The Tucker Carlson Show - Whistleblower Exposes the Real Puppet Masters Controlling the State Department and Plans for Gaza

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

Shahed Ghoreishi says Mark Levin’s stepson got him fired from the State Department last month because he didn’t repeat Israeli talking points.  (00:00) What Was Ghoreishi’s Job at the State Department? (07:26) How Does a Press Officer Know What the Official US Position Is? (14:03) Why Was Ghoreishi Fired? (32:09) Mike Johnson’s Visit to “Judea and Samaria” (35:42) Who Is David Milstein? (54:58) Is Anyone at the State Department Truly America First? (58:46) The Damage Mike Huckabee Has Done to American Foreign Policy (1:05:17) What Is the Real Plan for Gaza and the West Bank? Paid partnerships with: GCU: Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Learn more at https://GCU.edu PureTalk: Go to https://PureTalk.com/Tucker to and save 50% off your first month. SimpliSafe: Visit https://simplisafe.com/TUCKER to claim 50% off a new system. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.TCN: Watch the full series as soon as it premieres: tuckercarlson.com/the911files Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So you were marched out of the State Department two weeks ago. You left involuntarily, and I want to hear why. But first, what did you do there? What was your job at the state? I was a press officer in the New York Eastern Affairs Bureau started September 2024. Essentially, the main bread and butter role of a press officer is twofold. One is preparing the spokesperson before they go on the podium and do their daily press briefing. Yeah.

And second, reporters ask questions all the time. So a reporter with XYZ outlet submits a question and it's our job to use cleared lines or cleared meaning approved lines and send them back to the reporter. And if you ever read an article and it says a state department spokesperson said X, those are press officers taking those cleared lines and sharing it with that reporter. Who clears the lines? Good question. So a press officer will draft the lines. From there, it will go up a ladder, essentially. So there'll be desk officers.

leadership in the Indian Press office itself, and then it goes up to the seventh floor, meaning the Secretary's Policy Planning Office, the Deputy Secretary of State's office. But it's not themself. Like, you're not going to get the Deputy Secretary of State looking at this, right? It's going to just be like a staffer who represents that equity. So it becomes an inclusive process to make sure everyone has eyes on it. And if there are flags, they'll let you know. For example, you could be drafting a line on Israel, but it involves Lebanon.

But there's another press officer and a whole other desk and leadership working on Lebanon that might have an equity that you may not be aware of that they'll edit the line. So describe the Bureau that you work for Near Eastern Affairs? Yes. What is that? It's, well, it's an old school name. It basically means anything involved in the Middle East. So it's Morocco to Iran, essentially. The whole Middle East, not just the Levant, like the whole Middle East.

Yeah, near East, yeah, it's a, they need to update the name. I think people are aware, but yeah, it's the entire Middle East. So they use all these acronyms. So, Israeli-Palestrian affairs is IPA or ISPal, Saudi, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain. That whole grouping is ARP for Arabian Peninsula. And then North Africa is its own entity as well, from Morocco to Egypt, goes under NA. Okay, so it's the Levant, the Gulf, Iran. Not you're on Africa.

Huh. Interesting. And that's all in the same bureau. So the State Department divides the world into bureaus. Correct. Which you're often called desks. Correct. So from Canada down to Chile's WHA, Western Hemisphere Affairs, Asia's EAP, East Asia Pacific.

So we have all these divisions. Europe, Africa. Correct. EUR for Europe, Africa's AF. I was an N-A and I was a press officer there originally covering Lebanon Jordan just for a couple months

and I quickly shifted to ISPAL. Israel Palestine. Israel Palestine. Whoa. So that's the hottest of all desks, I would think. Most scrutiny, most at stake, rhetoric,

most closely supervised, I'm just guessing, but right? Yes, it's true. The press officer for Israeli-Palestin affairs, you're on a stage constantly because you're getting the most questions from reporters for good reason. The spokesperson is going to deal with the most questions at the podium about the topic. And so it was a compliment yet difficult for me to process the fact that it was requested from various people in leadership when the administration was changing. in January, they said, hey, I know you've only been here for a couple months, but we're going to put you on this in this position, which was surprising, but I wanted to take on the challenge

at the time. Really? So you were asked to do that by the incoming administration, by the Trump administration? It was, well, it was people from, it was leadership in NEA, which some of them were civil servants, but there were experienced people that were, that recognized how heavy a topic it was going to be coming in. How do you get current on that? How do you do your research? So it's multi-fold. So we do receive, like, in terms of standard mainstream media, we do get, like, copies of art tools and coverage. And it's not necessarily politically isolated, at least in the beginning it wasn't.

So I would see everything in my email inbox, plus personally, right? I'm always absorbing things. And you're only going to be a good press officer if you're reading Twitter and the standard emails are getting through the inbox. Yeah. So you're absorbing a lot of information. and it's not just the details. Of course, if I have a question,

I want to go to the Israel experts at the State Department. So if there's a detail, I don't know, there might be a desk officer or someone like that that would know that those numbers or the challenges that I need for a specific press line. For me, though, as a press officer, my addition in those conversations is like more stylistic. If we put this line out there,

we're going to invite these people. problems or it's good if we say it this way because this will help us, it will defend us in this other way. So it was a stylistic endeavor from day to day. And you don't have full control because obviously the personality of someone at the podium is going to say it one way, even though I was hoping this line would deliver this other way, right? You don't, you have full control, but you do have a... Who's the spokesman from the near East? Well, right now, it's more the spokesperson of the entire department. department that I was briefing. So it was Tammy Bruce. She left. And then there's

deputies that are currently taking. Where did Tammy Bruce go? She's going to the UN from understanding. Okay. So were you given parameters? Like, how do you get your orders? Like, we do say this. We don't say that. So the main day-to-day activity, and I think people may not be aware of, but, or probably not aware of, is that I have these, I had these package. It's called press guidance, called PG. So on Tuesday and Thursday, which are the days that a spokesperson would go on to the podium, I would have all the sample questions. And some of them are tasked from the main press office in at the state department.

But I also would come up with my own questions. Like, hey, we're getting this question a lot. We need to have lines for this. We can't leave this alone. So I'd create a packet, clear it through the building, like I was saying earlier. through the seventh floor and then I'd present that brief the spokesperson about two hours before she went on to the podium. How do you know what the official U.S. position, especially on that topic, Israel, Palestine. I mean, that's, again, the most politicized area there is, and the stakes are high.

So how do you know what the official U.S. position is on that conflict? It's a very good question. And especially in the beginning of the administration, it's a bit of an art. You're taking the gold, for a press officer are lines from the principals. Essentially, if President Trump says something, if Special Envoy Whitkoff says something, I take those quotes and I'm like, okay, that's policy. So if he's talking about... And I think that's literally true, right?

I mean, the president sort of unilaterally can form our foreign policy. Yeah, and there's no questioning, like, a quote that comes for a principle, especially President Trump, or Secretary Rubio for the State Department is often the case. So I would take those lines and it would answer certain questions that would come up.

