The Young Turks - Revenge & Retribution

Episode Date: January 24, 2025

Hannity CONFRONTS TRUMP on Jan 6 Pardons. ‘MAGA Granny’ Rejects Trump Pardon. Laken Riley Immigration Bill Heads To Trump’s Desk. Trump Selects SHOCKINGLY GREAT Pentagon Policy Chief. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur 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 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. We're going to be able to be. Welcome to the Young Turks, Jake U Granite Kusparian with you guys. What is this? We have some good news today. I count minimum three pieces of good news.

So I know, you know what it is, Casper? A, it's cray cray, okay? B, America. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, I rest my case, guys. All right, so hang in there for a bunch of the good news coming up.

Of course, there's bad news, too. It's the news, what are you crazy? Okay, so let's get started. Casper. Well, we begin with yet another update in regard to Donald Trump's decision to do sweeping pardons of January 6th rioters. Let's get into it. You did run on a platform.

You were very straightforward. You said you would pardon these people that were sentenced for January 6th. No, totally. You did. The only criticism or pushback I've seen is about people that were convicted or involved in incidents where they were violent with police. Why did they get a pardon? Fox News anchor Sean Hannity had a lengthy sit down interview with Donald Trump and asked the question that I'm sure many are wondering, why exactly did you think it was a good idea to do sweeping pardons of the January 6 rioters, namely the individuals who carried out acts of violence

against the police officers on that day. And Trump basically, I mean, look, the guy doesn't hold back, right? He just says what he actually thinks. And in this case, he admitted that he didn't really care enough to go through the case-by-case review of individuals who were seeking to be pardoned. Let's take a look. Number one, they were in there for three and a half years, a long time. And in many solitary confinement, treated like nobody's ever been treated so badly. They were treated like the worst criminals in history. And you know what they were there for? They were protesting the vote because they knew the election was rigged and they were protesting the vote.

And that should be allowed to protest the vote. You should be allowed to. You know, when the day comes... You shouldn't be able to invade the capital. No, ready? Most of the people were absolutely innocent. Okay, but forgetting all about that, these people have served horribly a long time. It would be very, very cumbersome to go and look, you know how many people are talking about?

1,500 people. Almost all of them are, should not have been, this should not have happened. And the other thing is this, some of those people with the police, true, but they were very minor incidents, okay? They get built up by that a couple of fake guys that are on CNN all the time. Nobody watches. They were very minor incidents and it was time. You have murderers in Philadelphia, you have murderers in Los Angeles that don't even get any time. And those murderers in Los Angeles and Philly should 100% get time behind bars if they're convicted of murdering people. But, you know, look, I think it's important to

to differentiate people who were convicted of lesser charges, let's say stuff like trespassing from the individuals who absolutely did carry out acts of violence and it was caught on camera. In fact, let me just quickly detail one of those individuals, one of those rioters. So his name is Matthew Crowell and we're about to watch a video. Let's keep our mics up while I explain what you're seeing on the screen.

This is a perfect example of someone who I don't think should have been pardoned. He's the individual wearing the red hoodie. He stole a baton from a police officer. You can see him holding it there and hitting someone over the head with it. And then the person he's hitting over the head is a police officer. He proceeds to assault cops with the baton. He's snatched away from a cop.

So listen, if you're going to put everyone in the same bucket and pretend as if they were all, you know, dealing with heavy-handed, you know, prosecution, when all, All they did was mosey on into the Capitol building after the initial storming of the Capitol happened. It's just a total mischaracterization of some of these charges, of some of these individuals. Now, how many of these individuals carried out acts of violence? I don't know the exact number. What I do know is those people, unfortunately, were included in the sweeping pardons that Donald

Trump did. And the reason why he's getting backlash is because people don't want to let individuals who assault cops off easy and they feel that in this case Donald Trump did. Yeah, so I'm gonna get this of this in a second. First of all, they need higher chairs at the White House. So you'll go back and look at that clip of the interview and go, why are the chairs shows so short? Anyways, number two, do you see it? They look like their kindergartners. Anyway, the tiniest point in history. So Hannity starts with the only pushback, I've seen is of, you know, you're releasing the violent criminals. I'm pretty sure I've seen

other pushback of releasing all the January 6th guys. But I get it. He's saying it from a right wing perspective. Trump says, oh, there's just a couple of fake guys on CNN. Those are actually real police officers who were assaulted and one of them had a heart attack afterwards. There's absolutely nothing fake about them. That's the usual Trump nonsense. And but now we get to the subs of it. First, that whether it's an excuse or real, that was an amazing statement. When he's like, I mean, looking through the whole case files would have been cumbersome. What does that mean? I was too lazy to figure out which was shoplifted and which one murdered. So yeah, cumbersome. I just let them all go. Okay, so in this case, obviously shoplifting and

