed.
Speaker 4 (59:50):
Them with us right almost integrated.
Speaker 8 (59:52):
Well, that's the second part is that Section two nineteen
of the NDAA is now it's very toxic, and I'm
trying to get a vote on that to strip that
Section two nineteen is I think what Rose was alluding to,
which is integration of our intelligence and military with supply
chains to supply lines and technology with Israel.
Speaker 4 (01:00:16):
It's a country of ten million people.
Speaker 8 (01:00:18):
It's not even like NATO, where they're at least the
third of the size of us, and there might be
some reciprocal arrangement that could help in a world war.
Speaker 4 (01:00:26):
That's not going to help with Israel. Can't help us in.
Speaker 8 (01:00:29):
A war of a scale where our sovereignty is affected.
It's only going to hurt us anyways. I'm trying to
get an amendment in order to strip to nineteen from
the NDAA, and if I can't get that done or
they don't allow us to have that vote, I think
they're jeopardizing the NDAA. That stands for National Defense Authorization Act.
It's one of the most pass pieces of legislation, like
(01:00:52):
a farm bill or a highway bill, that passes every year.
Speaker 2 (01:00:55):
Commerson masse I wanted to ask you some about that
money that was spent against you, and I think you're right.
They definitely wanted to make an example of you. A
lot of that money came from the Israel lobby. They're
now trying to do a similar thing with Abdulah Sayad
in the Michigan primary on the Democratic side. I think
fifty million dollars have come in and again, Ads have
nothing to do with Israel.
Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
They're claiming he's the sexist.
Speaker 2 (01:01:16):
Because he one time mildly criticized Michelle Obama. I mean,
this is the sort of stuff that they're going with here,
and I do wonder, you know, again, from your perspective
as a libertarian, if that changes any of your view
of the ability for democracy to coexist with billionaires, the
impact of money and politics, you know, what are your
views there? Has that shaped your philosophy or thinking about
(01:01:39):
how we handle this flood of money, which is not
just Israel Liab, is big pharma, its big oil, it's
the banks, it's all sorts of interests.
Speaker 4 (01:01:47):
Are you asking that?
Speaker 8 (01:01:48):
Did the ass whipping I took from the billionaires change
my perspective?
Speaker 3 (01:01:52):
I should have asked it that way.
Speaker 4 (01:01:56):
It was a beat.
Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
How are you feeling about billionaires in these days?
Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (01:02:00):
Well, you know, we were able to raise twenty million,
and so we had enough money. It's just they played
dirtier than we were willing to play. They made artificial
intelligence ads that showed me in a three way relationship
with AOC and ilhan Omar, and you know, people fell
for those ads they thought they were real. So again
(01:02:20):
there's another libertarian conundrum that I have in addition to
campaign finance, which I do equate with speech but also
here's another.
Speaker 4 (01:02:27):
Example of speech.
Speaker 8 (01:02:28):
Should they be able to make ai ads and run
them with my image in it? There you have to
think very carefully about the legislative solutions that you don't
make the situation worse. I think I could be okay
with campaign finance. That said, if you're running a congressional race.
Speaker 4 (01:02:46):
Only the money.
Speaker 8 (01:02:47):
The only people who can donate are the people who
can vote in your district. Now, Miriam Madelson may have
moved to Kentucky.
Speaker 1 (01:02:59):
Casino on top of your house.
Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
I think that is interesting because I know in the
past you've pushed for transparency, which I think is an
important first step. But you know, at this point there's
a lot of mass education about who a pack is
and what they are, et cetera. It's not that transparency,
you know, isn't there necessarily. But the problem is that
just when you have so much money, of course it's
(01:03:21):
going to impact outcomes. And we can see it, you know,
in the in this vote from yesterday too. So many
of your colleagues take money from APAC or other similar groups,
so many of the Democratic Caucus. You know, it should
be based on the Democratic base, It should be overwhelming
and not a problem for Democratic congressmen to vote, you know,
for an amendment like that, so you can see the
impact of this money in the legislative process, not just electorally.
Speaker 8 (01:03:42):
Well, ultimately, there was a win in my loss, which
is I knew they would have to spend insane amounts
of money. This is the most expensive congressional primary in
the history of the United States, and I knew that
if they would have to spend insane amounts of money,
and if they did an I law, it would sort
of proved the point that they have too much influence
(01:04:03):
in our own government that the Israeli lobby does. Now
they'll argue these are American citizens or dual citizens who
are donating the money, But I would still say they're
operating on behalf of a foreign country, and so they
are foreign agents. I think they should have to register
as such. But there was a victory in it. It's
really there was a big waking up. I don't think
(01:04:24):
we would have gotten as many votes on my amendment
if people hadn't watched me lose because there was thirty
million dollars of Israeli lobby money poured into a little
Kentucky race.
Speaker 4 (01:04:36):
But yeah, I don't know what the solution is. And
then also on these ai ads.
Speaker 8 (01:04:40):
This fall is going to be the wild West, like
I got a taste of it in my own race,
and you don't.
