Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://rokfin.com/stack/1339/Documentaries--Jason-Bermas
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
Marion Fall held a panel earlier this week, not just on Epstein, although that's where it starts, but more importantly on Netanyahu, his interview with the Nelk Boys, and the overall policy moving forward with Israel, the United States, and beyond.
Sank Uger is actually on this panel.
You're not going to want to miss it.
Buckle up and get ready to make sense of the madness.
Hey, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everybody.
Thank you so much for joining us.
We are going to talk about the Nelk Boys and Bibi Netanyahu interview, but I do believe that I would like to kind of start off with the breaking news right before we went live.
Tulsi Gabber, the director of national intelligence, said that she has officially referred former murder president Barack Obama to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
This is related to documents that the DNI has released kind of criticizing how the quote-unquote Russia gate investigation analysis was handled.
There was a lot of disagreements there.
But it seems out of nowhere that now she's designed to refer a former president who I think is important to highlight, because of this current president during the 2024 election in his cases against him, he argued that official acts should be immune.
And the Supreme Court has actually agreed that a president doing official duties is not liable for criminal prosecution.
So Jank, I'm going to start off with you and I'll go to the rest.
Just your initial reactions.
What do you think this is?
Do you think this is a legitimate case or do you think they're trying to move on from other issues like the Epstein files, a distraction?
Where do you lie on this and what's your initial thought?
This is the mother of all squirrels.
So, you know, Trump's throwing a bag of squirrels to distract us from Epstein.
The Washington commander's name, who gives a damn, right?
We're going to go back to Hillary Clinton emails.
Should we go back to whether, you know, James Polk was the right dark horse candidate for America?
I mean, this is nonsense, utter nonsense.
And then when it comes to the Obama thing, guy, come on, man, total lunatic stuff.
And so there's, there's a, you know, look, I don't barely agree.
I agree with Tom Massey from time to time.
There aren't that many other Republican politicians I ever agree with.
But I do agree with a decent amount of Republican voters on anti-war, the Epstein files, and a lot of other things, right?
But when it comes to this, my guess is that they're going to believe this nonsense, even though it's the most obvious nonsense of all time.
And it's meant to distract them in specific and get them to go, oh, right.
The problem isn't the Epstein files.
The problem isn't that there are people, our government collectively, Republicans and Democrats, are obviously protecting super powerful people who did terrible things.
That's not the problem.
The problem is Obama said that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
First of all, Obama wasn't even president then.
He'd already stopped being president.
And so, and second of all, the Senate Intelligence Committee, as I hope you all know, led by Republicans unanimously, all Republicans, including acting chairman Mark Rubio, signed off on a report saying Russia definitely did interfere in that election.
They just didn't collude with Trump.
A lot of people say here that, oh, they didn't collude with Trump part, and they think, oh, Russia didn't do anything.
No, that is not what the Republican Party, Marco Rubio, and all rational human beings concluded.
They concluded that Russia did interfere.
So it was a perfectly fine investigation that was launched under Obama.
If you want to try to arrest a president for that, I mean, again, the Supreme Court won't let you, as you say.
But even if the Supreme Court did let you, it's mental, absolutely mental.
And go, and I know what a lot of the right-wing will say.
What about ism?
Well, what about Trump?
Why poor Trump was prosecuted, et cetera?
So even if that were true, right?
Poor Trump was prosecuted.
Then is it a principled thing to say, hey, let's do the same stupid illegal actions that the Democrats did?
Is that what people are hanging their hat on?
Because this is utter nonsense.
Well, and I think just for our listeners, if you read the report from the Office of Director of National Intelligence, they do agree that Russia interfered in the election.
There's no disagreement there.
They do, the disagreement is there was three portions.
One, Russia did colluded.
So even Trump's White House agrees with that.
Two, the reason why they wanted to do that, the second reason was to undermine faith and confidence in U.S. elections.
And specifically because they assumed Clinton was going to be president.
So they wanted to leverage that to undermine a potential Clinton administration coming into office.
The disagreement where the Office of Director of National Intelligence is saying is that Russia did not have a preferred candidate and they did not prefer Trump.
And so their argument in the ODNI assessment is that that assessment that from came from their point of view, U.S. intelligence agencies during the Obama administration was based out of flawed intelligence.
In other words, there were intelligence, but it was verified and they didn't meet at their, you know, certain IC standards for that conclusion.
And the recommendations, pretty specific that the ODNI came up with was political appointees should not be involved in such sensitive topics during a transition, right?
From that, so the only disagreement is, did Putin prefer Trump?
Because they do agree it was against Hillary Clinton.
And to your point, not only the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed that Robert Merler's investigation this, you know, there was a multitude of things.
That specific portion, they believe it came from undue political influence from the president Obama and the intelligence service community at his time in charge who wanted to release everything, even though they were not for the ODNI now.
And this investigation is saying it was not substantiated.
And somehow that now makes for possible political, you know, criminal investigations, which I don't see how that the intelligence was there.
Maybe you just don't agree with it.
It wasn't substantiated, whatever, but it was there.
It wasn't like they just made it up.
Yeah, go ahead.
Let me just understand something, you know, see if we can get agreement on the facts before everybody else weighs in.
So Tulsi Gabbard is saying that we should arrest a former president because she thinks the conclusion of the report was that the Russians were anti-Hillary more than they were pro-Trump.
Basically.
So if you read that, if you read it, the conclusion is clear.
They are not disputing that Putin wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign.
And they even said the assumption was Clinton was going to be president and they wanted to leverage this to undermine a Clinton administration and faith and American Democratic process, not the Democratic Party, Democratic process.
The disagreement is, per this report, is that Putin did not have a preferred candidate, that he did not prefer Trump.
He's saying that conclusion came because of political influence from then President Obama acting as commander in chief, releasing everything, even though the intelligence that supported that last conclusion, what the ODN, I'm getting very specific, the ODNI is saying did not meet the standard for substantiation.
The intelligence existed, but they didn't agree with it.
That's kind of like a paraphrase.
Okay, but wait, again, two points of fact here.
One is the intelligence committee report signed off by all the Republicans said that Putin was pro-Trump.
So they're also disagreeing with those Republicans.
So under that theory, Marco Rubio should be arrested because he was the acting chairman that agreed with that conclusion.
So they're disagreeing among themselves.
The only thing I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing unless they're saying that the intelligence reporting for the agreement that Putin preferred Trump, that somehow, even during the Trump administration first term, that it was unsubstantiated even and somehow never was checked upon during the first Trump administration.
And so now during the second Trump administration, almost 10 years later, oh, magically, it's unsubstantiated.
Maybe it is, but I think the fact of the matter is that the first two pieces, Russia did interfere and they hated Clinton, and that's why they did it.
But let me go to Jason.
And then again, we'll go to Netanyahu in a second.
But Jason, I want your reactions to kind of this breaking news.
Do you think it's an appropriate time?
I mean, you and I have been in many live streams, spaces about Epstein.
It's important to note, again, just before we launch, the federal judge, a federal judge has denied the Department of Justice request to unseal grand jury testimony related to the Epstein files.
But the question is, is this going to get lost because, and is that the goal that that's why Trump and Tulsi Gabbard did this, where we refer to the Department of Justice Barack Obama, former President Barack Obama, so that nobody looks at the Epstein files.
Or is there a legitimate case in this investigation?
Well, I don't think they have to be exclusive.
So let's start with the Epstein stuff because you just mentioned the grand jury stuff, but you didn't mention the fact that Ghelaine Maxwell is supposedly going to be meeting the DOJ behind closed doors for whatever reason and saying whatever things.
We've also now gotten an actual look at this supposed birthday letter.
And, you know, I didn't want to weigh in either way.
After seeing it, it looks more than likely to me that it might actually be legitimate.
So as far as this distracting away from that, I think that is absolutely part of the timing.
However, I do believe that, you know, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, Hillary Rodden Clinton manufactured this idea that not only was there Russian collusion between Putin and Trump, but things like the Steele dossier, which were total and complete Johnny nonsense.
Now, we could talk about the spying on Trump, et cetera.
Do I think anyone's going to jail?
Absolutely not.
I think we have to be very, very real.
I don't know how far indictments will go.
I actually look at this as more of a political move also to kind of appease that base, right?
Because the base has been demanding lock her up forever.
They've talked about these crimes for a while.
Now Tulsi Gabbard has quote unquote legitimized those crimes.
But we've already had the Supreme Court rule.
You'd have to get this to the level of treason.
And quite frankly, you know, we just mentioned Marco Rubio.
I'm not a fan of Rubio.
I wasn't a fan of not only the Mueller report, but a lot of people, we talk about Russian collusion, didn't even read the GRU report.
I read it.
I will say that I actually knew some of the people because they were talking about fictitious social media accounts that were contacted by some of these social media accounts that were in the alternative media at the time.
So I think there is a case to be made that, of course, Russia is always trying to sway political opinion in this country and really throughout the world.
And whether that's through the internet, social media, or even outlets like RT, I think it's pretty obvious they do that.
But again, I don't think they have to be mutually exclusive.
You know, I think that when Leslie Stahl was sitting there telling Donald Trump his campaign wasn't spied upon and there was no evidence, that was just over the top.
Is plenty of evidence for that, Mike?
Let me go to you and then I'll go to Clint.
Go ahead, Mike.
Yeah, I think we have here is it doesn't matter which side of the aisle that you stand on, whether you're on the left or you're on the right side.
This is absolute nonsense.
We've already had the Supreme Court basically say that anything that a president does, as long as he does it within the vein or within the scope of being the president of the United States, is totally legal.
I believe it was Justice Brown or Justice of Mayor even used the analogy of sending SEAL team six to unalive a political opponent.
And the conclusion was: if the president deems that that's what needs to be done, then that's what needs to be done.
Now, do I like everything that happened during the Obama administration?
And again, I'm the liberal here.
Do I like everything that happened during the Obama administration and even during the Biden years?
Absolutely not.
I believe both sides, especially during campaign season, do things that are a little bit unsavory, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're illegal.
But this report that came out, and I read through some of it, and I agree with the other guests, Marco Rubio was one of the sitting senators that signed off on it.
