Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 23, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:05:38

U.S. FAILED To Destroy Iran's Uranium, Russia Warns Iran WILL GET NUKES, WW3

Participants

Main voices

thomas massie

22:54

tim pool

39:35

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		As I'm sure all of you are aware, over the weekend the U.S. engaged in a bombing campaign, Operation Midnight Hammer, on Iran, targeting three facilities, notably Fordo, where six bunker busters were dropped, and the U.S. says it was substantial damage.
		Not necessarily obliterated, but effectively obliterated.
		Israel has maintained airstrikes against Iran military targets, targeting the IRGC, and access paths to the Fordo facility.
		As of right now, there's breaking news as of the recording of this video.
		Qatar has shut down its airspace, and the U.S. has warned U.S. citizens in Qatar to shelter in place.
		There's fear that Iran will begin to mine the Strait of Hormuz to prevent trade, which is one-fifth of the world's oil shipments.
		And that'll be massive.
		Russia is now saying other nations are rushing to supply Iran with active nuclear weapons following this attack by the United States.
		And the U.S. is conceding, at least publicly, they don't know what Iran has done with nearly 400 kilograms of uranium.
		Now, some speculate this is subterfuge, this is obfuscation on the part of the United States.
		The whole time this operation has been planned, as much as y'all may disagree or agree, whatever your stance may be on the strike, Trump's operational security was impeccable.
		The pundit class, the commentators, the news, the experts were all convinced that this was not yet to come.
		And then sure enough, it did when everyone least expected it.
		In fact, the U.S. dispatched B-2 bomber decoys over the Pacific, and no one saw this coming.
		In fact, it's reported that even Vance and Hegseth were opposed to the strike, but Trump was adamant.
		How this information didn't leak, I don't know, considering as porous as this and the previous administration has been, it actually is impressive OPSEC, despite the fact that many people are torn on this, and it seems like we are escalating towards a dangerous future.
		Now, there's a lot to break down, and questions of whether or not this will actually escalate into World War III.
		With Russia warning, not only will Iran get the nukes, but there will be World War III from this.
		Okay, Russia.
		Russia's been warning of World War III for like two years now.
		So they keep saying this is it, this is it, this will cause World War III.
		Let me fair, okay, maybe this is where things ramp up.
		There's rumors that Iran is now meeting with Pakistan.
		Pakistan has publicly condemned Donald Trump after just nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.
		And Russia and China are said to be gearing up to get involved.
		I'm not entirely convinced, but it does look like the dominoes are starting to fall over.
		Now, the scenario people are hoping for is that this is much like the strike on Solemania, and that with the U.S.'s actions in Iran, there is no further escalation.
		Israel says they're going to end their war with Iran in a matter of days.
		Iran may even just run out of ballistic missiles and choose not to escalate.
		Some have stated, some experts, giving their opinion that there will not be World War III because people are sane and don't want to die.
		They just want to be fat and happy.
		And the retaliation against this strike would only lead to Russia, China, or India, or any other country that may find themselves involved just losing money.
		And the people in power, they like their Infinity pools, man.
		Do they really want to give up all of that?
		We are no longer necessarily in the era of ideology.
		There's only a few holdouts on the global stage.
		Most of these countries are driven by power, and it's not so much a moral worldview as it is a personal worldview.
		So it's hard to know exactly what will happen.
		Before we get started with the news, though, my friends, we got a great sponsor.
		It is cousintees.com.
		You guys know Terrence K. Williams, Cousin Tees, man.
		Use promo code TimPoool at Cousin Tees, and you're going to get 25% off.
		Let me tell you, my friends, Cousin Tees, he's got the best pancakes.
		It's Wild Times.
		The woke mob came to get rid of pancake syrup and pancake mix.
		So Terrence Williams said he'll step in.
		He'll fill that gap.
		So he started making Cousin Tees, pancake and waffle mix with all the different syrups.
		He's got a ton of great stuff on his website.
		I'm going to tell you guys, I have cousin teas every day.
		Every day.
		Well, I didn't have it today, to be fair.
		I'm trying to be honest.
		But we actually have a ton of cousin teas.
		I just ordered a bunch more syrups from Cousin Tea.
		And we've got like four or five different versions of his pancake mix.