Speaker 4 (01:04:45):
These weren't online ads.
Speaker 8 (01:04:47):
These were like local you know, Fox Cable affiliates running
these ads, so not a lot of people saw what's happening.
But this November, both parties are going to run the
most ridiculous ai ads. And if you write a piece
of lledge that says you have to put a disclaimer
on there, it doesn't help.
Speaker 4 (01:05:03):
That gives them a safe harbor to do anything. They
could show you.
Speaker 8 (01:05:07):
Doing anything and say, by the way, this was made
with artificial intelligence, and people are still going to believe
it because people watch videos and they don't read the
little stuff at the bottom.
Speaker 1 (01:05:16):
Yeah. My last question for you starting running a bit
short on time is about Senator Mitch McConnell. Do you
believe the proof of life photo and do you there's
a lot of speculation that they're continuing to keep him
in his Senate seat in order to prevent you from
being able to run or in a special primary or
special election in the state.
Speaker 8 (01:05:36):
Your reaction, well, the special term would be less than
six months. Sure, and I'm not interested for that. I
just broke news. I guess to help people.
Speaker 3 (01:05:45):
You did, Yeah, Now they didn't come clean about McConn.
Speaker 1 (01:05:49):
Tell us what's going on.
Speaker 8 (01:05:51):
I mean, I think the public does deserve to see
somebody walk up to a podium and say something. Now,
whether we can believe that this day in a is
also another question. Yeah right, But you know I've said
I'm going to introduce term limit legislation called three strokes,
and you're out because we've seen this in the House.
(01:06:13):
We saw one of our colleagues disappear for four months. No,
by the way, he won his primary and I lost mine.
Maybe that was the answer. He was depressed, right, depressed,
which is a catch all. It could mean, I mean,
what do you do when you're depressed. Maybe you drink,
Maybe you're doing something. I'm not saying that he did.
But and then we had Kay Granger who was basically
(01:06:35):
had dementia and was still a congress person for many months.
Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
One hurt, the one who was in a memory care facility.
Speaker 12 (01:06:42):
Yes, yes, remember that, yes, yes, uh, you know we
had yesterday we marked up a bill in Judiciary called
the National Fossils Act, and I asked him if this
was about senators?
Speaker 1 (01:06:56):
This is what?
Speaker 3 (01:07:01):
Well, that is.
Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Actually my last question. It's kind of for both of you.
I'm you know, we get every time we do an Ama,
we get a question. Do you think that Thomas Massy
and Rokonic could run for president together and have some
bipartisan kumbaya.
Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
I've been skeptical of.
Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
That because I know you guys collaborate on a lot,
but I also know there are a lot of ideological
differences there would be hard to sort out.
Speaker 3 (01:07:19):
But what are you thinking about your future politics?
Speaker 4 (01:07:22):
Still?
Speaker 3 (01:07:22):
In your future senate run, presidential run?
Speaker 2 (01:07:25):
What are the sorts of things that you're podcast all
sorts of things you don't do a lot.
Speaker 4 (01:07:29):
Well, I'm not going to rule anything out, how about that?
Speaker 8 (01:07:33):
But the political terrain right now in Republican primaries is
uphill for me. Yeah, the war and I ran. This
doesn't get reported enough. Is seventy percent popular among Republicans?
Speaker 4 (01:07:45):
Yeah? Still is.
Speaker 8 (01:07:46):
And you know that's in Kentucky where you have Ram
Paul and Thomas Massey. In Oklahoma, where you don't have us,
it's eighty percent popular. According to the polster that I used,
so you know there's still And then you saw the
vote on Israel sending the four or a people. Republicans
say they're conservative, they all want to send money overseas,
but then they have a little asterisk and they say, except,
we'll give Israel as much money as they need, you know,
(01:08:09):
and we'll empty our coffers for that. So that I
do have a few political positions that I think are
going to be right in four.
Speaker 4 (01:08:18):
Years, eight years.
Speaker 8 (01:08:20):
Maybe it only takes two years, but right now I'm
against the grain of where you can win certain races.
So yeah, I'm going to watch for the terrain see
if it changes. Do I eventually get the high ground
or not? But in the meantime, I am just so
happy to have my life back. I should send Miriam
(01:08:41):
Madelson a thank you card.
Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
Sometimes these things work out in a way that you
don't expect. So appreciate both of you guys for coming in.
We've been wanting to have you here. We have role
all the time. We always appreciate your time too, but
to have you both together, you really are sure.
Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
Exit interview before you go, you'll come back here.
Speaker 8 (01:08:58):
Yes, and Roue and I have decided to run against
each other.
Speaker 4 (01:09:04):
I thought you were going to endorse my reelection. You
did that for me.
Speaker 1 (01:09:08):
We see what that happened, Like the Dynamic Duo themselves.
Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
Seriously, Yeah, I'd love for you to come back so
I can fight with you more about libertarianisms.
Speaker 1 (01:09:16):
Okay, yeah, we'll do it.
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com