December 6, 2025 • 45 mins
A listener asks a sharp question: can a president really mail out $2,000 “tariff dividends”? We break the promise down to its bolts—tariffs as taxes that raise consumer prices, Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, and a pending Supreme Court ruling that could fence off unilateral tariff moves until mid-2026. The math looks simple onstage, but it falls apart under constitutional law, budget rules, and basic economics.
From there, we widen the lens to a country that feels exhausted yet salvageable. We talk about the difference between spectacle and substance, why America reads as mismanaged rather than doomed, and how citizens can stop rewarding performance over competence. That same insistence on clarity anchors our plain-language guide to war crimes: deliberate killing of civilians, torture, starvation of populations, and other prohibited acts are not “fog of war,” they are illegal choices. After Nuremberg, “just following orders” doesn’t wash.
Recent headlines make the stakes real. Lawmakers privately viewed footage of a second strike on a disabled boat in the Caribbean, raising the question: was this lawful force or an illegal killing of men no longer able to fight? We examine the Pentagon’s law-of-war standards, command accountability, and why bipartisan scrutiny here is so rare. We also unpack the Supreme Court’s decision allowing Texas to use a contested congressional map, the majority’s presumption of legislative good faith, and a broader wave of gerrymanders shaping who gets a voice before a single vote is cast.
The throughline is simple and hard: truth over branding. Whether it’s circular “dividends,” euphemisms for unlawful force, or maps that pre-decide elections, the cure is the same—citizens who know the rules and insist they apply up the chain. If this conversation resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review with the moment that made you think. Your notes help more people find smart, untribal media.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_04 (01:33):
Welcome to the Darrow McClain Show.
I'm your host, Darrow McLean,independent media that won't
reinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're going to start off theshow like we started off last
time with a show question from alongtime listener.
This is coming from Gene.
The question is morning, sincethe Supreme Court ruling on the
legitimacy of Trump's tariffsmay not be announced until June
(01:55):
of 2026, how likely can hisadministration issue dividend
checks for$2,000, as hecontinues to say.
So thank you for the amazingquestion.
I always like to start off theshow with something that I was
not planning to talk about,something that you guys asked me
to talk about.
So let me put it to you likethis.
The Supreme Court, as you said,is not expected to rule on the
(02:19):
case of 2026.
So the translation is anaggressive tariff restructuring
is sitting on the launch padwith the do not fly sticker on
it.
Why?
Because if Trump actually wantsto use the tariff residue as a
justification for$2,000dividends, the entire plan is
actually chained to theconstitutionality of that
(02:39):
question.
If the court is saying thepresident can't unilaterally
impose broad national tariffsabout Congress, then the whole
dividend check thing is adaydream, and that daydream
evaporates like a hot mist inthe hot, hot Virginia morning.
So number two, could he stilltry to issue the checks anyway?
(03:00):
Technically, he could proposeanything, he could promise
anything, he could even brandit, package it, reshare it, and
market it like a stadium tour.
But sending actual money out ofthe US Treasury requires one of
two things A, an act ofCongress.
Congress must authorizespending, period.
No workaround, no magic wand.
(03:23):
Tariff revenue does not give theexecutive branch a unilateral
spending power.
B Emergency powers, unlikely andlegally fragile.
He could do it if he would tryto claim some kind of economic
emergency to redirect toredirect revenue.
So sure, in that scenario, couldthe court smack it down within
(03:44):
days?
Absolutely.
Every court from every districtto appeal it would sprint toward
that case, like it was back, uh,you know, this uh we were going
back to Black Friday again, andthey would love to slap down a
president.
Now, here's a third thing.
The big problem is tariffs don'twork like a piggy bank.
(04:05):
This is where the politicalmarketing gets kind of sketchy
and sometimes cute.
Tariffs are not a part of goldthe presidents get to hand out.
Tariffs are taxes on imports,and the cost hits Americans'
consumers, and that's economicsone-on-one.
So if the president says we'llsend every American$2,000 from
(04:25):
tax revenue, what the presidentis actually saying is we'll tax
purchases and imports raiseconsumer prices, then recycle
that money back to the peoplethat and and we'll just call it
a dividend.
It's circular economics with apatriotic bow just wrapped on
top of it.
Now the real barrier, uh, whichis this problem number four, is
(04:47):
the House of Representatives.
Even if Trump won, he needs acooperative Congress.
If Democrats control the House,even a slice of Republicans
resist it, if Thistle Hawkstarts sweating, then the checks
die in committee before anyonecan even spell the word
dividend.
Here's a fifth political uhpoint, which is the political
(05:08):
reality check.
And this is the part of the showwhere you, you know, I I let it
lean in and so the listeners canhear it.
Presidents don't cut checks,Congress do.
And no president, red or blue,gets to send out a die without
legislators signing on thedotted line.
This$2,000 idea, it's a campaignpromise, it's a political
(05:29):
fantasy, it's a soundbiteengineer to go to TikTok live.
But as a governing policy, ithas a structural integrity of a
wet cardboard.
Number six, most likely tohappen, and here's the clean
cut, honest, put it on a t-shirtsummary.
Could Trump propose a 2,000 uhtariff dividend?
Yes.
(05:49):
Could he send the checks withoutCongress?
No.
Would the pending Supreme Courtcase block the mechanism he's
needed?
Absolutely.
Is June 2026 too late to build alegal foundation for those
checks early in the term?
100%.
This is more campaigningmessaging than it is a fiscal
reality.
(06:10):
So, no, in my opinion, thepresident is not mailing out
tariff dividends in early 2025or in early 2026 without a
miracle of a supermajority and aSupreme Court's blessing.
So the bottom line is thisDonald Trump can promise a
tariff dividend, but he can'tprint one.
Not without Congress, notwithout the Supreme Court case
(06:31):
handing over the plan, and notwithout economics yelling, Are
you serious in the background?
Tariffs aren't magic money, theyare taxes, and checks don't go
out until Congress signs thereceipt.
Thank you for the question.
Here's our daily take.
America wakes up every morninglike a hungover empire
(06:52):
pretending it merely had a latenight.
The Republic creaks, thecitizens scroll, and the
politicians, those actors whoforgot they in a play step onto
the stage to deliver lines thatthey didn't write and they don't
understand.
We keep existing, we're a nationof rugged individuals, yet we
panic at the Wi-Fi buffers formore than four seconds.
(07:13):
We worship freedom while beggingsomeone to tell us what to
think, and we talk endlesslyabout the founders as if they
were sacred script they handedus rather than a messy first
draft written by men whodisagree with each other more
than we disagree with ourcousins and uncles at
Thanksgiving.
(07:34):
Meanwhile, the great Americanpastime isn't baseball.
It's actually blaming the wrongperson.
If something breaks, we blamethe poor.
If something explodes, we blamethe foreigner.
If something rots, we blame theyouth.
Never the powerful, of course.
The powerful remain as innocentas newborn lambs, provided the
lamb was born in a lobbyistoffice and they already knew how
(07:56):
to foul pack paperwork.
And yet, despite all thenonsense, all the cheap
theatrics, all the moralbankruptcy we've dressed up as
news cycles, this country stillcontains a dangerous number of
people who can think, people whocan tell the difference between
spectacle and substance, peoplewho refuse to bow before the
(08:16):
cult of incompetencemasquerading as leadership.
That's what keeps the wholething from collapsing.
Just enough stubborn souls whowon't let mediocrity become a
national religion.
So here's today's take.
America isn't dying.
It's simply being managed badly.
(08:37):
And yet, the only cure for badmanagement is citizens who stop
making clowns for kings.
Wake up, pay attention, anddon't let anyone gaslight you
into believing the circus is thecathedral.
This republic isn't doomed.
It's just overdue for housecleaning.
(08:57):
What is a war crime?
Ladies and gentlemen, every nowand then the world focuses us to
revisit a supposedly agreed uponrule.
In the lines that we swore weretoo sacred to cross.
And in the chaos of bombs andbullets and speeches, we have to
pause for a moment and ask asimple, but I think important
(09:21):
and devastating question.
What is a war crime?
Now, on paper, it's easy.
A war crime is any deliberateact in conflict that breaks the
laws of war.
The Geneva Conventions, theHague, the whole body of
international agreementshumanity drafted to keep warfare
from sliding all the way backinto barbarism.
(09:44):
But we have to break this downinto plain English.
A war crime is when you killpeople you weren't supposed to
kill.
Is when you torture the peopleyou already captured.
It's when you starve apopulation because it's easier
than fighting an army.
It's when you treat human beingslike trash because the
battlefield gave you an excuse.
(10:05):
Bombing civilians.
War crime.
Torturing prisoners.
War crime.
Using chemical weapons, warcrime.
Turning women and children intobargaining chips?
War crime.
These aren't accidents of war.
These are tragic necessities.
These are illegal choices madeby leaders and carried out by
(10:28):
soldiers that spit right in theface of the laws that we claim
to live by.
You see, war has rules, notbecause war is moral, but
because unchecked violenceeventually gets to eat the
entire world.