Where are we with a ceasefire? Oh, Special Envoy Wickcoff went on XYZ Sunday show. So I'll pull that line and I'll brief the spokesperson and then she or he can quote Special Envoy Wickoff at the podium again because that's the policy. That's the easiest way of doing it. You don't always have quotes. So what would happen instead is you kind of have... Did you ever get a question on that?

Question on... Well, I mean, if you say, you know, you should respond in this way and then some... the president or Steve Whitkoff or Secretary Rubio, then that kind of ends the conversation, right? It should end the conversation. What was surprising, and this will go back to why when I ended up departing and getting fired in August, was that on a specific question, one of the three events I think led up to my firing was on a Monday, we received a question about forced displacement, which essentially ethnic cleansing. And what our policy is, was about Israel intending to move Palestinians in Gaza to South Sudan.

To South Sudan? Yeah, that was, every two or three months, we had a new reporting would come out. In the spring, it was they're moving Palestinians and Gaza to Libya. There was a rumor about Somaliland, even though we don't recognize Somaliland, but there was reporting about, are we going to do an exchange where we recognize Somaliland, but they have to take on Palestinians. And then we had an Ethiopia round. And then the last round that I witnessed before I left was South Sudan.

And so that appears somewhere in the press. Appears somewhere in the press. And we received a question. What's your response to this reporting? And then I came up the line, but it wasn't a line that like I just came up out of the blue. It was something that President Trump and special envoy Whitkoff had said in other words in the spring. I said we do not support forced displacement. And why what did they say about it? So that was your interpretation of what they said. Do you remember what they said, what Whitkoff and Trump said on that

topic? So specifically special on why Whitkoff said something, we're not, said something along the lines of we're not trying to evict anybody. Right. So from as a press officer, there's an art to it, right? Because you can sometimes do the exact quote or you can come up with a new line that reflects that quote. So we've done a lot of segments over many years attacking college. Most of them are not worth sending your kids. They're definitely not worth paying for. In fact, they're counterproductive. They're the source of a lot of this country's problems. But that doesn't mean that all colleges are bad. We've looked far and wide for good ones. And Grand Canyon University is near the top of the list. It's a private Christian university located in the Arizona Mountains, the best part

of Arizona. Grand Canyon believes that every one of us is endowed by God with inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are not something that politicians give us. rights are something they are sworn to uphold and defend. It's a totally different way of looking at the world. At GCU, purpose starts with service-equipping students to affect their families, communities, and the world for good. Whether you're called to business, education, ministry, whatever it is, Grand Canyon University helps you honor that calling while glorifying God through your work.

Real purpose in life. Over 340 academic programs offered online on campus in hybrid formats. Take your pick. GCU makes education accessible and is tailored to you and your goals. Whether you're starting fresh, you're going back to school to advance your career. If you're ready to pursue a degree and a purpose, Grand Canyon University, GCU is ready for you. It's private, it's Christian, it's affordable. Visit gCU.edu today.

I think forced displacement and eviction are synonyms. Right. Any fair person would say that yet. And keep in mind, this had already been cleared. It was approved for about a couple weeks before. this particular question popped up because of Ethiopia rumor was like July 28th. So I put it in the PG, put it in the packet, cleared through. I briefed it multiple times.

So when that question came up, I said, I actually probably have the right to just send that line because it cleared so many times. But to be extra careful, I sent it out to the spokesperson and their staff and made sure the most important equities were re-clearing it. And from my understanding, now, I wasn't on the chain, but from my understanding, they went to the secretary's office and they cut that line of we do not support force displacement. The only other bullet that we have,

which is pretty standard, is we don't discuss private, diplomatic conversations, which is a standard line we always say, you know? The investigation is ongoing. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, it's one of those lines, like kind of pre-standard. So that line was there. So that's all we ended up.

providing. So there's some sensitive, which I found very odd, because out of the three events, I can get into the other ones, but that was like number two. But the two days before I was fired that Thursday and Friday, the only feedback that I got, because my bureau was confused as to why the secretary's office was coming down on me, right? Because they don't know me. I don't interact with a random press officer at N.A., right? Maybe a little bit more because of the sensitive topic, but chains are generally low. My leadership said, hey, they're asking where you got that line from, from Monday. I'm like, today's Thursday. You four days later, they're asking me where I got this line that I drafted, but they cut it. I went through the procedure, right? I cut it. They cut it,

and the reporter never saw that line. Did they explain why they cut it? No. They, all I got from, all I heard, all I witnessed was the acting spokesperson saying. So you were paraphrasing, the envoys Steve Wickoff and the President of the United States Donald Trump when you said the United States

does not support a forced in forced displacement. Yep. I don't think we do support that, do we, by the way? I won't hope so.

Yeah, one would hope not. Right, and especially we're not going to pay for that. And they cut that out but didn't explain why. Right. And then your supervisors came to you and said,

hey, they're complaining about you, basically. Right. And they only specified that line, just like the act of drafting it. And I was like, I have a track record. They asked me Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, twice in a row, which is very odd for a random bullet. I was like, I have the evidence from July 28th of clearing this press guidance with that line. And here are the relevant quotes.

Do anyone say, by the way, you may not know this, but the United States does support forced displacement. No one said that. No one said that. But by the way, sorry, you got it wrong. We're all about forced displacement. Okay. We want it. We want to, we want. kind of want to trail a tear situation here because we're for that. It's, it's tragic because it's such a standard. So bonker. Yeah, that's something you would want to advertise. You want to put out there that we're against this.

Like, hey, we still have some moral standing somewhere. And when the Washington Post piece came out like yesterday, two days ago, saying there's some plan involving the consultations of Tony Blair, of moving Gosens out. and we may pay for something, a piece of it. And I'm like, why? So is this why I got fired? It's because I was still sticking through this line and they saw me as some kind of obstacle, which I wasn't because I was going through the exact procedures they wanted.

But I knew that when I was fired, as someone who was, again, close with political appointees and was civil servants and was pretty well established in NIA, again, like I said earlier, you don't get this role covering Israeli-Palestinian affairs on a whim. and I was suddenly pushed out, that means things are going to go into a very radical direction. Well, yeah, I should also say, because I know that you will be attacked

and I'll be attacked for speaking to you on the following grounds. This guy's a partisan Democrat who liked Bernie. He was a saboteur, a wrecker. I know from our conversations off camera, at least what you said to me was basically agreed with Trump's foreign policy instincts. You know, fewer pointless wars,

like get along with more people. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. I've always been an advocate for ending endless war on a personal level. And so when President Trump is saying, hey, we don't want to get into any forever wars, I'm like, that's great. And we technically started with a ceasefire in Gaza and started the administration. That was something to, we could have expanded on. We were speaking to the Iranians.

So there's so many chances for true peace, but things went in the wrong direction. I would say somewhere in the summer, right? I remember listening to President Trump's speech in Saudi in May where he was talking about. Amazing speech. Love that speech. I remember, I was like. I was cheering. Exactly.

