The Last American Vagabond - Trump Says Iran War "Terminated" As Illegal Iran War Continues & The Zampolli-Melania Pact

Starting point is 00:00:01 It starts with a simple question and ends in objective reality. Through our journey from there to hear, we find one another and ourselves. And as the next 24 hours breaks free from our last, we gaze onward in reflection of the day. Tell me your own equals, I'll stay vigilant. Welcome to the Daily Wrapup. Friday, May 1st, 2026, thank you for joining me today. Some interesting developments, but I'll tell you right now, if you've been watching this show, if you have just a little bit of intelligence, you saw this coming a long time ago.

Starting point is 00:00:52 You knew this was going to be the way it was going because it was very clear that he's been dishonest with you from the very beginning of this conversation. And we're talking about the Iran war and Donald Trump. New to the show, it's not a partisan conversation. This is about understanding the reality of how this has gone from the beginning. Now, what we're going to talk about today is what Donald Trump has ultimately said over the last couple of days in regard to how this hostilities are terminated, the war is over, all these different framings of it. But in reality, it's just been an effort for him to sort of frame this in a way that makes it look like he didn't lose, or at least in regard to the engagement, who's to say what militarily is the outcome between Iran and the United States. But at the end of the day, Trump has continued to lose in regard to the strategy that's being played out. And that's self-evident at this point.

Starting point is 00:01:35 So what we're going to get into in the second part of the show is the updates on that conversation. Now, again, you guys probably already know where this is going if you've watched this show. But it's important to see what its recent conversations were and how it is, as I literally just got a note from Robert saying it looks like the war is about to reopen. It wasn't actually closed. If you understand how this has been going, the blockade was a military act of war. You know, we'll get into it all. But what's interesting is they're trying to sort of pivot using the War Powers Act while simultaneously arguing that it's unconsory. constitutional somehow and using that to argue they can just reinitiate some new phase of war and

Starting point is 00:02:09 then they can sidestep the reality of something they were violating from the very beginning. But we'll get to that in the second part of the show. I want to start with something that I think is really important. Now, I've heard the story, seen it passing, there's a lot going on. I didn't even know Robert, excuse me, that Derek was actually going into this. He just put up an article that was, I think, really important. And it doesn't just cover the story of Melania Trump and the weird presentation she just gave around Epstein and possibly why, but goes into the deeper parts of what the story is,

Starting point is 00:02:40 what he argues is actually driving this conversation. And there's so many parts to this that are important for so many different reasons. Obvious connections to Epstein, which again, if you, you know, you could look at the Epstein files that there's so much evidence that shows that there's connections well beyond what Trump said with Epstein, well beyond the time he said it was there. And Melania as well, including how he was introduced to her. But the story is deep for other reasons as well. It connects to ICE.

Starting point is 00:03:04 It connects to the effort from the person we're going to get into in this article calling ICE, saying their friends with Trump, and getting their ex-girlfriend deported. Now, the argument is that that was going to happen anyway, but he was just pointing it out. It's a very interesting conversation. But a reason I want to get into today is both because it's an important story about understanding what, you know, not just the dishonesty, but the criminality of both the U.S. government at large, both left and right, but in particular this administration, but also an interesting part that ties into Israel, which I'm sure my regular audience is well aware of,

Starting point is 00:03:36 but very much connects with what's going on in the world today. So let's jump into this article. Very well done by Derek. And this is entitled the Zamoli-Melania Pact with the discussing is sort of an agreement that was made to obfuscate connections to Epstein. And, you know, whether or not that is the reality, Amanda Ungaro, Epstein connections, and the leaked phone call. Now, this is an important conversation, I think, that's going to continue to grow because the implication is that Angaro is going to release more information. She has a book that's supposed to be coming out. And the kind of overarching point is that Melania rushed out and gave this presentation about it. She's totally not connected to Epstein, even though you can prove that

Starting point is 00:04:16 is the case. And to get ahead of her story, to get ahead of what she was going to say, that's the question. So as it starts, I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. So this person who we're going to discuss, Amanda Ungaro, who is a model and, you know, in the fashion industry in general, is Melania's longtime friend. Now, they dispute this. They dispute the different connections. But again, just at the base level of the information, Epstein files, their own exchanges, which will read to you, it's quite obvious that there is a connection here. You can decide the level of that connection. The point for me is the tangential parts of this around that relationship.

Starting point is 00:04:56 And you'll see what I mean. So this is an email directly from Melania to Ungaro. And it says, are you ready? Are you already aware of the situation? Do you feel? Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm jumping ahead. That was actually this one down here.

Starting point is 00:05:06 First, this is a post that has been deleted. I have it on the archive so you guys can check it out. It's right here. So it is a real post, but she has deleted it. Now, she's been saying a lot of the same thing since then. This is Amanda Ungarral right here. And she said, before she deleted it, it says Pam Bonnie. And this is what I was reading on the article with Derek quoted.

Starting point is 00:05:25 Are you ready? Are you already aware of the same? situation, directly tagging Pam Bondi. Do you fully understand the extent of the information I possessed regarding you and the individuals associated with you? Obviously, Trump and people around him. I strongly advise you to consider the seriousness of these matters. Any actions taken against me or attempts to escalate the situation could have significant legal consequences. That's a brave person right there. It doesn't matter how, what to what level you think the government will not, you know, whatever the conversation is, the conspiratorial way that it's framed, it's quite clear

Starting point is 00:05:56 that powerful people can do any number of things. And so for her to come out and do this around a conversation where there's already a lot of powerful people who have went missing or killed themselves, it's an interesting, it's a brave thing to say. Or you can argue it's just trying to get themselves attention. That's what a lot of the detractors are saying. I tend to think that she has information on these people.

Starting point is 00:06:12 It says, I expect this to be handled with the appropriate level of responsibility and professionalism moving forward. Now, for whatever reason, that was removed. So continuing, she wrote, I will tear down your corrupt system in a different post, even if it's the last thing I do in my life. I will go all the way.

Starting point is 00:06:29 I'm not afraid. Maybe you should be afraid of what I know. That's kind of my point. Stuff like that seems to be pretty intense. Of who you are and who your husband is, she wrote in another deleted post. Now, as he writes, while American media,

Starting point is 00:06:42 which again speaks for itself, by the way, whether media or FBI or anybody else, seem to have zero interest in speaking with her. Ngaro has now given interviews to Brazilian, Spanish, and most recently Italian media. In each of these conversations, she makes disturbing claims, which threatened to debunk the story being told by Melania,

Starting point is 00:07:00 the first lady of the United States, namely the idea that she had no connection to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, she's been making these rounds for a while, by the way. So it's interesting also the disconnect between U.S. media and, you know, like everything else, it seems, to a degree. Ungaro has shared striking information, which she claims proves that Jeffrey Epstein had secret information about Ms. Trump and Zampoli,

Starting point is 00:07:24 and that Zampoli made a deal with the first lady to keep their secrets quiet. Now, Zampoli comes in the conversation as an individual who was dating her before this. And this is where it comes into the conversation of her being the ex who he essentially gets deported. Now, this person, his full name being Paolo Zampoli is somebody connected Donald Trump and it threw politics as well. Oh, I just lost my place. Where were we? There we go.

Starting point is 00:07:52 So continuing. Ungaro has shared striking information, which he claims proves Epstein had secret information about both of them. and a deal they made to essentially keep all this out of the media. She says, I met Melania when I was 18. We saw each other at a few dinners. I was with my friends. We'd sit together. I was very young.

Starting point is 00:08:12 She said this in the program titled, The Epstein War. But when Trump decided to run for president, Melania started being the first to wish my son, happy birthday. She was the first to send him a big gift delivered by the Secret Service. and from that point on, we were invited to everything. New Year, Easter, Christmas, every occasion. Now, I believe she's trying to make the case that we were close. As they now argue, that's not the reality,

Starting point is 00:08:36 even though you can very easily prove that they were doing these things. I see it as something more than that. Just my opinion, you have to understand. I mean, look at where this is gone. At the very least, we know that there's connections behind the scenes to Epstein, whether or not it's just in passing and partying and whatever else, and that she's saying, I know stuff about you, or at least that she would know that they have some,

Starting point is 00:08:55 information about the things that she now is today saying, I have this on you. I would argue this might be them going keep that person happy. Completely my opinion. You know, keeping them on the inside. And there's going to be a point about this in the article as well from Zampoli, the idea of, you know, that I'm Donald Trump's friend. I would never betray him. You know, even if it is exposing a crime, he's committed.

Starting point is 00:09:15 I would add to that, which is the entire administration and really just how government operates, but it's very obvious with this administration. And it continues. always says, I'm the one who introduced Malani to Trump. Now, he has been making this statement repeatedly, incessantly, even though, as we'll get into, in the Epstein files, Epstein himself claims he introduced Melanie to Trump, as well as plenty of other people who make the same argument. He's simply stepping in saying, I did. I don't care what you say. It was me. Everybody knows that. The evidence doesn't seem to back that up. But of course, it could be Epstein lying about it.

Starting point is 00:09:52 We shouldn't, you know, obviously consider that Epstein could be lying about things, right? I mean, that's very, whether he just wanted to sound like he was on the inside, who knows what it is. But it continues. But now in the documents released by the Department of Justice, it says that it was Epstein who did it. So there's a lot more behind the story than it appears. And this is her saying it about him. Behind, this is Ungaro saying this about Paulo. Quote, behind all of this, there's a deal that he, Zambole, made with Melania.

Starting point is 00:10:18 This is what she's claiming. Because he isn't close to Trump. He's close to Melania, which seems to be generally the reality, plain and simple. with Trump goes through Melania. She said this to a, I think it's the Brazilian platform. He says to Melania, Melanium, I want to be, and this is so crazy to me. Now, you could argue this is her misrepresenting this, which she clearly is even, you know, she's unhappy with him.

Starting point is 00:10:42 And I would argue for very obvious justified reasons, but it still might drive embellishment. But the argument, I think, lines up with what we see throughout this administration, more than I've ever seen in my entire life covering this stuff that, you know, pay to play kind of stuff. whether same than with Clinton was accused of. But the point being is just, you know, inside, you know, like nepotism kind of stuff. It's just it's corruption. He says, Melania, I want to be the ambassador to Italy. Melania, you have to give me a position, a title.

Starting point is 00:11:08 But I ask, how can Trump appoint a U.S. ambassador, or someone who does drugs, someone who isn't even American, but an immigrant? So it's Melania who's supporting him. It's Melania who's pushing him. Between them, there's a pact, a deal. I'm 100% sure. That's her claim. Now, realize he ended up becoming somebody in the government because of Donald Trump.

Starting point is 00:11:24 on Sunday, April 26th, RAI released another report about Zampoli and Ungaro titled The Shark. The report contains an exclusive audio recording of a phone call between Zampoli and a friend in which he alleged the pack, allegedly the pact is discussed. Now, this is in a different language, but the argument from the platform is this is what it's discussing. Now, it is somewhat abstract. It's not exactly saying they have a pack, but I think the reality as it goes forward becomes pretty clear that there is, at the very least, a willingness not to be a

Starting point is 00:11:54 to challenge Trump, which I think is pretty, you know, you could argue a flimsy connection, but I think this is important to think about in the general quote. It says, I wrote the document for the president, the first lady, used it for their speech. And this is in regard to the daily mail lawsuit against him. It's sort of irrelevant for the point, but really just saying, I'm in the country, thanks to President Trump. As an immigrant, he says this. He gave me a job.

Starting point is 00:12:15 I started in real estate. I built myself a nice house. I would never betray a friend. Now, yeah. And you could argue that's honorable to a degree, if you're talking about somebody who's not a criminal. But my point, though, is that this is something, this is just politics. And this is how you, you know, ingratiate somebody or, you know, people in politics in general. This is a practice. But in this administration, we're watching, you know, basically two very extreme sides of it.

Starting point is 00:12:38 It's either you'll get everything you ever wanted, you know, illegal or not, you know, kind of being hyperbolic, but or we will do everything in our life to destroy everything in your life. That's, you choose. It's sort of how Trump's running the administration right now, in my view. And that seems to be very clear if people are afraid to say anything about him even they know he's breaking the law. And again, if you're new to the show and you think this is about somehow hating Trump, just as many criticisms about Biden. The point is the U.S. government is corrupt. And both sides of it play a role in getting you where they need you next.

Starting point is 00:13:08 Right. And the bigger conversation is about what they're achieving through foreign policy, which is essentially the great reset if you want to understand how it's all playing out. And that is the same from either side. But back to the point. The Zambole-Trump-Empstine connection. Now, he writes in 1996, back when she was a young model known as Melania Noss, Howlowe's Impoli was the modeling agent who brought the future First Lady to New York City.

Starting point is 00:13:32 He also sponsored her H-1B visa, which I just find humorous, which of course came up before, but, you know, just hypocrisy, before she was later awarded the so-called Epstein visa, which, or excuse me, that's just humorous, Einstein visa. And I didn't even know this, actually, not that it was specifically this, this, this is the kind of corruption I'm talking about. And I can't believe this doesn't get screamed about endlessly from the kind of people that are claiming to be adversarial from a part of, you know, media standpoint in the mainstream. My point is they're really not when it comes down to it. Questions have long swirl about how exactly Mrs. Trump was given the visa, which is reserved for

Starting point is 00:14:07 individuals with extraordinary abilities, renowned academic researchers, multinational business executives, and others with international acclaim in their field. Now, is anyone going to ever pretend that Melania meets any of those, somebody apparently, in 2018, Michael Wilde, an attorney, of course, from Alanya Trump and her family told the Washington Post whatever he needed to say to make you, which was Mrs. Trump was more than amply qualified and solidly eligible that nobody took seriously. I mean, let's be real. That's just embarrassing, but that's what they do. That's what either side will always do. That's why you see families continue to come through the political sphere in this country. But realize that it's clear there.

Starting point is 00:14:46 My point in saying that, as always, is to make sure it's not about, well, you didn't care when the Biden is that's not a valid argument. I care about both, but even if you didn't, it still makes this a crime. The argument of saying, well, you didn't care when Biden did it is basically saying, then we shouldn't care now. That's not what they want you to think, but this is what always happens. We should hold them accountable for the smallest things like this, as well as the massive war crimes they're committing. Got to start somewhere. I would, could have been last administration. Could be this one, but let's just start somewhere. First, despite her attempts to downplay the communication between herself and Maxwell as simply a polite reply. That's what they're really trying to play.

Starting point is 00:15:22 It's just a, you know, political overlap, polite reply on an email, which amounts to nothing more than a trivial note. Some critics see the pictures with the Epstein's, Trump's and the Epstein and Maxwell, as well as the October 2002 email as more than just a courtesy hello. I mean, it's a very kind way of saying. It's objectively clear that that's not what the relationship was. You could even argue it was just more, you know, what's between close friends and not knowing them. My point, though, is that this is, it's trivial note is just,

Starting point is 00:15:51 it's insulting to your intelligence because in their files, you can prove that's not the case. And, of course, right here, an email from Melania to Maxwell. How are you? Nice story about J.E. and New York Mag. You look, I think Jeffrey Epstein,

Starting point is 00:16:06 you look great on the picture. I know you are very busy flying all over the world. How was Palm Beach? I cannot wait to go down. Give me a call when you're back in New York. Have a great time. Love, Melania. It doesn't sound like somebody you don't know, but you know, maybe she just wanted to get close to her.

