March 4, 2026 • 19 mins
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held her first press briefing since Operation Epic Fury and was pressed about what the imminent threat was from Iran, that prompted the U.S. Israeli attack. Leavitt repeatedly told reporters that President Trump made his decision based on a “good feeling” that the Iranian regime was going to strike U.S. assets. When pressed, she added that Trump’s feeling was based on fact, and refused to acknowledge the shifting explanations coming from the administration over the past few days: first from the President himself, then from Pete Hegseth, to Marco Rubio, and now from Leavitt.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hey, the folks, it is Wednesday, March fourth, and we
just listened to the first White House press briefing since
the war with Iran started, and a very direct question
was asked, what was the imminent threat from Iran? And
with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
(00:31):
It wasn't the question, Robes. It was the answer that
has everybody already buzzing. And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
The President just felt it, he had a feeling.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
We're not joking, folks, and we're gonna let you hear
it yourself and make your own judgments. But Robes, that
is coming out now. And she said it not just
as a slip. She said it several times.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
She actually doubled down and slightly qualified it. But her
first address, like her first way of phrasing it, was
that the President had a good feeling that the Iranian
regime was going to strike.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
US assets now on its own. How does that sound?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
It sounds bad, It sounds terrible. You don't want anyone,
especially when it comes to making a decision about war,
to make a decision based on a feeling. Now, she
did qualify it later and said it was a feeling
based on fact, and she kept saying that over and
over again. It is one of those moments where you're
(01:29):
if you've ever been to therapy, you always hear your
therapists tell you feelings are not facts, and so it's
interesting she didn't say anything about facts. Initially, she just
said he had a good feeling, and then she started
saying feeling based on facts.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
It would want to try to be very fair here, Robes.
But the problem with this, folks, is that after the
war started, we heard from the President, then the President,
then Hegseeth, then Secretary of Rubio in that came out
and made very big statements press conferences. The answers we
(02:06):
got in those three from those three big deal guys
in this administration didn't necessarily go together. Robes, especially with
Rubio correct.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And it's been described as shifting explanations as to why
we went to war with Iran when we chose to
go to war with them. So it doesn't seem as
though the American people, and frankly members of the media
who were especially in that press briefing room, are comfortable
with the explanation. It hasn't been consistent, it has shifted,
(02:40):
and none of it makes a tremendous amount of intellectual sense.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Okay, so if we even stopped sharp short of the
intellectual part robes, we just take it on what they
have said. It has not been consistent and hot, I
jump on, I say, I jump on, but I'm focused
on Rubio. That was the clearest one because we've been
hearing from Hegseth and the President over the weekend, and
then we hear from him with this, Oh yeah, we
(03:06):
did it because Israel was going to attack, That's what
he said.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
It was jaw dropping when we heard it yesterday. We
jumped on and did an entire episode on it yesterday
because it was such a departure from what we had
heard from President Trump and Pete Hecseth. But what we
had heard from Trump and Heseth didn't really It wasn't
I hate to use the word satisfying, but it wasn't
satisfying to talk about all of the egregious behavior going
(03:35):
back forty seven years ago, talking about hostages, talking about
things I remember from my childhood as a reason to
justify going to war now and just that now we
have a president who has the courage, who has the
actual strength to follow through on his threats versus other
(03:57):
presidents who were weak or even enabled Iran to become
what they've become. But that doesn't that doesn't feel like
it's enough to justify the timing.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
If he would just say, yeah, I am the president,
nobody else had the balls to do this, I do
and I'm doing it, we would go woof okay, But Robes,
that's not just what they did. They came out and
said this reason, this reason, this reason, and this reason.
