Part Of The Problem - Waltz is Lying

Episode Date: March 27, 2025

Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave discusses the ongoing investigation of the Signal chat leak, it's place compared to similar scandals in American history, and more.Support Our Sponsors:Go to get.stash.com/PROBLEM to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures.Paint Your Life - Text PROBLEM to 87204 to get 20% offTax Network USA - 1-800-958-1000 or go to TNUSA.COM/SMITHMy Patriot Supply - https://www.preparewithsmith.com/Part Of The Problem is available for early pre-release at https://partoftheproblem.com as well as an exclusive episode on Thursday!Get your tickets to Porch Tour here:https://porchtour.comFind Run Your Mouth here:YouTube - http://youtube.com/@RunYourMouthiTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmFollow the show on social media:X:http://x.com/ComicDaveSmithhttp://x.com/RobbieTheFireInstagram:http://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmithhttp://instagram.com/robbiethefire#libertarianSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

What's up. What's up everybody. Welcome to a brand new episode of part of the problem. I am Dave Smith. I am rolling solo for this episode. And Rob and me, we tomorrow morning, I'm jumping on a plane to Boston. So come on out. There are still limited tickets available. They're selling very quick. If you want to come out, we got a show tomorrow night, then two shows Friday, two shows Saturday at laugh Boston comic, davesmith.com. That is the website where you can grab all the ticket links and, and plus everything. I think we got dates on there like going through the rest of the year. So me and Rob are traveling quite a bit doing standup shows this year. I will be, I'm about to enter a tornado of travel,

over the next few weeks, a few big podcasts and some standup shows. Standup, I'll be doing standup in Boston and Nashville. And then in between that I got some other traveling too. So again, comicdavismith.com hope to see some of you guys out there on the road. Really looking forward to Boston because I always love performing there. All right. By the way, before we get into the show today, I do, I did notice I was just looking at Twitter as I was preparing for the show and I seem to have struck a nerve with some people

based on some comments I made on the last podcast about emojis. And I seem to have struck a nerve with some people, based on some comments I made on the last podcast about emojis and people are upset. People who love their emojis really, really love them, but I'm sorry. They're for women and children and I stand by it. I'm pretty old school or maybe I'm just old, but things that were not done in my time make me uncomfortable and I don't care to adjust.

And I don't think that's the role, but I don't think that's what men are supposed to do. We're not supposed to adjust to the new time. We're supposed to stay locked in our time. And I try my best to do that. I also, by the way, I have a lot of strict views on this stuff. I've upset people with this before. In fact, it was David cross who, uh, I mean he was mad cause I humiliated him in that debate we did years ago, but he got very offended. Um,

when I said that I don't think men should have holidays that I think like I, I was ripping on father's day. Father's day is pointless. It shouldn't exist. Holidays are not for men. I don't think men should even celebrate their birthdays past a certain age. Like what I think you, like I did a thing, I had a thing for my 40th birthday and my wife kind of insisted, she twisted my arm into doing it, but I had a party for my 40th birthday. I think that maybe is appropriate for men. You know, you're like every decade,

you're 40th, you're 50th, you're 60th. Okay, fine. You could have a little party, but like father's day, first off, father's day is never a thing. It's never, no dad has ever enjoyed father's day. We don't care. You're just buying us crap with our money, which is not, that doesn't make sense. It also doesn't, it doesn't make sense to give a gift if you're spending it in the other person's money, just let them get what they want for themselves. Also dads,

like when you're a grown man, you don't every, I, I appreciate every day that I get to spend with my family, but I don't need it to be a day of celebration about me because just think about that. A day of celebration. That's not for men. A day of celebration is for women and children. So anyway, I'm not backing off of my, my emoji position and I will double down on this. I will go, I will die on this hell. I'll go all the way. Someone told me on Twitter, I shouldn't die on this hell.

You don't get to pick what Hills I die on I do and it's this Anti emoji. It's not good for society when men are Communicating with emojis that someone else said to me They go. Well, how else are you supposed to convey emotion in a tweet? Does that just prove my point right there? Yeah, you're not supposed to convey emotion. That's the whole point. Okay. Anyway, enough silliness. So, uh, for today's episode, I got it. We're just going to talk more about the signal stuff because more has come out, um, about it and it's,

it's fascinating and it's, I just find it interesting to cover the fallout of all of this. Now I'm not, um, I'm, as, as I said yesterday on the show, I'm not presenting this with like any type of like unified theory of, okay, here's what happened. This isn't something like, like Russiagate, where, you know, after, you know, covering it for a long period of time and then a lot of information came out and there's just been there's been declassified information.

There was the Mueller report. There was the Durham report that that investigated the investigation. So there's a lot there where you could be like, OK, here's the cohesive narrative. OK, Hillary Clinton went to this British spy who went to this Russian spy who compiled this dossier of pure lies and garbage. They knew it was pure lies and garbage. Then the, you know what I mean? After Donald Trump wins the election, the FBI and the CIA use it to launch this big investigation into Donald Trump. Okay. We don't have anything like that here yet.

What we do have is, okay, you have a scandal. As I said yesterday on the show, you have is okay. You have a scandal. As I said yesterday on the show, the major scandal here is not what's being covered. You know, it's, I was thinking about this, uh, um, last night, but there were two, the two examples that just pop into my head that kind of remind me of this signal thing. And the, the two examples were number one was, uh, um,

Ben Ghazi and number two was the, uh, F the EU, Victoria Newland phone call that leaked. So real quickly for anybody who doesn't know, uh, the story, Ben Ghazi, if you were paying attention to the news back then, um, this was in, in Barack Obama's first term, this was like one of his scandals. Um, Fox news talked about it all the time. Uh, the Mitt Romney brought it up a lot when he was running against Obama in 2012.

