Karen Read Is Free! But Are We Going To War?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Don't you dare touch that dow or change the channel
because it's Sunday at seven pm on Iheart's WRKO and
you are locked into the Hard Truth with John Daton.
Good evening everyone, I'm John Daton. Remember you can reach
me by contacting the show at John at Hardtruthshow dot com,

(00:23):
John at Haardtruthshow dot com. As you know, I read
your comments. I respond to those comments, even if they're
not so flattering of me. So let's get to the news.
It's been a big week, big week. We are about
to potentially go to war with Iran. That's on the

(00:45):
table as we speak right now. President Trump is basically
considering three different options. We're gonna talk about each one
of those options. We're gonna go over to the history
of Iran. We're gonna really talk about There's even claims
that if President Trump engages in this airstrikes or taking

(01:06):
the lead from Israel and bombing O Ran, that it's
going to fracture the mag of base, that he's going
to lose support. And we're going to talk at all
about that. But there is some other news that has
consumed not just Massachusetts, but the tire United States, and
that is we have a verdict in the Karen Reid trial.

(01:29):
And I get to pat myself on the back a
little bit because I predicted it. Not that that prediction
makes me special, because I think a lot of political
pundits out there agreed with me in predicting a not
guilty verdict. But we have a verdict. It's all over
every newspaper, it's on Dateline, it's on twenty twenty, NBC, ABC,

(01:56):
they're talking about it in LA, they're talking about it
in North Carolina. This care and Reed trial had really
gotten national attention. As you know, there have been two trials.
The first one was a hung jury, and then they
got a new prosecutor and they brought him in and
then they tried a very different case. Even the lead investigator,

(02:17):
Michael Proctor, wasn't called in the second case. And last
week I made a prediction, and I predicted that we
would get a not guilty verdict, probably before tonight's show.
And that's exactly what happened. So isn't the right decision?
Did the jury get it right? What happened to John
O'Keeffe if Karen Reid didn't back into him and leave

(02:41):
him to die? In the snow, What really did happen?
Will there be more litigation in this case? Or is
this the end of it? Rumors are the FBI, for example,
might be investigating the real cause to John O'Keeffe's death.
When I say the real cause, meaning that some people
believe that the jury not only did the right thing

(03:05):
as far as the verdict, but that the verdict is accurate,
meaning that she's not just not guilty, but that Karen
Reid is innocent. And that's where we pick it off.
You got to remember, a not guilty verdict does not
always translate to that the person is innocent. And the
question here is, are there cases where the defendant is

(03:28):
guilty yet the jury comes back not guilty and it's
the right decision? And I'm telling you, as a former
federal prosecutor, as someone who's also been a criminal defense attorney,
that sometimes that is the right decision. I'll give you
an example, and I think that there's parallels. I talked
about it last week with the Karen Reid trial with

(03:52):
the OJ Simpson case. Some of you are too young,
many of you out there listening, remember how America was
consumed by the OJ Simpson case and in that case,
I also predicted. I was actually in law school at
New England School of Law in Boston in nineteen ninety
two when that case was being tried, and I remember

(04:14):
believing two things. I remember believing that OJ Simpson was
one hundred percent guilty, but I also remember believing that
the jury would come back with a not guilty verdict
despite me believing that he was guilty. And I said
something back then some of you may take issue with

(04:36):
I'll say it again. The jury in the OJ Simpson
case got it right. The government didn't prove its case.
And you've got to remember that that's an important requirement
under our system of justice. The government has to prove
the case beyond a reasonable doubt, because our belief is
that you don't put one hundred people in prison and

(05:00):
one of them is innocent and say, oh, well, that's okay.
That's the cost that we're going to put someone in
prison that's innocent one out of a hundred. No, we
want a hundred times to be convinced. Either the government
didn't prove its case and the system worked, or the
government did prove its case and the guilty person goes
to prison or gets life or gets executed if they

(05:23):
live in a state where capital punishment is allowed. So
the jury can get it right based on the evidence.
In O. J. Simpson case, the jury got it right
because there was reasonable doubt because the lead detective, Mark Furman,
took the stand in front of the jury and pleaded
the fifth when he was asked a question, did you

(05:46):
plant the glove? He says, on the vice a council,
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate myself.
So when a jury hears that that, the lead investigator
can't testify whether he planted the glove or didn't plant
the glove, and if he does testify, it's likely to
incriminate him, meaning that he's a line through his teeth,