After Nuremberg, humanity stoodup and said, We will not let a I
was following orders be a shieldfor cruelty, evergreen.
(11:06):
That power excuses wickedness.
And history has shown us againand again that wickedness in
uniform is still wickedness.
Now here is the uncomfortabletruth.
It's not something othercountries do.
(11:27):
Every nation with guns andgrievances have been attempted
to do this very act.
Some have crossed the line, somepretend they didn't, some
rewrite the story afterward.
But the law doesn't care aboutyour flag.
The law doesn't salute youranthem.
(11:50):
The law cares about civilians,the wounded, the captured, the
people with the least powercaught over the boots of the
people with the most power.
And that's why we talk aboutthis on this show.
Because if you want a worldwhere accountability means
something, if you want amilitary that stands for more
(12:11):
than might, if you want acountry that honors its own
constitution instead of abusingit, then you have to understand
the gravity of the phrase warcrime.
It's not political, it's notpartisan, it's not negotiable,
it's the line where humanitydraws its final boundary and
says, Beyond this particularline, we will not go.
(12:36):
Back with more in a moment.
SPEAKER_02 (14:51):
Let me be clear: there was no new tip.
There was no new witness.
Just good, diligent policemanled investigators to him.
SPEAKER_08 (14:59):
Also, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court
to side with Texas Republicans.
The lower court found that a newcongressional man probably
discriminated by race.
What reasons did the court giveto set that aside?
Stay with us.
We'll give you the news you needto start your day.
SPEAKER_06 (15:16):
This message comes from BetterHelp.
The holidays are a time oftraditions, like making your
grandmother's pudding recipe orwatching that movie you've seen
a thousand times.
Incorporating therapy into yourlife can help you take time for
yourself during what can be ajoyful but sometimes tough time
of year.
And by caring for yourself, youcan show up more for the
important moments.
This December, start a newtradition by taking care of you.
(15:36):
Visit betterhelp.com slash NPRfor 10% off.
Support for NPR and thefollowing message come from
Warby Parker, the one stop shopfor all your vision needs.
They offer expertly craftedprescription eyewear, plus
contacts, eye exams, and more.
For everything you need to see,visit your nearest Warby Parker
store or head to WarbyParker.com.
This message comes from VCU.
(15:57):
What makes Virginia CommonwealthUniversity so uncommon?
As a top ranked public researchuniversity, VCU is a respected
powerhouse of innovation andcreative problem solving.
With more than 240 programs, VCUoffers real world opportunities,
including internships atRichmond's Fortune 500
companies, making it auniversity unlike any other.
Learn more at VCU.edu.
SPEAKER_08 (16:16):
Members of Congress have now seen a video showing
the second UN strike on a boatin the Caribbean.
Democrats and Republicansinterpreted it differently, but
a few things became clear.
SPEAKER_09 (16:24):
Democrats said they were disturbed by the second hit
on a boat allegedly carryingdrugs and killing two men after
the boat was disabled.
Republicans said the strike wasjustified because the two
survivors of the first strikemight have continued on to their
destination.
Republicans said the survivorswere quoteful boat.
SPEAKER_08 (16:46):
That is one of two big stories focused on the
Pentagon and NPR Pentagoncorrespondent.
Good morning.
Thanks, Dave.
Okay, so let's get this otherstory out of the way first.
An inspector general report isnow public about Defense
Secretary Pete Hegsmith sharinginformation about an attack on
the signal texting app.
What did you learn by readingthe report?
SPEAKER_03 (17:02):
Well, it said that uh two to four hours before the
airstrikes of American F-18pilot.
Secretary Heggseth, he wasgetting a classified briefing
from General Eric Carilla aboutthe upcoming attacks on Houthi
rebels.
A lot of detail about the numberof planes, the targets, the
timing.
And while Heggsmith was gettingthis, he was sharing it on a
signal chat with other officialsand on another chat with his
wife, his brother, and hislawyer.
None of those three had securityclearances, and all of this was
(17:25):
secret information, the reportsaid.
SPEAKER_08 (17:26):
And let's just disclose as we do that NPR CEO,
Katherine Maher, also chairs theboard of the Signal Foundation,
uh, which has a subsidiary thatmakes this map.
But what has been the reactionof the Inspector General?
SPEAKER_03 (17:35):
Well, Secretary Higgs uh spokesman said the IG
report exonerates him.
That is not true.
Nothing in the 76 pages saysanything close to that.
It does say that the Pentagonshould be aware of proper
procedures and the handling ofclassified information.
It only states fanatic speed,not what should happen next.
SPEAKER_08 (17:51):
All right.
So let's now talk about thissecond strike on the boat in the
Caribbean.
What are lawmakers saying, andwhat are you learning now that
they have seen this video andalso heard from the commander
involved?
SPEAKER_03 (18:00):
Well, Admiral Mitchell Bradley, the top
commander overseeing Central andSouth America, appeared behind
closed doors to explain whathappened.
Lawmakers said he defended thatsecond missile strike, saying
basically the survivors of theinitial strike were still kind
of being active, uh, uh tryingto reach their comrades by
radio, trying to corral drugs onthe boat that was nearly
destroyed.
So Bradley again ordered thesecond missile strike to kill
(18:21):
them, and then two more to sinkthe boat.
Secretary Heggs has said he wasonly there for the first missile
strike on the boat and didn'tsee the others he had meetings,
he said.
Now, lawmakers are asking, youknow, did the second missile
strike result in an illegalkilling, a war crime?
Because Steve, the Pentagon'slaw of war manual lays out what
is an illegal order that noservice member has to obey.
And the manual has this example.
(18:56):
I don't think there is.
Uh, Senator Tom Cotton saidthese guys, the two survivors,
are trying to uh flip over thiscapsized boat.
Congressman Adam Smith andothers said, listen, they were
just shirtless guys, and notmuch of this boat was above
water.
So that's why it's important, Ithink, for the public to see
this video.
It shouldn't be released.
And Mr.
Mm Bumman, thanks so much.
You're welcome.
SPEAKER_09 (19:20):
The night before a mob of President Trump's
supporter stormed the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th, 2021,somebody placed two pipe bombs
outside the Republican andDemocratic National Party
headquarters in the witch nearBummy.
SPEAKER_08 (19:31):
For almost five years, the FBI tried to find the
culprit that came up empty untilThursday when the Justice
Department announced thatfederal agents had arrested a
30-year-old man suspected ofplanting those devices.
SPEAKER_09 (19:42):
So, what can you tell us about this person who's
now in custody and what's hecharged with?
SPEAKER_07 (19:45):
Well, his name is Ronnie Cole Jr.
He is, as you guys mentioned, 30years old.
He was arrested in Woodbridge,Virginia, which is about 20 or
someone else south of DC.
Court papers say that he livedthere with his mom and that he
worked in the office of a bailbond in North Virginia.
Now, as for the charges, he'scharged with transporting an
explosive device with intent tokill, as well as attempted
malicious destruction with uhexplosive materials.
Those are the charges as of thismorning, but officials said
(20:06):
yesterday that this is stillvery much an active
investigation, and prosecutorscould put more charges down.
SPEAKER_09 (20:10):
So for almost five years, the FBI's been trying to
find the person who plantedthese bombs that officials say
yesterday what after all thistime led them to call.
SPEAKER_07 (20:16):
This has been a massive investigation to try to
solve this mystery over theyears.
And remember, these bike bombsdidn't go off on January 6th,
but they did draw police awayfrom the capital that day that
they provided restored thebuilding.
Now, officials said yesterday itwasn't a new tip that broke this
case open.
Uh, here's Attorney General PanBody speaking to reports
yesterday.
SPEAKER_02 (20:30):
Let me be clear.
There was no new tip, there wasno new witness, just good,
diligent police work andprosecutorial work.
SPEAKER_07 (20:38):
The FBI George Council tells that the Bureau
brought in a new team ofinvestigators and experts to
re-examine all of the evidencethat the FBI had collected over
the past uh four plus years.
And that new team tipped intoall of the data and tells that
that's what led to newinvestigative leads, including
the critical forensic leadsthat, um, and ultimately the
road led to coal.
What evidence do the prosecutorshave that allegedly tied coal to
these pipe bombs?
Well, then an FBI affidavit saysthat records of financial
(20:59):
transactions show that coal bombitems that were the same as the
components used to build thepipe bombs that were found.
So galvanized pipes, um, endcaps used to close the ends of
the pipe bombs, steel wall, thesame kind of white kitchen
timers and red black electricalwires.
There's also cell phone locationdata that shows that Cole's cell
phone was taking cell towers inthe area where the pipe bombs
were left on the night that theywere placed there.
And then the affidavit says thata licensed pipe leader picked up
(21:19):
Cole's car getting off theinterstate near the Capitol on
the evening of January 5th, justa half hour or so before the
bombs were put in place.
SPEAKER_09 (21:26):
People don't remember there have been a lot
of conspiracy theories aboutthese pipe bombs.
Who left them now that thesuspect is in custody?
