Roger Zakheim, Reagan Institute director, defends Trump’s alignment with Reagan’s "peace through strength," citing Iran’s stalled nuclear talks despite 2025 strikes (Operation Midnight Hammer) and the Ford carrier group’s deployment as deterrents. Polls show 80% view Russia as an adversary, yet Zakheim rejects calls to abandon Ukraine, arguing Trump’s pressure on NATO allies (e.g., 5% defense spending) and Rubio’s Munich speech reinforce U.S. values. Conspiracy theories—like ties to Mossad or Epstein—are dismissed, but broader concerns about BRICS, immigration, and trafficking persist, underscoring the need for strategic alliances over appeasement. [Automatically generated summary]
I can take you to the reddish parts of my state, the most rural part where Trump won 75%.
I never heard anybody say, hey, we ought to drop Ukraine and go support Russia.
I think this was the president's wrong instincts, but I think the vast majority of the American people realize that these alliances and fighting back against autocrats wherever they are is always in the best interest of our country.
Senator Mark Warner, I appreciate your time.
Thank you so much for being here today.
Coming up, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt will brief reporters on President Trump's agenda.
You can watch live coverage of that starting at 1 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN.
And then President Trump will host a Black History Month reception at the White House.
That'll be live at 3 p.m. Eastern, also on C-SPAN.
You can also watch both of these events live on C-SPAN now, our free mobile app, and our website, c-span.org.
Welcome back.
Joining us to discuss foreign policy is Roger Zakheim.
He is the director of the Ronald Reagan Institute.
Roger, welcome to the program.
Thanks for having me on.
So first, just tell us about the Ronald Reagan Institute, what your mission is, and what your approach is to foreign policy.
Yeah, thanks.
So the Reagan Institute is the think-tank arm of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation Institute based out in Simi Valley, California, the home of the Reagan Library.
The Reagan Institute is based in D.C.
And what we do there is promote Reagan's principles and ideals in the heart of our national capital, seeking to advance individual liberty, economic opportunity, peace through strength.
And when it comes to foreign policy and national security, we do a lot to look to advance freedom and democracy as well as peace through strength.
That's our focus.
So let's start with the negotiations, indirect negotiations going on now with Iran.
What are you expecting to come out of that?
Are you optimistic that there could be a nuclear deal?
My own view is that the Iranians are looking to slow roll this thing by some time and try to push President Trump and the Trump administration off of the military pressure that they're under by trying to suggest that, hey, we're going to make a deal on our nuclear weapons program.
Reality is that they don't have much of a nuclear weapons program to speak of.
And so it's not much of a concession to give the Trump administration.
But the Iranians are quite good at engaging in these negotiations.
They did it with previous administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and they're seeking to do the same thing here.
Questions whether President Trump will submit to that approach or seek something more substantial from the Iranian regime, which they're unlikely to give.
Wait, Roger, you said there's not much of a nuclear program happening in Iran?
Well, I was referring to the June attacks, Operation Midnight Hammer.
In other words, the operation that the U.S. military carried out with the B-2 bombers following Israel's strikes on the Iranian nuclear weapon program.
It's been, you know, debate within the intelligence community how much it's been destroyed, you know, whether or not they will be able to get it back online.
That's not a matter of months.
That's a matter of years.
So from that standpoint, the Iranian regime don't have much to give up.
Then why are we even negotiating about this if this is so far off into the future?
Or do we actually not really know?
Well, listen, there's always a question as to what's left.
I think the administration, as a Trump administration, want to extend negotiations beyond the parameters of a nuclear weapons program.
They would like the Ayatollahs in Tehran to give up their ballistic missile program, the support for terrorist organizations around the Middle East and around the world.
Those are things that the regime in Tehran has been unwilling to offer up in the past, and I think it's unlikely they're willing to do it now.
It's the heart of the regime.
It's what they seek to do.
And I don't see much chance that they're going to submit to the Trump administration's request there.
I want to play you a portion of Vice President Vance.
He was on Fox News yesterday talking about what options the U.S. has for Iran.
