Feb. 27, 2026 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
47:22
The Clinton Epstein Testimony, The CCP Drone Images of U.S. Military & Tyler Robinson’s Parents
Jack Posobiec and Darren Selnick dissect Bill Clinton’s closed-door Epstein testimony, where he denied wrongdoing despite 17 White House visits and redacted images of associates—possibly underage victims—contrasting Trump’s 2006 actions. Meanwhile, Chinese drone footage from Mizar Vision reveals U.S. military assets like the USS Gerald Ford near Israel, signaling CCP "information warfare" tactics amid potential weekend strikes on Iran. Listener emails split generational lines: younger voices fear prolonged conflict and $40T debt, while older supporters prioritize halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions or regime change, underscoring deep divides over intervention risks and domestic urgency. [Automatically generated summary]
I wanted to let you know that we're starting a new push for subscriptions here on Human Events Daily.
So make sure that when you're listening to this podcast, you hit subscribe, you download it, and you share it with five of your friends.
Make sure they're all going and downloading as well because we need to get the signal out as much as possible.
Look, we've done so much over the past couple of years since this show started, and we're only going to do so much more.
Let's get it.
This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
A commentator, international social media sensation, and former Navy intelligence veteran.
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posovic.
Christ is King.
Netflix said it is declining to raise its offer for the purchase of Warner Brothers Studios and HBO following the Warner Brothers Discovery Board's determination that Paramount has submitted a superior offer, according to Warner Brothers Discovery's board.
A third victim has died following that deadly shooting at a youth hockey game in Rhode Island.
Gerald Dorgan was in critical condition for more than a week.
His daughter Rhonda, who was the ex-wife of the shooter, and their son Aiden, were also killed in the shooting.
The shooter was identified as Robert Dorgan, who also went by the names Roberta Esposito and Roberta Dorgano.
This is a U.S. Embassy Jerusalem Post.
It reads: On February 27, 2026, the Department of State authorized the departure of non-emergency U.S. government personnel and family members of U.S. government personnel from Mission Israel due to safety risks.
The U.S. Embassy in Israel says the State Department has authorized non-essential personnel and their families to leave the country because of, quote, safety risks.
And with the looming possibility of a strike on Iran, the staff that want to leave are encouraged to go while commercial flights are still available.
Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify.
So we're once again going to make that call that we did yesterday.
We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the oversight committee.
To hear from the 42nd president to publicly address his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, all is Hillary Clinton denies any knowledge of Epstein's crimes after her meeting with Republicans.
I answered every one of their questions as fully as I could based on what I knew.
And what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning.
I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him.
I knew Ghelain Maxwell casually as an acquaintance.
Today, former President Bill Clinton takes the hot seat as House lawmakers probe for answers about the nature of his ties to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily.
We're here live, Real America's Voice.
Today is 27 February, 2026.
Anno Domini.
Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, testifies in front of a hearing behind closed doors.
We're told that in that hearing, he gave an opening statement and claimed that he did nothing wrong and he saw nothing.
Well, really, you did nothing wrong.
17 times, Jeffrey Epstein came to the Clinton White House.
And how many times did Bill Clinton ride along on that airplane?
How many times did he ride down to Pedophile Island?
We've seen the pictures, Bill.
We've seen them.
We have pictures of you with women on Epstein's plane.
There are pictures of you with Ghelane Maxwell, the recruiter for Epstein, swimming around.
We've got pictures of you in a hot tub with redacted women.
That means they were redacted because either they were victims or because they were underage.
They're underage victims.
This is not good stuff.
And so we need all of the information about what's going in here.
And he's saying, oh, you shouldn't have included Hillary.
He's so upset that they included Hillary.
No, we're upset.
We're upset at this country that was run for how many years with a pedophile elite, groups of people that were willing to go along with things like this and then turn around and tell us that we're the problem for asking questions, that we're the ones who are doing the wrong thing by trying to figure out who was actually in charge of this country.
Who?
And you listen to these things.
You listen to these crazy things over and over and over.
Epstein saying that he was instrumental in the founding of the Clinton Foundation.
Epstein, who had this picture of Bill Clinton with the blue dress and red high heels.
And not a picture of artwork, a painting up in his mansion in New York City.
What are we to make?
What are we to make of that?
And so we see this information.
The transcripts have yet to come to light.
We didn't have any leaked photos today like we did, at least not that I've seen.
And what we are left with, unfortunately, is more questions.
What we are left with is more questions about why it is that the Clintons.
Let me ask you this, by the way.
Why didn't the Clintons push for pushing all this information out in the first place?
That's the part where the logic just doesn't hold up here.
So why wasn't it that the Clintons came forward and said, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, this guy, this terrible pedophile, we have to take him down.
You know who did do that?
