The Young Turks - Rage Quitting - September 23, 2025

Episode Date: September 24, 2025

Visit https://prizepicks.onelink.me/LME0/TYT and use code TYT and get $50 in lineups when you play your first $5 lineup! Jillian Michaels rage quits Her Take LIVE during on-air debate about Charlie Kirk and Israel. President Trump signs an executive order threatening to prosecute donors who support antifascist philosophy. Tucker Carlson’s 9/11 special claims the CIA plotted to recruit the hijackers as informants. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞  https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK  ☞   https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER  ☞       https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM  ☞  https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK  ☞          https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks 👕MERCH  ☞      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/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. During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, lease a 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from five. $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Conditions supply, visit your local Volvo retailer or go to explorevolvo.com.

With the RBC Avion Visa, you can book any airline, any flight, any time. So start ticking off your travel list. Grand Canyon? Grand. Great Barrier Reef? Great. Galapagos? Galapago. Switch and get up to 55,000 avion points. never expire. Your idea of never missing out happens here. Conditions apply. Visit rbc.com slash avion. What's up, everyone? I'm your host, Anna Kasparian.

Man, it is good to be back. It really, really is. This is my home. This is where I love to share the news. This is where I just feel the most comfortable. And I say that as someone that's doing so many other projects, but I got to say, I really love this show. I love our audience. And most of all, I love my team. All right, we've got a big show ahead for you today. I don't want to waste too much time with housekeeping and teases about what we're going to talk about. But Wazni Lombre will be joining me for the second hour and the bonus episode for our members. So if you are a member, definitely stay tuned for our bonus episode.

If you're not, become a member by going to t.yt.com slash join. Tucker Carlson has dropped the first episode of his 9-11 docu-series. And I got to say, it did not disappoint. We're going to kind of go over what the first episode was about. And it really does have to do with these, you know, these clandestine CIA intel operations that the FBI wasn't fully informed about. So we'll get into those details. But before we get to like the, you know, the nuts and bolts of the show, like the important current events, I do want to address something that happened on her take. It's a weekly panel show that I host for Valuetainment.

I am the resident, I guess, lefty of that panel. And we've had lots of fiery moments, that's for sure. But something happened that I want to make sure I clarify because these types of things end up getting spun into things that I've never said, things I've never believed. So without further ado, let's get into it. Where's your proof that $150 million was offered from BB Netanyahu? No, I'm referring. Where is the proof?

Wait, please do not get anything. No, no, no, no, because I didn't want to cover this and you guys insisted. And I told you, you cover this, I'm gonna rip your part. Where is the proof? We're not saying that it happened. We're really not saying that it happened. This is not for me. I'm not interested in this.

I love you guys. I know, I know. I'm sorry. Let's be good. I have zero interest. Let the country committee of genocide, yeah. Well, as you just saw from that video, Gillian Michaels, who co-hosts her take along with me, Amy Dangerfield, and Lindy Lee quit with her and essentially did so while we were live.

Now, keep in mind, Gillian Michaels was the lead host of that show. So she abandoned it while we were airing live. And I want to explain exactly what happened from my point of view while doubling down on what I believe about some of the rumors and some of the theories floating around about Charlie Kurt's assassination and these allegations that Israel played a role in his assassination. Now, I want to be very clear right off the bat. I do not believe that there is any evidence drawing a direct. connection between Charlie Kirk's assassination and Israel. As everyone knows, I am not someone who holds back when it comes to criticizing Israel. But I think the truth matters. And if there's no evidence, I just think it's super irresponsible to preemptively place blame on Israel for Charlie Kirk's assassination. That's crazy. Now, that is an entirely different story from what I

have talked about on this show. And that has to do with what Charlie Kirk was personally experiencing in regard to Zionist pressure in the last few months of his life. Now, what I refer to, when I'm referring to that Zionist pressure, I'm specifically talking about the fact that apparently behind the scenes and Charlie Kirk himself confirmed this in a conversation with Megan Kelly, he felt that he was being smeared as an anti-Semite, which he clearly wasn't because of the fact that he included Dave Smith and Tucker Carlson at the America Fest conference. And during that conference, Dave Smith debated somebody on Israel, and I thought it was a great debate. I enjoyed it. And then Tucker Carlson, of course, gave that speech in which he floated the idea that Jeffrey Epstein was a

Mossad, asset, asset, okay. So I think that if you're going to be part of a group of people, and as Charlie Kirk very much was, that purports to want to be inclusive of all points of view, debate all points of view, not try to censor people because of wrong think, then yeah, you should be inclusive of voices like Tucker Carlson's. I mean, he's one of the top conservatives in this country in terms of media. And Dave Smith, who is not as big as Tucker Carlson, but he's been really making a name for himself by debating this very issue. And so I love the fact that he included those voices, but apparently some of the donors behind Turning Point USA did not feel the same.

Okay, fair enough. Now, the segment that we were doing, okay, about the conspiracies, yes, did mention the conspiracy about Israel allegedly, you know, having something to do with Charlie Kirk's assassination. Every single person on that panel said that they do not believe it. But that was getting conflated with something else. And the conflation had to do with the pressure that Charlie Kirk was facing. So as this conversation was happening, people are speaking over each other. It's pretty chaotic.

And I thought in real time what was going on was that Gillian was under the impression that we're about to throw Israel under the bus as the assassins. And that she was conflating that with the story that I do believe has credibility. And that's the Charlie Kirk is facing pressure from, you know, Zionist donors. Okay. But then upon reflecting on this her take segment, I realized that, no, Jillian wanted to deny that story as well. And I disagree with that whole wholeheartedly. So she wanted to basically convey that Kirk was still very much supportive of Israel, which is absolutely true.