In my cubicle at the state department, I was like, this is a great speech. I was too. That was one of the best speeches ever given. And I was like, this is amazing. It was ballsy, too, this speech. Calling out neocons. Oh, I know. No one calls out neocons in D.C., right?

No, of course not. We brushed that under the rug. We kept moving, right? You still see him as an analyst here and there on TV. Here and there. They dominate the biggest cable news channel. Yes, I'm aware. Yeah.

So, so glad to see that. But then why, two weeks later, were we sabotaging our own talks with Iran and then bombing them, right? So the events, like the idea that I'm some partisan is just wrong. Yes, on a personal avenue, I don't want any more endless wars. But President Trump was in line with that. And I was doing my job in line with the procedures that were necessary every single day. Yeah, but it sounds like you agreed with them. So I guess that's my point.

If you like that, I mean, I don't know, you know, a lot of these, some of the labels are real, but some of them are also created and certainly sustained in order to keep people from listening to each other so they don't discover they actually agree on a lot. Yeah. And if you love the Saudi speech and I love the Saudi speech, then we're probably not too far from each other then because I thought that. And that was a Donald Trump speech. And by the way, if you're such a partisan Democrat, you're admitting on camera that you love to Donald Trump speech. You're not too partisan, I guess. But anyway, I just want to see, because I'm here I'm.

Honesty matters, yeah. It's like it's the issues we have in foreign policy that I care about. I don't care about the labels per se. Well, I don't either. Well, they're clearly meaningless. Yes. If we're both cheering on the Riyadh speech. So yes.

Okay. I just wanted to establish that. So you start hearing from your boss is like, hey, what is this thing that you put in there about opposing first. displacement. We've always... Yeah, four or five days earlier. Not even like the next day. There was like a delay annoyance.

It was weird. Huh. So you said that there were three examples of this where they found problems with your work. Right. And some of this, it kind of made sense from hindsight because I didn't like in the moment I didn't realize. But Sunday, Israel had struck a tent with several journalists living inside and including on us who millions of people had watched to cover the events in Gaza

they all died I drafted a line a few lines and by the way there were not some softy lines the only thing that was there that they didn't like was they did share condolences which is pretty standard policy.

Condolences, what do you mean? So I said we share condolences for the families of the kill journalists. That's all. Well that sounds like hate speech to me. condolences to the families of people who got killed. Non-combatants killed in war. Yep.

Yep. And what's so disappointing, too, was that... Wait, wait. So what happened when you put that in there? I was immediately told from a senior official that we don't know what on us did, essentially. And I was like, that's odd. What he did? Like, we don't know what his conduct was.

Like, we don't know, we need more information. He might, it was, she or he was alluding to the fact that he may have done something or he's a problematic actor in some way. But it was weird. Okay, let me just say, I would be totally comfortable sharing condolences with Osama bin Laden's family. I hate Osama bin Laden. On the other hand, if somebody dies, it's okay to say, I'm sorry to his family that you're, that's what I'm saying.

That's immaterial. I would say that to the family of an executed murderer in a prison. It doesn't mean I support the murderer or the murderer, but this is family. Like, that's okay. That's called like human decency. And anyone who's against that, it seems that we're setting up this constant, this is my issue that I noticed from the get-go, the constant deferring to Israel. It was like waiting for some statement, like let them speak first. And then on Monday, Israel said, all Hamas, which is a throwaway line they've used.

All Hamas meaning what? They're journalists. We're all Hamas? Yeah. Or at least with Anas, if I remember correctly. And so they brushed that away. Were they? Look, my point when I heard that was, what does our intelligence say?

If they were, like, being super strict and said, hey, we're going to triple check using our U.S. intelligence of who these people are, maybe. Maybe, right? I still don't agree with cutting the condolences line, but sure. But why is there, oh, Israel said this done? We don't have Intel services? Right. Right. So what's with the instinct to defer to Israel when we have the entire apparatus that could check that? And then by Tuesday. We've got like 17 different intelligence services in this country that take, you know, a trillion dollars a year or whatever the actual budget is. And we don't consult them at all. We wait for the Israeli spokesman to tell us what we are. is awful that what you're saying yeah and how is that america first right this this whole apparatus of like of of mirroring certain israeli statements and waiting for them to comment first what was something that i found tragic it was it was odd um and that's what ended up happening by the press briefing that tuesday we're like we refer you to israel which was a line that um popped up in my press guidance way too often.

People don't generally brag about their wireless companies, but what if you have something to brag about? Imagine that your wireless company was so great that you told random people about it. That could actually happen with Pure Talk. Their service is amazing. It comes from exactly the same cell towers as the other companies, so it's just as good, literally, but for a fraction of the price. And maybe more important, Pure Talk has actual American values. They just forgave $10 million in veteran debt. You're giving away a thousand American flags to veterans. That's not how corporate America tends to act, to put it mildly.

They've also raised almost half a million dollars to prevent veteran suicide. So, they're decent people working there and a great 5G network. You've got unlimited talk, tax plenty of data, just $25 a month, a month. That saves the average family over $1,000 a year. It's time to switch your wireless company, PureTalk. Go to puretalk.com slash Tucker, save an additional 50% off your first month. again, puretalk.com slash talker to make the switch today. It is wireless.

You might actually brag about. We were, so we don't have a position on it. Right. Right. And that came up on any, any topic that was somewhat sensitive or waiting for Israel to make a move. Does the State Department have any position that contradicts the position of the Israeli government that you're aware of? No. I think the closest.

I think on. on for U.S. interests we do, but in our current policy and posture, we do not. So not one. The closest we got. Do you have any siblings? I do. Do you love them? I love them.

Do you have any sticking points with them? Is there something you don't fully agree on? As any siblings do. Exactly. Yeah. Exactly. So loving someone or having an alliance with someone or even like sharing the same parents as somebody doesn't mean that you have to agree on every little point.

It would be weird. You did. It would be weird. Yeah. Identical twins have disagreed. This is getting a little weird. Why is it not acting like this? It's very strange.

And the closest we came, and there was no follow-through, was when I actually liked the statement. It was a thousand other things. I had personal issues, which was irrelevant. But Ambassador Huckabee, when there was these Thai attacks against Christians in West Bank, he did put out a statement saying these attacks are unacceptable, we call on Israel to investigate. But there's no follow-through, right? What do you mean? He had a statement that said...

Oh, I remembered very well. There's no follow-through. And, like, you're like, oh, that's a good statement. I'm like, wow. You can't attack Christians with U.S. tax dollars. Sorry. Yeah. And not allowed.

Yep. I don't care who you are. And it was just like, it was one statement and there was no, like, and if we got questions, hey, what's this asked for the investigation? We've freed Israel, right? So no one at the State Department looked into it? Not that I saw. This is a majority Christian country.

but nobody felt like that would be a good use of American tax dollars to find out what this was or ask anybody any questions. And that's the thing. Each time there's a call for investigation, a very rare opportunity that that's in front of us, there's no follow through. The strong statement, we did the thing, and you don't hear about it for weeks and months. So there's no one at the State Department who cared? Look, I don't want to speak for the entire, I think there were people that cared. I think there are Christians.