Do we know anything about themotive or whether these bombs
were connected to the attack onthe Capitol?
SPEAKER_07 (21:38):
Well, those really are the million-dollar
questions, and unfortunately,no, at this point, we don't know
the answers to those.
Ironically, one of theconspiracy theories that was out
there, that the pipe bombs wereinside job by the FBI, that was
pushed by Dan Bongino when hewas a podcaster.
Dan Bongino is now the deputydirector of the FBI, and he got
a lot of credit yesterday forthis arrest.
Now, Cole is expected to appearin court here in D.C.
later today.
Um, and answers to a lot ofthese outstanding questions are
(21:58):
most likely to come in courtover the weeks and months to
come as the as the JusticeDepartment prosecutes in this
case.
SPEAKER_08 (22:10):
Okay, the Supreme Court has given President Trump
and the Republican Party a boostin their fight to skew the
results of congressionalelections.
SPEAKER_09 (22:23):
The court turned aside a lower court ruling that
found a likelihood that this newmap is racially discriminatory.
SPEAKER_08 (22:33):
Good morning, Steve.
Okay, so what one is the lowercourt ruling that the Supreme
Court says doesn't apply.
They pause.
SPEAKER_05 (22:40):
Well, this was a three-judge panel that the
majority ruling written by ajudge nominated by the
presidential Supreme Court hasput a pause on this order.
And this order by the lowercourt found that this
congressional map Texas passedback in August is likely
unconstitutional because itdiscriminates against voters
based on race.
This lower court ruling sent ina letter that the Justice
Department wrote to Texasofficials and multiple public
statements by key Republicanstate lawmakers involved in
developing the map.
(23:00):
And I'll suggest Texas lawmakerspass this map to eliminate
existing districts in Texaswhere black and Latino voters
together make up the majority.
SPEAKER_08 (23:06):
Well, that's interesting.
Uh, why then did the SupremeCourt say, no, you're wrong?
Uh go ahead and use the map.
SPEAKER_05 (23:12):
Well, a majority of conservative justices on the
Supreme Court basically sidedwith Texas state lawmakers,
which said they were notmotivated by race and were
driven instead to draw newdistricts and more likely to
elect Republicans.
The court's majority wrote thatthe lower court ruling, quote,
failed to honor the presumption.
Of legislative good faith.
And the majority also said thelower court, quote, improperly
inserted itself into Texas'sprimary campaign by releasing
(23:32):
its ruling last month in themiddle of a candidate filing
period.
SPEAKER_08 (23:35):
I was reading the rather short uh ruling on this
rather short opinion, and I amfascinated by that idea that the
court should have presumed thatthe Texas legislature did not
mean to do it.
That that should be thepresumption going in.
Was there any dissent in this?
SPEAKER_05 (23:47):
Yes, the court's three liberal justices
dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote theirdissenting opinion and said that
the court's majority decision toallow Texas to use this map for
next year's midterms, quote,ensures that many Texas
citizens, for no good reason,will be placed in like 12
districts because of their race,and that violates the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_08 (24:03):
I was interested also that the court ruling
acknowledged the broader contexthere and said this is now spread
to be a redistricting fight instate after state after state
across the country.
Where do things stand?
SPEAKER_05 (24:11):
There's a lot going on, but let's start with
California.
Voters in that state approvedthe Democratic friendly
congressional map last monththat countered the Texas map
that President Trump pushedforward to help Republicans and
the Supreme Court is nowallowing.
And this month the federal courtis holding a hearing on whether
to block California's map forthe midterms.
Last week a different federalcourt ruled to allow North
Carolina to use a newRepublican-friendly map.
Missouri's Republican friendlymap is still facing lawsuits and
(24:31):
a referendum effort.
And I'm keeping watch forpotential new maps coming out of
Florida, Indiana, New York, andVirginia.
SPEAKER_08 (24:38):
Is the Supreme Court done with this topic?
SPEAKER_05 (24:39):
No, there's a major voting rights case I'm also
watching about Louisiana'scongressional map.
The Supreme Court may rule onthat very soon, and depending on
what and when the court decidesin that case, there may be
another wave of congressionalgerrymandering, particularly in
southern states.
SPEAKER_08 (24:53):
MPR's Antilo Wong, thanks for the update.
You're welcome, Steve.
SPEAKER_04 (24:59):
And then those who um make peaceful, peaceful
transitions of power thatdifficult, uh, we will force
violent violent changes of powerinevitable.
I am paraphrasing John F.
Kennedy, who said though saidsomething similar.
(25:22):
Um let's let's go to this uh Imean I may do a whole show about
this uh scandal in voting, whichkind of gives the game away that
voting is not a right that isnot uh filtered and fettered by
the people in power.
And this is not anything new,it's just uh sh giving the game
(25:42):
away that voters don't pick thepoliticians, politicians pick
the voters.
And now we can play this gamelike we we it's a
Democrat-Republican thing, butthis is more about a politicians
in power not wanting to be heldaccountable thing, and using
partisan politics to cover theshield around their asses
(26:03):
because they're incompetentpieces of shit.
But we'll get to that on adifferent day.
Because I have to talk about thePete Hexy scandal and a modern
test case.
Now, according to multiplereports, multiple reports,
intelligence leaks andstatements coming from Captain
Hill, the intelligence leaks andstatements are saying that
(26:30):
during a military engagement, anorder was issued or approved and
authorized a second strike on analready ship-wrecked budget of
sailors.
We call it a double tap, astrike on men no longer in
combat, a strike on individualswho under international law are
protected persons.
(26:51):
Now, this isn't a mistake, thisisn't the fog of war, this is an
act of the Secretary of Warwould have been forced to answer
for for the highest levels.
But today, everything getsfiltered through bureaucratic
blender of the defenseapparatus, words come out of the
other side as protocoldeviations, investigative
(27:15):
inquiries, operationaldecisions, or preliminary
assessments.
The clarity disappears, the morequestions become legally
puzzled, the legal puzzlebecomes a political football,
and truth becomes a hostage andan inconvenience.
But something unusual ishappening.
(27:36):
Even the Senate Republicans andDemocrats seems unwilling to let
this one pass.
They demanded documents, they'veopened inquiries, they promised
vigorous oversight, a phraserarely used unless something
serious has happened.
It's the closest America hascome in decades to confronting
the truth without euphemism.
(27:57):
We've seen this before.
Only one officer, LieutenantCayley, was convicted.
(28:18):
And then even then, he wasspared from any real
consequences.
Two dozen Iraqi civilianskilled, charges evaporated.
Responsibility dissolved into afog.
(28:43):
Following orders is not adefense.
Iran flight 655 in 1988.
A civilian airliner was shotdown by the USS in Venice in
Venice.
(29:07):
When war crimes occur, thesystem frequently protects
itself instead of justice.
But there's a difference today.
He is now a ranking officer.
He is a um a political figure, apublic personality, a man who
cannot be quietly and reside orburied in paperwork.
(29:35):
This elevates the stakesdramatically.
The moral level, if theallegations are true, then men
in distress were killed afterthey ceased to be combatants.
Now that act violates the oldestlaws of humanity.
You do not kill those who can nolonger fight you back.
(29:56):
The Geneva Convention isactually pretty clear here.
Attacking shipwreck personnel isa war crime, and under US
military law, if a commanderorders, encourages, or permits
an unlawful strike, he islegally accountable.
This is where the pressurecooker is heating up.
The Senate has turned bipartisaneyes on the incident, which is
(30:18):
extremely rare.
Why?
Because they understand thestakes.
If the United States committedan unlawful killing under color
of command, Congress mustrespond or the entire system
loses its legitimacy.
This is what makes the storybigger than peak.
This is about whether America iscapable of looking itself in the
mirror again, like it used to dowhen we still had a Secretary of
(30:43):
War.
We are watching now the ghost ofthe Secretary of War stepping
back into the room, demandinganswers that the modern system
tries desperately to avoid.
The old way said, you wage war,you answer for war.
The new way says, you wage war,let's rewrite the vocabulary.
But the vocabulary cannot saveyou from the truth.
(31:06):
Because if a civilian diesunlawfully in a strike, no
euphemism can be resurrected toresurrect him.
No acronym can justify thebehavior.
No press release can resolve theaction.
America has decided.
Do we confront this like anation of laws?
(31:28):
Or do we bury it like a nationof excuses?
So here's the bottom line ofStone Coast and Lost in the
Saints.
What happened or didn't happenwith Pete Hexett is not simply a
scandal.
It is a test.
A test of whether the UnitedStates still believes in the
(31:48):
rule of law.
A test whether the United Statesstill believes in the ethics of
warfare.
A test of whether the UnitedStates believes in the
Constitution and the chain ofcommand.
A test that the United Statesbelieves in a Geneva Convention
and the standards we claim touphold.
A test that the United States ofAmerica is willing to be
accountable in ways that reachesall the way to the top.
(32:11):
We are staring at the sameancient line of humanity has
drawn for thousands of years.
War is obviously violent.
But war has never and cannot bereckless.