Take a look. He's saying he's being criticized for giving an audience to people like Dave Smith. He's not saying that he is changing his mind and thinks the Jews are evil. No, he wasn't changing his mind. I want to be real clear here. No, but I think this is dangerous. And I want to be deadly accurate if we're going to have this conversation. So that's what he was talking about.

It's about the fact that Dave Smith, he gave him an audience at turning point. And he was being criticized for having people who did. agree like Tucker on the stage. On the stage. It wasn't saying I have changed my mind here and I'm being attacked. So basically he's getting this pressure from donors, which led to that meeting in the Hamptons with Bill Ackman, because Bill Ackman apparently wasn't happy with it either. But you guys also have to understand that there is a trend now with young conservatives

who are not supportive of Israel or not as supportive as previous generations. point, I'm under the assumption that we're all on the same page. Because you just heard Gillian Michaels repeat what I believe, right, that Charlie Kirk was facing backlash. He didn't like the backlash. He was public about the fact he didn't like that backlash as he was speaking to Megan Kelly on her show. Okay, fair enough. Now, at one point, the claim that pro-Israel donors had offered Kirk and turning point, a $150 million cash infusion as a way of influencing him came up. And, you know, Gillian thinks that the claim is spurious, and I haven't seen hard evidence. For now, there have been rumors about that, but she is right that there isn't

hard evidence of it. And she was very stuck on this point. Okay, so let's take a look at that part of the conversation. Where is your proof that $150 million was offered from BB Netanyahu? No, I'm referring. Where is the proof? Wait, please do not get any. No, no, no, because I didn't want to cover this and you guys insisted. And I told you, you cover these I'm going to rip your part. Where is the proof? We're not saying that it happened.

We're really not saying that it happened. We're really not saying that it happened. Jillian, so we're not. Okay, so what we're reporting on is people in the marketplace what they're saying. This is a discussion that's happening literally everywhere. We would be remissed if we didn't cover it.

It's a week old this conversation. It's over a week. That is a week old. It's still going on, Jillian. Okay. Well, nevertheless. Where is the proof that that actually happened? I just said, according to this guy's reporting, he was offered $150 million.

Okay, that was corroborated by Candace and not only that by Nick. And also backcase. Listen, I like Candace. She has people from his own team have said he has not seen her in years. And yet lost years. And they were all together. Okay. No one has reported.

that Benjamin Netanyahu personally has offered or had offered Turning Point USA $150 million. There was reporting that pro-Zionist donors offered a cash infusion and that Charlie Kirk rejected that along with Benjamin Netanyahu's trip, he offered a trip for Charlie Kirk to visit Israel again. Now we all know what those trips to Israel are all about. It's basically re-education. camp, don't you know better than that? You know, you shouldn't be critical of, I mean, he wasn't even really all that critical of Israel, to be honest with you. He didn't want to invade Iran. I obviously agreed with him on that. But for the most part, I saw him constantly defending Israel. It has now gotten to a point where the ongoing slaughter in Gaza is too difficult to defend. So I think he was starting to find himself in a very uncomfortable position where you have the

Donors pressuring him to continue defending Israel at any and all costs, but you also have young conservatives who see what's going on, and they're moving further and further away from being as supportive toward Israel as conservatives traditionally have been. Okay, so at this point, honestly, I lost patience. And the reason why I lost patience is because of exactly what you heard in that video. We are having a conversation. We are discussing what various people are saying, what various reports are illegal. alleging. You have to get through the presentation of the story and what the various people

are saying before we can all weigh in on what we think and what our analysis is. But we never even got there. Okay, Amy is trying to present everything. As she's trying to present everything, she keeps getting interrupted, she keeps getting interrupted. Gillian already has in her mind what all of us think about all of these issues without ever hearing what we think about any of these issues. And when I heard her look at Lindy, who I have gotten into many arguments, heated arguments with, when she looked at Lindy and said, I told you I didn't want to talk about this. And if you did talk about it, I was going to rip you apart. That kind of threat is unacceptable. It just is. I have had all sorts of moments on that show because of the fact that I have many

disagreements. The whole point of that panel is to have various perspectives represented. We get into debates all the time. There have been moments where I have felt disrespected, not by Jillian, to be fair. And there have been moments where it's been, you know, three versus one. Or, you know, in the case of Adam Sosnik joining us, it was, you know, basically three versus one because Amy wasn't really attacking me as we were debating Israel. But I never threatened anybody and I never told anyone that I'm going to rip them apart. So at this point, I lose my patience and I want to clear the air because I'm still at this moment under the impression that Gillian is conflating two different stories, okay? The conspiracy

about Israel allegedly assassinating Charlie Kirk, which is ridiculous, and then the other story about the pressure that Charlie Kirk was facing. So I attempted to clear the air, get a load of this. There are two things being conflated right now. There are conspiracy theorists who think Israel killed Charlie Kirk, they have yet to provide a shred of evidence proving that. Done. End of story. I am talking about that. I am talking about something entirely different. No, we're not. Hold on. Let me finish my thought. Okay, the real issue here is that before most people even knew that Charlie Kirk was dead, you have Netanyahu giving multiple interviews talking about how, oh, using the moment for his own political purposes, like the

fool that he is. Let me finish my point. Him killing Charlie Kirk. Did I not just, I literally just said, let me finish my point, Gillian, because none of us can finish the damn point without someone else jumping down your throat. I don't think that Israel killed him because there's no evidence of that. But I had a problem with Netanyahu exploiting an assassination in this country for his own political means and purposes and lying about the nature of his relationship with Charlie Kirk. I cleared the air. Very specific. I repeated twice in the video you just saw that I don't think Israel is behind Charlie Crook's assassination.