I cared. And look, there are a lot. There are civil servants, there are political appointees, foreign service officers that see all of this and they're concerned. But it's the style of constantly deferring to Israel that's at the forefront. So we can criticize up to a certain point. And it's awful because if we want Israel to investigate, then we should be following up and asking, hey, what happened to the investigation?

I thought you were going to investigate. where are the prosecutions who did all the damage yeah who did this and why yeah yeah but we'd never hear we never hear the follow-up so there's no as far as you're aware mechanism in the state department to because you've described a relationship that's unique there's no other country in the world that has this relationship with the united states and a lot of resources go into supporting that country but there's no mechanism in the united in the u.s. state department to like follow up on this look on in the public realm because I was working I work as a press officer right so I'm always working with reporters and how like this the presentation those things matter so if there was a system of following up I didn't see it it's possible personally I kind of doubt it but on the public realm followed up you would have known about it because what if somebody asks you right and you would think that if there was follow up you'd want to have advertise it too. Like, hey, we followed up. But they were, they were, the preference was to defer

and deflect and give. Nobody gives a shit. You persecute, you know, Christians with American tax dollars. Nobody cares. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. You're making me mad. Um, no, it's just a frustrating. It's frustrating. I know, it is. Frustrating to see people get chat because it's not a, it's not a neutral situation. Like, some people are winning and some people are losing. And if the losers are, it's, it's, people that you, you know, didn't do anything wrong. The Christians aren't in Hamas. Like, what? What's, what's their crime? Look, the scenes, the scenes are horrific. So on a human level, it shouldn't matter. But if that's the whole thing of having Ambassador out could be there, it's like, at least maybe you'll care about this. And then, yeah, you put a strong statement

out, but don't follow up. Yeah, they don't care at all. Yeah, right. The self-described Christians don't care at all about the Christians. And by the way, the whole justification for all this, you just said it. These journalists get blown up. They were Hamas. Okay. And of conversation. No one can plausibly claim that a Christian family are in Hamas. Okay. So, like, what, tell me, you can't claim that they're in Hamas while simultaneously claiming that Hamas is a, you know, group of jihadis. They're Islamic extremists, which they also claim constantly, which I don't, I don't know if that's true, by the way. It seems more like a political organization, but whatever it is, they're telling us constantly they're Al-Qaeda. So it can't

also be true that Christians are member of Al-Qaeda. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So And we know they're not in Hamas. So why did they get killed? Why was their church blown up? Why were they killed in that hospital? Like, what is this? And there's not one person in the State Department who cares enough to get to the bottom of that question.

Yeah. And all you saw, I mean, all I saw, President Trump did call Prime Minister Netanyahu, and then he gave an apology for the church that was attacked in Gaza. One of many. But there's never follow up. There's never like, hey, this is the prosecution. This is where our investigation landed.

It's this quick two-hour brush it on the rug, put a statement out, and then you don't hear anything ever again. Yeah. Wow. Okay. The third example of work that you produced that your superiors were unhappy with and that led ultimately to your firing was what? So it was a Tuesday. So that's the press guidance day of all the sample questions. it was actually arguably we said

OBE which meant overcome by events which means that we're like beyond its relevancy but like it was still could come up so I put it I left it in there was a reaction to Speaker Johnson visiting the settlements in the West Bank and

I had a line pretty standard and kind of not really specific but it said we support stability in the West Bank stability? Yeah we support support stability. That's all. And the last, well, the last piece was comma, which helps secure Israel, right? But the, I think the stable comet was, I don't know, too much. Because if we say we want a stable West Bank, are we accidentally being critical of something Speaker Johnson or Israel is doing, right? So what is that? I flesh that out, if you don't mind. Sure. I mean, I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure everyone does. It's a good question. So why would the U.S. government, so the U.S. government is against extending condolences to the families of non-combatants killed?

Correct. And the U.S. government is also now in favor of the forced movement of large populations outside their borders, right? Okay. And now you're saying the U.S. government is against stability? Why is stability a bad thing? Now, stability is a word that's used a lot. And we are on paper. paper saying we support stability in the region all the time. But in this specific context when discussing settlements, it will sound like we're critiquing Israel indirectly by saying we support stability in reaction to a question about settlements. Right. So that was how I interpreted the issue. So in other words, you might be suggesting that the U.S. government opposes radical demographic change in the West Bank. Right. Right. Now, I had this line, again, just like the force

displacement. It had cleared previously. But this is where what was discussed when this first broke my firing in the Washington Post was that senior officials for Embassy Jerusalem, David Milstein specifically, would occasionally pop into my docks. Now, it didn't happen every single day. Pop into your docks. Like at a Google Doc, right? It wasn't a Google Doc. It was a, I don't know, the brand doesn't matter. But some internal system. Yeah, an internal system. I would share it with in the morning, the equities I was mentioning. One of the equities is Embassy Jerusalem. Okay, so an equity

just for State Department speak, people haven't heard it, tell us what an equity is. Someone has some stake in those lines. And Embassy Jerusalem does, obviously, because they're the ones the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. The U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. American diplomats posted Israel.

On those press briefing days, I would share it with them for them to review the document and be like, okay, these are our press lines for these sample questions. okay with them. Now, it was interesting because they often did not clear, they didn't reject it. They just with a non-response because the press officers there would defer up the chain to David, David Milstein and Ambassador Huckabee, because they didn't want to put their name on it. Because if it's something they didn't like, no one wants their name on a press guidance that

wasn't approved by these influential people. Who is David Milstein? He is the senior advisor to Ambassador Huckabee. And what's his, how old is he? What's his background? Is he a career diplomat? He's a, from my understanding, he's a political. I believe he worked on the Hill. Oh, did he work for Ted Cruz?

Yes. Yes, he worked for Ted Cruz. Okay. And he is the stepson of your best friend, Mark Levin. He's Mark Levine's stepson? Yeah. He's working at the State Department? Correct.

Interesting. So every head of household wants to keep the family safe. It's your chief duty. Simply safe makes it easy to do that. Now, conventional wisdom suggests that a standard alarm that goes off during a break-in is enough. Just have an alarm. Well, it's not enough. It's not even close to enough.

Think about it for a second. You don't want people in your house in the first place. True security means preventing that before it begins, and that's why you need Simply Safe. The system is designed to be proactive, not reactive. And here's how it works. They use smart cameras to identify anything lurking outside your home. If there is something lurking outside your home, they immediately, immediately alert professional monitoring agents who intervene in real time through two-way audio,

confronting the intruder, triggering sirens and spotlights, and requesting rapid police dispatch, all helping to stop the intruder while he's outside your home, not when he's already in your home. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. It's real security. And that's why four million Americans use it every day. With a 60-day money-back guarantee and no long-term contract, Simply Safe, earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day. visit simplysafe.com slash Tucker to claim 50% off a new system. Simplysafe.com slash Tucker. There's no safe like SimplySafe. So David Milstein is a political guy working now for Mike Huckabee in Jerusalem,

and he was going through your lines. Correct. Okay. Now, on paper, he could be, but the way that he would edit my docs as aggressively as he would, and we can get into this but the other statements and pieces

that were reported in the Washington Post he would push a certain agenda that was very aligned with Israel that I found very problematic now in this specific example because we're discussing

the third example of why I was fired was that he changed the stability line to we commend Speaker Johnson for visiting Judea and Samaria

so we as a government What's Judea and Samaria? It's It's a term that is, it's like religious. It's, it's, it's about Israel's land grab of the West Bank. Are Judean Samaria, like administrative districts? No, it's not, is there a mayor of Samaria? Nope, doesn't exist.