All of those initial reasons Robes had to do with us,
avenging stuff that happened nearly fifty years ago. He just
(04:33):
laid out, this is everything they've ever done, and that's
why we had to attack. It then started evolving Robes
and it got to Rubio saying we had to do
it because Israel was going to do it, and if
Israel did it, then Iran was going to hit back
and they were going to hit it us. Fine, But
then the president came back and said no, I thought
they were going to attack, and didn't say it was
(04:54):
because of Israel, and then rodes We get this today
from Carolyn Levitt in a press room that was as
pack as you're going to get it. Getting asked questions
from who they would theme adversarial, would they not?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Oh? Yes, And she started off I before she started
talking about President Trump's good feeling, she made a point
because now, yes, she is in the room, unlike Pete Hegsath,
she is in the room with everyone, with members of
the media from all networks, from the middle to the
left to the right. So now she has to feel
(05:28):
questions from the mainstream media. And she said, there has
been a lot of misreporting and intellectual dishonesty from the
American media on why President Trump decided to launch this operation.
So there was even an acknowledgment that there was confusion.
I would say in the nicest way, but she was
(05:49):
actually accusing the media of misrepresenting what the administration was saying.
But the point being the administration was saying different things
from different people and none of it really landed.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
That's not being critical, that's just we are hearing what
we were hearing. It's okay, the message hasn't been consistent.
We're gonna let you hear. Now what Carolyn Levitt said,
do you remember who the reporter, what outlet? I don't
remember what outlet he was from, but it was a
guy who asked a two part question, but one part
of that question, Robes was we've been hearing different things
(06:26):
from different members of the administration about some eminent threat,
but we haven't gotten clarity exactly what was that imminent
threat that caused the President the United States to have
to act? Now? That's a fair question, yes.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I believe it came from a reporter from the Independent.
At least that's what the Independent is saying that our
reporter pressed Carolyn Levitt on her explanation of these varying
explanations about why we went to war. When we went
to war.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Look, we there have been some reporters in that room
that I've taken issue with before and can get a
little sarcae as in a little nasty and get emotional
about it. He was not that. He asked a straight
up question. So that was the question, can you give
us further clarity about what the imminent threat was that
caused the United States and the President on States to
(07:15):
say we have to act now or else? And this
was her answer. It's about two and a half three
minutes long, but it is worth every second of it.
Take a listen to Carolyn.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Leven completely reject the premise of your question, you have
had the President of the United States, the Secretary of War,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice President of
the United States, the Secretary of State, and now I
am out here today to explain to you exactly what
led the President to make the decision to launch Operation
Epic Fury. And President Trump does not make these decisions
(07:47):
in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was
based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that
are on posed to the United States of America, and
the President's feeling based on fact that Iran does pose
an imminent indirect threat to the United States of America,
based on the fact that they are the world's leading
(08:08):
state sponsor of terrorism, based on the fact that they
were rapidly and aggressively building up their ballistic missile program
to give themselves immunity within their country alongside their navy,
so that inside their country they could continue to create
nuclear weapons in nuclear bombs, which would of course pose
(08:29):
a risk to Americans in the region and even Americans
one day here at home. And then another point on
this is the President found that through these extensive, exhaustive
failed negotiations with Iran, that they were hell bent on
death and destruction. So again, the President was not going
to be just another president on a very long list
too sat back and stood by and pass the buck
(08:51):
of this direct threat to the next administration. The President
had a feeling, again based on fact, that Iran was
going to strike the United States, going to strike our
assets in the region, and he made a determination to
launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons.
And I would like the media to actually report on
all of them rather than just picking sound bites from
(09:12):
one person in this administration and saying, oh, they're contradicting
the other person. No, again, these decisions are not made
in a vacuum. They are made by the president's feeling
that Iran was going to strike the United States and
our assets in the region, and he was not going
to sit back and watch that happen. The determination was
made that the President was going to strike first alongside Israel,
(09:32):
and that has obviously been proven to be the right
decision and an effective.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
One at that.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
What does feeling based on fact actually mean? And I
don't because I'm trying to be fair to her and
how she spoke and I want to be fair to
I'm trying to be fair to everybody. Rogue, but we
are just taking what we're being told. And she said
more than once. She could have qualified, she could have stopped.
