Piers Morgan Uncensored - Trump picks RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard & Matt Gaetz

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Donald Trump’s cabinet picks can be seen as a harbinger of his second term’s future, and everyone in the political sphere is making their predictions. While no one in MAGA is jumping ship, some of the announcements have left even Republicans wincing in discomfort. Matt Gaetz nomination for attorney general? RFK Jr for Secretary of Health? Will these candidates make it through the Senate or are they too tainted in scandals and conspiracies? For a breakdown of Trump’s incoming team, and an analysis of who they will help or hurt, Piers Morgan brings former Chief White House Ethics Lawyer under George W Bush Richard W Painter, host of “Part Of The Problem Podcast” Dave Smith, Commentator and Content Creator Vincent Oshana, Fitness Guru who voted Trump Jillian Michaels, former Congressman and former candidate for President Joe Walsh and Pro-Palestine Commentator Omar Baddar onto Uncensored. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Pierce. This right here. Can you guys see it on the camera? That's me playing the world's smallest violin for all these crying Democrats. I think having Tulsi as DNI and Matt Gates as the Attorney General and Bobby Kennedy at the health department, these are the best picks that Trump's made. If I was a Palestinian right now, my heart would have sunk by some of these appointments. We are witnessing the full weight of religious fanaticism, combining with U.S. military power right now to allow Israel to obliterate Palestinians,

and it's going to be a real question of what happens next. Gillian, your view, Trump, the new Washington? I know. I'm going to say no. I've said before she's at best, the Putin cheerleader. At worst, she's a Putin asset. She literally fought for America. We are going to keep having Republican presidents because of people like you still talking Russia's shit, Joe.

Get over it. It's over. The most powerful people in US politics with guests of honor at the USC this weekend and were greeted as conquering champions themselves. That sentence alone would have sounded implausible, if not bizarre, even a few short years ago. President Trump is now the disruptor-in-chief. And judging by the reaction of the crowd in New York on Saturday, a lot of people are here for it. It wasn't just the setting that made this an iconic symbol of the revolution now underway in US politics.

Trump made a be-line for Joe Rogan, a former Bernie Sanders supporter, whose interview and endorsement were pivotal in the campaign. The president-elect was flanked by Elon Musk, RFK Jr, and Tulsi Gabbard. All of those people, including Trump himself, used to be Democrats. All of them will play a major role in the new Republican government. But with every revolution, there's a resistance. And outside of the arena, Trump's cabinet picks have unleashed panic and, well, frankly, devastation. If you live in a rural area and there's not a hospital very close to you,

but there is a community center closer to you, it could be decimated under Robert F. Kennedy. We're talking about the potential decimation of community health centers, which is devastating. And we haven't even gotten to Tulsi Gabbard potentially having access to national security information. And Russia loves it, loves her. And I actually think almost more than Matt Gates, Tulsi Gabbard's appointment is devastating.

It could be worse. You could have AOC running any of those. departments. The president's nominations for top jobs have been roundly condemned by some as crazy. An MSNBC pundit made the outrageous claim that Pete Hegsyth, Trump's picked for defense, is a white supremacist. He's not. Telsie Gabbert, the incoming head of national intelligence, has faced a fresh barrage of familiar accusations. She's a Russian agent. She's not. RFK Jr. is being hauled over the coals, just about everything, including eating a big match, which, to be fair, he didn't look overly thrilled about. We'll debate the pros. The proes.

and cons of Trump's cabinet picks in a moment. It's worth making one simple point. Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do if he got elected. And he just won the presidency in an emphatic, clean sweep. If that's not a mandate for him to now do what he said he'd do, then what is?

Debate this, I'm joined by Richard Payne, the former Chief White House Ethics Law under George W. Bush, Dave Smith, the host of Part of the Problemator on the PBD podcast, Vincent O'Shanna, and Gillian Michael, the health expert and host of Keeping It Real. Welcome to Oliver, a stellar panel.

Vinnie, let me start with you, because you're probably likely to be the most jubilant member of the panel today. Your thoughts on Trump's cabinet picks so far? Well, first of all, thank you, Pierce, for having me on. Again, it's an honor and what's up everybody on the panel. I think they're actually fantastic, peers. And actually, I brought notes today.

So first of all, Pierce, Rubio's going to take Tony Blinken's spot, right? Tony Blinken's history left 13 dead. service members in Afghanistan, allies abandoned, weak on China. And I don't know if you guys paid attention. He wants to rush $8 billion to Ukraine before January 20th. And last night, Vladimir Pooin was threatening nuclear war. And by the way, you know where Joe Biden is? And the Amazon dressed like Crocodile Dundee, Peers. It's absolutely ridiculous. I think they're all P. Hegsef. They're calling him a white supremacist. And it's like, you know what I realized

something peers, the left just will not understand. They've been to the Super Bowl twice. They've lost twice. They're using the same plays, and it's not working. Change your offensive BS rhetoric. Your offensive coordinators, horrible. Tulsi Gabbar is a freaking veteran. Pete Hexap, veteran. He has a tattoo on his chest. They're like, he's a Nazi. It's a Christian cross. And anything, one of the best ones, getting Alejandro Mayorkas, who is one of the worst criminals in this country, what he does, what he's done with the border, what he's done with FEMA, Pierce, I am so excited. And you know what this is, Pierce? This right here, can you guys see it on the camera? That's me playing the world's smallest violin for all these crying Democrats. I can't wait

for this administration to get stuff going. I'm excited. I think Gillian might be agreeing with you there. I'm not sure the other two will. Let me get to Richard Painter. Richard, there's clearly a divide in the Republican Party. There are the pro-Trump element of the party who are gung-ho for this and think this is exactly the kind of disruption that they were hoping he would do if he won again, and my goodness, he's doing it. But there are also more what I would call perhaps traditional Republicans, and I would park you in that camp, who are not as happy about all this, and think this goes against what he should be doing as a Republican president. So tell me your view of why you're concerned about these picks. Well, I'm a political independent now, so I can

criticize both parties, and I'm happy to go into details to how I think the Democrats screwed the pooch of this election is something that they seem to be quite good at. But bottom line is that Donald Trump, he is the president-elect, but he's the president-elect under our Constitution and the laws of the United States, and the laws must be complied with. He has every right to nominate his cabinet for confirmation by the Senate. that is the way this is going to work. He does not have the right to try to force the Senate into recess so he can make recess appointments.

The recess is going to be before he takes office. So these nominees need to go through the Senate confirmation process. Now, he has 53, I believe, seats in the Senate with the Republicans. So he just simply needs to convince the Senate these are good nominees. Now, Matt Gett, for the Attorney General's spot, has an ethics. investigation going on in the House. And I don't know what's in that report, and I'm not going to speculate about what's in that report, but it absolutely must be turned over to the United States Senate for confirmation. I went through this, the Bush administration, every nominee we set up,

they wanted a full background report on, and it was the Republican senators who were harder on us than the Democrats, because the Republicans knew that they voted yes on somebody who had a background problem. They would have to confront the voters, whereas the Democrats may just vote in No, on all of Donald Trump's nominees, they don't have to worry about it. The Republicans do. So there's going to be a Senate confirmation process. Second, everyone must comply with a financial conflict of interest rules. And that means selling off your assets that conflict with your official duties.

We have a criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 United States Code 208, and you may not participate in a government matter that impacts your financial holding. So Elon Musk, he may be outside the government. a way to work that under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, where he can be outside the government and advise the government. But they're going to have to do this according to the law. And that's all I'm going to insist on. I'm not going to weigh in on the policy preferences and so forth. The voters have had their say whether the voters voted for Donald Trump's policies or whether the voters were fed up with the way the Democrats handed things, with Joe Biden hanging on of this thing all the way through July, and then swapping out candidates.

I think Pamela Harris was a perfectly good candidate, but they only gave her about 100 days to run when the Democrats should have realized that Joe Biden was a one-term president years ago. And so they've loved it, and Donald Trump's our president. I just want to be the president in accordance with the Constitution

and the laws of the United States. Okay, Dave Smith, what to play a little mashup of the reaction to Matt Gates, in particular, being nominated to be Attorney General. Let's take a look. You're getting Matt Gates, and they hate Matt Gates. Yes. They hate Matt Gates more than they hate anybody.

