The Tucker Carlson Show - Whistleblower Exposes the Real Puppet Masters Controlling the State Department and Plans for Gaza

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 5, 2025 - The Tucker Carlson Show

01:14:41

Whistleblower Exposes the Real Puppet Masters Controlling the State Department and Plans for Gaza

Participants

Main voices

tucker carlson

01:13:19

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		So you were marched out of the State Department two weeks ago.
		You left involuntarily.
		Um and I want to hear why.
		But first, what did you do there?
		What was your job at the state?
		I was a press officer in the near New York Eastern Affairs Bureau, uh, started September 2024.
		Essentially, the main bread and butter role of a press officer is twofold.
		One is preparing the spokesperson before they go on the podium and do their daily press briefing.
		Yeah.
		And second, reporters ask questions all the time.
		Uh so a reporter with XYZ outlet submits a question, uh, and it's our job to use uh cleared lines or cleared meaning approved lines and send them back to uh the reporter.
		And if you ever read an article and it says a State Department spokesperson said X, those are press off press officers taking those cleared lines and sharing it with that reporter.
unidentified		Thank you.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Who clears the lines?
		Uh good question.
		So the press officer will draft the lines.
		Um from there, it will go up a uh ladder, essentially.
		So there'll be desk officers, um uh leadership in the NA press office itself, and then it goes up to the seventh floor, meaning uh the Secretary's policy planning office, the deputy secretary of state's office, but it's not themselves.
		Like you you're not gonna get the deputy secretary of state looking at this, right?
		It's gonna just be like a staffer who represents that equity.
		So uh it becomes a in a uh an inclusive process to make sure everyone has eyes on it.
		And if there are flags, uh they'll let you know.
		For example, you could be drafting a line on Israel, but it involves Lebanon.
		But there's another press officer and a whole other desk and leadership working on Lebanon that may have an equity that you may not be aware of that they'll edit the line by the same.
		So do you describe the bureau that you work for Near Eastern Affairs?
		Yes.
		What is that?
		It's well, it's an old school name.
		It basically means anything involved uh in the Middle East.
		Um it's Morocco to Iran, the whole Middle East, not just the Levant, like the whole Middle East.
		Yeah, near East, yeah.
		They need to update the name.
		I think people are aware, but yeah, it's an it's the entire uh Middle East.
		So it's uh they they use all these acronyms.
		So um Israeli-Palestinian Affairs is IPA or Ispal, um, Saudi, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, that whole grouping is ARP for Arabian Peninsula, and then North Africa is its own entity as well, from Morocco to Egypt, goes under NA.
		Okay.
		So it's the Levant, the Gulf, half Iran, Iran, Africa, Iraq.
		Um, huh?
		Interesting.
		And that's all in the same bureau.
		So the State Department divides the world's in world into bureaus.
		Correct.
		Which are often called desks.
		Correct.
		Correct.
		So from Canada down to Chile's WHA, Western Hemisphere Affairs, Asia's EAP, Eastern Uh Asia, East East Asia Pacific.
		So you have all these divisions and Europe, Africa.
		Correct.
		EUR for Europe, Africa's AF.
		Um, I was an NEA and I was a press officer there, originally covering Lebanon Jordan just for a couple months, and I quickly shifted to uh Ispal.
		Israel Palestine.
		Israel-Palestine.
		Whoa.
		Um, so that's the the hottest of all desks, I would think.
		Yes.
		Most scrutiny, most at stake, rhetoric most closely supervised, I would, I'm just guessing, but right?
		Yes.
		It's true.
		Um, the press officer for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, you're on a stage constantly because you're getting the most questions from reporters for good reason.
		Um the spokesperson is going to deal with the most questions at the podium about the topic.
		And so uh it was a compliment yet difficult for me to process the fact that I it was requested from various people in leadership um when the uh uh administration was changing in January.
		They said, Hey, I know you've only been here for a couple months, but we're gonna put you on this in this position, uh, which was surprising, but I wanted to take on the challenge at the time.
unidentified		Really?
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		So you were asked to do that by the incoming administration, by the Trump administration.
		Uh it was uh well, it was people from uh leadership in NEA, which some of them were civil servants, but they were experienced people that were that recognized um how heavy of a topic it was going to be coming in.
		Huh.
		How do you um get current on that?
		Where how do you do your research?
		So it's it's multifold.
		So we do receive like just in terms of standard mainstream media, we do get like uh copies of articles and coverage to and it's not necessarily politically um uh isolated, at least in the beginning it wasn't.
		So I would see everything in my email inbox.
		Plus personally, right?
		I'm always absorbing things.
		And you're only gonna be a good press officer if you're reading Twitter and the standard emails you're getting um through the inbox.
		Yeah.
		Um so you're absorbing a lot of information, and it's not just the details.
		Like, of course, if I have a question, I'm gonna go to the Israel experts um at the State Department.
		So if there's a detail I don't know, there might be a desk officer or someone um like that that would know that the those the numbers or the challenges that that I need for a specific press line.
		Um for me though, as a press officer, my addition in those conversations is like more uh uh stylistic.
		Okay, if we put this line out there, we're gonna invite these problems, or it's good if we say it this way because uh this will help us uh it'll defend us in this other way.
		So it was uh uh a stylistic endeavor um for from day to day.
		Um and uh you don't have full control because I'm obviously the personality of someone at the podium is going to say it one way, even though I was hoping this line would deliver this this other way, right?
		You don't you don't have full control, but you you do have a who's who's the spokesman for the near East Well, right now it's it's more the spokesperson of the entire department that I was briefing.
		Oh, it was Tammy Bruce, she left, um, and then there's uh deputies that are currently.
		Where did Tammy Bruce go?
		She's going to the UN from my understanding.
		Okay.
		Um so were you given parameters?
		Like, how do you get your orders?
		Like we do say this, we don't say that.
		So the main day-to-day activity that I think you people are may or may not be aware of, but or probably not aware of, uh, is that I have these, I have these packets called press guidance called PG.
		So on Tuesday and Thursday, which are the days that um a spokesperson would go on to the podium, I would have all the sample questions.
		And some of them are tasked from the main press office um in at the State Department, but I also would come up with my own questions like, hey, we're getting this question a lot.
		We need to have lines for this.
		So we can't leave this alone.
		So I would have I'd create a packet, clear it through the through the building, like I was saying earlier, um, through the seventh floor, and then I would present that brief the spokesperson about two hours before she went on to the podium.
		How do you know what the official US position, especially on that topic?
		Israel-Palestine.
		I mean, that's again the most politicized area there is, and it's the stakes are high.
		So how do you know what the official US position is on that conflict?
		Uh, it's a very good question.
		And especially in the beginning of the administration, it's a bit of an art.
		You're taking the the the uh gold for a press officer or lines from the principals.
		Essentially, if President Trump says something, if Special Envoy Whitkoff says something, I take those quotes and I'm like, okay, that's policy.
		So if he's talking about And I think that's literally true, right?
		I mean, the president has sort of unilaterally can form our foreign policy.
		Yeah, there's no questioning like a quote that comes from a principal, especially President Trump.
		Uh or Secretary Rubio for the State Department uh is often the case.
		So I would take those uh lines and it would answer certain questions that would come up.
		Where are we with the ceasefire?
		Oh, Special Envoy Witkoff went on XYZ Sunday show.
		So I'm gonna pull that line and I'll brief the spokesperson, and then she or he can quote special envoy without the podium again, because that's the policy.
		That's the easiest way of doing it.
		You don't always have quotes.
		So what would happen instead is you kind of have you ever get a question on that?
		Question on the Well, I mean, if you say, you know, you should respond in this way and then cite the president or Steve Whitkop or Secretary Rubio, then that kind of that kind of ends the conversation, right?
		It should end the conversation.
		Uh I what was surprising, and this will go back to why when I ended up departing and getting fired.