And essentially what was amazing about it for anybody who followed it was that they made the whole scandal that this U S embassy in Benghazi was overrun. And I mean, Hillary Clinton testified for hours. I think she did like a six hour congressional testimony on this. And it was just constant, you know, the, the parameters of the conversation were like so narrowed. It was, you know, this is really back when, you know, CNN and MSNBC and Fox news really controlled a lot more of the narrative. In fact, this is, again, I might be dating myself here,

but Fox news was so big at one point and so like involved in this conversation that if you, I'm somebody who certainly experienced this and people around my age with around my politics probably did too. But if you back in the Obama days were like critical of liberals at all, the first things people would say back to you was like, Oh, what are you watching too much Fox news? That was always just like the assumption. It was like, Oh, if you're,

if you're not a liberal, well then obviously you watch Fox news. And then I would, you know, tell people like, no, I hate Fox news too. And uh, that would, they would not understand that. And it was in this, in a similar sense to like, if you, you know, if you were saying nine 11 was an inside job or something like that, people would have been like, Oh, what are you watching? Alex Jones. It was just like thought of as the way Alex Jones owned the conspiracy world. Fox news owned the, I'm not a liberal world. And today that's totally different. Um, that's just today.

If you were critical of liberals, people are probably assuming that you're listening to podcasts or that you're, there's an influencer, you know, like maybe they'd, they'd assume you're like, I don't know. I don't even know who the person would be, but because it could be so many people, it could be anyone from Ben Shapiro to Andrew Tate to whoever, you know, it's a different world, much more decentralized. Back then, they really controlled the narrative and so the whole conversation

Was over how Obama was so weak that he couldn't protect this ambassador Obama was so weak that he couldn't protect this embassy and the Republicans were tough and strong and they were gonna get to the bottom Of what happened and through whole thing, almost nobody raises the question, why was our CIA embedded in Libya? What was going on here? You know, and like, and the actual story was that Obama had decided, um, along with, uh, uh, NATO to overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya, which that in itself would, you would have thought even by this time,

I mean, what are we talking about? 2011 here, even by this time, this is, you know, eight years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein in, in, in Iraq, and eight years after or nine, I'm sorry, 10 years after or nine, I'm sorry, 10 years after, um, we began the regime change war in Afghanistan and these wars were already disasters. So the idea of doing like another regime change would have been probably a bit of

a scandal, but they were really somewhat remarkably able to get you to like not focus on that story and just focus on this very narrow area of like who could have protected the embassy better. Uh, the other example is the Victoria Newland, uh, F the EU phone call. So for people who don't know about this, this was, I believe, uh, maybe just, you know, we don't know exactly when the phone call took place, but it was the phone call was leaked. Like I believe a couple of weeks before the Yanukovych government was

overthrown in Ukraine and the, it was presumably leaked by the Russians. I don't know that that's ever actually been proven for sure, but there was a conversation between, uh, Jeffrey piet and Victoria newland. And it was essentially as this, as this coup that the U S is backing was overthrowing, uh, the Yanukovych government, or, or I should say as the,

as the street protest that the U S government was backing was gaining more and more traction. Um, they were, there's this phone call of the ambassador and Victoria newland at the state department talking about, um, who is to be in the new government and who's not to be in the new government. By the way, very coincidentally, they got all of their picks. It's exactly how the new government ended up being made up. It's like here you have You know Victoria Newland

Who is the wife of Robert Kagan? These are like real deal like true neocons, okay Orchestrating a regime change deciding who's gonna go in the new government and who's going to go in the new government and who's not going to go in the new government. And also pretty clearly alluding to the whole operation that's going on. I mean, they, they open it up. The terminology that they use is very spy like stuff. You know, they're like, we got to glue this thing. We got to stick it. We got a, um, she goes, we need a midwife. This thing at one point they say anyway, so through this whole thing, she even at one point says, cause this is under the Obama administration.

At one point she even says that we're, she goes, I talked to Joe Biden, to the vice president, he's going to get on the phone to give them an attaboy. Like the vice president will get on the phone to tell them we got your back. Good job. Um, and then at one point she's bitching about, um, the EU and how, um, the EU is just moving too slowly to, you know, whatever, force Yonko bitch out. And so at one point in her frustration,

she goes, uh, she was basically like, you know what, we'll do it without them. We'll do this thing without the EU. And you know what? F the EU, we'll do it ourselves. And then somehow this, this gets leaked. And then in the entire media, through the entire, the entire coverage of this was that we had a diplomat on the phone with a representative in the state department and they said F the EU. And that's really undiplomatic when you think about it. And so like that became the

whole conversation. But bury the context of any of it. Like the actual really interesting scandal there is that there's some clear evidence here that the US is involved in this overthrow of a democratically elected government in Ukraine, you know, which, okay, at the time, like the war hadn't broken out yet, but you could still see where that would be kind of scandalous, you know, but that does not. And it's just, I just couldn't help but see these parallels as I'm reading the news coverage of this signal leak and what is it that they're jumping on? Like it's so funny because I never would have news coverage of this signal leak and what is

it that they're jumping on? Like it's so funny because I never would have even thought of this as being the thing that we read it yesterday on the show and it didn't even jump out to me as like even a scam. But the thing is that, um, this is what they're running with at CNN and stuff like that is that, uh, um, I guess Pete Hagseth and JD Vance were trash in Europe and that Pete Hagstaff called Europe pathetic. That really is some way to speak about our allies. So now you see what they're doing here, right?

Like they always try to focus on one salacious detail so that you can drive all the outrage about that you can signal to all the trump haters Hey, if you want if you want to find a scandal here, we'll hear it This is your thing to focus on the thing to focus on is that the defense secretary called our european allies pathetic Rather than the obvious scandal that's right in front of you, which is that America could never not be fighting a fucking war. No matter what, even when you vote for the Nobel peace prize winning Barack Obama, he's in wars immediately. When you vote for the America first,

we want to get out of all these wars. Donald Trump immediately were bombing the poorest country in the middle east Just like that is so obviously the scandal here But everyone's finding everything else that they can to to focus on now I will say And again as I as I alluded to earlier I'm not claiming to have like a flushed out, worked out version of what the bigger picture is here. I'm not claiming that.