Powerful military.
The president's shown a willingness to use it.
He also has a remarkable diplomatic team.
He's shown a willingness to use that too.
And so, what the president has been very clear with the Iranians, and actually, I just talked to Steve Woodkoff and Jared Kushner this morning about some of their negotiations, is the United States has certain red lines.
Our primary interest here is we don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon.
We don't want nuclear proliferation.
If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, there are a lot of other regimes, some friendly, some not so friendly, who would get nuclear weapons after them.
That would be a disaster for the American people because then you have these crazy regimes all over the world with the most dangerous weapons in the world.
And that's one of the things the president has said he's going to prevent.
Now, we would very much like, as the president has said, to resolve this through a conversation and a diplomatic negotiation, but the president has all options on the table.
And, you know, one thing about the negotiation I will say this morning is: you know, in some ways it went well.
They agreed to meet afterwards, but in other ways, it was very clear that the president has set some red lines that the Iranians are not yet willing to actually acknowledge and work through.
So we're going to keep on working it.
But of course, the president reserves the ability to say when he thinks that diplomacy has reached its natural end.
We hope we don't get to that point, but if we do, that'll be the president's call.
What do you think of that, Roger?
I think it's sound.
I believe those red lines that Vice President Vance is referring to is not just the nuclear weapons program that the Iranian regime has been seeking for some time, but also the ballistic missile program through which they have attacked not just our allies, but U.S. forward-deployed forces.
And particularly the short-range missiles are the ones that make our forces most vulnerable forward-deployed in the Persian Gulf.
So I think that is probably one of the sticking points that the vice president is referring to, as well as the regime's support for terrorist organizations, whether it's the Houthis in Yemen, what we've seen from their support for Hezbollah or Hamas.
All of this is the heart of what the Iranian revolutionary regime seeks to do.
Through diplomacy, we're trying to stop that as a country.
I just don't think that there's much chance that the ITOLs will submit to those requests.
The USA Today reports that President Trump said that regime change, quote, would be the best thing in Iran.
Would you say that that's the Trump administration policy now towards Iran?
Is regime change and that a potential military strike would be the objective?
I don't know what exactly is the objective.
I know that I think the Iranian people would be better off with the new regime.
As we saw in January of this year, January 8, 9, 10, you had the people of Iran in their streets pushing for their own freedom for the fall of that regime.
And the response was a death up to, I think, reports of 30,000 of those people protesting were killed.
So I think the Iranian people want a new regime.
And I think President Trump at times has said he would stand with those hopes of the Iranian people.
And we saw it at the Munich Security Conference and across the world, frankly, over this past weekend.
I was in Munich, and there were a quarter million of Iranian expats in the streets calling for the end of the Iranian regime.
So there are people in Iran and outside of Iran, Iranians, that want to see freedom.
They want to see this revolutionary regime come to an end and be replaced with something that allows the people of Iran to experience the freedom that they deserve.
If you've got a question for our guest about foreign policy, Roger Zakheim will be with us.
He is taking your calls.
You can start calling in now.
Republicans are on 202-748-8001.
Democrats 202748-8000 and Independents 202748-8002.
The Vice President mentioned Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are leading the negotiations not just in Iran, but also in Ukraine.
What do you think of their role?
And is this kind of bypassing the traditional role of the State Department and the Secretary of State?
Well, their role is essential, and the President of the United States needs to have people negotiating on his behalf that he trusts and feels that will convey his policy priorities, what he cares about.
And it's quite clear that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are those people.
As I mentioned, I was in Munich over the weekend.
And I think from a State Department standpoint, Secretary of State Rubio is quite comfortable with this framework.
He seems to be completely sort of included in and driving, quite frankly, our diplomatic effort.
And it's important for those that Mr. Witkoff, Mr. Kushner are negotiating with that they know that they speak for the president.
So I think actually this framework is one that's working for President Trump and probably puts the United States diplomatic effort in the most authoritative position.
What you don't want in this situation is where the U.S. is engaging in diplomacy, but it's perceived not to be something that the president is fully behind.