If the allegations prove true,we must say so.
If they prove false, we must sayso with clarity.
(32:32):
Either way, truth is the onlyway out of this.
Because without truth, withoutlaw, without accountability, you
do not have a military.
You have an armed mob wearingmatching uniforms.
And if the United States isgoing to remain a nation worth
defending, we must hold ourleaders, civilian military, to
(32:56):
be the very laws that we are toexpect the world to follow.
That is our standard.
That is our duty.
That is the weight of command.
And that, ladies and gentlemen,is where the story begins, not
where it ends.
(33:16):
Thank you for tuning into theRome McLean show.
We're going to go to a blastwith intellectual past, and I
will see you on the nextepisode.
SPEAKER_00 (33:26):
You said that if the Nuremberg principles were
applied, every post-World War IIpresident would be uh
indictable.
Probably true.
Can we run uh run down them realfast?
What did Eisenhower do that youwould indict him for?
SPEAKER_01 (33:39):
Eisenhower uh overthrew the conservative
nationalist government of Iranwith the military coup.
Uh he overthrew the first andlast democratic government in
Guatemala by a military coup andinvasion leading to years of uh
(33:59):
in Iran it led to twenty-fiveyears of brutal dictatorship, uh
finally overthrown in 1999.
In Guatemala, it led to massiveatrocities, which are still
continuing.
That's after almost fifty years.
Uh in Indonesia, uh this wasn'tknown until recently, but he
conducted the major clandestineterror operation of the post-war
(34:26):
period up until Cuba andNicaragua in an effort to break
up uh Indonesia's triple of theouter islands, uh, where most of
the resources are, uh, and uhundermine the what was then
considered as a threat ofIndonesian democracy.
Uh, Indonesia was too free andopen.
It was allowing a uh politicalparty of the poor to
(34:47):
participate, and they weregaining a lot of ground.
So that uh uh Eisenhowersupported and helped instigate a
military rebellion in the OuterIslands.
Um this is just for starters.
These are all indictableoffenses.
What about Kennedy?
Kennedy was one of the worst.
Uh Kennedy, first of all,invaded South Vietnam.
(35:09):
Uh during the Eisenhoweradministration, uh, they had
blocked the political settlementin 1954 and instituted a kind of
a Latin American-style terrorstate, which had killed maybe 60
or 70,000 people by the end ofthe Eisenhower uh period and had
instigated uh um uh a response,a reaction that Kennedy
(35:34):
recognized, but it couldn't becontrolled internally.
So he simply invaded.
Uh in 1962, uh about uh a thirdof the bombing missions that
were carried out by the U.S.
Air Force in uh uh South U.S.
planes with South Vietnameseinsignia, but U.S.
(35:54):
pilot.
Uh they author he authorized anA bomb, uh he began the uh use
of uh chemical weapons to uhdestroy food crops, uh uh they
began programs which uh uh drovemillions of people into what
amounted to concentration camps.
That's aggression.
Uh in the case of Cuba, it wasjust a massive campaign of
(36:16):
international terrorism, whichalmost led to the destruction of
the world, led to the missilecrisis.
Uh, and uh we can continue.
Again, these are all uhindicable offenses.
Uh Johnson.
Well, Johnson expanded the warin into China to the point where
ended up probably leaving threeor four million people dead.
(36:39):
Uh he uh invaded the DominicanRepublic to block uh what looked
like a potential democraticrevolution there, uh, supported
uh the Israeli uh occupation inits early stages.
Uh again, we can go around theworld.
Uh take them take St.
Carter.
I'll get there, but Nixon'snext.
Uh Nixon, we don't even have totalk about maybe we can skip
(37:02):
that one came.
But uh Ford Ford.
Well, Ford was only there for ashort time, but long enough to
um endorse the Indonesianinvasion of East Timor, uh,
which became got as close togenocide as anything in the
modern period.
Uh they pretended to uh opposeit, but secretly supported, in
(37:25):
fact, Lansa secretly, uh, the uhthe U.S.
uh immediately after theinvasion, the U.S.
did join the rest of the worldin formally condemning it at the
Security Council.
But uh Ambassador Moynihan uhwas kind enough to explain to
us, in his words, uh that uh hisinstructions were to render the
(37:50):
United Nations utterlyineffective in any actions it
might take to counter theIndonesian invasion.
And he says proudly that he didthis with considerable success.
Uh his next sentence is uh inthe next few months it seems
that about 60,000 people werekilled.
And then he goes off to the nexttopic.
(38:11):
Uh that's the first few monthswent on to probably hundreds of
thousands.
Uh uh formally the U.S.
uh announced a boycott ofweapons, but secretly increased
the supply of weapons, includingcounterinsurgency equipment, so
that the Indonesians couldconsummate the invasion.
(38:31):
That's uh just a short period inoffice, but that's indictable.
Seriously, in fact, that's amajor war crime.
Carter.
Carter uh increased as theIndonesian atrocities were
increasing.
They peaked in 1978.
Uh, Carter's flow of weapons toIndonesia increased.
(38:52):
Uh, when Congress imposed uhhuman rights restrictions, but
then there was a human rightsmovement in Congress uh to block
the flow of uh uh advancedweaponry to Indonesia.
Uh, Carter uh arranged throughMundale Vice's president uh to
get Israel to send U.S.
Skyhawks to Indonesia uh toenable Indonesia to complete
(39:18):
what turned out to be near genusof killing maybe a quarter of
the population or something.
Uh in the uh in the Middle East.
Uh Carter just won the NobelPrize.
Uh his great achievement was theCamp David Agreements.
Uh the Camp David agreements arepresented as a uh diplomatic
triumph for the United States.
(39:40):
In fact, they were a diplomaticcatastrophe.
Uh, at Camp David, uh, theUnited States and Israel
accepted finally Egypt's 1971offer, which they had then re
U.S.
had rejected at the time, uh,except that now it was worse
from the U.S.-Israeli point ofview because it included the
(40:01):
Palestinians.
Uh, in order to accept, getIsrael to accept Egypt's 1971
offer after a major war andatrocities and so on, uh, Carter
raised uh aid military and otheraid to Israel to more than fifty
percent of total aid worldwide.
(40:22):
Israel used it at once inexactly the way they said they
were gonna do, and every sameperson who uh has an opportunity
to attack their northernneighbor first in 1978, then in
1982, and to increase uhintegration of the occupied
territories.
Uh and that's for starters, ifwe can continue.
(40:43):
Reagan?
I don't think we have to talkabout that one either.
I mean, Reagan is the firstpresident to have been uh uh
condemned by the InternationalCourt of Justice for what they
call the unlawful use of force,meaning international terrorism
in the war against Nicaragua.
Again, that's just for starters.
(41:04):
They also the Security Counciluh endorsed it in two
resolutions, both of which werevetoed by the United States.
Bush won it.
Well, uh we can begin with theinvasion of Panama.
The invasion of Panama, which,according to the Panamanians,
killed about 3,000 people sinceit's never investigated.
(41:26):
I don't know if that's true ornot.
Uh, this was done in order to uhkidnap a uh disobedient fellow
who had been supported by theUnited States right through his
worst atrocities.
Noriega.
Mariega, who was brought toFlorida and tried for crimes
that he had committed mostly onthe CIA payroll.
Okay, that's aggression.
(41:47):
Uh we could go into the detailsof the war in Iraq.
Uh, but uh there were plainlyopportunities for they might not
have worked, we don't know, butthere were opportunities for
diplomatic settlement, which theBush administration refused to
consider.
And incidentally, the pr presswould not report with a single
exception.
(42:07):
And Long Island Newsday, whichdidn't report the whole story
throughout accurately, and it'sthe only newspaper in the
country to have done so.
Uh the uh uh Bush administrationthen did attack, and uh the
attack was uh carried out in uhin a manner which is criminal
under the laws of war.
(42:28):
Um they attacked uh uhinfrastructure.
I mean, if you attack New YorkCity and you destroy the
electrical system, the powersystem, the sewage systems, and
so on, that amounts tobiological warfare, and that's
the nature of the attack.
Uh then sanctions regime, whichuh most of the Clinton began
(42:49):
with Bush, which is byconservative estimates killed
hundreds of thousands of people,while strengthening some numbers
that takes us off to Clinton,which that's the beginning, but
that's by no means the end.
Run through a well run throughthat one case suffices, but
there are plenty of others.
(43:10):
Let's take what's going on withClinton.
And one of Clinton's minor esminorisk very minor, was sending
a couple of cruise missiles tothe Sudan to destroy what they
knew to be a pharmaceuticalplant.
There was no intelligence.
Failure.
According to the only estimateswe have from the German
(43:30):
ambassador and the uh uhdirector of regional director of
Near East Foundation, who doesfield work in uh Sudan, both of
them estimate several tens ofthousands of deaths from one
cruise mess.
Pretty serious.
If somebody uh did that to us,we'd regard it as bad news.
And again, we can continue.
(43:52):
Uh during in the Middle East,for example, the uh uh uh
Clinton began by declaring pastUN resolutions, uh, in the words
of his administration, obsoleteand anachronistic.