These establishment Republicans. He's never going to get confirmed. I'm looking at him as a member of Congress in the job that he has done here, and it has been important. When I heard that Matt Gates was picked to be Attorney General, I threw up in my mouth. It must be the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history. Why not? I mean, if Matt Gates is going to be Attorney General, bring in Gary Busey to run the CIA. Clearly, it's just kind of like a god tear kind of trolling, just to trigger a meltdown.

Dave, your response to the picks generally, but particularly Matt Gates. Well, I mean, I think that essentially the picks who the corporate media are freaking out about are the best picks that Trump's made. Personally, I'm not too happy with a lot of his foreign policy picks. But I think having Tulsi as DNI and Matt Gates as the Attorney General and Bobby Kennedy at the health department, these are the best picks that Trump's made. And of course, in the upside down world that we live in, the corporate media, the professional lying class, the people who told you that Joe Biden was sharp as attack and Tomala Harris was joy and a phenomenon. And Tony Hinchcliff was a speaker at an event making a comment. And there was a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden.

and the list goes on and on and on and on. That's just in the last few months. Yeah, of course, they're all freaking out about this. I think what's really going on here is that Donald Trump has quite craftily put a person in charge of national intelligence and a person in charge of the Justice Department, assuming they get confirmed,

who were outside of the Russiagate hoax. And this is what's making everybody freak out right now. You know, so many things happen. in modern America. There's so many big stories that we kind of forget that a few years ago there was this little tiny story

where the intelligence agencies framed the sitting president for treason for years and had their corporate media outlets say that the sitting president, the biggest scandal, if true, in the history of the United States of America, that sitting president

was involved with a hostile foreign power in a conspiracy to overthrow our elections. They knew this was not true, They lied. And now their bosses are not only people who were outside of this conspiracy, but in Tulsi Gabbard's example, someone who is also smeared with that same accusation. As you saw Joy Reid as you played, just did the same thing again. And I'll say, I'm sorry, I don't want to go too long here. I'll just say this.

It is the most vicious, dishonest, despicable smear. To use this innuendo where you say, you know, Putin, Russia's thrilled that Tulsi Gabbard's in there. And it kind of leaves the viewer with this like implicit accusation that she, this woman who served her country is a traitor to her country. When that means nothing. Look, in 2002, if you opposed the war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein probably would have been happy to see you in there. But that doesn't mean you're a traitor to your country. That just meant that in 2002 you were right while the entire establishment was wrong. Listen, I totally agree with you.

We're going to come to the foreign policy part a little later. I know you've got differing views there about some of the picks. But interesting to see what you said about those three. Let me go to Gillian because specifically, you're a fitness guru, obviously, and radiating good health today, may I say so. This whole issue of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., it's interesting. Before I interviewed him, I've interviewed him maybe five, six times now, I had a kind of view of him that I'd seen from the media

that he was a complete crackpot, that he was anti-all-vaccines and so on and so on. And that certainly wasn't the impression I got. And actually, the more I interviewed RFK Jr., the more impressive I felt he was, he's obviously fiercely intelligent. He's extremely well-read. And it seems to me he comes up this essentially from a good place. He wants more transparency, and he wants to make America a healthier place. Now, am I living in Cloud Cuckoo land, Jillian?

Or is that pretty much the reality? That's exactly the reality. Is he eccentric? Yes, he's a little bit eccentric. But he's a good person. If you look at his history, this is a guy who sued Monsanto, DuPont, General Electric. He's an environmental attorney. His goal was to clean up chemicals out of our environment to help people not get cancer. Now, if you look at what he's promised to do, it's three things. So the first one, obviously, is he wants to end corruption. If you look at

the revolving door between our guns, government agencies and industry. It's terrifying. I could give you a million different examples of how scary this is, but let's go to one that everybody knows, which is OxyContin. The guy at the FDA who approved OxyContin went and took a cushy job for Purdue.

There are a million examples like this. He wants gold standard research when it comes to vaccines and drugs, but particularly vaccines because the research on those is not up to poverty. And I'm going to give you a perfect example. He wants randomized human randomized control trials. So if you look at hepatitis B, which is one of the most controversial vaccines for kids, because it's specifically for people who have risky sex and use needles. And you can test the mother to find out if she's negative before you vaccinate the newborn.

So why does a child even need this? Well, ironically, after the drug companies were giving them, in blanket immunity in 1986, they added 48 more doses of vaccinations to the schedule. But let's look at Hep B. What are the clinical trials that it goes through? I think your mind is going to be blown, and I encourage everybody to look this up. It's on the FDA's website. They tested 147 kids and three trials, and they monitor them for five days. Does that seem up to par?

I don't think so. And then the second thing, and by the way, I can give you a, million other examples just like this one. And the third thing is he was tasked with dramatically improving the health of Americans. And in case everybody's missed it, we are unhealthy than ever. 74% of adults are overweight or obese. We've all heard the diatribe. I'll run through it one more time. We're more infertile than ever. Infertility rates are going up 1% every year. Autism, 134 kids. It was like one in 10,000 when I was a child. I mean, we could go on and on and on. Does Rock Bottom have a basement?

I don't think so. There's a loophole in the FDA that lets 10,000 chemicals into our food, 9,000 of which are banned in every other country of the developing world. I mean, my God, really? I think what you're seeing here is the absolute panic of big food, big farming, big pharma, and big insurance, and for good reason, because it's absolutely corrupt. And I, for one, am so excited about this, and I will do everything to help get this guy confirmed.

Richard Painter, you were the White House ethics lawyer. This battle, really, between big industry, big farmer, the big military complex, whatever it may be, and government. Do you feel instinctively, you're now an independent, as he said, do you feel instinctively that is long overdue time, perhaps, for some disruptive... people to get in there and break the cycle? Well, we just need to have government officials who don't have conflicts of interest who are not cowtowing the industry. But fact of the matter is that both political candidates

took an enormous amount of money from large corporations. And it remains to be seen what President Trump will actually do. There's a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk. Let's see what actually happens. because in his first term, he was not taking on big industry, whether it's the big defense contractors who run our defense budget up sky high to almost $900 billion, the big food companies we just talked about, oil, fossil fuel companies, and the like. None of them were taken on.

President Biden didn't do that much better a job of taking on the corporate interests. So let's see what actually happens, because there's a lot of talk before the election, and then you get the job and you have to actually do it. Now, I do hope that instead of talking on and on about Russia and 2016 and so forth and the 2020 election and all of that, that the president-elect, when he becomes president, can focus on policy and implementing his policy as best he can in cooperation with a Republican majority of the House and Senate, If this is just going to be a time when people just want to talk about Russiagate or talk about the indictments in January 6th and pardon the January 6ers and so forth, it's just going to be a real mess. He was elected to do a job.

He has a majority in both houses. They can do it, but they also need to comply with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And a large reason why these corporations have so much influence in Republican and Democratic, administrations is people are not taking the ethics laws seriously. And it's about time they do. Yeah, I agree. I mean, Vinnie, would you disagree with that? I mean, is it not time that America took a good, long, hard look at itself in the mirror,

the power of lobby groups, the power of big farmer, the power of the military complex and so on? I mean, it does seem that there are so many obvious conflicts here, which have been allowed to run riot for decades. No, I agree 100%. You know what I think it is? I think the left has stockholm syndrome, peers. They have fallen in love with their abuser, and now they're defending the abuser. And Gillian made a great point about RFK. I mean, who's in there right now, peers? Xavier Becerro. He's a lawyer. Everybody's like,

RFK has no experience. This guy's a lawyer, and she nailed it. Look at the mental health crisis we have going on. Everybody's obese. Everybody is depressed. Okay. And then who's the assistant? Who's the admiral, the assistant? Rachel Levine, who is a biological male, these people are in charge of our health, a biological male dressed as a woman who has been pushing to eliminate age restriction for transgender surgeries for children. I think, peers, let them cry all they want. They're going to keep crying. This is the change. This is the moment that we need. And I'm happy you played the UFC thing in the beginning. Everybody's dancing like Trump. The vibe is positive. All these football players are dancing and being

like him. And this is, Pierce, you have to understand. He's coming in and RFK's going to mess with Big Pharma. that's a trillion dollar. Like these people don't play games, all right? And this guy's lost his father and his uncle peers. And a lot of people would say, especially with these JFK files, that the government and the CIA were involved. You go after anybody that's going against war.

