The Young Turks - All Tuckered Out

Episode Date: April 12, 2024

Jury finds Florida man featured in viral video guilty of driving under the influence. The US sees a missile strike on Israel by Iran and Proxies as imminent. Dan Crenshaw brutally attacks ""click chaser"" Tucker Carlson: ""Cowardly, know-nothing elitist."" " HOST: Ana Kasparian (@anakasparian) SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE: ☞ https://www.youtube.com/user/theyoungturks FACEBOOK: ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER: ☞ https://www.twitter.com/theyoungturks INSTAGRAM: ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK: ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕 Merch: https://shoptyt.com ❤ Donate: http://www.tyt.com/go 🔗 Website: https://www.tyt.com 📱App: http://www.tyt.com/app 📬 Newsletters: https://www.tyt.com/newsletters/ If you want to watch more videos from TYT, consider subscribing to other channels in our network: The Watchlist https://www.youtube.com/watchlisttyt Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey https://www.youtube.com/indisputabletyt The Damage Report ▶ https://www.youtube.com/thedamagereport TYT Sports ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytsports The Conversation ▶ https://www.youtube.com/tytconversation Rebel HQ ▶ https://www.youtube.com/rebelhq TYT Investigates ▶ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNJt9PYyN1uyw2XhNIQMMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Welcome to TYT, I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and we have a fantastic show ahead for you today. Today was not a slow news day. Let's just start there. We have conservative on conservative violence. Not really, but Tucker Carlson, of all people, is getting a lot of backlog.

from his fellow conservatives, and it's because of an interview that he conducted with a Palestinian Christian. We're going to get to that later in the first hour of the show. We're also going to talk about something that is foreshadowing potentially and devastating if it actually does come to fruition. The intelligence community here in the United States is concerned that Iran is planning a retaliatory attack against Israel, which of course would lead to a broader war, a war that that would not be easy to win. And a war that we would certainly be dragged into. So we're gonna talk about it that in the first hour as well.

Later in the show, we'll talk about Trump's legal team and making a terrible yet hilarious mistake. So that'll be in the second hour. You don't wanna miss that. But as always, just wanna encourage you all to like and share the stream if you're watching us live on YouTube. You can also help to support the show by becoming a member by going to t.yt.com slash join or just smash that

join button if you're watching us on YouTube. In fact, yesterday I didn't ask me anything with our members and answer their questions to celebrate my 17 years here at TYT. There were some questions I didn't get to, so we're actually going to extend that and have another day of a bonus episode where I do and ask me anything. So for our members, certainly check that out immediately after our main show. And if you're not a member, you can participate, you can engage, and you can watch by going to TYT.com slash join or clicking on that join button.

All right, without further ado, I wanted to begin today's show with a story that honestly, I see a lot of people, unfortunately, being misled on, and it's because of a highly edited video. I don't think that people are putting out misinformation intentionally. I think they're basing their analysis on some highly edited videos. And for our purposes today, I just wanted to set the record straight since I have sat down and I have, like, reviewed all of the evidence, including a lengthy body cam. video. So let's get to that story. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury in a

viral drunk driving case out of Tallahassee, Florida, has found a 56-year-old man by the name of Calvin Riley, guilty of driving under the influence. Now you must be wondering, why are you covering this story? Who cares? It's a driving under the influence case. It's not that big of a deal. It turns out that the story did go viral when the arrest was made last year in 2023. And it was because a portion of the body cam footage, which was highly edited, made it appear as though one of the officers on the scene had planted evidence on Mr. Riley. And so when you look at the raw, unedited footage of the body cam, you, the body cam video,

you see something entirely different. And I think it's important to set the record straight. So first, it's worth noting that there were some obvious indicators that Calvin Riley was in fact driving while under the influence. In fact, I grabbed a still frame from the body cam footage itself because when he was pulled over, he didn't pull over on the side of the road, he pulled over in the middle of the road, which is a strange thing to do to say the least. So that was the first, well, not the first sign. That was one of the signs that he was in fact driving under the influence. He was pulled over, as you can see, and if you take a look at the initial interaction that the officer in this case, which is Tallahassee Police Department Officer Kirsten Oliver,

and the way that she spoke to Mr. Riley, you get a sense of what their interaction was like, of course, but you also get a sense of why she decided to pull him over in the first place. So let's take a look at the first clip, and then I'll fill in the blanks. Yes, sir. So you don't have any headlights on, and you're going really fast down on the road street. Headlight? My headlights are all the back. They're on when I'm driving. They're not on right now. Are you sure about that? Yes, sir.