		Get fired in August was that on a specific question, one of the three events I think led up to uh uh my firing uh was on uh a Monday, we received a question about forced displacement, which essentially ethnic cleansing, and what our policy was about Israel intending to move uh Palestinians in Gaza to South Sudan.
		So to South Sudan.
		Yeah, that was everybody every two or three months we had a new um reporting would come out in the spring.
		It was they're moving um Palestinians in Gaza to Libya.
		There was a rumor about Somaliland, even though we don't recognize Somaliland, but there was reporting about or we're gonna do an exchange where we recognize Somali land, but they have to take on Palestinians.
		And then we had an Ethiopia round, and then the la last round that I witnessed before I left was uh a South Sudan.
		So and so that appears in somewhere in the press.
		Appears somewhere in the press, and we received a question.
		What's your response to this reporting?
	And then um I in the I came up with the line, not but it wasn't a line that like I just came up out of the blue.
	It was something that President Trump and Special Envoy Whitkoff had said in other words in the spring.
	I said, we do not support forced displacement.
	And just why what did they say about it?
	So that was your interpretation of what they said.
	Do you remember what they said, what Witkoff and Trump said on that topic?
	So specifically Special Envoy Whitcoff said something, we're not said something along the lines of we're not trying to evict anybody.
	Right.
	So from as a press officer, there's an art to it, right?
	Because you're not you can sometimes do the exact quote, or you can just come up with a new line that reflects that quote.
	So we've done a lot of segments over many years attacking college.
	Most of them are not worth sending your kids, they're definitely not worth paying for.
	In fact, they're counterproductive.
	They're the source of a lot of this country's problems.
	But that doesn't mean that all colleges are bad.
	We've looked far and wide for good ones, and Grand Canyon University is near the top of the list.
	It's a private Christian university located in the Arizona Mountains, the best part of Arizona.
	Grand Canyon believes that every one of us is endowed by God with inalienable rights.
	Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right?
	It's not something that politicians give us, rights are something they are sworn to uphold and defend.
	It's a totally different way of looking at the world.
	And GCU purpose starts with service equipping students to affect their families, communities, and the world for good.
	Whether you're called to business, education, ministry, whatever it is, Grand Canyon University helps you honor that calling while glorifying God through your work, real purpose in life.
	Over 340 academic programs offered online on campus in hybrid formats.
	Take your pick.
	GCU makes education accessible and is tailored to you and your goals.
	Whether you're starting fresh, you're going back to school to advance your career, if you're ready to pursue a degree and a purpose, Grand Canyon University, GCU is ready for you.
	It's private, it's Christian, it's affordable.edu today.
	I think forced displacement and eviction are synonyms.
	Right.
	Any fair person would say that, yeah.
unidentified		Right.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And keep in mind, this had already been cleared.
		It was approved for about a couple weeks before um this particular question popped up.
		Because the Ethiopia rumor was like July 28th.
		So I put it in the PG, put it in the packet, cleared through.
		I briefed it multiple times.
		So when that question came up, I said I actually probably had the right to just send that line because it cleared so many times.
		But to be extra careful, I sent it out to the uh uh the the spokesperson and this their staff and made sure the the most important equities were pre-clearing it.
		And from my understanding, now I I wasn't on the chain, but for my understanding, they went to the secretary's office and they cut that line of we do not support forced display displacement.
		The only other bullet that we have, which is um uh pretty standard is we don't uh discuss private diplomatic conversations, which is a standard line we always say, you know?
		The investigation is ongoing.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
		Yeah, it's one of those lines, like kind of pretty standard.
		So I that that line was there.
		So that's all we ended up providing.
		Um so there's some sensitivity, which I found found very odd because out of the three events, uh oh, I can get into the other ones, but that was just like number two.
		But when the day or the two days before I was uh fired, that Thursday and Friday, the only feedback that I got, because it because my bureau was confused as to why uh the secretary's office was coming down on me, right?
		Because they don't know me, they don't I don't interact with a random press officer at NEA, right?
		Maybe a little bit more because of the sensitive topic, but chances are generally low.
		My leadership said, hey, they're asking where you got that line from Monday.
		I'm like, today's Thursday.
		You're four days later, they're asking me where I drew where I got this line that I drafted, but they cut it.
		I went through the procedure, right?
		I cut it, they cut it, and I the reporter never saw that line.
		Did you explain why they cut it?
		No.
		They all I got from all I heard, all I all I witnessed was the uh acting spokesperson saying So you were um paraphrasing the envoys, Steve Witkoff and the president of the United States, Donald Trump when you said the United States is not support of forced in forced displacement.
unidentified		Yep.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		I don't think we do support that, do we?
		By the way.
		I one would hope so.
		Yeah, one would hope not.
		Right.
		And especially we're not gonna pay for that.
		Um they cut that out but didn't explain why.
unidentified		Right.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And then your supervisors came to you and said, hey, they're complaining about you, basically.
		Right.
		And they didn't they only specify that line, just like the act of drafting it.
		And I was like, I have a track record.
		Um they asked me Thursday afternoon and Friday morning, twice in a row, which is very odd for a random bullet.
		I was like, I have a I have the evidence from July 28th of clearing this press guidance with that line, and here are the uh relevant quotes.
		Anyone say, by the way, you may not know this, but the United States does support forced displacement.
		No one said that.
		No one said that.
		But by the way, sorry I got it wrong.
		We're all about forced displacement.
		Okay.
		We want to we want kind of want to trail a tear situation here because we're for that.
		It's it's tragic because it's such a standard.
		So bonker.
		Yeah, you that's something you would want to advertise.
		You want to put out there that we're against this.
		Like, hey, we still have some moral standing somewhere.
		Um and when the Washington Post piece came out like yesterday, two days ago, saying we're where you there's some plan involving the consultations of Tony Blair of moving Gazans out, and we we but we may pay for something, a piece of it.
		And I'm like, why?
		So is this why I got fired?
		Is it because I was I was still sticking to this line and they saw me as some kind of obstacle, which I wasn't, because I was going through the exact procedures they wanted.
		But I knew that when I was fired as someone who was again close with political appointees and with civil servants and was pretty well established in NEA.
		Again, like I clicked earlier, you don't get this role covering Israeli-Palestinian affairs on a whim, um, and it was suddenly pushed out.
		That means things are gonna go into a very radical direction.
		Uh well, yeah, I should also say, because I I know that you will be attacked and I'll be attacked for speaking to you uh on the following grounds.
		This guy's a partisan democrat who liked Bernie.
		He was a saboteur wrecker.
		I know from our conversations off camera, at least what you said to me was basically agreed with Trump's foreign policy instincts.
		You know, yeah, fewer pointless wars, like get along with more people.
		Yeah, that was always that's that's fair.
		I've I've always been an advocate the re like for ending endless war on a personal level.
		And so when President Trump is saying, Hey, we don't want to get into any forever wars, I'm like, that's great.
		And we technically started with a ceasefire in Gaza and the start of the administration.
		That was something to to uh we could have expanded on.
		We were uh speaking to the Iranians, so there's so many chances for true peace, but things went in the wrong direction.
		I would say somewhere in the summer, right?
		Uh I remember listening to President Trump's speech in Saudi in May, where he was talking about amazing speech.
		Love that speech.
		I remember I was I was like I was cheering.
		Exactly.
		And in my in my cubicle at the state department, I was like, this is a great speech.
		I was too.
		That was one of the best speeches ever given.
		And I was like, this is this is amazing.
		It was ballsy too.
		Yes, speech.
		Calling out neocons, like no one calls out neocons in DC, right?
		Like, no, that's not.
		We we brushed that under the rug.
		We kept moving, right?
		Yeah.
		You still see him as an analyst here and there on TV.
		Here and there.
		They dominate the biggest cable news channel.
		Yes, I'm aware, yeah.
		Yeah.
		So I was so glad to see that.