You wind up dead. RFK needs to be careful because they, remember how long they denied secret service from this guy? They had to finally because Trump was shot in the head. He's messing with Big Pharma, but I think it's amazing, peers, and he's the best guy to do the job, plain and simple. Dave, the presidents of Elon Musk is sort of omnipotent right now.

He's right with Trump, morning, noon and night, whether he's at Murillaga, whether he's at Madison Square Garden, whatever. I've met Musk once this summer. He's got a stupendous brain. I mean, I had a couple of hours with him, one with a Q&A, and then one just with me and him and a couple of others. He's got an incredible brain. There's no question.

And I would absolutely back him to sort out extravagant waste in government. bureaucracy as him and Vivek Ramaswamy are doing. But is it right that somebody who is Elon Musk, with all the power that he has in so many different industries, is it right that he now has an unelected superhold over the president? Well, I mean, it's not as if voters didn't know that Elon Musk was in Trump's corner when they elected him. And if anything, I actually think it was one of the things that really helped Donald. Trump. I think that the one of the things that was different, as we've talked about on the show before, Pierce, from 2016 or even 2020, was that you had this group of like Bobby Kennedy and Elon Musk and, you know, these kind of former Democrats who were now coming around Donald Trump. And so, look, it's a real question mark what this Doge thing is actually going to end up being. It seems so far to me that Donald Trump has given Elon Musk and Vivek Ramoswamy full reign of a

imaginary department that he just made up, and I don't really know what is going to come from that. I was speaking with Vivek the other day, and he is really bullish on it. He's like, no, we've got some great ideas about how this is actually going to work, and we're going to give great recommendations. It remains to be seen. I will say that there is this strange dynamic where, you know, like when Elon Musk bought Twitter even, you would see people in the corporate media freaking out about how a rich person can now control the information as if this is anything new.

And like, as if, like, you know, the owner of the Washington Post is just a middle-class guy or something like that. Like, you know, this is the way American politics works for better or for worse. There are certainly valid critiques of it. But the issue that people have with Elon Musk, I don't think, is that he's a rich guy who gave a lot of money to Trump's campaign and now has a position. I mean, Mary Madelson gave Trump $100 million and, okay, she doesn't have a position. But certainly the picks that she would like have a lot of, uh, uh, of powerful positions in his administration. And this is true on the Democratic side as well. So the difference to me seems to be that Elon Musk is actually talking about cutting some of government spending.

Of course, the U.S. federal government is the biggest most powerful organization in the history of the world, the biggest government that's ever existed. And so if you dare talk about cutting some spending in that, then all of a sudden you're a pariah. If you talk about exposing corruption, then all of a sudden we have this real problem with rich people in politics. Meanwhile, nobody is saying anything, I shouldn't say nobody, but the same people who are critical of Elon Musk certainly are not talking about Miriam Adelson or Soros or anything like that. So let's be consistent here. Richard, we've got to let you go. So just finally, on Elon Musk, do you see ethical issues with his role at the moment? It's not a government role. It's an advisory role, but it seems to have almost

limitless power when it comes to reducing government spending. Is that ethical? Well, first of all, we should understand that rich people are going to come into the administration, and that has been true of Democrats and Republicans, even though the role of money in politics has escalated dramatically in the United States. But the rich people have gotten the powerful positions, going all the way back to Joe Kennedy, who was ambassador to the United Kingdom under Franklin Roosevelt, who had contributed a lot to Roosevelt's campaign, and was a complete disaster in that. a position when Britain was at war with Germany.

But we've had that. We had that in the Biden administration. It was very critical of the ambassador of Germany and Canada, who had used money from the University of Pennsylvania to set up a center for Joe Biden, and they got ambassadorships. We're going to have this in the Trump administration. So Elon Musk, of course, spent a huge amount of money getting Trump elected. He will have a role.

But we need to figure out whether he's in the administration or out, and they need to make this very, very clear if he's been. in the administration, and he's a government official, he needs to comply with a financial conflict of interest statute, 18 United States Code 208. He is going to have to sell off his assets that have present a conflict of interest. He would commit a crime if he participated in a government matter that had direct and predictable impact on his companies, on his government contracts, and the like. I don't think he wants to do that. So even though they call this DOGE, DOGE, a department, of government deficiency.

A department is almost always viewed as an entity inside the government, but apparently it's going to be outside the government, they say now. So now he can be outside the government. He does not have to comply with the financial conflicts of interest rules. But they need to do this according to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.

You don't just set up committees outside the government that play by their own rules and then are giving advice to the president and to government agencies. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the proceedings of the Doge need to be transparent. There need to be meetings announced in advance. The public needs to have the right to have some input. And most important, there will be no assertion of executive privilege because this is an entity outside the government.

And that's the law. So they have a choice here. If they want all the confidentiality and the secrecy that comes with the White House and the executive office of the president and the executive privilege, then Elon Musk comes into the government. He complies with the financial conflict of interest rules or he does this under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. But we don't sort of play around halfway in between because if they do, what's going to happen is you're going to get the Democrats in there at some point controlling the House or the Senate, probably the House at some point. And this starts appealing everybody and get every last shred of evidence about what was going on. And it could be a big mess and detract from their doing their job. So once again, I get back to my point here, which is President Trump will take office again in January.

He needs to conduct his administration according to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. And he can do that. It's just a question of whether he will and whether people working with him will. I hope they do. Richard W. Pellner, thank you very much for Dave for joining me. Former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is among President Trump's controversial picks, the incoming director of national intelligence. It's heard to Jesse Waters at Fox News.

He's already leading. He's already engaging with so many of these world leaders around the world on the phone constantly, and he's showing the kind of leadership that the American people voted for. We're joining the panel now as a host of a social contract, former Republican presidential candidate and Congressman Joe Walsh, who says that Gabbard is a Putin cheerleader. Joe, welcome back to Unsensored. You think she's a total disaster.

Why? You can't trust her. This country cannot trust her with our intelligence. If I'm, Pierce, if I'm one of our allies, there's no way if she's appointed. I'm sharing my intelligence with America. Look, I've said before she's at best, the Putin cheerleader.

At worst, she's a Putin asset. For the past decade, she has done nothing but defending. Vladimir Putin and parrot Putin and Russian propaganda. I mean, again, there's a list I could take 30 minutes and go through the list. That's a humongous concern. She's not on our side. She's clearly on Russia's side. She literally fought for America. She served her country and fought for America. How can you say she's not on our side? She's still in the military. She's still in the military. in the military. Sure.

First of all, this is the guy that says he's not a, you're not a Democrat. I remember this guy who was on the PPD podcast. You are, you are exactly the problem

that, listen to me, I want you to keep talking the way that you're talking because of people like you, excuse me, excuse me, you know what, let me finish.

Because of people like you, because of people like you, and your rhetoric, and your rhetoric, you know what's going to happen? J.D. Vance is going to be the president next. Tosy Gabber is going to be the president. Eric Trump's going to be the president.

we are going to keep having Republican presidents because of people like you still talking Russia's shit, Joe. Get over it. It's over. You're talking about an active military girl. She's a lieutenant colonel in the army, and you're saying she's an asset. You're an idiot. You're an idiot.

And people are tired of your bullshit. Okay, that didn't respond. Change the record. That didn't respond, Vinny. Do me a favor, my friend. Change a record, bro. Instead of attacking me, attack what I said about Tulsi Gabbard,

For a decade, she has done nothing for Eric Putin. Address that. Really? But I, okay, but Joe, I want to address that. Okay, I'm going to come to... Hang on, hang on, hang on. I'm going to come to Gillian in a second. All I would say, Joe is, I read, I get an email each week for me and Bremener,

one of the guys I most respect in the political world. He's very balanced, he's very insightful weekly emails about what's going on in the news. He said he's seen absolutely no evidence that she has ever been, anything even approaching a Russian asset is a total myth of the Democrat side to suggest she ever has been. Pierce, you're going to ignore 10 years of what she said? Well, she's allowed to have an opinion. Well, hang on, she's allowed to have an opinion about Ukraine.