No problem. So I think she handled that. The way that a police officer should, when they pull someone over, he asked her, hey, why are you pulling me over? Why are you slowing me down is what he asked her. And she very clearly stated, look, you were driving very quickly and erratically, and you have your headlights off. And he seemed to be unaware of the fact that his headlights are off. I have to be honest, there have been instances where my headlights were off and I didn't realize it. That's not necessarily an indication that you're drunk.

but the interaction that followed kind of made it abundantly clear that he was under the influence. So let's take a look at the next clip because, well, before we do, let me give you some more context. So Riley was unable to provide a driver's license. Okay, so that was another issue. And ultimately, that ended up being the reason why he was arrested. We're going to get to that in just a second. Now, despite the narrative that he was originally pulled over because the officer smelt pot. As you just heard in that interaction, that was not the reason why he was pulled over. The officer clearly communicated with him that the stop was due to his driving, his fast driving, and the fact that the headlights were turned off. The officer then speaks to a secondary officer

who arrived on the scene and makes clear that the stop was made for a specific purpose. So let's take a look at that. He didn't have lights on. He's flying down Monroe Street. And when I went to pull him over. He like started to get over and then came back over and then like is kind of like hovering and then stop. So if you'll just see if you can see it. So he's got suspended. It's Calvin Riley. Yeah. So I'm going to ask him that's why he doesn't have driver's license because he knows it's suspended. So she notes there that he didn't provide a driver's license because he knows that it's suspended. That is ultimately the reason why he he is put in handcuffs.

We're gonna get to that video in a moment. But first, some more details, more context. The secondary officer at that point goes to speak to Mr. Riley and basically try to find out whether he was in fact under the influence. So let's take a look at how that went down. Yeah, he said he's coming from pockets and he had beers at pockets. Oh, he didn't tell me that? I asked him that because he originally said the north side and he said we're out on the north side and he said pockets.

See, he told me he was coming from Brevard Street. Holy crap, it scared me. So he did say he had beers at buckets. Do you get any other indications? I mean, his speech is a slurred. Yeah. He's got the watery bloodshot eyes and I do have odor. So at that point, the secondary police officer went to speak to him,

asked if he had been drinking that night. He told her that he went to a sports bar known as pockets, and pub. He confessed to drinking a few beers. And at that point, they ask him if he is willing to do a field sobriety test. Let's take a look. I want to go into the beers that you said you had. Yeah. Would you be willing to do some voluntary fees to the exercises? No. Okay. Here, go ahead and step out of the vehicle for us. The declines the tests and is asked to step out of the vehicle. He will now be taken into custody for driving with a suspended license.

Your license is suspended, so we're gonna. No problem. So as you can see, the reason why they put him in handcuffs and they placed him under arrest is because of the fact that he was driving without a valid license, he had a suspended license. And so a search of his vehicle has not even taken place at this point. He is already arrested, okay? Okay? With that in mind, Riley did decline to do a field sobriety test, but things after that start to get a little bit heated because one of the officers indicates that she can smell

marijuana. He denies that he has any marijuana on him. That's where he gets a little upset. Let's take a look at how that went down. So I smell marijuana on your vehicle. Did you recently smell? No, let me tell you so, man. Let me tell you so. I don't know. You know what you see it's just about wrong, right? Yeah. I don't want to smoke so what. But you come with that.

That's a little flow. Okay. Okay. Do you have an American marijuana card? No, I don't smoke nothing. I don't smoke nothing. Okay. So you find that dude.

That's my money right there for my job. I got you. So let me tell yourself. You see my back in my shirt. What's that told? I show you are on my ball. You understand what I'm saying? So what you're saying is,

What I'm saying is you smell marijuana. You're alive. Now they did eventually do a search of his vehicle. They did not find marijuana, but I did want to show that video mostly because of, you know, what the police officer said she smelled, how he reacted to it. I think it's also important to hear how he's speaking because that was one of the other indicators that he was potentially under the influence when he was behind the wheel in that car. So at that point, they decide to

So at that point, they decide to basically figure out if they have what's necessary to search his car, probable cause. So they suspect that he's drunk, but do they have enough, you know, enough reasons to believe that he is under the influence to justify them searching the vehicle? And they have a conversation about that. That's what you're going to hear in the next video. Let's take a look. Wow, he wreaks of alcohol. Is there enough, like before that? Okay, so they're talking about it. Is there enough? And they, at that point, feel that they have enough evidence indicating that he was likely drinking and driving or under the influence of something and driving, right? Remember, one of the police officers spoke to him. He said that he had been at a bar. He had a few beers. He pulled over in the middle of the road. He had been driving erratically. So all of those things led them to feel that they had the probable cause necessary to search his vehicle. And

At that point, they decide to search his vehicle. So let's take a look at how that search went down in the raw, unedited body cam footage. There's nothing in there. I don't know. Smell this. It's all like alcohol. Yep. So at first, the first thing that they find is a

tumbler with alcohol in it. So that was another indication that he had been drinking and driving. Now what you're about to watch is the most controversial part of the body cam footage because in the video that was released earlier, the one that was heavily edited, it appeared as though, one of the officers had planted evidence in the car, meaning she had planted an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, right? So let's take a look at what actually happened, and then I'll fill in the blanks and explain a little more when we come back. Hey, there's vodka in his seat, like right here in a pouch in his seat.

