Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Armstrong and Getty and now he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: What we're seeing is arguably the largest ever conflict in
Speaker 3: the Middle East, with eleven countries that have been hit
Speaker 3: by Iranian missiles or drones that, as Israeli officials tell
Speaker 3: me that they believe they'd run, still has about twenty
Speaker 3: five hundred ballistic missiles which the US and Israel are
Speaker 3: systematically working to destroy.
Speaker 4: Largest conflict ever in the Middle East. And now that's
Speaker 4: saying something. Arianna has struck eleven countries.
Speaker 1: Doctor Jeff mccauslan joins us to discuss the conflict unfolding
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. Jeff, of course, CBS News Military consultant, Jeff,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir?
Speaker 5: Very busy, guys afraid of I'll bet this.
Speaker 2: Has unfolded, I'd imagine.
Speaker 1: So, so, what are your impressions of the conflict as
Speaker 1: it's taken shape so far?
Speaker 5: Well, again, this is, first of all, is a war
Speaker 5: of choice, not a war of necessity. I still think
Speaker 5: the administration has been able to provide an answer to
Speaker 5: what was the imminent threat that required this to go
Speaker 5: down when it did. Now, there's no doubt there's been
Speaker 5: continued conflict between the Iranians and the United States since
Speaker 5: nineteen seventy nine when the revolution occurred, but that still
Speaker 5: doesn't explain why things occurred. Right now, there's no evidence
Speaker 5: have been preparing for an attack. There's no evidence that they
Speaker 5: were that close to creating a nuclear weapon. They were
Speaker 5: trying to recover that, but even our Secretary of State
Speaker 5: so they were no longer enriching nuclear material. And this
Speaker 5: whole question of regime change seems to be one that
Speaker 5: the administration is very unclear about. They certainly want to
Speaker 5: reduce Iran's ability to project threats in the region blisting
Speaker 5: missile capabilities. They certainly want to ensure that IRNS does
Speaker 5: not moved towards a newcure weapon. But the President said,
Speaker 5: we're going to accept established conditions whereby the Iranian people
Speaker 5: could rise up and take over the government. Now I
Speaker 5: can see, as an old military guy, how you can
Speaker 5: use military force to destroy the blistic missiles, and I
Speaker 5: can see how you can use military force to grade
Speaker 5: their NUCRI capabilities. I don't see how you can use
Speaker 5: air power and naval power alone to affect that type
Speaker 5: of a political transformation on the ground. And then, of
Speaker 5: course the last thing I would say, of course, the
Speaker 5: war is escalated vertically with more and more attacks on Iran,
Speaker 5: and as you guys suggested, has escalated horizontally now to
Speaker 5: include eleven countries across the region. It also is expanded
Speaker 5: by the Israelis and now have attacked hets flow on Lebanon.
Speaker 5: And of course we're seeing the stock markets Royal and
Speaker 5: the aftermath, and we've seen the price of oil go
Speaker 5: up to about eighty five bucks a barrel as essentially
Speaker 5: the Straits of Horror moves. We're about twenty percent of
Speaker 5: all oil and natural gas passes through to the globe
Speaker 5: have effectively been shut down, whether the Iranians can do
Speaker 5: that militarily or it's just shut down because of fears
Speaker 5: by maritime countries for the safety of their tankers and
Speaker 5: crews or even insurance costs. Until does matter that particularly
Speaker 5: area has been shut down, which will continue to affect
Speaker 5: the global economy in greater and greater fashion as the
Speaker 5: days go on.
Speaker 4: So why do you think Iran attacked all those countries
Speaker 4: near them? How is that supposed to help them.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think that was frankly a strategic era on their part.
Speaker 5: I think what they thought was that those countries, once attacked,
Speaker 5: would then put pressure on Washington to try to seas
Speaker 5: and desist, bring this to a close, and allow the regime,
Speaker 5: albeit bruised in Iran, to survive, because for them, this
Speaker 5: is an existential moment. I think the reverse has happened,
Speaker 5: and in fact, what they have done is really solidify
Speaker 5: opposition the region to Iran. And you'd understand that there's
Speaker 5: no love loss between the Iranians and all of these
Speaker 5: sticker countries in the Middle East. The monarchies in the
Speaker 5: Gulf facuities qataris, Amortis, Kuwaitis, et cetera, have long been
Speaker 5: opposed to Iran. They are Sunni countries. Largely, Iran is
Speaker 5: almost solely a she Eite country around since the revolution
Speaker 5: in nineteen seventy nine, it's been trying to export revolution
Speaker 5: so called political Islam across the region, a threat to
Speaker 5: those monarchies. The Saudis believe they have tried several times
Speaker 5: to incite Shea heights in the eastern provinces where Sali
Speaker 5: oil is. They've attacked Saudi Arabia before, of course, in
Speaker 5: terms of in twenty nineteen Saudi oil refineries, so there's no.
Speaker 2: Great love loss.