		He's got some that are gluten-free, some that are protein, some that I do the gluten-free ones.
		And then he's got some that are dairy-free because I got buttermilk in them.
		And we use Cousin Tees Pure Maple Syrup, not to mention he's got a bunch of other syrups.
		So let me just shout out Terrence.
		Not only are you a funny guy and a great commentator, but you make a great pancake.
		And I'm a big fan.
		So I appreciate you sponsoring the morning show.
		Go to cousin TS.com, Cousin Tees, and use promo code TimPool.
	Support the work that he's doing and enjoy some pancakes.
	Don't forget to also go to TimCast.com and click join us to become a member and support our work directly.
	As a member of the TimCast Discord, you'll be hanging out with tens of thousands of like-minded individuals.
	They're all sharing ideas.
	They are building something and there is a community.
	They have launched their own podcasts.
	There's pre-shows, after-shows.
	It is a network.
	Maybe you're somebody who wants to get started in the comic book industry.
	You might find someone in the Discord who says, actually, I used to work there.
	Let me give you some pointers.
	Maybe you worked in an industry and you want to be that point of contact for someone younger who's trying to step up.
	This is what networking is all about.
	So the more people we get in this network, the more people with various connections.
	It's not about being the most powerful.
	It's not about being the wealthiest.
	It might be as simple as, I work for a construction company.
	Someone comes in and says, man, I just can't figure out how to get this concrete done in this building I want made and I don't know where to start.
	Someone's going to be like, yo, I used to do this.
	Here's the path.
	Not only have we seen successes like that, some people have even gotten married.
	No joke.
	The point is community is how the founding fathers built a nation.
	They were meeting in bars and pubs and they were sharing these ideas.
	So we want to bring that community to you.
	Go to TimCast.com, click join us.
	And also shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club.
	You guys rock.
	Really do appreciate Steven Crowder.
	Funniest show on the internet, biggest live stream in the country.
	And it is an honor and a privilege for the raid Stephen Crowder sends my way.
	Welcome to the Rumble Morning lineup.
	Of course, I am entering the afternoon for all of you.
	I am your host, Tim Poole.
	Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
	Smash that like button.
	Share the show right now on all your social media platforms.
	Turn up the knob and rip it off.
	Let's read the news here.
	From the New York Times, officials can see they don't know the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile.
	Both Vice President J.D. Vance and Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, acknowledged questions about the whereabouts of Iran's stockpile of near-bomb-grade nuclear material.
	We have this story from the Telegraph.
	Fears over Iran's missing 400 kilograms of uranium.
	Now, many people are pointing out, hey, wait a minute.
	We got a picture of all these trucks, right?
	Which truck carried the uranium?
	Was it one, two, three, four, five?
	Was it all of them?
	Some have stated, well, can't we track where these trucks go?
	Indeed.
	It's a good assessment.
	The issue is there's multiple trucks.
	You don't know what they're being loaded with, and they could be decoys.
	They are not there on the ground.
	Just because a truck is there does not mean that truck is carrying the uranium.
	So there could potentially be, let's just do some quick math here.
	How many trucks we got?
	We got three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 trucks, maybe.
	It's kind of hard, a little grainy, but it looks like about 16. You don't know which ones have trucks.
	These trucks could go to facilities and 16 more trucks could come out of each of those facilities and those trucks get spread around.
	What happens?
	Sure, the U.S. can say, we've tracked all the trucks, but now we're dealing with 16 by 16. And then, how many more?
	How many more locations are they not going to be able to track?
	Therein lies the big challenge.
	They say Iran claims to have smuggled almost all the country's highly enriched uranium to a secret location before the U.S. launched strikes on its nuclear bases.
	Three of Tehran's most critical enrichment facilities, including its underground facility at Forda, were pummeled by B-2 stealth bombers and a barrage of submarine-launched missiles early on Sunday.
	Submarine-launched missiles.
	That's crazy.
	That's crazy.
	Those are long-range missiles.
	Very, very nuts.
	Now, the one thing I do want to say, I am not for this.
	I know it's a rock and a hard place, and it's easy to sit in my air-conditioned building in the middle of West Virginia with no stake in the game.
	Well, minimal, to be honest.
	It's easy to just be like, why are we doing this?
	Without really knowing.