Okay, but things still, still got out of control after that point. And it's just I don't, I don't understand it. Well, actually now, thinking about this in retrospect, I do understand it. While other money managers are holding, Dynamic is hunting. Seeing past the horizon, investing beyond the benchmark, because your money can't grow if it doesn't move. Learn more at dynamic.ca.cath slash active. Dynamic, actively different. So at this point, pretty, in my opinion, I just think what Netanyahu did, like before most people even realize that Charlie Kirk was already pronounced dead, like the same minutes that Trump announced that Charlie Kirk had passed, you have Netanyahu doing some of the most detestable garbage commentary about who he believes killed Charlie Kirk. Okay, it goes on Fox News.

I want you to take a look at that video. This is what I was referring to. He certainly didn't invite the violence, the horrible violence that tried to silence him. And, you know, this is a worldwide problem. The people on the, you know, on the extremes, the Islamists, the radical Islamists, and their union with the ultra-progressives, they often speak about human rights. They speak about free speech, but they use violence to try to talk. try to take down their enemies, whether it's President Tribe who's been almost assassinated twice

or, you know, they try to kill me here too. So let me understand something. It is so below the belt and so unacceptable to prematurely blame Israel for an assassination when there's no evidence. And I agree with that take. How is it okay for the prime minister, this isn't just some random person online, this isn't some rando conspiracy theorist on X, this is the prime minister of Israel, exploiting a tragic moment in American history for his own political purposes to spread hate and propaganda about Muslims. Because God forbid the leader of Israel ever miss an opportunity to exploit a tragedy in the United States for his own purposes, as he did in the aftermath of 9-11, by the way.

This is who Netanyahu is. I'm never, ever going to be silenced by anyone in calling out how detestable and disgusting that was. Now, if Gillian disagrees with me on that, she could have had a conversation about it, but that's not what happened. This is what happened. Because Charlie Kirk didn't like Netanyahu, just like any warm-blooded American shouldn't. Netanyahu is a bad guy.

And he wanted to make it seem like, no, we were all great, we were good, we had a great relationship. did we know behind the scenes. I don't know how every show ends all being about how do we bash Israel. This is not for me. I'm not interested in this. I love you guys. I know. I'm sorry.

Let's be good. Let's be good about precious Israel. Let the country committee a genocide. Yeah. Okay. Zero. I think you guys are great. Fundamentally disagree with you about like every show doing this.

I'm sorry. Cool. So can we continue the conversation? Yeah. Let's not. Let's not. Okay. Then you wanted to do it anyway.

It's finished the last topic. All right. All right. Wow. Okay, guys. So again, to clarify, I don't think Israel did it. I'm sorry, it is not some angelic country. It's a foreign country, and we have the right to be as critical of a foreign country as we want. We have the right to be as critical of our own country as we want. That's my take. And upon reflecting on that moment and the fact that the actual lead host of the show quit the show live on air because she's so offended that we're critical of. Israel. That was not only unprofessional, it was disrespectful to everyone that was involved in producing the show, working on the show.

I traveled from Los Angeles to Florida to host the show. That was disrespectful beyond words, unprofessional, beyond words, period. That was basically taking a big crap on all of us, live on air, because she allegedly doesn't like that we're too critical of Israel. Let me just say something. I will be as critical of Israel or any country as I want. We have a production meeting prior to every taping, every live show. She's part of those production meetings where we decide what the stories are. I take detailed notes to make sure that we're all on the same page. We all know what we're going to discuss. At no point during that production meeting does she push back on the idea of discussing this

particular topic. The day before the show, as she typically likes to do, she tried to change the entire rundown, or at least add some weird Islamophobic story about how like, oh, there's a Muslim person or a Muslim leader in Texas or something who is going to Muslim-owned grocery stores and calling them out for their hypocrisy because they're selling pork items. I don't care. I mean, you have conservatives protesting abortion in front of abortion clinics. This is America, wakey, wakey. This is what religious liberty is. Religious people get to protest, you know, things that they don't agree with as it pertains to their religious doctrine.

But some weird hyperlocal story that's specifically meant to demonize Muslims. No, she wanted to do a quick rapid fire round where we talk about those stories without any debate. And I said, no. That's a story that's worthy of debate. So we didn't add it, literally a day before our show. And what she said there, it was just so clear. It wasn't about reporting what was correct, what was incorrect, what had actual evidence behind it, what didn't have evidence behind it. She just didn't like that we were being too critical of Israel.

A few weeks ago, she was trying to encourage me to sign. on to a debate on the show with Coleman Hughes who had just put out a piece denying that there's mass starvation in Gaza. Okay. When you walk off the show because your feelings are hurt and you're the main host of the show, that demonstrates a level of disregard and unprofessionalism that I'm not going to stay silent about. And to twist our words and make it appear as though we're trying to draw a connection between Charlie Kirk's assassination and Israel is ridiculous because literally no one did that. And today, there's even more evidence backing up what I believe is credible that Charlie Kirk was in fact dealing with a lot of

backlash because he's being inclusive of voices who are critical of Israel. And he felt afraid to be critical of Israel himself, as you're about to hear in this next clip. So today, Kirk's producer, Andrew Colvitt, clarified that yeah, Charlie Kirk was getting backlash and he was pretty irritated by it. Charlie's position on Israel was very clear. I like them more than I like Hamas. I just wish I was free to criticize Israel and not be labeled an anti-Semite because I can criticize my own government and not be called anti-American. But why do I have more freedom to do that and not criticize a foreign government. And he was really upset that there was this sort of clamp down on the freedom of expression, the freedom of ideas, free speech when it came to a foreign