Speaker 5: But I think they thought that the Iranians, that this
Speaker 5: would cause the United States to be pressured to restraint,
Speaker 5: and so far, at least the opposition the opposite.
Speaker 1: Is, i'd say, doctor Jeff mccauslon online from CBS News, Jeff,
Speaker 1: I've got to admit I see things a little differently
Speaker 1: than you. I see a malign regime that has spilled
Speaker 1: more American blood than any other over the course of decades.
Speaker 1: So just no sign of reforming, has no popular support
Speaker 1: among its people, in which is by hook or by crook,
Speaker 1: desperately trying to develop nuclear weapons. And you know that
Speaker 1: the in terms of the urgency to act, the one
Speaker 1: argument I've heard that's somewhat compelling is that Israel saw
Speaker 1: an irresistible opportunity and that the when the Iranians counter
Speaker 1: attacked Israel, they would hit all of our bases and
Speaker 1: hit them hard. Therefore, we said to our ally, Okay,
Speaker 1: now is the time, let's do this.
Speaker 5: Well, yeah, there's a lot of bad there's a lot
Speaker 5: of bad countries around the world. I mean North Korea
Speaker 5: comes to mind, and they have the ability to actually
Speaker 5: strike us with a nuclear weapon potentially, so and frontmore,
Speaker 5: You're exactly right. There's been a lot of bloods built
Speaker 5: in the Iranians, who certainly I have a autocratic, despicable regime.
Speaker 5: I mean no tears for the Iotola, for sure. But
Speaker 5: the question is how and the win. And it seems
Speaker 5: to me if you go back to two thousand and three,
Speaker 5: which is the imperfect metaphor, Bush made the case to
Speaker 5: the United Nations or why Iraq was a threat. The
Speaker 5: entire State of the Union in two thousand and three
Speaker 5: was devoted to the American people explain to them why
Speaker 5: this was going to have to occur. He created a
Speaker 5: coalition of the willing of forty eight countries that were
Speaker 5: participating initially from the very onset, and that took your conflict.
Speaker 5: And of course he enmasked a major force in the region,
Speaker 5: not air in naval, but also ground to affect that.
Speaker 5: Then mister Trump made no attempt to argue this in
Speaker 5: the nation. He spent three minutes on it during his
Speaker 5: State of the Union address, did not go to Congress.
Speaker 5: Bush went to Congress and got seventy seven Senators to
Speaker 5: vote in favor. So they had the entire American people
Speaker 5: behind this, which I think could have strengthened mister Trump's
Speaker 5: efforts in this regard. And then finally, of course, it
Speaker 5: seems to me the tails wagon the dog here. I
Speaker 5: understand the Israelis were going to might want to attack,
Speaker 5: but they're the junior partner in this allif so, I
Speaker 5: didn't know that we were going to allow major decisions
Speaker 5: on going to war and major decisions on the American
Speaker 5: foreign policy to be made by Benjamin Nette Yahoo in Jerusalem,
Speaker 5: as opposed to being made in Washington.
Speaker 2: So I've got a military question.
Speaker 4: I keep hearing that the aircraft carriers can only sit
Speaker 4: there for a certain amount of time before they can't
Speaker 4: just sit there. What's the story on that? How long
Speaker 4: can they sit there? And why can't they sit there?
Speaker 5: Well, I'm not a navy guy, but you can sustain
Speaker 5: those things for a long period of time. I mean,
Speaker 5: take the USS gerald Ford operating now in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Speaker 5: It left Port on its current operation in June of
Speaker 5: last year, so it's been under way for about eight
Speaker 5: months or more. It was in the eastern Mid it
Speaker 5: went to the Caribbean, of course, for the strikes on
Speaker 5: Venezuela and Colombian drug boats coming out there in the
Speaker 5: operation to take down Maduro. Now has returned to the
Speaker 5: Eastern med The record, as I understand it for a
Speaker 5: carrier operation in the modern age is about ten months
Speaker 5: or so, and if they get into May, then the
Speaker 5: gerald Ford will cross that line. But it seems to
Speaker 5: me up until that point at least, so these can
Speaker 5: be operated pretty and definitely, all that being said, over time,
Speaker 5: of course, maintenance becomes a major problem with the ship
Speaker 5: and the aircraft, and you've got to sustain it. And
Speaker 5: an operation like this underscores, if you will, that old
Speaker 5: adage for World War Two, that strategy intact exits for
Speaker 5: amateurs and logistics and sustainment is for professionals.
Speaker 1: Speaking of which, how concerns should Americans be about our
Speaker 1: stockpile of armaments after arming Ukraine in particular, and then
Speaker 1: this conflict because our manufacturing base is not what it
Speaker 1: used to be from what I understand.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it has up a good bit since the Ukrainian
Speaker 5: War began, But you're exactly right, there is a concern.