	But my point is, I do not feel that the U.S. has justified these strikes to the American people, the threat, the risk, et cetera.
	I don't think they did a good job.
	That being said, to those pilots and the crew on this mission, it's amazing.
	37-hour round-trip flight in these bombers with nothing but a small chemical toilet, probably eating some MREs.
	Very impressive strike.
	As much as I don't like the U.S. involvement, the U.S. military is the Air Force and all those involved terrifyingly effective and impressive.
	They go on to say Officials believe that most of the material at Fordo and Iran's other facilities had been moved elsewhere.
	Iran has vowed to continue enriching uranium in defiance of Trump raising further concerns over its nuclear program.
	We have this breaking news.
	Qatar has shut down its airspace temporarily to ensure the safety of visitors and residents, the Qatari foreign minister says.
	And we have, I'm sorry, this is not the one I was looking for.
	Here we go.
	We have this from Fox News.
	Americans in Qatar told to shelter in place as Iranian military threatens action against U.S. interests.
	It's the escalation that we are deeply concerned about.
	Now, the U.S. engaged in these strikes and they may have shut down Iran's ability to enrich the uranium, but if they already have 400 kilograms, then nothing's been averted.
	Especially considering the other report, Russia is claiming, a former Russian president, I believe it is, said that production of nuclear weapons in Iran will continue and other countries, multiple nations, are stepping in to provide Iran with nukes.
	I don't believe this has actually solved any of the problem.
	Now, again, for those that watch the morning segment, there's a chain of events people are fearing right now.
	Iran is threatening to shutter the Strait of Hormuz.
	One-fifth of oil trade moves through this strait into the Persian Gulf.
	They may place mines, sea mines, so that ships will explode.
	Tankers are already turning around, refusing to enter.
	They don't want to get trapped in the Persian Gulf if Iran does make this move.
	That's a massive asset to lose access to.
	The U.S. is reportedly keeping an eye on this with Donald Trump saying, do not retaliate.
	Now, the fear, of course, is that the U.S. will move in and engage the Strait of Hormuz to try and keep it open, resulting in Iran striking U.S. assets and personnel, and then the U.S. seeking to secure the ground operations in Iran with boots on the ground.
	Now, maybe they don't go that far.
	Trump may be unable to make such a move.
	That's a massive play that I'm not sure the U.S. is the capability of handling right now, especially with the war in Ukraine.
	Iran may be counting on that.
	So this may just be a game of chicken.
	And let me just say to all of you, you will not win a game of chicken with Donald Trump.
	Iran may be thinking Trump wouldn't be so bold as to send U.S. personnel into the country.
	That gives them the opportunity to strike at the Strait of Hormuz and actually disrupt global trade.
	They can certainly launch missiles and rockets at U.S. targets in the Middle East.
	But the Strait of Hormuz is their strongest play right now as it puts pressure on several other nations.
	Now, if it were anyone other than Donald Trump, if it was Joe Biden, Iran, I think, might do it.
	But I think Iran may be aware that you cannot win a game of chicken with Donald Trump.
	It's just not going to happen.
	Trump is not going to let them shutter the Strait of Hormuz.
	But if Iran is so bold, I think we could actually see boots on the ground.
	Maybe not immediately.
	This is not the same thing as Iraq and Afghanistan.
	The issue with Iraq and Afghanistan was that with Afghanistan, we were trying to set up military bases, regime change, and nation building, because the Taliban was a wild group of people.
	Iraq, they wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein personally, which meant you needed people to do it.
	With Iran, Trump has now floated regime change, but not from U.S. forces.
	He's basically saying the people of Iran should do it and we shouldn't be involved.
	Fox News reports the U.S. Embassy and Qatar told Americans to shelter in place until further notice Monday morning.
	The embassy said it made the recommendation out of abundance of caution, but provided no other details.
	Qatar is home to the Aludaid, probably pronouncing the wrong airbase, where approximately 10,000 U.S. soldiers are deployed.
	The advisory came after the State Department issued a warning to American citizens on Sunday, quote, there is the potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad.
	The Department of State advises U.S. citizens worldwide to exercise increased caution.
	Now, Pakistan may be getting involved.
	There are rumors that Iran has met with Pakistan.