Donald Trump.
Donald Trump went and did that.
And he was the one who came out there and called the police as far back, what was it, 2006?
Even before the convictions, before the arrest, Donald Trump kicks him out of Mar-a-Lago.
Donald Trump calls the police.
Donald Trump contacts lawyers, says, what can I do?
Conflict of Interest00:15:13
How can I get on board?
How can we put this guy away because he's evil?
And then who arrests him?
Who was the only president that arrested Jeffrey Epstein?
Oh, that's right.
Donald Trump was the only one.
So let's look at the actual record.
I'm more than happy to look at the record.
I hope you will as well.
But instead, what we're getting are these emotional responses, these emotional indignants.
We're getting all this nonsense.
What we're not getting is answers about the Clintons' conduct with Jeffrey Epstein.
Jack Posobiec right back, Human Events Daily.
End in our wave, and our golden age has just begun.
This is Human Events with Jack Posobiec.
Now it's time for everyone to understand what America First truly means.
Welcome to the second American Revolution.
All right, Jack Posobiec, we're back live here, Human Events Daily, Real America's Voice.
Folks, one in three people will face a battle with cancer.
It's very unfortunate, and most never see it coming.
Well, Dr. Kelly Victory at the Wellness Company did everything right.
She exercised, she ate clean, she avoided processed foods.
She had zero symptoms when she went in for a routine mammogram back in July of 2023.
She walked out with an aggressive cancer diagnosis that could have been fatal if found later.
It revealed a hard truth.
Even healthy people get cancer and it exposed a bigger issue.
Most modern medicine is reactive.
It's not preventative.
You wait for a scare until you start to care.
Every day, our bodies are under constant pressure.
We know what it's like, the stress, toxins, inflammation, immune strain.
That damage builds quietly year after year until disease starts to form.
Dr. Victory asks a different question.
What can we do daily to support the body before something goes wrong?
That led her to formulate SHIELD.
SHIELD is a two-part natural system designed to support immune balance, antioxidant defense, and cellular health.
Exactly the systems you want and strong to live a long, healthy life.
In the morning, drink the high-dose nutraceutical cocoa mix.
Then with food, take the soft gels with ingredients like medicinal mushrooms, turmeric, green tea, olive leaf, berberine, and black cumin seed oil.
SHIELD will give your body the tools it needs to keep cells healthy.
Head over to TWC.health slash POSO and use promo code POSO to get 10% off plus free shipping for U.S. residents.
That's TWC.health slash POSO.
All right, I want to get Will Chamberlain on here, Article 3 Project.
And it's been a minute since we've had him on, so I want to get him back.
Will, how's it going, man?
Always going to be with you, Jack.
So, Will, you know, this week, Tyler Robinson had yet another hearing.
I don't know if you caught the hearing in full, but the big news that came out of that was that this motion that Tyler Robinson's lawyers had made, the defense team, regarding the striking down the prosecutor who, and in fact, they were actually trying to strike down the entire prosecutorial team in Utah County for because of the fact that his daughter, one of the prosecutor's daughters, not the main Utah attorney,
but one of the prosecutor's daughters had been in attendance at Utah Valley University when Charlie was shot and killed.
And they were trying to say that this creates a conflict of interest and therefore that it biased the prosecutors and that they should be removed from the case.
And the judge ruled against that.
And there was a statement, Will, that he made, and I was wondering if you could unpack that for us, where he said he was talking about bias and he was talking about conflicts of interest.
And he was saying that a conflict of interest isn't really appropriate here, I'm paraphrasing, because there's no, the interest is in protecting the public here.
This isn't a conflict where, you know, someone had a financial relationship or someone worked with someone or something like that.
So protecting, you know, and this isn't a material witness or victim in this case.
So there's no direct connection there.
And so the conflict of interest doesn't really hold up because that's not what conflict of interest means.
But he also pointed out that the bias of the prosecutor should always be protection of the public because this is the entire point of the doing of justice, of upholding justice and seeking justice, the role of the prosecutor.
And the judge said, and I just, it blew me away because, you know, in this day and age, we don't hear this kind of talk very much.
He said, the point of the prosecutor, that if the prosecutor believes that an individual has committed a crime and rightfully believes that this person has committed a heinous crime, then he has a duty and in fact, an obligation to seek the maximum and fullest penalty for that individual.
So Will, I want to know if you could unpack that a little bit for us, just kind of in this woke social justice era.
You don't usually hear people talking like this.
Yeah, that's a powerful statement.
I mean, on the conflict of interest front, I mean, a conflict of interest is always when there is a interest of the prosecutor that is distinct from the broader interests of the public.
So, and that's self-dealing.
So, you know, in a case where if the prosecutor would personally benefit in a unique way or personally suffer in a unique way if the decision came out in a particular manner, that's where a conflict of interest lies.