I will say that having that flushed out bigger picture of what happened in the first four years of Donald Trump's administration, I do think it's reasonable to, to kind of speculate. I mean, I, I think it's reasonable when you know, like if, if Donald Trump's, if we didn't know everything we knew about Donald Trump's first administration, it would probably be a little bit more of a leap to think this way, but knowing what we knew then, I think it's very reasonable to ask ourselves whether Donald Trump is being sabotaged here or not. Now, I'm just throwing that out there and I'm, I'm,

this is one of the possibilities that I'm considering because what we have here is an official story that makes absolutely no sense. And we'll get into this in a little bit, but I just want to be clear. I am not, if I'm, if the claim is that Donald Trump has people around him who are sabotaging the Trump administration, I just want to be very clear that that is in no way letting Donald Trump off the hook.

Like I, he's still responsible. Like this is, this is his job. Listen, I mean he was, he was the president of the United States for four years. I mean, he decided to run for president in 2016. I think the reasonable expectation is that by the time you decide to run for president, you know, a thing or two about a thing or two. Otherwise, why the hell would you even be running for president? You must have some ideas and some knowledge and some reason to believe that you can execute these ideas. But then he had four years in there, a real trial by fire, and then had another four year period with nothing else that he had to do except fight legal cases. But getting ready for his for running again.

And I don't think it's too much to expect that by the time you get there, this is eight years later from when you already were running for president, that you know who to pick as your national security advisor. And I it's just, I can't tell you how many good people there are. I'm certainly not like the one there's a lot who would have known that Mike Walsh, the terrible pick for national security advisor. Now, of course we did say that on this show as he was picking him. But that's, you know, we're far from the only ones who knew this.

The guy's just a terrible guy to pick. And look, if you know, by the way, um, Donald Trump did just order all of the FBI to declassify all of the documents, um, uh, dealing with the investigation into Trump, the Russiagate investigation in the first four years, we'll see what comes out over that. But if you know that Donald Trump Trump not only was, I mean, look, I'm not overstating it. Not only was he framed for treason by his own intelligence agencies in his first administration,

but there were undeniably countless people within Donald Trump's administration who were working against him. This was, this is a objective fact at this point. And not just like, not just, I'm not just talking about the, like how every single week in the New York times there would be, you know, unnamed sources from the executive branch who were saying something to damage Donald Trump. But I mean like at the top levels of his cabinet, he had his own people working against him, not just his own intelligence agencies, but the people he put around him. So, number one, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that maybe that's the case again. And number two,

it's Donald Trump's fault, if that's the case again. So just want to be very clear on that All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is my patriot supply We've seen it before when disaster strikes the first thing to go are the shelves at the grocery store Don't be caught in that situation If there's one thing you want to know it's that in the next emergency You and your family will be taken care of and the most important thing is making sure you have food. That's why I trust my Patriot Supply to help prepare before the next crisis comes. Right now you can order their four-week emergency food supply today

and get four 72-hour food kits completely free. That's almost two weeks of bonus meals at no cost. Each of these kits offers over 2,000 calories per day of delicious easy to prepare meals that last up to 25 years in storage. That's real peace of mind. No last-minute panic, no empty shelves, just knowing you're covered. Stock up today before this deal disappears because when an emergency hits food will be the first thing to go. Go to preparewithsmith.com to claim your kit,

plus an extra 12 days of food free. Check them out at preparewithsmith.com. All right, let's get back into the show. The other thing to mention here is that Mike Waltz, first of all, and I know a little bit of this stuff because I've heard stories behind the scenes. I mean, I just know enough about the guy to know he was terrible from the beginning, but he is like totally just the worst on foreign policy.

Doesn't know what he's talking about. He's, he's the type of guy who would say something like if Vladimir Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he's going to move on Poland next. Like that's who you're dealing with here. Also he worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I mean, I'm just saying I don't, I don't think it's unreasonable at this point to be suspicious of people like that.

These are the guys who have been consistently undermining Donald Trump the whole time. In fact, what was his, uh, hold on. I'll pull it up right here. I have a he was Yeah, so he was a he was a special forces guy Again, not saying that Alone, you know this credits you but it raises an eyebrow He served the Bush administration as a defense policy director in the pentagon and as the counterterrorism advisor to vice president dick cheney, okay now so anyway to

I just think essentially my point is here to suspect that the counterterrorism advisor to dick cheney Is going to be loyal to Donald Trump is perhaps an unreasonable expectation. It's perhaps reasonable to speculate that maybe that guy wouldn't be loyal to Donald Trump. And then my more important point, that's on Donald Trump.

That's not I have never been one, although I did support Donald Trump in this last election, I have never been one to make the bullshit excuses for him that I see so many of the Trump supporters making like, Oh, he was tricked by his guy. Like, Oh, okay. Donald Trump got to choose who his national security advisor were. And there's plenty of great people he could have picked from. And he chose Dick Chene's counter-terrorism guy. I'm sorry. But that first of all, that already, even if none of this is true, even if walls just fucked up and he's not trying to sabotage the whole thing, there's like, and there's no conspiracy here whatsoever.

It's still really says something about Donald Trump's profound lack of judgment to have picked this guy. And it says something about all the people around Donald Trump. Every, I mean, you would just think after everything, after everything that country has been through, everything Donald Trump's been through all the time, he's had to learn this. You would just think that like if somebody ever suggested, Hey, you know, we're, we're thinking about, you know, your next national security advisor, and we

have all these great options. I'm thinking Dick Cheney's counter-terrorism advisor. You would think number one, Donald Trump would probably fire you for suggesting that. And number two, that it would never even get to Donald Trump because every single person around him would be like, what? No, we're not doing that anymore. That's, that's not what we're doing. We're not doing that. We're doing an America first thing here. And so it tells you something that none of that happened.