		But then why two weeks later were we sabotaging our own talks with Iran and then bombing them, right?
		So the events, Like the idea that I'm some partisan is just wrong.
		I yes, on a personal uh avenue, I don't want uh uh any more endless wars.
		And but President Trump was in line with that.
		Uh and I was going, I was doing my job uh in line with the procedures that were necessary every single day.
		Yeah, but it sounds like you agreed with them.
	So I guess that's my point.
	If you you like that, I mean, I don't know.
	You know, a lot of these some of the labels are real, but some of them are also created and certainly sustained in order to keep people from listening to each other so they don't discover they actually agree on a lot.
	Yeah.
	And if you love the Saudi speech and I love the Saudi speech, then we're probably not too far from each other then.
	Because I thought that, and that was a Donald Trump speech.
	And by the way, if you're such a partisan Democrat, you're admitting on camera that you loved a Donald Trump speech.
	You're not two partisan, I guess.
	Uh but anyway, I just want to see because I'm here I'm honesty is it matters, yeah.
	It's like it's the it's the it's the issues we have in foreign policy that I matter that I care about.
	I don't care about the labels per se.
	Oh, I don't either.
	Well, they're clearly meaningless.
unidentified		Yes.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		If we're both cheering on the the Riyadh speech.
		So yes, okay.
		I just wanted to establish that.
		So you start hearing from your bosses like, hey, what is this thing that you put in there about opposing forced displacement?
		We've always four yeah, four or five days earlier.
		Not even like the next day.
		There was like a delay annoyance.
		It was weird.
		Huh.
		So you said that there were three examples of this where they found problems with your work.
		Right.
		And some of this it kind of made sense from hindsight because I didn't like in the moment I didn't realize.
		But Sunday, um, Israel had had uh uh struck a tent with several journalists living inside, including Anas, who would who millions of people had watched to cover the events in Gaza.
		Uh they all died.
		I drafted a line, a few lines, and by the way, there were not so some softy lines.
		The only thing that was there that he didn't like was I did share condolences, which is pretty standard uh uh policy.
		Condolences, what do you mean?
		So I said we share condolences for the families of the killed journalists.
		That's all.
		Well, that sounds that sounds like hate speech to me.
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Condolences to the families of people who got killed.
		Yeah.
		Non-combatants killed in war.
		Yep.
		Yep.
		And what's so disappointing too was that wait, wait.
		So what so what happened when you put that in there?
		I was immediately told um from a senior official that we don't know what Anas did essentially.
		And I was like, that's odd.
		And it's what he did.
		Like, we don't know what his like conduct was.
		Like, we don't know we need like we need more information.
		He might it was a she or he was alluding to the fact that he may have done something, or he's a he's a problematic actor in some way.
		But it was weird.
		Okay, I I let me just say, I would be totally comfortable sharing condolences with Osama bin Laden's family.
		I hate Osama bin Laden.
		On the other hand, if somebody dies, it's okay to say I'm sorry to his family that's a good thing.
		He had a toddler.
		That's what I'm saying.
		Yeah.
		That's immaterial.
		I would say that to the family of an executed murderer in a prison.
		It doesn't mean I support the murderer or the murderer, but this is family.
		Like, that's okay.
		That's called like human decency.
		And anyone who's against that.
		Yeah, and it seemed like we're setting up this constant.
		This is what this is my issue that I noticed from the get-go, the constant deferring to Israel.
		It was like waiting for some statement, like let them speak first.
		And then on Monday, Israel said, All Hamas, which is a throwaway line that they've used.
		All Hamas meaning what?
		They're journalists.
		We're all Hamas.
		Yeah, or at least with Anas, if I remember correctly.
		And so they brushed that away.
unidentified		Were they?
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Look, my point when I heard that was what does our intelligence say?
		If they were like being super strict and said, hey, we're gonna we're gonna triple check using our US intelligence of who these people are, maybe, maybe, right?
		Uh still don't agree with cutting the condolences line, but sure.
		But why is there, oh, Israel said this done.
		We don't have Intel services.
		Right.
unidentified		Right.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		So what what's with the instinct to defer to Israel when we have the entire apparatus like a check that?
		And then by Tuesday.
		We got like 17 different intelligence services in this country that take, you know, a trillion dollars a year or whatever the actual budget is.
		And we don't consult them at all.
		We wait for the the Israeli spokesman to tell us what reality is.
unidentified		Awful.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Is that what you're saying?
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And how is that America first, right?
		This this whole apparatus of like of mirroring certain Israeli statements and waiting for them to comment first was something that I found tragic.
		It was it was odd.
		Um that's what ended up happening by the press briefing that Tuesday were like we refer you to Israel, which was a line that um popped up in my press guidance way too often.
		People don't generally brag about their wireless companies, but what if you have something to brag about?
		Imagine that your wireless company was so great that you told random people about it.
		That could actually happen with Pure Talk.
		Their service is amazing.
		It comes from exactly the same cell towers as the other companies, so it's just as good, literally, but for a fraction of the price.
		And maybe more important, Pure Talk has actual American values.
		They just forgave $10 million in veteran debt, giving away a thousand American flags to veterans.
		That's not how corporate America tends to act, to put it mildly.
		They've also raised almost half a million dollars to prevent veteran suicide.
		So they're decent people working there and a great 5G network.
		You get unlimited talk, tax plenty of data, just $25 a month a month.
		That saves the average family over a thousand dollars a year.
		It's time to switch your wireless company, Pure Talk.
		Go to PureTalk.com slash Tucker, save an additional 50% off your first month.
		Again, pure talk.com slash Tucker to make the switch today.
		It is wireless.
		You might actually brag about.
		We were so we don't have a position on it.
		Right.
unidentified		Right.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And that came up on any topic that was somewhat sensitive or waiting for Israel to make a move.
		Does the State Department have any position that contradicts the position of the Israeli government that you're aware of?
		No.
		I think the closest, I think on on for US interests, we do, but in our current policy and posture, we do not.
		So not one.
		The closest we can have any siblings?
		I do.
		Do you love them?
		I love them.
		Do you have any sticking points with them?
		Is there is there something you don't fully agree on?
		As any siblings do.
		Exactly.
		Exactly.
		So loving someone or having an alliance with someone or even like sharing the same parents as somebody doesn't mean that you have to agree on every little point.
		It would be weird if you did.
		It would be weird.
		Yeah.
		Identical twins have disagree.
		This is getting a little weird.
		Why is it why is why is there an acting like this?
		It's very strange.
		Um the closest we came and there was no follow-through was when uh I actually like the statement.
		It was a thousand other things.
		I I had personal issues, which that was irrelevant.
		But Ambassador Huckabee, when there was like these these Thai bay attacks against the Christians in West Bank, he did put out a statement saying these attacks are unacceptable, we call on Israel to investigate.
		But there's no follow-through, right?
		What do you mean?
		He had a statement that said, Oh, I remember it very well.
		There's no full yeah, there's no there's no follow-through.
		And like you're like, oh, that's a good statement.
		That's I'm like, wow.
		You can't attack Christians with U.S. tax dollars.
		Sorry.
		Yeah.
		Yep.
		They're not allowed.
		Yep.
		I don't care who you are.
		And it was it was just a it was one statement, and then there was no like, and if we got questions, like, hey, what's the science of the investigation?
		We refer you to Israel, right?
		So no one at the State Department looked into it?
		Not that I saw.
		But nobody felt like that would be a good use of American tax dollars to find out what this was or ask anybody any questions.
		And that's the thing.
		Each time there's a call for investigation, a very rare opportunity that that's in front of us, there's no follow-through.
		You strong statement, we did the thing, and you don't hear about it for for weeks and months.
		So there's no one at the State Department who cared.
		Look, I don't want to speak for the entire I think there were people that cared.
		I think there are I care and look, there are a lot.
		There are civil servants or political appointees, fore service officers that see the see all of this and they're and they're concerned.