Speaker 5: I've seen that voice by experts in varying side. Administration
Speaker 5: said no, no, no, we have plenty of weaponry, but
Speaker 5: of course the total arsenal is classified. But I'm sure
Speaker 5: people depending on are very worried about the fact that,
Speaker 5: of course we transferre an awful lot of weaponry to
Speaker 5: the Ukrainians in over the last couple of years. Yeah,
Speaker 5: we also expended a lot of ordnance on our own
Speaker 5: in fighting the Huthis down in the Red Sea about
Speaker 5: a year or so ago. And we also expend a
Speaker 5: lot of ordinance defending Israel during the couple of years
Speaker 5: of the war in the Gaza Strip in Iran and
Speaker 5: others attacked Israel. So there is a real concern about
Speaker 5: sustaining that that industrial stockpile and a lot of what
Speaker 5: the you know. For example, big Beautiful Bill which was
Speaker 5: passed in the last few months included a plus up
Speaker 5: of one hundred and fifty billion dollars on the defense
Speaker 5: pudget over the over several years to come, a good
Speaker 5: portion of that money going to expanding the industrial base.
Speaker 5: And even prior to this operation, administration had talked about
Speaker 5: delivering its FY twenty seven defense budget at the rather
Speaker 5: you know, eye watering the top line of about one
Speaker 5: and a half trillion dollars for the year, which would
Speaker 5: be a five hundred billion dollar plus up in the
Speaker 5: defense budget. Again, a good portion of that going to
Speaker 5: expanding the industrial base and restocking the US arsenal weapons.
Speaker 1: Right, Doctor Jeff mccauslin, Jeff, it's always pleasure. Thanks for
Speaker 1: the time, my pleasure, all right, you know, it's it's funny.
Speaker 1: And look, there's there's ambivalence and ambiguity.
Speaker 2: All over this, as there always is with war, almost always.
Speaker 1: But the example of how meticulous and thoroughly the Bush
Speaker 1: White House prepared the nation and Congress and the UN
Speaker 1: and everything for that conflict, the coalition of the willing
Speaker 1: all those countries, and then then the execution of the
Speaker 1: mission was miserable after the purely military part of it.
Speaker 1: It's terrible, historically terrible. So it's just it's kind of
Speaker 1: ironic that we cite that as this is the way
Speaker 1: you do it.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 4: I don't agree with Jeff mccauslin on any of that
Speaker 4: stuff at the beginning, as if you've been listening you
Speaker 4: would know that. And I'm glad he's not in charge
Speaker 4: because I think he's wrong. But I know a lot
Speaker 4: of you do agree with them because I look at
Speaker 4: the texts, So yeah, he represents those arguments worth entertaining.
Speaker 2: Of course, he represents the thoughts of a lot of you.
Speaker 2: I don't agree.
Speaker 4: I think waiting until it's an imminent threat is a
Speaker 4: terrible idea.
Speaker 2: So that's me.
Speaker 1: Well, the history of the world is you wait too long.
Speaker 1: But this debate will be ongoing, and it's an important
Speaker 1: one and we're more than happy to engage with people
Speaker 1: who disagree. So completely different topic, the health of your dog.
Speaker 1: Roughgreens is not in dogfood. You're not gonna change your
Speaker 1: dog's food. It is a supplement. It supplements the diet
Speaker 1: with natural antioxidants and anti inflammatory compounds that help produce
Speaker 1: oxidative stress support, immune defense, and slow age related decline,
Speaker 1: helping your beloved dog state active, mobile, and alert as
Speaker 1: they age.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's this live nutritional supplement that you add to
Speaker 4: your dead chef's stable dog food.
Speaker 2: You keep the same dog food.
Speaker 4: You add this stuff and then you got the vitamins, minerals, probiotics,
Speaker 4: digestive enzymes, omega oils other stuff that can help your dog.
Speaker 4: And why not try it because it ain't gonna cost
Speaker 4: you nothing but the shipping. Roughgreens is offering a free
Speaker 4: Jumpstart trial bag. You discover shipping. Use discount code Armstrong
Speaker 4: to claim your free Jumpstart Trial bag at Roughgreens dot
Speaker 4: com r uffgreens dot com.
Speaker 1: Then you see how your dog reacts and if you
Speaker 1: love the stuff, you're probably gonna want to try again
Speaker 1: to buy some more. But again, it's a free Jumpstart
Speaker 1: trial bag Roughgreens dot Com, ruff Greens dot com, Roughgreens
Speaker 1: dot Com.
Speaker 2: Use the promo code armstrongs.
Speaker 1: Don't change the dog's food, just add rough Greens and
Speaker 1: watch the health benefits come alive. Wolf, This is a
Speaker 1: decent question from the text line, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you need.
Speaker 2: To phrase it this way. Hey, please ask this bozo.
Speaker 2: See you don't. There's no reason this all right? Is it?
Speaker 2: Right off the bag? Come on?