Vodka was found. In this pouch in his seat. So right there, you see that she did in fact discover a small bottle of vodka in the vehicle, right? in a pouch in his seat. So she takes it out, she shows it, keep in mind she's wearing a body cam. If you're gonna plant evidence, you probably shouldn't be wearing a body cam or you should turn the body cam off. But then she makes a bad decision.

And I will say it's a bad decision because she shouldn't have done this. Now some police departments have a policy of if you find alcohol in a vehicle, right? You pour it out before you impound the car. I don't know if that's the policy for the Tallahassee Police Department, but that is what everyone saw in the initial video that went viral, right? They see her take that bottle of vodka and essentially pour it out and then place it back in the vehicle. And they felt the people who have been criticizing these two police officers felt that that

was evidence of them planting evidence in his vehicle. So here's that moment, let's take a look. The officer who believed the bottle was already opened, broke the seal. She proceeded to follow department practice, which is to discard open alcohol. All the contents of the bottle were emptied. The officer put the bottle back into the vehicle as it held no evidentiary value. And so that was the moment that led to all sorts of rumors, allegations against the police officers who had responded to this incident, who had pulled him over. And officer Oliver, right?

So one of the officers, the one who initially pulled him over, opened a bottle of vodka, a bottle that had never been opened before. This is what the defense attorney had said during the trial. You hear her break the seal, which is true, pour it out, which is true, and put it back in the car, which is true. Then she used that evidence against him. That part is not true. That bottle of alcohol was not used as evidence against him.

There were all sorts of other things that they had found that were used as evidence against him in this trial, and it was persuasive enough for the jury to make a decision that he was guilty after deliberating for under two hours. But understand that he was not arrested for having an open container of alcohol in his vehicle. He was arrested for driving with a suspended license. He was pulled over because he was driving erratically, which I am honestly willing to believe considering he pulled over in the middle of the road, and he didn't pull over on the shoulder or on the side of the road.

And, you know, I just, I just think that there was a lot of context missing in the original reporting of this story, and I can totally understand why people would be misled by that incomplete reporting. But when you look at the full body cam footage, and we will link to you. to it in the description box of this video so you can watch the whole video for yourself. You see how everything really went down and there's really no indication that anyone planted any evidence to incriminate this man. It appears that he is in fact under the influence. Now according to CNN during the trial, the officer admitted opening the bottle and putting it

back in the car was a mistake. She and another responding officer denied the bottle was used as evidence to support the DUI charge. And again, to be clear, there were other factors that were used as evidence to support the DUI charge. And also the arguments about the open container of alcohol being planted makes no sense since Riley was never even charged with having an open container of alcohol in his vehicle. Originally, Riley was charged with driving under the influence and driving with a suspended or revoked license. That latter charge was dropped during the trial. jurors had to decide whether Riley was the operator of the vehicle and if prosecutors proved he

was impaired at the time of his arrest. And apparently prosecutors did a decent job in proving that because the jury did in fact find him guilty. And they look, here's here's what they use. This is what they turned to to make their case, right? He admitted to them on the scene that he had been drinking. The fact that he pulled over in the middle of the road shows that he was inebriated. Okay, he was slurring his speech in the video as well. Obviously, if you watch the full body camp footage, you'll hear more of him speaking and conversing with the officers and you can hear his slurred speech. Now before sentencing, Riley apologized and took responsibility, which I think is also a missing piece to this story that doesn't get reported. So this was right before he was

sentenced. Here's what he had to say while he was in court. I accept responsibility to being upset and that's not emotion to get over like judgment or just being a person and staying calm. Like I said before, I was only going through this emotional stuff because the past I didn't. through law enforcement, and what I started going through that night with these officers, it was just a repeat of what I experienced going up here. And it made me very upset and angry. And if anyone was hurt in that moment, I'll fire that by the same time I was hurt too.

Now, as for his punishment, remember he's drinking and driving, they found him guilty. Well, what did he, what was he sentenced to? Riley, 56, was sentenced to spend 10 days in the Leon County Jail. He was also sentenced to six months of probation. As part of his sentence, Riley must also attend a DUI course, perform 50 hours of community service, participate in random breathalyzer tests, and his driver's license will be suspended for six months, which I think is a perfectly fine punishment considering how serious it is when someone decides to get behind the wheel when they are drunk.

