Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com. Very excited now to be joined by friend
Speaker 3: of the show, Glenn Greenwall, to talk about the media
Speaker 3: environment and how it may resemble the war in Iraq.
Speaker 3: To Glenn, of course, was one of the people fighting
Speaker 3: against the administration exposing the truth there at the time,
Speaker 3: and so can see a lot of these parallels. Glenn,
Speaker 3: one of the things we wanted to start with here
Speaker 3: is your observation about how the US media organizations are
Speaker 3: used as tools of Israel and the US intelligence community.
Speaker 3: Let's go and put this up there on the screen
Speaker 3: as you note we have two side by side stories yesterday.
Speaker 3: One is Iran is eager to negotiate with the US
Speaker 3: and Israel to end the war, but CNN says Iran
Speaker 3: refuses to negotiate while under attack until his retaliation against
Speaker 3: Israel is completed. As you say, disinformation is always a
Speaker 3: weapon of war and lets people believe what they want. So,
Speaker 3: given your experience now covering so much of these psyops
Speaker 3: and others by the intelligence community by various foreign governments,
Speaker 3: what can we tell the audience about the warnings for
Speaker 3: how to navigate this very difficult information environment.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I think usually now people are trained
Speaker 4: to understand that if they're getting some claim that is
Speaker 4: laundered through the media from anonymous sources, that it's often
Speaker 4: necessary to apply skepticism to it. People have warned that
Speaker 4: lesson Well, but when it comes time to war, especially
Speaker 4: when the governments are selling wars to people, when they're
Speaker 4: attempting to scare them into supporting a war, skepticism is
Speaker 4: almost not even enough. You have to kind of begin
Speaker 4: by disbelieving what it is you're being told, knowing how
Speaker 4: often almost automatically disinformation is deliberately deployed. So it is
Speaker 4: a weapon of war. It's something that every government at
Speaker 4: war does. And we've seen over and over that our
Speaker 4: corporate media is not just incapable of guarding against it,
Speaker 4: but eager to participate in its dissemination. And that's the
Speaker 4: reason we've been deceived so many times into wars.
Speaker 5: And so you have to look.
Speaker 4: Back at history to get a guide for how to
Speaker 4: navigate what you're seeing currently.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, the number of conflicting reports that come out.
Speaker 2: I mean, even if you like, outside of this administration,
Speaker 2: the number of reports we got from Barock revied about
Speaker 2: how Biden was super super mad at Netnyahoo and then
Speaker 2: Trump comes into office and he's also super super mad.
Speaker 5: At net Yahoo.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think to your point, especially when
Speaker 2: you have the Trump administration just admitting that they lied
Speaker 2: to the Iranians, the American people, to the world about
Speaker 2: their intent to go forward with negotiations as a ruse
Speaker 2: to create an element of surprise for these Israeli attacks.
Speaker 2: Whatever credence you were giving them previously has to be
Speaker 2: completely thrown out the window at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, even there, I mean, that is what
Speaker 4: the United States is claiming. That is what Donald Trump
Speaker 4: is claiming, because I do believe that's what happened.
Speaker 6: I do believe, at least recently, that the.
Speaker 4: US was negotiating with Iran and leading them to believe
Speaker 4: that they still wanted a diplomatic solution as a way
Speaker 4: of getting Iran to believe no attack was coming to
Speaker 4: let the Israelis in the US attack them with surprise.
Speaker 1: But it's not.
Speaker 6: But let's assume that isn't the case.
Speaker 4: Let's assume that what happened was what they made to
Speaker 4: look like what happened, which is that the US was saying, no,
Speaker 4: don't do this, and then Israel went and did it anyway,
Speaker 4: meaning defy Trump's orders, humiliated the United States, humiliated Donald
Speaker 4: Trump by ruining his diplomatic attempts after he told Israel not.
Speaker 1: To do it.
Speaker 4: Even then, what would Trump do. He wouldn't stand up
Speaker 4: and admit that net Yahu humiliated him. They would probably
Speaker 4: have an interest US officials would in pretending that Trump
Speaker 4: was in on that plan all along, that he wasn't
Speaker 4: surprised by it, or defied that this was actually Trump's war.
Speaker 4: And he's been speaking that way all the time, And
Speaker 4: I think I'm so glad you mentioned Barrock reviieve because
Speaker 4: he's such a perfect example of the kind of skepticism
Speaker 4: that we ought to have. This is a person who's
Speaker 4: an Israeli citizen. He was in the Idea Reserves until
Speaker 4: twenty twenty three. He worked in their most notorious intelligent unit,
Speaker 4: and he has become basically the go to reporter for
Speaker 4: understanding us is really relations because he just takes whatever
Speaker 4: he's told to write down from both governments and goes
Speaker 4: and prints it completely uncritically. And he won the White
Speaker 4: House Journalism Award for doing so, which reflects the kind
Speaker 4: of stenographic function that they continue to see themselves in,
Speaker 4: especially when it comes to foreign policy and wards. They
Speaker 4: don't question the government. They're there to publish what they're
Speaker 4: told and to stand on the side of the government.
Speaker 4: And that's what makes this combination of politics and media
Speaker 4: propaganda so potent and so dangerous.
Speaker 2: Well, it's actually kind of a useful function if you
Speaker 2: know that's what he's doing. It's actually usefully Okay, Well,
Speaker 2: this is what they want us to believe.
Speaker 5: This is what they're trying to sell to the public.
Speaker 2: But it has to be read through that particular lens
Speaker 2: before we transition to talking about some of the Iraq
Speaker 2: War parallels and like lessons learned from that era, because
Speaker 2: some of the similarities are really really You talked about
Speaker 2: President Trump like trying and you know, people trying to
Speaker 2: scare us into war.
Speaker 5: This is scaring me, but not in the direction of war.
Speaker 2: He posted this long text that he got from Mike Huckabee,
Speaker 2: who is this, you know, evangelical End Times believer who
Speaker 2: also happens to be r US Ambassador to Israel. And
Speaker 2: so Trump posted on true Social this what they describe
Speaker 2: as a powerful message that he received from Mike Huckabee
Speaker 2: that reads, mister President, God spared you in Butler, Pennsylvania
Speaker 2: to be the most consequential president in a century, maybe ever.