government. And I will say this, he felt like he had earned the right as a friend of the Jewish people over the years and all of the things that he had done. He felt like his bona fides in that respect were unassailable and that he should have the freedom to say, hey, it's time to end the war. Hey, time to stop the killing. But, you know, when you with Tucker, for example, yeah, I mean, we took some pushback, we lost some donors. And what's interesting is it wasn't necessarily Jewish donors. Yeah, because Zionists include evangelicals. This is not about Jews, as I've said, a billion times before. There is also an intentional conflation of Israel and Jewish people in general. And that's done intentionally to smear anyone who dares to be critical of Israel as an

anti-Semite. If you are critical of a government, it doesn't mean that you hate the people of that country. If you are critical of a government, a government that refers to Israel as a Jewish state, it doesn't mean that you are anti-Semitic or hate Jewish people. It means that you have a problem with the conduct of that government. And no one's ever, ever, ever going to silence me. about that, ever, period. I'm going to tell the truth, even if it comes at a significant cost to my career, Jillian, as you voiced some concern about. Finally, one more point that I want to bring up. Today it was reported that, and this is by Max Blumenthal, by the way, he's naming names. Ultra Zionist billionaire Robert Schillman, I kid you not that is his name, was one of

Charlie Kirk's most committed donors, but as Kirk fell under attack for his increasingly critical Israel views during his final weeks, sources say Shillman ended funding for Turning Point USA. This is a legitimate story that has legitimate receipts, names have been named, and it is entirely separate from conspiracy theories involving Israel, allegedly assassinating Charlie Kirk, which again is spurious and does not have any evidence to back it up. So if anyone dares to say that I believe in that conspiracy theory, if anyone dares to smear me, I want to be very clear right now in stating what I actually believe. And I don't want anyone to fall for what I believe is an intentional conflation of a ridiculous conspiracy

theory with something that actually has some credibility behind it. That's it. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, we'll get to the news. We'll get to the really important matters of the day, including Trump basically listing people he doesn't like as terrorists in the country. We'll be right back. All right, just a few more comments from our super chatters. We've got Lane Hamilton who says, Anna, it was just a heated debate. They get out of hand sometimes. I worry for you on the Israel thing. It's like me with Putin, I go off sometimes. I mean, if you were to say you worry about people trying to destroy my family or destroy my career,

I would agree with you because that has already happened. And maybe that's why I'm so irritated with how that debate went down because I felt like Julian had no interest in listening to what any of us had to say. She, and look, I have literally had a tampon thrown at me by Adam Sosnik in the middle of a debate about Israel. You want to know what I did? I stayed. I didn't get triggered by that stupid stunt. And I continued engaging in dialogue and debate. I didn't leave. And the reason why I didn't leave is because, number one, I respect myself. Number two, I respect the people that I have worked hard to produce that show with.

I respect my co-hosts, regardless of how much we might disagree on the topic at hand. It's that simple. It's that simple. We've got Harkin who says, Beebe, we didn't murder Charlie, just 50,000 plus goss and children. Well, exactly. All right. Well, let's move on to some other news. I want to talk a little bit about what Trump is doing in regard to domestic terrorism in America, which I do think you could make a case that there are potential domestic terrorists in the country. It's just that his focus is very telling. Antifa is going to be designated a domestic terrorist organization. This is something the president campaigned on because we have seen a rise in violence. perpetuated by Antifa radical people across this country who subscribe to this group. And unfortunately, it's gone widely uncovered by many in the legacy media.

It also went completely ignored by the previous administration, not anymore. President Donald Trump has officially signed an executive order designating Antifa as a terrorist organization, despite the fact that it's not actually an organization at all. There's no leader, there's no website you can hit up to find someone to interview. It's really a loose collective of people who I will admit, in some cases, have engaged in acts that I don't think are legal. When you meet anyone with any type of physical assault, it's wrong, and I do condemn it. But labeling Antifa as a domestic terror organization is dangerous.

for a number of different reasons, because my read of this is that it's not a way of holding people who engage in physical political violence to account. I see this as a way of Trump attempting to intimidate his opponents, protesters, so let me make that case. So his administration is threatening to target all liberal protesters and donors to groups critical of him. So I guess that's now considered domestic terrorism under the president of the United States. This is supposed to be the leader of the free world. But he can't handle backlash. He can't handle protests against him, even peaceful protests.

So he's going to sign a ridiculous executive order to, number one, intimidate people. But number two, potentially use force against his political. And I'm not even talking about politicians. I'm talking about ordinary American people who disagree with his policies. And to be sure, there have been some pretty disgusting acts carried out by the Trump administration. There was a story just today about ICE. Detaining an autistic child and essentially holding this child hostage. I mean, it's just like some of the most disgusting stuff I've seen when it comes to the behavior of these ICE agents. You know, you have an ice agent that's in plainclose, masked up.