Speaker 4: If there is no imminent threat, then why didn't they
Speaker 4: accept free nuclear power?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: If there is, If there's any belief that they're not
Speaker 4: trying to get a nuclear weapon as fast as they can,
Speaker 4: then why wouldn't they either allow all kinds of inspections
Speaker 4: because we got nothing to hide here, We're just trying
Speaker 4: to provide nuclear power. Because it's cheaper than the fossil
Speaker 4: fuels or other countries had offered to give them nuclear power,
Speaker 4: but they didn't want that. It's because they wanted to
Speaker 4: build a bomb. So how long are you supposed to
Speaker 4: wait until somebody? How close are the uield supposed to
Speaker 4: allow them to get a bomb.
Speaker 1: Especially a country who's motto is practically death to America?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: And I don't think the North Korea example that he
Speaker 4: used makes any sense because they already have a bomb.
Speaker 2: That's why we can't do anything.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: That's why you don't want a ran to get a bomb,
Speaker 4: because once a country gets a bomb, like North Korea,
Speaker 4: you have to let them do all kinds of crazy ass.
Speaker 1: And in North Korea, No, that that was it's a
Speaker 1: very bad comparison. We'll leave it there because we're out
Speaker 1: of time. Very bad any thought. Number of levels.
Speaker 4: Text line four one KFTC. So a couple of things
Speaker 4: that have nothing to do with the war. First of all,
Speaker 4: there's a new Pinocchio slasher movie out is it? What
Speaker 4: is the rating on this? It's not for kids, isom
Speaker 4: It took the childhood classic beloved Pinocchio, which is all
Speaker 4: about if you lie, your appendages grow.
Speaker 2: One of your.
Speaker 4: Appendages grows, It's correct, which is not true. By the way,
Speaker 4: no part of your body does grow. If you if
Speaker 4: you tell him, if you, if you spread misinformation or disinformation.
Speaker 1: I would agree. I would agree that you know it's
Speaker 1: it's not for the kids. But the original Pinocchio was
Speaker 1: actually very very dark story.
Speaker 2: I've forgotten that.
Speaker 4: I mean full of like violence and abuse and that
Speaker 4: sort of thing. Here's the trailer for the new slasher
Speaker 4: Pinocchio movie.
Speaker 2: Take Cory.
Speaker 1: Peace, do make yourself. Okay, that sounds good. I'll take
Speaker 1: the goods. Oh boy, all right?
Speaker 2: And then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Katie, do you want to explain what this
Speaker 1: next clip is.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's a podcast with these two guys and they have.
Speaker 2: There are no other podcasts, just ours, but go on,
Speaker 2: but this one no longer exists. It's only.
Speaker 7: But they have a guest on that is translating the
Speaker 7: beginning of The Lion King, when Raffiki is holding Simba
Speaker 7: over the pride Land and it's that big dramatic moment saying.
Speaker 6: Like, no, what does it mean? It means Look there's
Speaker 6: a lion. Oh my god, what that means? That is
Speaker 6: not what that means?
Speaker 2: That's exactly. Look there's a lion. Oh my god, there's
Speaker 2: a lion.
Speaker 6: Oh my god.
Speaker 2: That's funny.
Speaker 4: You do it in another language and it seems so
Speaker 4: like deep and mystical and powerful. You said, look there's
Speaker 4: a lion. Oh my god, it's not quite as deep
Speaker 4: and mystical. Well, how many buena vistas are there all
Speaker 4: over the place. It just means a nice view, right right, right,
Speaker 4: right right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it is a boy. I can't remember what
Speaker 2: it was.
Speaker 4: It was a movie or a song or something, but
Speaker 4: it was one of those foreign phrases that sounds all mystical,
Speaker 4: but if you put it in English, it's just so banal,
Speaker 4: like the rock or something like that.
Speaker 2: Right exactly.
Speaker 1: We don't really have time for this, but I want
Speaker 1: to highlight funk music in a little bit.
Speaker 2: That's right, he said, funk p h O n k okay.
Speaker 2: I don't know that music.
Speaker 1: People making founk music are making zillions of dollars, mostly
Speaker 1: because it's become the go to music to back up
Speaker 1: videos short videos on like TikTok or YouTube in particular.
Speaker 2: Just whatever wacky.
Speaker 1: Video you're watching has that annoying music in the background.
Speaker 1: You know what the hell, We're already talking about it.
Speaker 1: Michael play thirteen for us talks about all we can
Speaker 1: play because of weird podcast copyright laws. But uh, that's
Speaker 1: that's the sort of music that is fong apparently, huh.
Speaker 2: And is there money in that?
Speaker 1: Oh, zillions of dollars because it's used in all of
Speaker 1: those those YouTube videos and it's copywrited like any other
Speaker 1: music is.
Speaker 4: It's you know, if I'm surprised to use there aren't
Speaker 4: more people that can make that for themselves, or so
Speaker 4: many people making it that it's cheap. My son keeps
Speaker 4: making these songs with some program on his iPad that
Speaker 4: I'm just amazed, just musical stuff. He just adds all
Speaker 4: these different things in. I'm like, oh, yeah, wow, that's incredible.
Speaker 4: I would have loved being able to do that as
Speaker 4: a kid. Oh yeah, it's effortless to make.