She can have an opinion about Ukraine. And you may not agree with that opinion. And by the way, I don't agree with her opinion about Ukraine, but she's allowed to have it. It doesn't make her a Russian asset. No, Pierce, exactly. she's allowed to have her opinion. Donald Trump has picked her to head up all our intelligence efforts

in this country. But there is no evidence that she would be a threat to leaking that intelligence to Russia. It's a mirror. Not at all. Let me get a Jillian. She's either a dupe or an asset because everything she's done the past 10 years

and said has been exactly what Russia would want her to say or do. So she's either an asset or a dupe. That's the dumbest statement. ever. Who cares? If I said Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, that might be exactly what Saddam Hussein wants me to say. That doesn't mean anything. You see, Pierce, this is the trick here. And I'm sorry, I know you want to go to Julian, but the trick is that the same way they used to say Trump-Russia collusion. They wouldn't say Donald Trump's in a conspiracy with the Russians. You see, because that's

actually meets the criminal code. And then so you just say collusion, because what does that even mean? They could have had a phone call. Okay, they're colluding, but that's totally legal. So when you say she's a Russian asset, you give this wink and nod like she's a traitor when what it means. And Pierce, you disagree with me on this topic too. But listen, the argument is that there were a million off ramps to the war in Ukraine. I know the argument.

Yeah, chose to not take any of them. And that this war could have been avoided and it could have been negotiated away. Now, the idea that if someone makes this argument, your counter to that is to say that you're a Putin asset. This is so, first off, it's just despicable and it's profoundly stupid. It makes absolutely no sense at all. So listen, at least during the original McCarthyism period, at least during the House Committee on American Activities,

at least back then, there were some communists. Nobody is loyal to Vladimir Putin. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're entitled. No, Tulsi Gabbard, of course, is entitled. to her opinion as a citizen of this country. But if for 10 years, your opinion is identical to Russian propaganda, we are entitled to question that.

And someone like that, you're saying nothing. And I'm entitled to make the point that that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard in my life. Both major points. Let me bring it out loud. Let me bring it. Okay. Okay. Time out.

Time out. Let's bring in Gilli. We'll be working very patiently to get back in here. I mean, Jillian, my experience of time. I interviewed Chelsea a couple of months ago. I thought she was extraordinarily impressive, I have to say. And I think this idea that you categorize her, because she happens to think that the history of the Ukraine-Russia war,

that she actually has a view, which many on the Republican side do, by the way, that actually it could have been avoided. I don't believe that, but I certainly understand that view, and it's been expressed to me by professors and everybody else. certainly look upon her as some kind of traitor for having that view. What do you think? Okay. First of all, I believe that for half of those 10 years, wasn't she a celebrated Democrat or am I forgetting or missing something? That said, let's look at what she's actually said. So this is a combat veteran that was deployed to Iraq, which was an absolute pointless war by

neocons like Dick Cheney, who I personally think is a war criminal, but we can table that argument for another day. This is a woman that I imagine has seen people die in horrible ways, has seen mothers, lose sons, wives, lose husbands. She's for peace. Now, with you're engaging in a proxy war, with a nuclear power, I would imagine that we should do everything possible to, you're engaging in a proxy war, with a nuclear power, I would imagine that we should do everything possible to ensure that that does not happen. And in addition, she's also raising the alarm bell about biochemical weapons in Ukraine, these labs, which is exactly how we got COVID is gain of function research. And she has said specifically that we need diplomacy, that if you look at Reagan, he spoke with Gorbachev.

If you look at Kennedy, he spoke with Khrushchev to avoid disaster. That's what she has advocated for. That's why she sat with Assad. And all of his, all of the people, forgive me, the people that opposed him, she sat with everybody when she went to Syria. Didn't Nancy Pelosi also sit with Assad unless I'm crazy? And not only that, if we look at, I'm with Dave. I have done a lot of homework on this one.

Civilians well before. Okay. So here's my question. So you wouldn't sit down with these kinds of people and you would just let people die when, ironically, it's the military industrial complex that's making, oh my God, isn't it almost a trillion dollars off of these wars?

I mean, who's profiting off of this? There were numerous off-ramps here. So what are you going to do? You want to punch Putin in the nose because he's a bully? I mean, didn't we just jump in? Let me just jump in. I want to ask Joe this question, Because the New York Times reported yesterday, a major change in U.S. policy, allowing Ukraine to use American-supplied long-range weapons inside Russia.

I think this is a good thing. I think you've got to push Putin hard, especially if you're talking about negotiating at any stage, some kind of settlement. He can't be seen to do that from a position of overwhelming potential victory. He's going to be on the back foot, is my view. But Donald Trump, Jr., posted to X on Sunday night. The military industrial complex seems to want to make sure they get world. World War III going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives, got to lock in those trillions, life be damned imbeciles. It looks to me, I mean, we just don't know what Donald Trump's view of all this is. He's met with Zelensky several times. We know he's been talking to Putin.

We know he says he can resolve this in 24 hours. We're not sure when that time period starts. But what do you make of all this? How concerned should the Ukrainians be? on the one hand, the good news, they're getting these long-range missiles, and on the other, you're getting all these signs from the Trump world that they don't want to have anything to do with this. I'll take a first step.

I think it's a good move, but Pierce, it should have been done a long time ago by Biden. It may be a little too late, but I'm glad he did it. If I'm Ukraine and I'm Zelensky, I'm extremely concerned. I mean, let's just not erase two years of Trump's campaign history, where he's made very clear he doesn't give a damn about Ukraine. He wants to end the war. If that means he'll cut up,

he'll help cut up Ukraine and give a bunch of territory to Russia, he'll do it. He's extremely friendly of Putin. And again, I'll fall on. We don't know that yet. He's not said that. No, well, no, but we know based on what he's said that he's been critical of Zelensky

and he's been nothing but praise, nothing but praise for Putin. And again, actually, the only one he's met, the only one he's met actually recently is Zelensky, not Putin. So again, we don't know. And Zelensky seemed quite happy about the way that meeting went. So here's the thing about Trump. The one undeniable thing about him is that he has got a big ego. Nothing wrong with that.

So have I. You've got a big ego. And the last thing he will want to do when he becomes president again is the first thing is to give Vladimir Putin a win. He's not going to do. do that. He's not going to allow Putin to have some victory parade over Ukraine. I just can't, I can't believe that Trump, the first thing he wants is to say to Putin, a Russian dictator, there you go, you beat the Americans at anything, which is how it would be construed. Pierce respectfully disagree. And by the way, he just gave Putin a big win because he just

appointed, picked a Putin propagandist to be in charge of our intelligence. That's a big win for Putin. Okay, let me bring in Vinnie. Let me bring in Vinny. Your response. But, Pierce, I honestly think I'm in the twilight zone when this guy talks. Like, are we forgetting that for four years, nothing happened, okay? Nothing happened with Russia, your Russian asset BS dialect. It's horseshit. Who's in charge right now of natural intelligence?

It's Averill Haynes. Okay, under her, she couldn't foresee this Russia invasion in Ukraine. We're talking about everything that has already happened. I love how it's always Trump. Now it's Tulsi, it's Russia. Why did it none of this happen four years ago? He literally went on camera yesterday, Putin and said, if you guys launch anything, I'm going to use nuclear capability.

Yeah, but hang on. Ben, Vinnie, Vinny, Vinny, hang on. You talk about BS. He has threatened to use nuclear weapons from day one of this war. And guess what? Every time the West has actually crossed one of his so-called red lines, he's done nothing. I don't think there's any, any chance that Vladimir Putin is going to press a nuclear button

because you know why he would be vaporized along with his country in 30 nanoseconds? So if you think about it logically, this guy's not an Islamic fundamentalist. He's not going to risk his own life, right, for some great cause. He's not that way-minded. He's a megalomaniac oligarch who's built a $100 billion personal empire out of being a former KGB thug who now runs the country in the same way. But this idea that he's going to press a button that signals mad, as they call it, MAD, mutually assured destruction.

Why would he do that? So why do we keep allowing him to rattle his nuclear sabre, rather than what it should be, which is a deterrent against being attacked, as an offensive weapon to stop people getting involved? Why do we allow him to do that? When did Republicans, like you, Vin, and I say, it's a great respect. You know, I love you. But when did Republicans, when did Republicans start to just back off Russian dictators and want them to win?