How are you supposed to know that's law enforcement? How are you supposed to know that's an ice agent? If I'm with a family member and that family member gets snatched up by some random plain closed individual with a mask on, I'm going to assume that it is a criminal kidnapping my family member. So anyway, just giving you an example of something that he has done that I've disagreed with. So this kind of behavior has led to protests, and Trump doesn't like that. So this does come in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, which Trump and the Republicans were quick to blame on Antifa, despite the fact that there's no evidence that Antifa is behind it. It's as ridiculous as the claim that Israel was behind Charlie Kirk's assassination. So, in fact, NBC News reported over the weekend that the federal investigation into Kirk's

assassination has yet to find a link between the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and left-wing groups on which President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to crack down on after the killing. Three sources familiar with the probe told NBC News. Now, I think it's entirely possible that Tyler Robinson was a left-winger, you know, his family allegedly said that he had become more left wing in his politics. But based on what we've learned about Tyler Robinson, it appears that what motivated the disgusting political assassination that he engaged in was the fact that he had a partner who was transgender and he hated what Charlie Kirk

had to say about transgender people. Okay, so that is politically motivated. But to tie him to Antifa makes no sense because there's no evidence of that. So one person familiar with the federal investigation said that every indication so far is that this was one guy who did one really bad thing because he found Kirk's ideology personally offensive. Nonetheless, President Trump is using Kirk's horrific murder for political purposes and is now vowing to target not only Antifa, but other groups that he considers left-wing extremists as well. Take a look. me too, but we're going to look at the people that funded into effect, see who they are, where they came from, and why they do. Okay. So this really does remind me of the excesses we saw from the

federal government in the aftermath of 9-11. 9-11, obviously, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, thousands of innocent Americans died as a result of Al-Qaeda's attack. And people are saying, scared. And when people are scared, when people are angry, that's the perfect opportunity for, you know, the federal government and authoritarian figures within the federal government with authoritarian tendencies to take full advantage. And that's what I believe Trump is doing here. Now, anyone who is planning violence, any group, any extremist group in the U.S. that's organized and they're planning on carrying out acts of violence, absolutely. I think the federal government should go after them, regardless of their political ideology. I mean that.

But that's not what's happening here. The executive order he signed threatens investigatory and prosecutorial action against those who financially support Antifa. Again, Antifa is a loose collective. It's not an organization. Even if you wanted to donate to Antifa, I don't even know how you would do that. But okay, as we explained on the show once before, there are some serious issues with this executive order. For one, anti-fascism is a broad political ideology, not a specific group or organization. And Antifa doesn't have a leader, a roster of known members, or a centralized structure at all, which makes this executive order even more dangerous. Now, some might say, well, if it's not an organization, then we have nothing to worry about this executive order is

null and void, but that's not the case. So here's Mark Bray, author of the book Antifa, the anti-fascist handbook explaining. The kind of like street level, direct action-focused, militant-fascism of the post-war period is often referred to as Antifa. And it's kind of this nexus of radical left politics and direct action tactics. And it's kind of a way of doing politics. It's a leftist radical milieu. It's not one specific group. I think, sometimes compare it to feminism, right? Feminism is not a group, but there are feminist groups. Antifa is not a group, but there are Antifa groups.

Okay, so we fully understand what Antifa is. Now, when it's not a centralized group, right? Or they don't have like a centralized power structure. Well, then it's easier to just label anyone you don't like is Antifa. And that's what I'm concerned about here, that this is a way, this is going to be an avenue in which the federal government intimidates and prosecutes people who engage in political action. Peaceful, I want to be specific. I want to make that distinction because if it's violent, obviously that is not protected by law.

But I'm worried that peaceful protesters are going to be targeted as a result of this executive order. And they're going to be targeted by the president, just slapping the label of domestic terrorist onto them and then using lawfare to go after them. And here's the second issue. Trump's order said that he was declaring Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. a designation that does not actually exist under U.S. law, federal law empowers the government to label overseas groups foreign terrorist organizations, a status that allows the U.S. to freeze their assets and make it a crime to provide material support to them. So is this, I mean, look, even though there's nothing under U.S. law that would allow the president to declare Antifa a terrorist organization, a domestic terrorist organization. I mean, do you think that's going to stop him?

Is it possible that some of the protesters that the federal government doesn't like could have their assets freeze? So these are the things that we need to consider and think about. And by the way, I mean, if this were Biden, I would be equally as disgusted. Because I remember when, you know, the shutdowns had happened during COVID. And there were plenty of conservative protesters who were peacefully protesting, and I did not think the federal government should have gone after them in any way, shape, or form. Now, if they engaged in violence, that's something entirely different. But they had the right to protest the shutdowns, especially because the shutdowns did deprive Americans of their livelihoods in many cases. And also, on top of that, you know, it was especially

challenging for families with children. When schools were shut down, they still had to work from home, but they had a difficult time ensuring that their kids were getting the proper remote learning that they needed to continue their schooling. It was a difficult time. So I had no problem with people protesting the shutdowns. And those people were predominantly right wing. Now, there's no equivalent domestic terrorism law. It's been debated for years whether or not there should be a domestic terror law, but so far it hasn't come to fruition because of concerns that it would infringe on Americans' First Amendment rights. And those are legitimate concerns. So Trump's order lacks actual teeth that would give the federal government more power, although he would challenge

that in the court system. And in some of these federal court rulings, they have sided with Trump. I mean, I think it was a Supreme Court just ruled that Trump has the right to fire, you know, FTC members that he doesn't like. essentially overturning 90 years of precedent in this country. So who knows how this would play out if Trump challenged it in the courts? The Antifa order directs agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations by the movement, meaning Antifa, something they already have the authority to do. But the impotency of this specific order does not mean that we shouldn't be concerned about

Trump's decision. We should be concerned about this executive order. As he himself admitted, I mean, he says it out loud, it's part of a broader crackdown on liberals, liberal groups. So last week, two senior administration officials said that cabinet secretaries and federal department heads were working to identify organizations that funded or supported violence against conservatives. One tactic has been to target the tax-exempt status of nonprofits. I actually don't have a problem with that, to be honest with you. I think nonprofits should be investigated far more than they have been. not just because of funding of violence. I think a lot of these nonprofits actually operate as lobbying groups,

and they get to operate with dark money funding. And we have no idea about the influences in our political system or the influences that essentially lead our politicians to make certain decisions that they make. But that's a different story entirely. But which one is it here? So is it groups that fund violence or groups that are simply critical of Donald Trump? kind of unclear here. But honestly, when it comes to Trump

and his past behavior, it really does sound like the latter. And so you either believe in our Constitution and you believe in protecting everyone's right to peacefully assemble and to protest our government. Or you don't. And if you don't believe in that,

then you don't believe in our Constitution. You don't believe in what this country stands for. So I guess we're going to have to wait and see how this really plays out. But it is amazing to me how the most leaders, and this isn't just about America, leaders worldwide who tend to have authoritarian tendencies, you know, the real strong men, tend to have the thinest skin, don't they? They can't wait for an opportunity to infringe on people's freedom of speech or any freedoms that they may have. So that's what we're dealing with right now. We'll see how this plays out.