Speaker 2: The decisions on your shouldiers shoulders I would not want
Speaker 2: to be made by anyone else. You have many voices
Speaker 2: speaking to you, sir, but there is only one.
Speaker 5: Voice that matters. His voice.
Speaker 2: I am your appointed servant in this land, and I
Speaker 2: am available for you. But I do not try to
Speaker 2: get in your presence often because I trust your instincts.
Speaker 2: No president in my lifetime has been in a position
Speaker 2: like yours, not since Truman in nineteen forty five. I
Speaker 2: don't reach out to persuade you, only to encourage you.
Speaker 2: I believe you will hear from heaven, and that voice
Speaker 2: is far more important than mine or anyone else's. You
Speaker 2: sent me to Israel to be your eyes, ears, and
Speaker 2: voice and make sure our flag flies above our embassy.
Speaker 2: My job is to be the last one to leave.
Speaker 2: I will not abandon this post. Our flag will not
Speaker 2: come down. You did not seek this moment. This moment
Speaker 2: sought you. It as my honor to serve you. Your
Speaker 2: thoughts about that.
Speaker 4: Well, it's not just alarming that Hackabee wrote that, but
Speaker 4: that Trump took it and himself published it because Trump
Speaker 4: clearly believes it to be true. You know, I heard
Speaker 4: from a lot of people that everybody, I think, assume
Speaker 4: that Trump's marching around as some sort of evangelical Christian
Speaker 4: for most of his political career was a ruse. But
Speaker 4: I heard from a lot of people who know Trump
Speaker 4: very well that, especially after that assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 4: which admittedly, you know, was something that I think would
Speaker 4: transform anybody coming that close to death but avoiding it,
Speaker 4: that he really did become convinced that there was some
Speaker 4: divine intervention that saved him for a reason, and it's
Speaker 4: so ironic that we're hearing that the reason Ron is
Speaker 4: own dangerous is because they're a theocratic regime that doesn't
Speaker 4: care about anything other than the belief that God is
Speaker 4: telling them what to do.
Speaker 5: When that not.
Speaker 4: Only obviously effects in shapes Israel's foreign Paul, but I
Speaker 4: think it's shaping Donald Trump's as well. And I think
Speaker 4: what it's really alarming is if you look at what
Speaker 4: Trump has been saying the last twenty four to forty
Speaker 4: eight hours, he's clearly trying to at least send the signal,
Speaker 4: whether it's to Ron or Israel or to whomever, that
Speaker 4: he is about to do something of historic proportions, which
Speaker 4: is what bb net Yahoo thinks about himself as well.
Speaker 4: They're both people in their mid to eight seventies, which
Speaker 4: is when they start thinking about how their thought of
Speaker 4: once they're dead, not what the rest of us have
Speaker 4: to deal with as a result of their decisions. And
Speaker 4: I think the kind of mindset that they're in now,
Speaker 4: as evidence by Trump posting that Huckabee email, is one
Speaker 4: that is genuinely alarming and dangerous. And I say that
Speaker 4: as somebody who's not typically alarmed moved.
Speaker 1: No, you're absolutely right, Glenn.
Speaker 3: And you know what really strikes me with the Bush
Speaker 3: parallel and Iraq, this is a good transition. Is one
Speaker 3: of the things that really struck me in reading a
Speaker 3: lot about Bush is he really believed that he'd been
Speaker 3: saved from addiction and like put on this earth and
Speaker 3: sent to the White House to save the United States
Speaker 3: during nine to eleven. And that really was a huge
Speaker 3: impact on why he decided to go into the war
Speaker 3: in Iraq. And so, you know, bringing this like full
Speaker 3: circle is not only that the media aspect here, but
Speaker 3: what drives me crazy, and I'm sure it must do
Speaker 3: as well, is we have the same actors in the
Speaker 3: literally the same people who led us into the war
Speaker 3: in Iraq now really repeating so many of the same
Speaker 3: things we had Ari Fleischer talking about Tucker Carlson and hey,
Speaker 3: this is the guy who lied from the White House
Speaker 3: podium about weapons of mass destruction. Glenn Beck, who was
Speaker 3: on television talking about how America would be greeted as liberators.
Speaker 3: He apologized in twenty fourteen, But you know, Glenn, he's
Speaker 3: back now to actually saying actually, this time around, they're
Speaker 3: going to be greeted as liberators.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that and we'll get your reaction.
Speaker 7: Has Israel asked us to fight their war?
Speaker 6: Answer?
Speaker 7: No, is this another Iraq or is it something entirely different? Well,
Speaker 7: let me tell you what makes this moment unlike anything
Speaker 7: else we have faced before. First, this was not a
Speaker 7: call to war. This was not a land invasion. This
Speaker 7: is not a campaign to Toppola regime and then sit
Speaker 7: around for twenty years trying to rebuild a culture that
Speaker 7: doesn't want what we have. Even though Iran, the Iranian
Speaker 7: people are good people, the Persians are great people, and
Speaker 7: they do want a life like ours. But this was targeted.
Speaker 7: This was surgical. This was preemptive, not against an idea,
Speaker 7: not against a guess, against the very real, very stated
Speaker 7: intentions of a regime run by men who do not
Speaker 7: think like we think. Okay, they do not want what
Speaker 7: we want. We choose life, They literally choose death. These
Speaker 7: are twelvevers. They are followers of a branch of Sied
Speaker 7: Islam that believes not just in the return of the
Speaker 7: messianic figure called the Mahadi, but also that is return
Speaker 7: can and must be. In their words, hastened or accelerated,
Speaker 7: And the only way to do that is to quote
Speaker 7: using their words, wah, the world in blood. Okay, I
Speaker 7: think I'm out at that. You know, that's the first
Speaker 7: stop on the train, and I'm like, I'm gonna get
Speaker 7: off here please.
Speaker 3: They hate our way of life there they choose I mean,
Speaker 3: this is three This is the same thing. You could
Speaker 3: probably copy and paste that and except this time they're
Speaker 3: different because they're Persian, which by the way, is very
Speaker 3: racist against Arabs.
Speaker 1: But it's like, what are we doing here, Gwen?