She didn't have to put it that way. He had
a feeling, you're looking at facts. Why didn't she just say, well,
(10:04):
we had evidence, we were looking at these facts and
it pointed all to this happening. She literally is saying
we're at war because the president was just feeling it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
It is an odd choice of words, not only and look,
I can understand why she might have said it once,
but she doubled down and I lost count how many
times she reiterated feelings based on facts. I'm curious why
she wouldn't have said the President made a decision based
on the information he had. He made a decision based
(10:36):
on the evidence that was in front of him. He
made a decision based on past behavior and their current
refusal to sit down and negotiate in good faith. A
decision is a much stronger word than a f I
don't know why.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
She used that, So should we leave room for her
possibly misspeaking? And this wasn't what she wanted to actually say,
are they going to come back now? Because the headlines
are coming and bill folks are going crazy online about this,
And it wasn't a hard thing to pick up on
the idea what they are people are dying based on
the whims of one man's feelings. Are is the conversation
(11:14):
being had? We are not suggesting that, but Rhodes, is
it possible. I'm trying to leave room for just that
being a clunky way of describing it. But others will say, yeah,
this goes in line for them. Now start a war,
then figure out a way to justify it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
The thing is, I absolutely could give space for that.
But it's just interesting. She kept doubling down on the word,
feeling like she didn't let it go. She kept reusing
that word.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
So it sounds like it was strategic, it was planned.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
It sounds like President Trump gave her that phrase, and
I think he wanted maybe he I can't get inside
his hands, nobody can't.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
We should speculate about thought.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It did seem deliberate, I guess, is my point. It
didn't seem like she misspoke. It didn't seemed like it
was something that just came to her or a word
she chose when she could have chosen ten others. That
was a word that was repeatedly used, and it did
seem deliberate. From just my perspective, it seemed like a choice.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
But there was a lot more that came out of
this press briefing. Excuse me, I shouldn't say a lot more,
but the things that did come out certainly got a
lot of people's attention. Stay here, we'll tell you what
we think was maybe the most important question that was asked,
but it was not answered. And one thing that they
seemed to now Romans be on the same page about
(12:38):
when asked what the objectives are, they seemed to have
that list of four down paths to hear. All right,
we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just finished listening
to the White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levity give the
(12:59):
first press briefing since the war with Iran started. If
you notice, I don't know if you do it too.
I have to slow down because I want to say
war in a rock every time, then rock.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
When I hear you say war with Iran, I actually
breathe a sigh of relief because I think to myself,
if I was the one who was introducing this, I
might say a rock, I always think, oh, thank god,
he said Iran, because my brain immediately goes to a rock.
I was in Cable News when we were at the
War with the Rock, so we said that, that's so
many times for so long that in my brain to
(13:34):
say the war with their rock.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
We literally said that on air for years in cable
that was absolutely something was going. So, yes, we're still
adjusting to this new reality here. They do have now.
I think they have been pretty consistent. At least they
say what are the objectives of this war? That sounds
to be a consistent list at this point. At least
(13:56):
they want to eliminate their ballistic missiles okay, they want
to destroy their naval appabilities, that's two. Okay, they want
to make sure they destroy any path of nuclear weapons.
That's fine, And they want to disrupt their missile and
drone infrastructure for objectives, but robes the most important question.
I don't know who the reporter was on this one either.
(14:17):
He said, Okay, say you reach every single one of
those objectives, which it seems like this all powerful US
freaking military has done pretty quickly or certainly on the
way to let's say you get all of that you want,
you accomplish it, but there's no regime change. Is that
(14:38):
acceptable for the president? That is an important question. Didn't
get an answer no.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
And look when we hear from the president himself saying
that it's up to the Iranian people to figure out
who they want to lead their own country, and you
take out their leader and look, well, this is a
country that is obviously vastly different from our country from
(15:05):
a religious perspective, from a what they've experienced for decades
and decades of this. I don't I don't want to
put a word in front of but certainly they have
been under a very tyrannical regime the Supreme Leader. You
don't have freedoms. This isn't a democracy. This is what
(15:26):
they're used to. This is all they know. And we
expect the people of Iran because there, yes, have been
obviously demonstrations of late, but to just then suddenly have
the wherewithal and the strength and the ability to rise
up and create a whole new type of government, that's
(15:47):
that's impossible.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
I guess it could be done in the next decade
is where we are, But that robes is key. What
if And there's questions, now, Yatola, how many his son
is possibly in line?