murder are examples that not what actually happened. So, but it might just be an excuse for I really wanted to let him go. That's why I let him go. And I'll pretend that I'm just lazy. Although he really is lazy, so it might be real. Anyways, so why would he want to let him go? Well, look, you know the obvious answers. But now I'm talking about just the violent criminals, the one that attacked the cops. Does he actually believe all the things he said about the cops? Blue Lives Matter got to protect the police. No, he doesn't care about the police. He doesn't care about anybody, right? There's one guy he cares about Donald J. Trump. So these guys went to war for him and they committed violence for who for Trump of course look unless you're like

total maga cult and you think they all those people did that violence for nancy Pelosi or antifa or tourism they obviously did it for Trump so Trump's going hey thanks a lot guys not just for past services of willing to say hang Mike Pence and attack cops and do anything for Donald Trump. But if you think about it, also potentially for future reasons, if I need you guys to attack someone else again, number one, you're free to go so you can do that. And number two, remember, if you do it, I'm just going to let you out of prison anyway. Yeah, I don't know. I think he's lazy. That story came out yesterday. You weren't on the show, but I covered it and I totally believe it. You really think that Donald Trump is going to

sit down and carefully, personally review 1,500 separate cases? And then all. No, but Anna, look, so is he lazy? I've said it eight times already in this story. And that's part of the reason, but I don't think that's the main reason. And second of all, he doesn't, the president doesn't have to personally do that. You just assign some guy at the White House. You'll have your answer for which cases to sift through in a matter of hours, right? So I mean, so that's no excuse. So you think he's building an army of violent offenders who are going to create all sorts of havoc and fight on his behalf? Like that's what this is about? Well, Anna, A, he already did during the debate with Biden in 2020. He said proud boys stand by. And they did stand by. And then

they did attack the Capitol, and after they did assault the cops, and they did chant hang Mike Pence and talked about murdering his vice president, he thought it was a really, really good job. That's why he just freed them. So do I know that he has a plan to use them in the future? No, of course not. Of course I don't know that. And I hope that he has no occasion to do that. I hope that he realizes that he has to leave office after this time around. but last time he didn't realize it and he did use them. So yes, he has an excellent track record of using vigilante thugs just like these guys to commit violence.

So one of the people that he has pardoned has already been re-arrested. And so let's talk a little bit about who this person is and what he was arrested for. So his name is Daniel Ball and he actually committed an act of violence on January 6th. he threw an explosive device that detonated on 25 police officers. So the explosion allegedly disoriented officers and caused hearing loss, which for some of the officers lasted months, defended also allegedly through a large piece of wood into the line of officers protecting the capital. So I just want to repeat again, people like this should not have been pardoned,

especially when there's no indication that they were at all remorseful for what they did. But the FBI said that it was unable to determine whether the device was commercially manufactured or homemade. In May of 2023, Ball was charged with 12 counts. He's being held or was being held in pretrial detention when he got pardoned, but was arrested a second time for federal gun charges, which, you know, based on the commentary I heard in regard to Hunter Biden, serious. We need to take a federal gun charge very, very seriously. There should be no plea deal. There should be absolutely no deal offered to this guy. Anyway, it's been, so specifically he's

accused of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. And that was discovered as part of the search warrant from Ball's capital riot charges. The arrest warrant for those gun charges was never actually issued until the pardon. And Ball did not even like leave prison, between getting pardoned and then getting re-arrested because of the federal gun charge. So in other words, he was in possession of a firearm when he was already a convicted criminal. And this was prior to the Capitol riots.

So as soon as he got pardoned, that illegal gun charge is what allowed authorities to re-arrest him. He also has two previous convictions for domestic violence battery by strangulation, and battering and resisting. law enforcement with violence, hence why he is unable to possess a firearm. So he was up on a gun charge. So I assume that Trump and Biden competed over who would pardon him first. So they both have done crazy pardons. So look, I'll give you one piece of

nuance here. And none of these pardons are blanket pardons. They're only for January 6th. That doesn't make them any better. I'm just telling you, you know, vis-a-vis the Biden pardons, which were blanket pardons for any crime committed over about a 10, 11-year stretch. And so, and they don't get to commit crimes of the future, unless Trump's in office, in which case he will again pardon them. But, but that's your context. Durge, one of our members on t.com, made a really good point. He said, Trump, January 6th served a long time. Also Trump, the Central Park 5 should not be released even after exoneration and having served much longer. Yeah, gee, I wonder if it's because these guys were, first of all, the Central Park

five were totally and utterly innocent. I know they were black and Latino, but nevertheless, they were innocent. So that, I mean, Trump went after those guys for no goddamn reason, even though they were innocent. Anyways, and didn't think they should be released, even though it would, when it went. was proven. And in this case, he's like violence against cops. I love it as long as you did it for me and we're looking to murder by vice president. So I give Trump no quarter on this issue. So let's skip ahead. I want to talk a little bit about what Enrique Atario is up to and what he's

saying because he, of course, was one of the individuals related to the January 6th Capitol riots who ended up getting convicted of sedition was given 22 years in prison, but he has since been pardoned by Trump. So turns out that both Enrique Tario, the leader of the proud boys and Stuart Rhodes, who is the founder of the oathkeepers, are both asking for retribution now that Donald Trump has pardoned them and freed them from prison after their involvement in the January 6th, capital riots. Tario had been convicted of sedition and was sentenced to 22 years, but now he's free because of the Trump pardon. Now, Tario said on the day of his release, quote, success is going

