Episode 5173: Negotiations Continue With Iran; Nationalizing The 2026 Election
Trump’s State of the Union and Marco Rubio’s warnings paint Iran as an escalating threat, despite Geneva talks—backed by Omani and U.S. officials—showing cautious progress, though Trita Parsi highlights unresolved sanctions and nuclear risks. Rabbi Willicki and Kurt Mills argue Iran prefers war over concessions, while Graham’s opposition underscores neoconservative resistance to a deal. Meanwhile, a U.S.-coordinated Cuban vessel seizure reveals anti-Maduro ties, possibly linked to Rubio’s rhetoric, and Vaughn Hilliard’s claims on CCP election interference tie into broader MAGA-aligned narratives of foreign meddling. Trump’s "peace through strength" approach faces skepticism but could redefine diplomacy—if he avoids past failures like Iraq or Gaza. [Automatically generated summary]
U.S. and Iranian negotiating teams are meeting today for another round of high-stake talks in Geneva, Switzerland.
Now, during his State of the Union address, President Trump had said he'd yet to hear Iranians' promise that their country would never have a nuclear weapon, though hours before that speech, Iran's foreign minister posted a message online saying that Tehran will never seek to develop one.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked about today's meetings with Caribbean leaders.
And after that meeting, this is what some of what he said.
Well, I think tomorrow Steve and Jared will be there.
I think they're on their way there now, actually.
And the president was very clear last night that he always prefers diplomacy.
But I want you to understand, and everyone should know, that Iran poses a very great threat to the United States and has for a very long time.
They are in possession.
First and foremost, after their nuclear program was obliterated, they were told not to try to restart it.
And here they are.
You can see them always trying to rebuild elements of it.
They're not enriching right now, but they're trying to get to the point where they ultimately can.
The other thing I would point you to, however, is that Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region.
And all of our bases in the UAE, in Qatar, and Bahrain.
And they also possess naval assets that threaten shipping and try to threaten the U.S. Navy.
So I want everyone to understand that beyond just a nuclear program, they possess these conventional weapons that are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans if they so choose to do so.
It felt to us today that, you know, a moment ago, all of the nuclear capability was obliterated and now they're a week away from making a bomb.
It felt a lot like the run-up to Iraq when the terms about what Iraq was doing and the threat it posed to us just kept escalating and escalating and escalating.
It is that same pattern and that some of those statements are exaggerated in terms of that they're going to have an ICBM that can hit the United States.
So that's the concern here.
And yet we have these talks that are going on in Geneva.
They just ended this afternoon.
There's positive news reports coming out of this.
You have the Iranian foreign minister and the foreign minister of Oman who've been pushing saying there can be a deal here saying they went very well.
And one U.S. official at least told Axios that the talks were positive.
And there's talks about maybe a meeting next week to continue this.
The cautionary note is that there were talks going on last year when the U.S. bombed Iran and the U.S. could bomb again.
And I've said to you many times, I think the most important story in the world is that he can do whatever he wants with the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
And that includes striking eight countries already this year.
He's already struck Iran without congressional approval, without the support of the American public.
So it seems very clear that he wants to hit Iran.
And he's trying to build a rationale behind it.
We hear, you know, Iran's full of bad guys.
Iran killed protesters.
Iran potentially has nukes.
It's all building a case in support of war.
And I think it's important to underscore he has forever war going on right now.
I mean, it's almost entirely unchecked when it comes to using our military, whether it's in Iran striking another boat off the coast of Venezuela or continuing to deploy troops domestically.
This is a really, really important point for Congress to show if they're even paying attention and if they have any kind of spine whatsoever.
Because I think the State of the Union was like a checkbox.
Like, you know, he maybe said, okay, I just going to make my case here.
And he thinks that's going to give him a blank check because the table is set.
I mean, just in the way that they're trying to do with tariffs, what is the likelihood or what is the talk within the White House about trying to declare an emergency?
The Washington Post is reporting about that memo.
Is that something from your reporting the White House would seriously, the president would seriously consider?
I have no reporting that Susie Wiles, his chief of staff or deputy chief of staff, James Blair, or others at the top echelons of the White House want to move forward with such an effort.
Again, they want to focus elsewhere on actual substantive issues.