(06:08):
and therefore it could be convicted on perjury. That is
a basis for reasonable doubt, where it's the glove didn't
fit because the prosecutors dropped the ball and in front
of the jury they had OJ Simpson try on a
glove and it didn't fit. Or the fact that the prosecutor,
the lead detective, i should say, was walking around with

(06:32):
OJ Simpson's blood and a vial in his pocket and
all of a sudden his socks had blood marks, but
the blood marks bled through the socks in completely perfect
meaning there was nothing inside the socks, such as an
ankle that would have prevented a different pattern. No, it

(06:52):
was one hundred percent match pattern, meaning blood was dropped
on the sock and it bled through to the other
side of the sock because there was no ankle in
the side. So in the OJ Simpson case, what we
got was a guy who was likely guilty according to
the jury, but the government had so many problems. The copslied,

(07:14):
they planted evidence, they did all this bad stuff, and
the jury felt uncomfortable coming back with a verdict because
they read what reasonable doubt means and decided that OJ Simpson,
he might be guilty, he probably did it. Well, probably
isn't good enough. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

(07:36):
And so when you have bad actors in the police
department or the detectives who are trying to help the case,
trying to assist the case, trying to make sure there's
a conviction, they actually do more damage. And remember, the
defense put on evidence that countered everything that the government did.

(07:58):
They hired Dnax who said that, yeah, this blood was
tampered with. The prosecutors didn't put in oj Simpson's confession
letter because he said he didn't do it, and they
didn't want the jury to hear that. The Bronco chase,
they didn't put in that evidence where he has a
gun to his head saying he's going to kill himself.

(08:20):
All of that great evidence was excluded because you had
bad attorneys, and you also had bad attorneys in the
Karen Reid case as far as the prosecution and the
government goes, so it was easy for me to predict,
but sometimes the jury can get it right. Because I
know there's many of you out there that believe Karen

(08:40):
Reid is guilty. But let's start with the charge. They
should have never charged this woman with second degree murder.
Second degree murder requires malice, a forethought. It requires the
specific intent that you're going to harm someone, that you're

(09:02):
going to intentionally hit him with your vehicle and then
intentionally drive away, leaving him to die. Right, she was intoxicated.
All of those people were intoxicated, So she shouldn't have
been charged with second degree murder. She should have been

(09:23):
charged with negligent homicide. She should have been charged with
voluntary manslaughter with the option of the jury coming back
with involuntary manslaughter because the evidence, the best evidence they
had against Karen Reid was her saying maybe I hit him. Well,
maybe I hit him is consciousness of guilt, but it

(09:45):
isn't malice of forethought that I did hit him. And
so the prosecutors dropped the ball on this case from
day one. Now what do I think? Why do I
think the jury got it right? Let's just go over
a couple things that I'd have focused on, the defense
attorney focused on, and it worked. You have a dead

(10:08):
cop on the lawn of thirty four of Air Few,
a dead cop, and you have a cop inside Albert
who lives at that house where a fellow dead cop
was found on the lawn, and he doesn't come out,
He doesn't inquire, He just lets it happen. There's people
in his yard screaming, the police are there, ambulance is there,

(10:31):
and he doesn't want to be bothered by it. Why
Why was he showing some kind of evidence on his
body that would show a potential altercation. That's one thing
that doesn't make sense. But also, if a dead cop
is found on the lawn of a home, it makes
sense that that fellow might have been in the house,

(10:54):
the dead cop might have been in the house that
wasn't looked at, no fingerprints were done. And then when
you can hear the fact that the Alberts renovated the
basement where allegedly a fight took place, and sold the
home under asking prices and got away from that house,
it's all suspicious. When they take their phone and they
throw the sim card out and they destroy the phone

(11:16):
and they don't even keep the pictures or any things
like that. That doesn't make sense. When you take the
tail light evidence that wasn't there, and then three weeks
later it is there, even though you had a guy
in the snow who must have missed dozens and dozens
of pieces of tail lights, it makes no sense. A
Google search, a prosecutor who lied, who claimed that holes
made by the criminologists could have been made by the

(11:38):
car and intentionally lies, all of that equals reasonable doubt.
And so the jury got it right. It was an
easy case for me to pick because even if Karen
Reid may have done it, they didn't prove it. And
that's our system and how it works. That's Karen Reid.
Welcome back to the show. Everyone, you listen to The
Hard Truth. I'm John Deaton. I hearts WRKO six eighty am.