Okay, so there's no actual place called Judea and Samaria. No, we call, like the civil authorities don't recognize Judea or Samaria. Nope. Okay. Nope. It's the more extreme wing of the elements of the Israeli government, and David Milstein was in line with that language. And it's designed to erase any policy and legitimacy that this is supposed to be... So the point is, by using those terms, they're biblical terms, they refer to regions described in what Christians call the Old Testament. And the point is to remind everybody that this land was promised by God to... to the Jewish people, to the Hebrew people, and that, you know,

anyone who's lived there subsequently for the last 3,000 years has no rate to it. Right. That's the point. But I, but from a sort of government perspective, Judean Samaria are not real places in that they're not. Not recognized. Not used.

They're not used. They're not. And, and. Do they have clearly defined borders? Not for my understanding. I mean, they do not. And that would increase, that would give you, uh,

The opens the door, it opens the door to more land grabs. You know, it's, okay, but if a place doesn't have a clearly defined border, then how can the U.S. government refer to it in any kind of official capacity? They can. They can. And it's scary, too, because if you look at the airstrikes that Israel are doing, like Israel is doing in Syria and they're building settlements even outside the Golan Heights, it's all part of this, this, I don't know what it is. this idea of a greater Israel that people are discussing that was beyond these borders. So it's scary.

And it's against the stability of the region that we've been calling for as a government for decades. So certainly in the modern era, definitely since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, you know, you've had clear borders between countries. In fact, we're fighting war against Russia right now on the premise that they violated those borders by moving into eastern Ukraine. So like the U.S. government takes borders very seriously, obviously. including our own. But as a matter of like statecraft and diplomacy, that really, really matters.

So you would never use a phrase in an official communication that referred to a place whose territory you couldn't define. That would be 100%. Fucking crazy to do something like that. 100%. Okay. So you think this Milstein guy who is Mark Levine's stepson, you say it's almost like, it's almost like you're making this up.

It's like a joke. who worked for Ted Cruz in the Senate, he added this to the statement. Correct. And then did it go out? So from that point, I cut it because I even accepted most of his edits in the document because going to battle with him was a whole headache because he'll call, he'll push certain things. He was known for doing that. Like, David Milstein phone call was not a favorite thing for folks.

What was it like? Tell us for those who don't work. Which Mark Levin steps on at the State Department. Sure, sure. So he would call and he would just push like, why was that removed or why was X, Y, Z done very often. And if you said, no, there was a tendency to go up the chain in order for him to push the agenda of any given day. And this is something that I dealt with since very early. Where is his, okay, so is he the DCM or?

Nope. He's just a senior advisor to Ambassador Huckabee. He's like an assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Correct. And he to sticking with the public reporting from Washington Post, he would push in one occasion statements that

were in the voice of Secretary Rubio, not even the spokesperson. And you drafted them, we would push them through, I want the statement out. I want the statement out? Yeah, he would go through and be like, I draft for this. This is the statement I want. I would go through the process of clearing it,

but he would fight for it. Like he would be in the document, getting an argument with people one by one in order to kind of overwhelm the process and get certain his agenda out there the way he wanted. It's very difficult. On what authority? I mean, that's pretty cheeky behavior for a guy who's an aide to Mike Huckabee, the former cable news host. You would call around the building and it was very consistent and persistent. But he lives in Jerusalem.

He does. What do you mean? And policy comes from D.C. Like this is obviously they have influence and they have discussions, but the policy comes from D.C. So if- What do you mean call around? You would go up, you would go either laterally or up the chain and call various

people and say, hey, Ambassador Huckabee, will cite Huckabee, usually, and say, wants this done or for X, Y, Z reason. And if that person didn't pick up, it would go to the next person. So even if I would just. discussing equities earlier. If one particular equity said, we can't do this, then he would go up, well, I don't care because this guy above you may clear it. What?

How does he have everyone's number? That's what I was wondering. I don't know. But David Milstein, an assistant in the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, I just want to restate, I mean, growing up, growing up around this. That's not a high level post. He's like zero authority to do anything. And it's drafting a statement on behalf, this is very audacious, to draft a statement on behalf of Secretary Rubio.

The Secretary of State. Yes. In one occasion, again, referring just to the public reporting was the statement to condemn Ireland for considering a bill that would put economic sanctions on Israel. Condem Ireland? As you can imagine. So David Milstein was demanding. in effect that the Secretary of State condemn Ireland because Ireland defended the government of Israel?

Yeah. Actually, I remember correctly, strongly condemned, which doesn't really, in diplomatic speaking, you don't add strongly. But, yeah, strongly condemn Ireland. As a nation? Well, the government, I guess. I don't remember the language. Did Rubio read it? That was a rare occasion where it went up the ladder

and it was eventually killed, but it required the European Affairs Bureau and NEA and everyone to, it took a lot of effort because he was so laser focused on getting that through. And who is... Would that be good for the United States condemning Ireland? It would be good for Israel. Could use our political and diplomatic capital on this statement that would punish Ireland for considering something. The official story on 9-11 is a complete lie.

The 9-11 report is a joke. You have the CIA following two men all over the planet and eventually even to America, right? And you don't tell the FBI. 9-11 commission cover. So what did happen? What did the government know? What did foreign governments know?

There was a cover-up. Why? It's been nearly 25 years in his time Americans learned what actually happened. We're going to tell you, releasing one episode per week, you're not going to want to wait. If you remember, you don't have to. You get all five episodes the day it drops, right then, ad-free. Our first episode airs Thursday, 9-11, September 11th.

You will not want to miss it. Join us now at Tucker Carlson.com. Did you ever see, it sounds like you had a lot of, lot of contact or could see David Milstein at work a lot. It sounds like he was a pretty big figure in your office in D.C., though, he's an assistant to the... It was very sudden. It was like, oh, you don't hear from three days, all of a sudden

you're getting a phone call and a bunch of edits on something, and they disappear again. Did he have your cell? It works, though. Yeah, he did. How do you get your number? Well, at that point, early on, I think someone asked that I share it with him. So that was on my end. Wow. But did you ever see

David Milstein, like, thinking about what's good for the United States or getting aggressive on behalf of what our interests might be as distinct from Israel's interests? I've perceived a lot of his actions as very Israel first from my point of view, because that statement didn't make sense. Those edits to the press lines didn't make sense. And in particular, with Judea and Samaria, that not only would not make sense for how dangerous it is, for what that means, because as you discussed, there's no land barrier to that. But it hurts our relationships to the region.