		And but it's the it's it's this style of constantly deferring to Israel that's at the forefront.
		So we can criticize up to a certain point.
		And it's awful because if we want uh Israel to investigate, then we should be following up and ask, hey, what happened to the investigation?
		I thought you were gonna investigate.
		Where's the where are the prosecutions?
		Who did all the uh who did this and why?
		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		But we never hear the we'd never hear the follow-up.
		So there's no, as far as you're aware, mechanism in the State Department to Because you've described a relationship that's unique.
		There's no other country in the world that has this relationship with the United States.
		And a lot of resources go into supporting that country.
		But there's no mechanism in the United States in the US State Department to like follow up on this?
	Look on in the public realm.
	Because I was working, I I work as a press officer, right?
	So I'm always working with reporters and how like this the presentation, those things matter.
	So if there was a system of following up, I didn't see it.
	It's possible.
	Personally, I kind of doubt it.
	Um if they followed up, you would have known about it because what if somebody asks you?
	Right.
	And you would think that if there was follow-up, you'd want to advertise it too.
	Like, hey, we followed up.
	But they were they were uh the preference was to defer and deflect and give it a lot of people.
	Nobody gives a shit.
	You persecute Americ, you know, Christians with American tax dollars, nobody cares.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Sorry.
		You're making me mad.
		Um, it's it's just a frustration, it's frustrat it's frustrating.
		I know it is frustrating to see people get shat because it's not a it's not a neutral situation.
		Like some people are winning and some people are losing.
		And if the losers are people that you you know didn't do anything wrong, the Christians aren't in Hamas, like what?
		What's what's their crime?
		Look, the scenes the scenes are horrific.
		So on a human level, it it shouldn't matter.
		But if that's the whole thing of having ambassador out could be there, it's like at least maybe you'll care about this.
		And then yeah, you put a strong statement out, but don't follow up.
		Yeah, they don't care at all.
		What's the point?
		Yeah, right.
		The the self-described Christians don't care at all about the Christians.
		And by the way, the whole justification for all this, you just said it.
		These journalists get blown up, they were Hamas.
		Okay.
		End of conversation.
		No one can plausibly claim that a Christian family are in Hamas.
		Okay.
		So like what tell me it you can't claim that they're in Hamas while simultaneously claiming that Hamas is uh, you know, group of jihadis, they're Islamic extremists, which they also claim constantly, which I don't I don't know if that's true, by the way.
		It seems more like a political organization, but whatever it is, they're telling us constantly they're Al Qaeda.
		So it can't also be true that Christians are member of Al Qaeda.
		Sorry.
		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		So then we know they're not in Hamas, so why did they get killed?
		Why was their church blown up?
		Why were they killed in that hospital?
		Like, what is this?
		And there's not one person in the State Department who cares enough to get to the bottom of that question.
		Yeah.
		And all you saw, I mean, all I saw, President Trump did call uh Prime Minister Nihyahu and then who gave an apology for the the church that was attacked in in Gaza.
		One of many.
		But there's there's never follow-up.
		There's never like, hey, we this this is the prosecution.
		This is where our investigation landed.
		It's this quick two-hour brush on the rug, put a statement out, and then you don't hear anything ever again.
		Yeah.
		Um wow.
		Okay.
		Uh the third example of work that you produced that your superiors were unhappy with and that led ultimately to your firing was what?
		So it was a Tuesday, so that's the press guidance day, all the sample questions.
		It was actually arguably um we we said OBE, which meant overcome by events, which means that we're like beyond its relevancy.
		But like it was still could have come up, so I put it, I left it in there, was a reaction to Speaker Johnson visiting the settlements in the West Bank.
		And um I had a line pretty standard and kind of not the not very specific, but it said we support stability in the West Bank.
		Stability?
		Yeah, we support stability.
		That's all.
		So and the the last, well, the last piece was comma, um, which helps secure Israel, right?
		But the I think the stable comment was I don't know, too much.
		Because if we say we want a stable West Bank, are we accidentally being critical of something Speaker Johnson or Israel is doing, right?
		So what is that?
		I flesh that out if you don't mind.
		Sure.
		I mean, I know I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure everyone knows.
		I uh yeah, it's a good question.
		So why would the US government so the US government is against extending condolences to the families of noncombatants killed?
		Correct.
		Okay.
		Correct.
		And the US government is also now in favor of the forced movement of large populations outside the borders.
		Right.
	Okay.
	And now you're saying the US government is against stability?
	Right.
	How are we against stability?
	Why is stability a bad thing?
	No, stability is a word that's used a lot, and we are on paper saying we support stability in the region all the time.
	But in this specific context, when discussing settlements, it will sound like we're critiquing Israel indirectly by saying we support stability in reaction to a question about settlements, right?
	So that was how I interpreted the issue.
	So in other words, that would you might be suggesting that the U.S. government opposes radical demographic change in the West Bank.
	Right.
	Now I had this line again, just like the force displacement, it had cleared previously.
	But this is where what was discussed when this first broke my firing in the Washington Post was that senior officials for MBC Jerusalem, David Millstein specifically, would occasionally pop into my docs.
	Now it didn't happen every single day.
	Pop into your docs.
	Like at a Google Doc, right?
	Or it wasn't a Google Doc.
	It was a it was like, I don't know, the brand doesn't matter.
	But some internal shares.
	Yeah, an internal system.
	I would share it with in the morning, the equities I was mentioning.
	One of the equities is Embassy Jerusalem.
	Okay, so in equity just for State Department speak, people haven't heard it tell us what an equity is.
	So someone has some uh stake in those lines.
	Okay.
	And I would say Jerusalem does, obviously, because they're the ones that are the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.
	The US embassy in Jerusalem.
	American diplomats opposed to Disrael.
	On those press briefing days, I would share it with them for them to review the document and be like, okay, these are our press lines for these sample questions.
	Are you okay with them?
	Now it was interesting because they often did not clear, they didn't reject it.
	They just with a non-response because the press officers there would defer up the chain to Dave David Milstein and Ambassador Huckabee, because they didn't want to put their name on it.
	Because if it's something they didn't like, no one wants their name on a press guidance that wasn't approved by these influential people.
	Who is David Milstein?
	He is the senior advisor to Ambassador Alcabee.
	And what's his how old is he?
	What's his background?
	Is he a career diplomat or uh he's a from my understanding he's a political?
	I believe he worked on the hill.
	Um, did he work for Ted Cruz?
	Yes.
	Yes, he worked for Ted Cruz.
unidentified		Okay.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And he is uh uh the stepson of your best friend Mark Levin.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		He's Mark Levin's stepson?
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		He's working at the State Department?
unidentified		Correct.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Interesting.
		So every head of household wants to keep the family safe.
		It's your chief duty.
		Simply safe makes it easy to do that.
		Now, conventional wisdom suggests that a standard alarm that goes off during a break-in is enough.
		Just have an alarm.
		Well, it's not enough.
		It's not even close to enough.
		Think about it for a second.
		You don't want people in your house in the first place.
		True security means preventing that before it begins.
		And that's why you need Simply Safe.
		The system is designed to be proactive, not reactive.
		And here's how it works.
		They use smart cameras to identify anything lurking outside your home.
		If there is something lurking outside your home, they immediately alert professional monitoring agents who intervene in real time through two-way audio, confronting the intruder, triggering sirens and spotlights, and requesting rapid police dispatch, all helping to stop the intruder while he's outside your home, not when he's already in your home.
		Does that make sense?
		Yes, it does.
		It's real security.
		And that's why four million Americans use it every day.
		With a 60-day money back guarantee and no long-term contract, simply safe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day.
		Visit Simply Safe.com slash Tucker to claim 50% off a new system.
		Simply safe.com/slash Tucker.
		There's no safe like simply safe.
		So David Milstein is a political guy working now for Mike Huckabee in Jerusalem, and he was going through your lines.
		Correct.
		Okay.