But in my opinion, this is not looking good. and you shouldn't allow tragic events in this country to be exploited by any politicians, any political leaders for their own agenda and political means. And that's what's happening right now. If someone who is considered an Antifa person engages in violence, arrest them, prosecute them, bring them to justice. But to do this broad, generalized, you know, executive order, in my opinion, that's targeting people who disagree with your politics. I find that so pathetic and unconstitutional. All right, we got to take a break.

When we come back, we'll talk a little bit about Tucker Carlson's 9-11 special. All right, let's get to our final story of the first hour before Waj joins us. And this has to do with Tucker Carlson's docu series on 9-11. Now, I'm going to admit that for the longest time when people would say, oh, 9-11 was an inside job. I'd like roll my eyes. Like, what the hell does that even mean? And I don't think that our government orchestrated 9-11. I don't think that they did something or planned to slaughter 3,000 American citizens on September 11th, 2001.

Okay? But I did learn some really interesting things from this first episode, and it mainly had to do with a CIA intelligence gathering operation that was not communicated with other intelligence organizations, and things got super weird. And I think a lot of people don't know about these details. I didn't know about these details. So I think it is important to know about it. And I encourage you to watch the entire episode and came out today. We're not going to be able to get into every minor detail that was covered. But there's documentation provided.

There's interviews with former FBI agents and CIA agents involved. So definitely watch the full thing. But I'm going to do my best to summarize this because I think it's worth knowing about. So let's get into it. Anyone who doubts the official narrative is cast as a cuck, a criminal, a fringe conspiracy theorist, and punished. They've been blacklisted and censored and banned. Even as the leaders who failed to protect our country on 9-11 use these attacks as a pretense to expand their own powers and permanently transform the United States. Over the course of this investigation, we made numerous findings that shocked us, not least of which,

The apparent role that former CIA director John Brennan played in helping bring the 9-11 hijackers to the United States and the remarkable lengths the CIA went to to protect the 9-11 hijackers from the FBI. You had a duty to protect Americans and you failed because of your fantastical delusioned you could recruit somebody inside the cell. Tucker Carlson has published the first episode of his 9-11 docu-series, and it is definitely. worth watching. Now, the first episode has to do with the CIA's intelligence gathering operation, the lack of communication with the FBI in regard to this operation, and the fact that there were literally 9-11 hijackers in the country that the CIA knew about and, in fact, facilitated the travel of to the United States. So I didn't know about that until watching this first episode. And I think it was informative. It was backed up by documentation that was provided by

Tucker Carlson. Definitely watch it for yourself. I'm going to summarize it here, though. Now, according to a description of the episode, rather than inform the FBI, the CIA tried to recruit two of the hijackers for a false flag operation, which quickly spiraled out of control. So that's in the description of the YouTube video. So that's a pretty bold claim. We have to admit it's a bold claim, and I was skeptical of it before watching the episode. But he interviewed someone by the name of Mark Rossini. And Mark Rossini, everything he had to say had corroborating documentation that was shared in the episode, and that changed my mind. So before we get into the details, a little more about who Mark Rossini is. So he was an FBI agent from January

1999 to May of 2003. And he worked as the FBI's New York Joint Terrorism Task Force Representative at the Alex station at CIA headquarters. Now, the Alex station was very specific. It was known as the Bin Laden unit. Okay. So the bin Laden issue station was like a dedicated unit within the CIA that operated from 1996 to 2005. And its sole role, its sole purpose, was to track and monitor Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9-11. Now, Rossini claims that the FBI did not know that the CIA was allegedly recruiting 9-11 hijackers as informants so they could learn more about al-Qaeda, and even approved visas that essentially allowed for these hijackers to travel to the United States.

Okay, so let's talk a little bit more about this CIA operation, a little background on it. Beginning in 1996, the CIA and NSA had been spying on al-Qaeda through something known as the Hada home in Sana Yemen. So the Hada home is a really important thing to keep in mind here. The FBI nor Mark Rossini were informed about the communications hub for al-Qaeda that the CIA had discovered and was spying in on. The Hado home is where they would gather al-Qaeda terrorists or affiliates of al-Qaeda. They'd gather there and the CIA knew about it. And so they were spying in on the Hado Home. Okay.

So the Hado Home was also the physical home of the father-in-law to Khalid al-Madar, who was one of the 9-11 hijackers. Now, at this time, okay, before 9-11 happened, obviously, there was this summit that was to take place. While spying in on the Hara home, the CIA and the NSA learn about a summit that Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were planning to have in Malaysia. So Kuala Lumpur is where they were going to have this summit. Now, one of the 9-11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar, basically planned to attend by flying from Yemen to Dubai to Malaysia. Malaysia, again, is where they're going to have the summit. And at this point, the CIA basically intercepts Al-Madar once he arrives in Dubai, and they collect a valuable piece of evidence through a search of his hotel room. You're about to hear more about that piece of evidence through Mark Rossini. He's about to explain what that was.