It tells you say not only did none of that happen, the guy ends up getting the job, not just getting considered for it. He gets the job. Okay. So in the wake of everything that we talked about on the last episode and the stuff I've been alluding to here last night, um, Mike Waltz, the national security advisor, who is responsible for this, um, humiliating debacle,

he went on the Laura Ingram show to defend himself. Now it should be mentioned before, uh, we, we play this that Donald Trump has also gone out of his way to defend him too and say that their team's doing a great job. And, you know, I think, I, my, my feel of the situation is that essentially Donald Trump's in a position where he's riding pretty high politically right now. If you go again, if you look at the, um, the,

his approval rating, it's, it's been about the highest he's ever had pretty consistently in that range. It's been about from 47 to 53% kind of depending on what poll you look at. That in itself wouldn't seem so great. I mean, it's pretty good for America today with how divided politically we are. That's about as popular as a president can get. Um, and obviously he's more popular than he ever was in his first term. So in that sense, it's a win.

But really, it's when you kind of look at more numbers and you, you know, you dive into the context a little bit more that like the right track, wrong track number is like, I think it's like right around 50 percent of Americans right now say we're on the right track. And it was in the 20 twenties when Joe Biden was president. So again, just this 47 to 53% may not sound so good, but when you're comparing it to that, so the right track number may not be so great,

but compared to where it was under Biden, it's great. Donald Trump's approval rating may not be so great until you find out that the Democrats have a 24% approval rating You know the thing that seems to be uniting the American people right now is recognizing that the government's doing a pretty shitty job That's whether you're left or right. That's pretty universally recognized But so Donald Trump's in a situation where I think he feels pretty politically strong Obviously, he won every swing state won the popular vote the things like Doge are popular with the American people.

And so I think he doesn't want to admit to a scandal, you know, if he were to fire the national security advisor, that's kind of an admission that like, Oh, there was a big fuck up. And I think he'd rather pretend that no, there wasn't. And I think they think, because, um, this reporter Goldberg has been so discredited and such a liar, they can get away from this by just being like, screw that guy. You can't trust anything he says.

Again, the problem is just like the signal chat was real and this story appears to be real. I don't trust this Goldberg guy at all, but I'm also just looking at this story and it's like, no, you guys were, you were conspiring about bombing Yemen. You ended up bombing Yemen and everyone here is admitting it. So what can you say here? Anyway, let's jump into this. Here is Mike Walz on Laura Ingraham show on Fox News.

One of the principals who was on that signal chat, national security advisor, Mike Walz, advisor Walz. Thank you for joining us tonight. The president expressed complete confidence in you today and his entire cabinet. But how did a Trump-hating editor of the Atlantic end up on your Signal Chat? You know, Laura, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of links to lie and smear the president of the United States. And he's the one that

somehow gets on somebody's contact and then gets sucked into this group. All right. So just pause it. So pause it right now. Intel team. OK, so first of all, I thought this was really bizarre that walls opened up by being like, hey, look, man, I'm sorry. But when you see something like this, you got to jump to conspiracies like, OK, yeah, I don't completely disagree with you How the hell did this guy of all guys end up on that chat? The problem here is that the answer is you? It's you

Like what what conspiracy are you alleging and then you can go off on like? All this, uh, you know, this is the guy who was pushing this Russia gate stuff. Yeah. The entire establishment was pushing the Russia gate stuff, literally the entire establishment who's like Devin Nunes and Steven Miller, like a couple of guys within the establishment resisted it. The rest of it was like, you know, Donald Trump himself, his family and a bunch of podcasters and, and real journalists out there on the internet. But you know, Donald Trump himself, his family, and a bunch of podcasters and real

journalists out there on the internet. But you know, who else was pushing it was like your former bosses, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. So like, yeah, you're there guy. And now you're here and you're just evoking that. Like, yeah, I mean, this seems like a conspiracy. Okay. Let's, let's put these pieces of the puzzle together here. National security advisor. You tell me about this. Cause now of course, Laura Ingram, when he goes, oh, it's a conspiracy.

She starts going like, okay, so is someone on your team compromised? How did this end up happening? Let's hear his answer. Trying to cause trouble here because that's the scuttlebutt out there. Look, we have people, we have people, no. Look, this is a great group. The president has a great team. This is not first time.

No, your team. I'm not talking about the other principals. No, no, no, these were principals and a couple of staff that were coordinating. As you saw, having a policy discussion as we went forward. And then just in the days before, what was an incredible strike. Not only did we take out people that the Biden team never could, that we took out headquarters,

missile cachets, and actually one of the leaders of the Houthi organization, we've since taken out several cents and you know, that's what they don't want to talk about. They don't want to talk about the success here. They don't want to talk about the hostages getting released. They don't want to talk about the black sea, sea spire that we just put in place today as the president ends the largest land war in Europe or the border or the fact that Panama just kicked China out of the canal and success after success, after success. Let's pause it again. It's embarrassing. I mean, I don't know why this is just, it's

so pathetic and he's not even good at delivering this. I mean, he seems visibly nervous like the whole time that he's saying this, but this just like pathetic attempt to pivot back to the successes of the administration, which you know, some of those being legit, some of them not so much, but you know, you're sitting, he's sitting there and he starts with like, Oh, like this is a, there's some type of conspiracy here. I mean, of all the people out there, this guy gets added to this group chat. And then Laura Ingraham reasonably is like, yeah, so like someone on your team, right?

That's the only way this would be a conspiracy. Someone here is working against the president and then he goes, no, no, no, my team's perfect. My team's perfect. I mean, look at all the success and what they don't want to talk about is how successful this strike at, which again, just save me the bullshit on how successful the strike was. Like, what do they even mean by that? There's a, are, are the Huthies not a problem anymore?

