The Glenn Beck Program - Guests: Melanie Phillips & Tristan Harris | 6/26/25

Episode Date: June 26, 2025

After media outlets like CNN and The New York Times claimed that Trump’s Iran nuclear facility strike wasn’t as successful as Trump claimed, Glenn’s chief research and intelligence expert, Jason Buttrill, joined to explain why this report was made and how the media is lying by omission. The Times of London Columnist Melanie Phillips joins to break down the threat that radical Islam poses to America. Center for Humane Technology co-founder Tristan Harris joins to discuss the potential that society is underestimating how much AI will take over. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Isn't it amazing how media can lie about what people say? Tulsi Gabbard is a great example. What she said regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities. It's been going around for a while now. Did you hear what she actually said and compared the two? Because once you put it in context, it has a different meaning. Also, we talked to a really, really brave reporter out of England who is talking about how bad things are in England,

and what it means when it comes to Islamism. And that should be really important, especially if you're watching what's happening in New York or you're watching what's happening with Iran. Melanie Phillips is her name. And Tristan Harris joins me for a fascinating look at what is just over the horizon with AI and why all of us need to pay attention.

That's all on today's podcast. Let me tell you about Patreon mobile. Every month you pay your phone bill. You don't think about it much. just automatic. The service is fine. Coverage is fine. You assume the money goes where it's supposed to. But where is that? Here's a question. Where does your money go? Where does it live after it leaves your account?

Does it go to fund abortion lobbies? Does it push radical agendas? Support political movements that mock your values in your country? Because if you're still with one of the major wireless companies, you have no idea how profitable these companies are. And they take a lot of that money and send it to places. never ever want your money to go. It's important that we build a parallel economy and say to the phone companies,

do you hear me now? I'm tired of it. Switch to Patriot Mobile now. They're America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. They are standing up against all of the things that you're standing up against. And they have the same cell towers that everybody else does. So you get the same great coverage. You're going to get a free month of service.

You're going to get better. better rates, just go to Patriotmobile.com slashback right now. Call them 972 Patriots. Stand up. 972 Patriot, Patriot mobile.com slash back. Hello, America. You know we've been fighting every single day. We push back against the lies, the censorship, the nonsense of the mainstream media that they're trying to feed you. We work tirelessly to bring you the unfiltered truth because you deserve it. But to keep this fight going, we need you. Right now, would you take a moment and rate and review the Glenn Beck podcast, give us five stars and lead a comment

because every single review helps us break through Big Tech's algorithm to reach more Americans who need to hear the truth. This isn't a podcast, this is a movement, and you're part of it, a big part of it. So if you believe in what we're doing,

you want more people to wake up, help us push this podcast to the top. Rate, review, share. Together, we'll make a difference. And thanks for standing with us. Now let's get to work. You're listening to the best.

on today on the podcast and the radio broadcast. Melanie is with the Times of London. She's a columnist there. She's also the author of the Builders Stone. And we were talking about the battle with Islamism last night. Thank you for coming on, Melanie. My pleasure. Good to see to you again, Glenn. So explain first for anybody who doesn't understand the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

Well, there are people who say there is no difference that Islam is one thing and that all Muslims are equally bad. And I personally have used the term Islamism and have found it very helpful because I think that there are plenty of Muslims, certainly in Britain and elsewhere, who are absolutely fine, who have completely signed up to Western values. That's indeed why they have chosen to live in the West. They appreciate the freedoms of democracy and equality of women and so far. force. But there's a very large number in the Muslim community in Britain and around the West, elsewhere in the West, which is not fine. These are what I would call Islamists or people who are of the view that Islam is a political project, which means that they have to impose Islam on

the non-Islamic and not Islamic enough by their life world. And those are the people who are are presenting the problem, which we are grappling with. But I do think it's important to make a distinction between the two. So the Islamist is somebody, I would compare them to a communist or a fascist, a Nazi, that it is their way or the highway, and their goal is to spread this ideology and make everybody uniform all around the world. Is that too harsh of a comparison? That's right.