	Pakistan, according to Euro News reports, Pakistan condemns Trump's bombing of Iran after backing him for Nobel Peace Prize.
unidentified		Just these headlines.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's basically the story.
		Islamabad on Sunday criticized Washington for attacking Iran, saying that the strikes constituted a serious violation of international law and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
		Quote, the unprecedented escalation of tension and violence owing to ongoing aggression against Iran is deeply disturbing.
		Any further escalation of tensions will have severely damaging implications for the region and beyond, Pakistan's foreign ministry said.
		And of course, as I mentioned, Russia is warning multiple nations will now provide nuclear weapons to Iran.
		Now, I'll tell you why I'm pissed.
		I am both simultaneously impressed and pissed off.
		The operational security of the Trump administration was perfect.
		They had everybody convinced.
		We were all convinced.
		Even Tucker Carlson said Trump was negotiating in good faith.
		And now we know that the whole time they had been preparing B-2 bombers to drop bunker busters on Fordo, as well as Nanance and Isfara.
		They did not plan this overnight.
		So we were all told, we were all convinced.
		But it seems like the negotiations had ended a while ago.
		Trump did give them 60 days, and when it didn't pull through, seems like Trump made that decision.
		You know, I'm split on this one.
		Let me just say this.
		I am largely against the U.S. intervention in the region, despite fully understanding the real risk with Iranian-enriched uranium is not a nuclear missile launching in the air and landing on Israel.
		That is a risk.
		I think it's very low.
		I am not at all concerned about that.
		I think there's means of stopping these nukes in midair.
		You've got interceptors, getting an ICBM through the air.
		In fact, this would be a mid-range nuclear warhead.
		Not likely.
		But fissile material falling into the hands of say Houthi rebels who can then cause serious damage.
		That I think is a reality.
		And now here's why, again, I've been opposed to This intervention.
		Right now, they're reporting they don't know where that fissile material is, 400 kilograms.
		It may now find its way into the hands of these crackpot groups.
		There's reports now that the Ayatollah may be removed.
		That could be good or bad.
		Perhaps it's a good thing.
		They say the risk here is that fissile material will spread out to random insurgent and extremist groups, and there's no unifying authority to negotiate with.
		Right now, you have the Ayatollah, and you can say, do what we want, and you will get something in return.
		These negotiations failed.
		A strike now means the Ayatollah may say, have fun.
		We're not going down.
		If they try to remove him, he may take it personally and just say, burn it all.
		These rebel groups, there's no one to negotiate with.
		You go one by one, that's going to be very difficult.
		Now, many people are asking the question, why Iran was so adamant about its nukes?
		Ladies and gentlemen, as I mentioned with the credibility of this White House and Donald Trump's insistence on claiming there were negotiations underway while planning this bombing campaign, understand, as much as you may like or not like this attack, the word of Donald Trump and the U.S. government is mud at this point.
		Now, I think Donald Trump can speak to the American people on domestic issues, and we can largely trust he will do what he means to do.
		And he largely follows.
		He says what he's going to do.
		He just says it.
		He shows the executive order he's signing.
		We get that.
		But in terms of foreign negotiations, there is no incentive at any point now for foreign governments to trust what is being said to you by the U.S., except for trust that the U.S. will bomb the crap out of you.
		And I think that's why Trump did it.
		That is to say, I am not saying this to impugn the honor or integrity of Donald Trump.
		I trust him.
		I voted for him.
		This is not what I want to see happen, but I'm not going to scream for him, peach or anything crazy.
		I'm going to say, just get the job done, do it right, do it best.
		Let's de-escalate.
		We don't want this to get worse.
		And it may be too late.
		But Donald Trump, I believe, took this action because he will not be seen internationally as a man afraid to act.
		When he says we negotiate and you say no, he says, okay, okay, we'll negotiate.
		And then he bombs you intentionally.
		Many people have said, no one's going to believe the U.S. now in any of these negotiations.
	I think Trump did that on purpose.
	He wants them to feel that even in their best case scenario, the bombs are only hours away.
	Now, there's risk there.
	Again, these threats may make people think twice.
	Spineless leaders don't want war.
	And if they think it ain't coming, they'll do whatever they want.
	Trump, he'll tell you he'll negotiate and it'll bomb you anyway.
	So back off.
	When Trump says don't, you don't.