		Now on paper, uh he could be, but they the way that he would edit my docs as aggressively as he would.
		And we can get into this, but the other uh statements and pieces that were reported in the Washington Post, um, he would push a certain agenda that was very aligned with Israel that I found very problematic.
		Now, in this specific example, because we're discussing the third example of why I was fired, was that he changed the stability line to uh we commend Speaker Johnson for visiting Jude and Samaria.
		So we as a government Samaria.
		It's a I it's a term that is ba is it's like religious.
		It's it's it's about Israel's land grab of the West Bank.
		It's are Judean Samaria like administrative districts?
		No.
		It's not they're a mayor of Samaria.
unidentified		Nope.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Doesn't exist.
		Um there's no actual place called Judea and Samaria.
		Like the civil authorities don't recognize Judea or Samaria.
unidentified		Nope.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Nope.
		It's the more extreme wing of the uh elements of the Israeli government and David Milstein was in line with that language and is designed to erase any Palestinian legitimacy, that this is this is supposed to be So the point is really by using those terms, they're biblical terms, they refer to regions described in what Christians call the Old Testament.
		And the point is to remind everybody that this land was promised by God to the Jewish people to the Hebrew people, and that you know, anyone who's lived there subsequently for the last three thousand years has no right to it.
		Right.
		That's the that's that's the point.
		But I but from a sort of government perspective, Judean Samaria are not real places in that they're not recognized, not nation states, they're not provinces, they're not and and do they have clearly defined borders?
		Not for my understanding.
		I think they do not.
		And that would be increasing that would give you uh the open door and opens the door to more land grabs, you know?
		It's okay.
		But if a place doesn't have uh a clearly defined border, then how can the US government refer to it in any kind of official capacity?
		They can't.
		And it's scary too, because if you look at the air strikes that Israel are doing, like Israel's doing in like Syria, and they're building settlements even outside the Golan Heights, it's all part of this uh I don't know what it is, this this idea of a greater Israel that people are discussing that was beyond these borders.
		So it's scary, and it's and it's against the stability in the region that we've been calling for as a government for decades.
		So certainly in the modern era or definitely since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, you know, you've had clear borders between countries.
		And in fact, we're fighting a war against Russia right now on the on the premise that they violated those borders by moving into eastern Ukraine.
		So like the US government takes borders very seriously, obviously not including our own.
		But as a matter of like statecraft and diplomacy, that really really matters.
		So you would never use a phrase in an official communication that referred to a place whose territory you couldn't define.
		That would be 100% fucking crazy to do something like that.
		100%.
		Okay.
		So you think this Milstein guy who is Mark Levin's stepson, you say it's almost like it's almost like you're making this up.
		It's like a joke, who worked for Ted Cruz in the Senate, he added this to the statement.
unidentified		Correct.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And then did it go out?
		So from that point, I cut it because I even accepted most of his edits in the in the document because going to battle with him was a whole headache because he'll call, he'll push certain things.
		He was he was known for doing that.
		Like he'll David Millstein phone call was not the uh a favorite thing uh for folks.
		What was it like?
		Tell it, tell us for those of us who don't work with Mark Levin's stepson at the at the station.
		Sure, sure.
		So he would call and he'd he would just push why is why was that removed, or why was uh XYZ done very often, and if you said no, there was a tendency to go up the chain in order for him to push the agenda of any given day.
		And this is something that I dealt with since very early.
		Where's his okay?
		So is he the DCM or what's he's just a senior advisor to Ambassador Huckabee?
		He's like an assistant to the US ambassador to Israel.
		Correct.
		And he I'm sticking with the public reporting from the Washington Post, like he would push in one in one occasion, uh statements that were in the voice of Secretary Rubio, not even the spokesperson.
		And you drafted them, we would push them through and be like, I want the statement out.
		And I want the statement out?
		Yeah, like you would go through and be like, I I drafted this, this is the statement I want.
		I would go through the process of clearing it, but he would fight for it.
		Like he'd be in the document getting an arguments with people one by one in order to kind of overwhelm the process and get certain um his agenda out there the way he wanted.
		And it's very difficult.
		You can start.
		On what authority?
		I mean, that's pretty cheeky behavior for a guy who's an aid to Mike Huckabee.
		Call around the building and and and it would it was very consistent.
		Um persistent.
		But he lives in Jerusalem.
		He does.
		What do you mean, call right?
		And policy comes from DC.
		Like this is obviously they have influence and they have discussions, but the policy comes from DC.
		So if he what do you mean, call around?
		Do you how do you go up?
		He would go either laterally or up the chain and call various people and say, hey, Ambassador Huckabee will cite Huckabee usually and say uh wants this done or in for XYZ reason, and um if that person didn't pick up, it would go to the next person.
		So he would so even if uh I we're discussing equities earlier.
		If one particular equity said we can't do this, then he would go up well, I don't care, because this guy above you may clear it.
		What?
		And how does he have everyone's number?
		That was uh that's what I was wondering.
		I don't know.
		But David Milstein in an assistant in the US Embassy in Jerusalem.
		That's I just want to restate.
		I mean, grown up grown up around this.
		That's not a high-level post.
		He's like zero authority to do anything.
		And is drafting a statement on behalf this is very audacious to draft a statement on behalf of Secretary Rubio.
		The Secretary of State.
		Yes, in one occasion, um, again, referring just to the public reporting, was the uh statement uh to con to condemn Ireland for considering a a bill that would put economic sanctions on Israel.
		Condemn Ireland.
		As you can imagine, folks So David Milstein was demanding in effect that the Secretary of State condemn Ireland because Ireland defended the government of Israel?
		Yeah.
		Actually, if I remember correctly, strongly condemned, which doesn't really in diplomatic speaking on that strongly.
		But yeah, strongly condemn Ireland and as a nation.
		Well the government, I guess.
		I don't I go after the I don't remember the language, but did Rubio read it?
		That was a rare occasion where it went up the ladder and it was eventually uh uh killed, but it required the European Affairs Bureau and NEA and everyone to it took a lot of effort because he he was so um uh laser focused on getting that through.
		And who is would that be good for the United States condemning Ireland?
		It would be good for Israel.
		Could use our political and diplomatic capital on the statement that uh would punish Ireland for considering something.
		The official story on 9-11 is a complete lie.
		The 9-11 report is a joke.
unidentified		You have the CIA following two men all over the planet, and then eventually even to America, right?
		and you don't tell the FBI.
		9/11 Commission, cover.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		So what did happen?
		What did the government know?
		What did foreign governments know?
		There was a cover-up.
		Why?
		It's been nearly 25 years, and it's time Americans learn what actually happened.
		We're gonna tell you, we're releasing one episode per week.
		You're not gonna want to wait.
		If you're a member, you don't have to.
		You get all five episodes the day it drops, right then, ad-free.
		Our first episode airs Thursday, 9-11, September 11th.
		You will not want to miss it.
		Join us now at TuckerCarlson.com.
unidentified		Tucker Carlson.com.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Did you ever see it sounds like you had a lot of contact or could see David Milstein at work a lot?
		It sounds like he was a pretty big figure in your office in DC, though he's an assistant to it.
		It was like, oh, you don't hear from him for three days, all of a sudden you're getting a phone call and a bunch of edits on something, and they disappear again.
		Did he have your cell?
		It works though.
		Yeah, he did.
		How do you get your number?
		Well, at that point, early On, I think uh someone asked that I share with them.
		So it was that was that was on my end.
		Wow.
		But um did you ever see David Milstein like thinking about what's good for the United States or getting aggressive on behalf of what our interest might be as distinct from Israel's interests?
		I perceived a lot of his actions as very Israel first from my point of view, because that statement didn't make sense, those edits, the press lines didn't make sense.
		And in particular with Judah and Samaria, that not only would not make sense for how dangerous it is for what that means, because uh, as you discussed, uh there's no land barrier to that, but it hurts our relationships to the region.