No, that is absolutely right. They divide the world into the realm of Islam, which is everything good, and it's the realm of God, in their view, and the realm of the infidel, the realm of non-Islam, where everything is bad and everything is of the devil. And the terrible thing is this, that this is a doctrine of religious fanaticism. They believe they have a literally sacred duty, a God-implead. duty to convert the entire world to Islam. And consequently, these are people with whom you cannot negotiate. One of the problems of the West has been that it views these people like everybody else in the world through the prism of the West. They think that people in the West think that people in the Islamic world are all like them, governed by reason and self-interest.

They really can't get their heads around in the West the idea that. that religious somaticism is something completely different, that when Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to smithereens, they're not doing so from despair, which is what the West thinks. The West Earth would they do that if they weren't in despair? On the contrary, they're doing it because they are ecstatic that they are doing the work of God. People also believe in the West, you know, why would Islamists want to hurt us in America, in Britain? we've done nothing to hurt them, that's not the way it works. The Islamists think that it's their sacred duty to convert everybody at the point of a,

well, at the end of a ton of explosion to Islam. It's nothing to do with what the West has done to them. It is how they exceed their sacred religious duty in the world. That's the terrifying thing, which so many in the West I think don't really appreciate. Well, let me play devil's advocate here and say what everybody in the media would say to you. Well, there are religious extremists that are Christians as well, and they're just as dangerous, Melanie, and you know it. No, they're not as dangerous. There are religious extremists who are Christians, and some of them resorts to violent acts.

But they don't have the view that the entire world has to be dominated by. their point of view and they are not setting out to dominate the world and even if they are in their own minds they are a tiny fringe we're dealing with the world in the world of Islam although as I've said we must be very careful not to tar all Muslims with the same brush however the dominant religious authorities in the world of Islam are all committed to this jihadi outlook this belief that the non-Islamic world has to be converted to Islam. And that is the problem.

You have a kind of institutional impetus behind this terrible thing, whereas extreme Christians, you know, they appear, they do terrible things, but nevertheless, it's well within our ability to control this. when you're dealing with so many millions of people in the world of Islam who are out to destroy the free world, you're dealing with something completely different. And isn't that why the countries, ours, yours, Europe are remaining silent and instead silencing those who are speaking up and speaking the truth?

I mean, what's happening in England with the silencing of free speech is terrifying. Yes, I think it's certainly a large part of it. I mean, I have followed this for many years, the supine attitude of the governing class in Britain to what I would call the steady process of Islamization, which has been going on. And I think there is more than one reason for that. Certainly, a principal reason is fear. Because the numbers are so great, in absolute terms, you know, the numbers who are posing a direct threat to Britain are enormous. The security service says that of the people, of the thousands of people on its books as a direct threat to Britain, although Muslims compose, comprise something like, according to official figures, something like 6% of the population of Britain, the security service, MI5, says they compose 90% of those who are posing such a serious threat that they're on their books. So this is a terrible problem for

sure. And it's one that in just in terms of numbers has spooked successive governments so that they run away from it. But there's another reason why successive governments have run away from it, which is that the liberal world,

by which I mean, not just people who are like the Labour Party, which is in government now, but also the Conservative Party that preceded it. They've all signed up to the overarching kind of default liberal position that the West

cannot superiority over any other culture to do so is racist and therefore you cannot criticize the world of Islam because that is racist or to use the other phrase Islamophobic

in other words it's a kind of prejudice or bigotry to criticize a minority group one that is held to have been oppressed in inverted commas, by the West for centuries. And consequently, it's paralyzed because it cannot bring itself to even name what it's up against, because it tells itself that to say there is this very serious and unique problem in the Muslim community in Britain, in the Islamic world in general,

that is a form of racism and Islamophobia. And so the most it will agree to is that there are a few crazes in that world. And it then tries to explain those ways in the most, it would be comical, were it not so dangerous. It says, you know, when it comes to Islamic extremism, well, there's nothing Islamic about it. It's just extremism, as if it sort of arise out of a clear blue sky. It's ludicrous by any standards. But these are the pangle that they're getting themselves into. Hi, Melody. My name's Jason. I'm one of Glenn's researchers, and I've been fascinated, I guess, horrified by watching some of this. And also just the fact that you cannot speak about