You really can't make that argument when it comes to what Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner are doing.
But from a State Department standpoint, I think it's quite clear to everyone around the world that Secretary Rubio is a lead diplomat for the United States of America.
And as you know, that there's been a second carrier group moved into the region near Iran.
What do you make of that as far as the possibility of a military strike?
Because we saw this kind of buildup before the strike in Venezuela.
What percentage would you say is the possibility that the administration does carry out a kinetic attack on Iran?
I can't really throw a percentage at it, but I do know that in terms of what a commander-in-chief needs to think about as he or she contemplates a military operation of this nature, with a second carrier coming in, the Ford, U.S. forces, Ford deployed, will be secure, will be optimizing their force protection in the event that President of the United States decides to carry out an operation.
I think it's also complementary to diplomatic effort.
Iran knows that President Trump means business with the Lincoln and Ford there, and Iran knows that its ability to, in any way, threaten our forces in a fashion to make us sort of dial down the pressure diplomatically is a fool's errand because we can cover our interests, take care of our people, our allies, and our partners, and at the same time, carry out a strike that would be lethal against the targets we're seeking to take out.
So I think it puts the president in the best position possible, both on the diplomatic front and, of course, militarily.
And that really is what the president's been waiting for.
I mean, we've been at this for a month, and we'll see if it yields anything at the table diplomatically.
Again, my own view is that it won't.
On the Republican line, here's Kevin in Tampa, Florida.
You're on with Roger Zakheim.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
I've called many times on this issue.
I do not understand why President Trump is siding with Russia and putting pressure on Ukraine for a ceasefire or for an end to this war.
Ukraine, I believe, is actually winning this war very slowly and very costly.
This makes no sense if President Trump feels that Russia will be a reliable trading partner and somehow be a partner in this war against China.
Ronald Reagan was right, and he did the right thing.
The Soviet Union was an evil empire.
Russia is still an evil empire.
Putin is a pathological liar and a psychopath.
He doesn't want the Donbass.
He wants all of Ukraine.
He wants the Soviet Union back.
Lavrov has said the same thing.
This must stop.
Support Ukraine.
Ukraine can be a very reliable trading partner, much more European, as with respect to Secretary Rubio's speech.
Europe is our common whatever ally.
Russia will never be an ally.
I do not understand why President Trump doesn't put more pressure on Russia to end this war, to leave Ukraine, and then maybe the sanctions will come off.
But more sanctions against Russia and providing more weapons and support for Ukraine.
And I truly feel that this war could come to an end sooner.
Go ahead, Roger.
Well, I agree with many of the sentiments articulated by the caller.
The American people, not just the caller, overwhelmingly recognize that Russia is an adversary, that this is a war of naked aggression against the free people of Ukraine, and Americans want to see Ukraine win.
And I think the caller is also correct.
We saw a recent report by the Institute of Study of War that Ukraine, for the first time in some time, has been retaking territory that the Russians had previously taken.
It's, you know, inches, not feet, but it still reflects that Ukraine is winning.
As far as the president, you know, he obviously wants to realize a negotiated diplomatic outcome.
President Zelensky has made quite clear that any outcome was one that would need to be supported by the Ukrainian people and that giving up the Donbass and contested territory or territory that's been taken by Russia is something that he is unwilling to do, certainly, if it means that it would be de jure recognition.
I think there is a general framework of what we're talking about.
And Secretary Rubio spoke to this in Munich, where they're down to the hardest issues.
And those issues really are about territory and whether or not they'll be able to come to agreement along the current lines of contact.
But going ahead and rewarding Russia for its naked aggression against Ukraine by giving it territory it currently does not hold is something that will be unacceptable to President Zelensky, the people of Ukraine, and frankly, by the people of the United States.
We've done polling on this.
I've been on this show in the past.
And it's clear the American people don't believe we should reward Vladimir Putin for his aggression.
And Roger, what do you think?
How do you think President Reagan would have dealt with this differently from President Trump?
What would he have done differently?