Okay, so we're finished withthat.
No more international law.
Uh, then comes a polic uh aperiod called the peace process,
(44:15):
except that during the peaceprocess, uh Israeli uh U.S.
uh Israeli settlement, whichmeans settlement paid for by the
U.S.
taxpayer and supported by U.S.
military aid and diplomacy,continually increased.
Uh the most extreme year wasClinton's last year, the highest
level of settlement, the highestsince 1992.
(44:38):
Uh meanwhile, the territorieswere cantonized, broken up into
small regions with uhinfrastructure projects and new
settlements.
Uh I don't know what you callthat, but it's under military
occupation.
And if anyone else was doing it,we'd call it a war crime.
And again, we can continue.
Welcome to the Darrow McClain Show.
I'm your host, Darrow McLean,independent media that won't
reinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're going to start off theshow like we started off last
time with a show question from alongtime listener.
This is coming from Gene.
The question is morning, sincethe Supreme Court ruling on the
legitimacy of Trump's tariffsmay not be announced until June
(01:55):
of 2026, how likely can hisadministration issue dividend
checks for$2,000, as hecontinues to say.
So thank you for the amazingquestion.
I always like to start off theshow with something that I was
not planning to talk about,something that you guys asked me
to talk about.
So let me put it to you likethis.
The Supreme Court, as you said,is not expected to rule on the
(02:19):
case of 2026.
So the translation is anaggressive tariff restructuring
is sitting on the launch padwith the do not fly sticker on
it.
Why?
Because if Trump actually wantsto use the tariff residue as a
justification for$2,000dividends, the entire plan is
actually chained to theconstitutionality of that
(02:39):
question.
If the court is saying thepresident can't unilaterally
impose broad national tariffsabout Congress, then the whole
dividend check thing is adaydream, and that daydream
evaporates like a hot mist inthe hot, hot Virginia morning.
So number two, could he stilltry to issue the checks anyway?
(03:00):
Technically, he could proposeanything, he could promise
anything, he could even brandit, package it, reshare it, and
market it like a stadium tour.
But sending actual money out ofthe US Treasury requires one of
two things A, an act ofCongress.
Congress must authorizespending, period.
No workaround, no magic wand.
(03:23):
Tariff revenue does not give theexecutive branch a unilateral
spending power.
B Emergency powers, unlikely andlegally fragile.
He could do it if he would tryto claim some kind of economic
emergency to redirect toredirect revenue.
So sure, in that scenario, couldthe court smack it down within
(03:44):
days?
Absolutely.
Every court from every districtto appeal it would sprint toward
that case, like it was back, uh,you know, this uh we were going
back to Black Friday again, andthey would love to slap down a
president.
Now, here's a third thing.
The big problem is tariffs don'twork like a piggy bank.
(04:05):
This is where the politicalmarketing gets kind of sketchy
and sometimes cute.
Tariffs are not a part of goldthe presidents get to hand out.
Tariffs are taxes on imports,and the cost hits Americans'
consumers, and that's economicsone-on-one.
So if the president says we'llsend every American$2,000 from
(04:25):
tax revenue, what the presidentis actually saying is we'll tax
purchases and imports raiseconsumer prices, then recycle
that money back to the peoplethat and and we'll just call it
a dividend.
It's circular economics with apatriotic bow just wrapped on
top of it.
Now the real barrier, uh, whichis this problem number four, is
(04:47):
the House of Representatives.
Even if Trump won, he needs acooperative Congress.
If Democrats control the House,even a slice of Republicans
resist it, if Thistle Hawkstarts sweating, then the checks
die in committee before anyonecan even spell the word
dividend.
Here's a fifth political uhpoint, which is the political
(05:08):
reality check.
And this is the part of the showwhere you, you know, I I let it
lean in and so the listeners canhear it.
Presidents don't cut checks,Congress do.
And no president, red or blue,gets to send out a die without
legislators signing on thedotted line.
This$2,000 idea, it's a campaignpromise, it's a political
(05:29):
fantasy, it's a soundbiteengineer to go to TikTok live.
But as a governing policy, ithas a structural integrity of a
wet cardboard.
Number six, most likely tohappen, and here's the clean
cut, honest, put it on a t-shirtsummary.
Could Trump propose a 2,000 uhtariff dividend?
Yes.
(05:49):
Could he send the checks withoutCongress?
No.
Would the pending Supreme Courtcase block the mechanism he's
needed?
Absolutely.
Is June 2026 too late to build alegal foundation for those
checks early in the term?
100%.
This is more campaigningmessaging than it is a fiscal
reality.
(06:10):
So, no, in my opinion, thepresident is not mailing out
tariff dividends in early 2025or in early 2026 without a
miracle of a supermajority and aSupreme Court's blessing.
So the bottom line is thisDonald Trump can promise a
tariff dividend, but he can'tprint one.
Not without Congress, notwithout the Supreme Court case
(06:31):
handing over the plan, and notwithout economics yelling, Are
you serious in the background?
Tariffs aren't magic money, theyare taxes, and checks don't go
out until Congress signs thereceipt.
Thank you for the question.
Here's our daily take.
America wakes up every morninglike a hungover empire
(06:52):
pretending it merely had a latenight.
The Republic creaks, thecitizens scroll, and the
politicians, those actors whoforgot they in a play step onto
the stage to deliver lines thatthey didn't write and they don't
understand.
We keep existing, we're a nationof rugged individuals, yet we
panic at the Wi-Fi buffers formore than four seconds.
(07:13):
We worship freedom while beggingsomeone to tell us what to
think, and we talk endlesslyabout the founders as if they
were sacred script they handedus rather than a messy first
draft written by men whodisagree with each other more
than we disagree with ourcousins and uncles at
Thanksgiving.
(07:34):
Meanwhile, the great Americanpastime isn't baseball.
It's actually blaming the wrongperson.
If something breaks, we blamethe poor.
If something explodes, we blamethe foreigner.
If something rots, we blame theyouth.
Never the powerful, of course.
The powerful remain as innocentas newborn lambs, provided the
lamb was born in a lobbyistoffice and they already knew how
(07:56):
to foul pack paperwork.
And yet, despite all thenonsense, all the cheap
theatrics, all the moralbankruptcy we've dressed up as
news cycles, this country stillcontains a dangerous number of
people who can think, people whocan tell the difference between
spectacle and substance, peoplewho refuse to bow before the
(08:16):
cult of incompetencemasquerading as leadership.
That's what keeps the wholething from collapsing.
Just enough stubborn souls whowon't let mediocrity become a
national religion.
So here's today's take.
America isn't dying.
It's simply being managed badly.
(08:37):
And yet, the only cure for badmanagement is citizens who stop
making clowns for kings.
Wake up, pay attention, anddon't let anyone gaslight you
into believing the circus is thecathedral.
This republic isn't doomed.
It's just overdue for housecleaning.
(08:57):
What is a war crime?
Ladies and gentlemen, every nowand then the world focuses us to
revisit a supposedly agreed uponrule.
In the lines that we swore weretoo sacred to cross.
And in the chaos of bombs andbullets and speeches, we have to
pause for a moment and ask asimple, but I think important
(09:21):
and devastating question.
What is a war crime?
Now, on paper, it's easy.
A war crime is any deliberateact in conflict that breaks the
laws of war.
The Geneva Conventions, theHague, the whole body of
international agreementshumanity drafted to keep warfare
from sliding all the way backinto barbarism.
(09:44):
But we have to break this downinto plain English.
A war crime is when you killpeople you weren't supposed to
kill.
Is when you torture the peopleyou already captured.
It's when you starve apopulation because it's easier
than fighting an army.
It's when you treat human beingslike trash because the
battlefield gave you an excuse.
(10:05):
Bombing civilians.
War crime.
Torturing prisoners.
War crime.
Using chemical weapons, warcrime.
Turning women and children intobargaining chips?
War crime.
These aren't accidents of war.
These are tragic necessities.
These are illegal choices madeby leaders and carried out by
(10:28):
soldiers that spit right in theface of the laws that we claim
to live by.
You see, war has rules, notbecause war is moral, but
because unchecked violenceeventually gets to eat the
entire world.
After Nuremberg, humanity stoodup and said, We will not let a I
was following orders be a shieldfor cruelty, evergreen.
(11:06):
That power excuses wickedness.
And history has shown us againand again that wickedness in
uniform is still wickedness.
Now here is the uncomfortabletruth.
It's not something othercountries do.
(11:27):
Every nation with guns andgrievances have been attempted
to do this very act.
Some have crossed the line, somepretend they didn't, some
rewrite the story afterward.
But the law doesn't care aboutyour flag.
The law doesn't salute youranthem.
(11:50):
The law cares about civilians,the wounded, the captured, the
people with the least powercaught over the boots of the
people with the most power.
And that's why we talk aboutthis on this show.
Because if you want a worldwhere accountability means
something, if you want amilitary that stands for more
(12:11):
than might, if you want acountry that honors its own
constitution instead of abusingit, then you have to understand
the gravity of the phrase warcrime.