Starting point is 00:16:21 Speaks for itself anyway. The New York Times reports that Mr. Epstein, since the election, has played it up, claiming to people that he was the one who introduced Trump to his third wife, Melania Trump. So it's interesting that you could just keep claiming the opposite when evidence suggests that. Epstein himself says that. And then they just have somebody else who, by the way, is wrapped up in the Epstein network himself that goes, that's not true. You know, it's a choice to choose something that is, one, at a statement, the challenge is what evidence you actually have, also somebody compromised by the

Starting point is 00:16:51 network. I mean, it's a choice, guys, that's a choice. Either could be true, but you're choosing to ignore the evidence in lieu of somebody who is compromised by the situation. I just find that to be self, you know, self, willful ignorance. Finally, a recently released interview with a former assistant of Epstein's also claimed that Epstein introduced Melania Trump to Donald Trump. Multiple aspects of this. It's pretty clear to me. Mrs. Trump has sent since, publishers who sought to make their similar claims, which again is a very common tactic of this administration, which ties back to their philosophy. This comes from, I mean, the Roy Cohen element, but also the technocratic Curtis Yarven philosophy, you know, just sue, sue, deny, deny,

Starting point is 00:17:32 push forward, just push hard as fast you can. Silicon Valley, move fast and break things, all these things happening at the same time. That's their mentality. That's why I'm talking about which we'll get into other shows, not today, the larger agenda for where all this goes. the network state agenda, the bigger push of the transition of society, part of the Strait of Hermuz element are playing into that. The point, though, is that they will sue anybody, go after anybody in any way they can to get you to just not do what you're doing. Even if you're honest, even if you're telling the truth, because they know they've got endless resources and most average people do not. I mean, I go over the same point when we're getting sued for unjust

Starting point is 00:18:06 copyright claims. Even though I had the right and I was not doing what they claimed, I had to fight to offend to fend myself and spent tens of thousands of dollars to do it. So eventually they won because I think that was the point. But that's how, you know, the old saying, wealthy people get lawyers, poor people go to jail. While Epstein and Zambole's stories about who introduced the Trumps are in conflict, we can confirm that Epstein was friends with the Trumps and Zampoli. We can also confirm that Amanda Ungaro was first arrived in New York City in 2002 at the age of 17 after flying on Jeffrey Epstein's plane.

Starting point is 00:18:41 with her then modeling agent, of course, Jean-Luc Brunel. Somebody, in case you don't know the story around this, somebody who is proven to be a sexual predator, who allegedly, allegedly hung himself in a Paris prison. When I was reading this again today, I'm thinking, man, they're probably all somewhere, half-joking, you know, this idea that, you know, Epstein or any of the rest, like they did just, you know,

Starting point is 00:19:05 there's controversy around it. There people, you know, it's strange. My thought would be if there's ever going to be a network that protects its own, it would be something like this. But after Epstein's plane and, of course, the tied to John Luke Brunel, the former head of modeling agencies, Karen Models and MC2, and the perfect example of the modeling industry's pipeline to sexual exploitation. This link here you should check out. If you want to know more about that, it's very, very clear.

Starting point is 00:19:31 And that's why I was pointing out earlier in the Epstein files, the connections to John Luke Brunel and the people that were being seen tied to that. Burdell has been accused of sexual abuse for decades, including in a 1988, CBS 60 Minutes report, titled American Girls in Paris. I remember that, not when it came out, but watching this well after the fact. And just going like, it's so crazy how this can be such a mainstream report. It's no different than today, really, guys.

Starting point is 00:19:53 It's there. They see it. No one does anything about it. How many people have we heard say that? We all knew what Epstein was doing. Oh, did you? Like it's almost like it's an admission of that you were on the inside. There was even somebody who made that point

Starting point is 00:20:05 that if you didn't know, Epstein, it was a sign that you weren't cool enough. That was literally a statement, cool or inside or whatever the frame, paraphrasing the sentiment. And that's where it is. What was it? Nick Fuentes basically trying to push the idea that he was just a cool guy that everybody hated. That wasn't a joke, by the way.

Starting point is 00:20:20 These people are, I mean, or you have newsmax trying to argue that Maxwell should get pardoned because she was innocent. We're going to talk about that at the end of this, actually. But so the point is that this came out very publicly and nothing happened until after Epstein was arrested. Brunel faced no charges until Epstein was allegedly, you know, arrested and then allegedly killed himself. but in 2020, Brunel would be arrested by French authorities, accused of trafficking young girls. He allegedly hung himself in prison. Quote, once he punched me in the face, this is Ungaro talking about Zambole, abusing her. Once he punched me in the face because I didn't want to have sex with him.

Starting point is 00:20:59 It was constant physical violence and psychological too. Now, she could be lying, of course, but that very much aligns what we hear from the Epstein network stories. You're nobody, you're not capable of anything, you're stupid, you're a Brazilian, is what he would say to her, so she says. He would try every way he could to humiliate me to make me feel inferior. Sampoly denied all accusations of physical abuse, claiming Ungaro's bruises were the result of kickboxing training. He also claimed that she was genetically predisposed to be a liar

Starting point is 00:21:28 because of a Brazilian heritage. Literally, quote, says, Brazilians watch the soap opera. They're all a bit like that. They must have heard that Brazilian women, you must have heard, he says, that Brazilian women cause trouble for everyone, right? it's not like this one was the first.

Starting point is 00:21:43 It's programming. They're programmed to do it quite a different time. Now, my opinion is always say whatever you want. The idea that the idea of canceling people, you could, but the idea, it's just stupid. Free speech matters. But the point, though, is that at a time like this, it wasn't even, you know, it was interesting to see that, for example, today, that statement would get it very much criticized. So many years ago, they would have been a, well, cancel push, right?

Starting point is 00:22:08 Today, it's the right, doing that for different reasons. But what's interesting to me is what it shows you, what we know the FC network was doing in this society is that he was up there literally trying to gaslight somebody that I argue he was abusing and simply just going, oh, she's just a Brazilian, she lies. Showing you the kind of low opinion he had of at least Brazilian women. I mean, it reminds me of an Andrew Tate kind of dynamic, the way that they treat generally. And that doesn't have to be everybody in these networks, but I think it's a common trait, in my opinion. Just think about this, though, understanding where we are today. Now, it says regarding his knowledge of Epstein's illegal activities, and Polly said, I knew he had girls.

Starting point is 00:22:45 This is his direct quote. I knew, he said, but they weren't mine because they weren't even models. They were young girls, minors, masseuses. But he slipped that in there between, you know, he says, that wasn't what he did in public. The models were a cover up for this guy, Epstein. Oh, so you knew about it the entire time. That's those kind of comments are everywhere today.

Starting point is 00:23:09 No one's being held accountable. In March, the New York Times reported that Paolo Zampoly had allegedly used his connections within the Trump administration to expedite his ex-wife's deportation from the United States. This blows me away. Mr. Zampoly, 56, is known in Washington, direct quote, for flouting his proximity to the Trump's. It is in this case, he used his clout to solicit help from an agency beset by allegations of unlawful overreach. That's the New York Times discussing. ICE.

Starting point is 00:23:41 When Zampoli learned she was in jail, he saw an opportunity to win an ongoing custody battle over the couple's son. That was how Derek read the situation, and I agree with that. According to ICE records and a source who spoke with the New York Times, Danpoly called ICE, official David Venturella. I would argue somebody should ask his man some questions and told him of his fight with Ungaro. He said that if she were deported, it might help him win parental rights to his son. Venturello then apparently called ICE's Miami office to make sure Ungaro was deported from the jail before being released on bail.

Starting point is 00:24:16 Ungaro had lived in the U.S. from 2002 until her eventual deportation in 2025. She has a son. Now, as I understand it, the framing of the timing of this was the reality in jail and reported before she could be released. Now, they argue it was just what was going to happen. In late March, Ungaro described her deportation to Brazilian news site Oglobo stating that she was pulled out of her house at six in the morning, handcuffed in front of her son and taken to the police station. Zampoli denies having anything done more than simply calling and inquiring about her status. Now, look, of course that's possible.

Starting point is 00:24:48 What do you think? What does your gut tell you? With what we've seen, with what's going on, and just because you may feel that way, doesn't make it the truth. But think about it. With what we've seen in regard to ICE and despite the screaming partisan lies, now you've understand this, guys, for those not paying attention, even the majority of conservatives, is my opinion, are at least uncomfortable with the way he's handling the immigration situation, even though they may still want immigrants gone entirely or whatever variation they're in.

Starting point is 00:25:13 I've talked to so many of them who say, well, that I wanted it, but not to shoot Americans in the street, not to violate rights, or to kick doors in without warrants, you know, the constitutional things. So when you look at this, and of course, even within the internal situation, look at what Nome did. Look at what Bondi was doing. Cash and Bongino, like, insane levels of like child this juvenile manipulation, like, you know, getting internal groups with people and, you know, this hockey team, I mean, whatever else. Now, that's a bad example because he probably just showed up. But my point is the kind of people like noam and giving these contracts to people and her

Starting point is 00:25:48 family and her friends or previous administration people. That's wild corruption. So my point is, do you think it's possible he called and just said, hey, you know, here's our status, help me out. And do you think people on their side who are framing it as Democrats or the evil villain terrorists of the world? would just, okay, we're deporting people anyway. Is there a reason? I got it. Now, you could then turn around and go, look, there's a reason. It's justified. But was it? Was it even on the table?

Starting point is 00:26:15 Was it something that would have been handled differently if it was just some, you know, this is the equivalent of the many cases that I've seen where this guy has a parking ticket from 10 years ago, has everything up the day to just went to his like final meeting to get citizenship and they grab him on the way there to deport him because he had a ticket and revoke his dad, which, by the way, I argue, is flatly illegal for a million reasons because a ticket is not justifiable reason to revoke someone's green card or visa. Look it up. But either way, the point is, we know that this kind of thing has and will happen. So the question is, did he abuse that system? You can decide for yourself. While the alleged pact between

Starting point is 00:26:54 Paolo Zampoli and Malani and Trump has yet to be proven in court, these claims offer a possible motive for her efforts to deport his ex-wife, Amanda Ungaro, who is openly saying, you know what I know about you, Trump family, and a plausible explanation for why Ms. Trump chose to speak out randomly, confusingly, about Jeffrey Epstein when she did. Now, one of the obvious things I argue, even though I think this makes far more sense

Starting point is 00:27:18 in a general point about why this is happening, is that I think that one of the parts of this whole calculus is to distract right now. Now, that's a usual kind of easy, you know, that's just to distract you kind of, that seems to be in every topic every time, and it's worth considering. But right now, more than ever,

Starting point is 00:27:33 there's a justifiable reason to be considering that things are trying to distract you because they are floundering. And if you can't see that, then you're either blinded by partisanship or you're just lying because it's objectively clear they're failing to meet what they said they would do. They're lying to their own people. They're crying. I mean, it's just, I mean, you've had some of the largest Republican people in the conversation come out and go Trump lied and I'm never voting for him again. I don't know why this is hard to see for some people. Right. So it's, that could have just been her doing this because it would have got us to go that instead of Iran, that instead of Epstein file, even though that's actually a bad example, seeing us how it almost

Starting point is 00:28:08 draws attention to it, but they might have thought maybe this would put it to bed. I don't know. There's tons of reasons she would come out and do that just to get you to look away. But again, part of it could be that they see this book coming out and they wanted to get ahead of it. While Amanda Ungaro has not claimed to have knowledge about Epstein's activities or potential involvement with intelligence, the same RAI platform that she spoke with that put out Epstein War. The report called Epstein War they put out includes interviews with Ari Ben Manashe, the former senior executive for Israel's director of military intelligence. RAI has long claimed

Starting point is 00:28:42 that Jeffrey Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence. Whitney Webb, who was one of the first people to report on Ben Manashe's statements in 2019 regarding alleged links between Jeffrey Epstein and Israeli intelligence. In the RAI interview, Manashe elaborated on his claims. It's amazing that we can't just be honest about what people say out loud. Ben Ben Manashe told RIA that Israel has a metaphorical nuclear bomb to use to compel American politicians to support Israel's political goals. Now, this isn't some bombshell. That's been out for a while, guys.

Starting point is 00:29:15 Whitney pointed to this in 2019. They have photos of Melania with Epstein. Trump isn't the point. Melania is. Ben Manashe told RIA, RIA. Think about how that just doesn't get discussed. As the investigation continues, Derek ends. Amanda Ungaro is preparing to tell her own life story.

Starting point is 00:29:33 In recent days, Ungaro has been posting teasers of an upcoming book on her Twitter account. One recent post of her working out at a gym simply stated, the comeback begins now. It appears Amanda Ungaro is not done speaking out about what she knows. Of course, for a deep dive into the life and history of Powell's Ampoly, Reid Whitney and Webb and Mark Goodwin, who we interviewed about the cryptocurrency conversation, it's entitled Fast Friends,

Starting point is 00:29:56 how the first couple's coniglieri went from modeling mogul to special envoy. That's the very guy we talked about. The guy who said, well, it was drugs and is illegal, you know, he's an alien or immigrant. And it seems odd. That would be, and he ended up in the position anyway. I wonder why. Now, to reiterate this point, guys, you know, the reality of this. And here's Whitney's article, by the way.

Starting point is 00:30:16 I'll actually just include that in the show notes. So you guys can check it out because it's well done, 2019. Back when she was with press news. Ben Manashe told the platform, right? This is really important to understand that Israel has a nuclear bomb metaphorically. And in reality, by the way, in case you don't know that, to compel American politicians to support their goals. Now, do you see why this is relevant today?

Starting point is 00:30:39 I mean, what we're going to get into with Israel, or excuse me, with Iran is just, you know, it won't take that long, get you updated on the general reality of what happened. We're going to go through that next. But just think about why this would all be happening. Why would Trump be ruining everything? I mean, I'm going to end with this. I'm just going to show you right now. Trump is collapsing in his support.

Starting point is 00:30:59 Now, I don't trust polls. Polls can, I mean, polls will almost always be manipulated. So take it for what it is. It's a data point, right? You can take a poll to a group of people that you think the same thing and make it look like everybody agrees. The point, though, is that it is very obvious in a thousand different perspectives that Trump is flailing.

Starting point is 00:31:17 He's lost major supporters. And as I keep saying, just to make this as clear as possible, I believe that the majority of people who want, I mean, let's just put it this way. I was just talking, I was just talking with Charlie Robinson about this. Right now, in a general sense, let's take the United States. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of people, it won't anywhere really, but just take the United States want what they think they want? I'd like to think that's like, well, duh, right? That's obvious.

Starting point is 00:31:42 People want things they want. Now, there's reasons they'll go against what they want, many reasons, including political manipulation. But so Trump came out and said, right? no more wars, smaller government, no more of the lower, you know, less spending. I mean, everything going, you know, lock her up the first time. Now we're Klaus Schwab and Fauci and blah, blah, blah, whatever else he said. Promise the world. No more food dies.

Starting point is 00:32:04 Glyphal State's going to go away. And then every single one of those things double crossed. Every one of them, even the food dies, he went back on. And I covered that. Glyphosate's a national security imperative all of a sudden. Fluoride, the lawsuit that was winning, they pushed back on. When Biden was letting, I mean, it doesn't, watch you. technically they both push back on it. But my point, though, guys, is that it's so obvious that

Starting point is 00:32:25 people didn't get what they were promised. So you have to ask yourself, do the majority of conservatives, not necessarily team sport Republicans or Democrats, they'll do whatever they're told, but the majority of people that just, you know, believe they're conservatives, do you think that they would not get what they were promised and then just go, well, I'll cheer from anyway? Yeah, a part of that, a group of that category who decides it's more important that I believe Trump, support Trump, that I get what I want. I'm of the very obvious opinion. That's not the majority of people.

Starting point is 00:32:54 The majority of people are going to go, damn it, I wanted those things. I didn't want war with Iran. I wanted a better country. I wanted to make America great again. Now, whether we disagree on what it looks like to make America great again, that's what they wanted.

Starting point is 00:33:07 That's the real MAGA movement, and you may still think they're disgusting. I just think they're real people who have different opinions about what they want for this country. What you think is disgusting, most likely, is the way the mainstream and Trump and everybody else frame all of them.

Starting point is 00:33:18 All the ridiculous screamers, on Twitter who give you the ridiculous opinions and act like everyone thinks this when most of them are kind of like, well, I don't know. I believe Trump, but I don't know what that means. And so what they need you to think is that everyone is represented in this fake conversation on Twitter. So the point, most people in MAGA are feeling betrayed. That's what those numbers represent. So the whole point, guys, is we have an opportunity here. There's momentum here to do something. We just got to recognize that we have the majority and we probably have for a long time. I said it during COVID-19. It's the same point then.