(12:03):
At the beginning of the show, I talked about the
fact that we might be at war. That's right. President
Donald Trump is currently deciding which option to take as
it relates to the conflict in Iran. As you all
know today, the airing of this show is day eight
in the Israel attacks of Iran, and Iran has absolutely

(12:29):
decimated from all reports, the Iranian defenses. Iran is now
limited from in the past being able to produce two
hundred missiles per wave to thirty missiles per wave. That's

(12:49):
how much the Israel military has decimated Iran, and the
way they did it is going to be talked about
at the Naval War College and West Point and all
kinds of combat related courses. They infiltrated the highest end

(13:10):
of the Iranian regime. They snuck in drones. Those drones
from inside took out the anti aircraft defense systems that
Iran had in place. So as those drones went up
in the air and they struck down, taking out the
anti aircraft defenses by Iran. Then Israel flew in and

(13:34):
they bombed Iran's nuclear and military sites and from all accounts,
according to Donald Trump, decimated Iranian defense. Iran has been
described by many military experts, including President Trump, as defenseless.

(13:56):
They pulled off one of the most successful military operations
in military warfare history. And this is on the hills.
You might recall of the pager incident where they took
out the highest level of the Hesbellah and Hamas leadership

(14:16):
by infiltrating their pagers that were on their bodies, and
those pagers all were set to explode. They exploded, killing
all the Hamas and hoodies and leadership, or at least
a lot of them. So what Israel has done in
the last several months, you know, notwithstanding all the issues

(14:38):
in Gaza, just the strategic military operations against Hesbelah and
Hamas and Iran has been nothing short of absolutely impressive.
Again from a military perspective, not from a humanitary perspective.
And we got to be educated and able to make

(15:01):
those distinguish. Distinguish those two things. Right, of course, there's
human life. I'm not minimizing the human life that has
been lost. I'm just saying, as someone who served seven
and a half years of active duty in the Marine
Corps that what Israel did was impressive from a military standpoint.

(15:21):
But we're at a crossroads, people, and what President Trump
is or isn't going to do is going to dictate
a lot in my opinion, of how successful and solidified
his presidency is in the next three years, because I

(15:42):
think it's fair to say that one of the biggest
reasons that Donald Trump won not only the electoral College
but the popular vote was because of Americans exhaustion to
foreign wars. We're tired, We're tired of nineteen years of Afghanistan,

(16:07):
decades of a rock. Trillions and trillions and trillions of
dollars have been spent on these foreign wars, these entanglements everywhere,
at the same time that Americans can't afford a home,
at the same time that Americans can't afford groceries. And

(16:29):
so one of the major reasons President Trump won, let's
be real, let's be honest, is because during his first term,
there weren't foreign wars, and he promised that there would
be no new foreign wars with him as president. But
at the same time that he promised those things to

(16:50):
be fair to President Trump, he's always maintained a position
of clarity when it comes to Iran. He has stated
from twenty fifteen until the current day that under no
circumstance will he allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.

(17:13):
And so, according to President Trump, Iran is close or
was close to a nuclear weapon. And that is why Iran, Iraq,
excuse me, Israel Middle East gets a little complicated. Israel
struck Iran the way they did. And I can say

(17:34):
this right now, It's fair to say almost all military
experts agree that Iran is at the weakest it's ever been.
And there is a lot of people out on social
media in the government that says, we need to finish

(17:57):
the job. Let's finish ran off is what a lot
of people are saying, People like Lindsey Graham for example,
Mike Pompeo, a lot of people, a lot of neocons,
as you can imagine, all want President Trump to basically

(18:17):
take out Iran finally and prevent at least for decades,
their ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. And so President
Trump has been offered three options that have been reported
in the media that he is currently considering. Okay, and

(18:41):
here are the three options. One option number one is
that the United States will not engage offensively against Iran,
but will continue to provide intelligence, briefings and refueling of Iraqi.