	The disarmament of Libya.
	In 2003, Libyan leader Mumar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program.
	Mohamed El-Baradeh, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Libya's nuclear program was in the very initial stages of development at the time.
	As of 2013, over 800 tons of chemical weapon ingredients remain to be destroyed.
	This is why Iran said they would, why they intended to make the move they did.
	Because Libya said they would give up nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
	And then NATO launched air raids over there, no-fly zone in air raids.
	The country then collapsed with the assistance of NATO, and Gaddafi was dragged through the street and killed.
	And Hillary Clinton bragged about it, stating, we came, we saw, he died.
	What do you think Iran said when their National Security Council convened after the fall of Libya?
	I guarantee you, and this is not my speculation.
	This is the speculation of experts in the region.
	They said, Iran came together and said, there is no deal to be had.
	If you agree to give up your weapons, the U.S. will murder you.
	So Iran's intent was never to stop that program.
	Donald Trump is not Obama.
	Donald Trump is not Bill Clinton.
	Donald Trump is not George W. Bush.
	So when Trump said, do it or else, we won't let you do it, Iran likely said, we've seen what the U.S. does, even when you give up their weapons.
	So they refused.
	So Trump said, then you get the bunker busters.
	Now, Russia is also warning of World War III.
	World War III is near after Putin, now Russian foreign minister, warns about complete global chaos.
	Okay, well, to be honest, if Russia didn't warn of World War III at least once a week, I'd be worried.
	I'd say, hey, what's going on, guys?
	You're off schedule.
	So their word doesn't mean all that much when they keep saying this, but there is a fear of World War III indeed, because the escalation is entirely likely, and it seems to be already happening.
	Iran is still firing missiles at Israel.
	Israel is still launching attacks on Iran.
	The war has not stopped.
	The question is, will anyone come to the assistance of Iran?
	I find it hard to believe.
	Not directly, not immediately.
	From NBC News, J.D. Vance says, the U.S. is, quote, not at war with Iran.
	We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.
	Come on, dude.
	Spare me, okay?
	By all means, I understand that J.D. Vance was opposed to the strike.
	He ain't playing any stupid games, okay?
	Maybe there's a legal issue here, but let me just tell you.
	You drop bunker busters on a foreign country, launch missiles from submarines as tomahawk missiles, and I got to tell you, you're at war.
	Iran has a say in this.
	The enemy has a say.
	And Iran says they're at war with the United States, and the U.S. will regret it.
	They've threatened to kill, on their state media at least, 50,000 U.S. troops, send them home in coffins.
	That's more than there are troops in the region, but, you know, okay.
	What's the implication?
	Intervention?
	I do think it's a bit silly to claim we're not at war with Iran.
	Trump floats Iran regime change, even as the true impact Of U.S. strikes is far from clear.
	They say, flush with the spoils of battle, he already seems to be toying with the idea of regime change.
	But the reality of whether Trump truly destroyed Iran's nuclear ambitions and the consequence of his aggression are far more ambiguous.
	Round-the-world raids by B-tooth stealth bombers out of Missouri using never-before-deployed bunker-busting bombs demonstrated the unique reach of the U.S. military and its continued potency despite Trump administration chaos at the Pentagon.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Now, Donald Trump floated regime change, but he didn't directly call for it.
	And I think that's why CNN isn't telling you what he actually said.
	Trump's, let me pull up the actual post from Trump.
	He says, it's not politically correct to say regime change, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change mega?
	Make Iran great again.
	Perhaps.
	From the Daily Mail.
	Iranian officials plan to remove Ayatollah as supreme leader as cowring Khameni begs Putin for help and cuts off contact with him from within his secret bunker due to fears he will be assassinated.
	It's fog of war, propaganda, manipulation, all these things are true.
	Do the Iranian people support the Ayatollah or not?
	Well, we don't know.
	We only know the intel that we get, what the reporters say, and it may or may not be true.
	You choose who to trust.
	We had a debate on Friday over whether we should intervene.
	A day later, we intervened.
	I was told by the pro-intervention debate individual, the people of Iran are cheering the Israeli strikes on their nation.
	There are people who have actually claimed that.
	There has been an attempt at a talking point that people in Iran are celebrating Israel's bombing of their nation.
	They support Israel.