Speaker 2 (16:04):
That was the question asked of Carolyn Love is the
front runner?
Speaker 1 (16:08):
And she dodged it. She did like it's a hypothetical,
like they aren't aware. The question is is Trump okay
with this guy or not? It's the Supreme Leader's son
he's taking over. Does that regime change is? Is he
gonna take Aron into a whole different direction? Rogues That
is a question. I cannot wait to hear somebody answer.
You achieve everything on your list, but the regime is
(16:29):
still there? What are you gonna do?
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And you can't look. I can't imagine, just from a
logical perspective, that you'd be willing to go through all
of this risk American lives and actually sacrifice American lives
to not have a plan about what happens after you
achieve your goal. And how could who rules that country
going forward not be a part of your objective? Why
(16:54):
wouldn't that be a part of your objective? Shouldn't that
be a part of your objective if you take out
the leader, the Supreme Leader? And she said today we
heard from Carolyn Levitt. She actually gave a number. She
said we took Actually she said it this way, forty
nine leaders in Iran have been wiped off the face
of the earth. So if we've taken out forty nine
(17:16):
of their leaders and I guess potential successors to the
Supreme Leader, shouldn't we have a plan? Shouldn't that have
been a part of And it doesn't look they might
have one, and they're just not telling us. So they
don't want to show their hand. And I'll give them
that space because that could absolutely be true. But it
(17:36):
is disturbing when you don't have an answer about how
Iran should be governed going forward. Coupled with the fact
that we're hearing now from Carolyn Levitt that the President
made this decision based on a good feeling, all of
this doesn't feel great as an American.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
But do know, folks, right now, the fighting all of
that can continues. We continue to give updates. I don't
know the President's actually has an event this afternoon. Not
sure if he make comments at the top of it
or not. It was an economic form of something around
table he was doing. But this is getting attention. You
heard it for yourselves what she said in the context
in which she said it, so We will see if
(18:17):
they try to clear that one up, if we get
any more answers as to what exactly was the imminent
threat beyond a gut feeling from President Trump. So folks,
we will hop back on anytime news dictates, but we
always appreciate you spending some time with us on TJ.
Holmes along time. My dear Amy Robach, we will talk
to y'all soon
Hey, the folks, it is Wednesday, March fourth, and we
just listened to the first White House press briefing since
the war with Iran started, and a very direct question
was asked, what was the imminent threat from Iran? And
with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ.
(00:31):
It wasn't the question, Robes. It was the answer that
has everybody already buzzing. And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
The President just felt it, he had a feeling.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
We're not joking, folks, and we're gonna let you hear
it yourself and make your own judgments. But Robes, that
is coming out now. And she said it not just
as a slip. She said it several times.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
She actually doubled down and slightly qualified it. But her
first address, like her first way of phrasing it, was
that the President had a good feeling that the Iranian
regime was going to strike.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
US assets now on its own. How does that sound?
Speaker 2 (01:07):
It sounds bad, It sounds terrible. You don't want anyone,
especially when it comes to making a decision about war,
to make a decision based on a feeling. Now, she
did qualify it later and said it was a feeling
based on fact, and she kept saying that over and
over again. It is one of those moments where you're
(01:29):
if you've ever been to therapy, you always hear your
therapists tell you feelings are not facts, and so it's
interesting she didn't say anything about facts. Initially, she just
said he had a good feeling, and then she started
saying feeling based on facts.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
It would want to try to be very fair here, Robes.