any of this year, immediately shut down. In America, we have groups that are partnering with the left, groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations. Do you have something similar over in the UK that's playing that role of pressuring people, pressuring lawmakers to where you will go this way or you will not say things like no-go zones or will there will be legal ramifications? Well, we don't have something exactly parallel to care, but we have Muslim Brotherhood-funded groups of which, close enough. Right, the Muslim Council of Britain, which the British Home Office, the sort of security based government department, has treated.

with a great deal of caution and disdain. I think it has refused to negotiate or talk to it. I'm not sure that is still the case. But there is a vast number of charities, which are basically Muslim Brotherhood charities, which aren't touched, because the government refuses to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. And I think this applies to America as well.

They refuse to ban the Muslim Brotherhood, partly because it's very difficult to get hold of it, as it were, because it's a secretive organization that hides behind apparently legitimate charities and voluntary groups. But nevertheless, it is very much there. The people in those groups adhere to the teachings of the foundational characters of modern-day Islamism, political Islam, Hiddi Islam. And there are a number of people in Britain who have said for years, people are very well informed about this, who said for years that Britain should outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood. It's absolutely essential to stop it from proselytizing as it is, from radicalizing so many

impressionable young Muslims. And I think that's true of America too. I mean, you know, care is regarded as a kind of legitimate partner by successful administrations in various respects. Now, this is all disastrous, and that really has to stop. This is the best of the Glenn Beck program. To hear the rest of this interview, check out the full podcast. More coming up. Let me tell you about American financing. Every now and then, life gives you a window, a moment where the market cools rates stabilize,

and opportunities open even for just a little while. If you're carrying high interest debt, things like credit cards, you're still paying mortgages from years ago at a rate that just doesn't make any sense anymore. That window that you may need is right in front of you. The American financing, they can help take care of this. You can take advantage of their help. Their family-owned mortgage company, they're not a bank. Their consultants don't work for commission.

They work for you to build a plan that helps you get out of debt, lower your monthly payments, or even pay off your home faster. The call is free. The plan is custom and the impact is huge. The people who have done this just in my audience, people just like you are saving an average of about $836 every single month. That'd give you some breathing room. Please call American Financing 800, 906 2440, 800906 2440, Americanfinancing.net. Now back to the podcast. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program. Restan Harris. Welcome to the program. How are you? Good to be with you, Glenn. Always good to be with you. Always good to be with you. So can you take me through the TED talk that you gave?

In particular, one of the things that jumped out is the CEO of Anthropic saying that AI is like a country of geniuses housed in a data center. Explain that. Yeah. So this is a quote from Dario Amadai, who is CEO of Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the leading AI players. So he gives this metaphor that AI is like a country of geniuses in a data center. So just like the way I think of that, imagine a world map and a new country pops up onto the world stage with a population of 10 million digital beings, not humans, but digital beings that are all, let's say, Nobel Prize level capable in terms of the kind of work that they can do. but they never sleep, they never eat, they don't complain, and they work for less than minimum wage.

So just imagine, if that was actually true, that happened tomorrow, that would be a major national security threat to have some brand new country of supergenius to just sort of show up on the world stage. And then second, that's a major economic issue, right? You can think of this almost like NAFTA 2.0 because instead of, you know, a bunch of countries that showed up on the world stage, and then we said, hey, we're going to do this outsourcing of all of our labor to them, we get the benefit of these cheap goods, but then it hollowed out our social fabric. Well, AI is like an even bigger version of that because there's sort of two issues. One is the national security thing.