	I'm sorry, but that's an absurdity.
	But of course, that's fog of war.
	That's propaganda.
	We will be greeted as liberators, they said when we invaded Iraq.
	No, we won't.
	What country wants to be bombed by a foreign nation?
	Police stations, military assets, you may not like your government, but I don't want my soldiers getting blown up.
	We see this all the time.
	During the Bush administration, even me, many people were like, we don't like the war.
	We don't like Bush, but we support the troops.
	The troops aren't the ones that voted for this.
	Many of them were, don't get me wrong, but they're following orders and they're engaging in what we viewed as what I would say, we were misled into that war, but it wasn't like the soldiers were staging genocide or anything like that.
	There were certainly bad things that had happened and many people went to jail and, you know, not the people who lied to us, but anyway.
	What we are being told now is that we are to be greeted as liberators as we bomb Iran.
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We supported our troops, okay?
		I assure you, the people of Iran do not like that their roads are being bombed, that foreign nations can just launch strikes on their country on a whim, that their military is being attacked.
		You can change the regime.
		You can change the government.
		Now, there may be a plan.
		This may be true.
		I don't know.
		But it makes sense.
		The Ayatollah may be hard-headed saying, we're not backing down.
		And the political interest of the nation may say, we just want food and shelter.
		We don't want war.
		So they'd rather see a negotiated surrender than death.
		The question is, what does the Ayatollah think is going to happen?
		Will he survive this if he surrenders?
		Probably not.
		If he says, we give up, we give up, then he, from within, he's done.
		And if he doesn't, that's the political turmoil.
		He may be facing his end no matter what.
		And the speculation is as such.
		But now there are fears that Iran will retaliate.
		Qatar has closed its airspace.
		The Pentagon has warned of potential cyber attacks.
		They're warning Americans to get ready for phishing attacks and other attempts to break into industrial control systems.
		Shut down the grid.
		The threat is real.
		Iran can attack in ways that we won't even know it's them if they use a cyber war and proxies.
		So I warn you all, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
		And we hope this doesn't escalate.
		There's a lot more to break down politically, but we're going to go to our interview.
		We have Thomas Massey on the line who will be talking to us about his view on things.
		Trump just came out, a massive post slamming Massey.
		So we'll be talking with him.
		That'll be up at 4 p.m.
		at rumble.com slash TimPool, as well as youtube.com slash Timcast.
		Don't miss it.
		Don't forget to smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know, and stay tuned.
		More to come, and we'll see you all then.
		For everybody else, we're going to keep the show going live as we do.
		And we'll start with this story.
		From Axios, AOC floats Trump impeachment over Iran's strikes, saying in a shocking declaration, one of the most high-profile progressives, they say considerable inter-party scorn has been heaped on reps Shree Tenadar and Al Green for floating impeachment.
		Drive in the news, quote, the president's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and congressional war powers.
		He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations.
		It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment more soon.
		Now, surprisingly, liberals are stunned to find that they agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene.
		And of course, Donald Trump has called out Thomas Massey in a long-worded post on Truth Social.
		And I'll try and read this one quickly so we can get the reaction from Rhett Massey himself.
		He says, Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is.
		Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him.
		He's a negative force who almost always votes no, no matter how good something may be.
		He's a simple-minded grandstander who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level of nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling death to America at every chance they get.
		Iran has killed And maimed thousands of Americans and even took over the American embassy in Tehran under the Carter administration.
		With a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the bomb right out from their hands.
		And they would use it if they could.
		But as usual, and despite all the praise and accolades received, this lightweight congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran.
		Massey is weak, ineffective, and votes no on virtually everything put before him.
		Rand Paul Jr.
		No matter how good something may be, he is disrespectful to our great military and all that they stand for, not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday's attack, which was a total and complete win.
		Massey should drop his fake act and start putting America first, but he doesn't know how to get there.
		He doesn't have a clue.
		He'll undoubtedly vote against the great big beautiful bill, even though non-passage means a 68% tax increase for everybody and many things far worse than that.
		MAGA should drop this pathetic loser, Tom Massey, like the plague.
		The good news is that we will have a wonderful American patriot running against them in the Republican primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.
		MAGA is not about lazy, grand-standing, non-productive politicians, of which Thomas Massey is definitely one.
