Speaker 1: Thanks to all of you for being with us. Write
Speaker 1: down our toll free telephone number if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the program. It's eight hundred and
Speaker 1: nine point one Sean. If you want to join us,
Speaker 1: it is over, Linda. Did you see the latest allegation
Speaker 1: of this woman speaking out against the mister Fang Fang
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell, We actually have a copy of the tape.
Speaker 1: And he raped me. He choked me. While he was
Speaker 1: choking me, I lost consciousness. I thought I died. I
Speaker 1: believe he was I believe he drugged my drink. I
Speaker 1: only had one glass of wine. I did not consent
Speaker 1: to any sexual activity. He was married at the time
Speaker 1: and his wife was pregnant. He said he needed to
Speaker 1: get paperwork from his hotel room. When I arrived to
Speaker 1: his hotel room, I was already incapacitated. I couldn't move
Speaker 1: my arms of my body. Listen.
Speaker 2: I knew he was married at the time and that
Speaker 2: his wife was pregnant. He was my friend. On the
Speaker 2: third occasion, I believe he drugged my drink. I only
Speaker 2: had one glass of wine. We were supposed to go
Speaker 2: to a political event, and he said he needed to
Speaker 2: get paperwork from his hotel room. When I arrived at
Speaker 2: his hotel room, I was already incapacitated and I couldn't
Speaker 2: move my arms are my body. He raped me and
Speaker 2: he choked me. And while he was choking me, I
Speaker 2: lost consciousness and I thought I died. I did not
Speaker 2: consent to any sexual activity.
Speaker 1: Now it is not the only woman that is making
Speaker 1: these alsations. Here is another Eric Swalwell accuser, former staffer,
Speaker 1: who alleges Swalwell sexually assaulted her in twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: after a night of heavy drinking. Listen, you don't remember anything.
Speaker 3: I remember the next day.
Speaker 4: I can see flashes of that evening, of him on
Speaker 4: top of me, me pushing him off, him grabbing me.
Speaker 3: It was a lot more aggressive. It was aggressive. Did
Speaker 3: you say no?
Speaker 4: Yes, I said no, I said I In my flash
Speaker 4: that I can recall, I was pushing him off of me,
Speaker 4: saying no.
Speaker 3: And what did he do?
Speaker 4: He didn't stop.
Speaker 1: Then we have yet another accuser describing how he started
Speaker 1: out as a mentor, but eventually he invited her to
Speaker 1: a hotel.
Speaker 3: Listen, he offered to mentor me.
Speaker 5: Wow, that was as someone who knew truly nothing about
Speaker 5: politics at the time, or no one. That was just
Speaker 5: an incredibly generous offer that I felt very lucky to have.
Speaker 6: She says. Swalwell created a group chat with all the
Speaker 6: students and then added her as a friend on the
Speaker 6: messaging app Snapchat.
Speaker 5: And so I asked the other people that were in
Speaker 5: the meeting did he add them?
Speaker 3: And they said no? Were they all men? Yes, I
Speaker 3: was the only woman in the meeting.
Speaker 6: She says. Swalwell, who was then in his late thirties,
Speaker 6: started out talking politics, but his messages soon turned flirtatious.
Speaker 5: Ultimately it reached a point where he invited me to
Speaker 5: a hotel to meet him.
Speaker 3: It was very clear what the connotation was.
Speaker 5: At that point, I completely stopped responding. What I keep
Speaker 5: thinking back to is how lucky I am that I
Speaker 5: didn't go to that hotel.
Speaker 1: Yet. Accuser, who was a staffer, saying Swalwell was sending
Speaker 1: her pictures of his private parts.
Speaker 4: Listen, tell me more about the unsolicited photos he sent you.