Kurt Olson, who is the conspiracy theorist that has, you know, has pushed forward Fulton County, right, the criminal investigation through the FBI and Kash Patel.
He is working as a special government employee.
Donald Trump has him essentially as his, quote, election integrity czar.
And so that is the issue here for people like Susie Wiles, is the fact that Donald Trump can turn to people like Kurt Olson, can turn to Quita Mitchell.
If Donald Trump wants this, he can move forward.
And that's where this executive order that we, along with our colleague Jake Traylor, are reporting on, is a very tempered executive order because it's just focused on voter ID, something that generally the public could get behind.
I'm told Steve Bannon is directly passing to a very close aide to the president documents, articles that essentially about our past stolen elections that have been rigged and about things that he should be looking at because this is an issue that he wants to be front and center in voters' minds, that those are the documents and articles that are making their way to the president.
And we know how he operates.
He simmers on these things.
He posts about them and they make their way into State of the Union addresses here.
And ultimately, Kash Patel still exists at the FBI.
Tulsi Gavard still exists at the office of the Director of National Intelligence here.
So as long as Donald Trump has those types of allies in there and wants these things to move forward, there is no reason to believe that others within the White House, even the chief of staff, could stop him from moving forward in making these type of facilities.
Explosive story in the Washington Post about the president potentially calling a national emergency about the upcoming election and about, as John Solomon has been alluding to all week, revelations of the Chinese Communist Party's direct involvement in the 2020 election and names like Peter Ticton and others working on an executive order, helping Kurt Olson with an executive order.
We're going to get to that in the bottom of the hour.
Also, Neil McCabe has a new reporting on the situation in Cuba.
The Cuban governor has just come out and accused the folks in the speedboat, four of whom are dead and six are wounded, of being counterrevolutionaries.
They list out their arms, et cetera, and get to the White House with McCabe.
But first, the path to war.
I have Trita Parsi, Rabbi Willicki, and Kurt Mills.
I want to start with Trita.
Trita, you came on the show last week and you argued to get this thing moving forward.
You actually recommended we can't do the Ayatollah or the Persians way of negotiating kind of indirect and passing notes.
And Geneva might change that.
The one things I think we do know, I believe there's been a follow-on meeting scheduled for Vienna for Witkoff and Jared Kushner on Monday.
And also, I think there's some discussion about the Fifth Fleet or what remains of the Fifth Fleet has been pulled out of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf.
What happened in Geneva today?
Are we on a path to actually get a deal?
And President Trump has laid out a marker in his State of the Union and saying they cannot have possibly a nuclear weapon now or forever.
Are we on the path to a negotiated solution and peace, or are we going to go down the path of at least some coercive diplomacy, sir?
So we don't have all the details yet, of course, just some press reporting.
But by all accounts, it appears to have been a positive meeting, but not yet a breakthrough.
Some of these issues are tough.
The positions of the two sides are still from the opening position that they've been very far away from each other.
So any expectation that there would be a quick breakthrough is unrealistic.
But it appears that there is commitment from both sides to move forward and they've made some progress.
And then to your first point, they have shifted towards some direct talks between the two sides instead of this thing in which the Omanis are in the middle.
But that's just one out of many things that needs to get fixed in order to get this process right.
One thing I think is positive is that the president has said that he wants to hear the Iranians say clearly in a completely undeniable way that they will not pursue nuclear weapons.
They will not have it.
Now, they've said that several times, but now they're repeating it in a very clear way.
It is apparently in the proposal that they sent to the U.S.
And they're doing it to show essentially this is what the president wants.
Well, it's not a problem.
It's given.
Now, when it comes to some of the more substantive things, of course, that's going to be much, much more tricky.
When you talk about their upfront saying that we won't have a nuclear weapon, is that without the United States taking off any of the sanctions that they have today?
Because wouldn't that be what you're talking about, if that's the case, and it was in the cover letter of the memo on the first page of the memo, wouldn't that be a massive give for the Iranians, for the Ayatollah?
I think Trump finds it as such, and I think that's totally fine.
But bottom line is the Iranis have constantly said that they're not pursuing nuclear weapons.
So the negotiations have not been about them giving up nuclear weapons that they don't have.