And that's always where conflict of interest lies.
Like, you know, that's it's self-dealing.
And there's not going to be any self-dealing here.
I mean, what is even in a world where there was some, you know, the prosecutor was uniquely outraged by Tyler Robinson's conduct as a result of the fact her daughter is here.
Well, then again, it wouldn't.
It wouldn't mean that his interest was unique or distinct from that of the public.
It's completely aligned.
Or that his interest wouldn't be distinct from that of the prosecutor to seek and do justice.
That would be aligned.
So it doesn't make sense.
And it's good to see people understand that, you know, in a world of criminal justice reform and all this talk about the rights of criminals, people forget that the purpose of the prosecutor and the role of the state is to do justice.
And sometimes justice for serious crimes is serious punishment and to seek the maximum punishment under the law.
So it's good to see a judge understand that.
No, it really was.
And look, he treated, I think, the motion fairly.
He held hearings on this.
He called witnesses.
He had people testify.
I mean, he certainly gave it as the cliché goes, it had its day in court.
And he came down and said, look, there's no, I liked how you put that, there's no deferring interest here.
The interest of the public and the interest of the prosecutor are in complete alignment here.
So there's no different because, you know, and of course, I was listening to another commentator talk about this, and she pointed out that Andrew Burkhart, and she said that, you know, if you're in a small town, it's kind of hard to, you know, if there's a court case and someone happens to be walking by, you know, you know, and they are, they witness it and they might be related to somebody in an incidental way, then that doesn't create a conflict of interest.
That's just living in a small town.
You still have to, you have to have the case.
You have to be able to do all of this.
The town might only have, what, three, four defense lawyers, depending on where you are, and potentially a small bench as well.
And so, you know, the idea is, as you say, that the interest of justice and the interest of the public aren't, it's not that they shouldn't be aligned.
It's that they are supposed to be aligned.
That's the whole system.
Yes, correct.
That's what the, you know, the public does better when there is justice done.
That's the entire purpose of our legal system.
So it's why, you know, why, you know, the idea is that everybody gets a chance to vote on representatives who then write the laws.
The enforcement of those laws is in the public interest.
The idea that there was some conflict here was always ridiculous.
Well, and Will, so to go back to that then, is, and you and I have greatly said, and I know that, you know, credit to you as well, because this always just seemed like a very desperate delay tactic.
And if this early in the case, we're already hearing and seeing these delay tactics, is the reason for that that Tyler Robinson's side just doesn't have very strong of a case?
Oh, of course they don't.
I mean, there's a huge amount of physical evidence, video evidence that points to Tyler Robinson.
I mean, I think you posted about it, but there's DNA everywhere.
And the DNA is Robinson's showing up on the gun, showing up on the roof, showing up any number of, you know, in the places where the figure in glasses carrying the gun was.
And by the way, that figure in the glasses looks a lot like Tyler Robinson.
He's walking around just like you would walk around if you had a long-range rifle and you were trying to carry it discreetly in your pants.
I mean, you can only be so discreet.
You have to walk all the way Robinson was walking.
But the physical evidence is overwhelming.
The motive is there.
It's on the bullets.
It's on everything.
And so, you know, the idea that they're like, I mean, there's some really good case that they're going to, you know, they're going to pull out some witness who's going to be like, actually, I saw the real killer.
It's not Robinson.
It's laughable.
There's way, way, way too much.
So you have to sort of figure out a way to delay things.
You have to figure out, you know, do what, I mean, and I don't blame the defense lawyers.
Their job is to be a zealous advocate for their client.
I'm not going to blame them for filing any motion that's non-frivolous.
And I don't think this motion was frivolous.
It's like colorable.
It's just not going to win.
There's a difference between a frivolous argument and an argument that's never going to win.
And so what I threw out here, you know, you're referring to this post that I made and, you know, about it just walking through the trigger, the bolt handle everywhere that you would expect him to touch if you were working the action, the towel he used as a cheek rest, the screwdriver, which he left behind, even inside the spent casing.
And so all of that, you know, all of that needs to come up in court.
And so you've got him on the roof.
You've got him with the what you've got him.
So he's on the roof.
You were able to place him there.
Then you have to place him with, place the gun in his hands, which they do.
When you're reading these affidavits, they're walking you through the elements of the case.
So we can identify this individual.
Well, let me get to that in a second.
But this individual is identified on the location.
He's then identified with the weapon in his hands.
So he is there.
He does have the, he has the means, motive, and opportunity to be able to commit the crime.
And then the piece I wanted to throw out is, is it gets into the fact that these statements, which are made in affidavit, will just for people to understand, they need to be backed up in court.
What we're seeing in the affidavit, of course, this is the charging document, but all of this has to be backed up.