For example, we rely on Jordan for so many things. But if we start calling a Judean Samaria, that undermines our military relationship, our relationship dealing with refugees in Jordan. Also, some of that land is in Jordan. Exactly. Right. So, I mean, you can't, I mean, if, yeah, that would cause problems. And that's one example.

The whole region is to be upset. This is diplomacy. This is the State Department of the United States of America, which is still a global superpower even now. And so Jordan, Jordan economy relies on U.S. aid. Yep. We proffer that aid at the request of Israel because Jordan is filled with refugees in the 1948 war that created Israel. And subsequent refugees, 67, and filled with refugees, including from Syria, a war that we fought on behalf of Israel. So we pay Jordan, we also pay Egypt to keep them calm.

And now you're saying he wanted to issue a statement saying to Jordan, by the way, part of your territory and what you thought was a sovereign nation actually doesn't belong to you. Yeah. And just so terrible. And so we can go back to that day three because I cut that line. And by the way, this isn't a unilateral action by me. There are others who agree with me. So I'm not doing it with the backing of my own thoughts. Well, that's not a hard one.

Judea and Samaria, I mean, isn't there, I mean, it's been a long time since around the State Department, but I mean, I always thought there was like a, like there's a protocol to things, which in some cases is silly, but some cases is real. Like, do we refer to that region as Judea and Samaria or don't we? Like, this is something that's been gone over before, correct? Yeah, no, we don't. We don't. We don't.

We don't. We don't have. Secretary of it will be. did not use it. President Trump did not use it. Ambassador Huckabee has. Now, that's different. Did anyone ever ask Ambassador Hockaby? What

land specifically are you referring to when you say that? Not from what I've seen. Because reporters are morons, that's why. When someone asks like an obvious question, like Judean Samaria, where's that? Can you draw it for me on a map? Show me the boundaries of this place you're talking about. Well, even if they did ask, the lines wouldn't even

answer the question directly, right? Because in person, they should have asked him, yes, I agree. Yeah. What are you talking about? Where is that? Yeah. No one will ever ask that question.

And Ambassador Huckabee always had extreme comments either in person or on his Twitter account. But for most of my time at the State Department, the response would be, well, those are Ambassador Huckabee's words. So we do this dance. But now, now that I especially after firing me, you're getting an unleashed embassy Jerusalem. because who's going to do anything to stop them? Because they already had so much influence to begin with. But when I'm used as an example, they fire me as someone who did the very basic thing of cutting a line that did not make sense. It's also inconsistent with longstanding U.S. policy.

Right. And if you want to keep your job, who in the future is going to want to... Here's where you're confusing me. Now, I know that you say he's Mark Levin's stepson, but I mean, nobody takes Mark Levins seriously and no one watches his show. and like he's just not a real not a real person he's like an angry old man on twitter who cares who stepsonny is like why doesn't anyone say hey tell that millstein kid to shut the fuck up like that's not hard why doesn't someone do that honestly that was that was my question i did not know why people would like people would would acknowledge the pushiness but that's all i really got

no one ever told him to stop It was difficult to say no to them on a lot of cases. Why? And people did say no, but it took a lot of effort. So from my vantage point, I'm wondering why would someone have so much influence and why are people almost tiptoeing around it? It sounds like they were. Right? And you'd have to take a group effort of, okay, this bureau and this bureau don't want to put this statement out. And then it would go away. But that was it. So it's really a lot of this you think, based on your experience, was coming from this one guy.

Correct. Now, it was him, although you're right, that he does have limitations over his title, right? He can't, an advisor to Ambassador Huckabee, can't fire me. But he does have particular people on the seventh floor, when I mean my seventh floor is people around Secretary Rubio, that from my perspective, he looped in the neocons that were influential, and they had the power to do so. So he would rile them up. on Israel or me or whatever issue there was, and they would come down. So my firing didn't come from Milstein. Of course. It came from Sekirubio staff. And these are like a couple of Heritage Foundation guys who are on foreign policy. You can say, oh, President Trump, you know, he's going to have heritage guys there. That's his right as someone who won the election.

But if you listen to President Trump on foreign policy, it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of heritage guys around. you. So you said that Milstein, who is a nobody on the org chart, had sort of amazing power, including making personnel decisions effectively because he would just go over everyone's head along the chain, up to and including the seventh floor management level at the State Department and had influence with people on Secretary Rubio's staff. Do you know who? My understanding was that it was his deputy chief of staff that came down in order to essentially fire me. Now, I think that'd be Dan Holler, formerly of heritage.

Possible? Possible. Okay. Yeah. So you'd heard that. I heard that. But it was pretty clear to you that it was David Milstein, this assistant to the U.S. ambassador to a foreign country who was basically line editing. statements out of State Department of HQ.

Yeah, and it was another hint, too, was that I had flagged for the spokesperson's staff the intention to add Judaism area, just the FYI, if this happened, right? And the next day, which was Wednesday, instead of,

like, moving along, the staff asked, actually the acting spokesperson asked to speak with David Milsen about, the West Bank lines, but without me. And then the next day is when, Thursday is when people started coming down on me. So the way I pieced it together was that that conversation about West Bank lines and

Milstein being aware that I cut the Judea and Samaria line led to the Thursday, Friday, crackdown from the secretary's office. Just to be clear, again, putting Judea and Samaria in an official U.S. government communication is like using the term Narnia or something. It's not a real place. This is Fantasyland, and it's beneath a great power to even have dumb conversations like this. It opens the door to instability. It opens door to hurting our relationships significantly with our partners.

It doesn't serve U.S. interests at all. At all. Okay. Did anyone else at the State Department share these views? That crosses just as someone from D.C. Like, no, that crosses like a bright, bright line. Yeah, look, there are folks who might be close to that worldview, but from my personal interactions, Milstein was the farthest out there. Did, I have to ask this, but I just want to be clear, I don't think you should punish people for their relatives.

So I'm not mad at David Milstein because his stepfather is a douche. I mean, that's certainly not his fault at all. And neither is David Milstein, Mark Levin's fault. So I just want to be clear about that. I don't believe in collective punishment, unlike some other countries, like Israel, which is big on collective punishment. I oppose it completely as a Christian. So I'm not engaging in it here.

But did you ever see Mark Levin over there? Did he have any role in the operation of the State Department? I never came across anything. I think there was a lot happening above my head regardless. Even my firing, it's like embassy Jerusalem was contacting this guy who was then trying to crack down on me and then it's a mystery for a day or two why that's happening and then it becomes clear. So those conversations are concerning. And it makes me question like if we're talking about the Saudi speech in May of President Trump, how do we go from that kind of statement

to these kind of policies? And so that is my biggest question out of all of this, is why did this pivot happen and what does this mean for Israel policy moving forward? It's already extreme to begin with. Is it going to become even more radical? It already has. Does anybody else, I mean, are there other people at State Department? So, you know, you came in not as a former Trump staffer, but as someone who, as you've said, agreed with his basic impulse on foreign policy, which is like, hey, let's have more peace, less war. There must have been other people there who were like full-blown America first people, I would think, would hope. Did any of them ever say to you, this isn't really America first? It's true.

