The President's Daily Brief - March 14th, 2024: Nuclear Warning, Ivey League Terror, & TikTok Ultimatum

Episode Date: March 14, 2024

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief: We open with a chilling statement from Vladimir Putin, signaling that Russia is not shying away from the nuclear option amid heightened conflicts. Princeton University is facing demands to fire a professor for his alleged links to Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, tracing back to a horrific incident in Berlin in 1992. We move to the Lone Star State to examine Texas's latest measures to reinforce its borders. Despite a Supreme Court ruling, Texas is doubling down on its initiative to strengthen the southern border of the United States. In the Back of the Brief, we cover the sweeping congressional vote that threatens TikTok with a sale ultimatum. With Chinese ownership under scrutiny, the platform faces a potential nationwide ban unless it changes hands. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President’s Daily Brief by visiting PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. Email: [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Thursday, 14 March. Welcome to the President's Daily Brief. I'm Mike Baker. Your eyes and ears on the world stage. Let's get briefed. We'll begin today with more saber rattling from Vladimir Putin, although instead of a saber, he's wagging his nuclear missile in our general direction. The Russian leader issued a warning that his nation is prepared for nuclear war should the need arise.

Putin's statement comes as Russia and doing it. was a second wave of Ukrainian attacks against domestic oil production facilities. Later in the show, a story of terror in the Ivy League, and no, we're not talking about having to sit through a philosophy class discussing the origins of angst. Princeton University is currently facing demands to dismiss a professor who was allegedly involved in Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, including a 1992 multiple murder in Berlin. Then, we'll turn to Texas, where, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling, the state continues to expand its efforts to shore up America's southern border.

And finally, in today's back of the brief, Congress overwhelmingly passes a bill which would force the Chinese owners of TikTok to sell the popular video sharing app or face a nationwide ban. But first, today's PDB spotlight. Vladimir Putin is making the rounds on Russian state media ahead of this weekend's presidential election, because, as everybody knows, it's going to be a tight race, so Putin is smart to hit the campaign trail, you know, build up his name recognition, that sort of thing. During an interview on Wednesday, Putin told Russian news agency RIA that the nation is ready for nuclear war

should it come to it. Putin said, quote, from a military technical point of view, we are, of course, ready. And he added, I don't think we're rushing to it. Oh, that's good news. But we are prepared for this, end quote. Putin went on to lay out the specific conditions under which Russia would use nuclear weapons, either as a response to an attack using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, or the use of conventional weapons that put the existence of the Russian state under threat, or if Putin just gets pissed off. He added somewhat ominously, weapons exist in order to be used. Putin also said during the interview that he sees no need for the use of battlefield nukes in Ukraine. As we reported earlier this week, the idea that Russia was preparing to

deploy low-yield nuclear weapons against Kiev was of particular concern to the White House in the early days of the war, prompting the Biden administration to develop a plan for countermeasures should Putin do so. Now, Putin's comments came as Ukraine launched a seven. second wave of long-range drone attacks deep inside Russian territory. At least seven Russian territories were targeted with the Russian Ministry of Defense, claiming its air defenses shot down around 60 unmanned aerial vehicles over several hours on Wednesday. Several drones did manage to find their targets, including at a Rosneft Refinery, located a little over 100 miles or so from Moscow. The facility was forced to shut down two primary oil refining units,

dramatically cutting its output. On Tuesday, in a separate strike, Ukraine managed to hit a luke oil refinery that's about 265 miles from Moscow. A Ukrainian source told Reuters that the drone attacks were conducted by Ukraine's SPU security service and were part of a calculated strategy to reduce Russia's economic potential. The Russian president blamed the spate of attacks on Ukrainian efforts to disrupt the upcoming presidential elections. And if anybody knows something about disrupting and interfering in presidential elections, it's our boy, Vladimir Putin. Putin said, quote, the main goal, I have no doubt about it, is to, if not disrupt the presidential elections in Russia, then at least somehow interfere with a normal process of expressing the will of citizens, end quote.