And so just simple question, well, would a prosecutor submit something like that if they know they knew that it could be easily just laughed out of court if it didn't hold up based on their own ballistics reporting, genetics reporting, et cetera, et cetera?
No, they wouldn't be introducing it themselves.
They'd be hoping that the other side ignores it if it were not coming out the way that they expected it to.
If anything, they might have started investigating other potential defendants if they couldn't find Robinson's DNA on places where they expected it.
And they found a variety of other people's DNA.
But clearly, that's not.
And I mean, if they were all lying, I mean, one lie here would then undermine the entire credibility of the prosecution because then what else are they lying about?
So say they, you know, they put in a piece of evidence on and made all these claims about Robinson's DNA being on it.
And Robinson's team was able to put up an expert explaining persuasively that it's all BS.
Well, then that's not just the lack.
You don't just lose this one piece of evidence.
You lose your credibility across the evidence you're putting forward in the entire case.
I mean, you're going to, that's going to be reasonable doubt right there because the jury will reasonably think they can't believe you.
So prosecutors don't do stuff like that unless they're completely and utterly incompetent.
And they wouldn't, the Utah County U.S. Attorney's Office, the District Attorney's Office knows that the focus of the country is going to be on this trial.
They're going to put their most experienced prosecutors on it, people who have done murder trials before or people who've done other serious crimes, people who don't make mistakes like this.
That's been my read on this from the start.
Jack Mosovic, Will Chamberlain.
We're talking about the Tyler Robinson case, the murder of Charlie Kirk right back.
Talk about influencers.
These are influencers.
And they're friends of mine.
Jack Bosovic.
Where's Jack?
Jack.
He's got a great guy.
All right, Jack Basovic, here we are.
Human events, daily, Real America's Voice.
I want to go back now to, we're talking about Tyler Robinson.
We're talking about this case.
And I want to go back to the affidavit.
So we went through, of course, the forensic evidence.
Now I want to get into the identification.
And this is where the chain really begins, because originally we were told that we didn't know who the shooter was those first couple hours.
And there was a false identification of someone who they thought was the shooter.
That didn't come out right and then ended up not being the right person.
And then the parents of Tyler Robinson see his photo online on news.
They see a photo of a rifle that they recognize because it had been Tyler's grandfather's rifle, which had been given to him.
They confront Tyler.
They say, you know, where's your grandfather's rifle?
Because they know that it's in law enforcement custody at this point.
He gets belligerent, claims that he's going to kill himself at one point.
And eventually they talk him into turning himself in.
They then later give statements to the police, law enforcement to this effect.
So, Will, I want to get Will Chamberlain in here again.
So, Will, when we're looking at all of this from the statement of an evidentiary value, how valuable is it in a court case when you have an identification like this coming directly from family?
And, you know, certainly this is the kind of thing that'll be introduced.
I mean, there's likely a possibility that the father or mother might even testify just to be able to back this up.
You know, we know that they've been attending the hearings.
How valuable is this?
What role does this play in the actual trial as we are just a couple months away?
Well, it's compounding persuasive evidence that he's really the killer.
I mean, his conduct in the circumstance of getting belligerent, being unable to produce the weapon that he had been given that is later, you know, that they were able to identify as the weapon found in the hills behind the school.
It's all just extremely persuasive and explanatory evidence that I think a jury will find really compelling.
And yet another explanation, like why would parents turn their child in if they didn't think he had done it?
I mean, what parent would do that?
Parental Coercion Debate00:07:41
Right.
I mean, it's one thing if you're a parent and you're confronted with your son and you have extremely good reason to think they committed a very serious crime and that they're about to be charged with it.
Like, yeah, you'd, I mean, a good parent in that circumstance, as loyal as they are to their child, will still insist that their child turn themselves in.
But, you know, it's lie.
I've just said this.
Yeah, I've said this a couple times.
I was at Liberty.
I got asked this question and I said the same.
I said it again.
I'll just be honest that I don't even know if I can make that phone call.
That were one of my kids.
I just, I'm not going to sit here and say like, oh, I definitely, I have no idea.
Just knowing that, you know, you're, you're, whatever life you had, whatever hopes and dreams you had for your child, it's, it's all going to be gone after you pick up that call.
You pick up that phone.
It's all gone.
I still hope I could.
You know, you, you don't know that you would until you get there, but you hope that you could because it is, it is a, it's a fundamentally pro-civilizational thing.
It's, it's what differs us from really deeply tribal and clannish civilizations where they would try to help their children.
It is a first world behavior.
It's first world behavior.
Yeah.
Of the highest order, the highest order first world behavior.
Yeah.
And credit to his parents for doing that, honestly.
Like credit to them.
That would must have been an extremely hard thing for them to do.