Speaker 1: But then if yours gets hot for whatever reason, I
Speaker 1: mean it's like you pay a three dollars, it's a
Speaker 1: three dollars raffle ticket. And if for whatever reason your
Speaker 1: fong track it's hot and people decide to use it,
Speaker 1: then you get to enormous royalties.
Speaker 2: FONK is a sleeping giants at the head of a
Speaker 2: and are at a big digital.
Speaker 4: Music I feel like you really enjoy saying that what
Speaker 4: fong Gavin Newsom has an actual learning disorder, which is
Speaker 4: pretty damned interesting.
Speaker 2: Among other things. On the way Armstrong.
Speaker 8: And get the Southwest Airlines so that they're refining their
Speaker 8: new seating process amid complaints overboarding and bin space. Yep,
Speaker 8: they're going back to their old policy of every man
Speaker 8: woman in trout for themselves.
Speaker 4: Airlines need to crack down on the bags, like just
Speaker 4: eyeballing it. It seems like practically everybody in line has
Speaker 4: got a bigger bag or more bags then you're allowed,
Speaker 4: and then it fills up really quickly, so they you know,
Speaker 4: I followed the rules, so it doesn't bother me if
Speaker 4: they crack down. So this is getting lost in the
Speaker 4: blur of war. It would have been the biggest story
Speaker 4: in America today if we weren't at war. They released
Speaker 4: the videos of Bill and Hillary's interrogation over Epstein last week.
Speaker 4: They released them today, but because we're at war, they're
Speaker 4: not getting much attention. It's Epstein and it probably shouldn't
Speaker 4: get much attention. But we do have Hillary being asked
Speaker 4: about Pizzagate by Nancy Mace, who's a bit of a kukola,
Speaker 4: half a nut job for sure about the whole Pizzagate
Speaker 4: QAnon thing. And I haven't heard it yet. I'm kind
Speaker 4: of interested in hearing it. We'll get to that here soon.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just in a couple of minutes, but I wanted
Speaker 1: to get to this really quickly. Big, big, big, great
Speaker 1: news for fans of sanity. According to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in a split decision, of course, California public schools cannot
Speaker 1: keep parents in the dark if their child is trying
Speaker 1: to bend their gender at school under the sway of
Speaker 1: activists at the school.
Speaker 2: Of course, court.
Speaker 1: In a split decision concluding that parents likely have a
Speaker 1: constitutional right to be informed if their children adopt new pronouns,
Speaker 1: use a different or take other steps to socially transition
Speaker 1: to a new gender identity while at school.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's abhorrent to the idea of the
Speaker 4: school keeping it a secret, just like in just in
Speaker 4: the world of common decency, your rumors, your kids really,
Speaker 4: you know, struggling with something, So we just want to
Speaker 4: let you know, whether it's they're getting bad grades or
Speaker 4: wetting their parents, or want to change their gender whatever
Speaker 4: it is, you ought to let the parents know. But
Speaker 4: what's the constitutional right? What's that?
Speaker 2: What friggin groomers?
Speaker 5: Uh?
Speaker 2: I will, I will read part of it.
Speaker 1: When a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school,
Speaker 1: California's policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a
Speaker 1: degree of gender transitioning during school hours. These policies likely
Speaker 1: violate parents' rights to direct the upbringing and education of
Speaker 1: their children. In short, you can't cut off parents from
Speaker 1: children barring a serious legal need to do so. The
Speaker 1: counter courtse three Democrats appointed justices dissented from both rulings
Speaker 1: for various reasons, partly that some of them are childless.
Speaker 2: Oh, some or all of them are childless.
Speaker 4: I think God, you people that want to have children
Speaker 4: doing secret things against their parents at school with they
Speaker 4: help with the teachers.
Speaker 2: You are evil, you people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're absolute freakin groomers. Stop sexualizing children at school.
Speaker 2: Sick. Atlanta Kagan had a bit.
Speaker 1: Of a principle the argument she dissented the She criticized,
Speaker 1: rather the majority for using quote shortcut procedures on the
Speaker 1: emergency docket to essentially resolve a complex legal question without
Speaker 1: full briefing or arguments.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 1: Today's decision shows not for the first time, how our
Speaker 1: emergency docket can malfunction, she wrote, adding the court is impatient,
Speaker 1: it already knows what it thinks and insists on getting
Speaker 1: everything over quickly. There may be some truth to that,
Speaker 1: because the idea of schools sexualizing and indoctrinating children into
Speaker 1: a bizarre theory of sexuality and then keeping it secret
Speaker 1: from the parents is abhorrent and sick. That's probably you
Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court wanted to get to it. So
Speaker 1: it's a victory. It's kind of temporary issue. I don't
Speaker 1: want to explain the full details of it. What's a
Speaker 1: stay on what and reverses the countermanding order?
Speaker 2: No way.
Speaker 4: At the end of the day, it stands well, even
Speaker 4: if it goes back and forth a couple of times.
Speaker 2: There's just no way it ensures us better. Not so crazy.
