John Cardillo examines the May 2018 Paris knife attack by Khamzat Asimov, a 20-year-old on French terror watch lists since 2016 due to family ties but no overt radicalization signs. Police used stun guns before fatally shooting him, while al-Zwahiri’s Al-Qaeda video explicitly framed U.S. conflict as a clash with "Judaism and Christianity," dismissing liberal claims. Cardillo contrasts Trump’s pro-Israel policies—like the Jerusalem Embassy opening—with Obama-era figures allegedly pushing a one-state solution favoring Palestine, arguing Trump’s shift has strengthened Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah. The episode highlights law enforcement’s struggle to predict low-tech attacks without mass surveillance or deportations, while critiquing NYPD’s "precision policing" as a misguided retreat from effective, constitutionally sound tactics like stop and frisk, raising concerns about rising crime amid softer oversight. [Automatically generated summary]
Today on off the cuff declassified, the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem opens to a lot of celebration and a lot of unrest.
Another terror attack in Paris, and ISIS is claiming responsibility.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry is still working overtime on behalf of the brutal Iranian regime against the United States, and the NYPD continues its downward spiral into the political correctness abyss.
The U.S. Embassy finally opens in Jerusalem.
There's a lot of celebration, also a lot of violence on the part of Arab Muslims.
Now, I could not be happier about this embassy opening.
I think that our renewed alliance with Israel was incredibly long overdue.
In fact, I find what Obama did to Israel absolutely disgraceful.
He did something very similar to another great ally in Europe, Poland.
I'm going to do a series of segments down the road on the Polish-U.S. alliance, how strong it was going back to the first Gulf War, how Obama went out of his way to destroy that, and what it looks like today.
It is a fascinating, fascinating story.
I'm putting all the pieces together for you.
I've actually got some Polish special operations guys that I'm talking to about this who are currently in their military working for their equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have been great with helping put this picture together for me.
And when I'm ready, I want to bring you these exposés.
Most people don't realize what a critical ally Poland is.
You're going to find it incredibly fascinating and how strong their economy is.
Quick side note before we continue on Israel.
One of the former Communist Party headquarters buildings in Warsaw is now a Ferrari dealership.
Is that not the most amazing story of capitalism and destruction of communism?
But back to Israel.
Much like Poland and even arguably long before Poland, Israel has been a tremendous ally of the United States, and they've been a necessary partner in the region.
Now, look, like we do with every nation, we have our ups and downs with Israel, but we should treat Israel more like a brother or sister.
You have your internal fights, but if anybody from the outside dares say a negative word to them, even when you're in your most brutal fight, you'll punch them in the face and make sure they never do it again.
Well, Obama didn't treat Israel that way.
Obama treated Israel like the enemy and treated Iran like the little brother or the little sister.
Obama treated ISIS in many respects like the little brother or the little sister.
He didn't seem to have a desire to crush ISIS because Trump did it in nine months.
And Obama went out of his way to alienate Israel.
Obama went out of his way to criticize guys like Netanyahu, hardliners in Israel against Islamic terror.
Obama and every player in his disastrous administration.
I mean, Obama had the F minus, foreign policy team.
When you think about Hillary Benghazi Clinton, John Doofus-Kerry, Susan, I'm going to unmask you for no reason whatsoever, Rice.
Samantha, my husband is Cass Sunstein and we hate Americans' power.
Ben, I pretty much lie for a living and can't get out of my own way with the GPS Rhodes.
The list goes on and on and on.
Let's not even get into Obama's Department of Justice that gave them legal cover to do all of this, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
But, you know, snark aside, Obama's foreign policy team, the Kerrys, the Rhodes, the Rice's, the Clintons, the power, Smith Power, U.N. ambassador, all of the people on Obama's foreign policy team really had zero interest in a strong U.S., let alone a strong Israel.
I truly feel that people like Valerie Jarrett, people like John Kerry, would have preferred to have seen Israel destroyed.
They would have preferred a one-state solution with the Palestinians taking over Israel and the Israelis being scattered and displaced around the world.
I firmly, firmly in my heart of hearts and in my gut believe that.
They were all for a one-state solution, that state being Palestine with Israel being eradicated and erased from the history books.
That, I believe, was the desire of many in the Obama administration, hence they're emboldening Iran, because there's really no other reason why you would do that.
But they lost.
Thank God Hillary Clinton's not in the White House.
So I've got a lot of friends that are currently in Israel for the opening of the embassy.
They got there last week, two of them with the U.S. delegation.
Now, they asked me not to share photo.
They had been texting me photos last night and this morning.
They asked me not to share them because they were given seating in a certain area and they were asked not to share photos yet.
I don't know why many of these photos are in the mainstream media, but maybe it's because the media pool wanted to be the first ones to get their photos out.
Maybe the U.S. delegation didn't want their people putting out photos.
I don't know why.
But I'm going to honor that request, but I will tell you, they said, but you could say what we saw.
And here's the interesting part.
Now, you're seeing in the media the celebrations and the Israelis in the street with Israeli flags and you're seeing some American flag.
What you're not seeing in the mainstream media are the Trump signs, the signs with Trump and Netanyahu on them.
What you're not seeing in the mainstream media, and I really wish I could share this one photo with you, is a bus, a bus, like a, you know, a tour bus that a band would use.
And it's wrapped.
It's got one of those promotional wraps on it.
And the wrap says, thank you, President Trump.
And Israelis are standing in front of the bus alongside Americans and people from around the world who came to see the embassy opening, cheering and patting the bus and giving thumbs ups, like the Trump thumbs up next to the bus.
But the New York Times runs a story.
Now, you're not going to see that in the New York Times, right?
So here is the New York Times headline.
Israel feels pride but senses peril as U.S. moves embassy.
So as I was prepping for the show this morning, this is from yesterday from the Sunday Times.