(19:01):
I'm not Iraqi Israel fighter jets. So obviously Israel is
quite capable, but they don't have the equipment that the
United States have. For example, they don't have B one
and B two stealth bombers that America has. They don't
have what's called the bunker buster bomb, and it is

(19:25):
a bomb that is dropped that destroys internal and bust
any bunkers that are built underground. It is a bomb
that penetrates the earth in a way that other bombs don't.
And Israel doesn't have that capability. And one of the

(19:46):
premire nuclear labs in Iran is underground, and so it
is only going to be America who can penetrate that
underground lab and destroy it. Israel cannot do it without
America doing it for them. But the first option is

(20:09):
just to continue what we're doing, give intel, but also
refuel in the air jets fighter jets that are bombing
Iran that are Israel fighter jets. And of course we
are continuing to defend Israel from incoming cruise missiles that

(20:31):
are launched from Iran into Israel. We are shooting them down.
We will always continue to do that, Okay. Second option
that President Trump has is to do joint strikes, in
other words, to get off the sidelines, get off of
just helping defensively and refueling, but American fighter jets going

(20:56):
up in the skies over Iran and bombing Iran and
side by side with our ally Israel. That's option number two.
Option number three that the President is considering is that
we say to Israel, great job so far, but America

(21:18):
will take it from here. And the third option is
a US led offensive campaign where America takes over. Okay,
for example, option three, we're talking about a US aircraft carrier.
We're talking about submarine cruise missiles coming from the sea.

(21:39):
We're talking about B one and B two bombers, B
fifty two bombers, some of the greatest squadron fighters in
the world from our US military, and we will decimate,
decimate Iran. There is no doubt about it. We will
set Iran. If the President takes option number three, we

(22:03):
will set Iran back for decades. On building a nuclear weapon.
That's option number three. Now with that option number three,
as you can imagine, comes a lot of political consequences
and geopolitical consequences. If President Trump chooses for option three,

(22:26):
will that spark a regional war in the Middle East?
Will this campaign be just a few days where we
drop these bombs and then we bring Iran to its
knees and Iran surrenders and Trump is a hero? Right?
I'm sure that there are some people telling President Trump

(22:48):
that that is in fact what will happen. That's option three. Obviously,
Option two, which is just joining the fight where we
have our B fifty two bombers and we have our
fighter squadrons dropping bombs on Iran in conjunction with Israel. Now,

(23:11):
that will decimate them, but unless we engage in our
bunker buster bombs and really get aggressive, it probably won't
completely wipe out all Iran nuclear capabilities. Okay, And so
when we come back from the break, we're gonna take
a break, We're gonna continue this conversation. Now you understand,

(23:34):
Option number one is just continue to do what we're doing.
Let Israel do all the work, we help them refuel,
we defend them. Option two, we fight next to next,
side by side, to them drop bombs on Iran or
option three, we take it over. Send in your comments
to John at Haartruthshow dot com and I'll read your

(23:56):
comments on the air. When we come back, we'll continue
the conversation. Welcome back to the show. I'm John Deeton,
and you are listening to the Hard Truth. Listen. When
we took the break, we were in a deep discussion
about President Trump's options as it relates to Iran. And

(24:16):
there's a big controversy, or at least some people believe so.
Within the MAGA movement within the Republican Party, there are
many people who are supported President Trump who are saying
that if President Trump engages in war with Iran, they
no longer will support him. That he promised not to

(24:42):
engage in foreign wars, promised not to let Israel basically,
according to them, dictate American foreign policy. Tucker Carlson has
been very outspoken, has criticized President Trump's options related to Iran.

(25:07):
There was a big debate between Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz.
You've got Candice Owens, and you've got you know, comedian
Dave Smith, and all these people out there saying that
President Trump, you were voted in because you were the
president that didn't engage in foreign wars, and if you

(25:27):
do now, you are turning your back on the people
who voted for you. Now that's there's a lot of
debate out there about you know, there's gonna be a
split in MAGA, there's gonna be a split in America. First,
you have Matt Gates is out there, Marjorine Taylor Green
out there from Florida basically saying, don't engage in war

(25:52):
with Iran. Now, I don't know what the President's gonna do.
And when this airs Sunday at seven pm this Sunday,
it is possible that the president has selected which option.
I mean, this is the current position situation. President Trump

(26:15):
claims that he gave Iran sixty days to come to
the table and to surrender any choice of becoming nuclear capable.
They had to accept that they will never be allowed
to have a nuclear weapon, and he gave him sixty days.