Well, that's sort of impossible to say, but we know as a matter of principle, President Reagan was quite clear that there was a place of morality and foreign policy, and he did not hesitate to say which side was good and which side was evil, which side was right and which side was wrong.
And we've seen the American people consistently do the same today.
It is not sort of a 50-50 split.
President Reagan's Moral Foreign Policy00:09:13
Nearly 80% of those that we survey, and this is consistent, view Russia as an adversary, as an enemy.
And roughly 74, 75% of those we survey show that Ukraine is an ally and a friend.
And so I think that would have been front and center in terms of any foreign policymaking by President Reagan.
And I think ultimately that's where the Trump administration is going to land.
I mean, the caller referenced Secretary Rubio's speech at Munich.
And it was one that clearly was driven by U.S. values and recognizing that the United States and Europe will always be together.
They've been together in the past.
The United States comes from European civilization.
And that recognition means that we'll have to be together standing for liberty and freedom.
So, Roger, I want to read you a portion of an editorial from the Wall Street Journal.
And they said this: quote: Mr. Rubio is drawing directly from Ronald Reagan's playbook of conservative internationalism, unapologetic about U.S. leadership and the superiority of freedom, anchored by threats to the American people and their interests, wary that diplomacy and commerce by themselves can resolve the world's differences.
This worldview still represents the best formula for dealing with the accumulating threats to the U.S., namely an axis among China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
Mr. Trump wants America to be the big player in every region, but his greatest failure as president is that he won't or can't articulate his larger principles.
What do you think of that?
Well, I thought Secretary Rubio did a fantastic job of articulating the administration's principles.
So, you know, in that respect, the administration, I think, has taken a very important step forward talking to our European allies.
Of course, President Zelensky was in the room.
And I do think this administration is doing a good job of articulating the principles of conservative internationalism, which is, of course, advancing freedom, advancing free markets, and of peace through strength, recognizing that supranational organizations are not going to solve these problems, that the bureaucracies are slow to impact major events around the world.
And the U.S. needs to be leading in the world.
It's not some sort of nameless rules-based international order.
It's an American-led order.
And that's what you heard from Secretary Rubio.
And we'll see if the diplomatic effort will yield the outcome that the American people want, and certainly the Ukrainian people want, and our European allies will want.
We're sort of in this space between we're making some progress on the 20-point plan.
As Secretary Rubio said, the hardest issues are the ones that are being negotiated.
We've seen some ratcheting up in terms of sanctions against Russia, and we'll certainly need to see that increase.
And then on the European side, they are the ones buying U.S. weapons and delivering to Ukraine.
So Europe is doing what I think the Trump administration has always wanted, which is to stand up and lead, certainly when it comes to providing firepower and conventional force to the Ukrainians.
So as long as the Ukrainians are getting their support on the security front, on the diplomatic front, we can have this land in a place that works for European security, U.S. security, and the freedom of the Ukrainian people.
Jack in Baltimore, Maryland, Democrat, you're on the air.
Hey, good morning, guys.
I just want to quickly point out that, I mean, your guest is kind of talking from both ends of his mouth.
Donald Trump has continued to try to ingratiate himself to Putin.
And if you just juxtapose the welcome that Vladimir Putin received with a little red carpet welcoming and compare that to how Zelensky was treated with his first White House visit in his second Trump term, being publicly chastised for the world to see.
So that's in a nutshell how what President Trump thinks of the Russian-Ukraine conflict.
He's clearly pro-Russia.
He ingratiates himself to people like Victor Orban.
You can just see how he treats our closest allies and how he's treated Canada, the veiled threats using aid to physically taking over Greenland.
He has completely perverted the traditional conservative stance on what our allies and who our enemies are.
We don't know.
There's no clear line to who our friends are and who our enemies are.
If you just listen to what Trump says and how he's treating our allies versus how he's treating our enemies.
And it doesn't reconcile with traditional conservative principles, especially with Ronald Reagan and what peace through strength meant.
All right, Dr. Loe, we got that.
Let's get our response.