As I was prepping for the show this morning, I sent this over to the friends who were in Israel, obviously it's later there.
And they just sent me back literally the two that I know who were there.
And then they had sent me back responses from their Israeli friends and people in the Israeli government, the government they were sitting with.
When I sent this, it was literally a barrage of LOL and laughing emojis.
No one in Israel feels peril.
In fact, people in Israel feel safer.
They feel much safer that their big brother, the United States, has their back now in a rock-solid way.
They said to me that the celebrations are genuine.
It's more a celebration for Israel on the whole, because while they're ecstatic that the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem, they also feel, okay, now we're not at risk of troops coming across our border.
Now, what do I mean by that?
Well, I had Scott Ulinger on the show last week.
Millions Safeguarded00:04:09
You've seen Scott on the show.
He's a congressional candidate.
He's a former CIA station chief.
Scott recruited Iranian spies for the CIA.
He also worked against Iranian assets while in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East.
And Scott said something on the show that I found very, very interesting.
He said that Arab Muslims have this view of Israelis, this impression.
They see the Israelis, most notably the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, and the Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Service, as superhuman.
That was the word Scott used.
Superhuman.
Like they can pull off operations other people can't.
They can assassinate you in your sleep if you're in a hotel in Singapore and get in and out of that hotel without a trace they were ever there.
And so I said, well, is that, you know, sort of Mossad CIA folklore because they work closely together?
So I asked these friends of mine over in Israel who were meeting with some people in the Mossad and the IDF and diplomatic corps.
And then I asked some guys I know that had been deployed to these various regions, both as law enforcement, trainers, military, special operations, and intelligence guys.
And to a person, they all said, oh, that's true.
That casually.
Oh, no, that's true.
The Arabs are terrified of the Israelis.
But what the Arabs knew they had, what the Muslims knew they had, was mass and movement.
And if you've ever studied military history, those are two foundational doctrine of military history, of war, of strategy, of tactics.
It doesn't matter how technologically advanced your enemy is.
It doesn't matter how surgical they are.
If you have a critical mass of bodies, magnitudes greater than they do, eventually you're going to be able to overpower them.
It's pretty much the same strategy the Russians used against the much better equipped, more well-trained, wealthier German army in World War II.
The Russians, and you've seen these movies like Enemy at the Gates, and if you've read historical accounts, the Russians would just send bodies in, even though they didn't have guns, many of them.
And they would say, if the guy in front of you is killed and he has a gun, pick it up, keep fighting.
If you're killed, the guy behind you, pick up your gun.
Because the one thing the Russians did have were bodies.
They had bodies to throw at the Germans.
And even if they lost 80% of them, well, if in that process, 95% of the Germans were killed, so be it.
That's how you win.
And that's what the Russians did.
And that was always a threat to Israel because we know there are about 1.7 billion Muslims in the world.
Well, 1.7 billion Muslims.
Let's be uber conservative.
Let's be insanely conservative and say only 1% would ever radicalize and weaponize.
Let's even be more conservative.
Let's say 1 ⁇ 2% would radicalize and weaponize.
That's 8.5 million.
But I'm going to be even more conservative to make a point.
Let's say only a quarter percent would ever radicalize and weaponize.
We know the number is much higher.
Well, that's 4.25 million, right?
4.5 million or so.
4.5 million.
The United States military, all branches, as it stands today is about 2.2 million.
So if only a quarter percent of the world's Muslims are radicalized and willing to weaponize, they still outnumber our United States standing military by two.
They're still two times larger than we are.
A fact that you don't hear much about, a number you never see reported, and something that Israel and the United States and coalition partners in the region like Jordan are very, very cognizant of.
Now, when you take the U.S. military and the Israeli Defense Force and the Jordanians and other allies in NATO and nations like Poland, that has been a staunch ally of the United States and Britain and Australia and France.
Well, you level that playing field, and that's what Israel now has.
And so there's this sense of celebration, this sense of renewed hope that Israel is now on neutral territory or even offense and no longer solely on defense, not knowing if the United States is going to come in and help them.
Because under Obama, I truly believe we wouldn't have.
And the Arab-Muslim world is on notice as well.
Israel's New Hope00:02:46
And that's an important thing because Jews and Arabs are clashing on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem there.
The Arabs are livid that the U.S. moved its embassy there.
They're livid that the Jews in Israel are celebrating.
But the celebrations really tell a different nuanced story, which I think is why the Muslims are going crazy.
See, there's always been this empatigo, this very similar cultural ease between Israelis and Americans.
Maybe it's just because I grew up in New York City, had a lot of Jewish friends, and I now live in South Florida, large Jewish population.
But I always found it very easy to relate to Israelis.
You know, I'm an Italian guy from Queens and Jewish and Italian groups being immigrants that came to the U.S. around the same time.
And a lot of Israelis I knew in New York whose families had been there since the turn of the century, Jewish families, they had, you know, had family in Israel as well.
And so maybe it was cultural, but it's very easy for an American, especially an American who grew up in a big city and an Israeli to relate, find similar, you know, things funny, similar sense of humor, cultural similarities.
And I've always found that I related to people from Israel on a one-to-one level, as well as, if not better than friends I have from Western Europe, from England.
I would even argue that in many respects, being a New Yorker, I can relate to somebody from Tel Aviv better than I can someone from London.
And so there's always been that cultural similarity between the U.S. and Israel.
And now when you combine that with the clear friendship of Netanyahu and Trump, and they're very similar guys.
Now, quick digression, about 10, 11 years ago, I get on the Amtrak Acela train.
If you don't know what that is, it's the faster train.
It gets you in about 45 minutes faster.
And it runs on a corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City, or New York City and Boston.
And I was in the first-class car in Acela because it's actually a pretty nice way to travel.
You don't want to deal with headaches at an airport.
And the police came in and swept the car and they looked in my bag and I'm thinking what the hell's going on.