But the problem with this, folks, is that after the
war started, we heard from the President, then the President,
then Hegseeth, then Secretary of Rubio in that came out
and made very big statements press conferences. The answers we
(02:06):
got in those three from those three big deal guys
in this administration didn't necessarily go together. Robes, especially with
Rubio correct.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
And it's been described as shifting explanations as to why
we went to war with Iran when we chose to
go to war with them. So it doesn't seem as
though the American people, and frankly members of the media
who were especially in that press briefing room, are comfortable
with the explanation. It hasn't been consistent, it has shifted,
(02:40):
and none of it makes a tremendous amount of intellectual sense.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
Okay, so if we even stopped sharp short of the
intellectual part robes, we just take it on what they
have said. It has not been consistent and hot, I
jump on, I say, I jump on, but I'm focused
on Rubio. That was the clearest one because we've been
hearing from Hegseth and the President over the weekend, and
then we hear from him with this, Oh yeah, we
(03:06):
did it because Israel was going to attack, That's what
he said.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
It was jaw dropping when we heard it yesterday. We
jumped on and did an entire episode on it yesterday
because it was such a departure from what we had
heard from President Trump and Pete Hecseth. But what we
had heard from Trump and Heseth didn't really It wasn't
I hate to use the word satisfying, but it wasn't
satisfying to talk about all of the egregious behavior going
(03:35):
back forty seven years ago, talking about hostages, talking about
things I remember from my childhood as a reason to
justify going to war now and just that now we
have a president who has the courage, who has the
actual strength to follow through on his threats versus other
(03:57):
presidents who were weak or even enabled Iran to become
what they've become. But that doesn't that doesn't feel like
it's enough to justify the timing.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
If he would just say, yeah, I am the president,
nobody else had the balls to do this, I do
and I'm doing it, we would go woof okay, But Robes,
that's not just what they did. They came out and
said this reason, this reason, this reason, and this reason.
All of those initial reasons Robes had to do with us,
avenging stuff that happened nearly fifty years ago. He just
(04:33):
laid out, this is everything they've ever done, and that's
why we had to attack. It then started evolving Robes
and it got to Rubio saying we had to do
it because Israel was going to do it, and if
Israel did it, then Iran was going to hit back
and they were going to hit it us. Fine, But
then the president came back and said no, I thought
they were going to attack, and didn't say it was
(04:54):
because of Israel, and then rodes We get this today
from Carolyn Levitt in a press room that was as
pack as you're going to get it. Getting asked questions
from who they would theme adversarial, would they not?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Oh? Yes, And she started off I before she started
talking about President Trump's good feeling, she made a point
because now, yes, she is in the room, unlike Pete Hegsath,
she is in the room with everyone, with members of
the media from all networks, from the middle to the
left to the right. So now she has to feel
(05:28):
questions from the mainstream media. And she said, there has
been a lot of misreporting and intellectual dishonesty from the
American media on why President Trump decided to launch this operation.
So there was even an acknowledgment that there was confusion.
I would say in the nicest way, but she was
(05:49):
actually accusing the media of misrepresenting what the administration was saying.
But the point being the administration was saying different things
from different people and none of it really landed.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
That's not being critical, that's just we are hearing what
we were hearing. It's okay, the message hasn't been consistent.
We're gonna let you hear. Now what Carolyn Levitt said,
do you remember who the reporter, what outlet? I don't
remember what outlet he was from, but it was a
guy who asked a two part question, but one part
of that question, Robes was we've been hearing different things
(06:26):
from different members of the administration about some eminent threat,
but we haven't gotten clarity exactly what was that imminent
threat that caused the President the United States to have
to act? Now? That's a fair question, yes.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
And I believe it came from a reporter from the Independent.
At least that's what the Independent is saying that our
reporter pressed Carolyn Levitt on her explanation of these varying
explanations about why we went to war. When we went
to war.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Look, we there have been some reporters in that room
that I've taken issue with before and can get a
little sarcae as in a little nasty and get emotional
about it. He was not that. He asked a straight
up question. So that was the question, can you give
us further clarity about what the imminent threat was that
caused the United States and the President on States to
(07:15):
say we have to act now or else? And this
was her answer. It's about two and a half three
minutes long, but it is worth every second of it.