to be retribution. He said, of those who investigated and prosecuted the capital riot, the people who did this, they need to feel the heat, they need to be put behind bars, and they need to be prosecuted. Similarly, Stuart Rhodes with the Oathkeeper says if they committed any crimes, they should be prosecuted. The same exact system that we went through, put them through. And by the way, if any of them have committed crimes, yes, absolutely. Like there shouldn't be a two-tier justice system. But based on their framing, this is really about retribution because they don't like the fact that they were prosecuted for their role in January 6th. So Rhodes said that they may hang up his spurs when asked about the future of the oath keepers. Tario, however,

told the media to stop calling him the ex-leader of the proud boys. I assume because he considers himself the current leader of the proud boys. So, Jank, any thoughts on that? Yeah, I think Timothy Pulliam, who's a YouTube member, has a good question. Why did Trump pardon 1,500 Antifa beds? So is anybody in the right going to go back and ask the Tucker Carlson's and the other right wing host that claimed that they were Antifa or federal officers? Hey, why did Trump pardon those guys if they're Antifa? So it's such a great point by Timothy. Love how smart our audience is.

So guys, I don't know what's going to happen in the future with all these folks. Are they a little chasing because they had to spend a good time, good amount of time in prison, whether they feel anger, well, that's very likely, and want to do something else, something worse, I don't know. But what I do know is the next time that if Trump calls for them to do violence again, well, then we're in a world of hurt, and the country will devolve. And it'll get to a really, really bad place. Because here Trump saw, I had them do the violence, didn't hurt me at all. And for those guys, they think, yeah, I spent some time in prison. I get that if Trump's not in office, I might be in trouble. But while Trump is an office, I literally have a get out of jail

free card. So at least when it comes to political violence on behalf of Trump. So I don't know if Trump is going to misuse this de facto militia going forward. But at least he has opportunity to misuse them and that is deeply concerning. So final thing I'll say is, you know, House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to continue fanning the flames about January 6th and also give the appearance, the optical illusion of governing and doing his job. So he plans on holding hearings about how the prosecution of January 6ers went down and he has formed this new House committee to investigate it. They're going to debunk false narratives about what happened on January 6th.

But the update to that story that I think is super interesting is that according to reporting from the Washington Post, an aide to House Speaker Mike Johnson advised Republican colleagues against subpoenaing former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson as part of their investigation into January 6, 2021, to prevent the release of sexually explicit text that lawmakers center. Jesus Christ, man. Who the hell did that? Man, there are no bounds in this Congress. It is insanity. By the way, that same Speaker Johnson was asked about the Trump partons. They say, oh, it's no big deal. It's moving on. Then they asked him about the Biden parties. He's like, now, that's truly outrageous. I can't believe he had pardons.

Like, brother, you're on tape. They asked you two questions back to back. You don't see what a jacket ass you look like when you say, oh, the president of pardoning violent criminals who attacked the Capitol while they were chanting about murdering the vice president and attacked police officers is no big deal. But Joe Biden's pardon of family members, et cetera, the worst thing that ever happened. Okay, all right. Then look, obvious, obvious, obvious, hypocrite. Both sets of pardons were disastrous. Final thing I'll say is apparently in a meeting following a conversation, Mike Johnson and senior aides also conveyed to Representative Barry Loudermilk and his members of

his staff that issuing a subpoena to Hutchinson and asking her to testify under oath would serve as an opportunity for her to retell her story and potentially embarrass the Trump White House. So it seems like there's actually some concern about Hutchinson being credible and having her testify again with credible allegations against Trump. But before the meeting, a Johnson aide told Loudermilk's staff that multiple colleagues had raised concerns with the Speaker's office about the potential for public disclosure of sexual texts from members. So it's not one person. There are multiple people who apparently sent her sexual texts. And these were sexual texts from members who were trying to engage in.

sexual favors with Hutchinson. DC sounds like such a great place, doesn't it? It's disgusting. It's unbelievable. She's testifying against Trump and presumably hence against Republicans at this point. And these morons send their sex texts, you don't think she might release those and reveal those? But they're so unbelievably stupid. But remember, almost all the national politicians are picked to be stupid because the donors don't want them thinking for themselves.