It's about making sure that they don't have a pathway towards building one by restricting their program, making sure that there's certain things that they don't have, certain things that they don't do, that they don't amass too large of a stockpile of enriched uranium, for instance, which is the material that you need for a bomb, inspections that are as intrusive as possible, just to make sure that all of their pathways to a bomb are prevented.
If Trump can get this done, and I actually believe that he can, if the focus remains on this issue, if the focus then goes off to missiles or other things, the bans that are coming from the Israelis, et cetera, then this thing can very quickly go off rail.
And then unfortunately, we will likely have a war.
When you say likely have a war, do you think that'll just be President Trump trying to do some course of diplomacy to get the more rational part of the Iranian government back to the table?
Or do you think it devolves into something where we go down a path?
I don't think the president's intention is to do something that spreads in any way, shape, or form.
I think it's quite clear that he wants to have clean, quick, glorious victories.
But I don't see that happening in this situation.
The Iranians will very likely respond.
This is part of the reason why we have so many assets in the region right now, because they've made it clear that they will respond.
And I think the escalatory risk here is just so massive that it would be very dangerous to go down that path.
I see it as a lose-lose situation.
Yes, undoubtedly, the United States is the far more powerful party here, but it doesn't mean that the Iranians cannot inflict tremendous amount of damage onto the United States, which at the end of the day would cause this whole thing to end up becoming a losing thing for Donald Trump as well.
So I think the best thing is to avoid it.
And the fact that these talks are continuing, seem to be getting more serious is in and of itself a positive sign.
What about there is an element in the U.S. media and the U.S. MAGA part of the media that says you can't trust the Iranians, you can't trust the Persians.
Bottom line is none of these sides trust the other.
The Iranians don't trust the U.S. either.
And they have their reasons.
And the U.S., of course, has its reason not to trust Iranians.
That's why you need a deal in which you have verification as a very integral part of the deal.
That's also why you need to make sure that a lot of things are not given upfront in return for things that are given later on by the other side.
And it's part of the reason the Iranians probably will not accept that the sanctions relief will come a year from now or something like that while they're expected to give a lot of things on the nuclear front upfront.
Neither side should do that because the trust simply doesn't exist.
And if we try to design a deal along those lines, it simply won't work.
But verification is absolutely essential in all of this.
That's the thing that can be used to overcome the legitimate mistrust that exists on both sides.
He and Witkoff have at least gotten as far as we've gotten with the Board of Peace and Gaza.
Witkoff's been very involved, as Jared somewhat, in the Ukraine situation.
On a scale from one to 10, 10 being great, where do you rate our negotiating team and the ability to deal with a very tough and bureaucratic process, as you know, the Iranians have?
It's impossible for me to put a number on it because we're still too early in the process.
It all depends on where we go from here and where we end up.
But I think this, both Witskoff and Kushner are people who want a deal.
I think that's crucial because what we've had in the past is oftentimes negotiations, in which it's not even clear whether one side or both sides actually want the deal.
They're kind of exploring whether a deal is even desirable.
I think both of them do want a deal.
I do believe the Iranians want a deal.
The question is, do both sides have sufficiently realistic expectations of what the other side can give?
We oftentimes tend to forget on the American side, the Iranians have politics too.
It's not easy for them to just give everything or agree to something that comes across to them as subjugation and surrender.
In fact, I believe that for this specific regime, surrender is worse than losing in a war.
War, they think they can survive, surrender, they cannot survive.
Yeah, people can reach us at the Quincy Institute's website, which is quincyinst.org or on my social media, which is TParsi on X.
Yeah, just the last thing to say.
Look, I think the president really wants to get a deal.
And I think it's clear both sides, both the Iranians as well as the president, need to find some sort of a face-saving exit from what is really a Mexican standoff right now.
Yes, the United States undoubtedly is more powerful than Iran, but a war would nevertheless be a lose-lose situation.
I think the president understands and that's why he wants to get a deal.
Look forward to seeing you tomorrow when we have more information, no doubt, over the weekend and Monday.
Monday, they meet in Vienna.
Rabbi Rilecki, did the Persians succeed in what they always try to succeed in?
Let's get the next meeting and let's have a different location and we'll have a four or five day gap and we'll just continue this and hopefully President Trump one day will go away.
Look, especially because the whole premise for American action now, like, you know, if you ask yourself, like, you know, what's so, excuse me, what's so pressing?
It has to do with what happened with those protests.