They arrange to search his room and go in. And when they go in, his passport is there and they take pictures of it to photocopy it. And they send back the imagery. And lo and behold, in his past. passport is a visa to go to United States of America, issued out of the American consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to one recently released court filings, quote, the visas were issued to facilitate an operation run by the Saudis and the CIA spying operation. The station chief in Riyadh at the time was future CIA director John Brennan. The CIA continued tracking Al-Midhar to Kuala Lumpur, where he met up with other al-Qaqqqqqqa.

associates, including Noaaf al-Hazmi, a second future 9-11 hijacker. So get a load of this. The 9-11 hijackers, there's two of them, were able to get visas from the United States, approved by the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, and that's the consulate that was run by John Brennan. So... That is an important piece of information that I personally, I had heard rumors about it. I hadn't seen anyone provide any hard evidence of it, so I didn't believe it. But the documentation clearly lays it out. You have Mark Rossini clearly laying it out.

And so the way that these hijackers were able to come to the United States legally was through a visa that was provided by the U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia. in JETA, Saudi Arabia. Okay. So here we learned that 9-11 hijacker Al-Madar's passport has a visa to come to the U.S. and that it was issued by that U.S. consulate. Then the CIA headquarters in Kuala Lumpur spied in on the Malaysia summit where you have these Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists attending and reported back to the Alec Station in the United States,

where Mark Rossini was operating out of. Now, Rossini's FBI colleague, a guy by the name of Doug Miller, approaches him about the CIA cable because they received that cable from the CIA. That's good. You want that to happen. And tells Rossini that they need to inform the FBI Bureau about it. Right? They need to let the FBI Bureau know that this U.S. Saudi intelligence operation is taking place. Rossini agrees. How could he not? Now, Doug Miller writes what's known as a CIR. That's a central intelligence report. and Rossini approves it, and he's ready to send it over. It goes to the desk of CIA analyst Michael Ann Casey. And here's what happens next, according to Rossini. And it sits in her cue, her electronic cue, and it doesn't move for like a day or two. It should move in the hours. I'll never forget, like it was yesterday.

Never forget. I'm standing over her. I said, hey, Doug CIR. So you got to go to the FBI. He said, no, it's not. I said, well, why not? She said, because it's not FBI, not an FBI matter. Where is the FBI matter?

She says, it's the CIA matter. And when and if we want the FBI, no, we will tell them. And you are not to say anything. I said, but yeah, but they got a visa to come to the U.S. Like, no, we're handling it. And when we want to tell the FBI, we will. my naivete i believed her and i have to live with that every day of my life but i believed her i can't imagine living with that kind of guilt but clearly racini feels a lot of guilt over the fact

that he followed orders and did what the cia told him to do so the cia blocked the fbi the FBI detail at Alec Station, Rossini, from informing the FBI Bureau, which is pretty insane, but okay, then two of the 9-11 hijackers make their way to the United States. Take a look. On January 8, 2000, CIA surveillance teams reported that al-Midhar had boarded a flight to Bangkok, Thailand. He was accompanied by a man they identified as al-Hasmi. According to the official count, this is where the trail went cold. The CIA placed their names on a watch list and asked that Thai authorities track their movements. Three months later, the Thai government reported back. Al-Hazmi had boarded United Airlines flight to Los Angeles. Al-Midhar was with him.

The two hijackers had arrived in the United States. You have the CIA then following one man and then two men all over the planet and then eventually even to America. right? Landing in Los Angeles, California, and you don't tell the FBI. Guys, that's insane. That really is insane. That really is insane. Because think about it. The FBI investigates issues within the borders of the United States. The FBI should know about it. So why the hell would the CIA try to block the FBI Bureau from learning about the CIA operation, learning about the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists were being allowed into the United States,

wouldn't it be helpful considering that al-Qaeda operatives would be here on domestic soil? and the FBI is tasked with investigating and spying on potential terrorists and criminals within U.S. borders. Like, it's just, it doesn't make any sense to me. Well, you're about to hear from former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clark on what he was told in a newly released document. Take a look. According to a recently released court filing,

former White House counterterrorisms are Richard Clark told government investigators that the quote, CIA was running a false flag operation to recruit the hijackers. When Kofra Black became the head of the counterterrorism center at CIA, he was aghast that they had no sources in al-Qaeda. After Clark made that claim publicly, he received an angry call from former director of the CIA, George Tenant, who did not deny the allegations made by Mr. Clark, end quote.

But we reached out to Tenant, his spokesperson denied that the CIA was recruiting hijackers, calling it false rumors and saying, quote, that's categorically not true. He also recalled that the executive director of the 9-11 commission, Philip Zellico, blocked the commission's investigation into the matter at the behest of Condoleezza Rice. Okay, that's amazing. So you have George Tennant throwing Condoleezza Rice under the bus. But to be sure, the 9-11 commission's report does not include anything about this clandestine CIA intelligence gathering operations. So again, to recap, the CIA director, George Tennant, excoriated Clark, that's the counterterrorism czar, for disclosing what he was told about the CIA intelligence gathering operation. But he did not deny it in the email that he sent to Clark. This would be something that the 9-11 commission would want to investigate, right? But the commission's director, Philip Zelico, blocked the investigation into this, according to tenants. at the behest of then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