Take a listen to Carolyn.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Leven completely reject the premise of your question, you have
had the President of the United States, the Secretary of War,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice President of
the United States, the Secretary of State, and now I
am out here today to explain to you exactly what
led the President to make the decision to launch Operation
Epic Fury. And President Trump does not make these decisions
(07:47):
in a vacuum. This decision to launch this operation was
based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that
are on posed to the United States of America, and
the President's feeling based on fact that Iran does pose
an imminent indirect threat to the United States of America,
based on the fact that they are the world's leading
(08:08):
state sponsor of terrorism, based on the fact that they
were rapidly and aggressively building up their ballistic missile program
to give themselves immunity within their country alongside their navy,
so that inside their country they could continue to create
nuclear weapons in nuclear bombs, which would of course pose
(08:29):
a risk to Americans in the region and even Americans
one day here at home. And then another point on
this is the President found that through these extensive, exhaustive
failed negotiations with Iran, that they were hell bent on
death and destruction. So again, the President was not going
to be just another president on a very long list
too sat back and stood by and pass the buck
(08:51):
of this direct threat to the next administration. The President
had a feeling, again based on fact, that Iran was
going to strike the United States, going to strike our
assets in the region, and he made a determination to
launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons.
And I would like the media to actually report on
all of them rather than just picking sound bites from
(09:12):
one person in this administration and saying, oh, they're contradicting
the other person. No, again, these decisions are not made
in a vacuum. They are made by the president's feeling
that Iran was going to strike the United States and
our assets in the region, and he was not going
to sit back and watch that happen. The determination was
made that the President was going to strike first alongside Israel,
(09:32):
and that has obviously been proven to be the right
decision and an effective.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
One at that.
Speaker 1 (09:40):
What does feeling based on fact actually mean? And I
don't because I'm trying to be fair to her and
how she spoke and I want to be fair to
I'm trying to be fair to everybody. Rogue, but we
are just taking what we're being told. And she said
more than once. She could have qualified, she could have stopped.
She didn't have to put it that way. He had
a feeling, you're looking at facts. Why didn't she just say, well,
(10:04):
we had evidence, we were looking at these facts and
it pointed all to this happening. She literally is saying
we're at war because the president was just feeling it.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
It is an odd choice of words, not only and look,
I can understand why she might have said it once,
but she doubled down and I lost count how many
times she reiterated feelings based on facts. I'm curious why
she wouldn't have said the President made a decision based
on the information he had. He made a decision based
(10:36):
on the evidence that was in front of him. He
made a decision based on past behavior and their current
refusal to sit down and negotiate in good faith. A
decision is a much stronger word than a f I
don't know why.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
She used that, So should we leave room for her
possibly misspeaking? And this wasn't what she wanted to actually say,
are they going to come back now? Because the headlines
are coming and bill folks are going crazy online about this,
And it wasn't a hard thing to pick up on
the idea what they are people are dying based on
the whims of one man's feelings. Are is the conversation
(11:14):
being had? We are not suggesting that, but Rhodes, is
it possible. I'm trying to leave room for just that
being a clunky way of describing it. But others will say, yeah,
this goes in line for them. Now start a war,
then figure out a way to justify it. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
The thing is, I absolutely could give space for that.
But it's just interesting. She kept doubling down on the word,
feeling like she didn't let it go. She kept reusing
that word.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
So it sounds like it was strategic, it was planned.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
It sounds like President Trump gave her that phrase, and
I think he wanted maybe he I can't get inside
his hands, nobody can't.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
We should speculate about thought.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
It did seem deliberate, I guess, is my point. It
didn't seem like she misspoke. It didn't seemed like it
was something that just came to her or a word
she chose when she could have chosen ten others. That
was a word that was repeatedly used, and it did
seem deliberate. From just my perspective, it seemed like a choice.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
But there was a lot more that came out of
this press briefing. Excuse me, I shouldn't say a lot more,
but the things that did come out certainly got a
lot of people's attention. Stay here, we'll tell you what
we think was maybe the most important question that was asked,
but it was not answered. And one thing that they
seemed to now Romans be on the same page about
(12:38):
when asked what the objectives are, they seemed to have
that list of four down paths to hear. All right,
we continue here on Amy and TJ. Just finished listening
to the White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levity give the
(12:59):
first press briefing since the war with Iran started. If
you notice, I don't know if you do it too.
I have to slow down because I want to say
war in a rock every time, then rock.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
When I hear you say war with Iran, I actually
breathe a sigh of relief because I think to myself,
if I was the one who was introducing this, I
might say a rock, I always think, oh, thank god,
he said Iran, because my brain immediately goes to a rock.