		For example, we rely on Jordan on for so many things.
		But if we start calling it Judean Samaria, it that undermines our military relationship, our relationship dealing with refugees in Jordan.
		Well, so some of that land is in Jordan.
		Exactly.
		Right.
		So I mean, you can't I mean, if yeah, that would cause problems.
		And that's one example.
		Like the the whole region is a very important thing.
		So these are not this is diplomacy.
		This is the State Department of the United States of America, which is still a global superpower, even now.
		And so Jordan the Jordanian economy relies on USAID.
		Yep.
		We proffer that aid at the request of Israel because Jordan is filled with refugees in the 1948 war that created Israel and subsequent refugees, 67 and filled with refugees, including from Syria, a war that we fought on behalf of Israel.
		So we paid Jordan, we also pay Egypt to keep them calm.
		And now you're saying he wanted to issue a statement saying to Jordan, by the way, part of your territory and your what you thought was a sovereign nation actually doesn't belong to you.
		Yeah.
		And just so terrible.
		And so we can we can go back to that day three, because I cut that line.
		And by the way, this isn't a unilateral action by me.
		There are others who agree with me.
		So I'm not doing it with the backing of my own thoughts.
		Well, that's not a hard one.
		Judean Samaria, I mean, isn't there I mean, it's been a long time since I'm in the State Department, but I mean I always thought there was like a like there's a protocol to things, which in some cases is silly, but some cases is real.
		Like, do we refer to that region as Judea and Samaria or don't we?
		Like this is something that's been gone over before, correct?
		Yeah, no, we we don't.
		And we don't.
		We don't never have.
		Secretary Rubio did not use it.
		President Trump did not use it.
		Ambassador Huckabee has.
		Now that was that's different.
		Did anyone ever ask Ambassador Achabi what what land specifically are you referring to when you say that?
		Not from what I've seen.
		Because reporters are morons, that's why.
		But someone asked like an obvious question, like Judea and Samaria, where's that?
		Can you draw it for me on a map?
		Show me the boundaries of this place you're talking about.
		Well, even if they did ask, the lines wouldn't even answer the question directly, right?
		Because you would in person they should have asked him, yes, I agree.
		Yeah, what what what are you talking about?
		Where is that?
		Yeah.
		No one will ever ask that question.
		And Ambassador Huckabee always had extreme comments, either in person on the uh or on his Twitter account, but for most of my time at the State Department, the response would be, well, those are Bastard Huckabee's words.
		We'd do this dance.
		But now, now that I've especially after firing me, you're getting it in an unleashed embassy Jerusalem, because who's gonna uh do anything to stop them?
		Because they already had so much influence to begin with, but when I'm used as an example, they fire me as someone who did the very basic thing of cutting a line that did not make sense.
		It's also inconsistent with long-standing US policy.
		Right.
		And if you want to keep your job, who in the future is gonna want to I'm not here's where you're confusing me.
	Now I know that you say he's Mark Levin's stepson, but I mean nobody takes Mark Levin seriously, and no one watches his show, and like he's just not a real not a real person.
	He's like an angry old man on Twitter.
	Who cares who stepson he is?
	Like, why doesn't anyone say, hey, tell that Milstein kid to shut the fuck up?
	Like that's not hard.
	Why doesn't someone do that?
	Honestly, that was that was my question.
	I did not know why people would like people would acknowledge the pushiness, but that's all I really got at this time.
	No one ever told him to stop.
	It was difficult to say no to him on a lot of cases.
	So if people did say no, but it took a lot of effort.
	So from my vantage point, I'm wondering why would someone have so much influence and why are people almost tiptoeing around it, right?
	Sounds like they were.
	Right?
	And you would have to it take a like a group effort of, okay, this bureau and this bureau don't want to put this statement out.
	And then it would go away.
	But that was it.
	So is really a lot of this, you think, based on your experience was coming from this one guy.
	Correct.
	Now it was him, although you're right that he does have limitations over his title, right?
	He can't, an advisor to Bastard Huckabee can't fire me.
	But he does have particular people on the seventh floor.
	And what I mean by seventh floor is people around Secretary Rubio, that from my perspective, he uh looped in the neocons that were uh influential, and they have the power to do so.
	So he would rile them up on Israel or me or whatever issue there was, and they would come down.
	So my firing didn't come from Milstein.
	Of course.
	It came from uh Secretary Rubio staff.
	And these are like a couple of heritage foundation guys who want foreign policy.
	You can say, oh, President Trump, you know, he's gonna have heritage guys there.
	That's his uh his right as someone who won the election.
	But if you listen to President Trump on foreign policy, it doesn't make sense to have but if heritage guys around you.
	So you said that um Milstein, who is a nobody on the org chart, um, had sort of amazing power, including uh making personnel decisions effectively, because he would just go everyone's up over everyone's head along the chain, up to and including the seventh floor management level at the State Department and had influence with people on Secretary Rubio's staff.
	Do you know who?
	My understanding was that it was his deputy chief of staff that came down in in order to uh uh essentially fire me.
	Now I think that'd be Dan Holler, formerly of Heritage.
	Possible.
	Okay.
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Um so you'd heard that.
		I heard that.
		But it was pretty clear to you that it was David Milstein, this assistant to the US ambassador to a foreign country who um was basically line editing statements out of State Department HQ.
		Yeah, and what was another hint too was that um I had flagged for the uh spokesperson's staff the uh intention to add Judea Samaria, just the FYI, this happened, right?
		And the next day, which was Wednesday, um instead of uh like moving along, the staff asked uh actually the acting spokesperson asked to speak with David Milstein about the West Bank lines, but without me.
		And then the next day is when Thursday is when people started coming down on me.
		So the way I piece it together was that that conversation about West Bank lines and Milstein being aware that I cut the Judean Smaryl line led to the Thursday Friday crackdown from the Secretary of State.
		Just to be clear, again, putting Judea and Samaria in an official US government communication is like using the term Narnia or something.
		It's not a real place.
		Right.
		This is fantasy land.
		And it's beneath a great power to even have dumb conversations like this.
		It opens the door to instability, it opens door to uh hurting our relationship significantly with our partners.
		Uh it doesn't serve US interests to at all at all.
		Um did anyone else at the State Department share these views?
		Like that crosses uh just as someone from DC.
		I just like no, that that crosses like a bright, bright line.
		Yeah, look, there are uh folks who might be close to that worldview.
		Uh but from my personal interactions, um, Milstein was the farthest out there.
		Did uh I have to ask this, but but I just want to be clear.
		I don't think you should punish people for their relatives, so I'm not mad at David Milstein because his stepfather is a douche.
		I mean, that's certainly Not his fault at all.
		And neither is David Milstein Mark Levin's fault.
		So I just want to be clear about that.
		I don't believe in collective punishment, unlike some other countries, like Israel, which is big on collective punishment.
		I oppose it completely as a Christian.
		So I'm not engaging in it here.
		But did you ever see Mark Levin over there?
		Did he have any role in the State Department?
		I never came across anything.
		I think there's a lot happening above my head, regardless.
		Just even my firing, it's like Embassy Jerusalem was contacting this guy who's then trying to crack down on me, and then it's a mystery for a day or two why that's happening, and then it becomes clear.
		So those conversations are concerning.
		And it makes you question like if we're talking about the Saudi speech in May of President Trump, how do we go from that kind of statement to these kind of policies?
		And so that is my biggest question out of all of this is that why did this pivot happen and what does this mean for Israel policy moving forward?
		It's already extreme to begin with.
		Is it going to become even more radical?
		It already has.
		I mean, are there other people at State Department?
		So you know, you came in not as a former Trump staffer, but as someone who, as you've said, agreed with his basic impulse and foreign policy, which is like, hey, let's let's have more peace less war.
		There must have been other people there who were like full-blown America first people, I would think, would hope.
		Did any of them ever say to you, this isn't really America first?