It's, look, people were happy after. Trump one when like, okay, we're getting Trump two, but we don't have John Bolton and Michael Payot and Nikki Haley back again, right? The issue is a lot of the personnel problems are still there, but at a more, it's like it's more subtle. Like an ambassador Huckabee to me is still part of that same grouping in terms of the damage it can do in our foreign policy, right? And, well, so give me an example of the damage you think Huckabee has done to. American foreign policy, since you paid close attention to his statements, and I really haven't. Well, it's the lack of accountability for, well, having Milisian around, adding Judaismaria,

you know, right? Like, these are your trusted senior advisors, right? And so there's that. There's the no follow-through on what happened in Tai Bay in the West Bank and what happened to the church in Gaza. It's our entire Israel policy. He goes out there. There were tweets from several weeks ago where he was attacking the U.K. Prime Minister, an ambassador was. He started calling the Prime Minister out for questioning Israel's conduct in Gaza. And he said, if you, something along the lines of, if it wasn't for Dresden, you'd all be speaking German. So greenlighting, the slaughter of Palestinians, essentially think it's okay, which was horrific language. He endorsed Dresden?

It's on Twitter It was horrific The bombing of Dresden? The way, yeah, he was comparing Dresden to what's happening in Gaza and saying I don't think there's anybody, it's hardly a pro-Hitler, I'm anti-Hitler for whatever it's worth

Just to be clear, it's It's hardly pro-Nazi to say that What the Allies did in the British Really mostly at Dresden was a war crime I mean nobody Nobody would say otherwise He endorsed Dresden bombing Who gives an ambassador

The Green Lines? to poke at a allies prime minister, the U.K., a true ally. And two, like the nonchalant attitude towards like the slaughter of people, both in Dresden or in comparing it to what's happening in Gaza, is, it's not, that's not the Christian view. You know, murdering innocence is always wrong, period. That is damaging. Who does it?

I despise the UK and its prime minister and I'm totally happy to urinate on both but it should be from the perspective of what's good for the United States, not what's good for another country. Like that's bonkers. That's really... Does anybody say anything about that?

Like internally? Is there any effort to... All the time. We're like, oh, people cringe at it when they saw those tweets. Well, so typically in an administration, you know, the ambassador serves the president

as his diplomat, you know, the chief diplomat in the country to which he's posted. And, you know, there are a million examples all the time of the ambassador

getting called back to Washington or getting a cable from D.C. Whoa, that's not our policy. You know, pull it in line with what the president's view is because that's who you work for. Right.

So if... And did anyone do that with Huckabee? Never. You have... He's representing Secretary Rubio. Secretary of Rubio is representing the president. and no one is stopping Ambassador Huckabee from going fully unleashed.

And that's why my very basic edits and suggestions from that week was such a red flag that they had to get rid of me immediately. What that means is that if we're not stopping Ambassador Huckabee at that level, that becomes policy. Yes, yes, that's right. Right? So that's it. And if I'm going to be fired for, for, for,

of what were or should be, and I think are President Trump's views, then things are moving in a more radical direction, and they will. Yeah, I mean, I guess I am for moving in a bunch of different radical directions, like banning high-interest loans. You know, I'm strongly for that. What I'm not in favor of is moving in radical directions on behalf of a foreign country whose interests are not the same as ours that are aligned in some things and diverge at other points, but they're not the same.

Why would you want to be radical on behalf of another country? Right. It makes no sense. Well, it's unpatriotic. It's totally wrong. And it's America last. It's also a form of treachery, I think, subverting our foreign policy on behalf of another country that I wasn't not a citizen in that country. It's my tax dollars.

What are you doing? Right? Right. And we did all of this. We're burning diplomatic capital left and right. Australia, the UK, Canada. with all these U.S. allies considering recognizing the Palestinian state

and we're going out there attacking them one by one on behalf of Israel, those are our partners. Is it worth... But we're also not... I mean, Dave, all those countries have basically eliminated human rights in their own countries. Eliminated freedom of speech,

freedom of movement, freedom of association. They've got political prisoners. It's crazy what those countries are doing to their own citizens. We don't say a word. But if they criticize a foreign, another country, then we attack them? Yeah, we have other issues we could discuss with them, but instead we choose to make Israel this odd red line.

And it takes a lot of diplomatic capital to attack your allies. We need them for so many things. It doesn't matter if it's trade or war or some resolution of the UN. This is terrific. So I just said I want to ask you a couple just policy questions. And I mean, and just if you don't mind, because they're speculative, but I just want to draw on information that you gleaned in your job at the State Department. What is, as non-emotional and clinical as you can be, what is the plan here with Gaza and the West Bank? What do you think?

I keep wondering like, okay, you know, every day it's a, no, we killed them, but it was a mistake or we thought they were Hamas. Okay, got it. But like, what is the plan? Are they really going to move 2 million people out of Gaza? Do you think that's actually going to happen? That's, this is what I'm afraid about. From the, on the West Bank, I think we were setting up annexation. And I think the news from the past couple of days shows that that's true.

What does annexation mean? There's going to be an Israeli takeover of the West Bank. And basically, Area C is what's supposed to be where the Palestinians had full control. Israelis want to take over that and call the entire West Bank and call it as part of Israel and then do the Palestinians live there get voting rights?

These are all questions that they have not answered and I don't believe anyone wants to answer. Why it's such an obvious question? I know. What's your plan? Why does no one ask that question? People even even the IDF in some occasions asked like hey, this is a military takeover what are we going to do?

Like, and the ministers don't care. For whatever it's worth, it's not my country and I'm not that interested, but I just notice that the IDF for all the grief that it takes has actually been a voice of restraint in Gaza and the West Bank, at least publicly. They're like, wait a second, you're asking us. They're just a military going into Gaza City. They're like, hey, this is going to be the same thing. They're just a military with a bunch of reservists, you know, some professionals,

but lots of reservists. And like every military, they kind of. want to know why they're putting their lives at risk. At least that's my read on it. Yeah, it's true. And that's a whole other discussion, but I am worried about the, like, political and direction of Israel. It's going to be more and more extreme, and those guardrails are gone.

But they're taking over the West Bank. We don't know what that looks like. It's extremely dangerous. But what's the pretext? Because, like, the residents of the West Bank had nothing to do with... the attacks on southern Israel, right? But it opens the door because you're so focused on Gaza and this is... But is there justification for it?