Starting point is 00:33:49 I digress, not ending just yet. But I want to get into this next part. We're keeping in mind that Israel has a metaphorical nuclear bomb to make sure that Donald Trump does what he's told. And that is that they have, as Manashe points out, pictures of Melania with Epstein. Now, couldn't you obviously see how that could make Trump desperate? And maybe he didn't even know that. And suddenly, as I was pointing out, he started to kind of pull away from what they were trying to do. And that was the card.

Starting point is 00:34:16 We always talk about that, the whole JFK talk point or whatever you. want to call it. People talk about RFK. Well, he was blackmail. I can't prove that. But that would be the kind of conversation we would have. What does it take to make somebody literally 180 when their entire career, their entire life was built on stopping these things? They turn around and then allow it to happen? You know, no, no.

Starting point is 00:34:35 You could decide. Could be lies. Could be something else. So let's get into this. Oh, actually, before we move on to the Iran point, I just wanted to show you this as well. Because I already reported this. But I just, I still can't believe. This is from the 25th of April.

Starting point is 00:34:51 This is still gaining momentum. Outrageous. Push in Congress for just Elaine Maxwell to be pardoned. So if you think of the last point, this would likely be something that that entity would want. And maybe eventually they're going to have to do it because they don't have a choice. There's a growing number of U.S. members of Congress

Starting point is 00:35:10 pushing for sex trafficker just Lane Maxwell. Think it makes sense of that with this administration to be pardoned. Now, this was Comer who put this out, saying a lot of people do want that. how did we possibly get here? How is it even possible that these people find it politically advantageous to come out and say, yes, that thing you all hate, that my entire team said we're going to put to jail, you know, let's let her go.

Starting point is 00:35:35 You know what that shows you? They don't care what you think. They care about what somebody thinks. It's just not you. Now, let's get into this because I think this is just spectacularly embarrassing for this country, rather the government and then people who conflate the two, that they look at us the same way. but my God, we've been talking about this from February 28th. And of course, I'm going to point to that at some point,

Starting point is 00:35:58 so I might as well bring it up, because the reality is that on February 28, as you know, in case you're new to the show, it was agreed to. The foreign minister of Amman, who was in the mediation conversations, said on the 28th, as you all know, the peace was within reach because, and he reiterated this numerous times,

Starting point is 00:36:16 and we just watched the video again on the last show. They will give up their enrichment. They will give up their program. They've never agreed to those in the past. They've always maintained the idea that they have a right, because they do have a legal right to a civilian nuclear program like any other country in the world. In fact, they have a legal right to nuclear bombs like every other country in the world. Literally, in case you don't know that, that is the legal reality.

Starting point is 00:36:35 It's only they say, they bad guy. They can't have the things that we have and that's stupid. But whatever you think about them, you may think they're all terrorists. It still doesn't change the legal reality of the situation, which seems to matter, doesn't it? Now, we could also say, well, that shouldn't be the case. Hey, then let's have a conversation about it. Let's change the legal reality instead of just going, they bad, we're going to do what we want,

Starting point is 00:36:53 because that's wrong. Kind of what Trump's doing with the War Powers Act situation. But the point here, they agree to the things that they keep saying they will never do. They agree. And that night, Netanyahu bombed them. Because they know they won don't have the things they claim, otherwise they wouldn't have bombed them, just like with the North Korea situation. The reality is they knew that if they allowed them, I think they were calling Israel's bluff.

Starting point is 00:37:16 To give these things up, Israel wouldn't have a justification. they barely do now to do what they're doing. So bearing that in mind, guys, where we're at now has just been one after another flounder for Trump. Now, I argue in the beginning, I don't know if he was aware of where this was really going. Remember, Rubio comes out and says, we had to because Israel was going to attack Iran, which appears to somewhat be the reality. Remember, Rubio and Trump don't like each other, despite what they always framed.

Starting point is 00:37:43 They were actually really adversarial right before, like right before this all, they joined at the hip. So I believe most of the time that Rubio and Trump are sort of trying to kind of shuck responsibility back and forth. They do it all the time. And so I think in that way it was probably not in line with what they wanted, but maybe what Israel wanted. Because Israel always wants the world to see that they're driving the bus, but they just don't want the accountability for it. Why they stood up and said, this is your war. We're not going to be involved, then somehow dictate the reality of it.

Starting point is 00:38:10 So remember, it started where they believed, I'm of the mind that Iran would shut down the Strait of Ramos. They did not do that. If you're new to the show again, the reality is that they restricted the straight to people who were their adversaries, which again is not at this point. In the beginning, I said, well, that's what they're claiming. Today, you can prove that. I've proven it many times over. They literally said, you guys who are legally bombing us, we will not allow you to go through the straight. And remember, they went to the UN before the 28th and said, they're going to bomb us illegally.

Starting point is 00:38:41 They're going to do this. And if they do, we're going to bomb all these countries who are helping them because we have the legal. right. What a terrorist to go to the UN and say, we're going to do the terrorist thing. That's not what that is. They're showing they have a legal right to do it. Then when they did it illegally, claiming an eminent threat, I don't know how you make sense of that possibly with what just happened. They then responded like they said they would. Then Trump turns around and goes, look at what they just did. They're terrorists. You must, you, it's so easy to see that he is trying to frame the legal reality as the problem, just like he did with the JCPOA. The deal that kept them at 4%. That Trump violated, then turned around,

Starting point is 00:39:16 and said they broke the deal when they did what they were allowed to do if he broke the deal. Now, this may all be confusing to you if you haven't known all that stuff, but the truth is very self-evident if you look back through the information. So they didn't shut the straight down. They didn't put mines in the straight, as is evidenced by the fact that ships are going through the entire time. And I think the argument was Trump was convinced that Iran would do that and that the whole world would stand behind him.

Starting point is 00:39:39 They didn't. They played them. They played it beautifully. They spun the very thing that would be their weakness into their strength and said, well, you guys can't use it. And remember, they were willing to make a deal early. Then they bombed them. They killed Kameini.

Starting point is 00:39:52 Then they bombed them a second time. Then the point was they said, we're done negotiating with you guys, which is where I think it's been ever since. They're willing to end this. If you're going to give us what we need, that's why they keep meeting. Trump frames it as they're willing to deal. That's not what's happening, in my opinion, based on the evidence. Because as we see the end result, they end up in the same position.

Starting point is 00:40:09 So Iran is demanding the 10 points. They argue there is the legal reality of the situation, that we have control of the straight, that we can do tolls of the straight like every other straight in the world, which is the reality. One, which I know they'll probably never agree to unless they're that weak and desperate, which they might be, they have to give Iran lots and lots of money for a couple of different reasons, money they've stolen, but also to repay them for the war. That's what they're arguing. I mean, and these are things that are going to be embarrassing. Lebanon is one of them. Giving up the blockade is another. These things are currently in the reality. They're currently

Starting point is 00:40:40 still happening. Right. So that's when they said Iran broke the ceasefire. They did not. I mean, you could prove this stuff. Again, they responded after that. Now, the bottom line, all that aside, you don't care, right now you think that there always been, you know, whatever your opinion is, looking at it right now, it's very easy to understand two things, that Donald Trump is trying to make it look like something has shifted. It has not.

Starting point is 00:41:03 Because if you just end, as I just showed you yesterday, day before yesterday, the U.S. intelligence was literally doing a study about what would happen if Trump stood up and declared victory. They knew this was possibly the plan. So Trump says Iran war terminated as war powers deadline arrives. Now, before we get into it, it's pretty clear in my mind that Trump is trying to say we won already. Because he's been saying that for weeks, even though that's so very obviously not true. Iran still has Navy ships.

Starting point is 00:41:33 Iran still has weapons and missile. I mean, everything they've argued about them has been proven to be false. So when he says terminated, I'll get into what he actually means by that. He wants you to pretend that it's over. so we can try to sidestep the legalities of his illegal war, as well as start a new one for the same purpose against Iran for a different name. I'll show you that in a second. But ultimately, try to escape that he lost, at least in the back and forth, not necessarily the ongoing situation. Now, just like Netanyahu as well, I think there's a point of this to keep this in some constant state of flux or war so he can't ever be held

Starting point is 00:42:08 accountable, just like Netanyahu does. U.S. President Donald Trump declared that a ceasefire had terminated hostilities against Iran. Now, this is what's interesting. What you're getting, laughing at some of the corporate media out there is acting like they're so confused because Trump said the war's over, but then he said they might bomb them. These are supposed to be the journalists in the world. It's just wild. How stupid these. I mean, they're just reading headlines and responding. It's incredible because what's interesting is what he says here even shows you that that is incorrect, that he's declared that the ceasefire has terminated hostilities against Iran as he sought to bolster his argument that he does not need lawmakers' permission to continue the conflict.

Starting point is 00:42:43 So if the ceasefire, which have been, they've broken countless times, is somehow terminated hostilities against Iran because the timing has run out, that's in no way suggesting they're done acting against Iran. That's why that perfectly makes sense, because they're taking the people who are supposed to be adversarial to Trump were told, the lefty media, oddly seem to continually take a statement at face value. It says in a letter to Congress, leaders on Friday, the deadline to come to Congress about the war, Trump said there has been no exchange of fire. Ron said the ceasefire.

Starting point is 00:43:16 Well, two things. One, that's a lie because Israel has bombed them. And this is a joint war no matter what they want to say. Because Iran sees it that way and because it literally is that way. And Iran has made it clear. Lebanon's part of this. It's all interconnected. If Israel bombs us, that's a violation of ceasefire.

Starting point is 00:43:32 And they both. Israel's nonstop, they bomb Lebanon today, guys. But also that the blockade is an act of war by definition. These are just stupid arguments, guys, but they're playing on the ignorance of the average person. So the point is that he's saying the deadline to come to Congress about the war is one part, but that there's been no exchange in ceasefire.

Starting point is 00:43:53 Hostilities that began on the 28th have terminated. So what he's actually trying to play is the 60-day deadline for the War Powers Act. We've talked about this. Now, we're going to get into this more in depth, but if you remember the point, there's only three logical, three, oh, I'm not even showing the article.

Starting point is 00:44:08 Sorry about that, guys. there's only three possible ways that a war can be legal in this country. You can have Congress approve it, right? So go to Congress and they justify it. You can get an authorization for use military force, which is essentially the same thing, but it still goes through Congress. Then, because this actually overlaps with the UN charge,

Starting point is 00:44:29 the point is that you can, war powers act in the United States, is that you have an eminent threat. The argument is, well, you don't have time to go to Congress, right? And this is what Trump is arguing is unconstitutional, because it limits his power, which is literally the,

Starting point is 00:44:40 the point of the Constitution, which is insane. But the point is that War Powers Act was originally designed because, well, we've had to go to Congress and go through the political sphere while we're about to be attacked. It doesn't make any sense. You get that. There's logic there, right? So the argument was imminent attack, a bomb flying, an army on the shore. And so then you rush to stop it. And the argument is you have 30 days from that initiating point to then go to Congress and justify it or stop. That's it. Now, the extra 30 days to make it 90, everyone seems to be on misunderstanding, even ridiculous corporate journalists, which is that the only world in which that 30 days can be added is if it's decided that you're already ending it. But you just need 30 more days to

Starting point is 00:45:26 get the troops out. That's it. Now, that can obviously be manipulated into getting your time to do what you want to do, but Trump is simply acting like you have, you could potentially get 30 more days for the war just because that's not the reality. I don't think these guys even understand the things they're talking about half the time. So where we're at is one, we can prove based on their own testimony. I just showed you in the last show or just the objective reality of the facts, there was no eminent threat based on what Rubio said to begin with, based on the idea that they can't either it was obliterated or they, you know, the reality of the evidence

Starting point is 00:45:59 is they do not have what they're claiming according to our own U.S. intelligence, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to everybody withstanding, other than Trump and then yahu apparently, which don't have standing, and simply go, that's not true. You know, they've lied about it our entire lives. Now, of course, as I always say, they could have something secret. The point, though, is the evidence that shows that there's no justification for it, and they also have a legal right to do it. So, where we're at is that there is no eminent threat because there was no, even if they

Starting point is 00:46:25 had a nuclear bomb, there was not something that was happening. They simply then have just turned it into, well, they're bad. And them being there as an eminent, we've had an eminent threat for 47 years, they very embarrassingly said, not a guest understanding the, word eminent, but so they have then lost that argument. So what this means is even though you're waiting 30 days, it was illegal from the beginning. You never met the War Powers Act justifications. So what this means is, first of all, there should be some impeachment, something, some kind of some accountability here. But if there's not, the point is now they're going to end the 60 day window.

Starting point is 00:47:01 That's when he's saying it's terminated. And all they're going to do is initiate something new. that's what I believe the reality is. That's what I think one of the people inside is arguing they're thinking about. Either way, Israel is not going to stop. Now, that's my opinion, but history has made that undeniably clear. Like we've argued every time, ceasefire. Oh, yeah, watch Israel. And then what do they do?

Starting point is 00:47:23 Prove to you they don't care. Every single time, guys, literally every time they bombed Iran right in the beginning of the last one. And then bomb Levinan all the whole time. So it's just, it's pretty obvious that this is going to continue. and that Trump is doing two things trying to sidestep the legality, but also just pretend like somehow that other one we did was done and we won already.

Starting point is 00:47:42 Now we're starting something new. That's not how this works, guys. I mean, that's incredibly desperate if you ask my honest opinion, which I always give anyway. So under the 1973 war powers resolution, a U.S. president can wage military action for only 60 days before ending it.

Starting point is 00:48:04 Now, again, if there's an imminent threat, asking Congress for authorization. Now, I mean, you could argue, and this is how this gets abused, that you thought there was an eminent threat. Like, your argument is that you have the 30 days. Like, I would argue it's still illegal, but there's a way to maneuver that politically and argue that, well, I ended it after 60 days because it became clear

Starting point is 00:48:23 that that was not the case or we stopped it or whatever. But you're still supposed to go through Congress. Now, right now, or over the last month, there's been two efforts, both have failed, as they'll write about in this article. It makes it more so about the Republican stopping it, but there is Democrats that we're on board with the two. Stopping it, that is.

Starting point is 00:48:40 But it says, okay, the action for only 60 days for ending it, asking Congress for authorization or seeking a 30-day extension due to, as they write, unavoidable military necessity regarding the safety of the forces while withdrawing them. That's the only world in which you get another 30 days. And we'll see that might be something that happens too. I find that to mean, what that would show you is that we know Congress

Starting point is 00:49:02 is completely broken and just does whatever the power wants. if that's what happens, because they've all been pushing back, and then they give them 30 days to be insane. I don't even know how you give more 30 days if you haven't acknowledged or established the imminent threat to begin with. On Friday, Iranian State News Agency, IRNA, said to Iran had sent its latest proposal for negotiations with the U.S. to Pakistani mediators.

Starting point is 00:49:25 Trump swiftly rejected it. Now we're going to go over that part in a second. But see, this is my point here. As far as I further can tell, nobody has access to what we're claiming has been back and forth. here's my opinion of this. And this is backed up by a lot of the people that have more inside ties to the actual, you know, like a Professor Morandi, for example, or Skate Hill from Drops Lake News,

Starting point is 00:49:45 like they have contacts that they're relaying to. You know, of course, they could be lying to them. But what the reality continues to be is that since that point with the 10-point plan they put out, as I told you at the time, they said, we're done negotiating with you. If you're just going to kill people, if you're not going to actually engage or using engagement to trick us into a place of vulnerability to bomb us,

Starting point is 00:50:02 then we're not going to do this, obviously. So then I argue what clearly happened was that somebody, whether Trump or somebody else, offered Iran all 10 points, knowing they weren't going to do it to get them back to a table because they always were willing to end it. And then Trump said, see, they want a deal. They're begging for it. We can to get the Marcus to jump again, which is what they're doing every time. And so what happened then was they came and then said, no, we're not going to give you it.