So somehow there was some type of collusion to change something or to change the intent or the spirit of the report from what it initially was.
Then you would have to say Marco Rubio was one of the co-conspirators, which makes absolutely zero sense to me.
And I think it doesn't make a sense to a lot of people.
What is very easy to see is that we've all, on the left and the right side, we've been clamoring for the release of these Epstein files.
Now, is there some kind of grand master client list written in stone or on papyrus?
Absolutely not.
What we've been looking at is enough evidence, you know, notes from different detectives or investigators that have worked on it, pictures, things of that nature, where we can piece all the information together and make our own logical evidence-based conclusion.
There is no quote-unquote client list.
It probably doesn't exist.
You're going to have to use a preponderance of the evidence and make one yourself.
All we've been asking for is to release that preponderance.
But what is absolutely fascinating here was that the timing.
You know, Trump knew that that grand jury testimony, the way that he had wanted it to get released, was never, ever going to happen.
And it was the salad dressing that was an Obama-appointed judge that was assigned the case, right?
So now he's getting the chance to distract his base in two different ways in two different spaces.
And for a sitting or a former president to have a charge like this levied against them, knowing damn well that it's never going to go anywhere, it just further puts us all together.
I mean, I find myself agreeing with Jason a lot lately.
This is nothing.
It will go nowhere.
It's another distraction.
This is the first time in five days where I have not been talking about Jeffrey Epstein, right?
So that story was kind of cooling down a little bit.
We needed another grand distraction, and today we got it.
Clint, I'll go to you, and then I'll transition to the BJ Bibbinyahu interview.
Go ahead, Clint.
Yeah, I think, broadly speaking, I agree with the entire panel.
So I'll just add that, yes, it's obviously a distraction from the Epstein cover-up, which is egregious.
And I think that the only point that people haven't made, and I think it's an important one, is that Ratcliffe held Tulsi's position under Trump in 2020.
He did not present this evidence.
Transparency In Courtrooms00:04:51
He did not come forward and explain to the president that he had been framed for treason and that there was a coup that had been ran against him.
And then Trump promoted him to head the CIA.
So I think there's something very wrong with that narrative.
If Ratcliffe is so good at his job that he should be the head of the CIA, why did he not have the wherewithal to identify what was happening under the first presidential term of Trump?
So I think that there's a lot of missing pieces here.
I do agree with Jason, and I do think that this was in fact an effort to essentially frame Donald Trump for treason.
And I do think that it was orchestrated by Clinton, Obama, Brennan Clapper, Comey, the whole cabal.
But they basically got away with it, you know, and Trump was impeached multiple times as a consequence of the lies that were started with this.
It totally destroyed his relationship with Vladimir Putin because he was being, it was a lie that he was in bed with Vladimir Putin.
So I think that that's what this was really about.
They wanted, this was basically a way to keep Trump in line to make him more antagonistic towards Russia, which ultimately led towards the war in Ukraine.
And I think that was the underlying reason for all this.
I just, if, if I may, though, I think it's important to highlight the first impeachment was because of political pressure from President Trump against President Zelensky about aid and then him investigating the Bidens and kind of the crime and all that.
And that's why we have left partners here.
The second one had to do with January 6th.
So nothing to do with Russia, nothing on that scale.
If you actually, again, if you read the report, like even Tulsi Gabbard's DNI agrees Russia interfered with this administration to undermine Clinton's administration.
Now, the collusion piece, all that, whatever, that's fine.
There's agreement, disagreement, et cetera.
The only thing that they're disagreeing is the idea that Putin had a preferred candidate.
That's it.
That was the heart of the assessment that they're going back.
And somehow, because if we're talking about transparency, now this is unsubstantiated.
And we've had that conversation even within the Epstein file context.
What's transparency with associated claims?
Most people want transparency, but now it seems like because there was transparency, that's the wrong decision.
It goes to referrals.
Again, a referral to the DOJ, let's be real, means jack shit.
Paul did my French.
Representative Luna referred up the chairman, the Federal Reserve Powell, to the DOJ because he somehow, I guess he lied about the $2 billion for the Federal Reserve.
Let's be real, it's not going to go anywhere.
Anybody can refer anybody a specifically in position of power.
But with that, I do.
Just real quick, real quick, could you just connect that dot for me?
If they weren't alleging that they were supporting Donald Trump in the election, how does interference in the election undermine the incoming Clinton administration?
I don't even understand the argument.
Well, again, this is from Tulsi Gabbard's report from the MP.
I understand.
I'm just asking for the conclusion.
What does that mean?
So it was a concentrated effort of using hacking operations, then WikiLeaks and other release of media of the DNC emails to show kind of this that you cannot trust American political democratic system, that somehow Hillary Clinton was anointed, appointed as president because of all that.
And then they wanted to show all the domestic political pressure so that when Hillary Clinton came into office, she did not have the backing and there was internal tensions within the American public on the incoming Clinton administration to cause her all these domestic political crises.
Yes, we really needed outside influence to not support the Clinton administration.
But I mean, again, that's fine, but even Tulsi Gabbard's DNI agrees that that was the goal of President Putin, that that's what he wanted.
So super quick last point here, which is that, look, this is something both administrations do all the time.
They set up something that they know the courts are going to knock down, and they do it to say either as a distraction or to say to their own base, oh my god, I really went after him.
So, like Biden on student debt, he knew that the courts were going to knock down a lot of that and on drug prices.
And so, in this case, Obama knows the courts are going to say no to releasing the grand jury testimony, and he knows that they're not going to prosecute Obama, that there's no chance of that, right?
But he's doing it as a distraction at this time because he doesn't want you to look at Epstein, full well knowing he's not going to win on those matters.
And I think that's the thing.
I think, even with all this, you know, a lot of the uh uh FC5, and I do.
And Jenkin, you did bring up a good point: the Washington Commanders, Coca-Cola.
Strikes During Netanyahu's Trial00:09:43
I did hear someone's like, really, that's what we're going to talk about right now.
So, uh, but with that, I do want to go to this interview.
That's the thing.
I know we'll probably talk more about this tomorrow on our live stream tomorrow.
So, hopefully, a lot of you can join us tomorrow.
On, we'll probably go more extensively on this.
Uh, but to this interview from the Noteboys and Bibi Naniyah team, I'll show this first clip and then we'll immediately go to reactions.
Police team, saw it.
America great again.
He's already done it.
You know, America is widely admired now around the world, and especially after our joint operation against this regime that wanted to, you know, chance death to America, death to Israel.
Well, I think together we've shown the world a different, a different face of America.
Very powerful, very directed, uh, very resolute.
You guys are very tight, right?
Would you call it a bromance?
Well, you might.
I mean, we've known each other several decades, and um, you know, I really like him.
What do you like most about him?
You know, if you meet him close up, and Sarah and I have had this opportunity many times, including last night in a great dinner we had at the White House.
First of all, Donald Trump can be very funny, of course, he can be very funny, especially off camera, right?
He can absolutely split your, you know, you sort of sit there and you start guffawing because it's so funny.
And also, I'll tell you something else that Sarah, who's a psychologist and she, you know, psychologists, you know, psychologists, of course, they look at people, identify very quickly.
You know what she said to me about Donald Trump?
You said he's a good person, he has a good heart, he wants to do good, and that is something that I think you have to know him well to appreciate it.
And the last thing I tell you about him, okay, I mean, I can tell you many things, but he cuts through the chase, you know, he cuts through the BS.
I have to spell out what BS is, he cuts through the BS, he goes right to the point to the heart of the matter.
And sometimes he says things that get right to things that people don't want to really think through, and he gets cuts to the bone, and that is an amazing quality because so let me go to you, Jen.
Uh, uh, initial thing.
I think what you know, one, it kind of just shows I would highlight one aspect, though, before I kind of go to this.
Uh, over the weekend, there was uh an Axios report in which the Trump administration was extremely they even called Benjamin Netanyahu a madman because of his strikes against Syria and the transitional government, because everything that happened with the Druze, the Bedouin tribes in Sueeta, that province in southern Syria.
And the Trump administration felt frustrated that Benjamin Netanyahu's efforts are making his attempt to, you know, try to get a more stable, peaceful Syria.
At least he's, you know, Benjamin Nihu's derailing it.
It's interesting that this literally happened, those strikes happened during Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial, and then he was excused and they had to postpone it.
But even when those, you know, those are kind of reporting, but I think what this clip is kind of showing is that both leaders, both Benjamin Nanyahu and President Trump, do have a very deep personal relationship that probably exemplified, as they alluded, as Benjamin Nyahu said, their basically joint bombing campaign against Iran where the U.S. knocked out Iranian nuclear programs, which has been a foreign in diplomatic relations for almost two decades now.
So, Shank, you know, to your point, you know.
Does this interview and kind of this, how it should, does it really does show that Benjamin Yahoo and Trump have a lot of personal relationship and maybe it enables Trump to then have the ability to say to Benjamin Nanke who like the Syria example, hey, you need to stop this.
You're undermining our efforts for regional security.
Yeah, no, it doesn't show me that at all.
So let me break it down.
So first of all, nothing that is done in front of cameras when it comes to the Israeli-American relationship is real.
Only the things off air are real, right?
So, for example, Donald Trump after he lost in 2020, hated Netanyahu.
Netanyahu said that Biden had won and congratulated him.
Trump hated that.
They were going to bomb Kusseim Soleimani together in the first term.
And classic Netanyahu move, he pulled out right before the bombing began, stuck us with the bill and the consequences, et cetera.
As it turned out, the consequences were relatively light, but Trump was furious about that.
So this like, oh, we are best of friends behind the scenes, nonsense, right?
Oh, my wife looked into his eyes and saw his soul and he's so funny.
Like, come on, come on, get out of here, right?
So, so that's point one.
Point two is here's what drives our decisions regarding Israel.
90% of it is money, period.
So politicians don't have opinions.
They just have checks.
And so, and by the way, this again applies to both sides.
Biden took number one donor in Biden's career is AIPAC.
AIPAC gave $5.5 million to Kamala Harris, and they would never oppose Israel.