(26:38):
And according to President Trump, on the sixty first day,
that's when Israel was given the green light to bomb
Iran because Iran did not come to the table as
President Trump had suggested. And hoped so. Today. President Trump's

(26:58):
position is that Iran must surrender, come to the table.
It's accept that they will never be allowed to have
a nuclear weapon, and if they don't surrender, then America

(27:19):
will devastate Iran. That's basically what's happening now. The Iranian
response by the Ayatola Kumeni, Kate Kameni, whatever however you
say his name, Kameni says that the battle's just beginning
and there's a lot of rhetoric going on. He says

(27:39):
that America is about to experience something that will be
talked about for centuries to come. A lot of rhetoric.
Right that sounds like they're going to drop a bomb
somewhere that Americans are going to be their lives are
going to be lost. He's talking a lot. Now. The
military experts are saying that that's all rhetoric. Iran can't

(28:02):
pull something like that off. But that's where we stand
at the time of filming this show, and I have
to tell you I'm concerned. There's no doubt about it,
because in order to completely devastate Iran the way that

(28:23):
President Trump wants to, I don't think we're talking about
a weekend of bombing. I think we're talking about a
sustained air campaign that will cost a lot of money.
And if Iran is more successful at fighting against America

(28:45):
and Israel than people suggest, then you're looking at a
prolonged war. You're looking at There's been rumors and there's
been thoughts that China is supporting Iran. There have been
shipments a lot of people think in containers that typically
contain weapons from China to Iran. You obviously have putin

(29:10):
his interest from Russia in the region. And look, if
there's a sustained conflict, whether you call it a conflict
or war, then you're looking at oil prices over one
hundred dollars a barrow, and oil at over one hundred
dollars a barrow will cause more than a recession in
the United States because transportation costs are going to skyrocket,

(29:33):
and that means all prices for all goods are going
to skyrocket, and it could cause a depression. And so
that's why I said this decision by President Trump could
very well be, in my opinion, the single biggest decision

(29:54):
of his presidency, both first term and second term, because
if he chooses Option number three and it's not over quickly,
then we're going to pay the price in many ways
pun intended. If it is over quickly and Iran comes

(30:15):
to the table and gives up all their nuclear aspirations,
President Trump will be deemed a hero and that he
did it right. You know. My question is, and I've
been critical out there, is I think we need some
information from the administration. You know, it wasn't that long

(30:36):
ago that we were told that there were weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq and that we needed to go
to Iraq, and that if we took out a rack,
it was going to be great. Things were going to happen.
It was going to cause the Iranian people to rise

(30:56):
up against their leadership, and it was gonna spark freedom
in the Middle East and democracy would flourish well trillions
and trillions of dollars. And twelve years later, we were
still in Iraq and there were no weapons of mass destruction.

(31:18):
And taking out Saddam Hussein did not lead to freedom
across the region. It led to more conflict. In many ways,
it led to more terrorism because you had these scattered groups.
You know, if it's not the hoodies and Hesbalah and Hamas,

(31:40):
you know, it's ices, or it's this group or it's
that group, and so you just had more chaos in
many ways. You certainly didn't have stability in the region.
And so you know, what I hope President Trump does,
and he's the president, not me, is that he takes

(32:01):
his time with this decision and he insists on the
proper intelligence from the region. You know, there's a lot
of conflict on whether or not Iran is close or
not close to a nuclear bomb, because we've been hearing
that Iran is close to a nuclear bomb for quite

(32:26):
a few years. Okay, this isn't something new. Just like
we were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,
biological warfare, chemical warfare, and that if we invaded Iraq
it was to protect America in the future. We were
told all that and it was not true. So there

(32:50):
are so many things writing on this decision by President Trump,
and we need to pray for him, and we need
to do all the things that we have to and
hope that he makes the right decision. So what's the
right decision? Well, according to Lindsey Graham, the right decision
is bomb bomb bomb. According to Ted Cruz, bomb bomb, bomb.

(33:14):
According to billionaires out there like Bill Ackman and others,
that's just bomb them. Let's get it over with. Iran
will never be weaker than they are today. If you
don't take them out today, then later they will come
back and bite us in the butt. Mister President, you

(33:35):
need to do it now. There's no doubt that there
are a lot of people saying that in President Trump's ear,
and there I know what they're saying to him. They're
saying to him, you will be the president that finally
stopped Iran when no other president could do it. Barack
Obama couldn't do it, George W. Bush couldn't do it

(33:56):
right Biden certainly couldn't do it. You, mister president, You,
President Trump, you will be the United States president that
puts the final nail in the coffin as it relates
to Iran achieving nuclear capabilities. And let's all be honest

(34:17):
for a minute. You know, I'm sure that that doesn't
offend President Trump to hear that kind of reverence that
people are bestowing upon him to bomb Iran. But we
have to ask ourselves, right because are we going to