Speaker 4: Also, isn't it kind of ironic that we're supposed to
Speaker 4: be scared of Arod because they have a Messionic religious
Speaker 4: belief and like a third of the Congress wants to
Speaker 4: arm and support Israel no matter what because of their
Speaker 4: Messionic view that doing so is necessarily for the return
Speaker 4: of Jesus, Who's then gonna send all Jews and other
Speaker 4: believers to help. But that's a little detail that Israel
Speaker 4: as a mind because they don't actually believe that, and
Speaker 4: they're happy for the support. But you know, Sagar, the
Speaker 4: thing is like the comparison with Iran with the Rock
Speaker 4: route there, despite it not being planned originally as a
Speaker 4: regime chain or a ground of asion. Is so obvious, right,
Speaker 4: Like we're being told the reason we have to start
Speaker 4: this war, which is a war that the United States
Speaker 4: and Israel started, not wrong. It is because they were
Speaker 4: developing extremely dangerous new grow weapon, and they're so psychotic
Speaker 4: and dictatorial and unhinged that we can't allow them to
Speaker 4: have a new core weapon, which is exactly how the
Speaker 4: war in I Rock was justified. And I honestly did.
Speaker 4: Of course I knew that from the start. When you
Speaker 4: go back and look at the speeches and you see
Speaker 4: that the exact same people are uttering the exact same phrases,
Speaker 4: it's not even an attempt to modify the script a
Speaker 4: little bit, you know. Just as one example, George Bush's
Speaker 4: big speech in October, in October and September seventh, rather
Speaker 4: than two thousand and two and in Cincinnati was yes,
Speaker 4: we can't give you proof that Iraq has newcre weapons,
Speaker 4: but you don't want the smoking gun to be in
Speaker 4: the form of a mushroom cloud over your city.
Speaker 6: Ted Cruz went on.
Speaker 4: Fox News and said exactly the same thing when asked
Speaker 4: about proof that Iran has new weapons. And this is
Speaker 4: what's scary is a week ago, every MAGA person, basically
Speaker 4: every person, if you showed them. Look, Israel has been
Speaker 4: saying for thirty years that Iran is a week away
Speaker 4: or a month away or a year away from newcre weapons,
Speaker 4: and it never turned out to be true. Would say, yeah,
Speaker 4: we're not going to fall for that again the bombs
Speaker 4: start dropping, Trump's involved, everybody wants to cheer for it,
Speaker 4: and so you just get them on.
Speaker 6: A silver potter.
Speaker 4: This obviously bullshit excuse, which is that Iran has an
Speaker 4: active nucro weapons program, which Tolsey Gabert herself set three
Speaker 4: months ago, is the consensus of the intelligence community is untrue.
Speaker 4: And now it's just the assumption within every media discussion
Speaker 4: that Iron is pursuing newcrow weapons And the only question
Speaker 4: is do you want to go to word to stop
Speaker 4: them or do you want to let.
Speaker 6: Them have it.
Speaker 4: It's mind blowing how propaganda works, even if it's identical
Speaker 4: to the one that twenty five years ago we all
Speaker 4: watch proved to be completely disgraced and de bonked.
Speaker 5: That is absolutely right.
Speaker 2: And you know another person who was at the scene
Speaker 2: of the crime last time as well, Baby Natan Yahoo
Speaker 2: here's a little flashback to the case he was making
Speaker 2: at the time, and this.
Speaker 8: Is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons,
Speaker 8: and today the United States must destroy the same regime
Speaker 8: because a nuclear arms Saddam will place the security of
Speaker 8: our entire world at risks. Is simply.
Speaker 9: Not reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn't feverishly
Speaker 9: working to develop nuclear weapons as if you take out
Speaker 9: Saddam Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have
Speaker 9: enormous positive reverberations on the region. Principles of real estate
Speaker 9: the three l's, location, location, location, The three principles of
Speaker 9: winning the War on Terror are the three w's, winning, winning,
Speaker 9: and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the
Speaker 9: next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a
Speaker 9: second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory
Speaker 9: in Iraq will make the third victory that much being
Speaker 9: less than dismantling his regime will do.
Speaker 2: If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you it will
Speaker 2: have enormous positive reverberations on the region because he's feverishly
Speaker 2: working to develop nuclear weapons.
Speaker 4: You know, I think there's so many interesting parts to
Speaker 4: that testimony that you show that even though just those
Speaker 4: excerpts that I think are self evident. But you notice
Speaker 4: at the end too, he said, the more you win,
Speaker 4: the easier the wins become. So the first one in
Speaker 4: Afghanistan will make the second win in Iraq all the easier.
Speaker 4: And then of course we didn't win in either, and
Speaker 4: then he said that second win will make the third
Speaker 4: win easier. Still, what did he mean by the third win?
Speaker 4: NEO cons at that point and into two thousand and
Speaker 4: three and four were very open about the fact that
Speaker 4: they didn't want to stop at Baghdad. You know, there
Speaker 4: was that phrase that was leaked by Karl Rove or
Speaker 4: somebody like that, Paul Wolfowood saying, real men go to Tehran.
Speaker 4: The plan always was was to go top Wol Sadam
Speaker 4: and then go get regime change in Iran. And I
Speaker 4: think that's the other point that we have to be
Speaker 4: so aware of. Glenn Back said, this time it's not
Speaker 4: about regime change. Why are they bombing Tehran? Then there
Speaker 4: are no nuclear facilities in Tehran. Why did Trump order
Speaker 4: sixteen million people to evacuate Tehran, and so they're going
Speaker 4: to destroy Tehran where there's no nuclear facilities there either.
Speaker 4: It's because this is a regime change where they want
Speaker 4: to change the regime of Iran. They want to turn
Speaker 4: it into Syria where they just have a collapse in
Speaker 4: the central government. All these factions being backed by the
Speaker 4: CIA and the massade trying to take over Iran where
Speaker 4: at the very least rendering Iran impudent and letting Israel
Speaker 4: control the entire Middle East and therefore the United States
Speaker 4: as well. That is the real goal of everything that
Speaker 4: they're doing. And so maybe it'll end quickly if Trump
Speaker 4: drops you know, the biggest problems we have on every
Speaker 4: population center, or maybe it'll lead to troops having to
Speaker 4: be activated if roon attacks are troops in responseive oil facility.