Speaker 4: So is the whole Pizzagate theory, in my opinion, that
Speaker 4: the Clintons were running a pedophile ring out of a
Speaker 4: pizza place in the northeast somewhere. Remember some job believed
Speaker 4: it and went there and shot some people. Remember that
Speaker 4: a little he shot into the ceiling. I think it's
Speaker 4: a QAnon thing. Is that where it originated?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Wow?
Speaker 4: Is that where the whole pedophile thing originated from? Pizzagate
Speaker 4: all spread from there.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein really liked getting with underage girls, many of them.
Speaker 1: So there's there's basis for you know, there is some
Speaker 1: fire as well as the smoke there.
Speaker 4: Right, But then when did it morph into the you know,
Speaker 4: the bushes are raping babies and eating them.
Speaker 2: When did that happen? You know? And that fits in
Speaker 2: with the pizza gate thing? AnyWho? Right?
Speaker 4: Hillary Clinton was asked about that by Representative Nancy Mace
Speaker 4: last week when she's being grilled under oath. Here's how
Speaker 4: it went.
Speaker 9: You described pizza Gate as a baseless conspiracy theory, alleging
Speaker 9: you and others ran a child sex trafficking ring from
Speaker 9: a Washington pizzerie based pizzeri a basement. Have you reviewed
Speaker 9: any twenty twenty five, twenty six Epstein files that were
Speaker 9: released that you believe reference or relate to those specific
Speaker 9: twenty sixteen claims regarding the Podesta email comet ping pong
Speaker 9: pizza used as code possibly, I'm sorry her whether.
Speaker 2: She's reviewed emails relate to the wacky pizza Gate.
Speaker 9: Excuse me, characterize it however you want. I just would
Speaker 9: like to know if she's familiar with any of them.
Speaker 10: Pizzagate was totally made up. It was an outrageous allegation
Speaker 10: that ended up hurting a number of people, that caused
Speaker 10: a deranged young man to show up with his assault
Speaker 10: rifle and shoot up a local pizzeria. I can't believe
Speaker 10: you're even referencing it.
Speaker 2: Is there more to that or is that more or
Speaker 2: less word ends? That's that's that part of it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I Bill Clinton. I would never have left Bill
Speaker 4: Clinton with my sister alone in a room if I
Speaker 4: had a sister. I don't like Bill Clinton, and I
Speaker 4: don't think he's a good guy when it comes to
Speaker 4: how he treats women. But I don't think they were
Speaker 4: running a child sex ring out of a pizza place
Speaker 4: in the basement.
Speaker 2: I think that's crazy.
Speaker 4: And Nancy Mace, does it sound to you like she
Speaker 4: was trying to take that seriously or believes it?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, she is half a whack job, definitely.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I know her act pretty well. And now, how are
Speaker 2: you ever going to get past any of this? I
Speaker 2: don't know that we can.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely become the case that there are too many
Speaker 1: whacky online conspiracy theories and subgroups and activists of yours.
Speaker 1: You just you'd spend all your time running around trying
Speaker 1: to refute their whack of doodal arguments.
Speaker 4: I suppose we should hear from Bill Clinton ask a
Speaker 4: specific question here there clipped thirty five, Michael, I.
Speaker 2: Do think you should be talking to me. I think
Speaker 2: you should have called me.
Speaker 5: I did take those blind trips with them, and you
Speaker 5: have a right to ask those questions.
Speaker 2: Okay, that was thirty four. Do we have thirty five
Speaker 2: or they misnumbered? Yeah, that's that's I've got the right numbers. Okay,
Speaker 2: So what's the one about did you have sexual contact?
Speaker 2: Because thirty six, did.
Speaker 11: You ever have any sexual contact with young women or
Speaker 11: girls in the presence of Epstcen or Maxwell? No, did
Speaker 11: you ever have sexual contact with any young woman or
Speaker 11: girl introduced to you by Epstein or Maxwell?
Speaker 2: And then just roll that next one.
Speaker 11: Mister President, with the benefit of hindsight, where there things
Speaker 11: you witness that could have suggested that Epstein was trafficking
Speaker 11: and sexually abusing young women and girls?
Speaker 4: I did not believe, so HM put a little thought
Speaker 4: into that one I just read. He was asked specifically
Speaker 4: about Trump, and he said, I never saw anything that
Speaker 4: would indicate to me that Donald Trump was doing anything
Speaker 4: illegal or on tw with young girls. Although the crowd
Speaker 4: I personally know that believes all this but Ophelia stuff.
Speaker 4: They think the Trump and Clinton's and Bushes in Hollywood
Speaker 4: are all working together on this. So of course he
Speaker 4: would say that can we go back to Hillary briefly?
Speaker 4: This was very jazzy, speaking of half a nut job.
Speaker 4: Lauren Bobert took a picture, evidently and sent it to
Speaker 4: a right wing podcaster, dude right, who put it out immediately,
Speaker 4: and Hillary got wind of it in the middle of
Speaker 4: the hearing, even though that's strictly against the rules that
Speaker 4: they had all agreed on.