(34:39):
have the moral clarity and the moral authority. You want
to know what I fear could happen. We choose option
number three and decide to aggressively bomb Iran, and we
cause a lot of death, We cause a lot of destruction.
We are deplay a lot of our AMMO and warfare,

(35:04):
and at that point in time, China decides to move
on Taiwan. And what's America going to say, Well, wait
a minute, China, you can't invade a foreign sovereign nation.
You can't stip strike militaristically against Taiwan and they didn't

(35:29):
do anything to you. You understand we could lose that.
And I can tell you one thing is someone who
served in the Marine Corps for seven and a half years.
We are not in a position militaristically to engage in
the Middle East and also engage in the Indo Pacific
against China. We can't do it. Now. You're fooling yourself

(35:52):
if you think America is at that point. But we
will continue this conversation when we come back to the
Hard Truth with John Deaton. We are back. It is
John Deeton and you're listening to the Hard Truth on
Ihearts wrko am. Listen, folks, we've been talking about the
biggest decision of the Trump presidency. Is he going to

(36:14):
take option one, which is just continue what we're doing,
support Israel with intelligence, maybe help them with refueling, and
of course helping shoot down any missiles that come from
Iran to Israel. Or is he going to join the
fight with Israel, send American fighter squadrons to bomb Israel

(36:36):
and decimate all their nuclear operations and plants. Or option three,
will he take over the entire conflict, engage, decimate any
chance Iran has for decades to come. I hope he
doesn't take option number three. Let me be clear, I

(37:00):
think America is obviously already invested, and I believe that
President Trump has made a decision to help. That's my
personal opinion. And let me say this, we have to
get away from anyone who is questioning something that that
means that they're not supporting the cause. I agree that

(37:23):
Iran should not ever have a nuclear weapon, and the
reason I feel that way is that Iran has been
a problem since I've been a child. I remember in
nineteen seventy nine, seventy eight era I was a teenager
ten twelve years old in Iran had taken the hostages

(37:45):
and then Ronald Reagan won the presidency, became the president
in Iran let go of the hostages on the day
of President Reagan's inauguration. That was nineteen eighty. It is
twenty twenty five, okay, So for a half a century,
Iran has been a problem, a thorn in civilization side.

(38:12):
So obviously there's a part of me that believes if
you can take them out as far as their nuclear capabilities,
do it. But my question goes back to how close
are they? President Trump says they're close. Well, guess what.
In March of two thy twenty twenty five, just a

(38:33):
couple months ago, Tauci Gabbert testified before Congress, and she
testified that Iran had given up on their nuclear weapons. Now,
it's true that they've enriched uranium to a degree that
is higher than they need for civilian purposes such as
nuclear power, but Tausi Gabbert said testified under oath as

(39:01):
intelligence director that they were not close to having a
nuclear weapon. And so you know, I supported Israel when
I ran for Congress, for Senate, I stood on the
stage and said, shame on Senator Elizabeth Warren, how she
turned her back on her Jewish constituents, how she turned

(39:22):
her back on Israel, how she would not sit when
the Prime Minister of Israel was addressing the joint session
of Congress, How she wanted to make it about her
and she wouldn't even sit and listen. All right, that
was a f you to her Jewish constituents. Do your job.
We don't get to decide which day we go to
work and which day we don't go to work. So

(39:44):
she should have sat there, did her job. If the
Prime Minister had said something she didn't like or she
disagreed with, she could give a statement and address it afterwards.
That was what leadership does. So I am pro Israel, okay.
But at the same time, we're talking about my country,
talking about, you know, going to war with another country,
we're talking about destabilizing the Middle East. It's okay as

(40:07):
an Americans to ask questions. And I'm not going to
take the word of Benjamin nin Yahoo. Okay, that's just
the way it is. For example, I'm going to play
you something that Benjamin nin Yahoo said, who's the Prime
Minister of Israel on June twelfth, twenty twenty five. Let's

(40:28):
listen and play what he said. If not stopped. Iran
could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.
It could be a year, it could be within a
few months. He said, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon
within a year or a few months. That was two
weeks ago by the Prime minister. Is this the first

(40:51):
time he said it? Let me play you something else.
They have the wherewithal the stored up preserved knowledge to
make a bomb very quickly if they wanted to do it.
That was twenty and eighteen when he said they can
make a nuclear bomb very quickly, but we're not done yet.