Because at that point, it's not just about their behavior, possibly impacting them and their life because they could very easily crash, cause an accident. But obviously, it's an incredibly selfish decision because there are other people on the road. And I personally have lost someone that I've known to a drunk driver. So drunk driving is a serious thing. and to provide cover for anyone who's drunk driving or to minimize the severity of that issue in order to engage in what I've been seeing online about this man and about this case,

I think is just unacceptable, right? I feel like the drunk driving really took a back seat and the seriousness of drunk driving took a back seat in this story because the focus was on the race of the police officer who pulled him over because she was a white woman, and the race of Riley, a black man. And I think that when you see everything through the lens of race, sometimes it can blind you to what the facts are. And what the facts are in this case is that a man made a decision to get drunk, get behind the wheel of a vehicle, and drive erratically in early morning hours. And I did not see a moment in that body cam footage and I watched it from beginning to end showing the officers disrespect him or in any way violate his rights. But that is not the narrative that you're going to hear from one half of the political spectrum that is just absolutely convinced that they planted evidence in this man's vehicle.

Remember, he had a tumbler with alcohol in it. It wasn't just about the bottle of vodka, and the bottle of vodka was not used as evidence against him in this trial. Now, some people have been critical of the police officers because a few minor details of these interaction were changed after they had filed their police report on it. But when you're in the moment of it, right? Sometimes when you're having a conversation or you're explaining to the other officer, what you experienced, you might not get every single detail correct, right? That's why it's important to review the body cam footage and when you put the details in a police report, you get those details correct.

So there was a moment where she was speaking to another officer and she had said that there was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. There was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. It was the Tumblr, probably what she was referring to. She believed that the closed bottle, the sealed bottle of vodka was in fact opened, but it wasn't. I mean, you can hear it click open as she breaks the seal. But again, if we're going to be hyper focused on that one thing, which is the bottle of vodka, what that ends up doing is it ends up ignoring all of the other evidence surrounding this case,

which made it abundantly clear that Riley was in fact drunk behind the wheel. So I think this is a teachable moment because it's important to wait and see. what the full details of a specific case or a specific story happened to be. I know that people get real fired up about these stories and they want to jump on it immediately. Try to avoid doing that, wait until you have access to the full body cam footage and don't rely on highly edited videos that other people put out there as they narrate to you what they believe happened. And one final thing I'll say about this. This is one of the viral cases that's now being used to make an

an argument that police officers should no longer be allowed to do traffic stops. I think that would be a disastrous policy. I think that would be a terrible idea in Los Angeles where the city council is in fact unfortunately considering this. We're currently dealing with things like street takeovers. We're dealing with hit and run incidents where pedestrians are getting hit by cars, by drivers who then flee the scene. The idea that we don't need police officers to do traffic stops.

is absolutely ridiculous. And in place of police officers, they want these unarmed ambassadors to do the traffic stops. Completely ignoring the fact that we live in a country that is swimming with guns. We've got a ton of guns. We have a ton of people who have guns in their vehicles.

The idea that we're going to have like unarmed community ambassadors do traffic stops to me is a ridiculous idea. If we have issues with policing, if we want to provide better training and reforms, we should focus on that. on that. But the idea of doing away with policing overall is just not something that I can get behind. And I certainly will not get behind the idea of using a case like this that was misreported

wildly as an excuse for pursuing those types of policies. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll get into the potential war with Iran and what our intelligence community is saying. That and more coming up, don't miss it. What's up, everyone, welcome back to the show. Before I get to some international news and a potential broader regional war in the Middle East, She just wanted to read Morgan's super chat and thank him or her, I'm not sure, for this comment. Facts matter, truth matters. Everyone must continue to examine their biases.

Thanks for reporting on context, Anna, progressive values for the win. And you're right, for me, progressive values mean that we try to seek the truth, try to seek what the reality of every incident that we talk about really is. And for me personally, my responsibility is not to any political group or any activist group. My responsibility is to the audience. I can't live with myself knowing that I've misled you guys in any way. So if I ever get anything wrong and you have proof that I've gotten it wrong, please keep me accountable and let me know because I don't want to mislead you guys or report on anything inaccurately.

But thank you for that comment and I appreciate the support. Well, let's talk a little bit about what the intelligence community is alleging about Iran and an imminent attack against Israel. The wicked Zionist regime made another mistake and staged an attack on Iran's consulate, which means an attack on the country's soil, a violation of international norm. It made a mistake, and the regime needs to be punished and will be punished. The United States and its allies believe Iran, or its proxies, may soon launch an attack against targets in Israel as retaliation for Israel strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria just last week. Now, it would be a giant escalation of war, and it would put the Middle

East at risk of a significantly broader regional war. Now, we should be careful in considering the allegations coming from anonymous intelligence sources. I'm always super skeptical of anonymous sources coming from the intelligence community, especially after Americans were misled into a preemptive war in Iraq using, with the media using anonymous intelligence sources. But nonetheless, with that in mind, let's get to what's being reported. So the potential assault, possibly using high precision missiles, may happen in coming days. People familiar with the intelligence said requesting anonymity to discuss confidential matters. It is seen as more a matter of when, not if, one of the people said, based on assessments

from U.S. and Israeli intelligence. Now also keep in mind that even before this current war on Gaza, Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu in particular have been trying to egg the United States on in engaging in a hot war with Iran. This has been ongoing for many years now. Netanyahu succeeded in persuading Donald Trump to rip up the, Iran nuclear deal, which unfortunately led to worse relations between the United States and Iran and also allowed for Iran, because there's no longer oversight and there's no longer in Iran nuclear deal, it allowed for Iran to continue developing nuclear weapons.