Which is effectively what would happen here if we let Ukraine go and don't help them. Hold on a second. Am I missing something? Hang on, Jillian. I'll come to you. Sorry, Vinnie. Go ahead. Yeah.

And again, Jill, I'll be very quick. And Pierce, I get it. Everybody always threatens, especially when they're nuclear power. No, no, it's your turn. But I'm going back to my point. No, no, it's all good. Jillian, it's all good. But Pierce, and I go back to my point. So he's always threatened and he's done it. I don't take any nuclear threat. I worked at a nuclear missile base, Pierce, and Malmstrom Air Force

Base, Montana when I was in the United States Air Force, okay? This isn't people, I know he's threatened or he hinted, but the fact that now we're sending long-range missiles to go into Russia, this is not, this is ridiculous. Well, hang on. Vinnie. Vinny, hang on. He's just got 10,000 troops from North Korea to join Russian forces to attack Ukrainians. Sorry, where's the response to that dramatic escalation? Why is America not going, no, no, no. That's not happening on our watch, which I think is why Biden's done what he's done.

It's too little too late. But Gillian, you want to get involved, Gillian? Well, here's how it looks to me, okay? When they disbanded the USSR, didn't we promise not to expand NATO? and then didn't we subsequently move it like a thousand or so miles right up against the Russian border? Didn't we add like 14 countries? Wasn't that our part of the bargain that we weren't going to do it?

And then we did exactly what he said do not do. And if you look at the past, I don't know, three decades, there's plenty of evidence that suggests we have been pushing to do that. And that is what I think Tulsi is trying to illustrate is in understanding. of what role we played in how we got here. I'm not anti-American. Hang on. When has NATO- No?

Okay, so, hang on, hang on, Jillian. When has NATO ever acted offensively unilaterally rather than defensively? Well, okay, you threw unilaterally in there, Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan? No, no, I'm talking about unilaterally where NATO has precipitated the military action and not acted in a defensive capacity. Dave? Well, Pierce, I mean, first of all, I'll just say that I didn't realize I was doing. doing this panel with two Ukrainian assets who are going to be spreading Zelensky talking points. So I just, I'm appalled.

Tushay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That is a brain dead non-argument. So let me not start with that. Okay.

Now, look, Pierce, if you're going to, if you're going to make the standard, okay, yes, NATO took aggressive action in Serbia, in Libya, in Afghanistan, but it wasn't unilateral. The U.S. was involved. like, okay, but it's not self-evident that that should be the standard. And to Gillian's point, look, from, it's not, it doesn't make you an asset of a foreign government to say, hey, as John Meersheimer puts it, let's have some strategic empathy here. Let's put ourselves in the position of our enemy or the hostile foreign government. And in two, listen, in 2008, I'd highly recommend anyone who wants to can go find this online. We only know about this because

is the heroic Julian Assange leaked it. But the current CIA director, Burns, at the time was the ambassador to Russia. And he wrote a private cable back to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And it's titled, Niet means Niet. And what he said in that memo to the Secretary of State was that he's talked to everyone in Russia. And it's not Vladimir Putin. It's his sharpest liberal critics.

It's his sharpest right-wing critics. They are unanimous. that Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of red lines for them. And they will intervene to stop that. Now, you can feel however you feel about that, maybe you could say, hey, Ukraine ought to have the right to join whatever military alliance they want. Let's be real here for a second.

Does Mexico have a right to join a military alliance with China? Do you think we would put up with that? What do you think Washington, D.C. would do? if the Soviet Union, let's say, still existed, and they toppled the government in Canada and put in their own pro-Soviet government. So you would, just to be clear, Dave, let's be clear, you wouldn't want America to defend Taiwan,

say, if they got invaded by China, by that yardstick? Well, listen, it's not even a matter of what. Well, yes or no. Listen, well, here's the problem is, the problem is this thing called reality, Pierce. It's kind of like asking if Washington, D.C., let's just say, our government decided, weird. Well, but I am answering your question. Just give me one thing. Would you want America to go to Taiwan's aid if it was invaded by China?

No, and let me just explain what my point is here. If Washington, D.C. decided we're taking Mexico City, would you want China to stop us from doing that? The reality is China can't stop us from doing that. You see, we got this empire mentality in America where we think we can decide what, goes on all around the world. Now, the point, again, back to this current conflict, two months after the Nyet means yet memo was sent, at the Bucharest summit, George W. Bush, strong-armed it through, we announced that Ukraine was coming into NATO. We've constantly, at every step, even when Vladimir Putin has had reasonable demands, you cannot bring my biggest neighbor into your military alliance.

We have thrown the middle finger in the space. The biggest mistake, honestly, I think, It was not wise. Well, look, I think the biggest mistake we made with Ukraine was we made them give up their nuclear deterrent. If they still had their nuclear deterrent, they wouldn't have to worry about Vladimir Putin rattling his nuclear saber because they'd have their own to fire back at him. And he wouldn't have invaded. So that was a big strategic error as well. But I'm not oblivious to the history. And I don't think you can ignore it.

I mean, Joe, it's complex. Like a lot of these, you know, like Israel and Gaza and Hamas, like all these things. These are complicated historical issues. But then why when Tulsi brings up the history, is she a Russian asset? I agree with it. That's just what I want to understand. I agree with it. But Jillian, I agree with it.

But Joe, what is your response to what Dave says there, which Gillian also believes, which Tulsi also believes? Basically, the West collectively goaded Putin by doing what he has specifically said, I don't want you to do. Again, it's, and to answer Gillian and to answer your peers, it's because her side is utterly one-sided. Jillian, you said all Tulsi believes in his peace. And if that's true, all she does is attack America and defend Russia when we talk about peace. Look, I understand the situation's complicated, but Russia invaded a sovereign nation. Putin's to blame for that, not America. That's my worldview.

understanding that we're not blameless, Putin is to blame for making that decision. Tulsi Gabbard has a 10-year history accelerated by two and a half years ago of always blaming America and always defending Russia in every single thing she's said. If you're that one-sided in your view, if you're always defending Putin and you're always attacking this country, that's someone I would not trust to be in charge of our nation's intelligence. Okay, okay. Let me just pivot slightly. Dave, you posted this.

Marco Rubio is a disaster. Might as well give Liz Cheney the State Department awful sign. Why are you so anti-Rubia? But, I mean, most other people have said, actually, he's one of the sort of grown-up picks in this list. Yeah, well, most of the people who are saying that are making the ridiculous argument. that we've heard here today, and they're also the people who essentially, the real issue here, right, is that essentially you have this divide between people who support the foreign policy consensus of the last 20 years.

And so it's very easy. See, the thing is here, Joe, it makes the point, right, like, oh, she's always blaming America. This is what the George W. Bush Republicans post 9-11, this was their brain dead reply to every single left winger who would criticize their foreign policy. Oh, you're the blame America first crowd or something like that. Yes, Vladimir Putin did invade Ukraine, and that was wrong. He should not have invaded Ukraine. The United States of America is not clean in this invasion game either. And over the last 20-plus years, we have had wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, every last one of them was sold on lies, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of

thousands of innocent people, has cost trillions of dollars, and has left the area worse than it was before we invaded or before we had, you know, backed the invaders. Dave, Dave, I agree with a lot of that. But I know, Dave, I agree with a lot of that. Tulsi Gabbard said, we'll see if you agree. We're every bit as bad as Russia. Do you believe were every bit as bad as Putin? Every bit?

That's what she said. Well, listen, Joe, okay, that's fine. Instead of just, like, it's this emotional game. Who do you think's worse? You tell me the metric. You tell me the metric. Innocent people killed. Countries invaded.

What's the metric? And then I'll tell you who's worse on that? Defender of peace around the world, a history of defending peace and freedom. Yes, imperfect. Hold on, hold on, hold on one. Listen, Pierce. Yes, that made a mistake.

Yes, we never should have been dated a lot. Now, filibuster, now filibuster because you don't want to answer the average. Now, Pierce, our previous debate, our previous debate aside, I'll give you World War II. Well, I would say murdering and jailing your political opponents. I would say rigging an election so you're getting 90% of the vote because you punish people who don't vote for you, blah, blah, blah. I mean, there are all sorts of reasons why Vladimir Putin runs runs, runs, Russia like a mafia boss, which is not how America's won. Now, you might argue, and I think you have a point, because I oppose, as you know, is it not? I oppose. He's being naive now, Pierce.