And Netanyahu comes on.
And at the time, he was out of power between his stints as prime minister.
And when I'm chatting with him on about a three-hour trip, and you know, over the course of the trip, a little conversation here, a little there, about an hour all in, good guy, brilliant, brilliant man, tough as nails, but an easy guy to talk to.
And if you didn't know he was the former prime minister of Israel, you would have thought he was a guy from Brooklyn running a business.
So there's that the stylistic similarities between Netanyahu and Trump are so great.
They're so similar that I think that leads to this.
Lone Wolf Reconsidered00:14:37
And that only means good things for global security.
It only means good things for world stability.
And so I'm very, very encouraged.
And with Jews and Arabs clashing on the Temple Mount, we need to send a message to the Arab world that you might have these little skirmishes, but your days of terror in Israel are rapidly coming to an end.
Now, the IDF thwarted a terror attack.
They thwarted an attempted terror attack on the Gaza border, and they attacked the Hamas outpost.
Now, Hamas is terribly dangerous, as is Hezbollah.
We know that Hezbollah is really an Iranian puppet.
Hezbollah is now gaining a foothold in the Lebanese government.
They were always running Lebanon de facto via proxies, but now they're being elected.
Now they're a legitimate governmental group.
Very, very dangerous for Israel with Hezbollah running Lebanon, the situation in Syria.
We've discussed it ad nauseum.
But this is from the Jerusalem Post.
Let me read you a part of this.
IDF forces thwarted an attempted terror attack on Monday, which happened today, when three armed Palestinians laid an explosive device near Rafa on the Gaza-Israel border.
Soldiers fired and killed three perpetrators of the attempted attack the IDF said, which took place at one of the most violent scenes of clashes between Palestinian protesters and IDF troops.
In addition, an IDF plane targeted a Hamas outpost in the Jabalia region of the Gaza Strip after identifying it as the source of gunfire at IDF troops.
No IDF troops were injured.
Now, I couldn't be happier that Israel is taking things very seriously.
They're attacking again, and they should be.
They should be knocking out these terrorists.
They should be knocking them out.
And the United States should be doing what we're doing, explaining to them that they've got a rock-solid partner in all.
Now, while this is all going on, Ayman al-Zwahiri, the leader of Al-Qaeda, is calling for jihad against the United States.
This all happened yesterday on the eve of the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem.
In a five-minute video, this is great, entitled, Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv is also a land of Muslims.
Al-Zwahiri, you know, he took over after bin Laden was killed back in 2011.
He referred to the Palestinian Authority as the sellers of Palestine while urging followers to take up arms.
This is amazing.
So here's what he said about Trump.
The Trump quote was clear and explicit, and he revealed the true face of the modern crusade where standing down in appeasement does not work with them, but only resistance through the call and jihad.
So basically, Zwahiri, Al-Zwahiri is doing what the liberals tell us he's not doing.
He's saying that the U.S. is on a, you know, the liberals always say, we're not at war with Islam.
We're at war with terrorism.
We're not at war with Islam.
We're at war with terrorism.
No, it's not Islam.
Well, Al-Zwahiri is saying to liberals, no, you morons, I'm at war with you, Judeo-Christianity.
I see your mere existence as the new crusade.
And I'm calling on Muslims around the world to engage in jihad, to take up arms against you and kill you.
So Al-Zwahiri is at war with Judaism and Christianity while liberals around the world are not at war with Islam.
And there you have it.
And there you have it.
Al-Zwahiri added that bin Laden declared the U.S., quote, the first enemy of the Muslims and swore that it will not dream of security until it has lived in reality in Palestine.
Remember what I told you about my, I believe the Obama administration's true desire was to see Israel eradicated.
I believe John Kerry and Susan Rice, Samath Power, Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett all did believe in a one-state solution, but that one state solution was Palestine with Israel eradicated, Israelis fragmented, marginalized, and scattered around the world, and the word Israel removed from history books.
Well, Al-Zwahiri is basically saying I was right.
He said that it swore that it will not dream of security until it has lived in reality in Palestine and until all the armies of disbelief, remember, disbelief, you're not Muslim, leave the land of Muhammad, though they are at war with Judaism and Christianity.
Al-Zwahiri also argued that Islamic countries had failed to act in Muslims' interests by entering into the United Nations.
But morons like John Kerry, we're going to talk a little bit later in the show about his recent Logan Act violations.
Morons like John Kerry believe the Iranians love him.
They don't believe that he's being, he doesn't believe he's being lied to, that as an infidel, he's being lied to.
This is just shocking to me that Azwahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda, can sit there and call for death to Christians and Jews.
And we still have liberals that are sitting here saying, well, it's not true.
It really doesn't happen.
Palestinians are attacking Israel daily now.
Muslims are attacking Jews on the Temple Mount.
And the global call for jihad is out because we moved our embassy in Jerusalem to Jerusalem.
But the left is still saying, well, but it's not Islam.
It's not Islam.
Leave Islam.
It's not Islam.
It's a few radical actors on the heels of another ISIS lone wolf carrying out a knife attack in Paris.
I'm going to be talking about that on the show today as well.
But in summation, I just couldn't be happier that the embassy is opening in Jerusalem.
Could not be happier, could not be happier about this renewed alliance with Israel.
We need to start treating our friends like our friends and our enemies like our enemies.
Donald Trump is off to a tremendous, tremendous start.
And I hope this is the foundation of a rock-solid relationship between the U.S. and Israel for centuries to come.
Another terror attack in Paris, and ISIS is claiming responsibility.
This time, carried out by a 20-year-old named Khamzat Asimov.
Now, this guy was on two terror watch lists in France since 2016.
And a source in French law enforcement said, quote, it was his relatives who alerted the security services as opposed to his behavior, actions, or ideas.
Interesting.
20 years old.
He was a student from, he went to a high school called Strasbourg High School.