And they still, they did the right thing and ensured that he is now in custody and will face a trial and justice.
And we know that, you know, I saw some reporting from Brian Netton over at News Nation that, you know, that his parents have accompanied or not accompanied, but have appeared in court for the in-person hearings that Tyler has had.
He reported that the mother was just sobbing, you know, pretty much the entire time during the proceedings.
Father, you know, looking pretty stoic.
And, you know, and I've seen in this, this comes up online, you know, every time I see him to tweet about this that they say, well, what if, you know, what, what if they were coerced?
What if they were, you know, what if they did it for some other reason?
And I just keep thinking, well, if, if they thought he was innocent, why not, you know, if for some reason, let's okay, devil's advocate, you know, let's say they decided they wanted to recant, I mean, they'd be able to amend their statements, right?
Oh, sure.
Yeah, they'd be if they, if they felt coerced, gosh, that would be the story of the century.
And they'd, they immediately get a lot of protection if there were some good faith basis on which they could explain why they were being coerced and who coerced them.
But moreover, like, what, what parent would allow themselves to be coerced into giving up their own child?
That's insane.
A parent would, every, you know, I can speak from, I know for my, there's no world in which I would be could be coerced to hand over my daughter to something unjust.
Like, I couldn't, you couldn't.
I would die for this.
I would, I would sooner.
And you were scared.
By the way, you, you, and you see, you do tend to see parents who, you know, even try to turn themselves in and, you know, claim, you know, claim the blame over and over.
I could see myself doing something like that just out of loyalty to the child and out of love for them and, you know, that irrational love that parents have for their children, which you need to have if you want your society to continue.
But it's, you know, the idea to me, to me, the part where this, you know, this question just falls apart is that the parents are right there.
They are right there.
And the media is right there every day as well, you know, fully free to be able to take any statement.
The court is right there.
And I would say that to anyone, to anyone who thinks that they have, you know, oh, I've got it.
I've got the evidence.
I've got the one piece that, you know, proves Tyler Robinson is innocent.
Well, guess what?
There's a court case going on right now.
And in this trial, as it turns out, that's the very question that we are trying to determine.
And feel free.
Feel free to submit anything you have in writing to the court.
And I would encourage anyone to do so.
I certainly, you know, I certainly think, I would say now is the time to do that, right?
Yeah.
And here's the thing I would say.
I mean, not that his parents have spoken up publicly, but I guarantee you that with, you know, this random idea that you found some unique piece of evidence that exonerates Tyler, I guarantee his parents don't agree with you.
I guarantee his parents would think you're a lunatic.
Like they know.
Their conduct demonstrates they know exactly what happened here.
And I mean, that's not the way it's going to work, but they know.
I just, I feel like their conduct is, it's, while it's honorable and it's tragic, it, it's also, and it's because it's so tragic, that's how you know it confirms, it confirms what happened and certainly confirms what they believe.
Will Chamberlain, where can people follow you, brother?
At Will Chamberlain at X and you can follow the Article 3 project at a3paction.com.
God bless, man.
Thanks so much for coming on.
Right back.
Thank you.
Where's Jack?
Where's Jack?
Where is he?
Jack, I want to see you.
Great job, Jack.
Thank you.
What a job you do.
You know, we have an incredible thing.
We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys should be getting policy.
All right, Jack Kosobic back live here, Human Events, Daily Real America's Voice.
Folks, if you're a homeowner in America, you need to listen to this.
The FBI has been warning about a type of real estate fraud on the rise called title theft.
And your equity is the target.
Here's how it works.
Criminals forge your signature on a single document, use a fake notary stamp, and file it with the county.
And just like that, on record, they own your home using your own ownership.
They can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property.
And you won't know about it until foreclosure or collection notices show up in the mail.
Well, that's why I've partnered with Home Title Lock so you can protect your equity and find out today if you're already a victim.
Use promo code POSO at home titlelock.com and you'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection.
That's 24-7 monitoring of your title records, urgent alerts to any changes.
And if fraud occurs, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix it.
Don't be a victim.
Protect your equity today.
That's hometitlock.com promo code POSO.
Okay, guys, breaking news.
We're getting new information that's coming out of the Clinton deposition on Jeffrey Epstein.
Per Representative Comer, President Clinton testified under oath that President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved with Epstein.
So there you go.
Even Bill Clinton himself is saying that Trump was not involved with Epstein.
So Bill Clinton himself, who has every reason to try to throw Trump under the bus, to try to bring him up, to try to muddy the waters, to try to get the stink off of him, get the heat off of him.
Bill Clinton is in there, according to this report, saying that Donald Trump wasn't involved with Epstein.
I don't know what else you need, folks.
I don't know what else you need on this.
Clinton, we got the photos.