They want them to be dumbasses who just take orders. So that's why we have the just like the very dumbest people in America are almost all of Congress. So now if she testifies, I guess we'll see some members, members. Okay. Well, look, these are people who get elected into office. not handpicked, like they're not chosen. And I think the media needs to do a better job in like being clear about the areas in which members of Congress are engaging in bad behavior, or potentially, you know, harassing behavior of women, of AIDS, of other female Congress members. But we'll see how that develops. Yeah, one last super quick thing. I remember when

Olivia Nuzzi had some sex with RFK Jr., that was the biggest story in the country. So apparently there's a couple of idiot Congress people who are trying to sexually harass one of the key witnesses on the January 6th, you know, hearings. So is the press on it? Are they on it? Are they going to find those? Or is it going to be, oh, no, no, Trump's in office. So let's just let's just go get along and don't, don't expose the Republicans. They won't come on CNN or MSMC. I don't know. I don't know. We'll see. We'll see if they do anything. All I know is that some people were crucified for these things and we were told it was the worst thing on earth. All right, we're going to take a break. When we come back, we'll talk about the Lake and Riley Act, which just passed in both chambers of Congress. What's in the bill and how likely is Donald Trump to sign it? We'll be right back with that story and more. Don't miss it.

All right back on TYT, Jankana, with you guys, more news. Well, we got to talk a little bit about legislation that just passed both chambers of Congress, something that happens rarely these days. So let's talk about the details. Well, Congress wasting no time enacting President Trump's hardline vision on immigration, the Senate passing the Lake and Riley Act, last night named for a 22 year old nursing student killed by an undocumented Venezuelan migrant last year. That bill would dramatically expand the federal government's powers to detain undocumented immigrants. It's on track to become the first piece of legislation that Trump

signs into law in his second term. The hotly contested and controversial immigration bill known as the Laken Riley Act has now officially passed in both chambers of Congress and is now being sent to Donald Trump's desk for his signature to sign it into law. Now, it got support from dozens of Democrats, while others argue that this bill robs immigrants, migrants of due process. So let's talk about why those arguments are being made. So the name of the bill, of course, refers to the Georgia college student who was murdered by a Venezuelan immigrant, who was in the United States illegally, 26-year-old Jose Ibarra had been cited for shoplifting by a Georgia police department,

but immigration and customs enforcement actually didn't issue a detainer for him, and he was not taken into custody, sadly. So the Laken Riley bill's main purpose is to essentially clamp down on people who are in the United States illegally, who are accused of committing nonviolent crime, so they can't go on to commit additional violent crimes. According to Congress's summary of the bill, and this is the exact wording, under this bill, DHS, Department of Homeland Security, must detain an individual who is, one, unlawfully present in the United States or did not possess the necessary documents when applying for admission, and two, has been charged with arrested for, convicted of, or admits to having committed acts that constitute the essential

elements of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting. So look, the key word here is arrested for. So the individual doesn't even necessarily have to be convicted of committing a crime like shoplifting in order to be deported by border patrol or ice. So this is what most opponents of the bill are focusing on. They feel that this robs the individual of due process because there hasn't really been any way of adjudicating whether the allegations against this individual is true. Now, of course, supporters of this bill will argue, well, the person who's in the country illegally has already committed a crime. But others disagree. Under the current system, immigration officials use their discretion to first detain people with violent criminal records.

But this law would basically override that discretion and include individuals who have simply been accused of committing nonviolent acts like shoplifting and theft. Jank. Yeah, so a couple of things here. First off, some activists are saying that this is a mass deportation bill. I don't want you guys to get misled by that because there is an actual potential mass deportation that Trump has threatened. This is not it. If they, if you get confused about that, then you're going to make mistakes about how to react when the actual one comes. So I would have

voted against this bill because it's just people who are charged or arrested. No, they got to be convicted. And so because otherwise you could just accuse anyone of shoplifting and then have them deported. So no, I don't agree with that. Now, if they were convicted, I'm sure that we'd have a good healthy debate over that and, you know, we should change our poll question because we have polls in the live chat all the time. You should check those out as when we're live at 6 to 8 p.m. Eastern. But so I think a lot of people would in our audience would vote against this act. But I'm curious what you, how you guys would feel about it if it was just a conviction. Because if all of them are very serious, burglary theft, etc.,

shoplifting is arguable in terms of is that is that a serious crime but look you're here in a you know in an undocumented fashion I don't think it's too much to ask for for you to follow the laws so like they arrest you on jaywalking or civil disobedience no no no no no but these are pretty serious crimes and then they added by the way I don't know why they didn't add this before but a couple of Republicans added something like Murder? Yeah, for murder, I think that's fair, right? And, oh, and Cornyn added for attacking a police officer, I don't know if it has an asterisk, unless you're doing it for Donald Trump. But if it's for serious felonies, yeah, this is what the American people voted for. And so we, you can choose

to be outraged that some undocumented immigrants or criminals are going to be deported. But that's, Outrage is not going to work with the American people. So this was one of the core issues they voted for. They haven't gotten to non-criminals yet. When they get to non-criminals, that's when we all got to rally and say, hell no. So additionally, there's a second part of this legislation that I think is interesting, and I'm very curious what you think about it, Chang. So it also grants power to attorneys general to sue the federal government if they can prove,

if they can show their states are being harmed over failure to implement national immigration policies, as well as allow states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for harm cause to citizens allegedly due to illegal immigration. So state officials could also demand that the state department stop issuing visas from countries that do not accept people who the United States is deporting. So we've run into some issues. with that as it pertains to Venezuela, for instance. Venezuela says that they will not accept Venezuelans who the United States has deported. So that has led to some issues when it comes to the deportation plans of the Trump administration. But I think that's a really interesting