Is it like, they don't have any hostages in the West Bank, do they? No. No, there is no justification. What's awful is that instead of focusing on securing the release of the hostages or just securing their own country, they've used this entire war with nearly two years now to pursue opportunities. We're going to bomb Beirut and kill all these civilians. We're going to bomb Syria, kill civilians on too many occasions there,

the bombing raids on Yemen, start a potential war with Iran that if President Trump had an end in it, could have gone into a spiral. And so it's very dangerous that we're letting Israel take the front seat of our U.S. foreign policy when we have the power to end these wars. Well, we're paying for them. We're paying for them. And we paid for the, you know, the Israeli strikes on Iran. And I've said this to, you know, anyone who will listen.

I think this will end the Republican Party. I don't think they're going to get elected to anything anytime soon after this. If they don't pull back and establish independence from this, Israel, any other foreign power. It's not about Israel. It's about letting any other foreign country run your country. You can't have that. Everyone hates it. It's super unpopular and it's very obvious.

And if you want more Republicans in office, you can't act like this. Like, I think they're blowing up the party over this. That's my feeling. I'm saying this with love. Unlike you, I've been a pretty, I don't vote that much. But when I vote, it's Republican, you know? It's true. They voted for America first.

I wouldn't vote for this. No way. Absolutely. And think about the, on one end, it's the America first aspect that's very disappointing because this is America last in every possible way. And on the endless war front, every campaign, every winning presidential candidate said we're not going to get, we're trying to avoid these wars and they don't follow through.

And yet we're now funding this disaster in Gaza. But do you think that those, I mean, estimates fair, we don't know how people have been killed in Gaza? No one's allowed to find out. Yeah, 60K is definitely what's more than that. What do you think the real number is in Gaza? I've read other folks who give their estimates, and it's always 100,000, up a 200,000, even more.

So the numbers that I've seen on the estimate scale are horrific. Do our intel agencies have good estimates on this? I would imagine. But those haven't percolated down to the State Department at your level anyway. Yeah. No, absolutely not. and I wish we could be discussing this. And I'm also horrified, not just from the sheer numbers of killed.

It's the lingering psychological effect of these poor civilians, like children who've lost limbs, children who lost parents, the damage is going to be decades and decades long. For sure. And there will be radicalism, you know, and probably including violence. And I just pray it's not directed against the United States, but I fear that it will be. but that leaves what 2 million people still in Gaza Palestinians, mostly Muslim but also

Christians, what happens to them? I just keep wondering what happens to them. The policy, the comments, the policies have always shown a certain disdain. It's like, oh, we'll pay them off for them to move out. They're not actually starving. It's all these, not only are they getting

bombed and and lose their homes and their fame members, they're being, like, thrown around, like, this annoyance. And it's horrible. But just based on the reporting, it looks like we are trying to push them out to a different country. Every two months, there's a new rumor. It seems like we're talking to these other countries in Africa.

The U.S. government is? Well, it depends on each specific case. There has been reporting that Israel's trying to do this on their own. And if we're involved, And there's also been some reporting on whether our own government officials have spoken with, like, the living government as well. So do you think it's possible that U.S. government officials have talked to foreign governments about accepting the population of Gaza as refugees? Do you think that's possible? Yes.

Do you think that happened? It's probable. That's disgusting. I mean, that's just, like, shocking to me. I don't want to believe that could be true. Yeah. Why are we doing that? What do we have to do with this?

Right. And it's always about our diplomatic power. Like Israel's diplomatic power is limited, but who can get these objectives done? We can. So that's why... In our last act is a superpower. Yeah. That's why these officials from embassy Jerusalem are dangerous because they're, that connection is being made.

Right on... Like you commit a trial. Well, first of all, Mike Huckabee endorsing Dresden. that, you know, I just refer you to the New Testament. That is not permitted for Christians to be in favor. That just, it's just not even close. So I don't know why, I know Huckabee, I've always liked him. I don't know what in the world.

If he actually said that, I don't know what he was thinking. I'm going to look it up the second we get off this interview. But that's really shocking to me that he would say something like that. But in general, there's been a coarsening, I think, of people watching this stuff, celebrating pager attacks and people getting their dicks blown off. stuff i mean like why would we celebrate that yeah but ben shapiro was on there jumping up and down with glee when that happened so it's it's it's a it's a indictment of like our soul why are why did we lose his ability to empathize if you think it's thrilling that a country would

indiscriminately detonate explosives in people's pockets so they don't know who's holding those things actually they don't know who's standing next to them if you think that's great you know um Children died. Oh, I know. You know, anyway, I'm really sickened by it, and I'm infuriated by the requirement to celebrate it. Right. Why are we in this era of, like, celebrating these violent attacks and celebrating a new weapon that comes out? But each time there's a diplomatic endeavor to end a war, it's so controversial and so heavy, and people, it's sold to people in such a negative way.

So that dichotomy is a true problem where... As empires die, people go crazy. This is one of the things that's pretty consistent through history. They lose their sense of reality and they become violence worshippers. And I just hate to see it happening to this country that I love so much and that I'm never leaving. But like, this is really dark. Yeah. So dark.

It is dark. So you don't know, bottom line, what the plan is for the population of Gaza or the West Bank. Yeah. I do know they cut my line on forced displacement. and now there's new reporting on them moving them out of Gaza. So it's not headed into the right direction. So America is for forced displacement. I think this country was found out of people.

This is so bonkers. Okay. Last question. What was your firing like? Do they explain to you why you were being let go? No, never explained anything to me. I, and technically I heard the N.A., my bureau, nearest affairs, technically never heard either.

So really came from up top. So, very odd. I did ask me about that line. That's the only hint that we have. Look, the State Department with all the issues that it has, does have amazing patriotic Americans working there every day. I work with them. They're trying their best.

They're doing their work. They're smart. And I miss working with them. I was someone that was well established in the building with political appointees and civil servants and they just pulled the rug out of from under me out of the blue over what I explained to you earlier which was pretty basic stuff

and on the Sunday I believe it was August 17th lost access and then I got a text from my contractor letting me know. Did you call, have you called David Milstein to ask what happened? I have not. I have not. maybe we should call him after this could

look this whole situation was so unexpected like I was just living my life going to work every single day five days a week I was doing a lot of overtime I drafted tweets that Secretary Rubio put out

including I was up at 11 p.m. 12 a.m. The horrific killing of those two Israeli diplomats I was the one who was up in the middle of the night drafting a tweet for that to come out. The ones were murdered in the U.S. Correct. Yeah. Awful. So I was there for all these moments and working alongside people with different political backgrounds.

And to know that these folks just without discussing with me, without getting to know me, about talking to me, saw those lines and they were like gone. and it's awful. And just in the office itself, it just puts this chilling effect for everybody, you know? So I will miss those colleagues, but they're good people and they're going to... I mean, the interest of the United States should be the beginning and the end of the concern of the State Department. Yep. Period. Absolutely.

So I appreciate you're taking the time to do this. Thank you for talking to me. Thank you. We want to thank you for watching us on Spotify, a company that we use every day. We know the people who run it, good people. While you're here, do us a favor. Hit follow and tap the bell so you never miss an episode. We have real conversations, news, things that actually matter.

Telling the truth always, you will not miss it if you follow us on Spotify and hit the bell. We appreciate it. Thanks for watching.