Speaker 2: And it went like this thirty one Michael.
Speaker 12: Excuse me, Can I interrupt? I have another odos that
Speaker 12: are being released of the secretary as she is testifying
Speaker 12: from inside this room. Can you please advise me as
Speaker 12: to whether or not that's promissible and consistent with the rules,
Speaker 12: particularly given that we have asked for public hearing. Are
Speaker 12: photos that are being released of the secretary, she is testifying.
Speaker 12: Can you please explain how.
Speaker 2: I've done with this? If you guys are doing that,
Speaker 2: I am done.
Speaker 10: You can pull me a contempt from now till the
Speaker 10: cows come home.
Speaker 2: This is just typical behavior all for heaven.
Speaker 12: I would like to understand how that's commissible for the
Speaker 12: hearing was It doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: We all are abiding by the same rules.
Speaker 6: I will take that down. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Well, I would like to take a break at this one.
Speaker 2: I'd like to have gone for now. Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Hillary comes off as sharp and feisty through the
Speaker 1: whole thing.
Speaker 2: Bill is a very old fella who Scarborough alway should
Speaker 2: play that just because it's kind of interesting. We have time.
Speaker 4: Nobody'd ever let this cat out of the bag. Scarborough's
Speaker 4: friends with all these people, Joe Scarborough and MSNBC.
Speaker 13: And then and then there was this scene of an
Speaker 13: aging Bill Clinton obviously suffering through Parkinson's being held there
Speaker 13: for hour after hour after hour. You all are doing
Speaker 13: something to an ex president that nobody's ever done.
Speaker 4: Good for just the fact that he said Bill's suffering
Speaker 4: with Parkinson's. No, that's never been released before. No, I
Speaker 4: wonder if he accidentally let that slip I think he did.
Speaker 1: If this is a grand standy crap, And look, I'm
Speaker 1: a proud conservative or reluctant Republican more or less.
Speaker 4: I can't stand the Clintons, but I think it was
Speaker 4: grand standy crap.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, If you were serious about this stuff, and anybody
Speaker 1: who's done any serious reading of reasonable sources about the
Speaker 1: whole Epstein case over the years, you would be subpoenaing
Speaker 1: and questioning local authorities in the Palm Beach area in
Speaker 1: Florida and state prosecutors in Florida. There are half a
Speaker 1: dozen FBI agents who you ought to be subpoenaing.
Speaker 2: You ought to be talking to.
Speaker 1: Some of the prosecutors in New York who took a
Speaker 1: look at these charges and passed over them, or thought
Speaker 1: there wasn't enough evidence, or mysteriously just let it go.
Speaker 1: You would be talking to cops, FBI agents, and victims.
Speaker 1: You witnesses who filed, who called the FBI and said hey,
Speaker 1: I just saw this and were ignored for a year.
Speaker 1: That's who you would be talking to.
Speaker 2: Not freaking Bill and Hillary. Oh for heaven.
Speaker 4: Now, if you were grilling Bill and Hillary about the
Speaker 4: Clinton Foundation and what they were giving people for the
Speaker 4: tens of millions of dollars that people gave them.
Speaker 2: Now that would be a hearing. I'd be all for
Speaker 2: oh for heaven. Oh yeah, it's pretty easy to understand.
Speaker 1: You get hundreds of millions of dollars and you spread
Speaker 1: a fair amount of it around doing good, but then
Speaker 1: you use the rest of it to live likely your
Speaker 1: king creases of old you pay go anywhere and do
Speaker 1: anything we want for the rest of our lives.
Speaker 4: We travel around the world on a private plane, give
Speaker 4: a speech that you pay us three hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 4: for because you needed to hear this speech because it
Speaker 4: was gonna help so much.
Speaker 2: All for family and friends are on the payroll too.
Speaker 1: It's great, and we actually do some good with the
Speaker 1: money sometimes, but it's mostly for us.
Speaker 2: Now, that would be a hearing.
Speaker 1: Yes, grand standy crap, hey, hey, two hundred and fifty years,
Speaker 1: it was a good run.
Speaker 2: What Bye Sweet America? So you think it was the
Speaker 2: last time I said that? It's been years. Goodbye Sweet America.
Speaker 2: That's right, that used to be your slogan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so you're thinking, you think this is a little grim,
Speaker 4: but you think you're like sometimes people get really old.
Speaker 4: They hang on long enough to turn ninety or one hundred,
Speaker 4: or their daughter, granddaughter's wedding or whatever. We're as a
Speaker 4: country hanging on for the two hundred and fiftieth birthday.
Speaker 2: Then we will expire. Oh yeah, well kind of.
Speaker 1: It's not going to be that quick, I'm reminded of.