(41:12):
That was twenty eighteen. Now let's go to twenty fifteen.
The run is so dangerous. Weeks away from having the
fissile material for an entire arsenal of nuclear bombs. Okay.
In twenty fifteen, the Prime Minister Israel said that they
were weeks away from not just a nuclear bomb, but

(41:35):
a nuclear arsenal, an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Okay. That
was twenty fifteen. That is ten years ago. Now let's
go back even further. We're in two thy and twelve,
and this is what Benjamin n Yahu said. They're very close.

(41:56):
They're six months away from being about ninety percent of
having the rich uranium for an Adam Bob six months
away in two thy and twelve from a nuclear bomb.
Let's go back even further. What did he say in
two thousand and six, Iiran is gearing up to have
to produce twenty five bombs atomic bombs a year, two

(42:17):
hundred and fifty bombs in a decade. In two thousand
and six, they could do twenty five bombs nuclear bombs.
That was two that's twenty years ago. Twenty years ago.
Benjaminin Yahoo was saying what he just said a couple
of weeks ago, Ladies and gentlemen, We're gonna go even
further back. We're gonna go to nineteen ninety six. And

(42:41):
this is what the Prime Minister of Israel said in
nineteen ninety six about Iran. Ladies and gentlemen, Time is
running out. Time is running out. In nineteen ninety six,
nineteen ninety five, Iran will be capable of producing a
lobe without anything nuclear bombs within three to five years.

(43:03):
In nineteen ninety five, they were just, you know, a
very short period of time away from producing a nuclear bomb. Now, listen,
I played you with those clips because this is the
same guy that told the United States that Saddam Hussein
had weapons of mass destruction and that we need it

(43:27):
to go into Iraq. So I'm hoping that President Trump
sets the Prime Minister of Israel's side for a second,
relies on American intelligence, and decides and realizes that the
American people are exhausted. This is not a situation where

(43:51):
we can just drop a bomb and walk away. What
happens after we dropped that bomb. How many bombs do
we have to drop thereafter? What happens if Vladimir Putin decides,
you know something, America has supplied Ukraine with weapons to

(44:17):
kill Russians, and you've had people like Mitch McConnell, who
was at the time the Speaker of the House, I
mean the Senate Majority leader, I should say Mitch McConnell's
Senate Majority leader, who said that he didn't see a
problem with America supplying weapons to Ukraine, so that Ukraine

(44:42):
can then use those weapons against America's enemy and we
don't have to do it, and that Ukraine during the
war is going to deplete the Russian ammunitions, and since
they're depleting our enemies ammunition, that's a good thing. Well,
what if Vladimir Putin decides to take a similar approach

(45:07):
and says, you know what, Iran deserves to fight back,
and starts supplying Iran with weapons that can be used
against not just Israel, but American bases and attack bases
in you know, Iraq or other areas in the region.

(45:29):
What if that happens. What if China decides, who's already
said Israel was wrong for doing what they're doing and
attacking and invading Iraq, Iran? What if China decides, Remember
earlier I said there's been these suspicious containers shipped from
China to Iran that some people think is weaponsry. You

(45:54):
know what if our enemies, our competitors, decide to simply
do the same aim approach that America has done against
them and gets involved in this war. So it is
the single biggest decision of the Trump presidency. I believe

(46:15):
this decision will dictate whether President Trump has a successful
presidency or an unsuccessful presidency. That is how significant of
a decision this is. Let's hope that it's not Option three.
I don't think it needs to be. Arguably, Donald Trump

(46:38):
has handled this situation very well so far. I always
told you, if someone deserves flowers, I'm going to give
him his or her flowers. And so President Trump has
let Israel do all the heavy lifting, and we can
certainly defend Israel as we should. We can continue to

(46:58):
do that, and maybe we can assist Israel in a
little bit more of a way and still be able
to say we're not actively engaging anymore produce a weapon.
All right, we've had enough to listen to Prime Minister
min Yahoo. He wants to keep saying that Iran is

(47:20):
days away from a nuclear bomb. So listen. Next time
I talk to you on the show, We're going to
find out what decision President Trump decided to do. I'm
hoping he takes the middle approach and doesn't engage in
a full out of thought because I think it's not
going to happen quickly and we could be involved in

(47:42):
another prolonged conflict. I think it would upset his economic
agenda because of the impact it would have on the economy.
But again, you can reach me at John at Hard
Truthshow dot com. See you next week.