It's not political, it's notpartisan, it's not negotiable,
it's the line where humanitydraws its final boundary and
says, Beyond this particularline, we will not go.
(12:36):
Back with more in a moment.
SPEAKER_02 (14:51):
Let me be clear: there was no new tip.
There was no new witness.
Just good, diligent policemanled investigators to him.
SPEAKER_08 (14:59):
Also, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court
to side with Texas Republicans.
The lower court found that a newcongressional man probably
discriminated by race.
What reasons did the court giveto set that aside?
Stay with us.
We'll give you the news you needto start your day.
SPEAKER_06 (15:16):
This message comes from BetterHelp.
The holidays are a time oftraditions, like making your
grandmother's pudding recipe orwatching that movie you've seen
a thousand times.
Incorporating therapy into yourlife can help you take time for
yourself during what can be ajoyful but sometimes tough time
of year.
And by caring for yourself, youcan show up more for the
important moments.
This December, start a newtradition by taking care of you.
(15:36):
Visit betterhelp.com slash NPRfor 10% off.
Support for NPR and thefollowing message come from
Warby Parker, the one stop shopfor all your vision needs.
They offer expertly craftedprescription eyewear, plus
contacts, eye exams, and more.
For everything you need to see,visit your nearest Warby Parker
store or head to WarbyParker.com.
This message comes from VCU.
(15:57):
What makes Virginia CommonwealthUniversity so uncommon?
As a top ranked public researchuniversity, VCU is a respected
powerhouse of innovation andcreative problem solving.
With more than 240 programs, VCUoffers real world opportunities,
including internships atRichmond's Fortune 500
companies, making it auniversity unlike any other.
Learn more at VCU.edu.
SPEAKER_08 (16:16):
Members of Congress have now seen a video showing
the second UN strike on a boatin the Caribbean.
Democrats and Republicansinterpreted it differently, but
a few things became clear.
SPEAKER_09 (16:24):
Democrats said they were disturbed by the second hit
on a boat allegedly carryingdrugs and killing two men after
the boat was disabled.
Republicans said the strike wasjustified because the two
survivors of the first strikemight have continued on to their
destination.
Republicans said the survivorswere quoteful boat.
SPEAKER_08 (16:46):
That is one of two big stories focused on the
Pentagon and NPR Pentagoncorrespondent.
Good morning.
Thanks, Dave.
Okay, so let's get this otherstory out of the way first.
An inspector general report isnow public about Defense
Secretary Pete Hegsmith sharinginformation about an attack on
the signal texting app.
What did you learn by readingthe report?
SPEAKER_03 (17:02):
Well, it said that uh two to four hours before the
airstrikes of American F-18pilot.
Secretary Heggseth, he wasgetting a classified briefing
from General Eric Carilla aboutthe upcoming attacks on Houthi
rebels.
A lot of detail about the numberof planes, the targets, the
timing.
And while Heggsmith was gettingthis, he was sharing it on a
signal chat with other officialsand on another chat with his
wife, his brother, and hislawyer.
None of those three had securityclearances, and all of this was
(17:25):
secret information, the reportsaid.
SPEAKER_08 (17:26):
And let's just disclose as we do that NPR CEO,
Katherine Maher, also chairs theboard of the Signal Foundation,
uh, which has a subsidiary thatmakes this map.
But what has been the reactionof the Inspector General?
SPEAKER_03 (17:35):
Well, Secretary Higgs uh spokesman said the IG
report exonerates him.
That is not true.
Nothing in the 76 pages saysanything close to that.
It does say that the Pentagonshould be aware of proper
procedures and the handling ofclassified information.
It only states fanatic speed,not what should happen next.
SPEAKER_08 (17:51):
All right.
So let's now talk about thissecond strike on the boat in the
Caribbean.
What are lawmakers saying, andwhat are you learning now that
they have seen this video andalso heard from the commander
involved?
SPEAKER_03 (18:00):
Well, Admiral Mitchell Bradley, the top
commander overseeing Central andSouth America, appeared behind
closed doors to explain whathappened.
Lawmakers said he defended thatsecond missile strike, saying
basically the survivors of theinitial strike were still kind
of being active, uh, uh tryingto reach their comrades by
radio, trying to corral drugs onthe boat that was nearly
destroyed.
So Bradley again ordered thesecond missile strike to kill
(18:21):
them, and then two more to sinkthe boat.
Secretary Heggs has said he wasonly there for the first missile
strike on the boat and didn'tsee the others he had meetings,
he said.
Now, lawmakers are asking, youknow, did the second missile
strike result in an illegalkilling, a war crime?
Because Steve, the Pentagon'slaw of war manual lays out what
is an illegal order that noservice member has to obey.
And the manual has this example.
(18:56):
I don't think there is.
Uh, Senator Tom Cotton saidthese guys, the two survivors,
are trying to uh flip over thiscapsized boat.
Congressman Adam Smith andothers said, listen, they were
just shirtless guys, and notmuch of this boat was above
water.
So that's why it's important, Ithink, for the public to see
this video.
It shouldn't be released.
And Mr.
Mm Bumman, thanks so much.
You're welcome.
SPEAKER_09 (19:20):
The night before a mob of President Trump's
supporter stormed the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th, 2021,somebody placed two pipe bombs
outside the Republican andDemocratic National Party
headquarters in the witch nearBummy.
SPEAKER_08 (19:31):
For almost five years, the FBI tried to find the
culprit that came up empty untilThursday when the Justice
Department announced thatfederal agents had arrested a
30-year-old man suspected ofplanting those devices.
SPEAKER_09 (19:42):
So, what can you tell us about this person who's
now in custody and what's hecharged with?
SPEAKER_07 (19:45):
Well, his name is Ronnie Cole Jr.
He is, as you guys mentioned, 30years old.
He was arrested in Woodbridge,Virginia, which is about 20 or
someone else south of DC.
Court papers say that he livedthere with his mom and that he
worked in the office of a bailbond in North Virginia.
Now, as for the charges, he'scharged with transporting an
explosive device with intent tokill, as well as attempted
malicious destruction with uhexplosive materials.
Those are the charges as of thismorning, but officials said
(20:06):
yesterday that this is stillvery much an active
investigation, and prosecutorscould put more charges down.
SPEAKER_09 (20:10):
So for almost five years, the FBI's been trying to
find the person who plantedthese bombs that officials say
yesterday what after all thistime led them to call.
SPEAKER_07 (20:16):
This has been a massive investigation to try to
solve this mystery over theyears.
And remember, these bike bombsdidn't go off on January 6th,
but they did draw police awayfrom the capital that day that
they provided restored thebuilding.
Now, officials said yesterday itwasn't a new tip that broke this
case open.
Uh, here's Attorney General PanBody speaking to reports
yesterday.
SPEAKER_02 (20:30):
Let me be clear.
There was no new tip, there wasno new witness, just good,
diligent police work andprosecutorial work.
SPEAKER_07 (20:38):
The FBI George Council tells that the Bureau
brought in a new team ofinvestigators and experts to
re-examine all of the evidencethat the FBI had collected over
the past uh four plus years.
And that new team tipped intoall of the data and tells that
that's what led to newinvestigative leads, including
the critical forensic leadsthat, um, and ultimately the
road led to coal.
What evidence do the prosecutorshave that allegedly tied coal to
these pipe bombs?
Well, then an FBI affidavit saysthat records of financial
(20:59):
transactions show that coal bombitems that were the same as the
components used to build thepipe bombs that were found.
So galvanized pipes, um, endcaps used to close the ends of
the pipe bombs, steel wall, thesame kind of white kitchen
timers and red black electricalwires.
There's also cell phone locationdata that shows that Cole's cell
phone was taking cell towers inthe area where the pipe bombs
were left on the night that theywere placed there.
And then the affidavit says thata licensed pipe leader picked up
(21:19):
Cole's car getting off theinterstate near the Capitol on
the evening of January 5th, justa half hour or so before the
bombs were put in place.
SPEAKER_09 (21:26):
People don't remember there have been a lot
of conspiracy theories aboutthese pipe bombs.
Who left them now that thesuspect is in custody?
Do we know anything about themotive or whether these bombs
were connected to the attack onthe Capitol?
SPEAKER_07 (21:38):
Well, those really are the million-dollar
questions, and unfortunately,no, at this point, we don't know
the answers to those.
Ironically, one of theconspiracy theories that was out
there, that the pipe bombs wereinside job by the FBI, that was
pushed by Dan Bongino when hewas a podcaster.
Dan Bongino is now the deputydirector of the FBI, and he got
a lot of credit yesterday forthis arrest.
Now, Cole is expected to appearin court here in D.C.
later today.
Um, and answers to a lot ofthese outstanding questions are
(21:58):
most likely to come in courtover the weeks and months to
come as the as the JusticeDepartment prosecutes in this
case.
SPEAKER_08 (22:10):
Okay, the Supreme Court has given President Trump
and the Republican Party a boostin their fight to skew the
results of congressionalelections.