Well, listen, President Trump has, without question, as it relates to our European allies and partners, applied sticks as much as he's applied carrots.
Although, we've seen as it relates to NATO that his push for NATO taking more responsibility for its own security has yielded good results, results, excuse me, particularly as it relates to their commitments to their own defense with a 5% commitment, 3.5% direct, the balance indirect.
This has, I think, yielded a very important outcome for European security.
And then we're seeing this evolve in a way that there's a lot more constructive conversation between European allies and the United States.
And I think that was a hallmark of Secretary Rubio's speech, the editorial that you were referencing before, focused on those elements.
Listen, I think in the end of the day, we'll need to judge whether President Trump has been on the right side of history by the outcome in Ukraine.
Will the Ukrainian people be free?
Will Russia be punished or rewarded for its aggression?
It's quite clear what is at stake here and how we measure whether this diplomacy and negotiation is going to yield something that advances U.S. interests and, of course, the interests of the Ukrainian people.
That is not resolved yet.
It's ongoing.
It's quite clear that also the American people want to see Ukraine win, excuse me, and Russia ultimately not be rewarded for its aggression.
Floyd in Iowa, Republican line.
Good morning, Floyd.
I guess I'd like to point out that Pat Buchanan said years ago that the Israelis were trying to draw us, the United States, into a backdoor war with Iran.
Now, it's looking closer and closer.
And we must consider this, the cost in the war and blood and treasure.
Anything can happen once you get into a fight.
The Iranians, clearly, the underdog.
But I remind you, there was an underdog, and the British fleet faced the Armada, was supposed to have been invincible, sent them back with their tail between their legs.
And I would say this, too.
Don't let our nation be dragged into that war.
We need to take an example from the Honorable George H.W. Bush.
He would not back down from Israeli pressure, stood up and made them realize the United States is the superpower, but not to be used flagrantly, to be used only when needed.
Guess I'd like your comments on that.
Please, thank you.
Yeah, I don't really think any decision President Trump is making here as it relates to a possible strike on Iran is tied to Israel or Israel advocacy.
President Trump is his own person.
His administration has made decisions that advance the U.S. national interest.
Sometimes those decisions are complementary to our ally Israel, and sometimes they are not.
What happened in June of 2025 clearly advantaged the United States.
Iran, of course, has consistently, since this regime came in in 1979, viewed the United States as an adversary, as an enemy.
And it has been responsible for not only holding our diplomats for 444 days as hostages, but the years since that revolution consistently attacked the United States, its interests, it's killed Americans in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere.
So I think what we're seeing from the Trump administration is trying to finally address in a decisive fashion this regime's constant attack and meddling against U.S. interests.
Now, whether or not that's resolved diplomatically with another strike, that is something that we will see play out, but it's for sure something directed to what America needs and America should expect from its kind of interests and diplomacy.
My own view is that the Trump administration, both through Operation Midnight Hammer and Absolute Resolve of the removal of the Duro, has made quite clear that our military can engage in effective operations with precision and not result in an endless sort of war where we have life lost and treasure wasted.
Brics And Beyond00:04:52
That, to me, is some sort of like red herring that has been used to prevent presidents before President Trump taking decisive action.
And I expect if President Trump decides to take action in Iran again, he will do so in a fashion with precision, and it will not lead to the sort of results that the caller raised.
John, on the line for Democrats in Massachusetts, you're on with Roger Zakheim.
Apparently, everybody's lying on this panel.
I want everybody to go to geopolitical report to find out what's really going on.
Mr. Zachim, are you the one that was mentioned during Peanac and Marshall McClennan when the towers went down?
Part of the cabal that's running Hollywood, which is Mossad Israel, and you're all being funded by the same global pedophiles that you signed up.
All right, John.
All right, John.
Let's go to Mike in Maryland, Republican line.
Go ahead, Mike.
Hey, give me a second to just get three points out: one on BRICS, one on the files, and one on the Europe versus Russia thing.
Let's start with Russia and Europe.
We have distanced ourselves with many of the organizations with Russia.