But do you think America runs around poisoning opponents in streets in Europe, for example? Do you think it rigs an election? So about 90% of the people feel obliged to vote for someone, etc.? Well, so here's the thing, Pierce, right? A lot of times there's in more primitive countries, there's a more naked form of corruption that is more brutal in a way and is more obvious. So yes, it's true that America doesn't result to kind of some of these tactics. What America will do, right, like if we don't like the fact that, say, Yanukovych, the democratically elected president of Ukraine, decided he didn't want to join the European Union instead wanted to do a partnership with Putin, no, we won't poison him,

but we'll just foment color-coded revolution, overthrow that government. and install Victoria Newland's new, hand-picked, you know, members. Now, other countries who don't have the power to do that result to these other, you know, tactics, I'm not supporting any of it. I think all of it's wrong. But let's be honest here. I mean, like, America has been the most war-hungry country in the world over the last 25 years. And why can we admit that?

Dave, can I just ask one real quick question? All the mistakes we've made aside, is America a force for good around the world, yes or no? a force for good. I think this is a childish, simplistic question. We are a force for good and a force for bad. And these wars, these wars, listen, listen, Joe, the thing about it is the problem is that, hold on, okay, Joe, you ask, I'm answering your question.

See, the problem is, it's just so stupid. It's just, it's just, yes, it's, listen, this is, the, sorry, Dave, go ahead. Here is that, I'm sorry, it's, look, the point here is that the issue is that I don't think you actually know anything about what you're talking about. And so when you say that the war in Iraq was a mistake, like it was a whoopsie, no, it wasn't. Go read the project for a new American century.

They were planning, the neo-conservatives who took control of the George W. Bush administration were planning this war for years before 9-11. I agree with you, I agree with you. So let me finish the point instead of cutting me off by saying you agree with May. Because yes, I know you agree because I'm making an undeniably great point. The weapons of mass destruction, the Saddam- I just asked, hey, but you know what, Dave, you're so smart. I'm not even that smart. I'm not that smart.

I'm just arguing with brain dead morons. You couldn't answer a simple question. Is America historically, have we been generally a force for good around the world? Yes or no? Again, I'll answer the question again. It's a dumb, stupid second greater question. We've been both a force for good and force for bad. Okay, look, very quickly.

how we've been a force for good in the world. Very quickly, to wrap this part of it. Warfare machine. All right, but Dave, to wrap this part of it, you haven't actually talked about Marco Rubio. What is your objection to him being second to his day? Pierce, this is the fun thing about doing your show. The second you said that, I completely forgot the question was about Marco Rubio.

I didn't even remember what we were talking about. So essentially, I guess, the point, so Marco Rubio, is he? Oh, yeah. Okay, so the point that I was making initially is that Marco Rubio is, to his core, somebody who supports the Nealubio, neoliberal, neoconservative foreign policy of the last 25 years. He's somebody who's every one of those disastrous wars that I just mentioned, he was there

cheerleading for them and demonizing everybody who opposed them. He's also a hawk on Palestine. He's a hawk on South America. And I just think that in general, particularly with our country being $35 plus trillion in debt, having all of these disastrous wars over the last few decades, and Donald Trump, at least somewhat, symbolizing a break from that tradition. and an America first more non-interventionist kind of policy, I'm very disappointed to see him lead the State Department.

Before we let you go, I want to pivot completely because in the weekend that Mike Tyson made his comeback, obviously losing to Jake Paul in that kind of exhibition fight, Sylvester Stallone, Rocky Balboa, welcomed Donald Trump on stage by comparing him to this guy. Let's watch. So the image pans down from Jesus, onto Rocky being hit.

And at that moment, he was a chosen person, and that's how I began the journey. Something was going to happen. This man was going to go through a metamorphosis and change lives, just like President Trump. And I'll just say this, and I mean it. When George Washington defended his country, he had no idea that he was going to change the world.

Because without him, you can imagine what the world. would look like. Guess what? We got the second George Washington. Congratulations. He went on to say that Trump was the greatest president since George Washington. Slight hyperbole there or justified, Vinnie? I mean, let's be honest. I know, was that George Washington? Obviously, we still have another four years to find out if he is going to be the greatest. But I mean, peers, just listen to what Sylvester Stallone said, God, intervention, this, religion, all that type of stuff.

If you mean to tell me from 2016, everything that they've done to this guy and all the accomplishments that he's made up to this point, plus one assassination attempt that almost took his head off and the other one that they stopped, this guy, if you're going to look at the numbers

without COVID peers, he's going to go down as one of the greatest ever, period. Gillian, finally, before I let you go, Gillian, you'll view, Trump, the new Washington? Listen, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, the next four years remains to be seen, like, how we will rank him, um, against all the presidents throughout history. But I, I wouldn't put anybody up against Washington or Lincoln or FDR at this point. And the, the one thing I do want to say, just, just before we go is that I think to say, is America of Force for Good is conflating two different things.

What America stands for, yes, that is inherently good. American people, yes, we are inherently good. But I think when you see the military industrial complex, the guys like Larry Fink, for example, or Dick Cheney, for example, with Halliburton, who are manipulating and corrupting the system through super PACs and campaign contributions, they are pushing these wars because they are exceedingly profitable to them, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Who has the contract to go in and build Ukraine, J.P. Morgan and BlackRock. And that's just the start of it. So with that said, I don't think, I think the military

industrial complex here, evil. I think their intentions, evil. I think what America stands for, obviously wonderful. And what the American people stand for, wonderful. But I think there were many off-ramps, as Dave said and Vinny said, and we didn't take them. I think we didn't take them for a reason. And when you talk about mutually assured destruction, I wanted to point out, how do you win then? So what are you going to do? You're going to corner this guy?

Well, now you've given him nothing left to lose. Hence, you've assured our destruction. That makes me nervous. And the last thing I want to say about this is you're like, well, now look, now there's North Korean troops in Ukraine. Exactly, which is why we should have friggined ended this years ago. All right, I'm done. Or we should have been a lot tougher on Putin ages ago

and then he wouldn't have had the balls to do it. Anyway, Gillian, Vinnie, thank you both very much. I'm going to let you both go. We're going to keep Joe and David a little longer because we're being joined now by debate about Israel. Another Hezbollah chief was killed in Israeli strikes on Beirut this weekend. These 54 people were killed when a blast

was at a residential block in northern Gaza. Trump campaigned on ending the wars both in the Ukraine and the Middle East. But his top team will be packed with pro-Israel Hawks. One leader of the abandoned harrison, movement of Muslim voters called it a Zionist overdrive. Many advocates for the Palestinian cause said two-state solution is now absolutely dead. We're joining the panel as a Palestinian-American commentator Omar Bader.

Oh my great to have you back on uncensored. How concerned are you about the fact that Trump has basically packed with his picks here a bunch of extremely pro-Israeli people? No, it's obviously extremely dangerous but also extremely predictable. I don't think anybody expected anything better from Donald Trump. You know, just moving away from Biden, Biden already was starting at an extremely low point in American policy on Palestine and Israel, watching this mass slaughter of civilians throughout the Gaza Strip unfolding month after month throughout over an entire year.

And Biden's answer to it is to simply supply unlimited military funding and diplomatic support. Yet Trump managed to find a way to make it worse, as he has done before, and he's promised to do it again. And here we are with him staffing his entire administration with religious lunatics who are deeply, fundamentally attached to the idea that Israel should control the entire land from the river to the sea, that Palestinians should not essentially have any rights anywhere

and that Israel gets to do whatever at once with absolutely no limits. It's difficult to take Biden's extreme policy to an even more extreme in a more extreme direction, but that's precisely where we are with Donald Trump. Joe Walsh, are you concerned about this? I mean, certainly, if I was a Palestinian right now, my heart would have sunk by some of these appointments

and the collective influence of these appointments. you're just thinking, well, we're done for. There's no one fighting our corner with America. And Pierce, you, everybody knows how I feel about Trump, and I respectfully disagree with our new guest, because when it comes to Israel, I'm extremely pro-Israel, and I agree with what Donald Trump's doing. American presidents traditionally, Republican and Democrat,

have been, when it comes to the Middle East, we've been like a referee in between two warring sides. These are not two equal sides. Israel is a force for good, and the Palestinian people, through their governments, have been trying to exterminate the state of Israel since 1948. So I think it's a good, healthy development that Donald Trump has put together a team that's going to tell the world, we're no longer a referee between these two. We're on Israel's side. So Palestinians, the rest of you, you want to acknowledge Israel has a right to exist. You better do it now. Dave Smith, with all this, with all the respect. I may want to respond? If I can just come in here, just because, sure, because there's two, I mean, it's just, it's incredible that Joe is wrong basically about both points. First of all, the U.S. has never been a fair referee between two equal sides.