Are no more ships going to be fired upon now? Or what do you mean? You mean when we dropped the bombs, it blew shit up? Like, yeah, okay. That was, but everyone's distracting from what a success this was. Well, first of all, this story was out in, this was out for weeks before this signal scandal dropped. And yeah, like no one's really talking about what an amazing success it was because there's just, it's just not apparent that anything was achieved other than,

you know, killing some kids that seems to have been achieved. Um, but you know, like, okay, what else was a jet? But so now you're sitting here saying, well, what exactly is the conspiracy that you're alleging here? Like, and somehow this journalist hacked his way into your signal chat. Clearly he was added to the chat. I don't think any like, right. He's not claiming anything else. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Stash, brand new sponsor.

We're thrilled to have them on board. Saving and investing can feel impossible, but with Stash, it's not just a reality, it's easy. Stash isn't just an investing app. It's a registered investment advisor that combines automated investing with dependable financial strategies to help you reach your goals faster.

They'll provide you with personalized advice on what to invest in based on your goals. And if you want to just sit back and watch your money go to work, you can opt into their award-winning expert managed portfolio that picks stocks for you. Stash has helped millions of Americans reach their financial goals and starts at just $3 a month. Don't let your savings sit around. Make it work harder for you. Go to get.stash.com slash problem to see how you can receive $25 toward your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures.

That's get.stash.com slash problem. Paid non-client endorsement, not representative of all clients and not a guarantee. Investment advisory services offered by Stash Investment LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor. Investing involves risk, offer is subject to terms and conditions. All right guys, let's get back into the show.

So, okay, anyway, let's keep playing. Erasing. Yes. We're going to get to the bottom of it. We've have, I just talked to Elon on the way here. We've got the best technical minds looking at how this happened, but I can tell you, I can tell you for 100%. I don't know this guy. I know him by his horrible reputation and he really is the bottom scum of journalists guy. I know him by his horrible reputation, and he really is the bottom scum of journalists. And I know him in the sense that he hates the president, but I don't text him.

He wasn't on my phone, and we're gonna figure out how this happens. So you don't know what staffer is responsible for this right now? Well, look, a staffer wasn't responsible, and look, I take full responsibility. I built the group. My job is to make sure everything's coordinated. But how does that execute? I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here,

but let's pause it here. Have you ever had somebody's contact? Hold on. Pause it here and then just bring it back a little bit because the next part is pretty wild. Um, but I just look, you can't say I'm taking full responsibility for this. I created the chat, but also there's some type of conspiracy of foot here. Like, which one is it? If you're taking responsibility for it, like, how did he get added now, by the way,

it is worth pointing out here that Goldberg in his piece says that they had, they had communicated in the past. He said he wasn't entirely surprised to be, to have Mike Waltz reaching out to him. So like somebody's lying here. Now we know Goldberg's a liar. Okay. So I'm not denying that that's a possibility, but it does seem like in this case, his story seems to be much more likely than it's a conspiracy.

Like he doesn't want to throw a staffer under the bus and say, maybe somebody else set this up. He's saying he created the group chat. How did this guy get he created the group chat. How did this guy get added to the group chat? It seems like you had to at least have his number, have his contacts of something. I don't know. Explain it to me in a way that makes sense, but that's not you taking full responsibility. And you know, like you could sit here and say like, Oh, everybody wants, you know, everybody wants to be distracted with this instead of talking about how great the strike was. It's like,

you announced the strike before you did it to a journalist who hates your boss's guts. That seems like a pretty big scandal, man. Like, I don't know how, how would that not be the topic of conversation? Don't get me wrong. I think the topic of conversation should be about why the hell we're going to war with Yemen, but forget that. All right, let's keep playing.

And I know I'm in the sense that he hates the president, but I don't text him. He wasn't on my phone and we're going to figure out how this happened. So you don't know what staffer is responsible for this right now? Well, look, a staffer wasn't responsible. And look, I take full responsibility. I built the group. My job is to make sure everything's coordinated. But how does that execute?

I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number get into chat? Have you ever had somebody's contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else's number there. That was mistake. Right. You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact. So of course I didn't see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else. Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happens in some other. Okay. Um, this part was just wild to me.

So first of all, where he got Laura Ingram, it's like trying to be cute or funny there. And she almost like stepped over like the part where she should be like, she correctly asks the followup question. And then she's like almost giving them cover in a way here. It's like, shut up, Laura and let him say this. You're, he's going, have you ever had a contact name with somebody else's number in it? Okay. Well, first of all, the answer was, is no,

no, I have never had that. And I'm an idiot. I've texted the wrong person, the wrong thing, but I never had the wrong number under a contact name. I mean, perhaps I entered a number wrong, but again, like, what are you suggesting here? Are you suggesting that there was somebody else in that you were trying to add to this message and you got their number wrong and that number just happened to be the number of the senior editor of the Atlantic? Are you arguing that like, he got

someone's old number? Like, I'm sorry, this is just so weird to me. Like what? No, I don't know. That doesn't make any sense. And then he at the end, like, by the way, and I, I'll tell you that this is the truth. I know in my, uh, in my younger days, I knew, and this was never me by the way, I swear to God, I'm not just saying that, but I knew guys who like had like, uh, like a girl they were cheating on their girlfriend with and they had it like saved as somebody else's name. I knew a couple of guys who did that move. I'm not saying they should have done that. Wasn't great.

We were young at the time though. Um, but that's like the only thing I could think of in my mind. And then he seems to implicate like, I don't know that he did that. Like how would he do that? Did he hack into your phone? Did a journalist for the Atlantic was able to hack into the national security advisor's phone and put his number in somebody else's contact in his signal on the hopes that they would organize a signal group text about a bombing plan in Yemen that they would add that guy to would not realize it was really him.

I mean, this is like, this makes no sense. Then by the way, if you were alleging that that is a serious crime, I mean, could you imagine you're hacking into the national security advisors, signal account and adding yourself as somebody else in there. This is just like, like doesn't pass. The smell test is not enough of a statement for this. This is just bullshit. This is no way. This is like, like the worst excuse somebody could come up with when they're on the spot. I can't believe, look, I don't know. What are we talking about? Okay. So 48 hours ago, this story broke.