Starting point is 00:50:25 And then Ron said, what are we doing here? Then the next time Iran came, they came and Iran didn't even meet them. That's why Trump apparently lied about it and said, we didn't even go. you know they did. It's just this embarrassing back and forth. So to argue that they somehow gave a new proposal, I argue it was not true. I argue Iran is saying, that's the same thing. We're asking for those same points. And they bring it to Trump and he goes, no, okay, okay, well, then nothing has changed. I think the interest is Trump making it look like there's a process. He had a process that they violated. They could have been doing that. But they don't now because Iran is not playing that game as best as I can

Starting point is 00:51:00 tell. I still argue, by the way, that Ron, regardless of all of that, will try to end this as they've been trying to, it appears to me, the entire time. That's not a good guy, bad guy point. It's obviously in their interest. So at this point, I could see a world in which Iran even gives them something, but ultimately regains control of the strait, regains control of the toll element, which I guarantee, I don't think that's ever going away based on the reality unless Iran disappears. And so they'll try to make it seem the Trump that they won because they got some kind a concession. He's also secretly, not really secretly, but it's only been talked about twice, I can see, trying to work out some kind of coordinated deal to manage the straight.

Starting point is 00:51:36 You work that out with me. They're terrorists. They're holding the world hostage, but we're going to work together. It's so clear that he just wants something that looks like he didn't lose. So that's what I think might happen where Iran goes fine. We'll give you this. You can say you won, but anyone who's not a moron is going to look at the reality and go, well, clearly you came out because what started with the straight open. It started with Iran offering everything they wanted if they stopped these ongoing wars. And they bombed them. So they gave up everything that they could have had.

Starting point is 00:52:04 Now they're asking for the same deal. Even if they get the same deal, all you ultimately got was back to square one. On Friday, Iranian State News sent that proposal. They said Trump rejected it. The president formally notified Congress of the conflict 48 hours after the first air strikes two months ago, starting the 60 day clock. And we didn't even get into the ridiculous argument of Heggsett, which we go on the second, arguing somehow because there's a ceasefire that they didn't even actually uphold that pauses the clock. It's just not true.

Starting point is 00:52:34 We'll get to that in a minute. As the date approached, congressional aides and analysts said they expected the Republican president to sidestep the deadline, which I was considering as well, just not care about it because he himself is saying it doesn't even imply. They always do that, right? It's inconstitutional. It doesn't even matter. But we're me, but even though we did it to make sure we bet, you know, you're playing it both ways. If it doesn't apply and it's unconstitutional, then why are you trying to act like you meet the demands of it? A senior Trump administration official said on Thursday, the administration's view was the war powers law deadline, did not apply.

Starting point is 00:53:05 My point. It didn't apply, but if it hypothetically did, here's why we meet it. That's very dishonest. And it shows you that just, you know, that's what dishonest people do. Trump said he considered the war powers law unconstitutional. Now, you know why he's saying that, which is, first of all, coming from a group that doesn't care about pretty much every single part of the Constitution, right, that says, well, if you, you know, what was the one about burning the flag? People to say that that's constitutional, they're stupid people. Well,

Starting point is 00:53:32 it's literally constitutional. It's been upheld with the Supreme Court numerous times. So he does, he's either stupid or he's telling you you're stupid for knowing that it's a, that it is constitutional. Or what was the other one? Oh, the shutting down the internet. He probably argued that in 2016, because people are saying crazy things. Work with Bill Gates, shut down the internet. They'll say that's constitution, unconstitutional. Those are stupid people. No, they were right, just like they are now. or these shooting Americans or kicking indoors or take the guns first to process later, all the things that he said if you're actually paying attention, they have no right to even use the word constitutional.

Starting point is 00:54:03 But the overall point is that if the war powers law is unconstitutional, because what he's arguing is that it limits his power, it fundamentally shows you that he doesn't understand what the Constitution is meant to do. Because, of course, it gives the Congress, the power of war. Trump just argues that if it limits his ability, to conduct war, that it's unconstitutional. I mean, he's speaking from such a place of ignorance, and it's spectacular to me that he doesn't even seem like a worry that people are going to go, well, that's just dumb. Like, that's not true. I don't, maybe he doesn't even know that.

Starting point is 00:54:36 You understand, guys, it's insane from to argue that it's unconstitutional because it checks his power. Both Republicans and Democratic presidents have contended the measure violated the Constitution because it sets limits on the president's power. Now, we're talking about the warmongering, team sport politics, Lindsay Graham, Pelosi types. Right? That you can't do that. It limits our power, even though the point of the Constitution is to limit the power of every branch. legal experts say the matter has not been decided by the courts. That's just a weak answer. The reality is legal experts literally repeatedly say exactly what I'm saying.

Starting point is 00:55:10 But then they also say, but yet it hasn't been flushed out through the courts. But this is like saying Trump telling you that the Second Amendment doesn't mean you can own guns. And then I go, well, yeah, it does. And then you go, well, let's go to court. It's like, well, okay, well, legal experts say it hasn't been decided in the court. It doesn't matter. It's very obvious that we can see the objective reality of that. But, quote, we had a ceasefire.

Starting point is 00:55:31 So that gives us additional time, Trump says. This is my point, guys. Nope, that's not true. I mean, they're just adding nuances to this to confuse people and speaking. I mean, this is Hague Seth saying the same thing. Now, maybe because Trump's telling him, but I kind of wonder, it's just shocking incompetence. You know, it's the dumb leading the blind at this point in this administration. Congressional Democrats who have tried repeatedly to pass a war powers legislation that

Starting point is 00:55:57 would force Trump to end the war or come to Congress for authorization, as the legal reality should be, dismissed that characterization saying there was nothing in the 1973 law allowing for a ceasefire. The truth. The point is that you just because, or the idea that somehow you have a, like, as I think I don't know if I highlighted in here, but the point in previous administration, they argued, well, if you, it's every bombing and you have to pause in between the bombings. They're just trying to play people for fools. So they can murder people, I guess, is the reality. They also said that the continuing deployment of U.S. ships blockading Iran's oil exports with evidence of a continuing hostility. And whether Democrats said it or not, it's the

Starting point is 00:56:37 truth. The reality is a blockade is an act of war. You want to make an argument otherwise, you'll be wrong. You can easily look it up. So maintaining an active war during a ceasefire, can you connect the dots there, is an active war. Therefore, you broke the ceasefire. And they just didn't care. And by the way, it was written in the ceasefire that, as well as the Lebanon bombings, and they didn't care about either. And they turned around and said, Iran violated this because Iran already spoke up around in the day and said, well, you're not upholding the ceasefire, so we're not going to either. And that's how that went.

Starting point is 00:57:11 And yet all the screaming people in this plot, all the mainstream, even the ones supposedly adversarialed the Trump turned around and said Iran violated the ceasefire. In his letter to Congress, Trump acknowledged the conflict may not be resolved. He said Iran still poses a significant threat to the United States. States. Hold on a second. So we're at a point now. Now, I mean the reality guys, it's not going to stop. Donald Trump is telling you there's still a problem. Iran bad guy. Iran not allowed to have nuclear weapon. Just repeating the same things that are not even relevant anymore, not to the current reality of the conversation. Trump's fellow Republicans. In case, by the way, if you're not aware of

Starting point is 00:57:50 this, again, you can always argue you're lying. But again, the evidence of everybody, including our own intelligence entities, argue this is the case that they do not have a nuclear bomb. they do not want one. They consider it a fatwa. It's a religious issue for them and they do not want it. Now, you could argue that might change. They would have a legal right to do it.

Starting point is 00:58:07 But understand that even one of the few things you could prove of the 12-day war is that Donald Trump did bomb, both of them, bomb the enrichment facility. So the funny thing about this is that you could actually show that even if they had what they claimed, that it wouldn't be even be able to be enriched. So either way, guys, it's just a game to play

Starting point is 00:58:24 on ignorant people to manipulate this country for Israel's interests. That's the simple reality of this. Trump's fellow Republicans who hold slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives and rarely break from Trump have voted almost unanimously to block every resolution seeking to end the conflict. Now again, though, there were Democrats that were on board with it. The Iran war has killed thousands, caused billions of damage, dollars in damage, and

Starting point is 00:58:47 roiled the world markets, disrupting energy shipments and boosting a wide range of consumer prices. Yeah, you know, the whole three-day war that was going to be easy and over and done and everything was solved and it was all planned out. Remember all of that? Just like Iraq? Just like we told you. And we got shouted down for saying at the time, yes. Polls show the war is unpopular among Americans six months before November elections that will determine who controls Congress next year. And that may well be the point. Now, not, as you may think, because your voting translates to the outcome. It's I think we should be aware that does not at this point, but because they want you to support the political change. And they're going to make you think, oh, well, now they're going to roll back this moment and maybe wait to do it until after the midterms. I mean, that wouldn't surprise me. The U.S. Constitution says only Congress, not the president, can declare war.

Starting point is 00:59:31 Very simple. But that restriction does not apply to short-term operations to or to counter an immediate or imminent threat. Now, technically, it does. It's just extended it out until they get to do that. But the overall point is there was no immediate or imminent threat based on even what Heggseth just two, three days ago admitted in front of Congress. On Thursday, Trump received a briefing on plans for fresh military strikes to compel Iran

Starting point is 00:59:56 to negotiate to end of the Congress. So this is why it's stupid for anybody out there to argue that the end of the war, while you're literally in the midst of discussing as you're saying that new attacks on Iran. If fighting resumes, Trump can tell lawmakers he has started a new 60-day clock. No, he can't. I mean, he could say that, but it would not be, it'd be, I mean, I'm trying to think of a way to describe that. Like, first of all, the reality is that there wasn't an imminent threat to begin with.

Starting point is 01:00:24 Good luck trying to argue there's one now based on their, based off screaming for, what, a month and a half that you've completely destroyed everything they've ever had. Good luck. It's obliterated. Now they're strong again. Two seconds later. But even if you argue there is a threat, how you just jump into a new 60 days, this is the same conflict. That's going to be a like, there's no way around it. But guess what, guys, even if they give it a new name and start a new, we'll say that. The law will be clear. And I will bet you anything, both left and right of the media will somehow gaslight you in thinking that he's doing the bad thing, but a wrong bad guy and he has no choice.

Starting point is 01:00:57 as usual. And then, of course, even if you prove he broke the law, nobody will ever go to jail because it's all one big game and you're not in it, right? They'll rather club and you're not in it. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly done so when waging eminent, intermediate, intermittent hostility, excuse me, since Congress passed the war powers law

Starting point is 01:01:15 in response to the Vietnam War. And all what I did was give them an opening to manipulate the situation, guys. That's all it did. That conflict, widely unpopular with Americans, was also not authorized by Congress. Now, you see, the truth of this, is that it's supposed to be something actually eminent.

Starting point is 01:01:30 People marching into like boats coming up to the shoreline, right? Like that kind of eminent. Because then no American is going to gripe about the government stepping up to push back an invasion that you can literally see on the shores of the ocean. I'm sure somebody might, but the point at the end of the day is, I would argue that reality would apply in any sense. Like you would, I mean, or even the reality of the way this country was supposed,

Starting point is 01:01:53 this is a different point, but the way this country was supposed to operate. that local militias would be present, that many of many number of other element of armed American, the point would be that there would be something present. Statewise, local military, but then you could have an element of the national military that could step up and support, even if it had to go through Congress, which I argue would not take that long because of that. But either way, it's clearly been abused, and that's the, I mean, I think it was Ron Paul who called out the War Powers Act.

Starting point is 01:02:23 It's just like Smith Montemortization Act or anything else. You create a loophole. You argue if you don't know what the Smith Munt Act was, it was an argument or act that said you're not allowed to propagandize Americans, right? You're at the government, you're even though they did, and you can prove it before and after, they're not allowed to use propaganda to manipulate the public in mind, or the, excuse me, the American mind in the interest of the government agenda. So then they came along and said, well, they passed the Smith Munt Modernization Act.

Starting point is 01:02:54 that simply said that we weren't rather, excuse me, I'm mixing it up. The point was about first of the propagandings Americans, and then the, the Smith-Mut Modernization Act was supposed to be the effort to stop the propagandization. And so the point was, well, okay, we hear you. We don't want to be propagandized. So here's the Smith-Mut Modernization Act to make it legal. Solves it, doesn't? It's not illegal anymore.

Starting point is 01:03:19 So shut up. Oh, okay. So no problem. Well, Americans weren't mad that it wasn't legal. It was mad because you were spying on us. And it's also unconstitutional. But so that's how this works. So the War Powers Act is a similar point, creating an opening to say, oh, yeah, we have a concern about emin and if they're, okay, well, we'll open this door or rather arguing that the bill was, like, you know, constricting their ability.

Starting point is 01:03:40 And all it did was give them those loopholes. I did a bad job explaining that just now. But the overall point is that historically, they will use what you ask for, you know, like ending the Fed, here's CBDCs and use it to roll into what they want. It's common tactic left and right. So here's anti-war.com reporting on this. This is from May 1st. White House claim ceasefire resets war powers deadline. This is more specifically about that point.

Starting point is 01:04:06 And again, if you're not following anti-war.com, you should. A senior White House official claim that President Donald Trump does not need congressional approval to continue the war against Iran because the ongoing ceasefire negates the deadline imposed by the War Powers Act. That doesn't. On Thursday, a U.S. official told News Nation that for war powers resolution purposes, is the war against Iran has ended. So it hasn't, though, right?

Starting point is 01:04:28 So they're still engaged. There's still operations. They're still, I mean, everything, literally, including what Israel's doing. They're just simply saying that this narrative over here, the war powers narrative and framing, that's done. That's all they're saying. And people are jumping at it. However, the law has been reinterpreted to allow a president to wage war for 60 days without seeking congressional approval. That's not the reality of it, you see.

Starting point is 01:04:51 The 60-day deadline for the war in Iran expired on Friday. That's why they said reinterpreted. And if Trump wants to restart the war, he needs Congress to pass a declaration of war or an authorization for use of military force. Those are the only two openings because even the idea of the extra extra 30 days would necessitate the reality that you were removing them already and needed more time to be able to official to facilitate that removal of troops. They argue that don't even have troops, even though we know that they do. We'll get into the actual deployments, but also the Kurds yet again at the end of the conversation where Trump had missed that. but you already know that because you watch this show. They arm the Kurds and they arm plenty of other protesters,

Starting point is 01:05:29 if you want to call them that, in order to go after people in the streets and the government. Now, you can argue that everything else you heard was true too. I've gone over all of it in regard to the lies of how many they claim they killed and what they were doing. But the simple reality that Mossad, Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump, all of them have admitted publicly that they were using weapons and dumping them in the hands of people in the streets,

Starting point is 01:05:49 then that changes everything. No matter what happens after that, You have now created an insurrection or rather insurgency, and you're breaking the law. So they have a legal right to step out. I mean, imagine what Trump would do. Imagine here with a funny thing is, look at what they argue they did to the Republicans in January 6th, even though that wasn't its own manipulation because that's not actually what was happening. It's about trying to play you against each other.

Starting point is 01:06:11 But what's funny is how that all lines up together, right? They'll take everything they can in the moment and then contradict the 30 seconds later. That's what they do. Now it says the administration appears to be attempting to use the ceasefire, which began three weeks ago to sidestep the War Powers Act, even though they violated it numerous times. We are on a ceasefire right now, which in our understanding, means the 60-day clock pauses or stops.

Starting point is 01:06:37 That's what Hagsette told him. Now, I haven't seen the clip. I find it hard to believe they didn't laugh at it. I mean, that's a really stupid thing to say to me, you know, in my mind. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. The 60-day clock is not about the engagement. It's about the reality of, about the imminent threat.

Starting point is 01:06:53 Like that's all that is about stopping the eminent invasion of the country. Now, you know, if there was a ceasefire, well, then that's why you'd go to Congress right then and go, well, or technically that would even end, that would end it with a ceasefire. But the point would be you'd have time to go to Congress to try to actually go to get what you were supposed to. The only way it makes sense is that you're given that time because you didn't have time to go to Congress. That's all it is. Look how much time they've had. I mean, they've had endless amounts of time.