Speaker 4: You don't know once you and lisha war like this
Speaker 4: what the results are going to be. And that was
Speaker 4: what we learned from a rack, and we were told
Speaker 4: it would take two weeks to.
Speaker 1: Get rid of Saddam. Is you know, Glenn, this is
Speaker 1: my final question here. I think they've won.
Speaker 3: I think the neocons have won, and I do I mean, look,
Speaker 3: I could be totally wrong. There could be some last
Speaker 3: minted thing, but I do think the US is going
Speaker 3: to get offensively involved. At this point, I have very
Speaker 3: very little hope, So I do know that at least
Speaker 3: something is going to happen. Fortyh order consequences always do,
Speaker 3: and the neocons are going to run away from that.
Speaker 3: And since we were somehow unsuccessful in holding them to
Speaker 3: account over the last twenty five years, what can we
Speaker 3: do differently to hold these people to account and actually
Speaker 3: tie them to their decisions or is that just structurally
Speaker 3: impossible here in Washington, DC.
Speaker 4: That was the other thing that I really struck me
Speaker 4: saga as we prepared our own show last night, going
Speaker 4: through these two two and two thousand and three interviews.
Speaker 4: The people who went on television and just hold out
Speaker 4: right lives and the most assertive authoritative for impossible, none
Speaker 4: of them had their careers even remotely impeded, lit alone destoryed.
Speaker 4: In fact, they all continue to thrive to this very day.
Speaker 4: There's still the ones making the decisions, there's still the
Speaker 4: ones in charge.
Speaker 1: And one of the.
Speaker 4: Things that I thought would at least be promising this
Speaker 4: time was that there's this big section of MAGA that
Speaker 4: would turn against Trump if he actually got the the
Speaker 4: country involved in a major war with Iran on behalf
Speaker 4: of Israel, and you're already saying, like, one of the
Speaker 4: reasons Trump came out yesterday and publicly scorned and humiliated
Speaker 4: Tucker Carlson was it was a message to everybody, Look,
Speaker 4: if you even think about raising your voice against me,
Speaker 4: you will be out. We're going to exclude you from BAKA.
Speaker 4: You will no, I'm going to be welcome with the
Speaker 4: White House. You'll have no influence. It was a way
Speaker 4: of keeping them all into line. And you're already seeing
Speaker 4: many of them who had been saying don't go to
Speaker 4: war with Iran or it's going to riud your presidency
Speaker 4: snapping into line and saying, you know what, I trust
Speaker 4: President Trump. I'm sure he's going to do the right thing.
Speaker 4: We need to get rid of this regime. And I
Speaker 4: don't see any hope of that happening.
Speaker 2: Yes, unfortunately, Charlie Kirk last night goes on and oh,
Speaker 2: I trust President Trump.
Speaker 5: He was made for this moment. I'm sure it's going
Speaker 5: to all work out great.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and very few people like Tucker has
Speaker 2: his own you know, bas of support and is independent whatever.
Speaker 2: There are very few people in the right wing ecosystem
Speaker 2: who can exist outside of just like Trump support. So yeah,
Speaker 2: they're gonna they're gonna take that message in Glenn, thank
Speaker 2: you so much. You've been doing incredible work here. I
Speaker 2: also would love for people we were originally booked you
Speaker 2: to talk about Palenteer. You got to still do that
Speaker 2: in the future.
Speaker 1: You got to come back. They matter. Hey, business is
Speaker 1: going to boom for them.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, all my natures here in Virginia, they're
Speaker 3: all about to get filthy rich, so I guess we
Speaker 3: can all be.
Speaker 2: They also sponsored that great military parade over the weekend too,
Speaker 2: So thanks are thanks are things are looking good for
Speaker 2: them and Locky an the others.
Speaker 5: Yep, all right, Glenn, great to see you.
Speaker 1: Take care, Great to see you guys.
Speaker 6: Bye.
Speaker 2: So we've been covering here. Outside of the potential war
Speaker 2: with a Ron, there are a couple other stories that
Speaker 2: we've been covering. One of them is the assassination of
Speaker 2: this Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker and the attempted assassination of
Speaker 2: another Minnesota state Democratic lawmaker. The suspect has now been
Speaker 2: apprehended after a multi day manhunt. More on that in
Speaker 2: a moment when I go ahead and show you, this
Speaker 2: is the acting US Attorney Thompson detailing some of the
Speaker 2: events that unfolded, some quite extureder information here.
Speaker 5: Let's go out and take a listen.
Speaker 10: After shooting Senator Hoffman and his wife, Belter traveled to
Speaker 10: the home of another Minnesota state representative in Maple Grove, Minnesota.
Speaker 10: Video surveillance showed that Belter rang the doorbell at the
Speaker 10: state representative's house at approximately two twenty four am on
Speaker 10: Friday night. Again, he was dressed as a law enforcement officer,
Speaker 10: wearing a tactical vest and body armor, carrying a handgun
Speaker 10: and a flashlight, and wearing that same hyper realistic silicon mask.
Speaker 10: The images, as you can see on the screen are haunting. Unfortunately,
Speaker 10: the state representative was not home. She and her family
Speaker 10: were gone on vacation, and so Belter left. Belter then
Speaker 10: traveled to the home of a Minnesota state senator who
Speaker 10: lived in New Hope, Minnesota. He parked in the street
Speaker 10: in that same black SUV with the police license plate
Speaker 10: at about two thirty six am on Friday night. After
Speaker 10: learning of the shooting of Senator Hoffman, New Hope police
Speaker 10: dispatched an officer to conduct a wellness check on the
Speaker 10: state senator who lived in New Hope. When the New
Speaker 10: Hope officer arrived at the scene, she saw Belter's black
Speaker 10: SUV parked down the block with the lights on. The
Speaker 10: New Hople police officer believed that Belter was a police
Speaker 10: officer who had been dispatched to the scene to check
Speaker 10: on the staff of the state senator. The New Whole
Speaker 10: police officer pulled up next to Belter in his car,
Speaker 10: rolled down her window, and attempted to speak with him.
Speaker 10: Belter did not respond, according to the officer, he just
Speaker 10: sat there and stared straight ahead. So the New Whole
Speaker 10: police officer, who had been dispatched to the scene, proceeded
Speaker 10: to the state senator's home and she waited for other
Speaker 10: law enforcement to arrive. When they did. By the time
Speaker 10: they did, Belter had left the scene.