Speaker 7: Yeah, So the messages gradually became more inappropriate, and they
Speaker 7: became later into the nights times that nobody should be
Speaker 7: talking to a congressman, or a congressman should be talking
Speaker 7: to a young girl. And he would say things like,
Speaker 7: what are you doing, what are you wearing? Send me
Speaker 7: a photo of what you're doing right now. And then
Speaker 7: eventually one night we were talking and he just sent
Speaker 7: me a photo of his genitals unsolicited. Unsolicited.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean the walls are literally collapsing on Swalwell
Speaker 1: this morning. I mean, yeah, he's he's done with Congress,
Speaker 1: he's done with his coup natorial bid. Now there is
Speaker 1: an investigation Alvin Bragg in New York, who I don't
Speaker 1: have a high degree of confidence in. And I noticed yesterday,
Speaker 1: for example, that it didn't draw much attention when this
Speaker 1: woman that we just hearned from said she was drugged
Speaker 1: to the point of unconsciousness when Swollwa forced her to
Speaker 1: have sex. Though it didn't draw much attention yesterday, the
Speaker 1: accounts of two now additional women accusing him of a
Speaker 1: pattern of rape indicate they also were drugged by the
Speaker 1: now former Democratic gubernatorial front runner before they were sexually attacked.
Speaker 1: But it you know, this woman saying, it's just a
Speaker 1: horrible I mean, what really is scary about this to
Speaker 1: me is, and we discovered this yesterday, is how many
Speaker 1: people apparently knew about his behavior for a long period
Speaker 1: of time and what that means, uh, in terms of
Speaker 1: what's coming forward now. If I have to look into
Speaker 1: my crystal ball here today, I would tell you that
Speaker 1: it probably means that his future is in a jail cell,
Speaker 1: probably maybe for maybe very likely for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life. I mean this, this is Harvey Weinstein's stuff,
Speaker 1: and it just keeps getting worse. And this, this is
Speaker 1: not something that I think in any way is going
Speaker 1: away for him. I listening to these women one after another,
Speaker 1: I'm having a hard time, you know, thinking that any
Speaker 1: jury would ever quit him, even even in the most
Speaker 1: liberal jurisdiction. I just can't see it. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll have to wait and see what happens as this
Speaker 1: continues to unfold. But you know, I believed he drugged
Speaker 1: my drink. I this there is a very, very arcsick,
Speaker 1: evil human being in there. If these women are all
Speaker 1: telling the truth, and I have no reason to doubt
Speaker 1: them at all whatsoever. We have some updates on the
Speaker 1: Iran situation. A lot more on this story coming up
Speaker 1: later in the program at the top of the next hour.
Speaker 1: So there is now a major schism between the US
Speaker 1: and Arnato allies that has emerged here. And the latest
Speaker 1: person that really, I guess, get in the middle of
Speaker 1: this is now the you know, is Georgia Maloney, and she,
Speaker 1: of course was the Prime Minister of Italy, and he said,
Speaker 1: I find President Trump's remark about the remarks about the
Speaker 1: Holy Father unacceptable. I find the I find the Pope's
Speaker 1: comments unacceptable in this regard, and I have deep respect
Speaker 1: for a pope, and I have deep respect for the
Speaker 1: Catholic faith. I was raised Catholic, twelve years of Catholic schools.
Speaker 1: I studied theology Latin and in high school and went
Speaker 1: to Mass every day. And I went to twelve years
Speaker 1: of Catholic schools, and it was a great experience in
Speaker 1: my life. I think the Catholic Mass is beautiful. I
Speaker 1: get a lot out of it. I have problems with
Speaker 1: the church more specifically, and I've discussed them publicly before,
Speaker 1: is how they institutionalized corruption and hit it for such
Speaker 1: a long period of time. I also have problems with
Speaker 1: church made rules that I think led to led to
Speaker 1: a lot of the problems that the church took on.
Speaker 1: For the first twelve hundred years of the church, priests
Speaker 1: were allowed to marry. I think once they took away
Speaker 1: the ability of priests to marry. Eleven of the twelve
Speaker 1: disciples were married. I think Jesus was very familiar. You know,
Speaker 1: Adam and Eve. We can go back to Adam and Eve,
Speaker 1: and God's creation of Eve out of the rib of
Speaker 1: Adam so that he would have a companion is biblical
Speaker 1: in every sense of the word. So I think it's
Speaker 1: a more natural state for people. Some people choose if
Speaker 1: they want to choose to devote their lives to their faith.