element of this bill. And as of yesterday, the bill did pass both chambers. The House vote was 263 to 156, with 46 Democrats joining all Republicans in support of this measure. The bill passed the Senate on Monday by a vote of 64 to 35, winning 12 Democratic votes. And so among those 12 Democrats, let's put up this graphic, and you can see who we're talking about here, you know, you have Senator Cortez Mastro, Jackie Rosen, unsurprisingly, John Federman. The list goes on and on. These are some of the more moderate to conservative Democrats in the Senate. Although Ruben Gallego is on the list, and he is presumably going to be one of the more progressive senators,

but why is he on the list? Because he's from Arizona. And Mark Kelly, the other Democrat from Arizona, is also on the list. And that's exactly what I was trying to explain to you guys earlier. You're not going to be the senator from Arizona next time around if you don't vote yes on this bill. And why? Because it's not a mirage. the voters of Arizona are in favor of this. So you can get mad at them if you like, but they they are voting with their constituents. Actually, I want to read a comment from Gallego because he felt the need to put out a statement expressing why he decided to vote in favor of the Lake and Riley

Act. He says, Arizonans know the real life consequences of today's border crisis. We must give law enforcement the means to take action when illegal immigrants break the law to prevent situations like what occurred to Lake and Riley, I will continue to fight for the safety of Arizonans by pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and increased border security. So look, I agree with you. The biggest flaw in this bill, which almost certainly is going to be signed into law by Donald Trump, is the fact that it deals with people who haven't even been convicted of a crime, and I think the due process is important. You do run into some issues, though, when it comes to some of these states that have really declared that they don't want to prosecute people

who have committed crime like shoplifting. So I think that's probably what lawmakers had in mind when they drafted the bill the way they did. But still, you can't do away with due process. I think that's super unfair. And I think that's legitimately the biggest flaw I see in this legislation. Yeah, last two things for me. Look, I'm a naturalized citizen. So when I had a green card. I was super careful. I mean, whatever that means, it's not like I had the intent to break any law anyway, but if there was anything within a million miles of close, I wouldn't do it because I was worried about, you know, making sure that I got my citizenship. If you're an undocumented immigrant and you're going around doing shoplifting or theft or burglary, I mean,

it's hard for me to muster up an enormous amount of sympathy for you. So I don't know if that makes me a bad guy, but sorry. No, it doesn't. I totally agree with you. Like, I totally agree with you. Like, listen, you're already in the country undocumented status. I just, come on. Like, just don't commit crimes. It's not that difficult.

Don't commit crimes because you're here without proper documentation. And you're going to get, I mean, you run the risk of being deported. And so I don't think you're a bad person. I don't think anyone's a bad person for making that argument. We've got our own homegrown criminals. Okay. we don't need to import criminals from around the world. Yeah, and last two things, if Venezuela doesn't take them back, I don't understand how that works.

Here's what I would do. I would fly them to Venezuela, have them get off the plane, and have the plane fly back. What are you going to do? Flying back to America? Like, so I'm not interested in you not taking your criminals back. That's not a thing I'm interested in. All right, lastly, the states being able to sue the federal government, I think is nonsense. So what the reason they put that in there is if a Democrat becomes president again, every red state wants to sue them and go, oh, in our opinion, you're not doing enough. Even though the American people voted you into office and they wanted your immigration policy, Alabama disagrees. So nah, nah, nah, nah, we have the Supreme Court and we're gonna use the activist judges on the Supreme Court to say that we're right even if we lose elections on the

national level. So I hate that part of the bill too. All right, we're gonna take a break when we come back. a massive story in regard to a pick for the Pentagon that has neocons furious. I'm sure it also has the Israel lobby, furious, and it was one of the most shocking developments in the Trump administration. So we'll give you that story and more coming up. All right, back on T.R.T. Jane canada with you guys. Go. This story blew me away. I didn't believe it at first, but it's real. It's happening. Let's get into it. I thought he was a very dumb person, but I used him well because every time people saw me come into a meeting with John Bolton standing behind me, they thought that he'd attack.

them because he was a warmonger. He's the one that got us involved, along with Cheney and a couple of others, convinced Bush, which was a terrible decision to blow up the Middle East. You know, we blew up the Middle East and we left. We got nothing out of it except a lot of death. We killed a lot of people. And John Bolton was, you know, one of those guys, a stupid guy. Whatever that was, it needs to be injected in my veins because I loved those states. about the obvious warmonger, John Bolton, who Donald Trump stripped of security and, yeah, security clearance. And so a reporter asked him about that, and he felt the need to call him a warmonger, call him dumb, and call him out for being part of the neocon brain rot that led the United States to cause all sorts of trouble in the Middle East. And look, he's doing something else that's very surprising Donald Trump is because he just selected someone who actually does not want to go to war in the Middle East and wants to use diplomacy when it comes to Iran as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East.