His classmates described him as religious and very discreet.
He liked video games and sports.
He grew up in Eastern France and an Eastern French town.
And that town is predominantly Chechnyan Muslims from Russia.
Very, very dangerous.
One former classmate said, quote, Hazmat was quite calm.
He kept to himself.
He didn't have a problem.
He did Ramadan.
He paid attention to girls.
Quote, he had a distinctive manner and was in contact with Syria where he wanted to go.
The different person said this.
But after the exams, he left all that.
He wanted to make a living.
Other people said he was a normal guy.
He was Muslim, but he didn't show it.
So apparently his radicalization happened very, very recently.
Now, this attack happened on Saturday evening around 9 p.m. Paris local time.
It's about 3 p.m.
That's 3 p.m. East Coast time in the U.S.
And the second Around Desmond, which is very touristy.
And I had a friend who was a federal agent and lived in Paris about five years.
He was the legal attaché at our embassy for his particular federal agency.
And I asked him what that area would be like at 9 p.m. on a Saturday night.
He said it'd be packed.
It'd be like the downtown of any other city, the tourist area of any other city on a Saturday night.
He said, if you're going to carry out an edged weapon attack as a means of terror, that's one of the places you would do it in Paris.
Now, so he stabbed five, killing one.
He attacked four others.
He was, the officers first tried, the French officers first tried stun guns.
They didn't work.
So they shot him.
And the statement from ISIS said, quote, the person who executed the stabbing in Paris is a soldier of the Islamic State.
They also said he acted in response to calls to an attack anti-ISIS coalition countries.
There's also a video, apparently, of this guy pledging allegiance to ISIS.
And so a video emerged online on Sunday in which he pledged loyalty to Abubakar al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.
This is very, very troubling because we talk about this all the time.
You don't need to join ISIS.
You don't need to go somewhere and sign up.
Okay, I'm ISIS.
Here's my ISIS application, you know, like it's Banana Republic.
You know, call me back.
There's the gap.
This is anthropology.
I'm going to wait for you to call.
Let me know if the ISIS manager wants to hire me.
No.
You pretty much just say, I'm a radical Muslim lunatic.
I want to be ISIS.
I'm ISIS.
And you do your application, give it to yourself.
You're the manager you call yourself and you're part of ISIS.
Now, I don't want to downplay the brutal threat these people are because somebody's dead.
Somebody did nothing more than want to enjoy Paris in a tourist area on a Saturday night.
Something we all do on the weekends.
We go out to busy areas and we have drinks and we have food and we hang out with friends and family and we enjoy ourselves.
We don't expect to be killed, which is why I recommend here in the States where you can carry a firearm, whole different topic.
Things might have gone differently had some private person been armed in pretty much fully disarmed Paris, France.
Now, ISIS, I've always told you this, has always done a tremendous job.
Now, they're pretty much decimated.
They've lost their territory.
They're a fraction of their former organizational self.
But they have always been gifted at online recruiting, at messaging.
And we're going to see these fighters.
And I don't like calling them lone wolves.
You're not a lone wolf when your allegiance is to a larger organization.
You're simply a soldier acting alone.
You're one soldier involved in that attack, but you're not a lone wolf.
When I was a New York City cop and I was standing on a footpost by myself, or I was riding around, we rode two partners, you know, two cops to a car.
But if you would do overtime details, traffic speeding, red lights, you would ride alone.
I wasn't a lone wolf police officer.
I was still a member of the New York City Police Department, just working alone on that particular assignment on that particular day.
Tomorrow, I might be in a van with five other cops.
Tomorrow, I might be deployed to a disorder control scene in one of seven vans with 50 other cops.
Or I might be in a car with one other cop.
You never knew, but I was part of a greater organization.
And that's how we have to start looking at these ISIS actors.
We have to start looking at them as part of a greater organization who on that particular day, or any terror actor that we call a lone wolf, who on that particular day just was working by themselves because it was most conducive to that particular mission.
We have to stop with this lone wolf narrative that the liberals want to throw out there to downplay the greater threat.
It serves no purpose other than political correctness.
And it scares me when law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies delve into political correctness.
The NYPD is doing that.
We're going to be talking about, we're going to be talking about that a little bit later in the show.
Now, I'm encouraged, like I said, because Macron identified this as terror pretty quickly.
Now, Macron is still French, but he's encouragingly proactive French.
And so, look, the French police did an outstanding job.
I mean, they gunned this guy down.
They shouldn't have used stun guns at first.
They should have whacked him off the bat, but they eventually took him out, avoiding further injury.
Took place near the Paris Opera on Saturday night, and it killed a 29-year-old.
So the guy that was killed, just enjoying his night out, was 29 years old.
Didn't even reach his 30th birthday.
And two of the other four injured were injured very, very seriously.
The took place, like I said, near the Paris Opera in an area with many bars and restaurants, many theaters.
And somebody, a guy named Gaveau, who is the, let's see who this guy is.
Government spokesman, Benjamin Graveau, said, quote, it is once again a way of life, our way of life, which has come under a cowardly attack.
Now, this guy was on a state security watch list that in France is known as the quote-unquote S-File.
And that, of course, drew what this article says.
Angry opposition is an Associated Press article by way of Bakersfield.com, Bakersfield, California news outlet.
It said, it drew angry opposition from the right and far-right opposition.
Well, angry reaction from the right and far-right opposition.
Why wouldn't it?
Why wouldn't it?
Now, the leader of France's biggest opposition party renewed his call on Macron to detain, quote, the most dangerous of individuals on the watch list and expel all foreigners listed on it.
This guy, Laurent Waquies of the conservatives, les Republicans, les Republicains.
I'm guessing that's the French version of conservative Republicans.
I don't speak French, but I don't think you need to for this one.
He said, quote, there is no longer room, Mr. President, for this blind inaction, which has lasted too long.