		It's true.
		It's look, people were happy after Trump won when okay, we're doing good we're getting Trump too, but we don't have John Bolton and Michael Hay.
		Exactly.
		And Nikki Haley back again, right?
		The issue is a lot of the personnel problems are still there, but at a more it's like it's it's more subtle.
		Like an ambassador Huckabee to me is still part of that same grouping in terms of the damage it can do in our foreign policy, right?
		And uh Well, so give me an example of the damage you think Huckabee has done to American foreign policy since you paid close attention to his statements, and I and I really haven't.
		Well, that's a it's it's the lack of accountability for uh uh well having Milstein around adding Judy Samaria, yeah, right?
		Like these are your trusted senior advisors, right?
		And so there's that, there's the no follow-through on what happened in Taipei and in the West in the West Bank and what happened to the church in Gaza.
		It's our entire Israel policy.
		His he goes out there.
		There were tweets from several weeks ago where he was uh attacking the UK prime minister, ambassador was he he started uh calling the prime minister out for um questioning Israel's conduct in Gaza, and he can he said if you something along the lines of um if it wasn't for Dresden, you'd all be speaking German.
		So green lighting the slaughter of Palestinians, it's such a thing it's okay, which was horrific language.
		Endorsed Dresden?
		It's it's on Twitter.
		It was it was horrific.
		The bombing of Dresden?
		I the way, yeah, he was comparing he was comparing Dresden to what was happening in Gaza and saying I don't think there's anybody this it's hardly a pro-Hitler.
		I'm anti-Hitler for whatever it's worth, just to be clear.
		Uh it's it's hardly pro-Nazi to say that what the Allies did and the British really mostly at Dresden was a war crime.
		I mean, nobody, nobody would say otherwise.
	He endorsed Dread the Dresden bombing?
	Who gives an ambassador the green light to poke at a allies prime minister, the UK, a true ally?
	Um, and two um the like the the nonchalant attitude towards like the slaughter of people, both in Dresden or in comparing it to what's happening in Gaza, is it's that's not um so of course it's not the that's not the Christian view.
	You know, murdering innocence is always wrong, period.
	That is damn true.
	Who does it and foreign policy?
	I despise the UK and its prime minister, and I'm totally happy to urinate on both, but it should be from the perspective of what's good for the United States, not what's good for another country.
	Like, that's bonkers.
	That's really does anybody say anything about that, like internally?
	Is there any effort?
	All the time.
	You're like, oh, cringe people cringe at it when they see all those tweets.
	But well, so typically in an administration, um, you know, the ambassador serves the president as his diplom, You know, the chief diplomat in the country to which he's posted.
	And you know, there are a million examples all the time of the ambassador getting called back to Washington or getting a cable from DC.
	Whoa, that's not our policy.
	You know, pull it in line with what the president's view is because that's who you work for.
	Right.
	So if you and did anyone do that with Huckabee?
	Never.
	You have he's representing Secretary Rubio.
	Secretary Secretary Rubio was representing the president, and no one is stopping Ambassador Alcobi from going fully unleashed.
	And that's why my very basic edits and suggestions from the from that week was such a red flag because we had to get rid of me immediately.
	What that means is that if we're not stopping Ambassador Huckabee at that level, that becomes policy.
	Yes, yes.
	That's right.
	Right?
	So that's it.
	And if I'm going to be fired for lines of what were or should be, and I think are President Trump's views, then things are moving in a more radical direction, and they will.
	Yeah, I mean, I guess uh I am for moving in a bunch of different radical directions, like banning high interest loans.
	You know, I'm strongly for that.
	What I'm not in favor of is moving in radical directions on behalf of a foreign country whose interests are not the same as ours that are aligned on some things and diverge at other points, but they're not the same.
	Why would you want to be radical on behalf of another country?
	Right.
	It makes no sense.
	Well, it's unpatriotic.
unidentified		Yes.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		It's totally wrong.
		And it's America last.
		It's also a form of treachery, I think, subverting our foreign power policy on behalf of another country that I I wasn't not a citizen of that country.
		What do you?
		That's my tax dollars.
		What are you doing?
		Right?
unidentified		Right.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And we did all of this.
		We're burning diplomatic capital left and right.
		Australia, the UK, Canada, uh with all these U.S. allies considering recognizing the Palestinian state.
		And we're going out there attacking them one by one, um, on behalf of Israel.
		Those are our partners.
		Is it worth but we're also not, I mean, they've all those countries have basically eliminated human rights in their own countries, eliminated freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, they've got political prisoners.
		It's it's crazy what those countries are doing to their own citizens.
		We don't say a word.
		But if they criticize a foreign another country, then we attack them.
		Yeah, we have a m uh other issues we could discuss with them, but instead we choose to make Israel this odd red line.
		And it it takes a lot of diplomatic capital to attack your allies.
		We need them for so many things.
		Uh it doesn't matter if it's if it's trade or war or some resolution of the UN.
		This is terrific.
		So I just I want to ask you a couple of just policy questions.
		I mean, and just if you don't mind sure, because they're speculative, but I I just want to draw on information that you gleaned in your job at the State Department.
		What is is as non-emotional and clinical as you can be?
		What is the plan here with Gaza and the West Bank?
		What do you think?
		I keep wondering, like, okay, you know, every day it's uh no, we killed them, but we it was a mistake, or we thought they were Hamas.
		Okay, got it.
		But like what is the plan?
		Are they really gonna move two million people out of Gaza?
		Do you think that's actually gonna happen?
		That's this is what I'm afraid about.
		Um I from the on the West Bank, I think we were setting up uh uh annexation, and I think the news from the past couple days shows that that's true.
		What is annexation mean?
		There's going to be an Israeli takeover of the West Bank and basically area C is was supposed to be where the Palestinians had full control.
		The Israelis want to take over that and call the entire West Bank um and call it is say it's part of Israel, and then do they are the Palestinians who live there get voting rights?
		These are all questions that they have not answered, and I don't believe anyone wants to answer.
		Why?
		It's such an obvious question.
		I know.
		What's your plan?
		Why do why does no one ask that question?
		People even ask even even the IDF in some occasion in some occasions asked, like, hey, this is a military takeover.
		What are we gonna do?
		Like, and the ministers don't care.
		For whatever it's worth, it's not my country, and I'm not that interested, but I just notice that the IDF for all the grief that it takes, it's actually been a voice of restraint in Gaza and the West Bank, at least publicly.
		They're like, wait a second, you're asking us.
		They flag going into Gaza City.
		They're like, hey, this is gonna be exactly the same thing.
		They're just a military with a bunch of reservists.
		You know, some professionals, but lots of reservists, and like every military, they kind of want to know why they're putting their lives at risk.
		That's at least that's my read on it.
		Yeah.
		It's it's it's true.
		And that's a whole another discussion, but I am worried about the like political and direction of Israel.
		It's going to be more and more extreme, and the those uh uh guardrails are are gone.
		But they're taking over the West Bank.
		We don't know what that looks like, and it's extremely dangerous.
		And it's but what um what's the pretext?
		Because like the w residents of the West Bank had nothing to do with the attacks on Southern Israel, right?
		But it it opens the door because you're so focused on on Gaza and and this is But is there justification for it?
		Is it like they don't have any hostages in the West Bank, do they?
		No.
		No, there is no justification.
		It's what's awful is that instead of focusing on securing the release of the hostages or uh just securing their own country, they've used this entire uh war, it's nearly two years now to uh pursue opportunities.
		We're gonna bomb Beirut and kill all these civilians.
		We're gonna um bomb Syria, call up kill the civilians on too many occasions there.
		Uh the bombing raids on Yemen, uh start a potential war with Iran that if President Trump hadn't ended it could have gotten to a spiraled.
		Uh and so it's very dangerous that we're letting Israel take the front seat of of our US foreign policy when we have the power to end these wars.
		Well, we're paying for them.
		We're paying for them.