The further we get from the protests, the less credible American military action is.
So, yeah, you know, the longer the negotiations take, you know, the better it is for the Persians.
I said this last time I was on your show last week, that the wisdom of saying help is on the way is questionable.
But the problem is that once Trump said that, the Iranian people saw that America had their back.
Undoubtedly, undoubtedly, more Iranians were killed in the street by the regime because Trump said that.
And that's something that, you know, and now, whether you like it or not, the way things work in the Middle East, you know, saving face and having honor, these are all things that are very important to the politics.
And if America in the end does not come to the aid of the Iranian people in the way that people pictured, it will be perceived.
Again, I'm not saying this is in America's best interest to do it, but it will be perceived as weakness on the part of Donald Trump.
So that's part of the calculation.
It's unfortunate that that's part of the calculation, but that's where we are, Steve.
You know, I want to be very clear.
You know, while in Israel, we are all in favor of this regime that has been trying to destroy us and investing all of its resources to destroy us.
We'd love to see it fall.
That doesn't mean that everyone is looking forward to a war or even wants strikes on Iran.
I don't think, you know, I'm doubtful as to whether military strikes are the way to bring down the regime altogether.
President Trump is pretty adamant the State of the Union.
He wants peace.
He wants a deal, but it's got to be a deal that has no possibility of nuclear weapons and something that's enforceable.
You've been pretty articulate about, and also Netanyahu and others, that you can't trust these guys.
Anything you do is just on a piece of paper.
They're going to sign anything they want to get through the Trump years, and then they're in power forever because there'll never be a Democrat that would follow that would take action here to actually do regime change or eradicate them.
Is that the line of thinking basically, the consensus thinking in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv?
The regime's sole goal, their sole definition of success here, I'm not going to call it victory, but their sole definition of success is surviving the Trump administration.
Because so long as they can sell their oil to the Chinese Communist Party, which they still are doing, so long as they can do that, they still have cash flow.
And so long as they survive the Trump presidency, they know that whatever comes next is going to be probably more favorable to them.
And then all bets are off.
They can continue along their merry way.
You know, you saw it after the 12-day war.
While from an American perspective, that looked like a victory for the United States, for the West, for Israel, whatever you want to say, by destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities.
But they interpreted it as victory because the regime was still standing.
These guys don't think in terms of election cycles.
They think very, very long term, and their goal is to survive the Trump presidency.
And I believe, and I laid this out in my most recent column in the Jerusalem Post.
We talked about it, Steve, that the Iranian regime's calculation is very straightforward.
They believe that they have a greater chance of the regime falling by capitulating to the demands of the Trump administration as originally laid out, which were four demands.
They were dismantling the nuclear.
They were curtailing the ballistic missiles, stopping the funding of the proxies, and not persecuting and murdering their own people anymore.
Those were the four things that Marco Rubio laid out.
President Trump also referred to them.
They believe that the Iranian regime believes that if they capitulate to the American demands, they stand a stronger chance of the regime falling because of the weakness that it would project to their own people.
They fear their own people way more than they fear military strikes by the United States.
And they think that they can survive, the regime can survive with lots of damage from U.S. military strikes, especially considering the fact that they're going to unload their missiles at U.S. targets.
They've never done that before.
You know, after the 12-day war, they did a kind of symbolic retaliation, if you remember, to Qatar, and they didn't kill anybody.
Same thing after Suleimani was killed.
They warned the Americans in advance and hit some empty buildings.
That's not going to be the case this time.
And those American assets all over the Middle East, the Iranians are going to be firing in all directions if they fear that the regime is under attack.
And if they kill any Americans at all, we know that it will be, you know, Trump is going to want to get out of there real fast.
So I think the Iranian regime looks at their options and they say, you know what?
Going to war is we have a better chance of the regime surviving than capitulating to the U.S. demands.
So they'll try to delay things as much as possible and give the Americans less and less of a justification politically for attacking.
But in the end of the day, they'd prefer those attacks to capitulating to the U.S. demands.
That's how I see it.
And everything that's happened has only confirmed my thesis.
But Trita just said, hey, if it comes down to accepting these four, and he was very specific about the ballistic missiles versus giving up the nuclear program, he says, I think they'll take their shot at militarily because as bad as it can get, at least they figure they might be able to hang on if they capitulate.