I mean, there's really nothing stopping them at this point, right? The Iran nuclear deal being torn to shreds by Trump was actually a terrible, terrible decision. Now, Iran's main proxy group, Hezbollah, which is based in southern Lebanon, has in fact been trading fire with the IDF almost daily since the war in Gaza began. But the Iranian military itself, this is important, has not carried out attacks. Iran's military has not carried out attacks. And while, yes, it is true that Iran funds these proxy groups, including Hezbollah, I think it would be a mistake to assume that Iran directed Hezbollah to do those attacks against Israel. It does appear that Iran has lost a little

bit of control over these proxy groups. And if we're going to attack Iran militarily and use the proxy groups as an excuse, I think we need real evidence indicating that Iran directed these groups to target Israel. And we haven't seen any of that evidence at all. Now, this threat comes in the wake of a strike on an Iranian consulate building in the capital of Syria, which was widely believed to be carried out by Israel, although they haven't explicitly taken responsibility for it. That strike ended up killing high-ranking officials within the Iranian military, and it also left 12 people total dead.

Now, in a speech yesterday, Ayatollah Khomeini made clear that they did plan to seek revenge. So to be fair to the intelligence community that's worried about an attack, being imminent, Iran's really not doing itself any favors because they're saying that they're planning on attacking Israel. Let's take a look. Oh, wait, actually, before we do, he also criticized the West, particularly the United States and Britain for supporting Israel in its war on Gaza. He said this, quote, it was expected they would prevent Israel in this disaster. They did not. They did not fulfill their duties, the Western governments, he said. Now, that is likely why the White House is worried that Iran might strike a U.S. target,

according to reporting from the intercept, but it is believed that should Iran actually follow through with these threats. Should they do a direct strike or target the United States or Israel? Well, they would very likely target specific, you know, military infrastructure. they would have specific targets rather than going after, you know, civilian areas. So here's more on the various potential ways Iran could carry out an attack. Let's look. There's concern, especially now coming also from the Pentagon. We're hearing that this attack could happen as early as this week.

So the military is not high alert. The question is how would Iran retaliate? And there are several options. One is to use its proxies, and like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the militias in Iraq, we've seen some of that already. Or they could perhaps strike at Israeli diplomatic missions abroad, or they could send drones and ballistic missiles from Iran itself targeting Israel. Now, if that happens, then we're really talking about a huge major escalation, the danger

of a major regional war and the U.S. could also get drawn into that. No, the U.S. would 100% be drawn into that. Israel would not be able to fight that war on its own. So the United States would be involved, but not simply through sending more military weaponry to Israel. I mean, that would certainly happen for sure. But we would need to have boots on the ground. Literally. If there is a hot war between Iran and Israel, the U.S. would go. get involved and the US would absolutely, considering Iran's military capability, would absolutely need to risk the lives of our men and women in that war. Now, think about what is leading to these threats of an attack from Iran. It was Israel carrying out a strike on an Iranian consulate

in Syria. Obviously, that is going to have repercussions. Obviously. But the United States keeps enabling this kind of behavior from Israel, knowing full well that it could lead to an expanded broader regional war in the Middle East that would require American troops on the ground. It is incredibly irresponsible, yet it is something that has continued to be enabled by the Biden administration. week, Israel scrambled navigational signals over the Tel Aviv metropolitan area in preparation for potential attack. Who's winning here?

Who's winning here? Poor people living in Tel Aviv terrified of an imminent attack by Iran after their government decided to do a strike in Syria. Is Israel at war with Syria? Is it okay for Israel to just do their strikes wherever they want and we're just going to continue providing the weapons for it, knowing full well that it could lead to an expanded regional war? Are we as Americans comfortable with our engagement in a broader regional war in the Middle East? Biden was asked about the possibility of a retaliatory strike from Iran, and he, of course,

promised to do what we all expect him to do. Back up Israel no matter what. Let's watch. We also want to address the Iranian threat to launch a significant, they're threatening to launch a significant attack on Israel. As I told Prime Minister Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel's security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad. Let me say it again, ironclad. We're gonna do all we can to protect Israel's security. What about the U.S. security? What about the security of the men and women who are in our military? Are we concerned about their security? Are we at all worried about dragging them into a war that could have been prevented?