Speaker 2: Belcher had tried to kill four different Minnesota state Democratic
Speaker 2: lawhankers and at one of them. So the police officer
Speaker 2: shows up to do a wellness check because this guy's
Speaker 2: on the loose and they're getting the idea of like
Speaker 2: always targeting state elected officials. So let's go to all
Speaker 2: the ones that are you know, in the vicinity.
Speaker 5: So she shows up.
Speaker 2: She sees him park down the street because he's in
Speaker 2: this fake cop car, pulls up next to him, thinking
Speaker 2: this is some law enforcement backup for you know, to
Speaker 2: assist her. He just sits there, stare straight ahead, doesn't
Speaker 2: say anything. She leaves him alone and goes and performs
Speaker 2: this check, giving him the opportunity to escape and then
Speaker 2: go to the next lawmaker's home, and I believe it's
Speaker 2: that home where he's able to actually shoot and kill
Speaker 2: this lawmaker and her husband. At that time, they the
Speaker 2: law enforcement, they go on to say, shows up there
Speaker 2: at that house where he's able to actually assassinate this lawmaker.
Speaker 2: They exchange fire with him, and he's able to flee
Speaker 2: on foot, leading to this again multi day manhunt. So
Speaker 2: I think there are, to put it generously, a lot
Speaker 2: of questions for the way that law enforcement handled all
Speaker 2: of this and how this was allowed to unfold when
Speaker 2: they had him right there and he's able not only
Speaker 2: to escape, but he's able to go on and commit
Speaker 2: this murder, and then they have him there and he's
Speaker 2: able to get away on foot. The way they're able
Speaker 2: to capture him when can put you two up on
Speaker 2: the screen. There was a local woman who actually saw him.
Speaker 2: He was captured very close to his home, and she
Speaker 2: saw him crawling in the grass around her property and
Speaker 2: alerted law enforcement that she thought this was him. At first,
Speaker 2: she thought it was actually the cops looking for him,
Speaker 2: and then she realized, like, no, I think that is
Speaker 2: actually the guy. An alerted law enforcement. They're very able
Speaker 2: to use drones to track him down. They found him
Speaker 2: crawling through some underbush and some bushes and were able
Speaker 2: to apprehend him. There's some other really troubling and eyebrow
Speaker 2: raising details in a Wall Street Journal report as well.
Speaker 2: Can put this next piece up on the screen. So
Speaker 2: Belter's wife was actually stopped near a convenience store about
Speaker 2: seventy miles north of the shootings. She had two guns,
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars in cash, and passports for herself and
Speaker 2: her children in her car, a courney to federal court records.
Speaker 5: Apparently she had received.
Speaker 2: A text another fan only members as well from Belter
Speaker 2: at six eighteen am saying quote, Dad went to war
Speaker 2: last night.
Speaker 5: Courty Federal court documents.
Speaker 2: He also texted his wife to apologize, saying there's going
Speaker 2: to be some people coming to the house armed and
Speaker 2: trigger happy, and I don't want you guys around, according
Speaker 2: to messages quoted in court filings, and presumably that's what
Speaker 2: caused her to flee with firearms herself and ten thousand
Speaker 2: dollars in cash, cash and her kids and the passports
Speaker 2: Belter had. It was initially described as a manifesto with him.
Speaker 2: Later details that have been revealed it wasn't so much
Speaker 2: of an explanation of what his motives were of He
Speaker 2: had a notebook with a list of targets, some sixty
Speaker 2: lawmakers throughout I think all Democratic lawmakers throughout not only
Speaker 2: Minnesota but some of the surrounding states. Tim Walls, ilhan
Speaker 2: Omar were the senators. They were all on the list,
Speaker 2: along with a number of Planned Parenthood both locations, and
Speaker 2: pro choice activists. So we don't know, but it seems
Speaker 2: like one of the motivations may have been or the
Speaker 2: motivation may have been like anti abortion zelotry the last
Speaker 2: piece here. There have been a lot of discussion online
Speaker 2: about what his motivation was. The Right decided, based on
Speaker 2: like literally nothing, that he must be a left winger.
Speaker 2: So just so everybody's clear on how the people who
Speaker 2: know him describe his political affiliation. This is a guy
Speaker 2: who's described as his best friend and actually roommate. Apparently
Speaker 2: he lived with his wife in this house, but then
Speaker 2: also had a roommate situation another place, and that was,
Speaker 2: you know, where this guy was who still considers him
Speaker 2: to be his best friend, talking about how he would
Speaker 2: be offended if people thought he was a Democrat and
Speaker 2: then he was actually like an Alex Jones info warst watcher.
Speaker 5: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 11: Well, everyone's calling him a democrat.
Speaker 12: Inside he would be offended if people called him a
Speaker 12: democrat like Jim Jim I did, Tim Howks. But what
Speaker 12: you said that, man, Well, I mean nothing for me.
Speaker 12: I mean it's just normal. Well, I don't like this
Speaker 12: that timwol did this. I don't like that day he
Speaker 12: did that.
Speaker 6: Well you you listen to info words in Wars, but.
Speaker 10: I kind of toil it said, well, it's.
Speaker 1: Like fifty percent truth. And I was a Trump supporter,
Speaker 1: voted for Trump.
Speaker 6: If you like Trump, I like Trump.
Speaker 5: So there you go. That's what his roommate had to say.
Speaker 2: Sober and obviously, I mean the story is important and
Speaker 2: of itself, and also comes amid a climate of rising
Speaker 2: political violence. We saw the president himself, you know, attempted
Speaker 2: assassinations against him, and yeah, there's a concern that this
Speaker 2: just becomes sort of like part of the background noise
Speaker 2: of American policy.
Speaker 1: And the plot, the plot of it is nuts.
Speaker 3: It's also just, I mean, his behavior obviously psychotic, regardless
Speaker 3: of his political motivations, is like pretty clear.
Speaker 1: Lot of weird shit going on with this guy. Because
Speaker 1: he's married, he has a roommate. It's like, what's going on.
Speaker 3: He's sending these weird text messages, he's gearing up, and
Speaker 3: police gears seems to have had all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 5: It's something like private security.
Speaker 1: We had a private security.