And National Front leader Maureen Le Pen, who of course ran for a national office in France, said, quote, what use can this S-File be if we don't use it?
Point, Maureen, to ensure that these time bombs cannot do any harm on French soil.
But Graveau, the government spokesman, said, quote, unfortunately, there is no way of stopping this sort of incident from happening.
And said, also, Graveaux said, quote, if you lock them up, if you lock them up, then again, you won't be able to tease out their networks and dismantle operations that could take place tomorrow, end quote.
And that was Graveaux.
Now, let's discuss that because it's very, very interesting.
Why Leave Him in Play?00:07:27
I don't entirely disagree with him.
You do, from an intelligence gathering perspective, need to leave known bad actors in play.
And as much as I'd love to knee-jerk react on this one, oh, the French, and he was on watch lists, and this guy was on watch lists, and they should have kicked him out of the country.
They should have, they should have, you know, shot him dead in the street.
Might be out of character for me.
You might find this counterintuitive.
But when I analyze this through the law enforcement, the intelligence lens, there is a very, very strong case to have left this guy in play.
He was on the watch list for known associations, but gave no hint of weaponization.
Gave no hint that he was predisposed to commit murder.
He was associating with and dealing with the bad actors.
He was exactly the kind of guy you might leave in play because the risk of him doing harm to someone was lower than the intelligence value you might glean by following him, surveilling him, monitoring him, wiring up his home, wiring up his place of work, wiring up his mosque.
So I can't, on this one, really fault French authorities for leaving this guy in play.
I can't.
There's something to be said for that from an intelligence gathering perspective.
Now, when we go through, I was reading you some of the comments here.
Why am I saying, you know, why am I saying all that?
Why am I, you know, saying, not saying hang him high and get rid of him and deport him?
Well, when I look at this objectively, when I take my anger at dead innocence out of this, I objectively look at this and I look at what French law enforcement was probably looking at, even just comments, because I'm sure they had interviewed and the intelligence services had interviewed these same people.
Let's go through what we talked about again.
I'm trying to put a threat assessment together on a bad guy because I have to make a decision.
Do I leave him in play and see who he's hanging out with?
See if any of these ISIS operators that he's dealing with online are coming to Paris.
Or is he such a threat to the public that I got to get him off the street immediately?
A lot of value in leaving him in play, but I don't want to get anybody killed.
So I've got to make a decision here.
It's never an easy one.
Very discreet student who likes video games and sports.
Quiet, calm, kept to himself.
Yeah, he did Ramadan, but he also paid attention to girls.
Now I'm drawing a picture of somebody who's religious, curious, but still has one toe in the secular pond.
Had a distinctive manner of in contact with Syria, but after exams, he left all that and wanted to make a living.
So he was young and curious.
He Dabbled in potentially going over to Syria to fight with ISIS, but then bills and life set in, and he went out to get a job.
Well, now the case is growing stronger to leave this guy in play.
No, he would have acted when he was younger.
He's now moving away from radicalism slightly, not toward it.
Normal student, not excellent, but not bad either.
Middle of the pack.
He wasn't a loner.
He wasn't ostracized.
He wasn't bullied.
He wasn't marginalized.
All of those things that might trigger him to act radically.
By the same token, he wasn't particularly wealthy, looking for grandiose attention.
He wasn't traveling in a social circle, maybe with wealthy Saudis who funded terror and he thought it was glamorous.
A middle-of-the-pack guy.
So family fled the violence in Chechnya.
There was nothing out about the family.
Another quote, the quote from a neighbor, there was nothing ostentatious in terms of religion.
He was a young guy who favored track suit and was a student.
Family didn't receive visitors.
He wasn't a thug.
He was reserved.
They had been living here for a little over a year.
The father worked in construction.
The mother worked for an association that helps the homeless.
So when you look at that as an investigator, when you work alongside the field people and the intelligence analysts, and you're trying to draw in the psychologist, you're trying to draw a composite on do I leave this guy in play or do I grab him up?
This guy appeared to be pretty low risk.
He was on the watch list because of communication.
He appeared to be pulling back slightly from radicalism.
I might have made the same decision myself, very candidly.
I might have made the same fateful and fatal decision myself.
Nah, watch this guy a little bit more.
Let's leave him in play.
Let's see who he meets with.
Well, unfortunately, he pulled out a four-inch bladed knife and started stabbing people.
They said he approached calmly, a total contrast with the panic all around him.
Another thing were his physical characteristics.
He had a beard, but it wasn't very long, and he was dressed normally.
He didn't fit the stereotype, someone said.
That was all a quote of a jihadist.
You get a young guy with a beard.
You got a lot of hipsters around the world with beards.
He didn't have the long radical beard.
He didn't have the shaved head.
He wasn't wearing Muslim garb.
Just dressed like a guy.
He was 20 years old with a slight beard.
I can walk outside of this studio, find yet 30 guys like that.
There's a Starbucks down the corner, literally two blocks away from where I'm sitting behind me.
I can go in there and find 10 guys who fit his description every morning.
And so when we look at this from the law enforcement intelligence side of the world, we need to say, let's not blame the French here.
I don't think they screwed up.
In fact, I think they probably did the right thing leaving this guy in play.
I truly, truly do.
Unfortunately, it had deadly consequences.
So now, what I hope French authorities are doing is they're looking at the Chechen population on the whole.
Now they're grabbing up all of the people he communicated with.
Now they're going to start deporting anyone he's been in touch with, anyone who went to meetings with, anyone at his mosque, anyone else they have wires up on that, or any kind of surveillance or confidential informants that he communicated with about jihad.
But at the end of the day, I always tell you, these are the attacks that keep you awake at night when you're in the world that I used to work in.
Anybody can get a knife and walk into a crowd and start stabbing people in the name of anyone.
It's impossible to interdict, but you can't deport all the bad guys.