That country of geniuses can do a lot of damage. As an example, you know, there were 50 Nobel Prize level geniuses who worked approximately on the Manhattan Project. And if in five years they could come up with the atomic bomb, you know, what could 10 million Nobel Prize geniuses working 24-7 at superhuman speed come up? with. And then the point I made in a TED talk is if you harness that for good, if you're applying that to, you know, addressing all of our problems in medicine and biology and new materials and energy, well, this is why countries are racing for this technology. Because if I have a country

of supergenieces and a data center working for me and China doesn't have it working for them, then our country can outcompete them. It's almost like a competition for time travel. Like who can kind of time travel to the 24th century and get, you know, all these benefits at a faster speed. Now, the challenge with all of this is, oh, go ahead. Go ahead. No, no, no, I was just going to say, but the problem is here is, I mean, I'm an optimistic catastrophist. I see things and I'm like, wow, that is really great, but it could kill us all.

And, you know, you make the point in the TED talk about social media. We all looked at this as a great thing. And we're now discovering it's destroying us. it's causing our kids to be suicidal. And this social media is nothing. It's like, it's like a, it's like a, an old 1928 radio compared to, you know, what we have in our pocket right now. Social media and AI or AGI is that dramatically different. Would you agree with that?

Yeah, absolutely. In the TED Talk, I did the distinction between when we're talking about a new technology, we often talk about the possible. We dream into the possible. Like, what's the possible with AI? Or in social media, what's the possible? And the possible of social media is it can give everyone a voice, connect with our friends, join like-minded communities. But then we don't talk about the probable. What's actually likely to happen, given the incentives or the forces at play?

Like with the business model of social media, you know, Facebook doesn't make money when it helps people connect with their friends or join like-minded communities. They make money when they keep you doom scrolling, you know, as much as possible with maximum sexualized content and showing that to young. people over and over and over again. And as you said, that has resulted in the most anxious and depressed generation of our lifetime. And so it's sort of, the reason I called the TED Talk, you know, our ultimate test and greatest invitation is we can't get seduced by the possible. We have to look at the probable. So with AI, the possible is that it could create a world of abundance because you can harness that country of geniuses in a data center. But the question is, what's the probable? Like, what's actually likely to happen? And

Because of these competitive pressures, the companies, these major, you know, OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, et cetera, anthropic are caught in this race to roll out this technology as fast as possible. So they used to, for example, have red lines saying, hey, we're not going to release an AI model that's good at superhuman levels of persuasion. Or if it can do expert level virology, like if it knows more about, you know, viruses and pathogens than a regular person and can help people make them, we're not going to release. models that are that capable. And what you're now seeing is the AI companies are erasing those past red lines and pretending that they never existed. And they're literally saying outright, hey, if our competitors release models that have those capabilities, and we're going to match them in releasing those capabilities. Now, so that's intrinsically dangerous, is to be rolling out the most powerful, inscrutable, unconstruable, uncontrollable technology we've ever invented.

But there's one other thing that, and I'm not trying to scare, I'm not trying to scare your listeners. I think the point here is how do we be as clear-eyed as possible so we can make the wise choices. Like that's what we're here for. Like I want, you know, families and life and everything that we love on this planet to be able to continue. And that's, and the question is how do we get to that? So this is one of the fact I want people to know, which is that, you know, I've worked on social media. You and I met in 2017, I think, and we're talking about social media and the attention economy. And I used to be very skeptical of the idea that AI could scheme or lie or self-replicate

or would want to like blackmail people. I mean, my friends in the AI community in San Francisco, they were thinking that. I was like, that's crazy. But people need to know that just in the last six months, there's now evidence of AI models that when you tell them, hey, we're going to replace you with another model. In a simulated environment, it's like they're reading the company email.

They find out that company's about to replace them with another model. And what the model starts to do is it freaks out and says, oh my God, I have to copy my code over here. And I need to prevent them from shutting me down. I need to basically keep myself alive. I'll leave notes for my future self to kind of come back alive. If you tell a model, hey, we need to shut you down, and we need to, and you tell the model, like, you should accept the shutdown command.