I guess not. I guess their security doesn't matter. In fact, the U.S. is already getting involved, according to reporting from Axios, they write that General Eric Carilla, the senior U.S. military commander in charge of the Middle East, is expected to go to Israel Thursday, meaning today, to coordinate around a possible attack on Israel and Iran, and its proxies to Israeli officials said. Now, the general will meet with the Israeli defense minister, Yoav Galant, and senior IDF officials. And over the past few days, Israel and the United States have also been, they've been coordinating with one another on joint air and missile defense in the region. That's according to an Israeli official who spoke to Axios.

And of course, Israel is also saying that if Iran attacks on their soil, they will attack Iran on their soil. Yoav Golan said during a visit to an Iron Dome Missile Defense Unit in Israel, quote, whoever tries to attack us will be faced with strong defense and right after with strong response in its territory. Obviously with the help of the United States supplying them with the weapons to further escalate this conflict. And Netanyahu double down telling pilots that he visited an F-15, that he visited at an F-15 base, we set a simple principle. Anyone who hits us, we hit them. But you guys, you guys did a strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria.

Like, does Israel ever take responsibility for its actions? Ever. Is that ever allowed? Is that ever allowed? That's never allowed, I guess. That's never allowed. Right? We're all going to pretend.

Let's say Iran, and I really hope they don't. I really do. I really hope they avoid doing this because it would be a disaster. But if Iran decides to do a strike against Israel on their soil, is the American press going to get together and have the same narrative about how like, oh, where did this come from? Iran just hates Israel and just came out of nowhere. It didn't come out of nowhere.

It didn't come out of nowhere. I'm going to read Benjamin Netanyahu's statement again. We set a simple principle. Anyone who hits us, we hit them. We are ready to fulfill our responsibilities to Israel's security in defense and attack. Were you ready on October 7th, Netanyahu? Was he ready to defend and protect Israeli civilians on October 7th? He wasn't ready.

I mean, he had no problem funding Hamas, funneling money to Hamas. He had no problem doing that. He had no problem ensuring that IDF soldiers were guarding illegal settlements in the West Bank, which led to a situation in which Hamas terrorists were carrying out atrocities on October 7th for hours before the IDF could even respond to it. Because they thought, we've got, we've got Gaza under control. We don't need to worry about Gaza. Let's send our IDF soldiers over to the West Bank to ensure that those illegal settlements that were built by Settlers are protected.

Why did it take six hours for the IDF to respond to those atrocities to protect Israeli civilians? I want to know, how come that's never talked about? Netanyahu puffing up his chest and pretending like he's the savior, the protector, the defender of Israeli civilians is real rich considering the fact that he funded Hamas. And now he is hell bent on dragging the United States and our men and women in our military in a regional war, in a hot war with Iran, which would not be a joke considering their military capability. Insanely irresponsible, not just of Netanyahu, which at this point I have come accustomed to. I expect it from Netanyahu. But incredibly irresponsible behavior from our

own president from Joe Biden. Has there been any condemnation for the strikes that the IDF has done in other sovereign countries, which is escalating the situation? No, of course not. We keep sending them the weapons. And there's a price to pay for that. Unfortunately, the people who usually pay the price are ordinary Americans who serve in our military. We got to take a break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone, special thanks to our member Stiff Upper Lib, who writes in and says, I was thinking of watching ABC, CBS, or NBC for my news tonight, but Anna seems to be holding her own, I'll stay here instead. I hope I don't let you down. So I hope you're still here. I hope

you're watching and thank you for supporting what we're doing here at TYT. All right, well, I wanted to get to a fascinating story involving a big blow up between conservatives. In this case, you have conservatives speaking out against Tucker Carlson of all people. What? And it really had to do with an interview he recently conducted. Let's take a look. A consistent but almost never noted theme of American foreign policy is that it is always the Christians who suffer. When there's a war abroad that the United States is funding, it is Christians who tend to die disproportionately. There is virtually never a word about the Christians who live there, the ancient Christian community in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel proper. So because no one has said a word, there has been

great suffering among the Christian population in that region in October of Greek Orthodox church in the Gaza Strip was hit by an airstrike. We're showing the video now. Tucker Carlson is getting a lot of backlash from his fellow conservatives after he decided to conduct an interview with a Palestinian Lutheran pastor by the name of Dr. Munther Isaac. You might be familiar with him.

We actually did cover a few stories involving him. He's a pastor in Bethlehem. And during Christmas, he was the one who had Jesus, Jesus surrounded by like a little Jesus doll surrounded by rubble to basically draw attention to what Palestinians in Gaza are facing. He did that in lieu of a nativity scene. And so he has gotten some press attention in the past. But the fact that Tucker Carlson sat down with him and spoke to him about what Palestinian

Christians are going through currently is what has led to a lot of the backlash. Now, the discussion engaged many on the right, or I should say, enraged many on the right, including Representative Dan Crenshaw, and we're going to get to his statements in just a moment. But before we do, why don't we take a look at some of the clips of the conversation that Tucker Carlson had with Isaac, and then we'll fill in the blanks, get to some details about the reality on the ground for Christians in Israel, in the West Bank, in Gaza. Let's get to it. We continue to be horrified by what we hear from Congress with, of course, some exceptions. There are some in the democratic side.