They have always been just completely committed to the idea that Israel can do whatever it once. Again, more than 50 vetoes, more than 50 vetoes, Joe, it's, it's been more than 50 vetoes of the UN Security Council to. shield any accountability for Israel, and billions upon billions of dollars in military funding, no matter what Israel does. And the other point is, it's correct that we don't have two equal sides. And the difference is Israel is the occupier. It is the most powerful country in the region, armed with nuclear weapons, essentially existing on top of a defenseless people,

occupying their land illegally, stealing their land illegally, demolishing their homes, killing and torturing them at will. And that's a dynamic that is utterly insane, that you allow a more powerful country to simply stomp on the Palestinian population, deny them all their rights in absolute opposition to the most basic principles of freedom, democracy, equal rights. Those don't exist for Palestinians. And yet the United States' role has always been to essentially provide cover for Israel with this nice rhetoric about we're looking for peace and a two-state solution and all that nonsense. And all Trump has done differently is obliterate that pretense and essentially letting American rhetoric live up to its actual

policy, which is that Israel gets to obliterate Palestinians with absolutely any opposition. Donald Trump's personality that he likes to bully weak people. In the same way he goes after undocumented immigrants. It's the same with foreign policy. Anybody who has no power should watch out for Donald Trump coming for them. And in this case, it's Palestinians who have the least power who have absolutely no rights. And we are witnessing the full weight of religious fanaticism, combining with the U.S. military power right now to allow Israel to obliterate Palestinians.

And it's going to be a real question of what happens next. Dave Smith, the appointments so far that Trump's put forward, Mike Huckabee, who's an unapologetic Zionist, he said, appointed Israel ambassador from America. Elise Stefaniq, she's in the top UN job. She's described as a pro-Israeli zeal. Or being described as a pro-Israeli zealot. Marco Rubio, your friend, the warmongering neocon. Some people see him, is Secretary of State's staunched to border of Israel.

And all this comes at a time when a report on Thursday by the Human Rights Watch says Israel's committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by deliberately causing the mass displacement of Palestinians in Gaza. 1.9 million people, 90% of the entire population of Gaza, have fled their homes in the past year. 79% of a territory is under Israeli-issued evacuation orders, according to the UN. And that, the human rights war it says, is a war crime.

That systematic displacement of people is a war crime. And others go further and say, this is the very form of genocide they were talking about. What do you make of all this? Well, I mean, it's, you know, as I've said on the show before, it's a tragedy, and it's the worst thing in the world that's happening over there right now. And just, I mean, just the sheer number of children who are dying in all of this. And, you know, by the way, I just, I'm sorry, Omar's right about everything he said.

And I just should point out just a correction to Joe because he got the propaganda point a little bit wrong, just so you know. I could take over arguing the Zionist propaganda because I know it quite well. But so, no, you can't say the Palestinians haven't accepted Israel's right to exist, that you have to move the goalposts now and say they've, because all of them have accepted Israel's right to exist under 67 borders, including Hamas. But no, it's that they have to accept them as a Jewish state now. That's the new talking point. But look, I mean, look, Pierce, here's the deal, right? And I think that you've, I've seen you host a lot of debates on this.

And I kind of have a sense of where you are kind of, I think, moderate on this topic. and you seek some of the points on both sides being made. Take Mike Huckabee, for example, and by the way, you didn't mention Huggabee, but he's guilty of this same thing too. The religious fanaticism, the way they speak about this conflict, if anyone in a first world civilized society

spoke about any other policy this way, we would all rightfully be a palt. I mean, Huckabee, and I understand, it's not the most consequential position, but the fact that the symbol of making this guy the ambassador, that he says, essentially, there's no such thing as a Palestinian, there's no such thing as a settlement, there's no such thing as an occupation,

because God gave all this land to Israel, and so these people there just have no rights, and that's that. Now, if anybody, anybody in a sane, civilized world spoke this way about any group of people, we would immediately recognize you as a dangerous loon who should be nowhere near power. We simply do not make political calculations this way in any other area of life.

I mean, even the pro-life movement has to make an actual argument over why abortion is murder or why abortion is wrong. They don't just get to say, God says so. It's in my holy book. And so, look, to Omar's point, I mean, Donald Trump, wherever his rhetoric is, typically just carries out the same foreign policy as the American establishment. Israel really is the unique difference where he's shown in his first term

that he's actually willing to go further and I am very concerned over the signal, like what Benjamin Netanyahu is going to take this signal to mean and I would not, I hope I'm wrong, but I would not be surprised if Benjamin Netanyahu goes for some major escalation officially annexing the West Bank

or something like that. I mean, it's not as if it hasn't already been annexed. I mean, I'll come to Joe on that. But you see Smodrich, who's the far-right finance minister, as the saying on Monday, he hoped Israel would extend sovereignty into the Occupy West Bank in 2025 and would push the government to engage the incoming Trump administration to gain Washington support.

I mean, I think what's been going on with the expansion, aggressive expansion of settlements during the last year, I think that has been an indisputable war crime, frankly. It should never have been allowed to happen. And now you've got one of the Israel government openly saying, yeah, we want it. We want the whole thing.

We want the whole West Bank. And that just plays Joe into the argument that's come from the other side throughout this, which is this has been the bigger plan all along, that actually the way that Israel has executed its response to October the 7th is just total obliteration, making it impossible for Palestinians to have any kind of viable state in Gaza after all this. Therefore, Israel just take over as well on the West Bank. It's hard to argue when you hear Smodrich and these guys talking that way, isn't it?

October 7th, Pierce, changed everything, period. Changed Israel for good, period. And this notion of, again, I didn't say Omar always a fair referee, but again, this notion of America trying to referee a disagreement here between two sides. That model hasn't gotten us anywhere. It's been fatally flawed. This is not a battle about land. One side, the Palestinian side, fundamentally, they've been fighting since 48.

they do not believe the state of Israel has a right to exist. The two-state solution idea is just impossible as long as one side feels that way. The only way, Omar, and maybe you agree with some of this, the only long-range way to peace is for Israel to partner with moderate Arab and Muslim countries in the nation, and we isolate the Hamas and the Hezbollahs and the Iran's of the world.

That's what Trump's going to do in this term. Okay, Omar, your response to that? No, with all due respect, this is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics going back decades. First of all, this has nothing to do with October 7th. You can see the Netanyahu was quoted in Israeli press talking about how there will never be a Palestinian state many years before October 7th ever happened. This is the standard position of the leading government in Israel. Not just Likud, frankly, it's across the spectrum with kind of minor details of how they talk about it, but they reject the idea of Palestinian self-determination.

They don't see Palestinians as equal human beings who are deserving of the same rights that Israelis get. And the policy has been to essentially oppress and brutalize Palestinians day in and day out, just treating them in the worst ways imaginable and taking their lad from under them and shrinking them into smaller and smaller areas. And then when there is an attack, when you do generate a threat from the people who are being oppressed and wiped out, you use that attack as a pretext in order to obliterate them at an even greater scale. And we're seeing that unfolding in a full genocidal scale in Gaza.