Got us to leave some in play to find the networks.
And I think that as long as we have terror in this world, unless we start getting very serious about cutting the heads off the snakes, killing the Al-Zwahiris of the world, the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadis of the world, till we take the gloves off and stop worrying about political correctness and subjective rules of engagement, till we get as brutal as these people to the most brutal people.
Innocents are unfortunately going to die and be severely injured in these one-off, you know, low-tech, asymmetrical attacks.
Sadly, just the state of the world we live in.
John Kerry's Troubling Iran Deal Advocacy00:08:25
Just when you thought you couldn't be any more disgusted at John Kerry.
John Kerry steps in and says, Hold my little dainty demitasse, pup.
I mean, John Kerry is probably the most insufferable former administration official of any administration alive today.
He's really, really bad.
And that, and that is a pretty dubious distinction when you consider the Eric Holders of the world, the Hillary Clintons of the world.
Yeah, John Kerry annoys me more than Hillary Clinton.
So he was out there trying to preserve the disastrous Iran deal.
And President Trump canceled that deal.
Many speculate in part because of what Kerry was doing.
Trump was so incensed that Kerry would be out there subverting U.S. foreign policy in support of the Iranians that it led to Trump canceling the deal because it made him really question the motives of the previous administration.
Now, the Boston Globe reported that, oh, about a week and a half ago, that Kerry was out there doing that.
But Kerry didn't stop because just over this weekend, John Kerry was caught secretly meeting with three Iranian diplomats, not diplomats.
These are really diplomat terrorists.
These are people who promote the agenda of Rwani and Khomeini, some of the most brutal people to ever hold power in Iran.
John Kerry was caught meeting with them in Paris.
As luck would have it or not have it for the former Secretary of State, the former U.S. Senator, an all-around terrible, pompous guy, a friend of Jason Osborne.
Now, Jason Osborne is a former advisor to the Trump campaign and Ben Carson's campaign.
Well, a friend of Jason Osborne, I know Jason, was sitting in a restaurant and started taking photos and texting them to Jason Osborne, who then tweeted the photos.
So Jason Osborne's tweet said, excuse me.
So John Kerry just left the meeting at L'Avenue in Paris with three Iranians.
A friend was sitting next to their table and heard J.K. John Kerry blasting Donald Trump.
The Iranians had a five-person security detail and left in diplomatic vehicles.
Is he FARA registered?
Now, the tweets went on of Jason Osborne, and he was saying how they were mocking Donald Trump and saying, is he really rich?
He had the former Secretary of State sitting with three Iranians, enemies of the United States, mocking the U.S. president and John Kerry laughing alongside of them.
Well, the friend apparently was able to follow these Iranians, I guess.
Somebody else got a photo, photos of their faces, full on, walking into the Prince de Gaulle Hotel in Paris.
And Osborne tweeted again about, actually, let's see.
Oh, the next day.
So the next day, about 24 hours later, he was able to get photos of the same three men.
I guess his friend ran into them again later that day.
And the tweet said, just got pictures of the three Iranians met with John Kerry yesterday.
They're entering the Hotel Prince de Gai.
Anyone know who they are?
Yell, people who knew who they were, people who study this, read it immediately.
And he said, one guy said, the one in the front is certainly Kamal Perazi, Iran regime's foreign minister from 97 to 2005.
The one behind the door looks very similar to Abel Ghassam Delphi, current ambassador to France.
He photos for comparison.
Please bear in mind: these people aren't diplomats.
They're diplomat terrorists.
Wow.
Wow.
So, the and the person who said they're diplomat terrorists, let's see, he is a news editor and an activist for Free Iran.
He's an Iran policy expert, a guy named M. Hanif Jaziyeri.
And he is now being very vocal about.
And he's very pro Trump pulling out of the Iran deal, very anti-Iranian regime, this guy.
He seems to know these players.
And he posted photos, other photos of these three people that Kerry met with.
It's clearly two of the men are clearly the people he identified.
No doubt about it.
Photographs don't lie.
Clearly, them.
And so, begs the question: why would John Kerry, after we exited the Iran deal, be sitting with allies of Virwani and Khomeini?
What was the true motive of the Iran deal?
Now, while all this was going on, one of the things that failed to make the mainstream media shocking, I know, is that the UN nuclear inspector quit.
I'm going to find you that story right now.
I had it up.
The UN nuclear inspector quit.
And let me find you this story from just over the weekend.
UN's top, this was from the New York Post.
UN's top nuke inspector abruptly quits days after U.S. pulls out of Iran deal.
Why?
Why?
The International Atomic Energy Agency didn't give a reason for Taro Valloranta's exit.
Now, let's think about this.
The U.S. pulls out of the Iran deal.
The U.S. starts demanding more information on Iran cheating and who might have allowed them to cheat.
More information on who the bad actors were.
And this guy from the UN abruptly quits.
The entire thing, the entire thing is really, really filthy.
I mean, I mean, dirtier than dirty.
Now, let's read the Logan Act again.
We did this last week.
The Logan Act basically makes it a crime for you to work against the interests of the United States with foreign governments, especially those that are hostile to it, like Iran.
18 U.S. Code 953, private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, John Kerry, wherever he may be, Paris, who, John Kerry, without authority of the United States, Trump can't stand Kerry, gave him no permission to do anything, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof.
Well, I would say that sitting at a table in Paris with the former Iranian foreign minister and current Iranian ambassador to France, you can't get any more clear-cut in terms of statutory violation in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, Iran deal, or to defeat the measures of the United States, try to thwart Trump's coming out of the Iran deal, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.
I mean, I've never, in the 25 years in alongside or analyzing, reporting on law enforcement intelligence issues, I've never seen a more clear-cut statutory violation than this.
Never.
Never.
It says this section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself or his agent to any foreign government or agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
Basically saying you can sue foreign governments.