In other words, he is one of the policy chiefs in the Pentagon who will be making decisions about policy, our foreign policy. in the Middle East. So his name is Michael DeMino. And the man in question has quite a background. So he was a military analyst at the CIA, where he specifically focused on issues pertaining to counterterrorism. He's also a fellow at defense priorities, which is a Coke-funded outfit. But the Koch brothers are actually isolationists. So in this one area, I agree with the Koch brothers. because they want to stop spending money on needless wars and an official with the Defense Department during Trump's first term. So he did serve in Trump's first term, but he didn't have a role as significant as this. So people are already freaking out about that. And when I say people,

I mostly mean neocon loyalists to Israel. As Jewish insider put it, the Trump administration's pick for Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East brings a record on Iran. the Houthis and the region that is alarming pro-Israel conservatives having described Iran's missile attack on Israel as fairly moderate and urged the U.S. against bombing the Houthis, instead calling for American pressure on Israel. He has called for a reduced U.S. presence in the Middle East and argued that the U.S. does not have any critical interests in the region. Again, please inject this into my veins. In fact, we have a snippet of the conversation that Jewish Insider is referring to. Let's take a look at that. Even if you believe that ISIS poses some kind of critical threat,

you have to look at how massively U.S. capabilities, both military capabilities and intel capabilities, have changed over the past 20 years. We have over the rising capabilities, right? We're able to monitor ISIS in Afghanistan with absolutely no presence on the ground. around there. And there's no reason with all the other U.S. bases in the region and even in Europe that we could do that, do something similar in Iraq and Syria, if you're really concerned about the presence of that group. But I'd argue really the reason that we're in Iraq and Syria is to sort of deny oil to the Assad regime in some kind of hope that will ultimately, you know, lead to his ouster. And then really the answer, I think Mitch McConnell even made comments to this effect a couple of weeks ago, we're really there to counter Iran. And that's really at the behest of the Israelis and the Saudis. We're really in the Middle East to counter Iran at the behest of the Israelis and the Saudis.

That's what he said there. Now, that conversation took place in February of last year, which is why he was alluding to Assad still being in power. Now, Domino said the United States can prevent terrorist threats emanating from the region without a major military presence, instead using diplomacy, leaning on local actors intelligence monitoring and long-range strikes. He said the U.S. should significantly reduce its true presence in the region, remove military outposts in Iraq, Syria, and the Levant, and ultimately reassess its presence

in the Gulf. So I have more. This is just the beginning. We just barely scratched the surface. But, oh my God, I mean, we haven't had anyone in the State Department, in the Pentagon, who is willing to call things as he sees it, who's willing to actually speak out about how we don't have any real interests in the Middle East, and we're really there specifically at the behest of Israel. And so I think it's fascinating. And he had a lot to say about how the Biden administration was helping Israel prosecute the war in Gaza, which we're going to get to next. But overall, I mean, this is a fantastic pick by Donald Trump, and he deserves some credit for that. Okay, is Michael Debenno guy? Love him. And there's a couple of reasons why. Number one, he's correct. And he doesn't want to get us into any more wars. And he doesn't think that we should just be unilaterally serving Israel's interests or the Saudis interest. If you notice, he made a really good point. It's not just Israel that wants us to get into a war with around. It's Saudi Arabia. Saudis are Sunni, Iran is Shia. They compete in the Middle East. And the Saudis would like us to wipe out Iran on their behalf. So they could.

dominate the Middle East, and they are no less radical or fundamentalist than the Iranian leaders. So what are we in the middle of a Sunni, Shia, Israel, you know, Iran fight for? Absolutely not. He's absolutely correct. And he's like, this is a rare guy. I was going to say a rare guy, I'm not sure I've ever heard a Republican or Democrat with a position this important saying obviously true things like, we don't actually have a lot of interest. in the Middle East. Like we keep saying this is all existential to America. How is bombing Syria existential to America?

How is like starting a new war on behalf of Israel existential to America other than doing us damage, right, other than inviting a lot more terrorism against us? These things are enormously obvious to anyone who hasn't either been paid by the Israeli lobby or is doing propaganda on behalf of the Israeli lobby. We barely have any interest there. The only thing you could imagine is oil.

But right now we get plenty of oil from Saudi Arabia and the rest of them. And if we did a deal with Iran, we'd also get plenty of oil from Iran. And our gas prices would be even lower. So it's amazing that any Republican or Democrat would pick this guy as the head of the Middle East in the, in the Pentagon. So that's a great day in America. And but my God, this is a litmus test too for anyone on the left. If you're opposed to this guy just because Trump picked them, you're not really on the left. You're just in a new party.