And who knows what happens next in the West Bank. This idea that Israel can partner with moderate forces in the region, quote-unquote. These are dictatorial regimes in the region, the so-called Abrahamic Accords, in which you are building relationships with governments that you're not at war with in the first place, and you're ignoring the Palestinians entirely. The easy way to achieve any kind of peace is to start with a fundamental responsibility on Israel to end its occupation because that occupation is illegal. Whether you have a partner or not, it does not matter. You don't have the right to take over somebody else's land and build your country on top of it. If I had a dispute with Joe, and he stole 100,

out of my pocket. It doesn't matter whether we're going to be friends after he returns the $100 or not. You owe that $100 back, period. And we're looking at the same thing where Israel's saying the reason we're stealing more land from Palestinians is because we don't think they're going to make peace with us, even if we gave it to them. That's just a completely ridiculous argument. There has been a peace offer on the table called the Arab Peace Initiative in which the entire Arab world, the entire Arab League, is prepared to normalize relations with Israel. It was offered back in 2002 in exchange for Israel withdrawing to the 1967. borders and ending the occupation, not as a favor to Palestinians, but as they are obligated

to do under the law. You have to end the occupation of a mere 22 percent of historic Palestine. That was a massive Palestinian compromise that they're willing to settle for a state on just a fifth of their historic homeland. And it's Israel that said no and insisted on expanding more and more settlements, even at times in which violence was at an all-time low, and there was significant hope on the Palestinians side that we could be moving towards a peaceful agreement. So we're just falling for this ridiculous propaganda point that Israel is interested in peace and just can't find a peace partner,

when in reality Israel is taking advantage of its military strength over Palestinians to try to impose itself on top of them and denying their rights and looking for the opportunity to wipe them out from existence entirely and to push them outside of the territory that Israel wants to control. That's the fundamental dynamic. And American support for it is the only reason why it's even possible. You know, Dave, you know, if you'd ask me six months ago, I would have disputed a lot of that. But I do think what's happened is internal politics is now at play with Netanyahu is that six months ago he was incredibly unpopular in Israel. And it was highly likely that if the war came to an end, he would be voted out of office very quickly and held to account for what happened October the 7th in terms of allowing this to happen on his watch.

And he would then be facing corruption charges and possibly ending up in prison. But then came the Hezbollah attack, where 3,000 members of Hezbollah were attacked with pages in a highly sophisticated operation. And from that moment, him and his party have got steadily and quite rapidly more popular to the extent where most people now believe that if there was an election tomorrow, Likud, his party, would win with a sizable majority. And he now has a real ally of his, Donald Trump, back in the White House, who's extremely pro-Israel. There's no question of that.

So again, you know, all of this aligning at the same time, if I was Palestinian, I'd be extremely concerned about what made me. now happen. And I think Omar might be right that there could be a dramatic escalation because it will suit Netanyahu politically. And honestly, he's never wanted a two-state solution. Has it? I mean, he just hasn't. No, I mean, he funded indirectly, but facilitated funds and propped up Hamas for many years specifically with the goal of undermining the ability of a two-state solution. And by the way, if you read through some of the quotes from Israeli leaders on this, part of the reason why he did that was also to kind of suppress the liberal Israelis who favored a two-state solution. And so if you had Hamas and power in Gaza, then you could look to the liberal Israelis and say, hey, we have no partner for peace, you know.

And to your point, it's like this is kind of the nature of the conflict, right? is that there's this rally around the flag effect on both sides, right? So after October 7th, then this war becomes more popular with the Israeli people. And then as this war goes on, Hamas becomes more popular with the people in Gaza, because everybody's always looking for somebody to kind of go and defend them and go get the guy back who got you in the same way that George W. Bush had record high approval ratings right after 9-11. And we didn't really care particularly who we were going to go bomb. the crap out of, but we wanted to get someone back because we got hit. You know, when you have

essentially the Israeli, Israel and the Palestinians have been at war since at least 1947. There's really, you know, Israel had several wars with other Arab countries, but they were always pretty short and they wrapped up pretty quickly. But the war against the Palestinian people has never stopped. It's been going on this whole time. And when there's been such a long conflict and there's so many different, you know, there's acts of violence on both sides. It's very easy for people like Joe to say, well, this is because of October 7th. You know, they're reacting to that. And then it's very easy for people more on the Palestinian side to say, well, no, the Palestinians

were reacting to what happened before October 7th, you know. I think if when you zoom out and you look at this conflict, you just can't escape the obvious reality, which is that you just can't do what Israel's doing. You're not allowed to. You can't occupy a group of people for over six decades since 1967. You know, Pierce, we have a lot of problems, like, say, within the United States of America. We have some very high crime areas that are predominantly African American. And if you were like, hey, that's a real problem, we got to come up with a solution for black crime in the United States of America.

And I were to say, like, oh, well, here's a proposal. We could just incarcerate every single black man. Boof, black crime, not a problem anymore. I think immediately you'd go, yeah, but that's just an unacceptable answer. Like, you can't do that. And so does Israel have to deal with a terrorist, a terrorism problem? Yes, they have had to deal with that for a very long time. The Palestinians have as well.

But you just can't occupy a people forever. And that's what they've done. And then when there's a blowup, when there's another terrorist event, they go, see, that's proof that we just have to keep occupying these people forever. You know, it's a really, you know, I think that's a really, let me bring Joe back in. It's a really interesting point that because it does become, and this works on both sides. I don't dispute that for a moment. But this is the default position, is that everything becomes framed as a response to what has happened before.

Everything, right? But ultimately, you cannot deny that Palestinians have been living on the Gaza Strip in particular with fewer human rights than their neighbors in Israel. And that has never been right. It's never been fair. And it can't be allowed to continue. And that's my position about this, is why should they have less rights? I mean, they should have the same rights as you, as me, as Dave, as Omar, as everybody, shouldn't they?

And if not, why not? I'll make two brief points, Pierce. You talk about Hamas, you talk about Gaza. The Palestinian people had their opportunity. and instead of turning when Israel left, and instead of turning Gaza into a paradise on the Mediterranean, they turned it into a terrorist compound. After Israel left, Dave talks about they've been at war since 1947.

Who initiated the war? Who initiated the war? And who's basically, who initiated the war in 47, then 48, and who has initiated damn near every piece of this war. over the last 70-some years. I agree that at this point, Netanyahu reflects a lot of the Israeli people who say, forget the two-state solution. But that's a response to 50 to 60 years of the Palestinian side,

staying Israel as a state cannot exist. Last thing I'll say, Joe Biden's a Zionist. I'm a Zionist. A Zionist simply means Israel has a right to exist as a state. All right, Omar, final word to you. Sure. Look, first of all, the idea that Palestinians were given any opportunity in Gaza is simply a lie. From the second that Israel left Gaza, they put it under siege, and they tightened that siege after Hamas won the elections in Gaza. They were not allowed to have an airport because they voted the wrong way. They're not allowed to have a seaport.

They can't trade with the outside world. The economy is in shambles. And if you want to question that moral objectivity on this, just to reverse it. When Netanyahu, Joe, Joe, when Netanyahu wins election, in Israel? Do you think Palestinians have the right to put the entire Israeli population under siege and to shut down their airport and their seaports and saying, you voted for the wrong way for an extremist to his anti-Palestinian and therefore you can't live? Omar, what could. Omar, what could Hamas have done once they assumed control way back when in Gaza? What should they have done, Omar, Hamas? What do you mean? What should they have done? When Israel left Gaza, that is the question.

And Hamas is voted into power back in 2007. What should Hamas have done these last 17 years? Yes. Israel made an offer when Hamas came into power. Israel said we're going to besiege you and suffocate you until Hamas meets the following free conditions. No, no, not Israel. Renounce all violence, even though Israel does not renounce any violence. And then they said, and then... What should Hamas have done, no matter?

I'm trying to answer your question if you would listen. Israel said Hamas did not have a chance to do anything. They came into power and Israel immediately put a siege on them. and said that we're not going to lift that siege. We were not going to live that. They did not leave. That's a lie. When you leave the inside of Gaza,

and then you immediately put it under a siege, and you block anything from going in and out. That's not leaving a place alone. Omar, didn't Egypt do that? Do you controlling a people through a different method. Joe, I have to be able to get this sentence. I'm trying to explain to you a dynamic that you understand. Israel said.

Gaza could have turned Gaza into a paradise. They decided not to. That is. Hamas, they did not have a joke. First of all, by the way, Israel is such BS. It is such BS. I know, I know. Hey, Omar, everything.

David, an invitation, David, you come on my podcast. We'll talk about anything you want to talk about. And no personal insults. Omar, I'd love to have you on my podcast. Let's have a respectful conversation about this. I mean. Much as I'd love to give you airtime on my show to promote your own podcast, I'm going to leave it there.

Thank you all very much for that debate. Much appreciated it.