They lied down like a doormat for them every single time.
Clinton, same thing.
Bush, same thing.
Trump, unfortunately, same thing.
Trump has a chance at not being the same thing because he's such a wild card that if Netanyahu pisses him off enough, that he could say no.
And three different times he did say no.
And that actually encouraged me, gave me a little bit of hope.
I'm now afraid that it's false hope for the reason that I'm going to state.
But he cut him out of the Israel, out of the Houthi deal that we did with Yemen.
He cut him out of the Hamas deal that we did to get an American hostage back.
And he told them to turn their planes around when they were going to bomb Iran again.
So that was three times that Trump stood up to Israel in a way that was really almost shocking.
No president does that.
So credit where credit is due.
Okay.
And I said that on the Young Turks and I repeated it over and over again.
And people on the left say, oh, no, you can't give Trump credit for anything.
No, man, if he does something right, I'm going to give him credit for it.
Okay.
Period.
Period.
My God, if he gets us out of the entanglements with Israel, I'll give him all the credit in the world.
Okay.
So now, what's happening lately?
Now, Netanyahu comes to town.
They have a couple of private meetings.
Next thing you know, all of a sudden, we're back to supporting Israel 200%, no matter what.
So now we're talking about, oh, okay, you bombed Syria.
Oh, we'll do a leak to Axios about how you're a madman.
But even in that story, they never mentioned Trump.
They talked about the Trump team, the Trump administration, right?
Now, all of a sudden, the Epstein files are gone and there were no clients.
There was no nothing, right?
Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe it isn't, but it happened right after Netanyahu, right?
And it was so over the top.
It almost was like a display of, you are right, sir.
We will do whatever you need, sir.
Okay, like because there was a much better way to handle the Epstein files, even if you were going to cover them up, right?
But instead, they went with, no, no, no, no, there are no clients, nothing did anybody did anything.
So that was weird.
So now it looks like Trump is back to being his lapdog.
So he bombs Syria, does nothing, right?
If I'm right, we'll see in the future.
If I'm right, because Netanyahu's greed is insatiable, he'll go back to bombing Iran.
He'll or and or he will, and this one's much more likely, continue the ethnic cleansing in Gaza and drive the palace, try to drive the Palestinians out.
And as always, make us pay for everything.
Another $500 million, another $3.8 billion, another $300 billion.
So my guess is that Netanyahu says something to Trump and Trump is now back to following Netanyahu's order.
But that's the reality.
But, you know, I, I just, sorry, I'm going to go back to you on this point, right?
Because, you know, they said that Benjamin Nahir said true.
I mean, Iran is a country.
You could say rhetoric, you could say whatever, but they do chant debt to America every week.
It is a core tenant of theirs.
Before 9-11, before 9-11, you know, the deadliest attack against Americans was at the hands of Iranian-backed terrorist organizations, has below in Beirut, the Beirut bombings, both in the embassy and the barracks that were there as peacekeepers to try to solidify to try to stabilize the civil war.
That then they were pulled out.
Reagan pulled them out after the bombings.
And then we saw another 10 plus years of civil war in Lebanon, right?
In Iraq, hundreds of American soldiers were killed at the hands of Iranian-backed groups, right?
You know, Iran is a lot of the key leaders right now of Al-Qaeda, of Al-Qaeda Central, are located in Iran, right?
And so why wouldn't it be?
No, that's not true.
Check that Al-Qaeda leadership, a substantial portion of Al-Qaeda Central and one of the key, they are in Iran.
Is that when they're not helping U.S. interests in Syria?
Without, I didn't.
You know, I'm just saying, like, a lot of the things you just invoked from 9-11, et cetera.
Although I take a slightly different position from Sank, I don't think that Israel orders this around, but I certainly think they do whatever they want and then deal with those consequences behind closed doors.
Like he said, Trump's the first person to really step off the reservation and at least speak his displeasure.
Middle East Conflicts00:08:17
At the same time, his son-in-law, you know, lets Netanyahu sleep in his bed.
You know, I'm very upset with what's happening in the Middle East as somebody who's not on either side, who again voted for Trump three times and in this time expecting him to stop the aggression in the Middle East to clean up what was happening with Ukraine and Russia.
And he's really failed on both of those.
And just as far as this interview goes, because I think it's really important to talk about, I watched it.
The one thing the podcasters got right is they were totally out of their depth from the beginning.
They did not ask one intelligent question.
When they're talking about how they like cheeseburgers together, bro.
And unfortunately, this alternative media is now turning into the new mainstream media where you're basically giving somebody a platform totally unopposed.
Now, I just wish there was at least some opposition.
I'm not saying that you could, you would have like a full-on debate, but there were so many things that Netanyahu said that were clearly lies and over the top, not just with his administration.
You just alluded to the fact this was recorded, I believe, July 8th, that he just said he had food poisoning.
So, you know, his corruption hearing where a lot of people wanted to mouse it, I think they were only like two or three votes away from having him overturned and possibly out of power just a couple months ago.
He's able to postpone that until September, Stefano.
You know, let me just say this before Senk goes.
There is no clientless sink in the sense that Epstein wasn't running brothels or selling underage kids.
He was using them to curry favor and blackmail individuals, not just for Israeli intelligence, but more than likely U.S. and British, whoever was paying well enough that day or whatever they were aligned with that day, because there are a lot of backdoor deals like he talks about.
Well, let's talk just quickly, October 7th.
A lot of people don't know this, but they can go check it out.
It's actually, I believe, in the Times of Israel.
Okay.
Not only were U.S. special forces deployed right after October 7th, if you actually read the story, they were there on October 7th.
They were running special operations and drills.
So all I'm saying is when you have a deep event like that, unfortunately, there are backdoors with special forces, usually aligned military forces.
I believe the same thing happened on 9-11 as there is not only a Saudi and Pakistani role, but an Israeli role there as well.
And, you know, I want to bring it back to October 7th and questioning that because over and over the rhetoric was used not only by Netanyahu, but those in support of this administration.
The rape of women, the beheading of people, the killing of babies, setting live people on fire.
And when I look at that operation, I'll just say this.
Palestine doesn't have an air force.
And somehow they were able to drop out of the sky unopposed.
This thing went on for hour after hour after hour.
And there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of friendly fire killed many of those festival goers as well.
And I'm not excusing Hamas.
I'm just going to jump in there.
I'm just going to jump in there.
I'm just going to jump in there because I hear this rhetoric all the time.
I remember I was on, I tracked Palestinian Telegram channels.
Watch the videos they uploaded on October 7th live.
Watch it.
They had no problem.
Now, I'm not saying you're a problem killing people, Stefano.
Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
It's kind of like the argument with the Russians.
They have a face for the West and they have a face for the domestic audience.
Same with a face for the West.
There is undisputable fact that they just massacred everybody they saw there.
And it's just plainfully obvious and they did not hide it to their own eyes.
But let me ask you, were the rapes in the baby killing?
I'm not saying they didn't kill those people, Stefano.
I didn't say that I wanted to.
I want to go, but I just, I want to go to say, because I want to go back to this idea that what Benjamin Netanyahu was saying, and this is kind of the argument I had with Sink, which was, hey, you have a country that is a threat to you that openly declares death to America.
Right.
But why, right?
So we've known the nuclear problem.
We've known that this has been all administrations have been very adamant against it.
Trump took military action and set them back years at a minimum.
Why isn't he wrong in that and say, okay, look, military action did it, and now diplomacy has better chance.
Yeah, so I got to say this, and I got to run.
I'm already late.
So listen, first of all, this is the same old demagoguery I've heard a million times.
Young Turks have been on the air since, you know, for 23 years.
We cover the Iraq war.
Same BS from back then as today.
Okay.
So, oh, Saddam Hussein's a bad guy.
Wow.
Tell me something I don't know.
Right.
Oh, the Iranian regime, the Ayatollah, is a bad guy.
Tell me something I don't know.
Like, so what?
There's tons of bad guys in the world.
So you mentioned a couple of incidents.
So in 1983, they ended up bombing over the Marine Barracks.
First of all, what are we going back to 1983 for?
You go back to 1983 when you got nothing, when you're trying to drum up hatred towards one group so you can start a war against them for completely different reasons.
And what did Reagan do back in 1983?
He said to hell with this, and he got out of the Middle East because he realized he was just going to get entangled in a bigger war in the Middle East and never be able to get out.
So he made the right decision there.
So now we're going to go back and reconsider that decision.
Okay, that doesn't make any sense.
So you go to the Iraq war itself and you say, oh, there were Iranian backed groups in there.
Are you kidding me?
The number one terrorists in Iraq that took out our guys were Saudi backed.
And the Saudis are such great allies, right?
So how come we're not talking about invading Saudi Arabia?
Because Saudi Arabia and Israel are getting along and Saudi Arabia gives us cheap oil and Saudis are allies for strategic and economic reasons.
So we forgive their moral depravity, right?
Whether it was attacking us on 9-11, whether it was attacking us in Iraq, whether it's, you know, all the things that they do.
So this is a hall of mirrors.
So, oh, they chant death to him.
So the North Koreans hated us.
There's a million people.
There's literally millions, maybe billions of people on the planet who hate us.
But we never go to war with any of them.
The only people we go to war with is what at the time Israel calls its number one enemy.
In Iraq, when we went to war there, the neocons had a guy in that group called Benjamin Netanyahu.
And so they all, and at the time, Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu were saying Iraq is Israel's number one enemy.
Now, Iraq didn't attack us on Al-Qaeda on 9-11 and they hated Al-Qaeda.
And, you know, you could say maybe there's some Al-Qaeda in Iran today, but Iran is Shia, you know that.
Al-Qaeda is Sunni.
And Al-Qaeda also would love to topple the Iranian regime.
So they're not natural allies.
We just go, blah, Muslims.
Israel wants us to attack.
Go, go spend and waste trillions of dollars in Iraq, waste thousands of American lives.
And now they want us to do it in Iran.
No, no, no.
He said anti-war.
If he then does a giant war with Iran because they generally hate us, right?
And oh my God, they did something wrong in 1983 and 1873.
Well, it means no.
Israel's in charge.
Trump was a giant liar.