Starting point is 01:07:21 In fact, they've had enough time to go in and push back again. against the war powers, things they've tried to put in. Congress has attempted to invoke the War Powers Act multiple times to force Trump to end the war against Iran. The resolution has been defeated, as we reported earlier. Only Rand Paul and Thomas Massey on Republican sides broke with the GOP and voted to end it. The White House has attempted to present the war against Iran as necessary to prevent Iran from a painting a nuclear weapon. I actually can't believe they're still pushing that. However, Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, have told Congress that Iran's nuclear facilities were destroyed before the U.S. and

Starting point is 01:07:53 Israel attack in February. She also said, Gabbard, that they were not seeking a nuclear weapon and did not have one. That was in 2025. But of course, here's Predictofolio, whatever that is. This is going around. Trump's post saying, Trump sends letter to Congress notifying the hostilities have ended in Iran.

Starting point is 01:08:11 Now I was going to read this, but it's not worth wasting time. There's just things that are worth laughing at the way Trump writes this stuff in here. It's not worth wasting time on at the point. I mean, overall, guys, because I didn't even really want this to be that long. It's only about an hour right now. I want us hoping this could be quick for people. But read this for yourself. It's just, it's kind of, the way he talks, it contradict.

Starting point is 01:08:30 He'll write sentences that contradict what he said at the beginning of the paragraph. It just blows my mind. Maybe it's a tactic. Maybe he's a point. Maybe he's a brilliant genius who's playing us all. Who knows? I don't agree with that. Now, this is important.

Starting point is 01:08:43 It adds to this. This is just somebody inside Trump's inner circle or rather just the political understanding of this, who is telling you that this is what they're discussing. Trump administration says the war Iran has been terminated. that's how they're framing this. That's not the truth. Richard Goldberg, who served as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction for the National Security Council during Trump's first term, right, countering the things that we know they don't have,

Starting point is 01:09:06 said he has recommended to administration officials that they simply transition to a new operation. What he suggested could be called Epic Passage, a sequel to Operation Epic Fury. It wouldn't change anything, guys. You can call whatever you want. It's the same war you're engaged in. That's the legal reality. But all they're trying to do is guess what? making about the Strait of Hormuz, the thing that was open before they illegally started the war.

Starting point is 01:09:28 That's the new mission, he said, would inherently be a mission of self-defense? You've got to be kidding. He said that. A mission of self-defense focused on reopening the street while reserving the right to offense action, offensive action, reserving the rights. The idea that they can go, we're going to burst in there with troops to reopen the street, but that's defending ourselves. He's not even joking. Like this is the way they've contorted their view of things to argue that you're perpetually in self-defense because they're just bad.

Starting point is 01:10:00 That's just insanely childish and stupid. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't lie up with any law. This is the Bethlehem doctrine. This is what U.S. and Israel and UK used to argue they can attack when they don't have legal justification. It's called preemptive self-defense. You should laugh at that statement. That's completely contradictory.

Starting point is 01:10:17 They do it all the time. That's what Israel claims. That's what U.S. claims. they use it last time to attack Iran in Trump's first administration. It's insane. So now they're saying, we're going to reopen the straight and jump in there with defense of restoring freedom of navigation. You know, other than everywhere else, you guys stop freedom of navigation, like all around

Starting point is 01:10:34 Venezuela, all around your water, yeah, all the things that you violate. But now that doesn't matter because we good guy. They bad guy, they can't do the thing we do. I'm trying to make it sound stupid in case you're not sure. The point, guys, is that you are now saying we're going to reopen the straight with force, if necessary, because we're blocking the straight? Yes, that's what's happening. The U.S. government is still blockading the strait.

Starting point is 01:10:57 Iran is only blockading it to them and letting anybody else through, but Trump won't allow that. So they're the ones maintaining the blockade is I'll play for you in a second. He said it's 100%. And that's also what we can see. Now, that doesn't mean there's ships getting through. You can prove that. But I'm of the mind that they're trying to at least give the impression that there's

Starting point is 01:11:13 an complete shutdown because that's what they want to blame on Iran, because that's what they've expected from the very beginning. So understand, it was open when it started. So they're basically demanding with military force what they had before this started with their illegal war, but then also saying that we're going to force it open, even though it's not even closed other than what they're doing. Isn't that ridiculous? I mean, this is just cartoonish. Now, the new mission, he said, would inherently be a mission of self-defense.

Starting point is 01:11:41 That, to me, solves it all. Goldberg said, who is now a senior advisor at the foundation for defensive democracies. You know, it's literally an Israeli kind of. out, like one of the most obvious Israeli cutouts within the think-dank dynamic. So, Iran, this is for the proposal side of it, sends new proposal for peace. Now, I'm of the mind that didn't happen. That if anything happened, it was them reiterating that we have a 10-point plan we're demanding, because really quickly, for the different points, this has kept this, like over

Starting point is 01:12:10 the last, let's say, month or three weeks, after they, Iran put its foot down and said, you know, no more, we're not, you know, we're demanding this, and that's it. like I think that there are I mean to put it this I think the old the 10 point plan is what they're demanding right and I think that the it keeps going back and forth there's another point I was going to add to that I'll let it go overall remember that this is something that they've been demanding and I don't think they've waffled on that I think that what we keep hearing is the back and forth of Trump asking things and then them saying no and then him saying they're wanting a deal and begging for things so I guess the main point really is that if you look at the process

Starting point is 01:12:46 from day one, Trump makes a claim, you can't know for sure whether he's lying or they're lying. But as this goes day after day, the outcome shows you that, right? If they're begging for a deal and then they deny what Trump's asshole, then they're not begging for a deal, right? If they, you can keep seeing that. And so what you can see in this last kind of period here is that ultimately they're demonstrating very clearly that what they want is that 10 point plan. Then Trump goes in, they deny it. And then after a few days, you could look and say, oh, kid, this is a, what they were discussing because then Trump's administration goes in and says, well, that wasn't

Starting point is 01:13:19 allowed. We're not going to agree with that. And so you can continue to look back and see that it's the same 10 points they're demanding. But yet nobody was to engage with that. Even the New York Times, like it's an interesting thing to me. But I guess it's fair to argue that in this very moment you could argue that we don't know, like I said in the very beginning, that maybe Trump did give them something new. But as we go forward in a few days, you'll be able to look back and go, yep, yet again, yet again Trump lied to us. So state media says, that's a good indication that it might not be true. Now it says, the Islamic Republic news agency gave no details on the content of the proposal, but said that it was sent to Pakistani mediators.

Starting point is 01:13:55 So what's right there, the only conversation about this, then Trump denying it is coming from people on Trump's side in their conversation. Iran's saying gave no, well, what they're reporting is they gave no details. You know what that says to me? It's the same 10-point plan that we've already put out. That's what we're pointing to. Same thing. That's my take on that. I think that's the reality.

Starting point is 01:14:13 President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction over an earlier Iranian proposal, the same one. Same thing he doesn't want. According to multiple people briefed on the discussion. And the earlier Iranian proposal, I argue, is the same one. According to three Iranian officials allowed the waterway to reopen. Oh, excuse me, this one, this is the middle ground part that I just talked about, the very last conversation. Basically, they said, and this is what I was arguing, that they might do, they still demand

Starting point is 01:14:36 the 10 points. But because Iran wants this to actually resolve, they're saying, look, let's just address the waterway because that's what Trump keeps saying he's caring about the most in the moment. And so they said, let's focus on that. that will put off the nuclear conversation, which we still demand the same things, right? So Iran's proposal, according to three Iranian officials and was also discussed by the other side, was to allow the waterway to reopen, which was what Trump claims he wants, but postponed

Starting point is 01:15:01 negotiations over the nuclear program. The proposal also called on the United States to end the blockade. Basically the exact same things, but just focusing on the earlier points about the straight. Since shortly after the U.S. Israeli war in Iran began on February 28th, Iran was effectively, Oh, that's the reason I'd highlight that. They argue they've effectively closed the straits to the 28th. I think that's provably not true. They've closed it to them and their allies.

Starting point is 01:15:28 But it says, Mr. Trump has repeatedly insisted that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, while Iran has rejected America's proposals to suspend its nuclear program and hand it over its stockpile. Remember, the two things on the 28th of February they were already offering. And they bombed them instead. So now they're going, well, too bad. We're keeping those things because we have a legal right to it, and we're demanding the things we're demanding. To give it to us, or we're going to maintain this forever.

Starting point is 01:15:52 And this seems like they can. It seems like the U.S. and Israel cannot. So you come back to the same point that if you actually look at this objectively over the long period of time and probably in the next couple of days, you will see the same things they're demanding. As it says down there. Like you can't, I mean, anyway, it's very important to understand that this is something that is retroactively pretty clear if you get what I'm saying. Like if you look back, we can see that they lied in those first few days, right?

Starting point is 01:16:17 So here's Barack Ravid. Somebody else who is obviously, this is the verifiable source, or I guess I should say the reporter who pointed to an Israeli source who was arguing for the like week after, day after day in the first so many weeks that they were begging for a deal and Iran was asking this and they want to go to the table. Remember all that? And Ron's like, we're not saying that. That's not happening.

Starting point is 01:16:39 It was all coming through Barack Ravid. Now, if you don't know why, it's because this guy is very, he is a, he is a public, you know, I argue he's a Zionist reporter who is advocating for Israel legendas more than anything else. I've seen him lie for the very same reasons. You can decide for yourself. I could definitely be wrong, but that's a very common sentiment about this. And the point was, through Axios and his reporting, they effectively gassel up the whole conversation into thinking Iran was begging for a deal, wants to go to the table. So keep that in mind, is the point. So he writes, Iran gives the U.S. new responses on the draft peace deal. See my point? Did they? Or did they just reiterate the

Starting point is 01:17:12 the same 10-point plans. I think this is where you get this kind of reporting. Axio says, and it spins through the media. Telling you guys, this happened numerous times already where it turned out what he said was false. And he's citing an IDF source. Go figure. Now, he adds to that on Monday,

Starting point is 01:17:30 now this was, so he posted this 11 hours ago. So he's saying on Monday, White House envoy Steve Whitkoff sent a list of amendments that focus on inserting the nuclear issue back into the draft. So essentially, they gave them the send 10 points, the same 10 points, and then they say, well, we want to add these. The source said one of the amendments included a demand that the Iran, that Iran commit not to move any enriched uranium out of its bomb nuclear facilities or restart its activities. Now, here's what's interesting. That is not asking him to end their program.

Starting point is 01:18:02 So I argue this is the Donald Trump administration going, please just give us this. Well, all we're asking is you just promise not to reactivate it right now, which I argue they won't even be able to. in the larger sense because they were, like we said, the enrichment facility and others were bombed. And they do have to deal with that. So essentially Trump was going, just do what you were already going to do and give us that. And we'll say we got you to concede and we'll end this.

Starting point is 01:18:26 How much you were a bet they even consider that? Because they would get everything else that argued maybe other than the money or even they would agree to it and just not do it. That's what I argued they was most likely to me earlier that Trump's were just, they would agree to something. We'll give you everything. And then they end it. And then they just double crossed them.

Starting point is 01:18:41 Why wouldn't they? They lie about everything. But anyway, here's what this person highlights about what DropSight news had to say. In fact, I'll just play you the clip. Jeremy Scaill talking about the mediators, right? Wittkopf, Kushner, and the perception of everybody other than the Israel and United States. One, that there are Israeli assets. That's not my opinion.

Starting point is 01:19:00 I mean, it is, but that's not what I'm not the one that said that. That's coming from the other mediators in the conversation, that they basically represent Israel. Guys, as Americans, it behooves you to understand what is being said and not dismiss this is some kind of theory. It's a very public reality in this country. And the world sees it. If you're an American, you should do. A persistent pattern with the Israelis presenting the Americans with intelligence that furthers their objectives of dragging the United States into a war with Iran because they know without U.S. naval and military presence that they're immensely vulnerable as they have been even with this buildup in the Middle East. So can you just-

Starting point is 01:19:44 shed light on that dynamic and how frequently the Israelis mislead the Americans from an intelligence perspective and how it keeps happening. You know, I mean, Benjamin Netanyahu basically has been Prime Minister for Life of Israel. Yes, he had some periods when he was out of power, but even when he was in the United States living and was a Fox News commentator, and in fact, at periods, he literally slept in the childhood bed of Jared Kushner. He was a guest of the Kushner family while he was in the United States. And there are great videos online that you can watch of 30 years of Benjamin Netanyahu proclaiming that Iran is on the verge of building or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Starting point is 01:20:31 When the U.S. intelligence estimates going back to at least 2003 was that the Iranians had suspended their interest or pursuit of weapons. weaponizing nuclear material. And of course, there's also the Iranian history of it, which is that there was a fatwa that was issued that said it was haram. That would be a sin to possess a weapon of mass destruction. And that's not just rhetoric or some sort of propaganda. That has been a very, very serious debate in Iranian society with some powerful factions believing it was a mistake to not pursue a nuclear bomb, because you can look at Kim Jong-il sitting very pretty in North Korea in terms of the stability of his grip on the state only because he has a nuclear weapon.

Starting point is 01:21:13 So Netanyahu out in public has been selling this lie for a very, very long time. And the reason that I say it's cooked is that I think they're, and I think you're right to an extent that it's politicized and they're trying to give bad intelligence because they want to achieve an objective by manipulating the United States into doing certain actions. That's certainly true. The question is, does Trump know that? I think to a degree he does, like to a very obvious degree. Now, on top of that, another question is, did he always know that?

Starting point is 01:21:44 Again, I'm of the mind that he actually came, I call it the Charlie Kirk problem, right? He's starting to become aware more so that he's being manipulated. But again, Trump's a special circumstance. I think he's very much compromised and aware of that. But I think the way Trump of all people is played is to allow him to think that he's in control when he's not. I think that's something he's becoming aware of. I could be wrong about that.

Starting point is 01:22:06 It could just be that he's completely in line as no way. A lot of what's happening suggests that he's not in control. So it's worth considering. But the point in general is do you think that he's aware of that, right? And that speaks to who's driving the bus. But what we also know is that in the lead up to February 28th, the Israeli assessment was that the Iranian government was in a state of total chaos and that it was going to collapse and that the protests that had happened in January,

Starting point is 01:22:35 Well, look at that. Funny how that's what Trump is saying right now. Almost like he's just repeating talking points from Israel, almost. That were then, by President Trump's own admission, infiltrated by armed individuals who then began attacking police stations, religious sites, just murdering people that had any affiliation with the state, and also attacking people who were religious. Those of us who pointed that out at the time were tard and feathered for suggesting

Starting point is 01:23:04 that Iran's narrative is not entirely lying. Now, really quickly, I'll come back to it too. Let's play the clip really quickly of Donald Trump saying that he armed the Kurds. Well, it's not the first time, by the way. It's very public, but an interesting new, new clip of it. Not this one. Are you happy? Stream artists give me so much trouble today, guys.

Starting point is 01:23:27 I tried to bring it up every time. Hold on. Okay, one second. So bottom line is I download these earlier, but it, for some reason, downloaded the same video both times, even though I guess that could be Twitter. I was just talking about that, by the way. Actually, we just did that live on the show. It's even though it's a different link. I can see it right now.

Starting point is 01:23:53 But anyway, it doesn't matter. Play this for you real quick. I'm just talking to pass the time while I download this. Here's the video. Not happy with the delivery of the weapons. I'm not thrilled. but the smallest of weapons were sent and we'll see who has them. But I'm not happy with what happened with Kurds.