This is last night. I believe Laura Ingram is on at 9 PM. I could be wrong about that. Maybe she's 10 PM over at Fox news. So at the very least, he probably had a few hours, no, I could be wrong about that. Maybe she's 10 PM over at Fox news. So at the very least, he probably had a few hours notice that he was going on Laura Ingram show. I mean, my, my guess is probably right now, knowing a little bit that I know about the news business and cable news and stuff like that. Someone like in Michael Waltz is position.

First of all, just in general, you're the national national security advisor pretty much anyone will have you on their show You could pick whatever show you want to do But you're the national security advisor embroiled in this scandal That is the the juicy thing that people are talking about the news of the day You could pick any show you want to go you can decide Who I'm gonna have interview me over this topic today. And he decided Laura Ingraham. Now, I don't know exactly when they made this decision. My guess would be the day before yesterday,

probably had 24 hours before he was going into the show. It is possible. They made it late. It's possible. He only had five hours or so, but you still had hours to prepare. This is what you ended up coming up with. Like this is like, if you got, if you got caught red handed on the spot and had no time to prepare, you'd think you could come up with something better than this. But the idea of being like, Oh, you know,

have you ever had a contact name that didn't match the number? Like, no, that's not a common problem really. And Like, no, that's not a common problem really. And that seems like something you would just make sure wasn't the case before you started a group chat about a military campaign between the highest levels of the US federal government. I'm sorry, man. I can't be the only one who's looking at this and saying, this just makes no sense. This makes absolutely no sense Alright guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show

If you are looking for a great mother's or father's day gift idea my thoughts on Father's Day aside people still give gifts I know from experience that the best gift you're gonna find is that paint your life where you can get a Hand-painted portrait to fit almost any budget. It's a great gift idea for your mother, your father, or both. I will tell you, I gave my wife this gift. She absolutely loved it. I highly recommend it. Now, you can get a professional hand-painted portrait

created from any photo at a truly affordable price, an unforgettable Mother's Day gift, or Father's Day gift if you're so inclined. All you do is you upload photos to create anything you can imagine. You can put yourself in a location you've always wanted to visit. You can add a lost loved one to a special occasion to create the portrait of your dreams. There's lots of options. You choose between oil, acrylic, watercolor, charcoal, plus more, and select a variety of quality frames.

You can communicate directly with the artist who's painting your picture to ensure the portrait is painted just the way you wanted it. You get a handheld portrait in as little as two weeks. It's meaningful, personal, and always heart-warning. Now you can give the most meaningful gift you have ever given at Paint Your Life, and there's no risk.

If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded, guaranteed. And right now, we have a limited time offer. You can get 20% off your painting. That's right, 20% off plus free shipping to get this special offer. Just text the word problem to the number 87204. You just text the word problem to 87204 one more time, text the word problem to 87204, paint your life, celebrate the moments that matter most, message and data rates may apply, see terms for details. All right, let's get back into the show.

All right, let's keep playing. Other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out. So your staffer did not put his contact information? No. But how did it end up in your phone? That's what we're trying to figure out. But that's a pretty big problem. That is what we've got the best technical minds, right?

And that's where, I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where it was said one person and then a different phone number, but you've never talked to him before So how's the number? Just pause it for any of this, but it's just cause it for a second here with what? Like I'm sorry am I crazy here like Natalie some anyone in the chat here anyone is that I'm sure everyone out there has had Like a contact in a phone. It's not First of all, I know I've never thought of this as like a problem. Um, yeah, Natalie says, no, that's insane. Yeah. This is like bananas.

Like, and even if you had that, you'd be thinking like, oh, I messed up putting his number in. I put the wrong number in. Right. And I'm just saying, just running through this. And again, I was never like that strong of a math student or anything like that. But like if you like had a contact and incorrectly put the number in the odds that that would hit. The senior editor of the Atlantic, like it was like your contact was one number away from this guy or something like that, the odds are like insane, it's a one in millions that that would be the example.

So what we're talking about here, um, is that you, what you're saying is that somebody put his information under this contact. Now you could be alleging a conspiracy here, but as Laura Ingraham kind of get that Laura Ingram is like a Trump sycophant. So she's kind of going soft on him here. Even she starts going like, so a staffer? No, we're not saying a step. Like, it almost seems like she's trying to assist him in this bullshit cover up, but

like can't figure out how that would even work unless you're implicating a staffer. How else would this happen? Just makes no sense whatsoever. All right, let's keep playing. How's the number on your phone? Well, if you have somebody else's contact and then it and then somehow it gets sucked in. It gets sucked in.

Was there someone else supposed to be on the chat that wasn't on the chat that you thought was the person that I thought was on there was never on there it was It was that's what person well. I'm not look Laura. I take I take responsibility I built the I built the group okay, so But look that's the part that we have to figure out and that's a part that we were embarrassing yes But Pete and I are veterans we know these operations But Pete and I are veterans. We know these operations. He has been an excellent secretary of defense.

And this was an operation that, I mean, it amazes me. I guess the Democrats were fine to leave all the sea lanes shut down. We're fine to have destroyers fired on dozens of times by this terrorist group and fine to have Iran keep supplying them missiles. That was okay. The president takes decisive action.