If you sue a foreign government or something they did to you, that doesn't fall under the correspondence section of this.
You can sue them.
You just can't collude with them to damage the United States, which is what John Kerry did.
You can't, well, collude is not a crime.
Conspiracy is.
You can't conspire.
You can't conspire with them to subvert the United States, which appears to be exactly what John Kerry did.
This is very, very serious that a former Secretary of State is out there openly working against the interests of the United States on behalf of Iran.
We need a full intelligence community and Department of Justice investigation into this.
We really, really do.
This is one of the most troubling things I've ever seen.
And it begs so many questions.
The most important, most glaring of which is why?
Why is John Kerry doing this?
Whose interests are served?
Is it to cover something up?
Is it embarrassment?
Is it just disdain for America?
Why Stop and Frisk Matters00:12:38
Is it disdain for American exceptionalism, the America first agenda?
I don't know.
But I do know.
The question that needs to be answered is why?
And if John Kerry is committing crimes, he needs to be prosecuted.
The NYPD continues its downward spiral into the abyss of political correctness.
This is from Newsmax.
Here's the headline.
Reinvented NYPD.
Reach out to people who don't like you.
We have so much to talk about here.
Let me read you part of the article.
And it all stems from an NYPD and NBC News report yesterday on Sunday.
In a diametrically opposing reinvention of its policing strategy, the NYPD is moving away from the controversial stop and frisk policy that led to riots and antagonization of the men in blue to what it calls precision policing.
Quote, I've asked my cops, reach out to the people in the community that don't like you.
NYPD chief of department, Terry Monaghan, old NBC News.
Now, they claim the strategy is meant to rebuild trust between law enforcement and citizens after fracturing of an oftentimes hostile bandoff.
Monaghan said, quote, it's been said many times, it's hard to hate up close.
Quote, you may hate just a blue uniform, but when you know that person, you know them as a human, it's different.
Yes.
But those were never the problems.
Those were never the people in the neighborhood we had problems with.
Cops always did this.
A Brooklyn resident, Janasia Maddox, said, quote, a lot of people don't do anything wrong and they still get harassed by the cops.
I mean, pull over, stop and frisk, being patted down, anything the cops would do to stop you.
Just you looking at them the wrong way.
That's not true.
They're going back to the Eric Garner case and they're talking about the murders of police officers Hugh and Ramos, Liu and Ramos.
Wen Jan Liu, of course, and Rafael Ramos murdered December of 2014.
And this is nothing new.
It's just really annoying.
Look, this is not a reinvention or a diametrical opposition to anything.
Stop and frisk is a constitutionally protected policy.
Constitutionally protected.
It's been Supreme Court doctrine since the 1960s.
Okay?
The only reason stop and frisk is illegal in New York is that a liberal judge, Shirin Sheinland, deemed it illegal in light of the Supreme Court deeming it legal in the 1960s.
The de Blasio administration never appealed her ruling.
And Shein Lin, knowing her ruling was going to be struck down on appeal and her herself censured for basically spitting in the Supreme Court's face, resigned.
He retired from a lifetime judgeship.
He stepped down from the bench.
All anyone ever had to do was appeal the decision and stop and frisk would have again been legal in New York.
It works.
It saves lives.
People don't understand what stop and frisk is.
It doesn't give you the right to search anybody.
It's a simple pat down over the clothing if a police officer has reason to believe someone is armed to protect themselves in the public.
If you find something consistent with the shape of a firearm, you can go into that pocket.
If I'm patting down your jacket and I find something consistent with the shape of a gun, I can reach in the pocket and pull out the gun.
If I find something consistent with a weapon in any aspect, if I find cylindrical objects in your pocket that I think might be ammunition to a firearm in a place where you're not supposed to have it, I reach in and they're crack vials.
That search would be good.
A knife in your pocket if I'm stopping you, but I need a reason to stop you.
I need reasonable suspicion.
Mere suspicion is it's 3 a.m.
You're walking in a deserted industrial area, peering in the windows of warehouses.
That's mere suspicion.
Something illegal about it, but it does give me the right as the police to start a conversation with you, to try to.
You're under no obligation to talk to me.
You're under no obligation to talk to me.
You can say, officer, I'd rather not talk to you.
I'm going to go on my way.
I have no constitutional reason to stop you.
I didn't get a 911 call.
I don't see anything wrong with the building.
You're walking down a sidewalk.
You're looking in windows.
Looks suspicious, but it's legal.
Now, if I get a 911 call saying there's a man, is a male black in a black leather jacket, blue jeans, white running shoes.
He's pulling on the doors and checking the locks of these buildings.
The neighbors say the woman in the apartment building across the street says she's never seen him before.
She knows the maintenance man.
It's not, excuse me.
She sees the maintenance man every night.
It's not the maintenance man.
Well, I get there.
I see the guy block away.
I don't come up with lights and sirens on because why would I do that?
I don't want to scare him off.
And I see him trying to pull the grates of the window.
Well, now I've got reasonable suspicion.
This guy's doing something wrong.
So I roll up on the guy and he says to me, hey, I talked to him.
What are you doing?
And he says, oh, I know how it looks.
Here's my business card.
I'm the new security company.
We always come this time of night.
We check the grates.
We check the locks.
Here's my card.
Feel free to call the manager of the building.
We have a 24-hour number at the management company.
We're going to call the management company.
Yep, that's our guy.
Is this what he looks like?
Yep.
All right, sir.
Have a great night.
And that guy's typically going to say to you, thanks for you guys coming so quick.
Great to see.
But if the guy's got no reason to be there, well, now I'm going to exit my car, right?
If the guy says, well, I'm just, I'm going to my mother's house.
Where does your mother live?
Oh, down the block.
What's her address?
And he starts stumbling.
Well, now I know I've probably got a guy who's trying to burglarize the building and looking for maybe a maintenance man who slipped up or a security guy who slipped up and didn't lock a lock.