Speaker 1: You know, there comes a time in a war, for instance,
Speaker 1: like World War Two, when was it absolutely clear the
Speaker 1: Nazis could not win. Different people, different historians would pick
Speaker 1: different dates, but my point is it was well before
Speaker 1: the end. Then there was the hanging on even though
Speaker 1: it was never going to be successful period, which is
Speaker 1: unfortunately because many people died. There are days I feel
Speaker 1: like our republic is about to clearly move into the
Speaker 1: Then they hung on out of patriotism and pride because
Speaker 1: the constitution was so amazing, but it clearly was no
Speaker 1: longer a functioning democratic republic.
Speaker 4: That part of World War Two is the part in
Speaker 4: the movie Fury with Brad Pitt as.
Speaker 2: A tank commander. WHOA is that rough? That's a good
Speaker 2: war movie if you haven't seen it, and just keeps
Speaker 2: recommending that I got to see it. It's pretty good.
Speaker 2: It's pretty good. We got more on the waist to hear.
Speaker 2: Although how many's got to be on high alert.
Speaker 3: I mean, I doubt he's anywhere near a location that obvious,
Speaker 3: giving the advanced surveillance he's been under from American and
Speaker 3: Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 1: This is the moment that officials say the eighty six
Speaker 1: year old Diatola was killed and he stayed.
Speaker 6: In his house.
Speaker 2: Old people are so frecking stubborn. It's like.
Speaker 4: They really are, Like you cannot tell them anything, sir, please,
Speaker 4: you are in danger here.
Speaker 6: I'm not leaving.
Speaker 2: This is my house.
Speaker 6: I didn't ask you to day.
Speaker 2: You could go on day.
Speaker 5: What did I do?
Speaker 4: It's now being reported that the Israelis struck the meeting
Speaker 4: of the Iranian Supreme Council where officials were gathering to
Speaker 4: choose a new Supreme leader. Israel struck while they're actually
Speaker 4: counting the votes for the appointment of a new Supreme leader.
Speaker 2: So they're counting votes to replace the dude. Pick you
Speaker 2: got to replace a dude and killed everybody.
Speaker 1: At the same time. So that's that's ironic. They could have,
Speaker 1: you know, just saved themselves the pain of the meeting.
Speaker 1: A couple of others, Yeah, a couple other news of
Speaker 1: the day things. President Trump said it's too late for
Speaker 1: talks with Iran and warned that the United States has
Speaker 1: enough humnitions munitions to fight forever. I think that defies logic,
Speaker 1: but it's a good thing to say to your enemy.
Speaker 1: No point in saying to your enemy. And we got
Speaker 1: about another week's forth of stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I'm a little concerned about all of that.
Speaker 4: I think this one is interesting. So Ever since the
Speaker 4: Iraq War, the whole boots on the ground thing has
Speaker 4: been a real red line, and journalists love asking.
Speaker 2: What about boots on the ground.
Speaker 4: There's the possibility of boots on the ground, and every
Speaker 4: president or senator whoever, says, I have no plans on
Speaker 4: my desk for boots on the ground, because that's a
Speaker 4: line did not cross. Trump was asked about that the
Speaker 4: other day and he said maybe. Hexat said, you know,
Speaker 4: we might. And Trump was asking about it again today
Speaker 4: and he said, I don't have the yips with respect
Speaker 4: to boots on the ground. Like every president says there
Speaker 4: will be no boots on the ground, I don't say that.
Speaker 4: Trump said, after launching strikes, I say, probably don't need them,
Speaker 4: or if they are necessary, but I'm not worried about
Speaker 4: saying it, which is just a more you know, it's
Speaker 4: odd that that that sometimes Trump can be so childish,
Speaker 4: but often is the adult in the room on questions
Speaker 4: like this, Yeah we might, I don't mind saying that.
Speaker 2: Big deal.
Speaker 1: I choked down about ten minutes of the obnoxious. Margaret
Speaker 1: Brennan on Meet the Press on Sunday, and her lead
Speaker 1: question to Tom Cotton noted Republican Hawk senator as the
Speaker 1: president said, this campaign might last more than days, perhaps weeks?
Speaker 1: Does that mean boots on the ground? And I'm like,
Speaker 1: what is this a cliche?
Speaker 2: Are you? Are you? This is a parody? Right?
Speaker 1: She didn't even like justify therefore, because of the ongoing
Speaker 1: might we have nos, just goes with that knee jerk idiotic.
Speaker 2: Good thing or a bad thing question? And what did
Speaker 2: he say?
Speaker 1: He more or less said, it's it's irrelevant task that
Speaker 1: at this point.
Speaker 4: Which is true. It is a fact, though, so that
Speaker 4: no regime has been changed without boots on the ground.
Speaker 4: It's never been done by air strikes alone, even if
Speaker 4: you kill the people in charge.
Speaker 1: Right, I think we they are counting on the incredibly
Speaker 1: low level of support for the regime among the Iranian people.
Speaker 1: But who got the guns wins the fights.
Speaker 4: That is the advantage of in a country like ours,
Speaker 4: where we have no we're armed, we have a Second Amendment.
Speaker 2: They don't have that in Iran. Armstrong and Getty