And I don't know what it is, okay? A new part of the political spectrum. And one more thing for now than I have a lot more in a second. But yeah, guys, we told you there was a real tension within the right wing movement, MAGA, et cetera, on this issue. And here it is. And it's not just, and I want to be clear, it's not just going in this guy's direction. On the other hand, you have all the, you know, establishment neocon warhawks like Rubio Stefanik

and potentially Pete Heggzeth, who would be his boss. Actually, one of our viewers, HXC. Mike says, does it matter if he puts an anti-war Israel critic in that position if Hegseth is going to oversee him? And that is the question. That's the central question in terms of foreign policy for Trump's second term. Is he going to side with the Rubio Hegzith pro-Israel neocons, or is he going to side with the domino, you know, portion of MAGA, now both are in the building and that is fascinating. the Pentagon under Donald Trump because to me it's become clear that the wing of the MAGA

movement that wants to purge neocons is now starting to be pretty influential. I don't know how many of these people are in Donald Trump's ear, but I just want to give you a quick spoiler. Domino is not the only person within this new administration that wants to pursue diplomacy and does not want to go to war with Iran. In fact, regarding the threat that Iran poses to the United States. Yeah, he poured cold water on that as well. And he did so during a radio interview last February. This was a radio interview with the shoot with Peter Boyles. Let's take a look at what Domeno had to say. The people that try to tell you that, you know, Iran is somehow going to take over the Middle East or something. I think it's fearmongering.

And I think it's it's Pablam and it's not supported by the facts. What's going on in the Middle East right now is a classic example of what we call. horizontal escalation where you start to see the conflict spread to Lebanon, to Iraq, to Yemen, right, with the Houthis. And none of this is good for the United States. And I think that the Biden administration has really failed in putting its foot down and saying, look, this has to de-escalate. And we have to bring about a succession of hostilities here, you know, in the region. And look, the United States, in past Arab-Israeli conflicts, has stayed out of it. has pursued de-escalation. And I think that that's really the most responsible thing to do here.

I loved everything he said there. In November of 2023, he put out a policy paper and said that it was in the United States' interest to use diplomacy to end the war in Gaza, ASAP. He also said that wiping out Hamas would only lead to the rise of Hamas 2.0. Now, obviously, the pro-Israel lobby and its allies are absolutely freaking out about this individual being chosen or selected by Donald Trump to serve in the Pentagon. Jewish insider highlights the fact that Domino, after Iran's second ballistic missile attack on Israel last year, dismissed the attack as a fairly moderate response to Israeli operations against Tehran and its terrorist proxy groups.

and suggested that Iran was holding back. Guess what? Iran was holding back. Iran wanted to give the impression to their people that they fought back against Israel after Israel had done airstrikes in Iran, but they didn't wanna kill anybody or hurt anybody because they knew the second someone in Israel gets hurt as a result of their retaliation,

well then all hell will break loose with the United States backing Israel in going to war in Iran. I'm really happy that that didn't happen. I'm happy that, you know, Iran didn't respond in a way that got anyone killed. And look, I'm gonna keep it real, like it feels good to hear someone who's going to be in the Pentagon saying these things. I mean, it's obvious, it's true, but it's so rare to hear this from someone who has a modicum of power in the federal government. He has vocally opposed attacking Iran's nuclear program, suggesting that an Israeli attack could lead Iran to release its receipts.

restraint and elsewhere praised former President Joe Biden for pressuring Israel not to attack such sites back in April of 2024. And guess what? He's even on the record criticizing some of the so-called accomplishments of the first Trump term, even though he served in the first Trump term. So what was he critical about? Namely the Abraham Accords. He said, and I'm quoting him, the Abraham Accords left out the issue of Israel, Palestine. And I think that's a massive mistake. That was largely done because people thought that that's the thorniest issue that we could set it aside and solve 80% of the rest of the equation, but it doesn't work that way. This conflict is so central to the region. And you can't really address any kind

of long-term political arrangements in the Gulf or in the Middle East without also addressing it. Could not agree more. Perfectly stated. Yeah. I'll go first. So number one, this is an unmitigated win for anyone who cares about the peace movement. So it doesn't mean that he's going to win the overall fight within the administration, but the very fact that he's in there and has these opinions and he's going, and he's in charge of the Middle East for the Pentagon. That's unbelievable. And I almost don't want to talk about it too much for fear of riling up the establishment

and all the neocons and having there, you know, all of Israel supporters go and attack him. But when he says it's so central the occupation to solving the actual issues in the Middle East, that is, again, an overwhelmingly obvious truth that absolutely no one in Washington will say that is in power. They'll say, oh, yeah, the occupation, they largely ignore it. But if they don't ignore it, they say, it's a small thing. No, it's not the small thing. It's the major cancer that causes everything else.