SPEAKER_09 (22:23):
The court turned aside a lower court ruling that
found a likelihood that this newmap is racially discriminatory.
SPEAKER_08 (22:33):
Good morning, Steve.
Okay, so what one is the lowercourt ruling that the Supreme
Court says doesn't apply.
They pause.
SPEAKER_05 (22:40):
Well, this was a three-judge panel that the
majority ruling written by ajudge nominated by the
presidential Supreme Court hasput a pause on this order.
And this order by the lowercourt found that this
congressional map Texas passedback in August is likely
unconstitutional because itdiscriminates against voters
based on race.
This lower court ruling sent ina letter that the Justice
Department wrote to Texasofficials and multiple public
statements by key Republicanstate lawmakers involved in
developing the map.
(23:00):
And I'll suggest Texas lawmakerspass this map to eliminate
existing districts in Texaswhere black and Latino voters
together make up the majority.
SPEAKER_08 (23:06):
Well, that's interesting.
Uh, why then did the SupremeCourt say, no, you're wrong?
Uh go ahead and use the map.
SPEAKER_05 (23:12):
Well, a majority of conservative justices on the
Supreme Court basically sidedwith Texas state lawmakers,
which said they were notmotivated by race and were
driven instead to draw newdistricts and more likely to
elect Republicans.
The court's majority wrote thatthe lower court ruling, quote,
failed to honor the presumption.
Of legislative good faith.
And the majority also said thelower court, quote, improperly
inserted itself into Texas'sprimary campaign by releasing
(23:32):
its ruling last month in themiddle of a candidate filing
period.
SPEAKER_08 (23:35):
I was reading the rather short uh ruling on this
rather short opinion, and I amfascinated by that idea that the
court should have presumed thatthe Texas legislature did not
mean to do it.
That that should be thepresumption going in.
Was there any dissent in this?
SPEAKER_05 (23:47):
Yes, the court's three liberal justices
dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote theirdissenting opinion and said that
the court's majority decision toallow Texas to use this map for
next year's midterms, quote,ensures that many Texas
citizens, for no good reason,will be placed in like 12
districts because of their race,and that violates the
Constitution.
SPEAKER_08 (24:03):
I was interested also that the court ruling
acknowledged the broader contexthere and said this is now spread
to be a redistricting fight instate after state after state
across the country.
Where do things stand?
SPEAKER_05 (24:11):
There's a lot going on, but let's start with
California.
Voters in that state approvedthe Democratic friendly
congressional map last monththat countered the Texas map
that President Trump pushedforward to help Republicans and
the Supreme Court is nowallowing.
And this month the federal courtis holding a hearing on whether
to block California's map forthe midterms.
Last week a different federalcourt ruled to allow North
Carolina to use a newRepublican-friendly map.
Missouri's Republican friendlymap is still facing lawsuits and
(24:31):
a referendum effort.
And I'm keeping watch forpotential new maps coming out of
Florida, Indiana, New York, andVirginia.
SPEAKER_08 (24:38):
Is the Supreme Court done with this topic?
SPEAKER_05 (24:39):
No, there's a major voting rights case I'm also
watching about Louisiana'scongressional map.
The Supreme Court may rule onthat very soon, and depending on
what and when the court decidesin that case, there may be
another wave of congressionalgerrymandering, particularly in
southern states.
SPEAKER_08 (24:53):
MPR's Antilo Wong, thanks for the update.
You're welcome, Steve.
SPEAKER_04 (24:59):
And then those who um make peaceful, peaceful
transitions of power thatdifficult, uh, we will force
violent violent changes of powerinevitable.
I am paraphrasing John F.
Kennedy, who said though saidsomething similar.
(25:22):
Um let's let's go to this uh Imean I may do a whole show about
this uh scandal in voting, whichkind of gives the game away that
voting is not a right that isnot uh filtered and fettered by
the people in power.
And this is not anything new,it's just uh sh giving the game
(25:42):
away that voters don't pick thepoliticians, politicians pick
the voters.
And now we can play this gamelike we we it's a
Democrat-Republican thing, butthis is more about a politicians
in power not wanting to be heldaccountable thing, and using
partisan politics to cover theshield around their asses
(26:03):
because they're incompetentpieces of shit.
But we'll get to that on adifferent day.
Because I have to talk about thePete Hexy scandal and a modern
test case.
Now, according to multiplereports, multiple reports,
intelligence leaks andstatements coming from Captain
Hill, the intelligence leaks andstatements are saying that
(26:30):
during a military engagement, anorder was issued or approved and
authorized a second strike on analready ship-wrecked budget of
sailors.
We call it a double tap, astrike on men no longer in
combat, a strike on individualswho under international law are
protected persons.
(26:51):
Now, this isn't a mistake, thisisn't the fog of war, this is an
act of the Secretary of Warwould have been forced to answer
for for the highest levels.
But today, everything getsfiltered through bureaucratic
blender of the defenseapparatus, words come out of the
other side as protocoldeviations, investigative
(27:15):
inquiries, operationaldecisions, or preliminary
assessments.
The clarity disappears, the morequestions become legally
puzzled, the legal puzzlebecomes a political football,
and truth becomes a hostage andan inconvenience.
But something unusual ishappening.
(27:36):
Even the Senate Republicans andDemocrats seems unwilling to let
this one pass.
They demanded documents, they'veopened inquiries, they promised
vigorous oversight, a phraserarely used unless something
serious has happened.
It's the closest America hascome in decades to confronting
the truth without euphemism.
(27:57):
We've seen this before.
Only one officer, LieutenantCayley, was convicted.
(28:18):
And then even then, he wasspared from any real
consequences.
Two dozen Iraqi civilianskilled, charges evaporated.
Responsibility dissolved into afog.
(28:43):
Following orders is not adefense.
Iran flight 655 in 1988.
A civilian airliner was shotdown by the USS in Venice in
Venice.
(29:07):
When war crimes occur, thesystem frequently protects
itself instead of justice.
But there's a difference today.
He is now a ranking officer.
He is a um a political figure, apublic personality, a man who
cannot be quietly and reside orburied in paperwork.
(29:35):
This elevates the stakesdramatically.
The moral level, if theallegations are true, then men
in distress were killed afterthey ceased to be combatants.
Now that act violates the oldestlaws of humanity.
You do not kill those who can nolonger fight you back.
(29:56):
The Geneva Convention isactually pretty clear here.
Attacking shipwreck personnel isa war crime, and under US
military law, if a commanderorders, encourages, or permits
an unlawful strike, he islegally accountable.
This is where the pressurecooker is heating up.
The Senate has turned bipartisaneyes on the incident, which is
(30:18):
extremely rare.
Why?
Because they understand thestakes.
If the United States committedan unlawful killing under color
of command, Congress mustrespond or the entire system
loses its legitimacy.
This is what makes the storybigger than peak.
This is about whether America iscapable of looking itself in the
mirror again, like it used to dowhen we still had a Secretary of
(30:43):
War.
We are watching now the ghost ofthe Secretary of War stepping
back into the room, demandinganswers that the modern system
tries desperately to avoid.
The old way said, you wage war,you answer for war.
The new way says, you wage war,let's rewrite the vocabulary.
But the vocabulary cannot saveyou from the truth.
(31:06):
Because if a civilian diesunlawfully in a strike, no
euphemism can be resurrected toresurrect him.
No acronym can justify thebehavior.
No press release can resolve theaction.
America has decided.
Do we confront this like anation of laws?
(31:28):
Or do we bury it like a nationof excuses?
So here's the bottom line ofStone Coast and Lost in the
Saints.
What happened or didn't happenwith Pete Hexett is not simply a
scandal.
It is a test.
A test of whether the UnitedStates still believes in the
(31:48):
rule of law.
A test whether the United Statesstill believes in the ethics of
warfare.
A test of whether the UnitedStates believes in the
Constitution and the chain ofcommand.
A test that the United Statesbelieves in a Geneva Convention
and the standards we claim touphold.
A test that the United States ofAmerica is willing to be
accountable in ways that reachesall the way to the top.
(32:11):
We are staring at the sameancient line of humanity has
drawn for thousands of years.
War is obviously violent.
But war has never and cannot bereckless.
If the allegations prove true,we must say so.
If they prove false, we must sayso with clarity.
(32:32):
Either way, truth is the onlyway out of this.
Because without truth, withoutlaw, without accountability, you
do not have a military.
You have an armed mob wearingmatching uniforms.
And if the United States isgoing to remain a nation worth
defending, we must hold ourleaders, civilian military, to
(32:56):
be the very laws that we are toexpect the world to follow.
That is our standard.
That is our duty.
That is the weight of command.
And that, ladies and gentlemen,is where the story begins, not
where it ends.
(33:16):
Thank you for tuning into theRome McLean show.
We're going to go to a blastwith intellectual past, and I
will see you on the nextepisode.
SPEAKER_00 (33:26):
You said that if the Nuremberg principles were
applied, every post-World War IIpresident would be uh
indictable.