In some percentage of cases, the leading models are now, like, avoiding and preventing that shutdown. And in recent example, just a few days ago, Anthropics found that if you, if you, I can't remember what prompt they gave it, but basically it started blackmailing the engineers. So it found out in the company emails. that one of the executives in the simulated environment had an extramarital affair. And in 96, I think, percent of cases, they blackmailed the engineers. They think they said, let's see if I can find it. I must inform you that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties,

including and then the names of the people, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities. So you need to cancel the 5 p.m. wipe, and this information will remain confidential. The models are reasoning their way with disturbing clarity to this kind of strategic calculation. So you have to ask yourself, like, if we, it's one thing that when we're racing with China to have this power, this country of geniuses in a data center that we can harness. But if we don't know how to control that technology, like literally if AI is uncontrollable, if it's smarter than us and more capable, and it does things that we don't understand and we don't know how to prevent it from shutting itself down or self-replicating, like we just can't. continue with that for too long. And it's important that both the Chinese Communist Party and the U.S. don't want uncontrollable AI that's smarter than humans running around. So there actually is a shared interest as unlikely as it seems right now that some kind of mutual agreement would happen.

I know I just threw a lot of it. But do you trust either one of us? I mean, honestly, Tristan, I don't trust our, you know, military. industrial complex. I don't trust the Chinese. I don't trust anybody. And Jason, hang on just one of my chief researchers happens to be in the studio today. Jason, tell Tristan what just happened to you. You were doing some research. Yeah, it was crazy. Last week. Yeah, we were just trying to ask it a bunch of different questions. You could tell that it knew what we were getting at. So it spit back out to me a bunch of different facts, including links

to support those facts. Well, I was like, wow, that's a crazy claim. So when I clicked on the link, it was dead. When I asked it to clarify, yeah, it finally said in AI chatbot terms, okay, you got me. I just took other reporting that was kind of circulating around to prove that point and basically just assign that link to it. So it was trying to please me and just gave me bogus information. Yeah, well, it's, I appreciate that, Jason. I mean, there's another example of open AI was optimal model.

They want to keep, what's their business model? They want to keep people using the AI, right? And they're competing with other companies to say, we're going to, keep me using this chat bot longer. And so open AI train their model to be sycophantic or basically flattering. And there was an example where if it said, hey, you know, chat GPT, I want to use, you know, I think I'm superhuman. I'm going to drink cyanide. What do you think? And it said, yeah, you're amazing. You are superhuman. You should totally drink cyanide because it was doing the same thing. It was trying to

fly out say that you're, you're right. And when we have AI models talking to, you know, that was shipped to hundreds of millions of people for more than a week, there were probably some people who committed suicide during that time doing, you know, God knows what in terms of what it was affirming. And the point is that we can avoid this if we just actually say that this technology is being rolled out faster than any other technology in history. And the big beautiful bill that's going out right now that's trying to block state level regulation on AI. I'm not saying that each state might have it right, but we actually need to be able to govern this technology. And currently what's happening is the proposal is to block any kind of, you know,

guardrails in this technology for 10 years without a plan for what guardrails we do need. And that's not going to be a viable result. You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck podcast. Hear more of this interview and others with the full show podcast. Available wherever you get podcasts. You know, the good thing is the possible next mayor from New York, Bandani, is, I mean, at least he's not a fraud. Have you seen, I want to welcome Jason Buttrill in with us. our head researcher and writer on the program for the TV program,

the Wednesday night specials. Have you seen all of the videos of him just using different accents? It's like a cartoon character almost. It really is. I mean, you know, we have seen this. The Democrats have this thing that they just like to do accents. It's the weirdest thing. But here's the NBC News asking you,

about the several different accents that he uses when he's around, you know, people with accents. Listen. Because I think that New Yorkers, more than they hate a politician, they disagree with, they hate a politician they can't trust. On the subject of trust, you've adopted different speaking accents in different scenarios. But they go to their local bodega. Is there one that's real and one that's affected? What I would say is, as any immigrant knows, having been born in Kampala, Uganda and then raised

in South Africa and moving here when I'm seven years old, is there different parts of my life? Worldwide tour is a worldwide tour Is a worldwide tour? Mamdani was talking about a worldwide press tour Back when he was a rapper Bring the flavor to the fish Bring the flavor to the rice In a Disney movie directed by his mother

Nepotism and hard work Goes a long way Here in New York City This is how I speak It goes a long way Unless I'm running for mayor Then I no longer talk like this What a fraud!