Speaker 1: I respect that completely. But this was a church made rule,
Speaker 1: and it was made twelve hundred years into the Church's history,
Speaker 1: and when you look at the real reasons behind it,
Speaker 1: I think one of the driving forces of it was
Speaker 1: money and the fear of losing a lot of money
Speaker 1: if a priest or a priest were to get divorces,
Speaker 1: and then property issues would come up, although I'm not
Speaker 1: really sure how that would be an issue if it's
Speaker 1: the church that actually owns the property, but that's a
Speaker 1: separate issue legally speaking. And I just find that all
Speaker 1: of the corruption that in the church, I mean, they
Speaker 1: now have reduced the potential number of candidates for the
Speaker 1: priesthood down to a very a portion of the population.
Speaker 1: I think most men prefer to go through life being married.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking broadly, I'm speaking generally. I think I think
Speaker 1: most women prefer to be married. But people make other
Speaker 1: individual decisions. I make no judgment against what people decide
Speaker 1: to do in their life. That's what freedom is all about.
Speaker 1: And who am I to judge what people do, especially adults.
Speaker 1: I don't make any judgments. I believe completely in liberty
Speaker 1: and freedom for people. But what frustrates me about the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church and the Pope in this particular case, and
Speaker 1: him speaking out against the war against the number one
Speaker 1: state sponsor of terror, the people that were responsible for
Speaker 1: orchestrating and training what happened on October seventh, The people
Speaker 1: that have killed untold tens of thousands of their own
Speaker 1: citizens in a crackdown politically just recently, the country that
Speaker 1: has been fomenting terror in the entire region and around
Speaker 1: the world now going on for forty seven years. A
Speaker 1: society that oppresses women to such an extent that if
Speaker 1: they don't dress a certain way that they are brutally beaten,
Speaker 1: or if they're really dressing out of line, they can
Speaker 1: be killed for such or you know, you talk about
Speaker 1: a lack of tolerance if you're gay or lesbian, if
Speaker 1: you're brought to the top of a tall building and
Speaker 1: you're thrown off the building. And I can't find instances
Speaker 1: in which the Church has spoken out strongly against the
Speaker 1: number one state sponsor of terror, and unfortunately, evil has
Speaker 1: always existed. And look, there's different analysis if you want
Speaker 1: to look at the Catholic Church and their reaction to
Speaker 1: Hitler and the rise of fascism and Nazism and World
Speaker 1: War Two, in that their criticism was muted at best,
Speaker 1: and while they did make humanitarian efforts to help individuals out,
Speaker 1: and they deserve all the credit in the world for
Speaker 1: that because that was a courageous thing to do. I
Speaker 1: think the Church could have been more outspoken about evil
Speaker 1: in its time. They were very concerned, and they made
Speaker 1: a deal. I believe it was in nineteen thirty two
Speaker 1: or thirty three. I think it was. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: it was a pope pious the eleventh and then later
Speaker 1: the twelfth I forget that. Actually, you know, went into
Speaker 1: an agreement with Germany to protect Catholics, which the Nazis
Speaker 1: you rejected out right almost from day one, so I'm
Speaker 1: a little frustrated at this. So, however, the presidents come
Speaker 1: under criticism for challenging the Pope, because I think that
Speaker 1: the Church should stand and I think people that are
Speaker 1: spiritual should stand against evil, especially evil in our time.
Speaker 1: And there's nothing more evil than radical Islamic terrorism. There's
Speaker 1: no regime on the face of this earth that has
Speaker 1: been more evil than the Iranium, regime that has been
Speaker 1: more repressive of human condition and human rights, which I
Speaker 1: believe is God's natural state for mankind than this regime.