Regime Change Concerns00:15:20
We've got every single one.
But even when pushed, even when pushed back against the wall, Bill Clinton did not.
And remember, by the way, Bill Clinton is no stranger to committing perjury under depositions.
All right.
We certainly are well and sure aware that he has done so in the past.
Remember, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Okay, that was perjury.
You obviously had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
But the point is that he lied under oath about that.
But even still, he is coming up and saying that Donald Trump is not involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
I wanted to shift gears a little bit because as we've seen over the evening, a lot more has gone on.
Israel, Iran, the United States, this deployment, forces deployed.
And a really interesting, a really interesting kind of new wrinkle that's been added to all of this is the wrinkle of Chinese imagery and Chinese commercial imagery that's coming out publicly from what it's called Mizar Vision.
And I want to throw some of these images up for folks to see that what China is now doing is collecting commercial real-time imagery of US F-22s sitting there parked right on the runway in Israel, right there on these sites.
Now, this is imagery at a level, you know, that's really just at a level.
You're looking at support vehicles.
You look at Patriot missile systems.
You're looking at everything that's coming up.
This is imagery.
I'm just going to say it that you would not normally see in an unclassified open source environment.
This is the kind of stuff that let's just say that I used to look at daily in my previous profession.
And we are just going to have to get used to the Chinese now releasing.
I believe there's a photo of the USS Ford as well that they released as the USS Gerald Ford, the most powerful.
Okay, that's the Lincoln.
I think there's another one undergoing resupply right there.
That's why I see the two ships next to each other.
I think there's another one of the Ford aircraft carrier that's even closer.
There it is, with you can see the aircraft embarked right there on the hat right there on the flight deck.
So, you know, that's a we want you to see us coming kind of kind of set up.
They're all ready for air operations.
As you can see, they're riding heavy.
And this is not the kind of stuff you usually see publicly, but it's going to be out there.
And the Ford, of course, arrived to Israel just off the coast of Haifa, which is the port of Jerusalem, just at the port of Tel Aviv, just a few hours ago.
So USS Ford there providing that defensive defensive framework along with the Iron Dome as we potentially are waiting to see whether or not these operations, combat operations are set to kick off.
I wanted to get in now.
Darren Selnick is joining us.
He's a former Deputy Chief of Staff, the Secretary of War, Pete Hegset.
Darren, how are you?
I'm great.
Thanks for having me on.
Well, thanks for joining us.
Well, look, I was just going through and you as well as I, I'm sure, you know, coming from this background, we're not used to seeing this type of imagery public, are we?
No, that's why they have skiffs in the Pentagon.
But yeah, that tells you something when you're seeing public.
Not good.
Not good.
Yeah, it's really just a, you know, the Chinese certainly using their, showing, showcasing their capabilities.
This is another example of information warfare that the Chinese Communist Party are going to bring to bear.
You know, I noticed that the Chinese haven't been doing this for the Russians in any of their Ukraine operations, but certainly something that going forward, this is just the world we live in now.
It is.
That's why, you know, China is a top threat that we have to contend with and that we are, you know, when I was at DOW that we were focusing on.
And it's ultimately, in my personal opinion, China is going to be our greatest threat.
And we have to deal with that.
Well, there's no question about that.
And I completely concur with you there.
No, looking at the force lay down, the forces aligned that President Trump has deployed out to the Gulf, out to CENTCOM.
What is your read in what we may see?
We're hearing that potentially strikes could occur as early as this weekend.
Yeah, I'm hearing some of the same stuff.
I think one of the things that was accurately reported by the media that I saw today, they said the president said he hasn't made a final decision.
And I think that's correct.
When I was in the White House and Trump won, and we worked on things, my experience with the president is that he talked to all relevant people to talk to that had information, got all sides, and would not make a decision until the very last second because facts in the ground change.
So when he makes a decision, that decision is final, but he doesn't preordain those decisions because things can change.
Facts on the ground can change.
The Iranians can suddenly capitulate, those sorts of things.
So he will continue to take all information and then he will make the decision that it's going to work best.
General Kane's doing a great job.
Pete Hex has doing a great job.
They have the forces there.
They have coordinated between all the different undersecretaries and the military plans.
They are ready to go.
I'm sure they have presented a number of options to the president.
The president will pick the option that will do the, my guess, the least amount of Strength that they need, use the appropriate force that you need to get the appropriate outcome.
So, I think that's what the president will pick.
He will make the estimate.
Remember, he has the intelligence, any other that has facts in the ground that we don't have, that Congress doesn't have.
So, he will pick the military option that he believes is the right option to get Iran to take this seriously and do what they need to do.
He won't do more than he won't do less than necessary.
He will pick the option that is what is necessary to get the desired result.