Starting point is 01:24:17 The Kurds did not deliver the weapons. Yeah. I mean, it's the exact same thing he said before, right? But it's just this, it's important to hear in a general sense because it, regardless of what he, what he's trying to do essentially is argue that because understand the U.S. government has armed and fund the Kurds in every illegal war. you know, that they've been involved in every Syria. So the point in Iraq, but the point is,

Starting point is 01:24:43 if he argues he funded them, he's going to later go, well, so is everybody else. It doesn't make it any less illegal in the context of doing it, not in some kind of like, we're helping you for your freedom, but sort of dumping in the hands of people in the midst of your war against Iran. It's a very different circumstance,

Starting point is 01:24:57 even though it's really just narrative because they're doing the same thing anywhere. But what happened was they didn't just give it to Kurds. They gave it to all sorts of people. There was very clear, examples, verifiable examples of all sorts of foreign elements. Remember, the point I keep making from the beginning, the first few weeks of the Iran's killing everybody conversation, which wasn't the reality in regard to the numbers and everything

Starting point is 01:25:18 else, that there were people that were shot. Now, I could argue that Iranian government may even shot innocent people, maybe even on purpose. I would never put that past them. But it wasn't some just, we're going to kill anybody for no reason based on the evidence we can see. Even the unions who supported the protests against the government that were organic, there were people who protested against all sorts of things they were doing, knowing the U.S. is manipulating

Starting point is 01:25:40 their currency, but still unhappy with the way around us handling it. And then you can talk to many these people that were giving all sorts. At the point was, we don't want the U.S. to step in. We want to deal with us ourselves. And that's what's been said for years. No, question that. But what you saw was even the unions who supported the protests pull back and say, okay, this is no longer organic. They put a big public statement out. They said, we're watching mass men come in and armed and burn police in the streets as Skaye Hill is talking about. It's very clear, right? This was manipulated. So with him saying he put the hands in the curs, they didn't give him to where they're, or they didn't go where they're supposed to go,

Starting point is 01:26:13 you're just admitting that you dumped weapons into a wild situation that was designed to cause chaos. You know, again, I actually think that's Trump's incompetence, the stupidity. I don't understand why he wouldn't just either ignore the question or, you know, whatever else. It's that will play against him if there's any justice in this world. There actually is foreign infiltration here that were tared and feathered for, suggesting that Iran's narrative is not entirely lying, that there actually is foreign infiltration here, that Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director, came out and said it, that very influential Israeli commentators said it. So Netanyahu, I think, seized on that moment from early

Starting point is 01:26:53 January, he put it into the U.S. intelligence stream that the Iranian government was in a severely weakened state, and that by heavily bombing them, by assassinating the Supreme Leader, that they were going to essentially push the final sort of parts of the state off the cliff. And then it was going to be an uprising and they're going to have Kurds coming in. I think a lot of that serious U.S. intelligence people knew was very dubious. Yeah. And this is the point is that Netanyahu sold that to Trump. I think you can almost prove that.

Starting point is 01:27:27 Almost. I'm not saying you can. It's my opinion. But understand that the point between this, you can see the timing of the narrative is what Trump is saying, which seems to contradict, again, his own intelligence community, but who is saying it? Israel. Netanyahu. Stephen Miller. Everyone around Trump and his cap, that's what's happening, guys. And it's pretty clear to see that the Israeli narrative is influencing Trump against American interest and against American intelligence, whether we should trust American intelligence or not.

Starting point is 01:27:55 The point is that it was still there and it was the reality, because we can prove that regardless of whether they lie to us every day anyway. And yet, you have the political denouement. here as well. You have the fact that the Trump administration is just flush with people who have sold their souls to an Israel first agenda, despite their rhetoric about it being America First. And I think you had a perfect combination of just idiocy and nefarious intentional manipulation of intelligence. I say idiocy also because Trump has people around him who are absolutely obsessed with destroying the Islamic Republic of Iran. You know, neocons, people like John Bolton, even though Trump claims that he was a rat who was going to start World War III,

Starting point is 01:28:37 Trump is basically doing everything that people like John Bolton wanted. And I think it was put into Trump's head that he's going to go down in history as the president who forever destroyed the Islamic Republic of Iran, avenge the 79 revolution, avenge the taking of the U.S. embassy at the onset of the Islamic revolution. His legacy. Seems like it's all he cares about. Like that combined with the Israeli political influence,

Starting point is 01:29:01 combined with the cooking of intelligence, and combined with the fact that there are absolutely, absolutely bona fide imbeciles in this administration, plus financial connections of Jared Kushner to all of these Gulf countries and to Netanyahu and to Israel meant that you had a kind of perfect storm to create this absolutely catastrophic war, even from an American strategic standpoint. Yeah, I completely agree. Now, just for time in general, I want to just, oh, actually, hold on one sec, after I forgot, I closed it. I'll just kind of read to you what the, what the, uh, screenshot point of it was about the,

Starting point is 01:29:39 sorry, of the, uh, mediators. There we go. Or rather his opinion of them. And I mean, what he says is it's like you might as well be sitting with a fourth grader. Jeremy Schaill relaying how Iranian officials described Steve Whitkoff during ongoing negotiating with Iran. Now, this is the guy who's supposed to be there because they're discussing the nuclear conversation and he himself admitted that he doesn't even understand it in an interview.

Starting point is 01:30:09 with Fox News. And it's wild. And that's by design, guys. They don't have any intention of actually and they know that. Whereas the start of this quote here, he says the U.S. sent Trump golf buddy and his with his son-in-law, Skaio and Jared Kushner was said was not operating on behalf of the U.S. national security at all, but those of Israel, the Gulf states and the Trump crime family business. Frankly, I agree. Now, here is the Axios article discussing, you know, remember the point of Axios and Barack Ravid, who is the author here, Iran gives the U.S. new on the draft peace deal. A couple of quick points.

Starting point is 01:30:41 The Iranian response is a signal that the diplomacy is not entirely frozen. You see what they're doing? And of course, the timing on Friday, every single Friday before the, so the, oh, the prices went down from $109 a barrel, which is, you know, one point I was told it would be catastrophic over $100. But so Trump, every, every weekend is like, the deal's great and they're begging and we're almost there, even though no one believes that, except the markets go down. And it's kind of like an up-down, up-down, but keep in going up, to be honest, but

Starting point is 01:31:07 this guy comes out and says, see, the Iran response, oh, what you mean a response? That's we still demand the same thing, do it or not? That's what I'm talking about, guys. But they say, see, they responded. So it means there's the diplomacy is in action and just all coming. It comes as President Trump maintains a blockade and considers new military action. Right. At the Israel side of it, right?

Starting point is 01:31:27 Well, we're still going to have war no matter what. So don't think it's going to end via Pakistani mediators is how it came across. It's not them meeting. Last week, Iran gave the U.S. a proposal. he states, to reopen the straight. We talked about that already. It says on Monday, Whitkoff sent a list of amendments. We discussed that as well.

Starting point is 01:31:44 Nobody knows what the talks are except myself and a couple of other people. Trump says, they want to make a deal badly. We have a problem because nobody knows for sure who the leaders are. Yeah, everybody does. It's Kameney. It's very obvious. But that's how he gets some, I guess, willfully blind people to think that it's just because they don't know, just give it time.

Starting point is 01:32:02 It's a little bit of problem, he says. A little bit of a problem. the Iranians claim Trump is the one who's desperate for a deal. I mean, you have to understand. This is my point, guys. Like, you can keep saying, I mean, he still pretends there was boats of oil that came through the strait. You can prove that didn't happen.

Starting point is 01:32:16 He still pretends that they bombed three layers of their government, their government, which even then, by the way, would still be the same government, but he calls it a regime change. Like, it's just lazy. And he knows that. It seems like desperation to me. Another Axios article, also Barack Reved, scoop. commanders to brief Trump on new Iran military operations on Thursday.

Starting point is 01:32:38 Like in the midst of claiming you're ending this and you're discussing new military acts, that speaks for itself. President Trump is slated to receive a briefing on new plans for potential military action. The briefing signals that Trump is seriously considering resuming military combat operations, either to try to break the logjam with negotiations, which doesn't make any sense, seeing as how that's what they claimed they did last time and it didn't go anywhere. And anyway, it doesn't make sense ever. Unless you're talking about bombing people into a,

Starting point is 01:33:03 position of absolute failure. And then that's not that, then you're killing innocent people. And of course, that's how they conduct the war anyway. But the idea that you can bomb this country more, when you're, you know, compared to any country. Iran has been preparing for decades for this very war. And so that you could just keep bombing them. I mean, all they're going to do. And well, here's the real point.

Starting point is 01:33:26 He says, where was it right here? Plans for short and powerful wave of strikes in that log jam breaking element. and involving infrastructure. Oh, yeah, war crimes. Deliberate, targeted war crimes and planning for them. Pre-meditated planning of a war crime. On the record, it's insane because that's what that is. Infrastructure are not military targets.

Starting point is 01:33:50 Now, the bottom line, though, is that this is simply highlighting that we are going to go back to war with them if they don't do what we say. Now, you could argue that's what he's been saying the entire time. Now, this could just be a final effort to go, we're going to go even further, you don't get, but it's not going to work because they're not where they pretend they are. Maybe Trump doesn't know that.

Starting point is 01:34:09 They hope would be that Iran would then return to the negotiating table with more flexibility because you bomb them. In what world does that make sense to anybody? Another plan expected to be shared with Trump is focused on taking over part of the straight of four moves to reopen the commercial shipping. Of course, and it could be including ground forces. Right, because that's going to go well. I mean, out of every single thing they've talked about, the idea of ground forces

Starting point is 01:34:32 and regarding the Strait of Hormuz and the islands and the way Iran controls that, it would be an absolute massacre. And that's what everybody's talked about. That's not what they're going to do. I mean, if it is, it's what Israel drives us into doing, and it's going to be catastrophic for the U.S. at the expense of U.S. interest for the Israeli government. Another option that has been discussed in the past might come up in the briefing as a

Starting point is 01:34:54 special forces operation. It's like, here they're overest uranium. Oh, isn't that funny? You mean the thing you already tried to do when you pretended you rescued that pilot, which is literally what happened and then put out an AI image of that pilot. The guy that we've, who is that? Oh, the guy we don't ever heard of, the guy that doesn't seem to exist. Yeah, guys, they literally flew in with these large planes to try to do this and got annihilated by Iran.

Starting point is 01:35:15 And then people died. And so they either never rescued the guy or he didn't exist. It's so insane how stupid this all is. And everybody gaslights everybody. All the corporate media, all the mainstream. Wild. So here's what Trump had to say. Options to blast the hell out of Iran and finish them forever.

Starting point is 01:35:39 Yeah, but like the last one, destroy their civilization. I didn't mean isn't people. What an idiot. To finish them forever doesn't mean it means targeted pinpoint strikes on their alley. Come on. That's a statement that means absolute destruction because that's what they're actually trying to float. I doubt that happens. I hope it doesn't happen.

Starting point is 01:35:58 I think this is weakness trying to stream strength. is what they do. We want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish him forever, or do we want to try and make a deal? Oh, right. So nothing new. What a moron. Oh, the options.

Starting point is 01:36:25 Oh, I mean, everything he's doing is about trying to create this illusion of like more steps and process and we're in the midst of negotiations. Oh, what are the options? You know, bombing and negotiating. Oh, so the same things you're currently doing? great. I mean, on top of that, realize that there is no negotiating. That's what I'm trying to show you. So his response is to bomb them? Yeah, very, very American government of you. To just bomb more, kill things? Yeah, that's what that's what his answer was. I mean, I'm just embarrassed for this guy.

Starting point is 01:36:54 Do you want a different approach options? What kind of options? How would it look different? Well, do we want to go and just blast the hell out of them and finish him forever? Or do we want to try and make a deal? Let me go. Do you want to go blast the hell out of them? I'd prefer not. On a human basis, I prefer not. Oh, yeah. You know, aside from the girls' school that you killed, all the hospitals and apartment buildings,

Starting point is 01:37:20 you know, aside from all of that civilian life, you know, we don't like to kill civilian life. Do we want to go in there heavy? Or in the genocide, by the way, you know, the ongoing genocide in multiple countries. But, you know, aside from that. Just blast them away. Or do we want to do something? They're a very disjointed. Oh, so again, he reiterates, do you want to blast them away or do you want to do something?

Starting point is 01:37:44 Hey, way to think that through. I mean, this is the president of the United States, apparently. As you can understand, Peter, very disjointed. I mean, apparently they're disjointed enough to control the strait. Apparently, just jointed enough to slip ships through your blockade. Apparently, just jointed enough to stop you from doing whatever you're trying to accomplish. Or disjointed enough to destroy tens, what, I'm arguably over 30 U.S. bases, which we'll get to in a minute.

Starting point is 01:38:12 But they're destroyed. Their Navy's completely gone. Oh, new reporting, U.S. Iranian Navy takes a ship into their harbor. Guys, my point is, unless he is some kind of magical, like, bubble of information. And look, I shouldn't even say it like that. Look at who's around him. He's surrounded by technocrats and moguls who can probably create the illusion through

Starting point is 01:38:37 media and, I mean, God knows what else and make this man think that he's in charge and everyone listens to him and that everything's going the way it should. I don't know. I'd like to, I think it's worth considering that may be going on. My point is outside of that whatever, he must know that he's not doing what he says. He must know that that's not what they're doing. He must. Everybody's talking about it. So think about that unless he's just convinced that everything's a Democrat trick and you have to listen to what Whitcock tells him and Steve Miller and everything will go great and then he keeps failing. And then he'll go, what's happening, but I guess not.

Starting point is 01:39:09 They're not getting along with each other, and it puts us in a bad position. One group wants to make a certain deal. The other group wants to make a certain deal. I mean, you know why that's stupid? Because they're meeting the same people every time, and that hasn't happened for a while, mind you. They're going through Pakistan. So what's even talking about?

Starting point is 01:39:27 Before that, they weren't meeting different groups. They were meeting the same people. And this is his, again, either a wildly desperate lie to make you think they're the ones out of control while he has no clue what he does next, or he somehow thinks that, which shows you an alarming control over the person's mind, who's supposed to be leading this country for an America First Agenda, who somehow doesn't even know the most basics of the reality of what everybody's paying attention to. It's alarming. Including the hardliners. The hardliners want to make a deal, too. Why wouldn't they?

Starting point is 01:40:01 So apparently everybody wants to make a deal, but never does. Certainly makes sense. They have no Navy. Except the Navy ships that we just saw. No Air Force. They have no anti-aircraft. They have no nothing. They have no nothing. Rock and roll.

Starting point is 01:40:18 Well, beside of all that ridiculousness that you could laugh at because it's worthy of laughing at because it's 100% easy to prove is wrong. Here is Robert A. Pape saying, multiple signs, new U.S. strikes on Iran imminent in coming days. I thought that was very very. interesting leaks of new U.S. military briefings to Trump. U.S. hypersonic missiles deployed to the Gulf,

Starting point is 01:40:42 three U.S. carriers poised to strike, U.S. Iran talks going nowhere. Now, first of all, all of these things have been the reality this entire time. I mean, if this was what Trump was willing to do, if they didn't get, we get wanted, why has he waited this long? It's not like there's been some ongoing process like he's claiming. That's my thing, guys. It's easy to prove that's not happening. So he's had the ships. He's had the, why wouldn't he have done this before the 12th they were,

Starting point is 01:41:08 after the 12th they war? Why wouldn't he have done it in the first couple of weeks of this after seeing that they weren't going to do? It just, who knows? Maybe there's something I'm missing or maybe there's something that none of us see. That's possible.

Starting point is 01:41:18 But without that, it doesn't make any sense that he would just suddenly now decide to do it all other than it's a bluster to get them to move again, which they will not. So the escalation trap has Trump and its grip. So he's arguing that Trump is, which I agree with the point,

Starting point is 01:41:32 is that, you know, once you get to the argument where you're like, you do this or we're going to kill everybody. At some point, you end up in this, it's a never-ending cycle of escalation. Now, Iran's not doing that. Despite how they want to frame this, Iran is not topping what they do. It's not coming out and bombing even more things. It's responding to what they do, usually in measured ways. Going back 12-day war, even before that.

Starting point is 01:41:53 So this is them in their desperate spiral, trying to win something they know they're losing and thinking the only way to do that is threatening more violence because apparently that's what they do. That's all they know. So the one I want to make here, let's take a step back here and think about this. So Trump and everybody else, whether joke, whether, this is my point from before about that's how Trump negotiates.

Starting point is 01:42:15 We'll end your civilization, right? We're going to take over that country if we want to. Okay. Sure, it's a negotiating tactic. They don't know that. Even if it's, we know it's not, by the way. Well, I mean, technically, I guess it is because he's blustering. But either way, the point is they don't know one way or the other.