Speaker 1: And yet while they're critical of Donald Trump, who is
Speaker 1: bringing an end to this evil in our time, they
Speaker 1: have been silent on the atrocities that have been committed
Speaker 1: by this regime. And I have a hard time understanding it. Now,
Speaker 1: the problem comes in when people like Georgia Maloney of
Speaker 1: Italy criticizing President Trump and his remarks about the Holy
Speaker 1: Father are unacceptable. No, they're not unacceptable, because President Trump
Speaker 1: is calling out the Pope for his lack of moral clarity,
Speaker 1: and I think the Pope look lacks moral clarity when
Speaker 1: it comes to speaking out against the human atrocities and
Speaker 1: murder of this regime. And so now this further creates
Speaker 1: a bigger schism with NATO and Europe and Western Europe
Speaker 1: in particular. And I think Western Europe is in a
Speaker 1: steep decline in large part because of unfettered illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: no assimilation, resulting in sharia courts in Great Britain, no
Speaker 1: go zones in France and other parts of Europe. And
Speaker 1: I think add to that radical socialism, radical climate alarmism,
Speaker 1: and a lack of focus on national security and national defense,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've got a problem. And then we just
Speaker 1: saw that Iran had secured a UN role, and Western democracies,
Speaker 1: including the UK, France, Canada, Australia, now they're facing a
Speaker 1: backlash because they've allowed Iran and other authoritarian regimes to
Speaker 1: secure seats on the influential on these influential UN bodies,
Speaker 1: the United Nations bodies, United Nations Economic Social Council, a
Speaker 1: fifty four member body plays a central role in shaping
Speaker 1: the UN policy. And they're even putting these countries known
Speaker 1: for radical terrorists, You're even putting them on human rights commissions.
Speaker 1: It's insane anyway, Aida, I've got the biblical evidence to
Speaker 1: prove that I'm right and linditarianism is wrong, and it's
Speaker 1: from Matthew. If you want to look it up, I'll
Speaker 1: give you the actual place to look for it later,
Speaker 1: and then we're going to put this discussion to rest
Speaker 1: once and for all by the end of the show today.
Speaker 1: Well it's got to end because I can't take it.
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you when we get back exactly
Speaker 1: what the President is doing and the two scenarios that
Speaker 1: will play out one of the other will play out
Speaker 1: straight ahead.
Speaker 2: He never stops working for the good of a country.
Speaker 1: Sean Annity with behind the scenes information on today's breaking news.
Speaker 1: Hannity is on right now. I guess what frustrates me
Speaker 1: as I watched the world's fear, especially Europe's fear, and
Speaker 1: our NATO allies, you know, abandon us against the number
Speaker 1: one state sponsor of terror. That's the frustrating part, you know.
Speaker 1: I wish the Pope would have spoken out as strongly
Speaker 1: against the Iranian regime and the murder and the terror
Speaker 1: that they they have been responsible for. But that never
Speaker 1: seems to be part of the equation and the idea
Speaker 1: that Iran secured a role at the United Nations with
Speaker 1: the backing of the you know, Great Britain and France,
Speaker 1: in Canada and Australia and America stands alone saying no,
Speaker 1: we're not doing that, and un Watch warning dictatorships will
Speaker 1: now hold a majority on the committee that controls NGO accreditation.
Speaker 1: It's it's so corrupt. Are you going to put countries
Speaker 1: like Iran and Russia on the Human Rights Commission? Is
Speaker 1: it is a worthless organization? All these globalist organizations We've
Speaker 1: been arguing for years as worthless. We've been arguing that
Speaker 1: the continent of Europe is in a precipitous decline. We're
Speaker 1: not wrong about that. It is so obvious. And you
Speaker 1: know the one thing Donald Trump said to the Italian
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Georgia Maloney over Iran's nuclear capabilities as she
Speaker 1: was criticizing his comments about the Pope. The Pope ought
Speaker 1: to be criticizing radical Islamis that have been slaughtering their
Speaker 1: own people. But maybe bother to mention that he didn't
Speaker 1: bother to speak out about October seventh that I've seen.
Speaker 1: He didn't bother to speak out about state sponsored terrorism.
Speaker 1: He didn't bother to condemn the number one state sponsor
Speaker 1: of terror. None of that happened. And what Trump said
Speaker 1: is he was kind of shocked by the Italian Prime
Speaker 1: minister's comments. She used to be a bit of an ally,
Speaker 1: and he said, it's she who's unacceptable because she obviously
Speaker 1: doesn't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon, and that
Speaker 1: they'd be able to blow up Italy in two minutes
Speaker 1: if they had the chance. Now that's what radical Islamis do.