Speaker 2: Was also evangelical minister ministering in Africa.
Speaker 1: Check after check of psycho.
Speaker 2: And then also apparently recent financial distress.
Speaker 3: Right, so all the ingredients, I guess are there. He's
Speaker 3: been indicted by the FEDS in terms for political assassinations,
Speaker 3: so I'm sure that a lot more motivation and all
Speaker 3: that will come out with him. But obviously it's horrific
Speaker 3: and it's terrifying, and really what it does is just
Speaker 3: it makes people afraid, especially in the public, you know,
Speaker 3: to go out spent a time like this, this is
Speaker 3: a time possibly of war. This is you know something
Speaker 3: Tucker and Steve we're talking about yesterday, is like when
Speaker 3: when it's time of war and you dissent, you're a trader.
Speaker 3: And I'm not trying to just link the two, but
Speaker 3: what I'm trying to say is when the tension in
Speaker 3: the heat gets turned up all the way and you really,
Speaker 3: I mean, this goes out of the conceptual and perhaps
Speaker 3: so if it's a pro life thing, it's analogous in
Speaker 3: that way. It's like, if you believe it's life or death,
Speaker 3: then some people are going to take it that way, right,
Speaker 3: I mean, if.
Speaker 2: You think this is the literal like genocide of babies,
Speaker 2: right told his wife dad went to war like he
Speaker 2: sees himself as a righteous figure in this right.
Speaker 3: And if we're involved, you know, you could see very
Speaker 3: similar types of things or you know, very similar ideology and.
Speaker 1: All that pervade.
Speaker 3: So let's just stand against it and look at the
Speaker 3: very least, you know, the Trump administment, despite early attempts
Speaker 3: to say he was a right winger or a left
Speaker 3: winger or whatever, at the least the FBI and the
Speaker 3: dj are throwing the book at him for right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's a good sign.
Speaker 5: Yeah, absolutely, all right.
Speaker 2: We've got the Attorney General of California standing by Sagastranto
Speaker 2: appointments that I'm going to conduct this interview but have
Speaker 2: a lot of questions for him about this lawsuit against
Speaker 2: the Trump administration with regard to federalizing the National Guard.
Speaker 2: Hearings happened to happen today, so let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: get to that.
Speaker 5: So, as I was just.
Speaker 2: Mentioning, there is are hearings today in the state of
Speaker 2: California's ongoing lawsuit against the Trump administration over their decision
Speaker 2: to federalize National Guard troops and also to call up
Speaker 2: active duty marines, some several hundred to respond to protest
Speaker 2: activity in and around LA. Can go ahead and put
Speaker 2: this tear sheet up on the screen. Appeals Court has
Speaker 2: temporarily blocked the initial Federal District Court judges ruling to
Speaker 2: return control of National Guard to California, joining us now
Speaker 2: to discuss. We're very fortunate to have the Attorney General
Speaker 2: of California, Rob Bonta.
Speaker 6: Welcome, sir, Thanks for having me. Great to be with you.
Speaker 2: So if you could just bring our audience a little
Speaker 2: bit up to speed on this lawsuit and what is
Speaker 2: the basis for this action.
Speaker 13: Absolutely, as we know, last the weekend before this past one,
Speaker 13: we saw National Guard troops be brought into Los Angeles
Speaker 13: by President Trump. When they arrived on Sunday morning, it
Speaker 13: was to quiet streets. We believe that there it was
Speaker 13: inappropriate for him to deploy military to Los Angeles. The
Speaker 13: governor and the Sheriff's Department, LA Police Department, and mutual
Speaker 13: aid agencies in the surrounding areas had everything under control.
Speaker 13: And the President has invoked a statute which requires the
Speaker 13: presence of a rebellion or an invasion, or the inability
Speaker 13: to execute the federal law to be able to deploy
Speaker 13: the National Guard. None of those things exist, and it's
Speaker 13: just defies credulity to suggest that they do it. Also,
Speaker 13: the law also requires the cooperation and consent of the
Speaker 13: governor to deploy the National Guard. So the circumstances that
Speaker 13: are required for the President to deploy the National Guard
Speaker 13: to Los Angeles weren't present, and we brought a lawsuit
Speaker 13: on the following Monday.
Speaker 6: We brought a temporary restraining order.
Speaker 13: The following Tuesday, and on that the Thursday following, we
Speaker 13: had an order from the.
Speaker 6: Federal District Court judge that said two things.
Speaker 13: One that the President violated the federal law and also
Speaker 13: violated the US Constitution, violating the states rights of the
Speaker 13: Great State of California, and he was ordered the President
Speaker 13: was ordered to return the control of the National Guard
Speaker 13: to Governor Newsom. The federal government appealed right away to
Speaker 13: the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit issued what's called an
Speaker 13: administrative stay. It's procedural while they review the merits. They
Speaker 13: are going to have a hearing today at noon to
Speaker 13: consider those merits. It's all on shortened time. It's being
Speaker 13: done quickly because of the urgency of the matter and
Speaker 13: the harm that California faces.
Speaker 6: So we're hoping for.
Speaker 13: A positive ruling today. We believe we will prevail when
Speaker 13: we sue the Trump administration.
Speaker 6: It's because we got the.
Speaker 13: Receipts, we got the facts, we got the law, and
Speaker 13: we think we're going to win, and so we're hopeful
Speaker 13: for a favorable ruling today.
Speaker 2: Do you expect this ultimately to end up at the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, And if so, are you so of tailoring
Speaker 2: your arguments to think through how they could appeal to
Speaker 2: various of the conservative justices.
Speaker 13: In particular, we always play the long game, and you
Speaker 13: know understand that the first decision might not be the
Speaker 13: last one.
Speaker 6: That we do have a federal.
Speaker 13: Court system that has an intermediate level of appellate review
Speaker 13: and then ultimately the US Supreme Court. Most cases don't
Speaker 13: get to the US Supreme Court, but this is one
Speaker 13: that may be of interest to them. Obviously, the state
Speaker 13: is watching, the nation is watching, the world is watching
Speaker 13: this issue of militarizing an American city when there's no
Speaker 13: basis for it and doing it over the objections of
Speaker 13: a governor and the mayor of that city. So this
Speaker 13: one definitely could get to the US Supreme Court. We
Speaker 13: make our arguments based on what the facts in law are.