I mean, with Europe.
So, actually, Europe, and as a man, I'm going to speak for myself.
You said several times, sir, that you're speaking for the American people.
I'm a man.
I'll speak for myself.
And I think Donald Trump is doing a great job.
He's distancing ourselves from a dependence on Europe, and Europe owes us more.
So he's asked for more in tariffs and other policies.
And we removed ourselves from WHO and WEF and the integration of Europe.
Okay, now the BRICS.
BRICS as a whole is standing itself up.
But if we work with Russia and/or China and/or India, we can run the financial system completely.
And so we should make friends with Russia because we cannot avoid BRICS as a whole.
But we will be the dominant force in America and the world for finances.
And lastly, sir, the lists do matter.
When you say that he's not addressing the things the American people want, people want to have three four lists addressed, okay?
One is Epstein, one is Wiki, one is the guy Warner Wiener, and the other one is Biden's son.
Those four drives of data will have a significant portion of data that will affect our relationship with the people of America's understanding with Ukraine.
If Ukraine is anyhow involved with that or those lists, we do not want to be affiliated with that.
We do not want our people to co-sign with any type of trafficking organizations.
Okay, I'm done, and thank you very much for letting me speak.
Last comment, Roger.
Well, I don't think that Russia or China have our interests in mind.
And I don't think they are a country that is interested in partnering with us.
We've tried that in the past, particularly as it relates to China.
It hasn't worked.
They are actively working against our interests, both militarily, security realm, and also economic realm.
I think President Trump understands that.
And just because they are doing so, we still look for areas of common cooperation at the same time, building up our own defenses to make sure that we are in no way made vulnerable by what Russia and China are doing.
And of course, one of the best ways we can do that is continuing to strengthen work with our allies, and we need strong allies to do that effectively.
And that I think is the message we heard from Secretary of State Rubio over in Munich this past weekend.
That will be better, that will result in a better state of affairs for both our European allies and for the United States.
And that speech by Secretary Rubio is on our website, c-span.org.
If you missed it, you can watch it in its entirety.
That's Roger Zachheim.
He is Ronald Reagan Institute Director.
You can find them at ReaganFoundation.org.
Roger, thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're in open forum until the end of the program at 10 Eastern, and we'll start with Susan in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Democrat, go ahead, Susan.
Hi, good morning.
Good morning.
I wanted to talk to the last guest, the immigration newspaper lady, but I'm wondering if she could pull up how many immigrants Greg Abbott bust up north.
How many buses?
How many games?
And why do you want to know that number, Susan?
Well, I would think that would be human trafficking and illegal.
All right.
Not sure though.
That's all I had.
Okay, Susan.
Let's talk to Mary next.
Republican in New York.
Go ahead, Mary.
Regret Over Epstein Links?00:05:55
So regarding immigration, Hispanics are the ones who got Trump elected.
So be careful what you ask for.
They didn't want to vote for Kamala.
I'm not sure why.
But anyway, a lot of these illegal stage accidents and construction injuries and then sue.
And we definitely need to take control of immigration.
And the other thing, the Nancy Guthrie case, Trump is putting forth all of these FBI workers to find her.
What if you and I had a missing loved ones?
They wouldn't get this kind of effort.
And Susanna Guthrie is worth $30 million.
So why are taxpayers putting the bill for this when most people can't even afford to put food on the table?
Trump only likes wealthy people and famous people.
He likes people like Tigerwood, Saquon Barkley.
But the people who are MAGA, I'm not even sure who they are.
I guess they're the people with the stringy hair and missing teeth at the press and giving up the missing.
So Mary, you're a Republican.
Did you vote for President Trump?
I didn't vote for either.
What about in 2020 or 2016?
I voted for Trump the first time, and then I voted for Biden because after Trump tried to make out that the election was fake and all of that, that was just ridiculous.
I mean, we have fae elections.
So being a patriot, I could not vote for someone who would undermine the election process like that.
And all of these people who call themselves patriots and voted for him the second time, I'm not sure what they're thinking.