Speaker 1: This is a death cult. These are Islamo fascists. They
Speaker 1: think they're doing Allah's will when they slaughter innocent men,
Speaker 1: women and children. They have no problem using their own
Speaker 1: citizens as human shields. They have no problems strapping bombs
Speaker 1: on young, gullible, vulnerable individuals with a false promise of
Speaker 1: seventy two virgins in heaven. And now we discover, in
Speaker 1: the course of epic fury that they had that the
Speaker 1: world that underestimated yet again Iranian capabilities and in particular
Speaker 1: their they're ballistic range, the ballistic missile range, which now
Speaker 1: could hit the continent of Europe, and it could hit
Speaker 1: cities like Paris and London and other places. And so
Speaker 1: you know, the Macrone is under fire over Iran because
Speaker 1: you know the French politician is you know, a one
Speaker 1: French politician say Macrone's government must stop normalizing Hasbola.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 1: I think one of the problems is internally they have
Speaker 1: a problem, and their problem happens to be that now
Speaker 1: larger and larger percentages of their population are these these
Speaker 1: this unvetted illegal immigration without assimilation. But they also have
Speaker 1: the right to vote. Did you ever think in our
Speaker 1: lifetime we'd have sharia courts in Great Britain, no go
Speaker 1: zones in places in France and other parts of Europe.
Speaker 1: I didn't think that would happen. Let me play Thomas Friedman,
Speaker 1: and this is a New York Times columnist. He should
Speaker 1: be fired for this stupidity. He says he's torn about
Speaker 1: rooting for the Iranian regime's downfall since it would give
Speaker 1: a win to Trump and net Yahoo. Now it is
Speaker 1: revealing because this is how many on the left feel.
Speaker 1: Many on the left, although they're not even as honest
Speaker 1: as he's being, many on the left just want Trump
Speaker 1: to fail, and if it means that Iran is successful,
Speaker 1: and they're okay with it. This is Thomas Friedman.
Speaker 8: I find myself, Michael, in a situation where I really
Speaker 8: want to see Ron defeated militarily because this regime is
Speaker 8: a terrible regime for its people in the region, and
Speaker 8: nothing would improve the region more than the replacement of
Speaker 8: this regime with the regime in Iran, it was focused
Speaker 8: on enabling its people to realize their full potential and
Speaker 8: integrating peacefully with other countries and stop occupying Lebanon, Syria,
Speaker 8: Iraq and Yemen. So I'm all for that.
Speaker 3: The problem is, I really.
Speaker 8: Don't want to see Phoebe Nets and Yaho are Donald
Speaker 8: Trump politically strengthened by this war, because they are two
Speaker 8: awful human beings. They're both engaged in anti democratic projects
Speaker 8: in their own countries. They're both alleged crooks. They are terrible,
Speaker 8: terrible people doing terrible things to America's standing in the
Speaker 8: world and Israel standing in the world. And so I
Speaker 8: really find myself torn. I want to see Ron militarily defeated,
Speaker 8: but I do not want to see these two terrible
Speaker 8: people strengthened.
Speaker 1: I mean, the two terrible people that have the moral
Speaker 1: clarity to make the world the sayer place. Those are
Speaker 1: the two terrible people he's talking about. By the way,
Speaker 1: I digress here a minute. As I go back to
Speaker 1: this just breaking swallwell rape accuser has just met with
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles County Sheriff, this fifty year old woman
Speaker 1: turning up at the West Hollywood station a hand over
Speaker 1: which he says are the damning text, photographs and journal entries.
Speaker 1: I would say we are officially probably on mister Fang
Speaker 1: Fang's pending a rest at this point if that story
Speaker 1: ends up being true. It's reported again by the New
Speaker 1: York Post. There is a CBS report that Swollwell may
Speaker 1: face sexual misconduct allegation from as many as thirty accusers.