	And we paid for the you know, the Israeli strikes on Iran.
	And um I and I've said this to you know, anyone who will listen, I think this will end the Republican Party.
	I don't think they're gonna get elected anything anytime soon after this if they don't pull back and establish independence from this Israel or any other foreign power.
	It's not about Israel, it's about any letting any other foreign country run your country.
	That's you can't have that.
	Everyone hates it.
	It's super unpopular, and it's very obvious.
	And if you want more Republicans in office, you can't act like this.
	Like I think they're blowing up the party over this.
	That's my feeling.
	I'm saying this with love.
	I'm a re unlike you, I'm I've been a pretty I don't vote that much, but when I vote, it's Republican, you know?
	It's true.
	They voted for America first.
	I wouldn't vote for this.
	No way.
	Absolutely.
	And think about the there's a we're on one end, it's the America first aspect that's very disappointing because this is America last in every possible way.
	And on the on the endless war front, every campaign, every winning presidential uh candidate said we're not gonna get we're trying to try to avoid these wars, and they don't follow through.
	And yet we're now funding this this disaster um in Gaza.
	But do you think that those so they're I mean, estimates fair?
	We don't know how many people have been killed in Gaza because no one's allowed to find out.
	It's like yeah, the 60k is definitely what's before.
	In Gaza.
	I I've read other uh folks who've like give their estimates, and it's always uh 100,000 up to 200,000, even more.
	So it the numbers that I've seen on on the the estimate scale of are are perfect.
	Do our intel agencies have good estimates on this?
	I would imagine.
	But those haven't per collective.
	I would imagine to the State Department at your level anyway.
	Yeah, for no, absolutely not.
	And and I wish we could we could be discussing this.
	And I'm also horrified, not just from the just the sheer numbers of killed, it's the lingering psychological effect of these of these poor civilians, like children who've lost limbs, children who lost parents who the damage is gonna be decades and decades long.
	For sure.
	And uh and there will be radicalism, you know, and probably including violence.
	And I I just pray it's not directed against the United States, but I fear that it will be.
	Um but that leaves what, two million people still in Gaza, Palestinians, mostly Muslim, but also Christians.
	What happens to them?
	I just keep wondering what happens to them.
	They're uh the policy, the the comments, The policies have always shown a certain disdain.
	Like, oh, we'll pay them off for them to move out.
	We um they're not actually starving.
	It's all these they're not only are they getting bombed and and uh and lose their homes and their fame members, they're being like thrown around like this this annoyance.
	Um and it's it's horrible.
	But just based on the reporting, it looks like we are trying to push them out to a different country.
	Um every two months there's a new rumor.
	Seems like we're talking to this other countries um in Africa.
	Maybe the US government is well, though the depends on each uh specific uh case.
	There was been reporting that Israel's trying to do this on their own, and if we're involved, and there's also been uh uh some reporting on whether our own uh government officials have spoken with like the Libyan government as well.
	So do you think it's possible that US government officials have talked to foreign governments about accepting the population of Gaza as refugees?
	You think that's possible?
	Yes.
	Do you think it's that happened?
unidentified		I I it's probable.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		That's disgusting.
		I mean, that's just like shocking to me.
		I don't want to believe that could be true.
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		And why are we doing that?
		What do we have to do with this?
		Right.
		And it's always about our diplomatic power.
		Like it Israel's diplomatic powers limited, but who can get these objectives done?
		We can.
		So that's why in our last act as a superpower.
unidentified		Yeah.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		That's why these officials from MC Jerusalem are uh are dangerous because they're they're that connections being made.
		Right on.
		Like you committed trial.
		Well, first of all, Mike Huckabee endorsing Dresden.
		You know, I just refer you to the New Testament.
		That is not that is not permitted for Christians to be in favor of that.
		Just it's just not even close.
		So I don't know what I know Huckabee, I've always liked him.
		I don't know what in the world, if he actually said that, I don't know what he was thinking.
		I'm gonna look it up the second we get off this interview.
		Um, but that's really shocking to me that he would say something like that.
		But in general, there's been a coarsening, I think, of people watching this stuff, celebrating pager attacks and people getting their dicks blown off.
		Stuff I mean, like why would we celebrate that?
		Yeah.
		But Ben Shapiro was on there jumping up and down with Glee when that happened.
		So it's it's uh it's uh an indictment of like uh our soul.
		Why are why did we lose this ability to empathize with other people?
		If you think it's thrilling that a country would indiscriminately detonate explosives in people's pockets where they don't know who's holding those things, actually.
		They don't know who's standing next to them.
		If you think that's great, you know, um children died.
		Oh, I know.
		Uh you know, anyway, I I've I'm really sickened by it and I'm infuriated by the requirement to celebrate it.
		Right.
		No.
		Why are we in the in this in this era of like celebrating these violent attacks and celebrating a new weapon that comes out?
		But each time there's a diplomatic endeavor to end a war, it's so controversial and so heavy, and people um it's sold to people in such a negative way.
		So that that dichotomy is is is a true problem where as empires die, people go crazy.
		This is one of the things that's pretty consistent through history.
		They lose their sense of reality and they become violent violence worshippers.
		And I just hate to see it happening to this country that I love so much and that I'm never leaving, but like this is really dark.
		Yeah, so dark.
		It is dark.
		So what um so you don't know bottom line, what the plan is for the population of Gaza or the West Bank.
		Yeah, I do know they cut my line on forced displacement, and now there's new reporting on them moving them out of Gaza, so it's not headed into the right direction.
		So America is for forced displacement.
		I think this country was found out by people who bonkers.
		Okay, last question.
		What was your firing like?
		Um Did they explain to you why you were being let go?
		Never explained anything to me.
		Um I and technically I heard the NEA, my bureau, nearest in affairs, technically never heard either.
		So really came from up top.
		So very odd.
		Um I they did ask me about that line.
		That's the only hint that we have.
		Um look, the State Department with all the issues that it has, as does have amazing patriotic patriotic Americans working there every day.
		I work with them.
		Um they're they're trying their best, they're they're doing their work, they're smart.
		And I I I miss working with them.
		I do uh uh I was someone that was well well established in the building with political appointees and civil servants, and and it they just pull the rug out of from under me out of the blue over what I explained to you earlier, which was pretty basic stuff.
		And uh on the Sunday, I believe it was August 17th, lost access, and then I got a text um from my contractor letting me know.
		Did you call have you called David Milstein to ask what happened?
		I have not.
		I have not.
unidentified		Um maybe we should call him after this.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Could it look this whole situation was so unexpected.
		Like I was just living my life, uh going to work every single day, they're five days a week.
		I was doing a lot of overtime.
		Uh I drafted tweets that Secretary Rubio put out, including I was up at 11 p.m., 12 a.m. uh when the horrific killing of those two Israeli diplomats.
		I was the one who was up in the middle of the night drafting a tweet for that to come out.
		The ones who are murdered in the US.
unidentified		Correct.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Awful.
		And so I was there for all these these moments and working alongside people with different political backgrounds, and uh to know that these folks just without discussing with me, without getting to know me, without talking to me, uh, saw those lines and they were like gone.
		Um and uh uh it's it's it's awful.
		And just in the in the office itself, it just puts this chilling effect for everybody, you know.
		So I I will I will miss those colleagues, but they're good people and they're gonna I mean the interest of the United States should be the beginning and the end of the concern of the State Department.
		Yep.
		Period.
		Absolutely.
		So I appreciate your taking the time to do this.
		Thank you for talking to me.
unidentified		Thank you.
tucker carlson ▲ ● ▼		So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
		On one level, that's not surprising, that's what they do, but on another level, it's shocking with everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now.
		Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
		And that is totally wrong.
		It's immoral.
		What can you do about it?
		Well, we could whine about it.
		That's a waste of time.
		We're not in charge of Google, or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
		The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
		Subscribe.
		Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
		That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.

▲