Got it, Mary.
Let's talk to Johnny and Georgia, Democrat.
Go ahead, Johnny.
Yes, how are you doing?
I'm just highly concerned about the way they're doing things.
They've always told us stuff, especially when it comes to black history, that we should follow the way we, you know, the way we even worship God.
We was giving it to, they were giving us to us through slavery, and at the same time, they treated us so bad.
You've got, they need to retest the whole judicial system as far as Trump has got 34 felonies, or he ran for president, but you got some guys who only got one felony, can't even get a federal job.
So they need to retest the whole DLD and everything because it's just not fair that one group of people is always being pushed to the side.
Just like January 6th, they stormed the Capitol.
But if we have a riot about somebody police killing a young black person or something, they want to say it's the same thing.
That is not the same thing.
I'm so tired of our nation that's just not following our people that are born and bred in America, and we fight for America every time, whether it's military, whether it's inventing something, whether it's keeping America going.
The black people have always been for America, but we had no credit for it.
They won't even put black history in school.
They won't do anything for us.
But yet, we're supposed to worship the way they want to worship them.
And I don't get why black people are following a group of people that has nothing to do for them.
All right, Johnny.
And this is CBS News with the headline: Hillary Clinton alleges Epstein files cover-up by Trump administration ahead of House deposition.
She did have an interview with the BBC.
We have a portion of that for you here.
You say you never met Jeffrey Epstein.
Clearly, your husband did know him.
The former president says he knew him before his crimes came to light.
But there are also associations with Ghelane Maxwell, including in 2013 when she was a guest at a Clinton Global Initiative event, years after allegations had emerged against her.
What I want to know is: do you regret the links that there have been between Epstein Maxwell and the Clinton family?
Well, let me start by saying that a law was passed in Congress to require that all the files that have anything to do with them be released.
And what we're seeing, I think it's fair to say, is a continuing cover-up by the Trump administration.
In fact, when the Attorney General testified last week, it was quite a scene because she refused to answer questions.
She diverted attention away from the matters at hand.
She refused to look at the survivors.
So there's something about this administration's attitude toward this, which I think really leads us to conclude they have something to hide.
We don't.
We have been willing to say whatever we know.
We've even done it under oaths.
But they want us to testify, not everyone else who's mentioned many, many times, hundreds of thousands of times in these files.
So we've said, fine, let us do it in public.
And we will appear in public and we'll answer all your questions.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
But just to be clear, do you regret the links that there have been?
You know, we have no links.
We have a very clear record that we've been willing to talk about, which my husband has said he took some rides on the airplane for his charitable work.
I don't recall ever meeting him.
Did you ever meet Gillan Maxwell?
I did on a few occasions, and thousands of people go to the Clinton Global Initiative.
It to me is not something that is really at the heart of what this matter is about.
Slime And Slime People00:02:33
We're in open forum, and we'll talk to Walter in St. Petersburg, Florida, Republican.
Hi, Walter.
Hey, good morning, and thank you for having me on.
First of all, I'd like to say that my parents were both Ukrainian.
I was born here in America, and I was humbled when America came to Ukraine's aid.
I don't really agree with what's going on at times, but it really hasn't been right.
One of the things that my parents instilled in me when I was growing up was respect and respect for this country, the greatest country in the world.
And they always taught me that I should never ever take that for granted.
And I think a lot of people take that for granted nowadays.
Thank you very much.
Larry in Tennessee, Independent Line, you're on the air.
Hello.
A couple of things I'd like to point out is that one, the left, the Democrats, are now what I would refer to as the hagfish party.
The hagfish defends itself and uses it for attacking by using slime.
That's all the Democrats left is good for anymore, is to slime people.
Trump is a, this Epstein business is a perfect example where they find absolutely nothing, but they continue with their slime because people are weak enough to not only fall for the slime, but to actually participate in the sliming.
The other thing I wanted to point out is that the vast majority of these people that fall in on the Democrat line do nothing but repeat, regurgitate what they hear on MS Now and CNN.