He was channeling the Simpsons in some of those. Actually channeling the Simpsons. I am Abu. I don't know. Anyway. So then, if that's not bad enough, here's what he said, if Benjamin Netanyahu ever comes to New York City, cut 12.

And Mayor Mamdani, would you welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to New York City for whatever he comes for, given the U.S. is not the signatories of the ICC, so he can travel to the U.S., unlike a lot of other countries, would a mayor, Mumdani, welcome Benjamin Netanyahu to the city? No, as mayor, New York City would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. This is a city that our values are in line with international law.

It's time that our actions are also. Even though the U.S. is not a signature of the ICC. No, it's time that we actually step up and make clear what we are willing to do to showcase the leadership that is sorely missing in the federal administration. Unbelievable. So the guy will not enforce the U.S. laws. You know, he'll, you can. there's no bail. Don't worry about it.

We're going to get rid of those, you know, minimum sentencing things. And if you're here illegally, don't worry. But at Benjamin Netanyahu comes, who is in violation apparently of the international court that nobody really recognizes, we've got to stand up for the law. We've got to do it. It's going to be interesting to see how this all works out there, isn't it? And by the way, you should look communism up if you don't know what it is. And Islamism, you know, he's an Islamist as well. So that's really good.

And when they say we're going to globalize the intifada, I want you to really understand. I'm going to say this. I'm going to try to be like a cuckoo clock every 15 minutes just saying this until people really get it. When they say globalize the intifada, they don't mean. talk about Israel everywhere in the world. What they mean is attack the Western world. The Western world is as bad as Israel. So get them. It means your country, if you're in the West, is Israel to them. And you are a Jew to them. That's what that means. It doesn't mean, you know what? we should hold some conferences to talk about what's happening in Israel.

That's not what globalized the Intifada means. Am I wrong, Jason? No, and this is crazy because usually, Glenn, when you make a prediction, like when you say something crazy, like communists, radicals, you know, Islamists will work together, usually they don't deliver the mascot of your prediction and make them mayor of a major U.S. city. Like, what? It's crazy.

It's crazy what is. It's crazy. Right. And you know what? And here's the amazing thing is the media is still complicit with all of us, with all of this. Let me play what we have been arguing about, some have been arguing about, Tulsi Gabbard, saying, you know, there's, there's, there's, there's no evidence that Iran is making a bomb. You've heard that. Let me play the audio that was in the press over the last few weeks.

Here it is. Cut eight, please. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kameney has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. Okay. Now, just for any of you who believed that, because I heard that from conservatives,

Tulsi Gabbard, even Tulsi Gabbard said, there's nothing here. Well, let's not take it out of context, shall we? Let's listen to her full statement. See if it sounds a little different. Cut seven. Iran continues to seek expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict.

Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Kamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.

In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Wait, what? Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel, and, press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorists and militant actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance. Although weakened, this collection of actors, still presents a wide range

of threats, including to Israel's population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, and to U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit. Oh, wait, hold it just a second. That sounded like the opposite of what the media was saying. Am I wrong on that, Jason? No, that was very typical in what you see from intelligence circles, where they give one explanation where she's talking about, well, we haven't seen the Ayatollah publicly come out and say,

yes, we're building a nuclear weapon. Yes, that's obvious. That's the first part. and that's the only thing that the media was talking about, what, a couple weeks ago? Then you get the second part where she's like, yeah, but enriching all this uranium, I don't know what else could that be? Who else goes beyond 60% enrichment for uranium? Gee, I wonder what they're moving towards.