And now we're seeing some real success and taking down their air defenses, opening the sea lanes, taking out their leadership. We don't want to talk about that. We don't want to talk about this. Now the Atlantic told us in the past. All right. I mean, Jesus Christ. Okay. Sorry. It's just like, this is just, and look, I mean, if you were trying like, I, I must be your target demo. If you're sitting here going like, yeah, but the Democrats are so bad, you know, and the corporate media is so bad. It's like, yeah, I know dude. And you know, part of the reason why people aren't talking about what an amazing success this strike

on Yemen was, cause it's all bullshit. Like there was no success. You can't point to any success. Oh, they're, I guess they're just fine with the shipping lanes being closed and this terrorist organization, you know, terrorist organization, whatever the hell that even means anymore. Um, how, how exactly, um, we get to call the Houthis terrorists, but what we're doing to Yemen isn't terrorism or what Israel's doing to Gaza isn't terrorism or what the Saudis did to Yemen isn't terrorism. Like you, you find me a consistent definition for terrorism that says the Houthis are terrorists,

but the U S military, the Israeli military and the Saudi military aren't. And essentially, as we always say on the show, right? It's the old Noam Chomsky line, but I love that. Um, it's one of Noam Chomsky's best ever. But when someone asked him, uh, she goes, well, what differentiates terrorism from these military actions? And he goes, Oh, it's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counterterrorism. And that's pretty much the case. But look, it's just not true. Just none of this is true. This is such bullshit.

You're as you're as big a liar as the Democrats and the corporate media right now. First of all, Joe Biden bombed the Houthis and for the exact same reason he did this. You could go watch there's tape of Donald Trump when he was on Tim Poole show last summer specifically talking about this and how stupid he thought it was that Joe Biden's bombing Yemen. And he goes, man, these guys just always want to drop bombs. It's like their answer to everything. What about diplomacy? Why can't we talk to people? You could pick up a phone and do more good than you can just drop in bombs on

all your problems. That's what Donald Trump was saying last summer when Joe Biden was bombing the Houthis and for the same reason Because they were shooting at ships going by in protest over what Israel's doing the gap to Gaza Okay, so this whole thing is just bullshit It's all bullshit and to say like why like it's so ridiculous to sit here and go. Well, why is it? I have to say like why like it's so ridiculous to sit here and go. Well, why is it? That people are talking about this signal thing instead of talking about what an overwhelming success this bombing campaign was Well, there's two major reasons number one. The bombing campaign wasn't a success number two Because the National Security Advisor added the fucking senior editor at the Atlantic to the goddamn group chat planning a future military attack

That's why we're talking about it. Sorry. That's a scandal. There's no universe in which that's not a scandal I mean, it's crazy that there's a universe in which bombing a poor third world country isn't a scandal Like there's it's crazy What's really crazy is that we actually live in a universe where the scandal isn't the fact that there seems to be consensus within the group that this wasn't time sensitive, that it didn't need to happen when it happened. Meaning in other words, there was plenty of time to go to Congress and get authorization for this

strike. If you remember in that dusty old book called the Constitution, Congress is the one who's supposed to have the war powers, not a group of people on signal. That wasn't exactly the founders intention for the country. That's a scandal, but I'm sorry, even in our crazy universe where those things somehow are not considered scandals, it's a goddamn scandal when the national security advisor who used to be Dick Cheney's counterterrorism advisor is adding the most Trump hating lying corporate journalists to their signal account. And that his explanation for this just makes zero sense at all.

He's sitting there saying I take full responsibility except none of the responsibilities on me. Right? I mean, isn't that essentially what he's saying? He's sitting here and saying, I take full responsibility. I'm the one who created the group chat. How did this guy get added to the group chat? Well, it's certainly not my fault. What's your plus plausible alternative explanation? Don't have one. Ah, you know, contact names and numbers. You know how it goes. Everyone's had that except everyone hasn't had that. None of this makes any sense. You're totally skirting responsibility, but while claiming that you're taking responsibility for the whole thing and really all you've got to say is our best. We got great people on it. Top guys on the

job. We'll get to the bottom of this. This is horrible. It was like, this is just awful. All right. Let's, let's keep playing marriage and discredit us and our reporting fall an obvious playbook by elected officials and others of our who are hostile to journalists and First Amendment rights of all Americans. They're saying don't blame the messenger. Any response to them? Lied about Russia, lied about Gold Star families, lied about even as last what year in terms of the president paying for the family of a gold star family that he absolutely did.

I mean, lie after lie after lie. Have they ever apologized for any of that? No. I mean, yeah, but you're lying right now. We care about the mainstream. You can't just sit here and call everybody else a liar while you're clearly lying about this. Like, what do you want me

to say here? I mean, look, dude, it's going to, it takes a lot to get me to trust one of these lying hacks from the Atlantic. But as of right now, when he, his story makes way more sense than Mike Waltz's story. I think that I think Waltz does have a relationship with this guy. I think he had his contact info on signal. Now it is whether or not he accidentally added him to this list or this was some type of intentional thing that kind of remains to be seen. I don't know about that, but I think he's fucking lying right now about this. I think he is in contact with that journalist and this pivoting to he lies about everything just doesn't work when you're so clearly lying through your

teeth about the current scandal at hand right now. All right, let's let's play a little bit more. What I care about is staying focused on mission, accomplishing the president's agenda, getting these things done, cleaning up the Biden messes from Afghanistan to Ukraine to the Houthis to the border to China all over South America to the Arctic where we're completely exposed to NATO that's not paying up. And the president has had success after success.

And he's got a fantastic national security team. I mean, I think it's just stunning how many people on the team have his 100% trust. And there have been enormous successes early on in this administration, but you all are rattling the old cages of the establishment defense and national security embedded people who are still working government,

a lot of great people, but the concern is, is that somebody got involved here who didn't want the president to be successful. And a lot of us are very concerned about that, that someone is in this orbit who doesn't want this president of the United States to be a raging success and turn our foreign policy into an America first approach.

We made a mistake. We're moving forward and we're going to continue to knock it out of the park for this president. Look at what he's gotten done in under two months. And I didn't even get going on the economy, on trade or all of those other things. And April 2nd is coming. Yeah, Liberation Day. The DNI was very adamant today and very clear that there was no classified information in this text chat. And the Democrats, of course, are predictably, they're going to jump on this.