Speaker 13: We realize that different judges may review those arguments and
Speaker 13: balance them in different ways. But make the arguments that
Speaker 13: are appropriate, that that are compelling. And we've made them
Speaker 13: here to the district court judge and making them here
Speaker 13: to the Ninth Circuit, and we think they're going to
Speaker 13: be compelling at both levels. And if it gets this
Speaker 13: case gets to the Supreme Court, we think our arguments
Speaker 13: will be very persuasive and compelling there as well.
Speaker 2: So I read through the district courts ruling and you
Speaker 2: can correct my details on this if I don't get
Speaker 2: the legal intricacies precisely right. But one of the questions
Speaker 2: at hand here is whether there was a violation of
Speaker 2: the Possecommatatis Act, which prohibits using the military in most
Speaker 2: circumstances for domestic law enforcement. If we can put F
Speaker 2: three up on the screen. So at the time of
Speaker 2: that ruling, the judge basically said, like, listen, we don't
Speaker 2: really have full information yet, we already have enough to
Speaker 2: say that this is the problem and we need to
Speaker 2: go ahead and side with the State of California without
Speaker 2: actually having all of the information with regard to whether
Speaker 2: or not there was a violation of Possecommatatis. Since then,
Speaker 2: we've seen this video come out showing what appears to
Speaker 2: be active duty Marines making an arrest of a civilian. Here,
Speaker 2: my understanding is this was a man at us, actually veteran,
Speaker 2: who took a wrong turn in trying.
Speaker 5: To get to a VA appointment.
Speaker 2: What is your understanding of the way that both the
Speaker 2: National Guard and the Marines have been used on the
Speaker 2: ground since they have been you know, since they have
Speaker 2: been brought into the city of.
Speaker 6: La Well, thank you.
Speaker 13: You know, it's all evolving, and video like this is
Speaker 13: showing that evolution, and it's evolving exactly the way we
Speaker 13: feared and is prohibited by the law of the United
Speaker 13: States since the late eighteen hundreds, as you mentioned, that
Speaker 13: passcoma Tatis Act which prohibits and prevents the US military
Speaker 13: from engaging in civilian law enforcement on American soil. And
Speaker 13: that means that the military of the Marines here cannot
Speaker 13: participate in searches and seizures and detentions and arrests. And
Speaker 13: if that is what it seems to be, the detention
Speaker 13: and or arrest of a pavilion by the Marines, that
Speaker 13: seems to be squarely in violation of the Posse Comma
Speaker 13: Tatis Act.
Speaker 6: So the Posse Commatatus Act is in full effect.
Speaker 13: And the National Guard and the Marines are are our
Speaker 13: military entities that are not allowed to participate in.
Speaker 6: Civilian law enforcement.
Speaker 2: Are you are you outside of this the incident I
Speaker 2: just showed. Are you aware of other incidents where either
Speaker 2: the National Guard or the Marines have you know, have
Speaker 2: been involved in domestic law enforcement activities or making arrest
Speaker 2: those sorts of things.
Speaker 13: There are some that we've seen, I've seen other video
Speaker 13: with with some examples. Uh Secretary hegseth Uh posted a
Speaker 13: a on social media, but what appeared to be Marines
Speaker 13: maybe National Guard out in the field so to speak
Speaker 13: with potentially an ICE agent was a little unclear what
Speaker 13: he was trying to suggest. But we believe that the
Speaker 13: mission of both the National Guard and the Marines is
Speaker 13: to protect federal property, personnel, and functions, and that includes
Speaker 13: while protecting a federal building or while out in the
Speaker 13: field with ICE agents engaged in immigration enforcement, them being
Speaker 13: a necessary part of those operations and taking part in
Speaker 13: detentions and arrests, sarches and seizures. And so you're right
Speaker 13: that the federal judge, Judge Briar punted for the time
Speaker 13: being on the Postcomatatus Act because the facts were not
Speaker 13: as clear or developed as he may have wanted to see,
Speaker 13: and he wanted to see what the Marines were going
Speaker 13: to be doing, what the National Guard we're going to
Speaker 13: be doing. And we're seeing more of that now, so
Speaker 13: that record is getting more clear, and it's getting clear
Speaker 13: in a way that is, I think better for our argument,
Speaker 13: bad for America because the military is engaged in civilian
Speaker 13: law enforcement, which is prohibited.
Speaker 2: Another thing that is a significant point that you raised,
Speaker 2: and I think that all Americans need to be aware of,
Speaker 2: is that the order that President Trump used to federalize
Speaker 2: the National Guard was not limited, either in time or
Speaker 2: in place. And in fact, since the federalizing of the
Speaker 2: National Guard in California and sending them into LA, he
Speaker 2: has escalated rhetoric about blue cities. In particular, I want
Speaker 2: to get your reaction, guys, this is f two to
Speaker 2: some of his recent comments in that regard.
Speaker 11: I want them to focus on the cities because the
Speaker 11: cities are where you really have what's called sanctuary cities,
Speaker 11: and that's where the people are. I look at New York,
Speaker 11: I look at Chicago. I mean, you've got a really
Speaker 11: bad governor in Chicago and a bad mayor, but the
Speaker 11: governor is probably the worst of the country, Pritzker. But
Speaker 11: I look at how that city has been overrun by criminals.
Speaker 11: And you know New York and LA. Look at La La.
Speaker 11: Those people weren't from LA, they weren't from California. Most
Speaker 11: of those people any of those people, And yeah, that's
Speaker 11: that's the focus. Biden allowed twenty one million people to
Speaker 11: come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those
Speaker 11: people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails,
Speaker 11: the empty their jails out into the US. Most of
Speaker 11: those people are in the cities, all blue cities, all
Speaker 11: Democrat run cities, and they think they're going to use
Speaker 11: them to vote.
Speaker 6: It's not going to happen.
Speaker 5: What is your reaction to his assertions there?
Speaker 6: My god, I mean, there's so much in there.
Speaker 13: You know, it's so shameless, so embarrassing, so divorced from
Speaker 13: the facts, and all just rageously politicized, and you know,
Speaker 13: just he just.
Speaker 6: Makes it up as he talks. And you know, the.