Probably true.
Can we run uh run down them realfast?
What did Eisenhower do that youwould indict him for?
SPEAKER_01 (33:39):
Eisenhower uh overthrew the conservative
nationalist government of Iranwith the military coup.
Uh he overthrew the first andlast democratic government in
Guatemala by a military coup andinvasion leading to years of uh
(33:59):
in Iran it led to twenty-fiveyears of brutal dictatorship, uh
finally overthrown in 1999.
In Guatemala, it led to massiveatrocities, which are still
continuing.
That's after almost fifty years.
Uh in Indonesia, uh this wasn'tknown until recently, but he
conducted the major clandestineterror operation of the post-war
(34:26):
period up until Cuba andNicaragua in an effort to break
up uh Indonesia's triple of theouter islands, uh, where most of
the resources are, uh, and uhundermine the what was then
considered as a threat ofIndonesian democracy.
Uh, Indonesia was too free andopen.
It was allowing a uh politicalparty of the poor to
(34:47):
participate, and they weregaining a lot of ground.
So that uh uh Eisenhowersupported and helped instigate a
military rebellion in the OuterIslands.
Um this is just for starters.
These are all indictableoffenses.
What about Kennedy?
Kennedy was one of the worst.
Uh Kennedy, first of all,invaded South Vietnam.
(35:09):
Uh during the Eisenhoweradministration, uh, they had
blocked the political settlementin 1954 and instituted a kind of
a Latin American-style terrorstate, which had killed maybe 60
or 70,000 people by the end ofthe Eisenhower uh period and had
instigated uh um uh a response,a reaction that Kennedy
(35:34):
recognized, but it couldn't becontrolled internally.
So he simply invaded.
Uh in 1962, uh about uh a thirdof the bombing missions that
were carried out by the U.S.
Air Force in uh uh South U.S.
planes with South Vietnameseinsignia, but U.S.
(35:54):
pilot.
Uh they author he authorized anA bomb, uh he began the uh use
of uh chemical weapons to uhdestroy food crops, uh uh they
began programs which uh uh drovemillions of people into what
amounted to concentration camps.
That's aggression.
Uh in the case of Cuba, it wasjust a massive campaign of
(36:16):
international terrorism, whichalmost led to the destruction of
the world, led to the missilecrisis.
Uh, and uh we can continue.
Again, these are all uhindicable offenses.
Uh Johnson.
Well, Johnson expanded the warin into China to the point where
ended up probably leaving threeor four million people dead.
(36:39):
Uh he uh invaded the DominicanRepublic to block uh what looked
like a potential democraticrevolution there, uh, supported
uh the Israeli uh occupation inits early stages.
Uh again, we can go around theworld.
Uh take them take St.
Carter.
I'll get there, but Nixon'snext.
Uh Nixon, we don't even have totalk about maybe we can skip
(37:02):
that one came.
But uh Ford Ford.
Well, Ford was only there for ashort time, but long enough to
um endorse the Indonesianinvasion of East Timor, uh,
which became got as close togenocide as anything in the
modern period.
Uh they pretended to uh opposeit, but secretly supported, in
(37:25):
fact, Lansa secretly, uh, the uhthe U.S.
uh immediately after theinvasion, the U.S.
did join the rest of the worldin formally condemning it at the
Security Council.
But uh Ambassador Moynihan uhwas kind enough to explain to
us, in his words, uh that uh hisinstructions were to render the
(37:50):
United Nations utterlyineffective in any actions it
might take to counter theIndonesian invasion.
And he says proudly that he didthis with considerable success.
Uh his next sentence is uh inthe next few months it seems
that about 60,000 people werekilled.
And then he goes off to the nexttopic.
(38:11):
Uh that's the first few monthswent on to probably hundreds of
thousands.
Uh uh formally the U.S.
uh announced a boycott ofweapons, but secretly increased
the supply of weapons, includingcounterinsurgency equipment, so
that the Indonesians couldconsummate the invasion.
(38:31):
That's uh just a short period inoffice, but that's indictable.
Seriously, in fact, that's amajor war crime.
Carter.
Carter uh increased as theIndonesian atrocities were
increasing.
They peaked in 1978.
Uh, Carter's flow of weapons toIndonesia increased.
(38:52):
Uh, when Congress imposed uhhuman rights restrictions, but
then there was a human rightsmovement in Congress uh to block
the flow of uh uh advancedweaponry to Indonesia.
Uh, Carter uh arranged throughMundale Vice's president uh to
get Israel to send U.S.
Skyhawks to Indonesia uh toenable Indonesia to complete
(39:18):
what turned out to be near genusof killing maybe a quarter of
the population or something.
Uh in the uh in the Middle East.
Uh Carter just won the NobelPrize.
Uh his great achievement was theCamp David Agreements.
Uh the Camp David agreements arepresented as a uh diplomatic
triumph for the United States.
(39:40):
In fact, they were a diplomaticcatastrophe.
Uh, at Camp David, uh, theUnited States and Israel
accepted finally Egypt's 1971offer, which they had then re
U.S.
had rejected at the time, uh,except that now it was worse
from the U.S.-Israeli point ofview because it included the
(40:01):
Palestinians.
Uh, in order to accept, getIsrael to accept Egypt's 1971
offer after a major war andatrocities and so on, uh, Carter
raised uh aid military and otheraid to Israel to more than fifty
percent of total aid worldwide.
(40:22):
Israel used it at once inexactly the way they said they
were gonna do, and every sameperson who uh has an opportunity
to attack their northernneighbor first in 1978, then in
1982, and to increase uhintegration of the occupied
territories.
Uh and that's for starters, ifwe can continue.
(40:43):
Reagan?
I don't think we have to talkabout that one either.
I mean, Reagan is the firstpresident to have been uh uh
condemned by the InternationalCourt of Justice for what they
call the unlawful use of force,meaning international terrorism
in the war against Nicaragua.
Again, that's just for starters.
(41:04):
They also the Security Counciluh endorsed it in two
resolutions, both of which werevetoed by the United States.
Bush won it.
Well, uh we can begin with theinvasion of Panama.
The invasion of Panama, which,according to the Panamanians,
killed about 3,000 people sinceit's never investigated.
(41:26):
I don't know if that's true ornot.
Uh, this was done in order to uhkidnap a uh disobedient fellow
who had been supported by theUnited States right through his
worst atrocities.
Noriega.
Mariega, who was brought toFlorida and tried for crimes
that he had committed mostly onthe CIA payroll.
Okay, that's aggression.
(41:47):
Uh we could go into the detailsof the war in Iraq.
Uh, but uh there were plainlyopportunities for they might not
have worked, we don't know, butthere were opportunities for
diplomatic settlement, which theBush administration refused to
consider.
And incidentally, the pr presswould not report with a single
exception.
(42:07):
And Long Island Newsday, whichdidn't report the whole story
throughout accurately, and it'sthe only newspaper in the
country to have done so.
Uh the uh uh Bush administrationthen did attack, and uh the
attack was uh carried out in uhin a manner which is criminal
under the laws of war.
(42:28):
Um they attacked uh uhinfrastructure.
I mean, if you attack New YorkCity and you destroy the
electrical system, the powersystem, the sewage systems, and
so on, that amounts tobiological warfare, and that's
the nature of the attack.
Uh then sanctions regime, whichuh most of the Clinton began
(42:49):
with Bush, which is byconservative estimates killed
hundreds of thousands of people,while strengthening some numbers
that takes us off to Clinton,which that's the beginning, but
that's by no means the end.
Run through a well run throughthat one case suffices, but
there are plenty of others.
(43:10):
Let's take what's going on withClinton.
And one of Clinton's minor esminorisk very minor, was sending
a couple of cruise missiles tothe Sudan to destroy what they
knew to be a pharmaceuticalplant.
There was no intelligence.
Failure.
According to the only estimateswe have from the German
(43:30):
ambassador and the uh uhdirector of regional director of
Near East Foundation, who doesfield work in uh Sudan, both of
them estimate several tens ofthousands of deaths from one
cruise mess.
Pretty serious.
If somebody uh did that to us,we'd regard it as bad news.
And again, we can continue.
(43:52):
Uh during in the Middle East,for example, the uh uh uh
Clinton began by declaring pastUN resolutions, uh, in the words
of his administration, obsoleteand anachronistic.
Okay, so we're finished withthat.
No more international law.
Uh, then comes a polic uh aperiod called the peace process,
(44:15):
except that during the peaceprocess, uh Israeli uh U.S.
uh Israeli settlement, whichmeans settlement paid for by the
U.S.
taxpayer and supported by U.S.
military aid and diplomacy,continually increased.
Uh the most extreme year wasClinton's last year, the highest
level of settlement, the highestsince 1992.
(44:38):
Uh meanwhile, the territorieswere cantonized, broken up into
small regions with uhinfrastructure projects and new
settlements.
Uh I don't know what you callthat, but it's under military
occupation.
And if anyone else was doing it,we'd call it a war crime.
And again, we can continue.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.