And the fact that Putin can say some of this crap out loud with a straight face is really impressive. Now, if you're wondering if all of these attacks on Russian oil refineries are having an effect on global oil prices, and ultimately at your local gas station, the answer is yes. Crude oil prices rose 2% on the news of these latest attacks alone, and they're part of a campaign that's been going on since January. According to our report in CNBC, the Ukrainian attacks have hit his own. refineries representing approximately 25% of Russia's total refining capacity. All right, coming up next, Princeton University is facing demands to fire a professor for

his alleged links to Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, dating all the way back to a deadly incident in Berlin in 1992. Then, we move to the Lone Star State to examine Texas' latest measures to reinforce America's southern border. I'll have those stories when we come back. Welcome back. Princeton University is under fire over a professor who allegedly has significant ties to Iran, Hezbollah, and state-sanctioned murders. Well, frankly, those seem like excellent academic qualifications for one of our nation's finest institutions.

The Ivy League School is facing a congressional probe and increasingly vocal calls to fire Professor Syed Hussein Musavian for taking part in an Iranian campaign to murder enemies of the mullahs in the 1990s, that's according to a New York Post report. Musabian, who currently lectures on Middle East security and nuclear policy, traveled to the U.S. and was hired by Princeton back in 2009. Now, prior to that, he held prominent roles in the Iranian government, as well as serving as editor of the Tehran Times, a propaganda rag that serves as a mouthpiece for Iranian leaders.

His current relationship with the Iranian regime remains shrouded in mystery. He was reportedly jailed on espionage charges in Iran in 2007. However, the government allowed him out of the sentence in 2009 to take the teaching post at Princeton because, as we know, the Iranian regime often has a change of heart. While this information alone will be troubling enough, the current outrage is centered around Musavian's time serving as Iran's ambassador to Germany, and that's a post that he held for seven years from 1990 through 1997. During his tenure, the Iranian regime murdered more than 23 Iranians on European soil in terrorist attacks,

including four Iranian Kurdish leaders who were gunned down in 1992 at a restaurant in Berlin by members of Hezbollah. An investigation in 1997 by German authorities determined that the restaurant murders were orchestrated by Iranian leaders and that the Iranian embassy in Germany served as a headquarters for planning. An Iranian spy even testified under oath during the investigation that, quote, Musavian was involved in most of the crimes that took place in Europe. He added, but I got to say, he'd make a terrific professor. I mean, the kids would love him. End quote.

Okay, I made up their last little bit of the quote. We should note that Musavian's name was not included in the initial verdict in 1997. Now, this is not the first time that these allegations have surfaced. In a 2022 interview, he gave to an Iranian newspaper, Musavian claimed that the attacks in Europe during his time as ambassador, well, they were the work of Israeli and U.S. operatives, which is likely what he's been teaching to the students at Princeton. Still, as more information comes to light, his critics are not really buying his attempts to explain away his past.

an anti-regime group called the Alliance Against Islamic Regime of Iran apologists is leading efforts to oust Musavian from Princeton, saying his links to state-sponsored terrorism demand swift action. The House Education and Workforce Committee is also probing Princeton as to why they hired Musabian in the first place. That's a good question. Republican Representative Virginia Fox, who serves as the committee chair, is demanded to know what security checks the university engaged in prior to hiring the Iranian national. And my guess would be that they probably used the same due diligence service as Harvard did when they hired ousted President Claudine Gay. The committee also wants to know whether the Obama administration lobbied Princeton to influence

their decision. Now given the tendency of both the Obama and Biden administrations to hire Iran apologists, Musavian's regime connections were probably considered a plus. Fox has said that Musavian's high-profile position at Princeton, which he's now held for 15 years, quote, raises significant concerns about the influence of foreign hostile regimes on American institutions, end quote. Now, you won't be shocked to find that Musavian and officials of Princeton have so far refused to comment. All right, shifting our focus to the U.S. border. Texas continues moving ahead with plans this week to construct additional border fences and blockades, in an effort to stem the record flow of migrants coming through the state.