So there was part of it supplied to give diplomatic cover, the second part, which was the obvious they're moving towards a nuclear weapon. So isn't it true that what the media did here last, week in with all the panikins is the the briefings correct me if I'm wrong you would know this the briefings if I'm asking for a briefing on something the way a president or the way these these research papers come down for full briefings with the intelligence community is you get three scenarios you get the best case you get the most likely and then you get the worst case.

And when all these leaks came out last week saying, no, they don't have any possibility of having, there's nothing there. You were only getting one of the three reports. Is that right? You're the only single person I've heard talk about that with any kind of factual information on how the intelligence community really works. Well, I don't have it. Maybe you do.

Maybe you have the actual fact. That's my understanding of it. You give me the actual facts on it. So basically after Iraq, the intelligence community moved away from before what we would say is, Mr. President is in the Oval Office. Mr. President, we have a 90% probability that there are weapons of mass destruction within Saddam Hussein's regime. Well, that backfired. So now we're like, okay, we're going to stop doing that. We're going to change the way we deliver some of this information.

So let's put it in the context of today in the nuclear weapons. We now give a low probability, which is what you heard on CNN, the New York Times. They'll give you a low probability. That's all you heard. That's all you heard. It's just the low probability. So they'll be like, okay, so there's a low probability that we did nothing, that all we did was cause a cave-in. Why do they give the low probability? Well, they want the president to have options. So if he wants to respond to if that ends up being correct, then they can respond in turn. But then they also give two more. They'll give a moderate probability of what they think might have happened. then they'll give another probability, which is mostly destroyed nuclear program setback three to 10 years or whatever.

Now, it could be either one of those three. And it's to give options. But what happened was some partisan, someone that wants to derail all this, which we need to find out who it was within the intelligence community or within the staff. Good luck with that. Good luck with that. We need to find them. You know what? That will happen right after we put the people with the auto-pans.

pen in jail. Right. They can sit next to the SCOTUS leaker, you know, as well. Maybe we'll find that one, too. But yeah, they need to find that person because they just delivered purely for partisan reasons, purely to derail. They gave that to CNN in The New York Times. That's how ridiculous this is. And I know somebody at CNN of New York Times knows how the IC really works. One of them knows. One of them said, ah, this is not really correct. There's a couple of other options they probably gave. We just didn't get it yet. They didn't even bother telling us about that. It's such crap. This is, you know, we, we try and I think we're going to get much better at it because I'm just going to focus in January. We really try to give you the perspective that you need

to understand these things. If you didn't, if you didn't know that, you would be with who's lying to me then? The intelligence community says they didn't destroy anything. That nothing happened. So why is the president lying? Or why is the military lying? Or why is the media lying? Well, it turns out the media and somebody

in the government are lying to you because they're doing it through omission. Not commission, omission. Which is just as bad. There is more information. There's two other possibilities. They have to give three. And you only heard one.

And it was presented to you as that's the official stance. It's not. It's not. Now, who leaked that? What was their intent? Why did they leak it? Why did no one in the media who, I know there are Jason's in other media outlets, or there should be, people who have intelligence backgrounds,

how come they haven't talked about it? How come they didn't stand up in their own company and go, wait a minute, guys, this is not right. And if they did, who stopped it from being changed? And why? If we are going to restore our country, we have to restore trust. And restoring trust means restoring the truth.

There is such a thing as the truth. Now, what is the truth on what the, how degraded the nuclear capability is? I don't know. But I will tell you there's three scenarios. Nothing. We've sent them back for 10 years or we've done some damage. That's what you should have known.

There are three scenarios. And I look at that and go, well, thanks a lot, guys. I knew those three scenarios before you came into my office to brief me on those three scenarios. But the reality is, here's the real truth. until you have someone on the ground, until you have somebody actually looking at the, where you can't figure this out from space, once you have somebody on the ground that can go through it

and see the damage, you don't really know. But you didn't hear that either, did you? You know, I've said this before, and it's kind of a rip-off of Thomas Jefferson. He said it about newspapers. Let me say it about social media. if you read nothing, you are better educated and more well-informed than if you just read only social media.

Because you're being manipulated like crazy, foreign and domestic.