Starting point is 01:42:31 So when he says that, what if they decide to launch a military strike because they think you're about to attack them? Isn't that exactly what your entire military worldview is built on? We think they're about to do something. So we'll attack first. That's called preemptive self-defense. Okay. So any one of the previous discussions of Trump, we're going to bomb you to hell or whatever

Starting point is 01:42:51 he says, could have been that. Okay, but here, you have to understand. Right now they're openly saying we're going to do this, just like every other time. So based on their logic of an eminent, threat that justifies action, why wouldn't Iran have a legal responsibility to do something to stop them? I'm not saying they will. I doubt they will. Obviously, that's not even a legal reality. That's just what they claim to justify their belligerent offense. But if they did, based on their logic, that would apply. That's not what they're going to do, because that's not what

Starting point is 01:43:23 Iran has ever done in my experience. And they continue, because they also know that it would work against, like, you could even argue that they're villainous terrorists and they just know how to play the good guy in the counterbalance to what Trump is doing. Hey, that would even make sense to me. I don't think that's the reality, but all that to say that they still wouldn't do it because it would work against what's working for them. So just think about where we are right now, that the only thing you're getting is belligerence and violence and just lies and spin and Iran's sitting, wait, and we're doing what we demand what we want. We have control of the straight. It is their territorial waters. We're working with foreign countries alongside us.

Starting point is 01:43:56 We talk to the UN about it. Nothing they're doing is even, it's very difficult, especially right now to contort that into something other than complying with the international community. You know, even the, again, even the toll element, guys, it's the only place that I know of and the major passage of waterways that don't already do that. And there's not international waters despite their lies. It's very clearly Oman waters and Iranian waters at the choke point. There is no international crossover. So that means they have the legal right like anybody else does.

Starting point is 01:44:25 It's just frustrating that gets ignored, you know? But, Sol Rod, to the, There's two more things I want to finish on generally, which is the idea of the legalities, one more little point on, and then Lebanon and things that they're doing. So, first, lastly here, on the first of all, of the last part,

Starting point is 01:44:45 BBC news, deadly Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon, despite ceasefire. Despite ceasefire. I can't get over how stupid that is, and they keep doing this. Israel killing people is not a ceasefire. Now, the reason that's important, of coming off what we just discussed is because this is a violation of everything that they claim

Starting point is 01:45:04 is the ceasefire. So you can't keep using the ceasefire argument for why this is all over when you've been violating it the entire time. Lebanon was part of it. Regardless of what they said, even if you want to argue that first discussion where Israel claimed it wasn't a part of it, even though they've been telling you it's a part of it our entire lives. After that, Iran said, too bad. We see it as part of it. So that's what we're, that's where our stance is. And since then, that's how Trump's been basically discussing it for the most part. They even had Israel. They even said, we'll pull back Israel. They didn't. Israel barely stopped for a second and then continued bombing Lebanon right up to this very day. So here's an example where they call it a ceasefire. And here is one that Nyang posted on the 29th.

Starting point is 01:45:46 Literally posted this, Lebanon continuing. You know why? Because he wasn't supposed to. Because he was told that Trump would stop. Trump said, I'll reel in LettN Yahoo. I'll get him to stop. Trump says don't bomb buildings. Yesterday on the 28th. Trump told Axios, which reported, Trump says, I told Netanyahu he has got to do it more surgically, not knock down buildings. He told him that, at Brock Ravid,

Starting point is 01:46:16 on the same day Netanyahu put out a video of the IDF literally bringing down buildings. Do you think that's an accident? This is Netanyahu showing who's paying attention, who's actually in control. I do what I want. No one can stop me. Oh, and by the way, there's like 11 videos of him literally saying how easy it is to control

Starting point is 01:46:33 the U.S. government, how we play the left, right against each other. And we do, all the, I think three technically being aerobolic. But it's just insane, how obvious this has always been. And right in your face. Not only is it something he was told us to do, and that's probably why I showed you he was going to able and will do it, but it's also a war crime in every possible way. Remember, not even like, they're not trying to tell you there's tunnels or human shields like they pretended in Gaza,

Starting point is 01:47:00 they just are killing people, guys. No, I don't even cares right now outside of, you know, every human being in the world. The governments don't care. This post will one day be used as evidence in court of law. I certainly hope so. And today. And just in case you're unsure, yes, every other day between those two points as well.

Starting point is 01:47:18 And it was only what, two, 239, 30th. The first point is they've been bombing incessantly in Lebanon because they're, I mean, and by the way, I mean, in Gaza, they're not bombing the same as before, but they are still conducting operations. They're partitioning out areas. I mean, I'll get to it probably in the next show, but they just, the Board of Peace, the reports were they just basically gave over to Israel.

Starting point is 01:47:42 And then they push back and say, that's not true. But I think we know what it is. Israel's putting out its own documentation showing that they basically control like three-fourths of the area at this point. So much for the yellow line. I mean, guys, they've just lied. And no one pushes back when they then do the thing, he said they would do. Trump just gaslights and lies about it, just like Biden and everybody else. At least 12 killed in the latest strike on Lebanon. This was today.

Starting point is 01:48:07 Innocent people, guys, civilians, but I guess that doesn't matter anymore if Israel does it. Trump says it's not constitutional for Congress to block Iran war. This is ridiculous what he's doing. President Trump claimed Friday it's unconstitutional to seek congressional approval for war. he's talking about the war powers act point there's no other country that's ever done it it's never been uh as you know most people consider it totally unconstitutional he doesn't even know what's really talking about he's repeating talking points that he's not even aware of i think or like understands fully also we had a ceasefire so that gives us additional time right the things that were i'm supposed to say hickshath said that thing this thing neither actually makes sense or reply we're on our way

Starting point is 01:48:49 to another victory a big victory he actually said that and i don't think it's a constitutional what they're asking for. You know, do you mean the thing that's literally constitutional? Like the thing that's literally the Constitution, the War Powers Act was added, but it is supposed to be limiting, even though it literally gives you the opening. Either way, it is in line with the Constitution. His argument is unconstitutional because it limits his power, which is what the Constitution was designed to do. He says, these people are not patriotic people. They are asking, that's what he always does. You're asking about the Epstein files. You're not a Republican. Oh, yeah. and they're the real conservatives out there

Starting point is 01:49:25 if they're actually understanding these things that matter and Democrats and liberals anybody that sees through this stuff left or right is beginning to understand what's going on right that's what he says you're stupid people no they're not stupid people

Starting point is 01:49:38 they understood that you were lying whether or not they were backing you before not patriotic people would be the ones supporting illegal wars that are against American interests not the ones stand up and say what you're doing is not American interest that's not America first to let Americans die for Israel's

Starting point is 01:49:53 war. The irony is that the war power's resolution, they write, is the only reason Trump's reckless military campaign in Iran could even be considered constitutional in the first place. According to Article 1, Section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution, Congress has sole power to declare war. As you guys know, the 60-day window is an exception to the rule. The point, though, I find funny, that's why I read that, is that it, it's not met. As you know, I went over already, right? It's not met. He did, there is no eminent threat, so it's not met. but how humorous it is it, I guess, alarmingly humor, you know, macably humorous, that what he's saying is it's unconstitutional, even though the war powers act is the only world

Starting point is 01:50:31 in which that might even apply, and he didn't even meet that. It's a cartoon we live in, guys. Now, May 1st, just security. At the 60-day mark, the Iran war is triply illegal. Now, there's someone here that may be redundant. I just think this is a good article, an already doubly illegal war. At the onset, it should be made clear that Donald Trump's war, Iran was illegal. Hopefully you guys know this. There's no way around this except narrative

Starting point is 01:50:55 from the start. From the moment it began, Trump's war in Iran violated the U.S. Constitution and the U.N. Charter. First, the Constitution vests Congress, as we just discussed with the power of war. The current conflict with Iran makes plain by placing the power in people's representatives rather than the chief executive was and remained so important. I agree. Second, the war is a clear violation of Article 2, 4 of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits. the threat of use of force except in legitimate self-defense. And that's why they play the whole Bethlehem Doctrine, against an armed attack, an eminent one,

Starting point is 01:51:30 or with Security Council authorization. The UN part of it hasn't happened. I mean, it's about the same way. The Congress is not authorized war. They never go to the UN anymore. They just, they don't. And I'm not suggesting that we should, you know my criticism of this. The point is not about that.

Starting point is 01:51:43 It's about the process through which are powerful people in the government, who are too powerful, have to check that power. I'm okay with that regardless. I think that's important to consider. But it says neither exist here. Neither of those things apply. It is put simply a war of aggression. Other countries know this,

Starting point is 01:52:04 even if they're nervous to call it out, fearing Trump's wrath, which is why so little international support has stood up. Even long-standing allies have refused to step up. While presidents have launched wars in violation of one of the other of those bodies in the past, the war of Iran today stands out as significant as a violation of both of those things. And that they're right.

Starting point is 01:52:25 I mean, to a degree simultaneously, that is somewhat unprecedented. It says the 60-day clock makes the war triply illegal. Against this backdrop of an already double illegal war, let's turn to the war powers resolution 60-day clock. Now, I believe we've got touched on most of this. In brief, the initiation of hostilities of placing armed forces into the situation where eminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances. It triggers that 60-day clock. Yeah, they're required to go to Congress in 48 hours.

Starting point is 01:52:57 And, you know, again, that's the point it was they're supposed to then verify the imminent threat. That never happened. Some have suggested that a relatively obscure provision in the law permitting the clock to extend for an adult 30 days to ensure safe withdrawal could be an issue here, but I agree with them. It does not, both because it requires presidential certification to Congress that has not been made, even though he went and said we're doing it in the 48 hours, he hasn't actually

Starting point is 01:53:20 done what it required for the Poor Powers Act and because Trump has no intention of actually removing the forces. So if it goes the direction of that extra 30 days, they're already breaking the law again. And Congress would be aware of that. Somebody was saying, I'm sure, Massey or somebody, but it's only allowed if the intention is removing, like in the process of, and you're worried about violating the 60 days, so you need 30 to continue removing troops. that's all it really means. And it's like strategic reality, like maybe there's a front line

Starting point is 01:53:51 and you're strategically pulling back. And you know, it's, there's plenty of overlaps. And then says continuing. Indeed, rather than scaling back, the president deployed a third aircraft carrier strike group with about 6,000 troops. So it's clear he's not pulling things back.

Starting point is 01:54:07 He's increasing. And even talking about new strikes. He's also repeal, you know, talking about, you know, increasing the blockade and more strikes. In other instances, presidents have argued that the clock starts with each, it starts and stops with each strike.

Starting point is 01:54:20 They're wrong. The point is they've already tried this kind of thing. Presidents have also claimed the U.S. forces are not engaged in what would constitute hostilities. Now, this is interesting because this is what they always do these days. It's what the legalities, the lawyers get into play. Well, because it doesn't define the word hostilities in the War Powers Act. So now they're debating what the hostilities are. And it's just, we all know what these things mean.

Starting point is 01:54:43 And this is why you end up with these weird legalese definitions of things that mean so different than what they normally do in the world. That's not normal to me. That's manipulation. And so to me, it's obvious what this means. Hostilities. Conflict. But it goes, even in situations like this one,

Starting point is 01:54:59 where the very same hostilities were initially reported to Congress and the War Powers Act, the point is that they haven't gone through or they haven't met their obligations required to make that something they can apply. The current attempt to circumvent the termination clock goes beyond implausible. It's in a category of impossible. Testifying before the Senate yesterday,

Starting point is 01:55:16 Hegseth himself echoed the reality. That, you know, one that you could posit because of ceasefire, but also the idea that there was no imminent threat. The Secretary of Fence is clearly wrong about the law. They write, the ongoing U.S. Naval Blockade of Iranian ports is an act of war, and therefore they are engaged in conflict. Indeed, the administration is trying to have it both ways, arguing on one hand that we've been in hostilities with Iran since 1979.

Starting point is 01:55:39 And yet, we're not currently in hostilities with Iran at the moment, and thus the clock is paused. That's like everything else they're doing. It's a double, they're arguing both things simultaneously. As I've pointed out for years, that's very Israeli propaganda of you. It's exactly what Israel did the entire Gaza war. There are hostilities. This is a war.

Starting point is 01:55:57 And the point is about the war point. I think that was it generally. The idea, remember the beginning, it's not a war. There was a reason they did that. If they could effectively convince people it wasn't a war, they could have sidesteped this entirely. They tried and they failed. Now, on the way out, let's not forget, by the way, the U.S. government not only targeted a girls' school in their first strikes on Iran,

Starting point is 01:56:19 they publicized it, I think, by accident. This could have been an Israel thing, you know, like, I mean that legitimately. If you don't remember this, it's actually incredible. Hegsef had a Pentagon briefing where he put up this map. One of the journalists in that room took the map and put a pin where the school was. It's in the red of their bombing campaign. You think that's by, you know, that's either because Israel, and I think it's actually verifiable that the intelligence they got for this was from Israel.

Starting point is 01:56:48 So Israel either tricked them or they were involved with it. Either way, they later gave you this map and proved that they literally bombed that school. And you shouldn't even be debating that anymore. Even Israel blamed them for the bombing, which makes it more sense to me that this is something they were basically set up for. But here's the show we discussed it on the 28th. On the 28th. U.S. Israel legally bombed Iran, killing over 100 school children.

Starting point is 01:57:15 Now here is percent admitting what we already know, and he does this every time. He goes amid the impact of economic fury, Iran's currency has in an all-time low. Remember, they were protesting the government because of the collapsing rile, their money. Percent has, and again, you all know this. I mean, seriously, if you don't know this by now, it's kind of insane to me that people pretend that Iran can't manage their finances or Venezuela can't manage, they come out every time and they tell you what they're doing. He said this in front of Congress already, but here it is again, amid the impact of their project, their agenda, economic theory. Iran's currency is in an all-time

Starting point is 01:57:54 low. So he's saying, we did that. That's not, that's easy to understand. Iranian people deserve a new era, which the corrupt and shambolic Iranian regime cannot provide. I mean, what's crazy is, in that sentence, you're making it clear that we have to destroy. your currency and then imply that somehow that's indicative of them inability to provide the thing that you destroyed. And it says with their oil industry closing and their currency plummeting, which you're causing both counts, it is past time for the Iranian regime to concede

Starting point is 01:58:22 that the people of Iran deserve much better than the ruins of their current regime it could provide. It's like at this point, I wonder, do they even realize how stupidly obvious that is? Or are they of the mind that that's needed for some reason? Sort of like the revelation of the meth? I don't know, guys. All I said was, yes, the Iranians deserve a new era where the U.S. Israeli globalist machine is not publicly sabotaging their economy while blaming it on the Iranian government.

Starting point is 01:58:48 Now, that's not the same as saying, good guy, bad guy. You can call Ron everything you think are bad. The point is still that that is an provable fact. The whole world sees the truth of this, especially since you keep saying it openly, it's insane to me. And he came out and said, well, the Treasury Department said today as part of economic Fury. This on the first Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control designated three Iranian foreign currency exchange houses and their associate. So basically they continue to sanction Iranian businesses

Starting point is 01:59:16 and Iranian industry and, you know, but because Iran, therefore, terror things. They're like, what is this? It's currency exchange because they're doing it for terrorism things and currency exchanging evil money or just a currency exchange for government like every other government that I also agree is very problematic and I don't support because all governments are problematic in my mind. change the law, though, does it? The reality that there's nothing illegal going on other than you claiming it is because you've sanctioned their economy. It's insane to me. Collectively, Iranian exchange houses facilitate billions of dollars in foreign currency transactions each year. Yeah, like every other. Are you kidding? Because it sells oil to China. Yeah. So that's bad? Is that a crime?

Starting point is 02:00:00 No, no, it's not. These exchange houses play a crucial role. Okay. So basically, Iran existing is the problem. in case you haven't caught on. Not that they break the law or do anything wrong. You can argue that. That's what they are saying. But when you look at what they're pointing to, it's simply that they exist. And then he tags this and says,

Starting point is 02:00:16 Iran is the head of the snake for global terrorism. I just can't get past. This is like saying they want a nuclear weapon and they won't stop yelling it. Well, they're not, though. They actually keep saying they'll give it up, or they were before. And you don't ever say they're lying.