So as a result, the official 9-11 report from the 9-11 commission does not even mention the CIA's plan to recruit the hijackers as CIA informants into al-Qaeda. So we don't even know who, so yes, so we don't even know who that person is, by the way. Like, okay, so the CIA blocked the commission from, investigating the CIA operative who was attempting to recruit the hijackers, we don't know who that CIA operative is. Because in all the documentation, that person is simply referred to as VVV. So that person's name is redacted. And one of the arguments that Tucker Carlson makes is

we should have some transparency and we should know more details about who the CIA operative was because this seems like a pretty big deal. And we just at this moment don't know. The commission's investigators also did not ask CIA director George Tennant about the Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia or why the CIA blocked the FBI from being warned about why, what they were doing, about this whole operation, the fact that there were two al-Qaeda terrorists in the United States with the CIA's help and acknowledgement. So hijackers in the U.S., let's talk about them a little more. So while in the U.S., the 9-11 hijackers, that's al-Hasmi and Al-Madar, lived in plain sight, as Tucker Carlson says in this episode, because they didn't hide their real names. They were living out in the open, using their actual names. They were even listed in the San Diego phone book. They lived in San Diego for more than a year before the 9-11 attacks even happened. Also, when they arrived to the U.S., they met up with a Saudi man by the name of Omar. Al Bayoumi at a cafe in Los Angeles. So the CIA was using Al Bayoumi to spy for them and gather

intelligence on the hijackers, because again, at the time, the CIA was not allowed to engage in domestic spying. So they essentially used the Saudi as their proxy to do the spying for them. And here's a little more about this Omar al-Bayumi guy. Bayoumi's notebook, which was uncovered when British law enforcement raided his home in the U.K, contained a drawing of an airplane and mathematical calculations related to flying it. The 9-11 Commission investigators never saw this. At the time, Al-Bayumi had a no-show job at a Saudi aviation contractor called Avko. The company's employees say he was one of roughly 50 ghost employees working there at the time, taking the paycheck, but never coming to work. According to declassified government documents, an investigator from the 9-11 commission said al-Baiumi was receiving substantial sums of money from the Saudi embassy in Washington prior to the 9-11 attacks, that the money was being funneled from accounts at Riggs Bank in Georgetown belonging to Haifa bin Faisal, the wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

By using the Saudis as a proxy to recruit the 9-11 hijackers, the CIA gave itself cover. If things went wrong, they could push a narrative that, It blamed the Saudi government for the attacks, which is what they did. Now, in addition to that, Al Bayoumi convinced the hijackers to move to San Diego. He co-signed on a lease to an apartment for them. He even paid their first month's rent and security deposit. He got them bank accounts, driver's licenses, and introduced them to other radical Muslims in the area, including Anwar al-Alalaki, who later was assassinated in a drone strike by the Obama administration, even though he was a U.S. citizen and had the right to do process. But nonetheless, he was killed.

Just really interesting stuff. So at one point, Al-Madar was able to exit and re-enter the United States because he was issued a multi-visit visa by the U.S. consulate. So he traveled to Yemen to see the birth of his daughter, I believe, birth of a child. I can't remember if it was a daughter or not. But nonetheless, just a few days before he reentered the United States, though, and he reentered through JFK in New York, the FBI and CIA had actually met to discuss the bombing of USS Cole, which Al-Madar was actually involved in. So the bombing of that military ship killed 17 U.S. soldiers. The FBI had a picture of Al-Madar that was taken at the summit in Malaysia. The agent asked the CIA if they knew who the man was and the CIA refused to tell him.

That's crazy. Or tell them, I should say. So it wouldn't be until August of 2001 that the CIA finally alerted the FBI about what was going on. But by that point, it was too late. Obviously, soon after that, September 11th happened. And so the theory is that the CIA operation spun out of control. However, the FBI had its own failures. So I want to go to the last video here, and then I'll give you more details.

Oh, we don't have the last video. Okay, sorry about that. So again, the theory is that the CIA operation had spun out of control. But the FBI also, I want to be clear, had their own failures. So take a look at this, what you're looking at, when Al-Hazmi and Al-Madar were in California, they spent some time living with an FBI informant by the name of Abdu Sater. Now, Carlson claims that somehow the FBI was never informed about this. Okay, so like, there was definitely a breakdown in communication in some cases, but most of the time,

my read of what was disclosed in this first episode was that the CIA was engaged in an operation that They were very much intentionally hiding from the FBI. And as a result of giving these two al-Qaeda terrorists, access to the United States with these visas, the ability to travel to the U.S., this was all an attempt to gather information, to use them as informants and gather information about al-Qaeda, obviously that operation has backfired. But there's still so much that we don't know because there are documents that are being withheld from the American people. even though 9-11 happened 24 years ago. And at this point, I think we're deserving of a little more transparency and a little more clarity of how the largest terror attack on U.S. soil was able to occur. Considering the fact that we have a billion intelligence agencies, you have all this, you know,

surveillance in America. So I thought that this was definitely an enlightening episode to say the least. And there's more detail that you should look into. I can't get into every single minor detail that was covered in this episode. But I thought that this was telling. And I think that the CIA has a lot to answer for. Now, as it pertains to the 9-11 commission, it was pretty much set up to fail. It was underfunded.

And as you can tell, they were kind of led astray in that they weren't given all the information they needed from our own intelligence organizations. But it was an eye-opener, and I recommend taking a look at it. I'm not saying that the United States intentionally planned a terror attack in the U.S. And it was an inside job in that way. I'm just saying that there were some pretty big missteps and some really bad ideas carried out by the CIA, as it appears. And we haven't really gotten many answers about why this happened and why no one was held accountable for it. So take a look at the episode for yourselves. That's all I have to say about it. There are going to be several more episodes coming out in subsequent weeks. And I'll decide

whether we cover every single one. But I thought this one contained some information that was worth knowing about. All right, we got to take a break. When we come back, Wosny Lombrey joins us for the second hour.