I was in Cable News when we were at the
War with the Rock, so we said that, that's so
many times for so long that in my brain to
(13:34):
say the war with their rock.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
We literally said that on air for years in cable
that was absolutely something was going. So, yes, we're still
adjusting to this new reality here. They do have now.
I think they have been pretty consistent. At least they
say what are the objectives of this war? That sounds
to be a consistent list at this point. At least
(13:56):
they want to eliminate their ballistic missiles okay, they want
to destroy their naval appabilities, that's two. Okay, they want
to make sure they destroy any path of nuclear weapons.
That's fine, And they want to disrupt their missile and
drone infrastructure for objectives, but robes the most important question.
I don't know who the reporter was on this one either.
(14:17):
He said, Okay, say you reach every single one of
those objectives, which it seems like this all powerful US
freaking military has done pretty quickly or certainly on the
way to let's say you get all of that you want,
you accomplish it, but there's no regime change. Is that
(14:38):
acceptable for the president? That is an important question. Didn't
get an answer no.
Speaker 2 (14:43):
And look when we hear from the president himself saying
that it's up to the Iranian people to figure out
who they want to lead their own country, and you
take out their leader and look, well, this is a
country that is obviously vastly different from our country from
(15:05):
a religious perspective, from a what they've experienced for decades
and decades of this. I don't I don't want to
put a word in front of but certainly they have
been under a very tyrannical regime the Supreme Leader. You
don't have freedoms. This isn't a democracy. This is what
(15:26):
they're used to. This is all they know. And we
expect the people of Iran because there, yes, have been
obviously demonstrations of late, but to just then suddenly have
the wherewithal and the strength and the ability to rise
up and create a whole new type of government, that's
(15:47):
that's impossible.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
I guess it could be done in the next decade
is where we are, But that robes is key. What
if And there's questions, now, Yatola, how many his son
is possibly in line?
Speaker 2 (16:04):
That was the question asked of Carolyn Love is the
front runner?
Speaker 1 (16:08):
And she dodged it. She did like it's a hypothetical,
like they aren't aware. The question is is Trump okay
with this guy or not? It's the Supreme Leader's son
he's taking over. Does that regime change is? Is he
gonna take Aron into a whole different direction? Rogues That
is a question. I cannot wait to hear somebody answer.
You achieve everything on your list, but the regime is
(16:29):
still there? What are you gonna do?
Speaker 2 (16:30):
And you can't look. I can't imagine, just from a
logical perspective, that you'd be willing to go through all
of this risk American lives and actually sacrifice American lives
to not have a plan about what happens after you
achieve your goal. And how could who rules that country
going forward not be a part of your objective? Why
(16:54):
wouldn't that be a part of your objective? Shouldn't that
be a part of your objective if you take out
the leader, the Supreme Leader? And she said today we
heard from Carolyn Levitt. She actually gave a number. She
said we took Actually she said it this way, forty
nine leaders in Iran have been wiped off the face
of the earth. So if we've taken out forty nine
(17:16):
of their leaders and I guess potential successors to the
Supreme Leader, shouldn't we have a plan? Shouldn't that have
been a part of And it doesn't look they might
have one, and they're just not telling us. So they
don't want to show their hand. And I'll give them
that space because that could absolutely be true. But it
(17:36):
is disturbing when you don't have an answer about how
Iran should be governed going forward. Coupled with the fact
that we're hearing now from Carolyn Levitt that the President
made this decision based on a good feeling, all of
this doesn't feel great as an American.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
But do know, folks, right now, the fighting all of
that can continues. We continue to give updates. I don't
know the President's actually has an event this afternoon. Not
sure if he make comments at the top of it
or not. It was an economic form of something around
table he was doing. But this is getting attention. You
heard it for yourselves what she said in the context
in which she said it, so We will see if
(18:17):
they try to clear that one up, if we get
any more answers as to what exactly was the imminent
threat beyond a gut feeling from President Trump. So folks,
we will hop back on anytime news dictates, but we
always appreciate you spending some time with us on TJ.
Holmes along time. My dear Amy Robach, we will talk
to y'all soon
Popular Podcasts
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @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.