The border barriers are a continuation of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star, aimed at securing the state's border in the absence of meaningful action from the Biden administration. Officials in Texas said this week that the state will continue to hold the line, barring further intervention from the Supreme Court, according to an exclusive report from News Nation. As we've previously covered on the PDB, on January 22nd of this, year. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. Border Patrol agents had the authority to remove razor wire fencing that Texas erected along their border. However, the decision did not bar Texas from installing new barriers. So, given the ambiguity, Governor Abbott has since maintained that

Texas has the constitutional right to defend itself and that their decisions supersede any existing federal statutes. Now, Lieutenant Christopher Olivares of the Texas Department of Public safety, told News Nation on Tuesday, quote, we're continuing going forward with our projects and trying to secure more areas along the border as part of Operation Lone Star, end quote. He said that until the Supreme Court specifically tells them that they cannot place barriers along their border, Texas will continue, quote, moving forward with what we're doing right now. Now, while the Supreme Court has not yet clarified who has supremacy on the border issue at the state level, Justice Samuel Alito did recently step in to put a legal hold on a new law that would give Texas authorities the power to

arrest and deport undocumented migrants. Now, that's a power that has previously been reserved only for federal officials. The bill was set to become law this week until Justice Alito initiated the hold to give the court more time to render a final decision. The Justice Department had filed a lawsuit against Texas on January 3rd, challenging this law. Abbott remains locked in a battle of wills with the Biden administration over the border crisis, which has led to a constant back and forth in federal courts since late last year. All right, coming up in the back of the brief, the U.S. House of Representatives has approved a landmark bill that could see TikTok banned in America.

Just think of the hours of productivity that people would get back in their daily lives. if they suddenly lost the ability to stare at endless TikTok cat videos, dumbass challenges, and dance crazes. I'll be right back. In today's back of the brief, the House approved a bill on Wednesday that calls for Chinese tech giant bite dance to completely divest from the popular video sharing platform TikTok, or the app will effectively be banned in the United States. The measure passed with a resounding 352 to 652.

vote and one member voting present. So, wait, who could only muster up enough energy for this to vote present? We'll try and ferret out that information for you. The bill now heads to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain. When asked about the legislation, the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wouldn't commit to bringing it up for a vote. TikTok responded to the bill's passage, saying in a statement, quote, this process was secret and the bill was jammed through for one reason.

It's a ban. We're hopeful that the Senate, they said, will consider the facts, listen to its constituents, and realize the impact on the economy, 7 million small businesses and the 170 million Americans who use our service, end quote. Well, now, to be fair, TikTok, the contents of most bills are secret, or at least really only known to eight or nine random folks on Capitol Hill involved in the drafting process. And jamming a bill is that's also standard procedure. so this was hardly a unique situation. President Biden has indicated that he would sign the bill should have managed to pass in the Senate, and he advised the Senate of his intention via a super clever TikTok message that he posted,

during which he danced what appeared to be a version of the Charleston, while a bucket of ice-cold water was poured over his head. Just to be clear, that didn't actually happen, but you know what, if it did, it would get a ton of likes. Now, if the bill goes into effect, ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, would have a specified time frame to sell the app. If it fails to do so, it would then become illegal for app store operators such as Apple and Google to make it available for download. Now, U.S. lawmakers, the U.S. intel community and the FBI, have repeatedly expressed concern

over the potential for the Chinese government to compel ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, to hand over data collected from U.S. users. Now, given the nature of the CCP, there's really very little compelling that would be involved. The regime would say, we want your data, and ByDance would say, cool, here it is. However, China's foreign minister is rejecting that explanation, calling the bill an act of bullying.

He warned that such a ban would inevitably harm the United States. Now, the foreign minister failed to mention that TikTok is not allowed in. in China, where they instead have a separate sanitized version called Doyin. When asked if the Chinese government would ever allow TikTok inside China, the foreign minister said, are you kidding? Have you seen the crap that's allowed on that app? That last little bit, the last quote there, that was also made up. China has previously made it clear that it would oppose any forced sale of TikTok.

So for now, it's up to the Senate to see how they act. And that, my friends, is the President's Daily Brief for Thursday, 14 March. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at PDB at thefirsttv.com. I'm Mike Baker, and I'll be back later today with the PDB afternoon bulletin. Until then, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.