He's going to get us involved in a huge war.
Now, he hasn't done it yet.
He hasn't done it yet.
And if he doesn't do it and he gets Israel to back down, then I'm going to come on here and say, nice job, Adam Boy.
And I don't care who criticizes me because I care about policy.
I don't want us getting involved in that war.
And I don't want us to constantly finance the Israelis.
Oh, they need another $500 million.
Why do they need it?
Oh, it's for defense.
First of all, utter bullshit.
Israel hasn't done defense in decades.
It's offense, offense, offense.
Bomb Tehran, bomb Damascus, bomb Gaza, bomb West Bank, bomb Lebanon, bomb Yemen, bomb everywhere.
Why Beauty Matters00:05:10
And then go, I am doing self-defense.
And then on top of that, the insult to injury where they rub it in our faces.
Hey, Biden, over here, boy, come here, give me $20 billion.
I want American taxpayers, you're struggling.
You're having trouble paying your rent.
But Netanyahu demands $20 billion for a genocide.
And Biden goes, absolutely, right?
Now Trump comes in.
He says he's going to do something different.
And I hear a little doggy.
So I hope I'm wrong.
And I hope that he stands up for America.
And I think that there's some chance that he will.
But if he doesn't, don't get tricked by the lying propagandists.
It'll be just like the Iraq war, except Iran is four times the size of Iraq.
And it'll definitely be for Israel and Israel only.
Okay, sorry.
Jason, I need your, sorry.
I know, team.
I know.
Sorry.
If you want to listen to this, because this might be interesting, and then you can leave, Jake, because I think this is interesting.
The U.S. Attorney General told Trump, this just broke, I think it was the Wall Street Journal, just broke recently while we are alive.
U.S. Attorney General told Trump that his name is among many in the Epstein files.
I just read that.
Oh, Lord!
And the sky is blue, Stefano.
Again, I've tried to tell you.
I just, I get it.
Well, again, of course, he's in the Epstein files.
Appreciate it.
You know, let's just show some people some things that maybe they've done.
No, we won't be in Yahoo, but he's just too juicy.
We'll go to the next clip in a second.
Jason, go ahead, and then I'll get Mike and Clint here for the next clip.
But I'll go ahead, Jason.
Yeah, I just want to point out.
Let me see if I have it over here.
I thought I had a whole thing of it.
But we knew this.
You know, I've showed files that have already been released.
The Virginia Guffray files, okay, some of which have not been released and are still redacted, have Trump in them.
Remember, we discussed the lawyer, Bradley Edwards, who represented a bunch of these women.
Epstein went after him.
He counter-sued, and he was the one literally with stacks, stacks of, I'd say, four by 12, not just binders, but basically pullouts of documents.
Okay.
So Trump is in those documents because we know that Bradley Edwards talked to Trump.
Derek Brose got that interview.
You'll see it go viral every once in a while because he says that he called everybody in the quote-unquote black book that, again, was released in 2015.
And he's the only response came from Donald Trump.
I've said this from the very beginning: that these guys obviously had a relationship, not just in business.
By the way, Stefano, have you seen the letter now?
Have you actually seen the film?
Is that the actual one with the drawing?
Yes.
Yeah, I never, to be honest, Jason, I'll defer to you.
I did see it.
I don't know if that was the ever official letter, like the actual, but I'm looking, let's, and again, I guess that I'm not sure if it's confirmed yet, but here's what I have.
I have seen it.
Yeah, that's the one.
Okay.
That's the one.
So when I look at something like this with the Trump header and where Donald Trump signed it as a joke, I think that's very plausible that that could be real.
We have to realize that these guys were running beauty pageants.
And when I say running it, Jeffrey Epstein was such a part of quote-unquote beauty pageants that you can look this up.
When the Miami police were going to originally arrest him, they postponed it because he was judging a beauty pageant.
They had actually thought about going.
I was at the CNN yesterday.
It was, I think it was in his second wedding, and I think there was another one in one of those beauty pageants.
I believe it was the second one, correct?
I don't know.
The CNN, where they showed the K-Files, all the videos and images that were released of their relationship.
Wasn't one of the second ones in a beauty pageant?
I don't know whether it might have been an after-party at an overage beauty pageant.
I'm not sure whether Epstein's judgment was at an overage one, but we've got to remember that Trump ran Miss Teen USA.
And as we've discussed here, if there's anything that Trump liked, it was beautiful women.
And the thing is that many of these girls, first of all, many of these girls were one and done because Jeffrey Epstein was a serial pedophile.
If you look at how they were lured into this situation, it was usually another girl, high school age or a little bit older, recruiting another girl to come to the Miami place and go upstairs and give him a massage where more money was exchanged.
And they were basically groomed into the situation.
They would see if they would want to come back.
And some of them took to it.
Okay.
And that's how he was able to gain so many people that you have that 2008 deal where it's not just Glene Maxwell that got the non-prosecution agreement.
It's several others.
The speculation, of course, Adriana Ross, Leslie Groff, Sarah Kalin, Nadia Marsenkova, maybe other names in there.
You know, there was also reporting last week, Stefano, and it was RT, so I took it with a grain of salt, that over a thousand FBI employees have now been deployed to go over the Epstein documents and find instances of Trump in those documents.
Again, whether that's true or not, I think it's possible.
I think it's plausible.
You had Barnes on here last week, and Barnes said it best.
He goes, Look, man, if he wants to release documents without his name on them, it's very easy.
Gays in Gaza Aid Crisis00:15:11
You just release some of the documents.
I told you how many now, over a week ago.
We're in the process of the limited hangout ordeal.
The land's talking to the DOJ.
The documents are being gone through.
The press is going to start reporting on some of the unsavory activities with Trump.
But at the same time, I'm going to say it: I don't think there's any criminal behavior with children because if there was, we would have gotten that before we got E.G. and Carroll, my friend.
So, let me go back to the interview.
I'm going to ask the team to please show the next clip, and then I'm going to go to Clint and then Mike for the reactions.
Please play it.
Chattel, you're nothing, you're property.
That's the opposite of everything we believe in.
We, I say, it's not only Israel, it's you.
So, we're the same.
How do you respond to that?
I'd say there's a lot of American support from the females, from the gays towards Palestine.
So, how does that make any sense?
You know, gays for Gaza is like chickens for KFC.
You know, I mean, that's insane.
The whole thing is absurd.
Chickens for KFC, right?
Gays for Gaza, or you know, women for the women of Gaza talking about, you know, they're completely subjugated.
They've got this death cult that is contaminated.
So, you can push this stuff on TikTok or whatever on this stuff, but you can't build peace or security on the, you know, on the rocks.
You know, they'll crash.
I mean, these things will crash on the rocks of Middle Eastern realities.
You can only build peace on truth and reality, not on deliberate, falsified fantasy.
Why do they say Israel is like starving the people of Gaza?
Well, because we're trying to get the food in, and we let food trucks in.
And guess what happens when we let them in?
Hamas steals the food, takes the good chunk for itself, then sells at inflated prices.
They jack up the prices, and then they sell the food to its population, to its hungry population, if they give them at all.
And then use the money that they take from their own people to recruit more killers into their terror machine.
That's what happens.
Why are more Palestinians not siding with Israel against Hamas?
Then, well, up to now, they've been terrorized, but guess what's happened?
Since we're beating Hamas, all of a sudden we see Palestinians rising.
You have to see this to believe this, okay?
And they say to Hamas, Hey, you're not coming into my building.
You know, you can't use my school or this hospital as your command post.
We're not letting you.
And they start fighting them.
Now we have actually armed conflict between Palestinians and terrorists.
It's unimaginable a year and a half ago.
But I love it.
I don't know if that let me go to Clint first.
I know, Clint, from your perspective, you know, you're trying to avoid foreign entanglements.
You're trying to get the U.S. out of this.
The question I have for you, though, is: the United States has played a key role, at least now with this Gaza Humanitarian Front.
It's a project set up to really help aid distribution in the United States from the U.S. and Israel to really push a lot of this humanitarian into Gaza to help the civilian population.
Is that something that you believe benefits America that it should be a kind of a role with the United States?
Because, you know, there's a problem that Benjamin Nanihu's highlighting is like, you know, aid goes in and then Hamas steals it.
So here's a different organization that might do it.
Do you think that's a rightful course of action that the U.S. should do?
Or do you believe no foreign aid doesn't matter for the cause?
Yeah, I mean, I don't support foreign aid at all, but I particularly don't support foreign aid when you're giving it to the displaced refugees that are a consequence of the other foreign aid that you gave to the country to destroy their country.
It's insane.
We're basically buying the bombs on one side and the grain on the other.
So I totally reject that.
I got to go back to what Netanyahu said.
It's so insulting.
I mean, for him to say, you can't have peace based off lies.
You can only build peace based off truth.
And then in the next line, he lies about the foreign aid and the food that they're allegedly trying to get to the Gazans.
Whereas, you know, Cindy McCain, John McCain, Warhawk extraordinaire, said that's not true.
That's not what's happening.
They have been intentionally starving the Gazans.
And I think that's quite evident.
I mean, you have lots of reports.
It's very tough to get journalists in there without them being blown up by Israel.
But those that have have said the same.
So he's lying.
I mean, he's egregiously lying.
And I think this is the point that Jason was making earlier.
I'm not sure if it was him, but someone made earlier that this is the problem with having, no disrespect to the Nelk boys, but idiots when it comes to foreign policy interview a guy like this.
And look, I'm the last person to ever talk about platforming and all that.
I think I want there to be more conversations.
And I'm totally fine with Theo Vaughn having on JD Vance and Donald Trump and not asking hard-hitting questions.
So I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say that these guys shouldn't platform them, platform him.
But they are going to suffer the PR hit as a consequence of this because they just didn't know shit about it.
And that's how it works.
I mean, that's the game that we're in.
If you invite on a high-profile person and you don't know anything, you're going to get steamrolled.
And that's exactly why Netanyahu chose these guys because they are hemorrhaging support in the Gen Z demographic.
And that's who these guys reach.
So they had a bunch of know-nothing interviewers and he went in there and he lied.