But should Goldberg just release the other information that he has, because he's standing on this, well, I'm not going to release this information because I have my standards and journalistic standards. OK, but it's not classified information. So does it matter? Would you would you care if the rest of this information came out? Look, I mean, I would prefer certainly as a president was saying today, if we could all sit in a steel lined, you know, steel lined led room

and have all of these conversations, I certainly want our deliberations to stay confidential. This was an encrypted app that the CIA had on sitting there as John Radcliffe was confirmed and walked into the building from the prior administration. It's on other agency apps. And so, no, of course I don't want it all out there because these were conversations back and forth that you should be able to have. All right, let's just leave it there. Jesus. So isn't it funny? And what I, what I thought was so remarkable about this interview, right?

Is you got to remember here, this guy could have gone on any show he wanted to. He picked Laura Ingram show to go on because she's a cheerleader of this administration and she is actively trying to help I expect Laura Ingram show to go on because she's a cheerleader of this administration and she is actively trying to help him in this coverup. Like she's trying her best and there's just, but none of the outs that she's giving him he's willing to take. So she keeps going like, oh yeah, probably a staffer. Right?

So you could kind of say someone else under me fucked up. We're going to figure out who that is. It's, this is how, um, this is how, uh, scandals in DC are typically swept under the rug. You find somebody who's known as the fall guy. That's the term that they use for it, right? And then you end up blaming them. So you find out, Oh, it was a staffer who did this, you know, behind closed doors, you tell them, you're going to have to take the fall for this. The scant, the, the staffer is fired. And then you go, we did it in investigation.

We got to the bottom of it. He won't take that bait because he recognizes that's admitting too much. So then she's trying her best. And then at the end, she's like, you know, Hey, let me throw this journalist under the bus a little bit. You know what he's saying? He won't release the whole chat because there's a, you know, there's, there's classified material in there.

Well, I'd say Tulsi Gabbard was adamant and saying there's no classified material. So release the whole chat then how come he won't, what does he have to hide? Right? National security advisor. And then he turns around and goes, no, I don't want the whole thing released. This goes, yeah, no, I don't want, I don't want that out there. All right guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is tax network USA. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world. and it just stepped up enforcement for 2025 If you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns

Do not wait for the IRS to come after you simply avoiding your tax troubles is the worst thing you can do Getting ahead of this is the smart move but never never Contact the IRS alone turn it over to the team at Tax Network USA contact the IRS alone. Turn it over to the team at Tax Network USA because not all tax resolution companies are the same. Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the IRS. This means that they know which agents to deal with and which agents to avoid.

Tax Network USA has proven strategies that are designed to settle your tax problems in your favor. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, their attorneys and negotiators have resolved over $1 billion in tax debt. Talk with one of their strategists. It's free. Stop the threatening letters. Stop looking over your shoulders and put your IRS troubles behind you once and for all. Give them a call 800 958 1000 or visit them at t n USA.com slash Smith. That's t n USA.com slash Smith. All right. Let's get back into the show. Look, I don't even know. I'm

speaking a little bit above my pay grade here and I suppose there could be a gap in the two, but wouldn't, wouldn't future bombing plans by their very nature have to be classified? I mean, I don't know. Maybe it's not technically, but wouldn't, if you're talking about a military action that's coming up, that detailed battle plans, battle maybe is not exactly the right word to use in these types of, but plans to bomb an apartment building, which is what

they ended up bombing by the way in Yemen. How is that not secret? Like by definition, isn't that secret? You're talking about plans of bombing something. You can't have that out there or the guy you're trying to get will leave or won't be there or whatever. Um, this just makes absolutely no sense. Absolutely no sense. And of course, not a shock. He doesn't want it out there. He doesn't want anyway, the full, uh, um, chat is out. It's on the internet. Um, I know they published it over at, uh, antiwar.com. If anyone wants to go check it out, one of the things that's,

one of the ugliest, uh, things about it, um, is that they essentially in here, I'll read from it. And this is more that came out that wasn't in the, uh, um, that wasn't in the original piece, but it's clearly, uh, the top guy who they're trying to get. The signal chat reveals that they waited, or they call them the top missile guy, the Huthies top missile guy in the chat. They waited for him to walk into a residential building where his girlfriend lived

before launching the airstrike that collapsed the building. JD Vance referred to that as excellent in the group chat. It seems that Tulsi Gabbard also celebrated it afterward. And you know, it's just as, as Dave DeCamp, as the great Dave DeCamp wrote on Twitter, I'll read this real quickly. We could wrap on that. We said, imagine a foreign country flattening an apartment building in the U S because an American general entered it. Never in a million years would Americans think that was acceptable and not regarded as terrorism. A short tweet, very well said. And just retweet that now.

Um, yeah, it's kind of like what I was saying before about what distinguishes terrorism from what we do. And it's not much. It's essentially just the fact that we do it anyway. This scandal is, um, look, it's not a scandal for the reasons that I would think of it as a scandal, or at least that's not how it's being portrayed in the media. But like the biggest thing here is just like how terrible it is that Donald Trump is bombing the poorest country in Yemen on behalf of Israel. I'm sorry,

the poorest country in the middle East on behalf of Israel. I'm sorry. The poorest country in the middle East on behalf of Israel. It's, it's appalling that all of these guys in this new administration were just cheering it on. You know, meet the new boss. All right. We're going to wrap on that. Oh, I should. Okay. Before we leave a couple of quick announcements. Number one, since I am flying out to Boston tomorrow, I'll, I'll be flying. I think we're not in the hotel yet during our normal recording time. So instead of tomorrow, we're going to do the members only episode on Friday. It'll be another extra long one because we're still making up the ones that we missed a couple of weeks ago. And then this Saturday for the people in the top tier, um,

there's our, our monthly zoom meeting. That'll also be an extra long one. So some fun stuff coming up this weekend. Uh, and then see, uh, I'm sure I'll see a bunch of you guys out in Boston looking forward to it. All right. Catch you next time. Peace.