Um, he did Iran before, he did Gaza.
He's got a lot of experience.
Um, I have total faith and trust that he will pick the option needed.
And I would take his gut reaction in what he believes over anyone else.
And I think that we actually have a new statement from the president on this just moments ago.
Let's play that now, guys.
We're gonna see, look, it'd be wonderful if they negotiate really in good conscience, good faith, and conscience, but they are not getting there.
So far, Peter, they're not getting it.
Has your team told you that if you use the military now, that there will be regime teams right away?
No, nobody's covering it.
You don't know.
I mean, nobody knows, though.
There might be and there might not be.
We could do it without, but sometimes you have to do it with.
We, uh, when you looked at what, look, we have the greatest military anywhere in the world.
There's nothing close.
I'd love not to use it, but just count you afterwards.
Well, that goes right back there.
President Trump employing, I believe they call that strategic ambiguity.
Well, it is strategic ambiguity, but it's also he's going to continue to get reports in from the military side, from his diplomatic team.
You know, Marco Rubu is going to be weighing in.
The diplomatic team is going to be weighing in.
And at some point, he's going to just make a decision that, hey, you know, I don't, either that they have went ahead and made a breakthrough or not.
And I mean, that's right.
We'll see.
We're coming up on our coming up on our break.
Darren Selnick, where can people go to follow you and get your stuff?
You follow me on X. That's where our easiest way to get me is just look me up on X. Perfect.
Darren Selnick on X. I'll be looking to you for your expertise.
Thank you so much for joining us here at Human Events Daily.
So we're going to call this the Jack Pesobic Appreciation Hour.
I can say confidently, I believe, I think Josh Shapiro would be the vice presidential nominee if it wasn't for Jack Pesovic.
And that is, I'm going to be honest.
All right, folks, Jack Pesobic, we're back live here, Human Events Daily.
And so, folks, you know, the big question that's come in, and I want to keep hearing from all of you on this.
And so we put up the Human Events Day of, you know, the question of the day.
We said, what are your thoughts on U.S. military action in Iran?
And we're doing something a little bit differently today because we said, please indicate your age.
So 1776 at humanevents.com, 1776 at humanevents.com.
And I wanted to, I wanted to throw in, you know, a little color of Charlie from last year when Charlie spoke about this.
Guys, let's play clip D15.
Western forced central planning regime change is if we are just going to take out the Ayatollah.
Oh, really?
What comes next?
What comes after regime change?
Might be, oh, well, we need a small number of U.S. troops to support the new regime.
We have seen this play before.
Regime change, you have no idea how this is going to work out.
You have no idea.
And that was Charlie, June of last year when this debate was raging.
And I've said before, guys, I'm not for a regime change war in Iran.
I'm not for a prolonged war in Iran.
I'm not for a war in Iran.
If President Trump is going to conduct limited strikes and take out a specific piece of the nuclear program, something that had to be, you know, something that along the lines of Operation Midnight Hammer, that's one thing.
Okay.
That's one thing completely.
But ultimately, this idea that we're going to go in and knock off the Ayatollah and the Mullahs and just get the best government we want.
I just, I think it's folly.
We did the entire podcast series, Tales of Regime Change, just a couple of weeks ago.
And that's exactly what we saw.
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine.
It happens again and again and again, and it never seems to work because you just don't know what's going to come back.
But promised emails, let's go in.
And this is great because today we've got the ages.
And I think there's going to be some interesting stuff, perhaps some stuff that you wouldn't expect because I've been perusing them a little bit.
So it comes in from Michael.
He's 37, a GWAT vet.
I'm very skeptical.
Any clean snatch and grab is one belt-fed burst away from a downed aircraft and dead Americans.
We got lucky in Venezuela.
If that CW5 hadn't managed to keep his wits after being shot, the whole thing could have gone extremely wrong.
Iran is not Venezuela.
It's going to be much harder to get anyone out of the place if things go wrong.
It's not just going to be 20 miles from the coast.
And it says that people under 40, you know, like Lindsey Graham is always around.
People under 40 do not seem to be advocated for anymore.
It turns into a mess.
People like myself who may vote third party in federal elections as a protest if we show up at all.
You need that 2% to 3% to win.
The Democrats seem to actively realize and act on this.
Stephen, 38 years old, voted for Trump three times on the campaign promise of no foreign wars and draining the swamp against U.S. military action in Iran.
We need to stand firm and say no.
They won't stop at Iran.
This one in from Allah, 40 years old.
I support strikes on Iran, especially if they are surgical and precise and effective.
Stop Iran from going nuclear and stop the suffering of the Iranian people.
Lara, 61.
He ran on the presidential race for no new wars.
Let them settle it.
This is Israel's fight, not ours.
Thanks, Poso.