And I'm sure it'll land with a small percentage of their audience and maybe persuade them that he's a very reasonable guy.
As to his point about whether or not there's gay rights in Palestine or in the Muslim world, yeah, probably not much respect for gay people or trans people for that matter.
I don't care.
That's just such a ridiculous argument.
I just don't want to be involved.
And as for whether or not the aid should be reaching the Gazans, sure.
I just don't think that the U.S. taxpayer ought to be on the hook for it.
I don't think that we should be providing any foreign aid to any country when we're 37 trillion in debt.
Mike, you know, let me ask you that kind of one of the points that Benjamin Nyakir and Conan Clinton said, but I mean, from his perspective, there seems to be kind of a contradiction, gays for Gazas, when, let's be real, that is non-existent in any way, shape, or form for Gazan.
So why would American people, specifically, let's say that, or, you know, movements, minorities, et cetera, support a group that has zero regard for their well-beings?
What would be your response to that, Mike?
Well, that was one of the things that really puzzled me throughout the last, during the presidential contest.
You have gays for Gaza.
You have these other groups for Gaza.
If you were actually over there, they would behead you.
They would drag you through the street.
They would take your scalp off.
And they would use that to try to sow fear into the hearts and minds of the non-Hamas people.
I don't know why.
Well, first of all, let me take a step back.
Being here in Florida, I'm a little bit more familiar with the Nelt brothers or whatever they're calling themselves these days.
This is not a serious group of people.
These are not journalists.
I wouldn't even consider these people citizen journalists.
They're more of pranksters, clickbait video, entertainment.
Let's have fun.
So to put them in a room with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and expect for them to ask hard-hitting questions or even know what to push back on is ironic in itself.
They let Benjamin Yet, they let Netanyahu talk about, oh, we're sending the food in, but the Hamas is just taking the food off and they're reselling it back to the Palestinians.
So, you know, we just can't get any food in.
That's absolutely BS.
According to the IDF's own intelligence assessment, there are no more legitimate targets in a Hamas to target.
So if that is true, there's virtually no Hamas left to target this food, this aid that's trying to get through that you claim that's just so difficult to feed the Palestinian people.
So that is a load of crap.
And this is coming from a person of the Jewish faith.
You have to be able to separate the people of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu.
I think a lot of people in America have been told, have been indoctrinated that, you know, you have to protect Israel at all costs.
But isn't that, but isn't that like, okay, so we see, let me just pull on that just a little bit, Mike.
Let me flip that the other way around, though.
You say that you're Jewish doesn't mean you support Benjamin and Yahoo.
You could be Jewish and be American and not have any loyalty to Israel, right?
But people who have tried to criticize Benjamin and Hume protest against it, it goes outside of the scope.
And this is kind of where the anti-Semitism criticism comes from, because they go outside of the scope of Israel and they just lump anybody who's Jewish and automatically say, well, you're, because you're Jewish, your loyalty immediately goes to Israel.
And that's why we've seen targeted attacks skyrocket, specifically since October 7th, targeting Jewish communities in the United States.
So shouldn't that also be said, hey, you could criticize Israel, just don't lump Jewish Americans into that framework?
Well, and that's been my argument ever since shortly after October 7th.
The world was united behind Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu after those horrible attacks happened.
I know I certainly was.
And a few months later, after it was clear that there was some overreach done, people started attacking Jews in every space that you could think of.
That meant if you're Jewish or you're of the Jewish faith or you're of the Jewish ethnicity, that you are automatically pro-Israel, pro-Netanyahoo, anti-Palestine.
And nothing can be further from the truth.
I'm very pro-Israel.
I'm also very pro-Palestinian.
I'm extremely anti-Hamas.
You have to be able to separate the difference.
There is a reason why when we went to war, and a war that you're very familiar with, Stefano, there was a reason why that we had American casualties is because we had boots on the ground.
You know, we were knocking on doors.
We were trying to figure out who the good guys were, who the bad guys were.
If we were dropping munitions, they were precision munitions.
We did our very best to limit collateral damage.
But in this particular conflict, Mr. Netanyahu has decided to just level everything walking.
That is not how you take care of this problem.
He is just creating the next generation of Hamas.
So I'm going to ask Mars team to go to the next clip and then Jason, I'll go to you.
So please, team, if you can show the next clip.
Because after they butchered us and raped our women and beheaded our men and burned our babies, you know, we have to remove this threat.
So we come in to take care of the Hamas terrorists, but the Hamas terrorists don't leave the civilian neighborhoods.
And we say to the civilians, we call them up because we have their telephone numbers.
We say, leave, please leave.
We send them leaflets, millions of leaflets, please leave.
We, you know, we do everything that is possible that no army has done.
They want to leave.
You know what Hamas does?
They shoot them.
You say, we want you to stay because we want to have civilian casualties because then they can show it on CNN or all these other networks and so on and claim that Israel is deliberately doing this.
We're not deliberately doing anything.
We'd like them to leave.
And in fact, successively during the war, and it's been now a year and a half, they finally do leave, most of them.
So we've minimized those casualties, but it's not because we seek to have civilian casualties.
It's because Hamas wants them.
They're willing to sacrifice their own children, their own families, both because they don't really care for human life, but also because they think it's very good propaganda against us.
And if they just let them leave, leave the war zone, get to the safe parts, safe havens that we've created in Gaza, no one would be hurt.
And the minute.
Jason, go ahead.
I mean, you know, I just want to start with the invocation of October 7th and the quote unquote beheading of people, the raping of women, the killing of babies.
I'm not saying they didn't attack.
I'm not saying they didn't kill disco kids.
They did.
Okay.
As far as the other stuff, I haven't seen the evidence of it.
When I hear Hamas is the only reason that people are getting killed or they're not getting the food, I believe over in the last just several months, there are at least two cases where people were waiting in line for aid and food and you had strikes there.
And I'm sorry, you just can't make that argument when you look at an entire city like this.
This is Bayet Hanoun.
Is that all Hamas?
I mean, that's an entire 700-year-old city that is completely gone.
That's last week, Stefano.
And those are just the baseline things that I would have been challenging Netanyahu on that he was not challenged on.
You know, another thing that I'll say about Hamas, yeah, I'm not a fan of Hamas.
As politically homeless as I am, I am also religiously homeless.
Okay, I want to say that.
I'm agnostic at best.
So when I hear this gays for Gaza and the chickens for KFC, well, aren't we all chickens?
Aren't we all humans?
Or are we different animals on the farm to this guy?
All right.
And just because I don't want to see people dying over there doesn't mean that I support radical Islam or even the Islamic religion in general.
I want to see a real solution.
And I think that that's going to be extremely difficult with not only a Netanyahu administration, but the way the Israeli people have not only treated their own civilians.
For instance, if you look at what happened during the COVID 1984 nightmare, hold on one second.
Let me see if I can find that right here.
Wrong right here.
They have a huge big health data project where Netanyahu cooed.
Here, I'll put it back up there because he went first.
Cooed about the fact that they had about 95% of the Israelis' medical information.
And now he wanted their DNA database as well.
And remember, that was one of the places where you had to get the hate and lies shot or you could not go shopping.
Now, the other thing that I was showing you, which I think is extremely dangerous and been going on now for years, is that at many of these checkpoints, they actually have something that is called, and this is one of those checkpoints right here.
Isis's Dilemma: Urban vs. One-Way Warfare00:08:59
It's the sharpshooter program.
Now, admittedly, they're not quote unquote lethal rounds.
They're less lethal rounds, but this is AI armed to the teeth at those checkpoints.
And if your biometric scan has you come up as Hamas or a terrorist, you're immediately fired upon.
And those things have gone off.
That's extremely dystopic.
All right.
And the last thing I'll leave with is if you are listening to Netanyahu, he has made it absolutely clear there is no two-state solution.
Even when Trump was initially talking about Gaza, he's talking about beachfront property, et cetera, and moving them out.
I mean, is there a bigger definition of a genocide if you're going to kill and move people out of their land?
I don't know that there is.
And I got to say this: if it's going to save a million or two million lives, and that's the better option, if they're taking this anyway, I hate even to lean into that, but where do they go?
You know, a lot of people talk about Egypt.
You know, you've been in the Middle East.
It's not like anybody is looking to take a million to two million people.
And logistically, you know as well as I do, some people just ain't leaving unless it's in a box.
So that's a bad look.
And the other thing that really upsets me is that if we're not going to stop this type of policy from the United States, and it's not going to end.
Another thing in this interview was the question about whether or not the strikes in Iran had basically disarmed them.
And, you know, I don't know if you're playing the clip, but you know, he gives the cancer analogy.
Well, we got the cancer out this time, but cancer can come back.
He makes it to sound like an unwinnable war.
I was very against those strikes for many reasons, but because I knew it would not be the ending.
And how do we know?
Again, listen to Netanyahu and those around him.
The Greater Israel Project is a real project.
They want to take parts of Lebanon, Syria, and even, yes, Iran.
And obviously, Iran is the biggest military power in that region, Stefano.
So let me go to kind of the military aspect from the other side.
I think we see this.
And I would point to people, from my experience, right?
I was deployed in the Middle East 2015, 16 against ISIS and all that.
And I remember in the beginning of this when people were talking about, you know, I think there's a misconception of military operations and how they do it.
I do believe people have been, I'm not going to, I think people have been influenced to, let's say, Call of Duty.
This idea that, oh, you just send people in and then they go and they do operations, et cetera.
I would go to people, look at Mosul, when the Iraqi army went to get ISIS out and they were provided support by American troops on the ground in support fashion and then U.S. air power.
And I would ask anybody, look at satellite imagery post-2000, you know, post-operation in Mosul.
That city was destroyed.
Now, granted, civilian casualties were a lot less.
I'm not going to argue that, but it was leveled.
And I think that this, I think there has been this romantization since the global war on terror of this idea, even during Iraq and Afghanistan, when we would have, you know, to Mike's point, yeah, in more targeted fashions.
But, you know, the initial invasion, I mean, shock and awe is a thing.
I mean, shock and awe was a, it's a core tenant of military operations.
You can make it argue one way or another.