And the reason why they ignore it and minimize it is because Israel wants to keep occupying the Palestinians. They've done it for 57 years now. Why do they want to keep occupying them? Because every year they take more land in the West Bank. More land and more land and more land. And now that might also happen in Gaza. So the fact that he's actually calling out the actual issue bravely, that's amazing. I've been waiting a lifetime for this. And I'll go further in saying that would Biden have appointed this guy? I've got it at a 0% chance. Would Kamala Harris have appointed this guy? I have it at 0% chance. And I don't mean this particular guy. I mean, a person that is a Democrat or on the left with the same exact issues. You could find

hundreds of people on the left with these same policy issues. But there's no way in the world Kamala Harris would have appointed someone like that. Now, here's some more information about what Trump has done with the Pentagon. So he actually got rid of the Iran Hawk known as Brian Hook on the same day that he tapped Domino to serve in the role that he will now serve in. Hook was a hawkish advisor who basically backed a maximum pressure sanctions regime that Trump instituted against Iran in his first term. And so Trump got rid of him and on the same day selected Domino to serve in the Pentagon. And it's unclear exactly why Trump axed Hook, but the president says he and three others are not aligned with our vision to make America great

again. That's kind of incredible. And the amazing thing is that before Hook was fired, he was actually working on Trump's transition team for the State Department. Now he's gone. Jank, you're going to really appreciate this. Mark Levin is super salty about what's been going on. Yes. He reacted to the domino pick with this. Take a look. How'd this creep get a top Department of Defense position?

I'm here for it. I don't know, but I jump in it. I love it. There's also a lot of rage over Trump promoting his Middle East envoy, Steve Whitkoff, to be the man in charge of diplomacy with him. Iran. Whitkoff was the real estate guy who actually helped secure the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. Sagar and Jetty kind of alerted me to this, not personally, but he posted about it on X, saying, alert, I am hearing of a massive whisper campaign in D.C. against

Steve Whitkoff for negotiating the ceasefire and other Trump appointees who want to avoid war with Iran. And I just want to give you one example that I came across on X, and that's a conservative pro-Israel reporter and commentator who basically posted about Whitkoff complaining about him, complaining that he's willing to reach understandings about everything with Hamas, admits that he and Trump team didn't even try to get any additional hostages out, fawns over Qatari leadership again. Remember, Qatari leadership was fundamental in helping to broker the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. And they, look, Israel like supporters, those who want Israel to do whatever it wants with no repercussions, they don't like the ceasefire

deal because they don't think it goes far enough in favor of what Israel's interests are, which is crazy. But I love that they secured the ceasefire deal. Obviously, it's a very fragile ceasefire. Hopefully, it gets past that first six week phase and we can look forward to lasting peace in the region. Obviously, that's a difficult thing to bet any money on. But nonetheless, so far, there are some really interesting developments in the Trump administration. Yeah, I want to go to you guys and give you a voice for a second in the address. So we did a poll on this one. This is a good hire by Trump. I'm actually, to be honest, really surprised that it's 6436, 64 saying yes, 36% saying no.

I mean, I suppose if you say like, no, I would really love America to start a war on behalf of Israel, you would say, no, I don't want this guy. Oh, I love being neocons, I guess you would say, no, I don't want this guy. But I suspected a lot of people who said no, who said no, because as a Trump appointee, but then you're agreeing with Mark Levin, who is one of the worst right wing media hosts in the world. He's more right, way more right wing than Trump. He's way more in favor of wars than Trump is. Why?

Okay, I don't get it. I literally, literally don't get why anyone would be opposed to this guy unless they think, no, America should serve Israel. So look, I'm not, again, I'm not trying to criticize you. It's an interesting poll and maybe you guys could write in and tell me why you voted that way. But a couple of members here, dragging with a girl tattoo said the Trump administration is bipolar. And guys, that's exactly what we've been trying to tell you.

This group of Republicans is a little bit different than old group of Republicans. Before what I ever talked to a Republican, talking point, talking point, right wing, right wing, right wing, every position is super predictable. When you go talk to Mago, right wing host now, they would, one way of framing it is, they look bipolar. Why? because they have internal disagreement, and they allow for internal disagreement.

So there's right wing hosts that are screaming at each other, some pro-Israel, some saying, let's get the hell out of the Middle East, and I don't know why we're funding Israel. And that dynamic of that base being split is now showing up in the Trump administration, and he's appointing people on both sides. That is a really interesting development. And last thing is, this is a little bit critical, That's why I want to address it, Jenks left trisper fury, great member of ours at tytt.com,

said the only reason he's badmouting Bolton is because Bolton diss them continuously after leaving his cabinet. Trump still has no problem with warhawks like Lindsay Graham, etc, just as long as they kiss his ass. I would say two things can be true at the same time. You're right, he mainly hates Bolton because Bolton badmouthed them. Lizzie Graham kisses ass. He says he's fine. But while that's true, his MAGA base definitely has an anti-war contingent, and it is sizable. And Trump is also not going to put in a guy like Domeno unless he thinks that he's serving that base with that pick. So there you have it. That's the MAGA base, at least some portion of them saying we don't want war.

Well, we're going to take a break. When we come back for the second hour of the show, We've got a lot to get into, including an update on more fires in Los Angeles and some crazy statements from the law enforcement in L.A. in regard to the arsonists who have been arrested. Then we'll talk a little bit about Donald Trump declassifying some documents pertaining to the assassination of JFK Jr. and MLK. We'll be right back. I'm going to be able to be. I'm going to be. I don't know. I don't know. I'm going to be. I'm going to be.

B. B. B. Thank you.