This one in from Julie, absolutely no boots on the ground, but I'm fine with airstrikes.
63.
This one in from Lara, 61.
No more wars.
His, oh, wait.
Sorry, I read that one.
Oh, no, she emailed us twice.
Lara sent in two.
Here we go.
This one is from Lul.
He's 26.
I believe that going to war with Iran is a catastrophic mistake and a betrayal of the campaign promises that President Trump ran on and I supported for three election cycles.
We need to be America first.
We're 40 trillion in debt.
Young people can't afford homes and are increasingly struggling to compete in the workforce due to the consequences of globalism.
This war risks putting us in global recession and spiking global oil prices.
Okay, just pulling up some other emails here.
Just going through, these are great.
I love the emails.
I really appreciate it, guys.
This one's in from Say.
She is 19.
I am against.
Let's see.
Abram comes in.
No email from Abram or no age from Abram.
No one wants to die in this war.
It's not for us.
The Christian are end up killing all the Christians who live in Iran.
And we talked about that, how it certainly happens when we get these regime change wars in the Middle East.
always seem to end up with Christians being killed.
This one's in from Daniel, 50.
I say no unless absolutely necessary.
And if necessary, do it right and complete the job.
Kim, 56 years old, against Buford.
Buford from Kentucky, age 30.
I'm sorry, that's just perfect.
Buford from Kentucky.
Of course he is.
Age 36.
No, no, and no to war with Iran.
This one in from McKenzie.
She is 30.
Stay-at-home mom, three kids under four.
I think it's the same McKenzie from yesterday.
I don't give a darn.
I need the SAVAC passed and the economy fixed.
God bless you, McKenzie.
30 years old, three kids under four.
God bless you.
This one's in from Brennan, 24.
I supported military action against Venezuela as it's our sphere of influence, but I'm completely against action against Iran.
Israel has been claiming Iran is on the cusp of developing a nuclear weapon for decades in an effort to trigger U.S. involvement.
It appears as if this lobby is pushing the U.S. towards this to further their goals.
It will be a net loss for us.
Let's see.
This one from Shirley.
She's 66.
I support the elimination of their nuclear capabilities.
There's ways to have nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
The leadership doesn't seem to want that.
Regarding regime change, I'm concerned about the plan after removing leaders.
The people seem to not want the Islamic government.
They're dying by the thousands.
This world turned a blind eye to Tiananmen Square by welcoming China into the World Trade Organization shortly thereafter.
Shirley listened to the China files because we covered that extensively in the China files.
The Iranian people deserve better, yet our record of supporting regime change is far from stellar.
Texas Concerns00:02:29
I can't help but think of the thousands of sailors serving on our carriers that are positioned near Iran and Israel.
My son served as an ETN on the bush.
That's an enlisted sailor.
I'm sure electronic technician.
I'm sure there are a lot of concerned families praying for their loved ones.
ETN network electric technician.
To those who say, why is this our business?
Why is it up to us to take these actions?
Because we're the only country in the world capable.
I'm 66.
You didn't ask, but I have three adult children and six grandchildren.
I'm concerned about their future.
Shirley, thank you so much for your email.
That was a very sweet email.
All right, we got Devin, 25.
Why are we willing to sacrifice more American blood and taxpayer money for an issue that only concerns us because we put ourselves in it?
Why does this matter more than the tens of millions of illegals in our country basically stealing any hope of the American dream that is left?
Or the fact that our country and world are being run by pedophiles, referring to the Epstein files.
What about the corruption that continues to go unpunished?
All the war with Iran does is show us how unimportant these issues that the common man actually faces are to those who run the country.
these emails are just, are just amazing.
Okay.
Pull in some more.
Pull in some more.
I mean, they're just flying in.
1776, humanevents.com.
Here's one from Phil.
I just turned 65.
Let Persia do Persia.
There's plenty of money and material for them to take care of themselves.
Minute left, I'm going to go quick.
Sarah, age 60, I do not support military action in Iran.
Clara, 44.
All of my family, over 50 people raging from, okay, ranging from early 20s to their 80s.
Over 50 people.
I talked to a lot of my family.
I don't know if I talked to 15 people.
We all support taking out the Iranian regime to rescue the Iranian people.
Trump will not handcuff our troops like Bush, Clinton, Obama.
14 people under 30, 6 people under 18 who are involved in politics here in central Alabama.
Okay.
Scorched.
This one from Blake.
He is 31 with a five-year-old son.
He's in Texas.
He said, I'm going to read this, Blake, because you wrote it.
Sent from a church bathroom stall in Texas.
Scorched earth, then pavement.
The leftists are trying to get people comfortable with the presence of Islam in the West.
We can never let this happen.
While I certainly agree that we need to do something about immigration, we need to take the fight to them.