But when you're going in, especially in a group that leverages just like ISIS did in Mosul, they built their defense on the urban area to cause mass amount of casualties.
That's why we see kind of a lot of the destruction.
And I think that's the problem I'm running into.
I wish Shank was still here because I would like to ask this question, but it's not just, oh, let's send some special forces and drone strikes if the goal is to completely eliminate Hamas, because they're not, I think people mistake Gaza is Hamas isn't just a terrorist organization or an insurgent group or whatever term you want to say.
They are the government in Gaza.
They are the government authority in Gaza.
Just to say something quick, Stefano, you know as well as I do, they were empowered by Israel as the lesser of two evils and installed in that initial process.
I mean, I'm not, yeah, no, I'm not, I'm not disagreeing with that.
You know, it came back as a worse thing than the Palestinian authorities, obviously, during Josh Harfad.
But I do believe that there's a little bit this romantization of how warfare is that probably now not only Israel-Gaza, but even Russia-Ukraine shows the brutality of it and the destruction of it and what it happens.
And then you can make an argument for a peace act.
But that's the thing.
I just always go back to people who look at the post-imageries of Mosul.
Look at the post-imager of Raqqa after it was seized from ISIS.
I mean, those cities were leveled because that's just the nature.
And especially these groups, that's how they do their defensive operations in urban areas to cause mass amount of damage.
But one of the things that I think there's a theme between Clint, Mike, and you, Jason, in a way that I want to expand upon a little bit.
And let me go to Clint first on this.
The argument I'm hearing is the people that did this interview, the Nugboys, should not have done it, or that they're not journalists.
They're not professionals.
They're just not equipped for it.
And they knew that.
I'll give them that credit.
They spent two minutes in the very beginning literally saying they are like the least likely.
And they said, you know what, let's get Kim Jong-un in here at some point.
And then literally during the interview, they go, Hey, do you know Kim Jong-un?
I mean, that's the level that they were playing.
Okay, but okay, but then, but I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it, Stefano.
I'm just saying that again, when we're, when we're in a situation like we are, and Nelk, they probably have five to 25 times the amount of viewers of 60 minutes at this point.
I think we can agree with that, right?
I don't know.
I don't, but that's the thing.
Okay, let me, let me, before we go there, kind of the traditional, let me, Clint, let me ask you this question, though.
How, like, isn't that the whole reason why when Elon bought Twitter and now it's X and this idea that anybody can be a citizen journalist?
What I'm hearing is this argument.
No, this isn't, and there's this underlying, and I'm wondering, is it because it was a Benjamin Nanya who let's say they interviewed Donald Trump, you're saying you wouldn't be against him?
Maybe they, Iman Macron, the president of France, King Jong-un, the supreme leader of Iran, the Mohammed bin Suleiman.
Like, is this a position now where maybe I'm just trying to understand the audio, my, my, my, my guest here, right?
I'm just trying to understand the argument.
Is this where, look, know your place, know your role.
There's things that are super important.
And if it's out of your league, don't delve into this.
Or is this, hey, as long as you have a platform, run with it?
Well, I guess I'm somewhere in between.
It's their platform.
They have a right to do whatever they want.
I do think that it will hurt them in the long run to have done this interview.
So I think that's the inverse of that.
Like, this is not a deplatforming argument.
This is a argument over prudence, over what you ought to do.
And I think that they made a mistake by interviewing him because their audience is going, many of them are very passionate about this topic and they know a hell of a lot more about this topic than the interviewers did.
And as a consequence, I think that they'll lose some people.
And that's just the name of the game.
But look, I'm the last person on earth that's going to make an argument that, oh, we need equal representation or you have to have someone come on and oppose everything this guy says.
This is the same bullshit line that Douglas Murray said about Dave Smith going on Joe Rogan, which, by the way, he was sitting there with Dave Smith getting absolutely trounced over and over again because he can't hold his own against him.
So does that also mean the 60-minute lawsuit?
Well, the 60-minute lawsuit is about editing, right?
So, okay.
So, so I don't understand the similarity.
Well, I'm just arguing because that's one of the arguments of like presenting one way or another and how the news media does it, etc.
And it was also like, oh, you're purpose.
And it's also more like, you know, they did send the invitation to drop.
He didn't take it.
He went other routes.
But that was kind of the core argument also that they were trying to make of like this, this both sides, you know, saying, hey, you're saying you don't agree with this idea that just because you have Benjamin Nanyak, you need to have, I'm just going to throw out Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, the president of the Palestinian Authority.
You do not believe in that.
Just no, not at all.
No, definitely not.
And for the record, the reason that there's a little bit of difference when it comes to 60 minutes is that they have over-the-air rights.
Like it's CBS, ABC, NBC, I think.
And because of that, they're essentially under different regulations or laws.
So the totally different situation.
U.S. Middle East Wars Comparison00:05:52
I do want to go back to make a point because you were talking about 83, Lebanon, other reasons that we ought to be more fearful or angry towards Iran.
I feel like people have totally forgotten about this.
First off, if you want to go back to 53, we overthrew their government, but also from 80 to 88, the U.S. was arming Iraq against Iran, including the use of mustard gas and sarin gas.
So if anybody has a reason to hate somebody, it would be the Iranians against the Americans.
Now, that doesn't justify them attacking our bases or anything like that.
I'm just saying, like, if you want to go back in history and actually talk about who aggrieved who, it's very easy to argue that, in fact, America has been the aggressor over and over again, which is why time and time again, as Ron Paul constantly says, like, let's just get out.
I think that's the answer here.
I think that's been the answer for decades.
I think that we are just breeding bad will across the planet as a consequence of this.
And, you know, as someone who, like, even though I'm very critical of Israel, I have a lot of Jewish friends, love Jews, got no beef with Jews broadly.
I hate what's happening.
I hate the fact that Israel's actions, particularly because they frame themselves as a Jewish state and they attack Jews if they speak out against Israel, it is forcing the rest of the world to basically look at Israel and its actions as actions of Jews broadly.
This is a product of Israeli PR strategy, and I think it is to the detriment of the Jewish people broadly, and it's disgusting.
So I don't like the arc of things, but I want people to recognize this is part of Israel's strategy.
This is not necessarily the Nick Fontes of the world.
This is actually how they want things framed.
So I just, I think when you're talking, just quickly, sorry, before I go to Mike, I think you're assuming to Operation Blue Bat, which was the 1958 U.S. intervention in Lebanon.
Is that what, because you made it?
No, 53, the overthrow of the shot on Iran.
No, oh, okay.
Talking up with Mosaddegh.
Iran.
Iran.
Got it.
Okay, never mind.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I mixed up.
All right.
I thought we were in the Lebanon area and I misidentified the route.
Oh, no.
Sorry.
I was.
You were talking about Iran attacking us.
I'm talking about us doing things to Iran.
I just, I've said this a million times.
I'm going to say it again: the overthrow of the Mossadegh.
One of the key components that was installation of Shah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The over the coup against Mosaddegh.
I find it ironic.
One of the key components of the overthrow of Mossadegh actually came from the religious establishment that then was the core tenant of the Islamic Republic.
Like the mentor of Khomeini, the first supreme leader, was in the protest against Mossadegh.
But I don't want to go down to a history route because I understand U.S. involvement.
And I get that.
And I'll take that 100%.
And to the point that we were making earlier about Hamas and then back then, the PLO with the Palestinians.
Hey, you do one thing, something worse can happen.
What are the consequences?
How you do it?
This is the CIA defined it.
It was blowback.
It was based off of that.
So yeah, that's exactly right.
And I just wanted to make one other point because you were asking about the comparison of Mosul after the Shock and August campaign and things like that.
I think this is the big mistake that people make when they talk about Israel's actions in Gaza and they say, this is so, just look into how the U.S. handled the wars in the Middle East.
It was so much better.
Like, it was a little bit better, but not a whole lot.
And, you know, in terms of civilian casualties, in terms of percentage basis, it was basically like.
What Israel has done to Gaza is more like a truncated version.
Like it sucked down 10, 15 years of war and it condensed it into two years.
So it made it more obvious and more vicious.
But in terms of outcome, it's basically the same thing that the U.S. did to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations.
So I don't like to try and contrast those two.
I think they are both evil.
I think they're both immoral.
And I think that they both ought to stop and also be condemned.
Before you go to Mike, I just got to point out because of what he just said.
It was so bad what we did in the Middle East.
There was a time that our literal policy was every 16-year-old male was a military combatant.
I want people to understand that designation.
In this country, you were just getting your license.
And if you were a man there, you were essentially a military target approved.
Go ahead, Mike.
Well, I will say from my experience, you know, there was obviously a lot of time.
I never deployed to Afghanistan.
I had friends who were like during the McChrystal time, which was like, unless you have positive ID, you can't fire back.
And a lot of people in the veteran are saying, dude, what do you want us to do?
We're soldiers.
And it goes back, again, it goes back to this argument of diplomacy and military.
Look, if you send the military, the military has one job.
That's it.
Like, we don't do, and I think that's one of the lessons.
We don't do nation building, guys.
You want nation building?
That's why you have State Department and formerly USAID.
Now we gutted it.
We're increasing the Defense Department's budget, gutting the State Department.
So where does that leave us in a footprint of international relations?
You know, I can understand the criticism, the concerns of the State Department maybe from one side, but then it's the argument: well, if you're gutting the State Department, increasing the size of the Defense Department, is every problem now a nail?
Well, and I think that there was a, you know, there was a lot of, obviously there was a tremendous amount of ill will that was built up against the United States as a consequence of the war on terror.
But there was still a little bit more respect and a little bit less outrage because there was a lot of, you know, Marines door kicking and Army door kicking.
And it was like, this is what Israel has not been doing.
They have been basically just flattening entire towns and cities, whereas the U.S. tried to be a little bit more pragmatic.
And also they took a lot more risks when it came to their soldiers.
So that's the downside of it is like either like you're basically making a trade-off.
You're going to trade some of your soldiers for civilian casualties.
Almost Entire Interview00:03:24
That's the calculus that you have to make.
Israel has opted to go with almost entire civilian casualties in that equation.
And I think that has turned the world against them.