And so I'm going to now approach this guy.
Now, if it's a July night and it's 95 degrees and I'm sweating and I'm in plain clothes and I'm in a polo in jeans and I'm sweating and this guy's wearing a black hoodie and one of the pockets is drooping a little bit.
Well, that might be indicative of a weapon.
Now, that could also be indicative of burglary tools, but if he's got a pointy screwdriver, that to me is a weapon.
And the Supreme Court feels so as well.
I can pat down the outside of his clothing.
If I find a gun, if I find a weapon, maybe he goes to jail or maybe he doesn't.
It all depends on the situation.
But I've now got reasonable suspicion, a detailed description, a 911, and I can pat him down.
There are two sides to every story.
And that's all stop and frisk is.
And so when residents from the neighborhood say, well, we don't do anything and we get stopped.
Well, that's not true.
Because you need to fill out in the NYPD what's called a UF250 form, a stop and frisk report.
And on that stop and frisk report, you need to put down exactly who the person is, where the person was, what they were doing, and why you stopped.
And it's also really called SQF, stop question and frisk.
And you need to explain.
That form is like, and I forget now, a triplicate or a quadruplicate.
I mean, it's digital now, but you need to explain why you did what you did, why you stopped this person, why you decided to put your hands on them, what your reasoning was for a potential threat to the safety, to your safety or the public safety as to why you patted them down.
That has to go to a sergeant.
It goes to a lieutenant.
It goes to the integrity control officers in the commands.
There are many, many layers of oversight to stop and frisk.
It's not this random policy that the left and the mainstream media want you to believe that the police could just roll up on anybody and stop them and frisk them and violate their civil rights.
No.
Never been that way.
Never been that way.
It is a highly effective tool.
So now that we've debunked the myths about stop and frisk, let's debunk the myth that cops didn't already do this.
You got to let police, police, they've got to be able to trust their instincts.
We always knew who the good people in the neighborhood were.
It became evident after a while that I've got a group of guys on this corner and I've got a group of guys on this corner.
I worked in a predominantly black and Hispanic area.
You've got young male blacks and Hispanics here and here.
They both dress the same way, inner city kids, look a little thuggy.
Only I know this group of kids.
Look, their kids grew up on the street.
They're tough kids.
They're rough guys.
They're not criminals.
They know those drug dealers over.
They're not going to give them up.
They know those guys are doing stick ups.
They're not going to give them up.
They're from the neighborhood, but they're not going that route.
They go to school.
They keep their nose clean, but they're no punks.
If these guys get in their face, they're going to throw down with them.
So they don't get bothered.
They're not victims.
They're still tough guys.
They just saw too many guys.
Maybe they're older brothers.
Maybe they're older cousins.
Their friends go to jail.
And they say, you know what?
That's not the route I want to go.
A lot of those guys, I knew a lot of those guys.
They went to college.
They joined the military.
They got jobs working for the city out of high school.
A bunch of them applied to the NYPD, the fire department, Department of Sanitation.
They wanted a better life.
They did what they could to get out of the neighborhood and get a better life.
You got to know who those guys were very, very quickly and you left them alone.
And oftentimes, they helped you out.
Now, you knew you couldn't push them too hard because you don't want them to be rats and get them in trouble with the guys over there, the bad guys.
But they weren't your problem.
But we didn't roll up on them and stop and frisk them.
We'd get out of the car.
We'd, you know, BS with them.
And we'd leave them alone.
They were hanging out on the porch or the stoop on a summer day and they had an open beer.
We're not going to bother that because they're not making trouble.
We're not getting called on them.
They're just guys out doing what guys do.
They're having a beer.
So what?
They're sitting on the stoop.
So what?
Adult park their car on the street talking to a girl.
So what?
Hey, man, do me a favor, move the car.
You love traffic.
Just get around to it.
All right, at least by the time I come around the block.
And they're like, all right, thanks, officer.
And that was it.
And we always knew to do that all the time.
The people who don't like the police are the criminals.
Now, sure, some cops are heavy-handed, but I worked in a very busy area.
We didn't have time to treat people.
First of all, I would never treat anybody unfairly or poorly.
I took my job seriously, as did most of the cops I worked with, because we knew who the bad people were and the good people were.
So those guys who might have looked like the bad guys, we got to know very quickly they weren't bad guys.
We didn't harass them for no reason.
In fact, a lot of these guys were actually good guys.
Funny story, one of the guys we became friendly with, he would come by the precinct to drink with us afterward.
He'd meet us out at bars.
He wound up going into the military, deployed to Iraq, came back safely, George had a great career.
And I probably did his 20 years in the military.
You know, you get to know the people in the neighborhood and become friendly with them.
It doesn't matter what they wear, how they dress, what they look like, how they speak.
You get to learn who the good guys are, who the bad guys are.
And this is so nonsensical because what this does is it creates the message that cops are heavy-handed with everybody.
And shame on Chief Monaghan because he always had a very good reputation.
It's very, very disappointing that he's towing this politically correct line, especially at a time when the NYPD and other large agencies are softening the quality of their hires.
They're not bringing on street cops with the ability to be hard.
It was a hard job.
We were dealing with bad people.
You need a certain toughness to you.
You need a certain edge to you.
You need it.
You can't go in thinking you're a social worker.
You're not.
You're there to protect the innocent from the worst in society.
You're the only wall they've got, especially in a city like New York where they can't be armed.
This is really disappointing.
And it scares me because I feel like coddling bad guys is really the ultimate goal here.
Because of Chief Monaghan's been around a long time.
And he knows, he knows that cops do their job right day in and day out.
He knows they respect the public.
He knows they understand the difference between good people and bad people.
And forcing this down their throats is demoralizing.
But even worse, it's sending a message to criminals that cops are going to get that much softer.