Starting point is 02:00:29 You just keep saying they won't. But they are saying they won't. It's so they're lying, guys. In this case, are you really going to pretend, that we can't literally prove that you guys fund arm and facilitate ISIS and Al-Qaeda, that you have put Shirah, Jolani, in the head of Syria, who you told us was an al-Qaeda terrorist up until you put him in that position, or the fact that we can see ISIS terrorists working alongside them in Syria, or you can continually show Israel working with them, getting him

Starting point is 02:00:55 treatment in Syria. I mean, this is the one that I think is the most insane that I'll grab, just really quickly. To this kind of point, just we'll ignore, you know, ISIS fighters regret attacking Israel. and quote, have apologized, according to the foreign defense minister of Israel in 2017. Yeah, oops, sorry. We didn't mean to get you Israel. My bad, even though the entire argument is Iran and they hate Jews and every one of them are trying to kill all the Jews and Israel.

Starting point is 02:01:22 Oops, we didn't mean you, though. I mean, how do you even explain that other than understanding the easy reality that they are working with these groups? That the Wahhabist ideology stems from Saudi Arabia that they work with. And now they're literally going after Shia Muslims in every location. and that's the Sunni religion from Saudi Arabia that's being used to go after all of them. Right now in Iran, right now in Lebanon. They are focusing on the Shia communities.

Starting point is 02:01:46 They're even threatening Christian and Drews to say if you help them will bomb your homes. I just covered this. That's not even like some tangential thing or some secret post. They're openly saying that. It's exacerbating, guys. It's so obvious. So let's just even say, I do this every time. Everything you ever said about them is true.

Starting point is 02:02:07 compare that to everything you can prove not even what we know but what we can prove the U.S. and Israel have done. And it pales in comparison. Or the idea that you keep telling us ISIS is the leading state sponsor of terrorism or excuse me that ISIS is leading terrorist group in the world but then they'll attack Iran, right?

Starting point is 02:02:27 Hold on. I think it'll pop up. I'll grab that too. Oh, maybe that's it. All right. lucky. I was worried. It wouldn't come up. But this is just one of the many examples. This is from January 5th, 2024. ISIS claims responsibility for deadly as attack in Iran since 79 revolution. Israel goes, hey. And of course, as I said, how many times exactly do we need to see ISIS attack

Starting point is 02:02:58 the enemy of Israel at the peak of hostile rhetoric between the two before we truly understand what we're seeing? Right. So back to the point, the global snake, the head of the snake. Okay, but if ISIS is the terrorist group, which you all say, and ISIS keeps attacking Iran, how do we make sense of that? You don't. You laugh at it because they're stupid and they're lying to you. And the reality, guys, is that this, if you want to say Iran's terrorist leader, you can't keep saying this when you can prove the opposite. But then you should ask where ISIS and al-Qaeda connect back to, and then you can literally walk it all the way back to Afghanistan and understand the Mujahideen as they funded them turned into all of it and they've used it. Look at James Corbus documentary,

Starting point is 02:03:37 look at Ben Swans documentary, you can nail it to the wall. But back to the ridiculousness of this, Iran is something that we are, is what he's saying? And rather they are, the government. And under Potist leadership, Treasury is moving aggressively through economic fury to sever their military, their financial lifelines. Yes, and then go, look, they can't manage their economy as you cut their financial system in half. You can't hide from this.

Starting point is 02:03:58 I mean, nothing in there is a problem other than that you say they're a problem, therefore normal things they do become crimes. And I simply said, the leading terrorist organization in the world threatens to continue economic terrorism against Iran if it does not give into its demand. That's a honest report of what that just is. You may not think so. If you understand this stuff and it's not a partisan thing, it is a simple historical reality thing.

Starting point is 02:04:21 You will understand that's the reality. You could also say leading terrorist organization in the world threatens another terrorist organization in the world to get what it wants. You take it however you like. Just understand what these people represent. Hashtag two-party illusion. Ryan Rosbiani talking about the blockade. Trump calls the blockade of her moves 100%.

Starting point is 02:04:43 It's been unbelievable. Now, I kind of laugh about this because this is what's happening. But what I laugh about is the fact that Trump, the way he responds, you could argue, this is how he would respond without even knowing the question. Listen to what he says. Okay. The blockade has been unbelievable, powerful, 100%. It's been actually unbelievable.

Starting point is 02:05:06 You see what I'm saying? How was your day today? Unbelievable, unbelievable, unprecedented. 100%. He's seen blusters and bun. does that with everything he responds about. You know, how did that go today? The best thing I've ever seen ever in history of everything we've ever done.

Starting point is 02:05:22 Everything he, and it's rarely the case. But the point really was not about laughing how ridiculous he can be. But the fact that he's telling you that the blockade is going great, which one shows we already know it's there, but shows you where they continue, which is the violation of the thing they claim ends the war, the ceasefire. On top of that, it's the reality to understand that he's the one trying to keep the blockade going. Iran has never been doing that.

Starting point is 02:05:45 They've been blocking them. And their game is to turn that around and make it look like Iran's the one doing to the world. And Iran has flipped that on them. And I think it's been very successful. And remember, that means they're not blocking the flow of, that's the U.S. government and Israel basically doing that. And if they were to stop, it would go right back to the way it was, except for the fact, now this is post their bombing of their, you know, Kameney and their ongoing negotiations.

Starting point is 02:06:09 Because in the beginning, they were willing to go back to a point where it was the currently the way it is now. And they did that. Then they said, okay, well, fine. We're not getting rid of the nuclear program. We're doing any of that. And that's where they are. So you have to understand. That's because of what they've done. And Trump says, or confirms he sent weapons of the Kurds as we played earlier. I'll skip that for now. So we already played it. And you already know that. In fact, here is the, the earlier article. Oops. There it is. Kurds could begin ground operation around within days after being secretly armed for the U.S. for months.

Starting point is 02:06:47 They were telling you this, guys. This is March 4th. I just don't understand sometimes. I mean, you know, because you don't really know all of the calculus. What's driving their logic? And it could. I mean, that's why I tend to feel desperation, because that's what I can see. But it's just my opinion.

Starting point is 02:07:04 All you need to know is that they're lying to you, right? They're playing you. In the case of the Kurds, they're only telling you about that now because they're trying to argue that they were, you know, in this case, it was somebody else's fault, essentially. We were trying to help the curs and they didn't give it to the right people. And so it wasn't our fault because we already know what's actually happening. Now, to finish, you might have seen this for, you know, the America First Agenda. United States delivers 6,500 tons of ammunition and military equipment to Israel in the last 24 hours.

Starting point is 02:07:34 You know, the same Israel currently bombing hospitals and schools and children and everything else in Lebanon. And that's not hyperbole. and literally watch it on TV. And everywhere you look right now, it's not Gaza. They're publicly doing it. They're laughing as they blow up entire villages in Lebanon. And they fund it. And they're still continuing genocide in Gaza.

Starting point is 02:07:53 They're still continuing. This is, I mean, look, aside from all of that, where are you at, conservatives, people who still support Trump? Is this what you voted for? Is this what we're supposed to be supporting? Is this America first? Obviously not. Two cargo ships, docked it, Ashdod.

Starting point is 02:08:07 And either way, the point is more funds from you. The thing he promised wasn't going to be the reality. Daniel McAdams, as here he is, Trump discussing this very point, says, why is the United States a slave to Israel? Did anyone vote for that? The answer is no. Israel advanced precision, kill, weapon, system. This is from the State Department.

Starting point is 02:08:27 Orwell gave me this before we went live. May 1st, 26th. The U.S. Department of State has made a determination approving a possible foreign military sale to the government of Israel for its purchase of, advanced precision kill weapon system and related equipment, who God only knows what that could be. The estimated total cost, $992.4 million. Great. So do you see how this works?

Starting point is 02:08:54 He's going to go, look how much money we made, except for the fact that you've given them billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars just since you've been president, let alone what happens every 10 years anyway, $38 billion. It's way more than that. Actually, he's increased it twice now. But on top of that, like the, the, like the, I. you're in dome dynamic, the way that you basically skip, you know, give them things, then buy them back or it's, or it's, it's, or fun what they do and then buy things back.

Starting point is 02:09:18 It's a mind-honour scheme. So whether this even happens or not, and I ultimately, I'm willing to bet you would actually just ends up where they just basically give them these things and then kind of work it out through what they're already doing. But either way, you're giving a group committing genocide, a guy who's literally supposed to be arrested on site, advanced precision kill weapon system, whatever that even means. The government of Israel has requested to buy 10,000 advanced percentage.

Starting point is 02:09:41 kill-up in systems. I think these are drone-type things. I'm not exactly sure. The following non-major defense equipment items will also be included. Test support equipment, technical data. Look at this. Spare reports, U.S. government contracting engineer technical and logistics services. So you're basically facilitating their genocide like every other time.

Starting point is 02:09:59 You're giving them weapons to commit their crimes and supporting them in doing so. So nothing new, essentially. On top of that, it's also going, there's a Kuwait is getting integrated, battle command systems. So all this is right now, it looks like, is an effort to just repopulate and re, they're repositioning like they do every other time. And Iran knows that.

Starting point is 02:10:23 A new policy was where these came from. Shout out to the platform. I just, this is the person who posted this. It's always important to point that out. The American Automobile Association says U.S. gasoline prices have risen by 47.3% since the start of the war. Oh, excuse me.

Starting point is 02:10:40 The Operation Three Day whatever stupid thing they were saying in the beginning, 50% increase in gas prices. But don't worry, it's going to drop like a stone the moment this is over, Trump says? Probably not, based on the fact that it's not going to go back the way it was, but secondarily because just because he yells it's over

Starting point is 02:10:58 while talking about new strikes, nobody's that stupid. We all see it's continuing. So this is not going away. He just wants you to believe whatever he says that day, so you stop hating what he's doing. This is everything you were promised wouldn't happen. Iran has damaged bonkers numbers of U.S. military sites. It's a silly title, but it's an interesting point.

Starting point is 02:11:19 U.S. where let me see if I got, oh, that's right. It was mostly just on here. The majority of the U.S. military positions in the Middle East, this is the new republic, I think. Why isn't it showing it now? It's supposed to be right there. Hold on. Yeah, that's weird. See that?

Starting point is 02:11:39 Oh, now it comes. Whatever. All right, so back lined up. There we go. The majority. of U.S. military positions in the Middle East, which, by the way, you already know this, but this is just becoming more and more admitted.

Starting point is 02:11:55 I think NBC, New York Times, you should be doubting them. They lie all the time, but the evidence they show, which I agree with, is already consistent with what you knew from before. Iran did not just meekly respond. They destroyed very important things,

Starting point is 02:12:09 including Qatar, which was like $1.1 billion. You know, I think it was, was it Douglas McGregor? He said they took the eyes out. It's all he said. I mean, it's a very important statement about the U.S.'s ability to see what's happening and then destroyed all these bases. At least 16 American installations across eight countries have been struck as part of Iran's retaliatory strikes against the United States. A U.S. source familiar with the situation told CNN that the scale of the damage was unprecedented.

Starting point is 02:12:35 I've never seen anything like this before. They are rapid, targeted strikes with advanced technology. The main targets appeared to be multi-million dollar aircraft. at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, a Boeing E3-Centry aircraft, which provides surveillance, command, control, and communication to the U.S. was destroyed. That's your money, Americans.

Starting point is 02:12:55 The aircraft is worth nearly half a billion dollars and is currently out of production. Our targets, other targets of Iranian strikes include critical communication systems. At camp, what is it, Rifjan, in Kuwait, satellite photographs showed that Iran destroyed all but one ray dome, a structure designed to protect satellite dishes.

Starting point is 02:13:15 Radar systems will also prove the most difficult to replace. Our radar systems are the most expensive and most limited resource in the region. Now, for those, rightly, always questioning a possible bigger motive. Never assume, because it's not always the case. But in this case, like we talk about with a larger agenda. And maybe you can even argue that Iran would be involved in this without even knowing it. right they could be the one that gets thrown like you know the scapegoat in the narrative that the of the world's global transition may just question everything my point though is that you could argue that maybe this

Starting point is 02:13:49 is all coordinated and that ultimately it was about destroying these old systems to reinitiate what they want to do to change it now i don't think that's ultimately the truth i think there is that's something happening around all of this but as always i'll throw these things out so you can consider them even if i don't think that's where it lines up because it's an interesting thought that definitely could be the case because they think about the radar systems and and you know starlink and all the different things they're doing there is a kind of an overlap and changing up the guard and you wonder if that might be part of it and again like i said maybe they're not even maybe these were like the there's plenty of thoughts the 12 day war one of the arguments was that maybe they agreed and i do think

Starting point is 02:14:27 this is the case to sort of like deescalate they said and they didn't want to lose face though neither side so they say you bomb here we bomb there and we back away and the argument is is we're going pointed to a whole bunch of places they already had designed to be broken down. I think it was F. Rop Benginson from former IDF member who was the one pointing that out. I think so. Don't, it could be wrong. But important to think about. Anyway, it was previously reported that 13 U.S. bases in the Middle East have been all rendered

Starting point is 02:14:51 all but uninhabitable, forcing U.S. military service members to work remotely from hotels. We reported on that. Within the first two weeks of the war, Iran's attacks on U.S. military bases caused an estimated $800 million in damage, according to report by the Center for Strategic, and international studies and a BBC analysis. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday, under Secretary Defense, Jules Hearst, finally produced a price tag for Donald Trump's military campaign,

Starting point is 02:15:19 $25 billion to date, which again, we already told you. But that number does not include the cost of repairing the damage to the bases. And this might be why we're asking, they're asking for a $1.5 trillion budget coming around the next, for, you know, the war budget. or the military budget. Because, guys, it seems like everything was completely destroyed. Now, as I showed earlier, Barnes, who was previously very big supporter of Trump,

Starting point is 02:15:46 who has been highlighting the fact that we're being live to. Trump 2024 voters declined by group. And it's very clear. Now, as I said before, I don't trust polls, but it's, but they're, you know, there are, there's abuse to them. It's never the full picture. But I think we all sense where this is right now. Just important to see it.

Starting point is 02:16:06 Oh, I forgot I opened this. ISIS al-Qaeda was created by the U.S. and Israel. It's an open secret. It's one of the shows I did. Definitely worth watching. But I think it's pretty wild, guys, how clear this is, you know, not going the way they thought it would. And I think at this point, whether or not Israel is dictating what Trump does or, you know, he's not aware of it. And Harvard's playing out.

Starting point is 02:16:32 It is in our interest to just start calling it as it is. It always is, guys. And I think that's what's so confounding for. the system right now is I think most people are, you know, amenable to that change. So reach out to people, talk to people, neighbors, friends, family, you know, it doesn't, it's not, this is not COVID-19 time, guys, you'd be surprised how many people are going. I want to know more about what you're talking about. During that time before it was, you know, people, they bite your head off or even discussing

Starting point is 02:17:00 these things because it was so weaponized in that moment. And it's somewhat the same, but I think they've lost influence dramatically since then. Give it in their shot. You'll find people that might have once called you something. You know, you're, you know, Democrat, Republican, you know, whatever, Nazi, pedophile, whatever was going back and forth might be a little bit more open to hearing what you have to say because they're starting to see things like they have, you know, their mind is open into things they haven't considered before.

Starting point is 02:17:26 They're important. You did that. You did that. Your funding of this show, donating, you know, with Steve's show, Whitney's work, anybody else and being involved in talking about it, sharing the work. This stuff wouldn't matter if you guys weren't out. out there getting it in front of other people. So thank you for your support.

Starting point is 02:17:42 And if you believe in this platform, plenty of ways down below to support us. It's completely people funded, guys. We don't have any advertising, any, you know, everything that comes through this platform is done directly from you. We exist because you believe in this platform. So if you find value in the work we did today or any other day or the article Derek put out or anything else, show us what it's worth to you. I love you all.

Starting point is 02:18:03 As always, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it's very hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran. My father told me when I was a child, people in authority lie.

The Last American Vagabond - Trump Says Iran War "Terminated" As Illegal Iran War Continues & The Zampolli-Melania Pact

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.