So, Mike, let me ask you the question, by all means, address any points you want to before.
But the question I have for you, though, is because I think you even alluded to this earlier when you were speaking about this interview, which is, you know, this criticism, right, and this idea that that, and I kind of want to ask that same question is like, you know, we have these arguments, we have people talking about, and it's kind of like, is it, can everybody be a citizen journalist?
Is that even the right term?
Maybe they're not.
And maybe these guys aren't, should not be viewed as citizen journalists.
Maybe they're just podcasters.
Is it the role of a podcaster to platform Benjamin and Yahoo in a very serious policy debate that many might criticize as saying, hey, you're just not giving any pushback.
You're enabling any talking points.
But at the same time, well, that's your guess.
You got the prime minister of a country.
It's good for your channel.
And so how do you squeeze, you know, how would you balance that?
Where do you fall in?
Do you believe anybody at the opportunity to rise should take it regardless if you provide pushback or not?
Or should there be kind of a thought process, many in how we consume the news and how we do it, and saying, Hey, you know what?
Not everybody can interview the prime minister of Israel, right?
Well, you know, I'm not, I'm gonna, I'm never gonna be one that tries to limit anybody or limit anybody's influence, their sphere of influence, or their platform.
You know, grow your platform the best way you know how.
Um, but I think there's also when you have a platform, especially when you start to gain a large platform, even though there might not be a legal mandate, there's kind of like a social contract.
Um, there's a certain amount of responsibility that you have to know who it is you're talking to, know what you're talking about, and know the implications that your product have.
Um, for example, I remember doing a show one time, uh, I was hosting a show one time during a campaign I was involved with.
Um, we were having a serious, very serious conversation about uh LGBT LGBTQ plus rights here in Florida.
And the day before I did that, um, the day before I did that screening, I went and I called a prominent journalist who is in who is a part of that community to make sure that the questions that I had, um,
the pros and cons, that they were balanced, that they were pertinent, and that I was conducting my interview in such a way that it would not only provide information to the people that were listening, um, it would leave my dignity and brand intact, and it would also not demonize the people that I was trying to reach.
I believe the during this Netanyahu video, um, the only thing that they I think that and I watched almost the entire interview, I think the only thing that they really, really pushed back or had a problem with um was when he was talking about his comparison between McDonald's and Burger King.
Um, you know, I personally have a problem with that.
You know, I'm not saying that just because you have Benjamin Netanyahu on there and you may not agree with everything he's doing, that this has to be some type of gotcha interview or that you have to absolutely go after him.
You know, ask whatever questions you want, but know your audience, know who you're looking at, know who's listening, and know the type of environment that we're in politically, not only in this country, but around the world.
Everybody, everything matters.
Citizen Journalists in Question00:02:15
You know, you have these titles, people call themselves citizen journalists.
How do we get to the point where we had citizen journalism?
Well, people stop believing the mainstream media, people stop believing newcasts, newscasters.
Okay, but let me let me ask you this question.
There, no, okay, how can I ask this?
I guess to provide some pushback on this, because I hear this and I and I don't want this to be everybody agreeing because then it's never entertaining, at least.
But, you know, that's why whatever position you'll take, I'll always take the opposite.
Um, I love that, but okay, they say citizen journalist.
All right.
I have, let me say this: I love when people call themselves citizen journalists, and then literally their whole profile is screenshots of mainstream news MSM like articles, and then they talk about it and they give their opinions like, okay, is that a journalist?
Like, no, you can't call yourself a journalist, you're an aggregator.
That's a book report.
You're an aggregator.
And so, I hear this term citizen journalist, and it's like, okay, what defines that?
Like, what literally, because look, I'll tell you from my experience, right?
Again, I, my account on Twitter, All Source News, I cover cartels.
I know citizen journalists in Mexico who are anonymous, because if they're not, not a good day for them.
I respect them.
They do great work.
They provide it both in Mexico and the United States, try to get to the truth of the matter, try to get it, do investigative reporting, try to find as much information they can and present a story or something that doesn't get covered out there.
Somebody who comes on and shows an article, Trump said this, and then they react to it.
They can't be considered a citizen journalist.
No, that's a political commentator.
But wait a minute, let's talk about some of the crossover, Stefano.
Because I think they're, because like a guy like me, I'm sitting here, I've probably shown 25 different articles on here, none of which I've written, right?
But at the same time, I've cited the interviews that I have done with Maria Farmer.
Right, okay, I can do that.
And let me also say this: you know, as far as the Nelk boys being quote-unquote citizen journalists, I don't know because they did interview the president as well.
Interviews vs. Citizen Journalism00:14:38
I don't know that they've ever sold themselves that way, but I think to the larger point of whether or not they're being intellectually honest or should have that opportunity, I think they were out of their depths on this, but hey, man, you know what?
They're not Tucker Carlson.
And Tucker Carlson was way out of his depths when he sat there with Andrew Tate and basically aggrandized that guy when there's plenty of evidence that not only is he a serial sex trafficker, but a pedophile as well.
That girl Vladimir Putin that he just hold on, I'll get to Putin in a second because if you want to throw Putin in there, we're talking about a totally different level.
One, you're talking about an influencer and somebody who's trying to grip the system.
But wait, wait, wait.
I want to get to other political because he's out of his depth with Connor McGregor as well.
This is a guy they're trying to promote as the next president or prime minister of Ireland.
And he doesn't bring, I mean, McGregor's got a new charge in Miami, bro.
He doesn't bring up the sexual assault stuff.
I mean, that's to me, if you're, if you are a journalist, it's just like with Netanyahu with these guys, there's got to be one or two of the topics that you've seen on social media that you're going to at least bring up.
Okay.
And they didn't do that.
And I'm not saying that they shouldn't platform somebody, but if you're like he said, if you're going in there with heavy hitters, all right, you better bring something.
Not the McDonald's Burger King debate on that one.
I mean, that was cartoon level.
Yeah.
So, Mike, let me let me go there.
Then, is this a conversation of influencer?
Is that the proper term?
And is now we running into a situation, as Jason alluded to, where politicians who are used to maybe much more hard-headed interviews, they have the experience.
I mean, look, you're for politician.
You got to know how to play.
You know, you got to know how to switch the conversation, do that in a grand.
Is this now an opportunity where these influencers who have a large following can go in there and now send a message with little pushback?
And is that a criticism of the politician, or is that a criticism more of the influencer who's just platforming whoever it may be for whatever monetary reasons they want?
It's a criticism of our entire media ecosphere right now.
And then I'll be very brief.
I'm going to put two things together.
You're going to be like, what are you talking about?
Then I'm going to make it make sense.
Okay, you look at Texas right now.
Look at what they're coming with the redistricting, right?
They are trying to call a special session.
Normally, there is redistricting every about 10 years ago.
It's based upon the census and you redraw the maps.
You're supposed to do it in a fair and equitable way.
Texas wants to do so out of turn.
They basically, instead of the people voting for who they would like to represent them, the representatives are trying to pick who they're voting for.
And I think the influencers and the politicians that go on certain shows are doing the same thing.
They are picking the press.
They are picking who's giving them the questions because they know they'll have softball interviews.
It used to be that you would sit down with a Barbara Walters or a Diane Sawyer or a Dan Rather, and you would have to take whatever it is they're dishing out.
It might be good or it might be bad, but you had to sit there and take it.
Now you can be selective.
You know, if I'm extremely right-wing, I know I go to, and I love Russia.
I know to call Tucker.
If I want to say anything that I want, I know I can call the Nelk brothers.
It shouldn't be that way.
It should be some type of objective.
We should have standards.
In journalism, there are standards.
When it comes to influencers, there's absolutely no standards.
So, I guess the broader question should be: why are we giving so much credence to influencers versus real journalism?
But let me just address that.
I've got to intercheck on that.
Yeah, give me one second, Clint.
Just because one of the things you alluded to earlier, Stefano, that does intersect was basically the editing via the Kamala Harris interview and them totally changing the scenario.
I've always been a huge proponent as an independent journalist.
When I put out a documentary film and I did interviews with different individuals, I put out the whole interview for everybody to see to make sure that I didn't put anything out of context.
Now, I bring that up because I'm not saying that the Nelf Boys did any editing, but you look at somebody like Andrew Callahan, who just got that big interview with Hunter Biden.
He edits everything.
Now, I don't know about the Hunter Biden interview.
I can tell you that he put out a video with myself and him from almost two years ago, a couple months ago.
And he asked me, Well, what can I do better as a journalist?
And I said, Well, I would say do things live and unedited so everybody can see the real perspectives.
He edited that part out of our interview.
So, I mean, the irony is dark.
That's why when Tucker Carlson, for instance, maybe out of his depth with Putin or the president of Iran, this is still the first time that I'm actually getting a uninterrupted, raw, hour-to-two-hour interview.
And I think that that holds value.
I'm not saying that the Nelt Boys can't hold value, but I am saying that the general audience out there doesn't really have, I would say, even the depth politically to know what's going on.
And I think you're going to have the fan base go, great.
You know, they did a cool interview, lay off these guys, but the people that are politically astute, there is going to be blowback.
I don't think the Nelk Boys are going anywhere.
I don't think influencer culture is going anywhere.
And unfortunately, like Mike was talking about with the mainstream and the influencer culture, I think there's going to be so much crossover and already has been on how they conduct themselves, especially if they actually consider themselves an influencer and they're looking for those clicks and looking to be monetized on X and needing to go viral.
I mean, look, I've barely scratched by on a living.
I've done better sometimes.
I've done worse.
Even if I've got to get another job, I'll always be doing this.
But I'm never on the grift for clicks.
And I think that's why I've had a baseline audience now for about 20 years because they understand that about me.
I think it's a very rare thing in this whole arena.
So, Clint, I want to go to you.
I want to answer.
I just want to, let me just put one thing I think is important to note that the whole 60 minutes and the lawsuit, like, let's be absolutely real here.
Let's be real.
Let's be a little bit honest.
Trump put the lawsuit because Paramount is being bought by Skydance.
The merger can't happen unless all lawsuits are ended.
Paramount decided to set up because they don't want to deal with it and they want their money.