Of course, Rashida Tlebe comes from a Palestinian heritage. But when you look at the so-called religious right, we receive no sympathy whatsoever. Tucker in this war, there was pastors who openly called, for example, to turn Gaza into a parking lot. It's not about one political party or the other. I remember even during the Trump administration, we pleaded as a Christian community. We pleaded that moving the embassy doesn't help. We pleaded that a peace treaty with other Arab countries, as much as I want to see peace, if you don't start with the Palestinians, is not going to help.

But again, it seems our perspective is never taken seriously. And look now, we're paying the results of years and years and years of, American foreign policy, there is a very, very brutal war taking place in Gaza, a war that I described using the word genocide, because it's a war that has used even starvation as a mean. And fellow Christians are suffering because of that war. Now look, obviously, when it comes to the suffering of Palestinians, the vast majority of the majority of them happen to be, you know, of Muslim faith. That has gotten the majority of the attention. And the fact that Tucker Carlson is drawing attention to Christian

Palestinians, I believe, is upsetting conservatives who are hardliners in supporting Israel. Because it leads to a level of cognitive dissonance to some extent, right? I feel that Muslims, Palestinian Muslims specifically have been demonized and dehumanized so effectively in the discourse here in the United States, that it's kind of easy to justify what Israel is doing because quite honestly, the way I hear people talk about Palestinians, it's almost as if their lives don't matter. They're not as important, right? It's worth taking out entire families if Israel suspects that there's a single Hamas militant hiding among them. And that to me, again, really communicates to the world, okay, well, the lives of those innocent Palestinian civilians

just don't matter enough or don't matter as much. Would the IDF do the same thing if there was a family of Israeli civilians who were being held hostage by a single Hamas militant? Would they just bomb that house? I mean, I doubt it. But what this conversation drew attention to was the persecution of Palestinians who are not Muslim. The persecution of Palestinians who happen to be Christian, and as we know, in America, the conservative right has a soft spot for Christian. So I think that's part of what led to so much of the backlash that Tucker Carlson is getting for having this sit down interview. Look, I'm not going to sit here and say, I agreed with everything in that interview, or I agree with everything this Lutheran pastor

has said in the past. I haven't consumed or listened to everything he's said in the past. But I do feel that given what I heard in this interview, the weird backlash that you're seeing from conservatives isn't really fueled by the, you know, content of the interview itself. It's more about the fact that Tucker Carlson is drawing attention to Palestinian Christians and the persecution that they have experienced. With that said, and as for Tucker's commentary, this clip from later in the interview is what has apparently attracted the most attention. If you wake up in the morning and decide that your Christian faith requires you to support a foreign government blowing up churches and killing Christians, I think you've lost the thread. And look, a broad thing that I kind of take issue with in regard to this exchange and the conversation surrounding this exchange is that it doesn't matter what the religion of the innocent people getting killed is. I don't care if they're Jewish. I don't care if they're Muslim, I don't care if they're Christian. The loss of innocent life or the devaluing of human lives is what disgusts me about this entire war, about this conflict. Okay, I found it absolutely reprehensible, disgusting the atrocities that Hamas had carried out against Israeli civilians.

I will never defend that, I will never make excuses for that, period. Same goes for the lives lost on the Palestinian side. The carelessness in which some of these airstrikes and the aerial bombardments have been. It's just the devaluing of human life is what's been killing me day in and day out about this ongoing war. So whether they're Christian Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians, I don't care. And I think it's weird that for some people, the faith of the individuals who have been killed seems to be important. I don't find it important at all. What their religious beliefs are does not matter.

What matters is were these innocent civilians and were they unjustly killed? Now what Tucker said there sounds like some pretty tough words, but Tucker never really showed any sympathy for Palestinians as a whole, right? So he limited his commentary to what Israel is doing to Christians specifically. I do take issue with that. And this next clip is a good example illustrating what I mean. It would be pretty easy for Republicans in the U.S. Congress to say we support the government of Israel. But if you touch a single Christian, harm a single church, prevent any Christian

from practicing his religion, you're done. Not a single dollar will come from the U.S. Congress for you. So look, let's get to the criticism because I'm going way too long with this story. But it's important to understand what the critics are saying. And so I mentioned Dan Crenshaw earlier, Republican congressman from Texas. He saw the conversation. I don't know if he saw the whole thing, but he was very triggered by it and put out a statement on X, saying that this is who Tucker is a click chaser. Tucker's M.O. is simple. Defend America's enemies and attack America's allies. There isn't an objective bone left in that washed up news host's body. Mindless contrarianism is his guiding principle buttressed by his childish, childish tactic to just ask questions.