Look, you could get a leak for every position you want to take.
It seems that everyone in the administration who has an opinion is leaking it.
And then someone's running, whether it's Axios or Politico and saying, oh, insiders say this, insiders say that.
Trump is a master of unpredictability.
And I'm not going to say that that's what's going to happen.
And look, I think that the politico story that suggested that there are people in the administration who want the Israelis to strike first, because then a retaliation could come against the U.S. assets, and that could drag America into it and provide greater justification.
And the American people will be behind that.
And I looked at that and I said, that's absurd.
First of all, if that were to happen, everyone in America would say, as Steve Bannon probably would, there's Israel dragging us into another war.
And no one wants that.
The Israelis don't want that either.
No one wants that.
And the second thing is, in the 12-day war, Iran did not retaliate at all against any American assets.
The only strikes against American assets were after the attacks on the nuclear facilities, that symbolic strike against assets in Qatar.
So why would anyone think that this strategy would work?
That, you know, again, what was in Politico today, just so everyone knows what we're talking about, Politico had this report that someone in the administration says that the Americans want the Israelis to attack first because that will draw an attack on American American assets in the Middle East, which will give justification for America to strike.
Gold was, I don't know, a thousand bucks an ounce, $1,100 when we started.
And we explained to you capital markets and why gold is a hedge and it's been a hedge for 5,000 years, kind of as long as the Persians have been around.
Negotiating.
So go check it out.
Tomorrow is the last day, 27th of February.
They've had three or four printings of this.
Overwhelming demand.
But if you get in by tomorrow, you've got it.
Birchgold.com promo code war.
Kurt Mills, history.
Trita Parsi and Rabbi Willicki actually agreed on something, sir.
Your thoughts about Geneva today and Vienna on Monday.
So my view on what happened today, I think, and I will give it a number because Trita did not, I think it was seven out of 10.
I think it was productive.
The Iranians secured another meeting.
It looks like the sides are not there on a deal, but they're not all that far apart.
The Iranians signaled that they were pleased and thought developments happened.
It was a mix of indirect and direct talks, apparently, reportedly.
So we got over the hurdle of the weird kabuki where they're in different rooms potentially.
And I think there's a positive framework.
I think what remains the stumbling block is it is not entirely clear when the administration would walk out.
Different administration players are saying different things.
I would say Vance and Witkoff's language has been more emphasizing no nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon only, versus Rubio's language has been swerving, talking about missiles here, missiles there.
And of course, you have the great senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, apparently in and out of the executive office building here in D.C. today, no doubt whipping internal support against any deal with the Iranians.
The president was pretty adamant State of the Union.
He wants a deal, but he wants a real deal.
He doesn't want to, and he's not going to get tapped along.
Are you starting to see a path?
Because even the crazies of the Mark Levin Tel Aviv Levin, and also the people who say, you know, you got to walk away, you got to leave the area.
Don't you think a little bit of that has calmed down?
That there looks like there's a joint trust in the president to try to figure out he wants to try to get something done to give him some space to get something done?
I mean, I think the president should be trusted on this.
I mean, it has to be said, Trump, in this respect, this winter and this spring and last winter and last spring, by even negotiating with the Iranians, got further than the failed Biden approach ever got, which is to say dialogue can solve a lot of problems.
If you revisit wars throughout history, it is just astonishing that many of the wars are caused by a lack of dialogue.
These people don't know each other.
And I think, you know, yeah, it can be parodied as meetings on meetings on meetings, but familiarity matters.
It matters that Arachi and Witkoff have each other's cell phone numbers.
I think this helps.
And so, yeah, I think Trump should be given space.
The question, though, is there are spoilers.
There are neocon fanatics within the United States and Israeli hardliners who will urge action that will prevent any deal.
Netanyahu is against any deal.
And so at the end of the day, if Trump wants to get his deal, that in theory could A, avoid a war and B, get the Nobel Peace.
So I think, number one, it needs to be said, especially Witcoff, but also Kushner, the amount of diplomatic successes they've had for, quote, not trained diplomats, for quote, not serious diplomats.
They've actually been able to blow back and blow through a lot of the bureaucracy and red tape on these approaches.
And I think that needs to be heralded and given a chance.
And secondly, I think you're right to flag the Gaza ceasefire.