Just let's be absolutely honest because if this went to court, it's going to take years.
There wasn't a case.
It wasn't going to happen.
But because Paramount is selling to Skydance and the merger and they want their money, they're just going to set up because they're going to take billions of dollars and they'll lose 16 or plus millions because they don't care.
They also want that merger to be approved too.
So Trump would be able to probably nix that if he wanted to be a real dick.
And he oftentimes wants to be a real dick.
So as to the point that I wanted to push back against what Mike was saying, is like there needs to be standards.
I agree that there needs to be standards, but the standards need to come from the audience.
We don't want the government involved in setting standards for who is and who isn't a journalist.
That's nonsense.
And I'm not even saying Mike is saying that.
I'm just saying, like when they hear this complaint about, oh, we don't like the fact that the Nelk Boys are interviewing Netanyahu, then they'll be like, well, you had it so good when it was Barbara Walters.
Barbara Walters was lying too.
I mean, when you had, you know, 60 minutes or just see, like, go way back to the, when you only had CBS and ABC that was the real big interviewers, that was straight CIA talking points.
So I am, I will take all of the pitfalls of the modern iteration of the, of the media ecosystem and still feel 10 times better about the current paradigm versus what we used to have, where we all were far more in agreement with one another because we all believe the same lies.
That's, that's just not how it works anymore.
And I think we're for the better, we're, we're better off for it.
I mean, I, I mean, I guess I think because we, you know, just before we wrap, one of the things that I would say is just from my experience, right?
And this is, I guess, you know, the one few times as a host, maybe I can share my personal opinion is I do believe that if you're going to be the most successful, focus on a niche subject.
And then that's your priority, right?
Like whatever you are, right?
Like if you're the Nelk Boys, right?
And you have something you guys generally talk about, having the prime minister of Israel is kind of like, you know, it's your point, like, guys, that's, that's a big deal.
That's an important subject.
You need to give, you maybe don't consider yourself a journalist, but the world is going to analyze you as journalists.
So meet the journalistic standards and the expectations that you have.
Just to give you an example of that, like I've had opportunities to interview politicians.
I've had Vivek Ramaswamy on my show a couple of times and I actually became pretty friendly with him over the past year or so.
If I had the opportunity to interview Netanyahu, even though I am one trillion times more educated when it comes to foreign policy and geopolitics than the Nelk Boys, I also happen to be friends with Scott Horton.
And I would spend is from the day I booked that interview until the interview itself, I would spend, I might even like fly to Texas just to hang out with Scott to make sure that I was well equipped for this.
So I think that's just the difference in approach here.
These guys, I mean, the title of their podcast on Apple is like comedy interviews.
This is just, they're just totally out of their depth.
So I don't want to make it sound as if like I'm trying to destroy these guys.
I'm really not.
I'm just saying, I think that this is a good lesson for this new media.
So there is a journalistic standard that if you're going to jump into on that platform, there should be a standard that should be met that then, and it's kind of a play because their idea, like, oh, do you know, do you know Kim Jong-un?
Can you bring like, really?
You're going to bring Kim Jong-un?
Like, right.
And what are you going to do?
Hey, Kim, tell us how America sucks and your country is the greatest paradise in human history.
I mean, what are, I mean, if that's, and I think that it goes to this idea of, look, maybe these, a lot of influencers are going to go on and they don't want to be, they didn't expect that they were going to grow as much.
Well, now you're at it.
There is a standard.
And I think that's probably why you're seeing a lot of the comments because I did go through the comments and a lot of this said I've unsubscribed because they felt like there wasn't, that's not what these guys wanted.
I don't think they ever intended to be journalists, but that's the position you're in.
But I think that goes across the board, right?
If you're an influencer interviewing Kamala, you need to also hit the same with President Trump during the last election.
There was a lot of podcasters that was just like, you know, that they didn't do more hard.
And your argument can be, oh, well, the mainstream media, two wrongs don't make a right, you know?
But see, there's something, there's something beautiful about a non-hard-hitting interview too, though.
And the example I always bring up is Theo Vaughan interviewing Donald Trump.
Like he brought out something in Donald Trump that the world had never seen before because Theo's talking about his cocaine addiction.
And then Trump gets into how he lost his brother from drugs and alcohol.
No, that's fine.
That's funny.
But just the point I'm trying to get to is that like the audience can dictate whether or not there's value in the product.
If you bring on Netanyahu and you allow him to gloss over the ethnic cleansing campaign that he's running, you're going to lose a big chunk of your audience.
And rightfully so.
So like that's the trade-off.
But I just want to point out too, one of the noteboys, there was a clip that went a little mini viral a couple hours ago where he's being asked about this interview.
And yes, they've been very open about they were out of their depth and blah, blah, blah.
But he also said that Netanyahu and his 20 men in suits gave him a list of questions to ask.
So this is just, I mean, that's just beyond the pale.
Like even if you're not a journalist, if you think that having your interviewee hand you a list of questions that you're going to ask them and you still proceed with the interview, well then fuck you.
I mean, you're just an idiot at that point.
Can I jump into it?
I think that's a great point.
As somebody, you know, with the making sense of the madness show and when I worked for today's news talk, I booked none of my guests.
And with today's news talk, it would be four guests.
And with MSOM, sometimes it would be two, maybe three within an hour.
And I would always get the talking points of the questions to ask.
You know what?
You know when I read them?
Never.
I always, I would read their bio.
I would look them up and I would try to have an interesting conversation.
I never wanted to get into those things.
But there's a big you're preaching to the choir because when I get requests for interviews about cartels, I tell the host, dude, I don't need questions.
Yeah.
Let's go live.
Whatever's in the top of your mind, go.
Because in the end, that's me personally.
A lot of times when it's not prepared, you actually can get into a lot more in-depth conversations.
And I've even from those conversations, I feel like, oh my God, I'm getting more out of it.
So I would.
A million percent.
Listen, there's one thing that I think we've missed in this whole argument between traditional media and influencer media.
And that's the thing that really came in between.
And that would be things like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
Because before the internet really took off, you know, late 90s, early 2000s style, all of a sudden, although politics had always been made fun of, now they were not only satirized, but satirized to the point where big-time politicians wanted to sit down on these shows where it was more about comedy than news and always kind of towing that line.
And I would argue, again, most modern influencer culture that tackles this, that aren't like the serious hardcores that are either, you know, right-wing or left-wing, aka like the loomers of the world, et cetera, they play to that.
You know what I mean?
They play.
I mean, there's a reason they brought Jon Stewart back on the daily show.
I know that Colbert just got canceled, but there was a reason that they put him into David Letterman's spot, a traditionally, you know, non-political spot.
It's because those things have now culturally blended to the point where infotainment is the norm.
Well, and then to end to this, you can go farther back.
Anybody who studied William Shakespeare can never make an argument that he never talked about politics in his shows.
So entertainment and politics throughout human history have always been meshed.
But with that, I think that's a perfect opportunity to end this episode.
Politics and Entertainment Meshed00:03:44
I know we kind of talked about the Epstein, the Obama, the Russia Gate, Epstein.
And then, you know, we kind of talked about this interview.
And then we kind of ended on this analysis of influencer culture, media, and the mesh of that.
And by the way, Stefano, another Epstein drop while we were doing this.
We've now got pictures of Epstein at Trump's Marla Maples wedding.
Many people.
I think that's the CNN.
That's the CNN.
Oh, that's the story you were talking about.
That's because they also published, see, in a separate picture, they published post-Victoria's secret pictures of Epstein and Donald Trump at the same event.
So, again, look, as always, we'll have another Epstein one.
We'll have a lot, but I think that, but I think this episode, although it was geared for one thing, morphed into more, but it goes to this idea of politics, entertainment, influencers.
And I think that was a great conversation because it enabled us to really speculate and spitball and where we should fit.
Because to be honest, we're in the same boat on Mario Nafal right now.
We all have our small followers or large followers and accounts.
We try to provide commentary.
We try to provide analysis.
And at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is give our opinion and educate as best as possible with the news here from different perspectives, either left-wing, right-wing, central, whatever it may be.
And I think, you know, we're in that same ship right now.
And I found that a fascinating conversation.
I'm glad that the direction of win because I think that is really going to be with social media and how all this continues to advance.
This is going to be a very, it already is.
And it's just continuing to grow in power and influence with TikTok and how Twitter and everything acts.
This is going to be a huge denominating factor.
And I think politicians are realizing it.
I think the 2024 election was probably the first one where I think Trump much more effectively so than Kamala Harris really leverage the podcast and influencer sphere.
But I think Benjamin Nanyaku saw that and he's doing the same.
And we're going to see that more and more where I wouldn't be surprised if foreign dignitaries, when they come into the United States, they might have an interview with CNN, Fox News, MSNBC.
But more than likely, they're going to be looking at others like Joe Rogan, maybe the Nelk Boys, somebody else to have that interview because they understand that this is now how it's going on.
And Mario Nafal himself has interviewed, has interviewed leaders around the world and uploaded it on his channel.
And so the politicians, the politicians are going to go where the audiences are.
And I think that we are better off if they think that going to Fox News or CNN or MSNBC no longer has the audience.
They have to go talk to someone who might actually ask them an off-script question.
I think that is an actually dramatic improvement.
And I think it's evidenced by the fact that shows like this, where we didn't have any guidelines over what was going to be asked and we're all just giving our honest opinion, that's actually what people want to hear.
They don't want to hear scripted canned BS.
So I think we're headed in the right direction, but there's going to be a lot of growing pain.
I assure you, if anybody sees me, sends me a questionnaire, Liz, I'm throwing it away.
Because I'm just like, nope, we're going live, guys.
I want the honest reaction.
But again, sometimes when I go on shows, people ask me what I want to talk about and I get mad.
I'm like, do not ask me that.
I just, just tell me what, just ask questions and let's go.
Like Bill O'Reilly, Effett will go live.
And that's how we get it.
We've been to an hour and 30 minutes about a wide range of topics.
But with that, gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me to all our listeners and viewers.
Please make sure you follow all my amazing guests here, Jason, Mike, Clint, and Chenk from the Young Turks.