I don't think that it is a childish tactic to ask questions. I think these types of conversations are important. I get that maybe these types of conversations yield information that might offend information that might offend. the sensitivities of conservatives who are hard-line supporters of Israel. But the fact remains that Palestinian Christians are caught up in this war just as much as Palestinian Muslims. There's more. He says that Tucker wants you to believe he is the last place you can go for the truth, that he's the only one brave enough to reveal the elitist lies being told. This nonsense about Christian mistreatment in Israel is just the latest example.

Well, I mean, there has been mistreatment. There's absolutely been mistreatment of Palestinian Christians. Are we going to pretend like that doesn't exist? That's not a made up thing, it's not something that Tucker made up, it's not something that the pastor he was speaking to made up, it's something that is well evidenced, well documented. Okay, so first let's talk about Bethlehem where this pastor is from. So 78% of Bethlehem's Christians said that they were leaving Bethlehem. because of the Israeli occupation, while only 3.2% blamed the rise of Islamic movements,

12.5% attributed them leaving Bethlehem to both. And that's according to a poll that was done back in December of 2006. So one of the criticisms that you'll hear from conservatives against Tucker Carlson is that no, no, no, no, the Palestinian Christians ended up leaving Bethlehem. The population of Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem has decreased significant. specifically, specifically because of the Islamic movements that have taken place because of the PLO. They'll of course find a way to blame other Palestinians for it. In reality, after they were polled, after they left and they were polled about their reasons

for leaving, they made it abundantly clear. It was the Israeli occupation, but that'll get ignored, right? Dan Crenshaw also said Tucker will eventually fade into nothingness because his veneer of faux intellectualism is quickly falling apart and revealing who he truly is. A cowardly no nothing elitist who is full of, and then he uses a word I can't say, synonymous with crap. So notice that Dan Crenshaw didn't really offer any argument here. A lot of criticisms toward Tucker Carlson, a lot of attacks, a lot of name calling, but he didn't make a single case for why Tucker Carlson was wrong in interview.

doing this pastor. The Daily Wires Andrew Claven also weighed in saying, okay, so if Ben Shapiro, a patriotic American Jew cares deeply about America's great Jewish ally, that's disloyal. But if Tucker Carlson spreads anti-Israeli distortions and lies in defense of terrorist murderers holding American hostages, that's patriotism, got it. Well, I mean, I watched the interview, I didn't see any example of Tucker Carlson defending Hamas or justifying what Hamas did. But what Claven did here is a common tactic, right, where they put words in people's mouths

to make them appear as though they're coming from an anti-Semitic place. Now, Tucker Carlson might be anti-Semitic, I have no idea. But what I do know about the specific conversation that's drawing the ire of some conservatives is that it drew attention to the persecution of Christians, something that conservatives are supposed to care about. They certainly care about it deeply when they claim that Christians are being persecuted here in the United States, even though there's no evidence of that. And so it is kind of fascinating to see them not want to draw any attention to that, not drawing any attention to that reality. So I think that's really what's behind the anger that

you're seeing among some conservatives. But with that said, I want to go to the very last video because look, to the Israeli government's credit, when some of the extremists on their side have violently attacked Christians, they have spoken out against it. I wish they would do more to protect people. We don't see enough of the Israeli government protecting people. But I want to show you this video because it is in fact true that not just Palestinians, but also Christians in areas like the West Bank, in areas like Jerusalem, have been dealing with a lot of violent behavior coming from extremists on the Israeli side. Let's take a look. In recent months, we've seen very serious phenomena towards the Christian denominations in the

Holy Land. Our brothers and sisters, Christian citizens, feel attacked in their places of prayer in their cemeteries and on the streets. Christians in Jerusalem's old cities say they are often harassed, spit on, and even physically attacked by religious Jewish youth. I view this phenomenon as extreme and unacceptable in any shape or form. This phenomenon needs to be uprooted. Earlier incidents include the desecration of a Protestant cemetery on Mount Zion, an attack on international Christians during a day of prayer for Jerusalem, and harassment at a messianic concert in Jerusalem.

So what you just saw there was the president of Israel speaking out against the harassment that Christians have been facing as a result of these extremist settlers. So I specifically chose that video to be as fair as I can. But it is also obvious and it's also well documented that Christians have been dealing with violent attacks. And yes, that is an important story. That is an incident. That is a situation that people are dealing with on the ground. But if you only care about innocent people who have the same religion as you, I don't know if that makes you a good person. I think that we should see value in all human lives, regardless of what their faith happens to be, whether they're

Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. And so that's really my take on this story. We need to get our heads out of this tribal thinking and value humanity, value human lives. That's where I'm coming from. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, we've got a lot more to get to. I can't wait to share that fun story of Trump's lawyers making a pretty embarrassing yet hilarious mistake. So stick around for that and more when we come back.