Speaker 1: What has been going on here? And how did so
Speaker 1: many people know and not say anything about this? Anci
Speaker 1: Pelosi had no idea Eric Swalwell was an alleged serial rapist,
Speaker 1: had no idea at all. Oh okay, I'm sure that
Speaker 1: she didn't hear this among democratic circles, even though it's
Speaker 1: been reported that it was widely known out there. Let
Speaker 1: me go back to Let me go back to Iran
Speaker 1: for just a second, and I'm going to explain how
Speaker 1: this is going to play out, and PenCom, by the way,
Speaker 1: correcting the record that no ships have made it past
Speaker 1: the US naval blockade of Iran's ports or coastal areas
Speaker 1: and this is critical. You know, when I first heard
Speaker 1: of blockade, was worried that that meant that we would
Speaker 1: have our navy ships in the street of horn Moves
Speaker 1: as sitting ducks. That's not how this operation is playing out. However,
Speaker 1: we're keeping eyes all over carg Island where any tanker
Speaker 1: would pull up their ship and fill up with oil
Speaker 1: and then take off. No, they are not putting themselves
Speaker 1: in a position where the Iranians would have a pretty
Speaker 1: fair to medium shot at hitting a US Navy vessel.
Speaker 1: So we can't have that happen. Thank god, we don't
Speaker 1: want that to happen. Those ships have made it past
Speaker 1: the US naval blockade of Iran's ports, and six merchant
Speaker 1: ships have followed orders to turn back, according to Sencom,
Speaker 1: and more than ten thousand US sailors, marines, and airmen,
Speaker 1: along with a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft are
Speaker 1: executing the mission of blockading ships entering and deporting Iranian ports.
Speaker 1: In other words, the purpose here is to bankrupt the Iranians.
Speaker 1: That's what this is about. This is their only source
Speaker 1: of income. Now, there had been reports that a Chinese
Speaker 1: owned vessel had passed through the straight of Horn Moves.
Speaker 1: Now the US has reacted to this. Bloomberg News reporting,
Speaker 1: the US said six merchant vessels complied with instructions from
Speaker 1: its forces to turn around re enter the Iranian port
Speaker 1: during the first day of the blockade. In other words,
Speaker 1: they tried, but they didn't get through. And the Chinese
Speaker 1: link ship was one of the ones that did a
Speaker 1: U turn after trying to run through America's Horror Moves blockade. Anyway,
Speaker 1: so it appears that the U turn of the sailing
Speaker 1: ship out of the straight of hor Moves is real
Speaker 1: and that is going to continue. What does that mean now?
Speaker 1: The president is showing great restraint here. There is an
Speaker 1: easier way for the president. Let me tell you what
Speaker 1: it is to blow up carg Island. The President wants
Speaker 1: to wipe out their ability to ever be able to
Speaker 1: make money for the foreseeable future and stop all its
Speaker 1: terrorism with it. He could just blow up the island.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't be hard. They have no air defense systems.
Speaker 1: We have proven we could pretty much go anywhere within
Speaker 1: the confines of the country of Iran. They don't have
Speaker 1: the military means to fight back against the US. That
Speaker 1: is certainly on the table. The President would rather not
Speaker 1: go down that road. I'm pretty certain I understand why
Speaker 1: he's hoping that if he gives this just a just
Speaker 1: enough time, he's hoping that the Iranians will either come
Speaker 1: to the table and be reasonable this time, and that
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to go down that route. He's threatening
Speaker 1: to go down that route. I don't think his patients
Speaker 1: will be endless. I think it's short lived, and then
Speaker 1: the President will have to act. It's going to end
Speaker 1: one or two ways. Either the Iranians wake up, they
Speaker 1: allowed the sixty percent enriched uranium, they hand it over,
Speaker 1: or the Americans will go in and just extract it.
Speaker 1: The ideal situation, in my mind, but there's no way
Speaker 1: that they can have the sixty percent of rich uranium now.
Speaker 1: If our military leaders believe they can entomb it and
Speaker 1: keep eyes on it, that's a less favorable option, only
Speaker 1: because it means that it could draw us back into
Speaker 1: the region down the road after a period of time
Speaker 1: where they might be able to build up their ballistic
Speaker 1: missile systems. I'm not sure if I love that idea. However,
Speaker 1: if you want to define victory and success, it is
Speaker 1: that they will never be a nuclear power, and ideally speaking,
Speaker 1: if we cho put to create this chokehold that is effective,
Speaker 1: and they have no means of bringing money into that country,
Speaker 1: and there's widespread suffering in poverty. I don't care how
Speaker 1: many Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces remain, and it's estimated to
Speaker 1: be around one hundred hundred and thirty thousand, somewhere in
Speaker 1: that range. Many of them have been killed, and hopefully
Speaker 1: some of them will begin to see the light and
Speaker 1: surrender and change sides, and they would work with the
Speaker 1: freedom fighters within Iran and hopefully an effort that could
Speaker 1: be successful in arming the Iranian people so they can
Speaker 1: take control of their own destiny. But it really does
Speaker 1: have we have the ability to end this very quickly,
Speaker 1: or yeah, just give it a little bit more time.