I think it was much better.
It is much better than the status quo ante when the Israelis were mowing down Palestinians every day.
And I think we got to remember, remember around the UN, late September last year in 25, no one thought that that was possible.
And all of a sudden, Trump imposed that on the Israelis and they got a deal.
About an hour ago, Carlos de Ocasio, who is the deputy foreign minister, put out a public statement from the Cuban embassy, from the Cuban government.
And what he said was that from the beginning, when this boat entered Cuban waters, they were tracking it.
So that's 12 nautical miles, right, or the territorial waters of Cuba.
So 12 miles out, they were tracking the vessel in full communication with the State Department and Coast Guard.
And so when they were approaching the Cuban Cuban Coast Guard or Cuban Border Patrol ship, when they approached this vessel, state and Coast Guard were completely in on it, watching the action happen.
And also, they gave a list of some of the weapons and munitions that they found, the materiel, sniper rifles, Molotov cocktails, bayonets, camouflage clothing, bulletproof vests, radios, rations, night goggles, ammo, and anti-Cuban insignia on their clothing.
And they also added that the U.S. government has shown complete willingness to cooperate in Cuba's investigation, Steve.
And it's like, well, also the thing that triggered me is night goggles, maybe they're cheaper than they used to be, but people don't, night goggles is a pretty serious piece of equipment.
So if you have night goggles, you have some connections with somebody.
Those things aren't cheap.
And frankly, you have to learn how to use them.
And so that tells me that there was some level of professionalism involved here.
But as you said, I mean, they would have had to have, you know, let's say they traveled 100 miles, right?
So that's what, six, seven hours at sea, and then they arrive nine to ten in the morning.
I think that, you know, that Versailles crew, right, I would imagine they've been training for the last 70 years.
And so, and I imagine a lot of them are veterans of special operations and other experiences.
So I'm sure they have their own sort of paramilitary wing.
And, you know, with the meetings going on with Rubio and they saw, you know, how vehemently anti-Venezuela and the Venezuelan regime Rubio was, especially in Trump 45.
And the president, the president gave a speech in Miami in 2020, just ripping the Venezuelans to the people in Florida.
And then they saw the deal that was cut post-Maduro and they were thinking, hey, maybe the guys who are running Cuba now, they'll get the same deal and we'll get boxed out.
I'm not saying I have proof of that.
Someone communicated that to me who's very active in the Cuban community, and it makes sense to me, Steve.
Vaughn Hilliard, you remember him from Kerry Lake days back in 22 out in Arizona, was on MS Wow today talking about a Washington Post or a blockbuster.
He's been following us every day when we open with John Solomon.
John Solomon's been saying there's information coming out next week, he's saying, about foreign intervention into stealing the 2020 election.
Washington Post has a story we put it up that talks about the Chinese Communist Party.
Is that very surprising to the Warren Posse?
Forrest, you join us now.
We have been talking about this since even the run-up to 2020.
You know, the laptop from hell and the Biden's involvement with the Chinese Communist Party, but particularly after that election, we were pointing at the Chinese Communist Party the entire time.
It looks like not only there's some report that may come out as early as next week, there's an executive order banging around that may be deeper than the executive order on just voter fraud.
It may be calling for emergency powers if the president needs them to step into the 2026 election.
Yeah, first of all, Steve, this really proves again how correct and how great you and the Maoist are.
Because back in 2017 and 2018, when Mao talked about this, nobody believes this.
And when he talks about this, it's not a simple prediction.
It's the intelligence.
When you talk about this against the Chinese Communist Party, it's too dangerous.
It's too unpopular.
But you did it anyway.
It's briefness and vision.
That's first.
And the second is because you guys talk about the CCP fears you the most, fears the mouse the most, and also feared President Trump the most, because you three guys are the people really want to take down the Chinese Communist Party, and you cannot be threatened.
I just want to remind people that for people that for people here at the very beginning or so many of Miles shows in 18 and 19, Miles Guo would say that Donald Trump is the greatest existential threat to the Chinese Communist Party.
And they will do anything to remove him.
Now, they tried a pandemic, okay?
And they still couldn't do that.
Now we're going to have, I believe, according to the Washington Post, you're going to actually have the intelligence community.
And John Solomon's been signaling this.