Speaker 13: Crime rates in California are much lower than many of
Speaker 13: the Red states, and you know, murder rates way higher
Speaker 13: many of the Red states, red cities. And you know,
Speaker 13: he's trying to portray a fiction and pawn it off
Speaker 13: of the American people as a truth when it's when
Speaker 13: it's clearly not, and you know, to it so blatantly
Speaker 13: attack blue city leaders and blue state leaders. You know,
Speaker 13: he's not a president for all America. He's wants to
Speaker 13: be president for half or less and wants to attack
Speaker 13: transparently and vindictively everyone else in the Blue cities. He
Speaker 13: can't stand the fact that he got absolutely thrashed in
Speaker 13: the election by in California and that's too much, apparently
Speaker 13: for his fragile ego, so he needs to try to
Speaker 13: target California. It's just so inappropriate. That's not how leaders lead.
Speaker 13: It's it's it's it's sophomoric and juvenile. It's like a
Speaker 13: kid in the White House, unfortunately, but you know, so
Speaker 13: much lack of truth there. It's just hard to take
Speaker 13: the man seriously, unfortunately. But it would be laughable if
Speaker 13: it wasn't so dangerous and for him to act on,
Speaker 13: you know, this this political vengeance tour, this lack of
Speaker 13: facts to go after certain cities and states. You're right,
Speaker 13: the executive order is it was for sixty days. It
Speaker 13: wasn't targeted and surgical to an incident or incidents in LA.
Speaker 6: And it's nationwide. It's not just for LA.
Speaker 13: I mean, what is the basis for an executive order
Speaker 13: nationwide based on you know, a set of incidents that
Speaker 13: we see, you know, after the Lakers win a championship, right,
Speaker 13: so it's you know, he's trying to.
Speaker 6: Invoke authority that gives him more power.
Speaker 13: He wants the power, and when there's invasions or emergencies
Speaker 13: or rebellions or insurrections, he gets more power. So he
Speaker 13: says those things exist when they don't exist, clearly don't exist.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty clear he's testing
Speaker 2: the limits of what he can do here, what he
Speaker 2: can get away with, both in terms of, like you know,
Speaker 2: public support and resistance, and in terms of the judicial system.
Speaker 2: I'm curious if you feel like you gotten enough support
Speaker 2: from other Democrats around the country, because, to be honest
Speaker 2: with you, I've been a little bit disappointed in the
Speaker 2: lack of vocal support and vocal resistance from elected Democrats
Speaker 2: around the country, especially given the fact, I mean, he's
Speaker 2: directly threatening.
Speaker 5: All blue states, all blue.
Speaker 2: Cities with rolling out the same playbook wherever in one
Speaker 2: or whenever he wants to.
Speaker 13: We've gotten some really good support on this case, and
Speaker 13: Democrats are speaking up and out across the nation. I
Speaker 13: know that there was some concern and views shared like yours,
Speaker 13: especially as Trump took office in January twenty January twentieth,
Speaker 13: but I think there's a good rhythm and a broad
Speaker 13: organized group of Democrats that are fighting for the rule
Speaker 13: of law, for democracy. We had democratic governors through the
Speaker 13: Governors Association, every single governor signed on against this deployment
Speaker 13: of the National Guard. We had democratic attorneys general write
Speaker 13: an anarchist brief. We had quite amazingly retired secretaries of
Speaker 13: the Army and the Navy, four star retired admirals and
Speaker 13: generals who wrote an amicust brief in our favor, in
Speaker 13: support of our position, saying that if the military is
Speaker 13: ever going to be deployed on American soil, it needs
Speaker 13: to be rare and serious and legally clear, and they
Speaker 13: thought that those elements were not present here. So really
Speaker 13: good support for our case, and I think more broadly speaking,
Speaker 13: the voice of Democrats is getting louder and louder across
Speaker 13: the nation.
Speaker 5: Last question I have for you.
Speaker 2: Trump stopped short here of invoking the Insurrection Act, and
Speaker 2: so the legal grounds, of course that he invoked is
Speaker 2: what's in dispute in this particular case. If he were
Speaker 2: to invoke the Insurrection Act, do you feel like you
Speaker 2: would have a case that you could make or would
Speaker 2: it make all of these issues effectively null and void,
Speaker 2: and he could basically do what he wants.
Speaker 13: If he invokes the Insurrection Act, we'll see him at
Speaker 13: court and confident we can block him. There's no basis
Speaker 13: for the Insurrection Act. The only reason he's interested in
Speaker 13: it is because it gives him more power, but the
Speaker 13: requirements to invoke it are not present. Again, there needs
Speaker 13: to be an inability with the regular forces. The statute
Speaker 13: says execute the laws of the federal government. That's just
Speaker 13: not present. The federal government can execute all the laws
Speaker 13: it wants, or there needs to be a deprivation of
Speaker 13: rights of individuals in the state where are the military
Speaker 13: is being deployed. And that happened back in the sixties
Speaker 13: when black Americans were being deprived of their civil rights.
Speaker 13: That is not present here. So there's no basis for
Speaker 13: invoking the Insurrection Act. Doesn't mean he won't try, because
Speaker 13: that's what he does. He gas lights the nation and
Speaker 13: says a certain set of conditions exist on the ground
Speaker 13: when they don't. Because if those conditions actually existed, which
Speaker 13: they don't, he would be able to have more power,
Speaker 13: which is what he really wants.
Speaker 6: So will he try? He very well? May.
Speaker 13: Are we ready absolutely and we'll be taking to court
Speaker 13: and block him.
Speaker 6: We're confident we can and that we will.
Speaker 2: All right, Well, we're going to be paying close attention
Speaker 2: to what unfolds in these hearings today, and California Attorney
Speaker 2: General Rob Bonta, thank you so much for taking some
Speaker 2: time with us today, Thanks.
Speaker 6: For having me. Grateful to be with here.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, thank you so much for watching. Thank
Speaker 2: you so much for your continued support. We are not
Speaker 2: going to be able to do the AMA live today,
Speaker 2: so we're going to push it off to Ryan and Emily,
Speaker 2: but I know you guys love asking them questions too.
Speaker 2: They will also be all over what is unfolding with
Speaker 2: the potential imminent joining of the US into that war
Speaker 2: with Iran, so make sure you tune in for that.
Speaker 2: Until then, have a great day.