Speaker 1: As of today, the president has chosen to give it
Speaker 1: a little bit more time. Now. If you read the
Speaker 1: tea leaves, they're saying, no, talks have not ended, the
Speaker 1: talks have not finished, et cetera, et cetera. I don't
Speaker 1: know what the status of those talks are. All I
Speaker 1: know is that if President Trump wants to obliterate the
Speaker 1: Iranian ability to make money moving forward in the future,
Speaker 1: it could happen right now. He doesn't have to wait.
Speaker 1: I think the President showing great restraint and patience and
Speaker 1: the hopes that eventually reality will kick in and the
Speaker 1: Iranians will quickly realize that without money they cannot survive. Now,
Speaker 1: so far, the Iranians have not exactly proven themselves that
Speaker 1: they're open to any persuasive action. It's unfortunate. I mean,
Speaker 1: they could have avoided fourteen bunker buster bombs before Midnight Hammer.
Speaker 1: They could have even avoided They had an opportunity, they
Speaker 1: had fifty days before the Israeli struck, and they chose
Speaker 1: not to act. On day fifty one, the Israelis struck
Speaker 1: and they struck hard, and they can all, you know,
Speaker 1: So it's really, you know, you have to wonder, after
Speaker 1: all of their leadership has been taken out in the
Speaker 1: first tier, second tier, third tier, what is this fourth
Speaker 1: and fifthier level of leadership thinking about. When they come
Speaker 1: into this meeting in Islamabad with a list of the
Speaker 1: that are non starters, and then they won't agree on
Speaker 1: the issue of uranium, they won't agree on the Strait
Speaker 1: of Hormuz. Then they even go as far as to
Speaker 1: say that they want the right to tariff international waterways,
Speaker 1: which again, these are things that are never going to
Speaker 1: happen for them, there's a level of either arrogance or stupidity,
Speaker 1: or maybe it just exposes how deep their indoctrination is
Speaker 1: in you know, forty seven years living under radical regime.
Speaker 1: Maybe they just they eat, breathe, sleep, this indoctrination into radicalism,
Speaker 1: and maybe they actually believe that dying and martyrdom is
Speaker 1: the ultimate goal in life. And at that point that's irrational.
Speaker 1: At that point, there will be no negotiated settlement. At
Speaker 1: that point, the only way is to militarily destroy them,
Speaker 1: which we're capable of doing. Is it a first choice? Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not. Is it an option that's on the table.
Speaker 1: Of course it is. But we'll see after three four
Speaker 1: days of an embargo where no money is coming in,
Speaker 1: what will the reaction be? Then, Linda, you want to
Speaker 1: make a prediction, and later we'll get into your biblical
Speaker 1: what do we call it? Linda? Something is Lindarianism, Lenda
Speaker 1: something is the Linda version of the Bible. Dion rewrote
Speaker 1: the Bible. You're trying to rewrite the Bible. I am
Speaker 1: not trying to rewrite the Bible. I'm more of a
Speaker 1: musician than than a writer. Okay, I can't wait. I
Speaker 1: actually hope God. I'm going to say a prayer that
Speaker 1: God will let me listen in on the negotiations when
Speaker 1: you get up to the prolegates. I'm hoping I can
Speaker 1: be an observer and watch you. Hope you're not part
Speaker 1: of the judge and jury.
Speaker 3: Let me in.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be in trouble. I'd vote you in.
Speaker 1: Hm hm, I would. I'd vote you. I wouldn't want
Speaker 1: you to. I wouldn't want you to rotten hell, he'd
Speaker 1: be hanging out with all those leaders in Iran. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't wish anybody is the arrest of mister Feng Feng imminent.
Speaker 1: Will check in with Isabelle Brown and Catalina Lauf on
Speaker 1: the other side.