It's one of the reasons I believe Tulsi Gabbard was down in Waitforit, Georgia, that you're going to have evidence that you had involvement of the Chinese Communist Party in the 2020 election.
And this is why there's going to be, I think, an executive order that's going to give the president emergency powers if he so chooses in his judgment that he needs to make sure this can't happen again.
And this also puts to lie all the cyber experts that came on said this is the cleanest election in mankind's history.
You see this in Georgia.
You see this tomorrow where they're not going to have this hearing where the Democratic Party in Fulton County is absolutely ballistic over not getting back those ballots.
Short commercial break.
and continue this on the other side here's your host stephen k band okay the special at birch gold for the free edition of the end of the dollar empire that changed so many people's lives ends tomorrow the 27th same day president trump's coming to corpus christi Also, Bobby Kennedy, people are at Austin Night.
We're going to cover it all.
We got it.
Take your phone out, text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N, 9898-98.
You get a free, no-obligation brochure handbook on investing in precious metals in the age of Trump.
But it also puts you in touch with Philip Patrick and the team.
You get access.
You have a qualifying purchase or investment, as I say.
You will be able to get a free copy of the End of the Dollar Empire.
They're fine off the shelves.
This is the fourth, I think, printing for Birch Gold.
So check it out today.
Also, Tax Network USA, we're trying to get Cameron Kinsey on again tomorrow.
They're special because you need it now in the tax season.
Go to call.
I think it's best to call 866-513-5516 or tnusa.com slash bannon or call 866-513-5516.
You get a free, repeat this, a free discovery call.
They will actually walk you through, ask for some documents, walk you through the bid in the ass and what the IRS thinks versus what you think and what is that gap and how do you close it?
Do it today.
This free normally costs hundreds of dollars, not thousands of dollars.
They've offered this up for the war imposse.
People love it.
They've been overwhelmed with the calls.
Check it out.
They've solved a billion dollars for the tax problem so they can solve yours.
Roy, a blockbuster story in the Washington Post, very detailed, very long.
It's up.
Elizabeth's got it up.
I think I want everybody to read it.
It talks about what, and it makes sense now.
This is why Tulsi was down in Georgia.
This is what John Solomon's been alluding to.
That has been foreign interference in American elections.
Wow, where did I hear that before?
Oh, yeah, that's right.
The war room.
Miles Guo, who told you for years this was going to happen.
And it's going to result in Peter Ticton's name, Peter Ticton's Tina Peters' lawyer, and got the pardon for Tina Peters at federal level.
He's been all over it.
And Kurt Olson, how many times do you have Kurt on the show?
For years and years, you're Kerry Lake's lawyer.
Roy, you're the getter guy.
The site's amazing.
What are your thoughts?
You've been the new federal state fighting this for a long time.
You see the Washington Post reporting this.
As you guys have been warning about the CCP, how does it make you feel, sir?
Before I let you go, you're in Joe Me again tomorrow in the first hour going through this.
But Forrest, this makes sense because the laptop from hell, when Rudy invited me to look at the laptop for home because of my expertise, I learned from you guys in the Chinese Communist Party, right?
You could see in the first five minutes, you could see in the first five minutes the corruption of the Biden family.
The CCP had corrupted them.
They would try anything, a pandemic, buying off the Bidens, right?
Anything to do, anything they had to do to stop Trump.
Trump is their existential threat.
Don't people go, well, Trump's got a personal relationship with him.
Forget all that.
They understand that Trump's basic understanding is he's got to stop the Chinese Communist Party.
They want to destroy you, anyone who tries to against the CCP.
They put you in prison, they put Maos in prison, Peter Navarro in prison.
President almost been put in prison.
That's what they are trying to do because they know that you are the guys trying to defend this country, try to save this country, try to defend this Chinese Communist Party.
If we cannot defeat or take down the Chinese Communist Party, they will take over.
As Roy just said, their goal is to destroy this country because they know 90% of the Chinese people want freedom, the same freedom and democracy this country's people has.
They know if they don't destroy Americans, they cannot continuously control and slave the Chinese people.
That's why they try to destroy anybody against the Chinese Communist Party.
So that's why you and Miles and President Trump are the greatest guy because in the history will further proven this because what you have done is historic.
Because the Chinese Communist Party is the threat for all human beings.