		Thank you to our incredible military for the amazing job they did last night.
	It was really special.
	Make America great again.
	Well, to address this directly, we are going to be joined by Rhett Massey himself.
	And I think his perspective on this is particularly important right now.
	So let's pull up this.
	We're loading the interview.
	Here we are.
	We have Rhett.
unidentified		We'll go with that.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Rhett Massey, can you hear me?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		I can hear you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How are you doing?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		I'm hanging in here like a hare and a biscuit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like a hare and a biscuit.
		The president just truthed a very long post about you.
		Before we address that directly, I'm curious if you want to lay out your thoughts on the Iranian strike carried out by the Trump administration.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, he should have come to Congress first when we did the first Iraq war.
		They came to Congress.
		We debated it.
		I mean, I wasn't here at the time.
		I listened to it on the radio.
		I remember listening to the debate about whether to go to war in Iraq.
		And the Congress gave the president at the time an AUMF.
		And then they did the same thing for Afghanistan.
		They did the same thing for the second Iraq war.
		Now, I was here in 2013 when Obama wanted to go to war in Syria.
		And he said, I'm going to go to Congress.
		And we were getting all geared up to vote.
		I was going to vote, hell no.
		And they pulled the vote because they didn't want to embarrass the president.
		There weren't enough votes to go to war in Syria.
		So I wish the president had done the same thing here, anticipating that he might strike Iran three or four days before he did, Rokana and I introduced a war powers resolution to require Congress to vote on it.
		And we may get a vote on that as early as July 14th.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe, as AOC has stated, this is impeachment worthy?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		No, impeachment isn't a serious solution.
		It doesn't solve anything here.
		The attack has already been done.
		I'm part of a coalition that I want to keep together.
		It's a coalition inside of the Republican Party, who I would include J.D. Vance and Tulsi Gabbard in it, frankly, who joined in support of this president because we didn't want another regime change war in the Middle East.
		And so to go off about impeachment does no good whatsoever in this circumstance.
		We have tools available to us to rein this back in here in Congress, and that's called the War Powers Act.
		So that's what I'm using.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you think this conflict will escalate?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And if so, how far do you think it goes?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a good question.
		The three bombsites to stop Iran may turn into the 2025 version of 14 days to slow the spread.
		You know, you just don't know where it's going to go next.
		It's really up to Iran.
		Iran has as much say in this now as anybody.
		And it doesn't look like the regime is being toppled by the people at the moment.
		So here's my question to the president or to his advisors.
		Let's say the missile defense runs out in Israel.
		They run out of anti-missile defense munitions and Tel Aviv starts getting pummeled.
		Would the president in that circumstance try to engage our military in the defense of Israel?
		You know, that's a tough question, I think.
		What if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and raise the price of oil?
		Is this the end of it?
		And I'm worried that it's not.
		And what if this regime just says, just goes underground and instead of allowing weapons inspectors into their program, just says, we're going to do a completely secret program like North Korea, and you'll have no idea how far along we are?
		Or what if they go buy weapons from Russia or North Korea?
		Who knows where this goes?
		But we shouldn't be a co-combatant in a hot war.
		To say this is not an act of war is actually very laughable.
		This is a hot war.
		Two nations are exchanging blows every day, and we stepped into the middle of it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		J.D. Vance said, we're not at war with Iran.
		We're at war with Iran's nuclear program.
		And look, as much as I can respect, you know, J.D. Vance had been opposed to this from everything we've gathered.
		That seems like an absurd statement to make.
		You bomb a foreign country.
		That's an act of war.
		And you can try and claim, you know, obviously in my opinion, that we are not at war.
		But I think, as you mentioned, Iran's going to say, yes, we are.
		So in that regard, you tweeted out this was not constitutional.
		Can you explain why this is not constitutional?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Because it's an act of war.
		And, you know, authorizing the president to wage war, not the act of waging war, but the authorization to do it belongs to Congress.
		The founding fathers put it there.
		Congress doesn't pick the targets.
		We don't pick the timing.
		You know, I've heard arguments that say, well, you'd lose the element surprise if you go talk to Congress and give them a briefing.
		And yeah, I've got some colleagues who are absolute bozos.
		I mean, they bring Their purses into the briefings with their phones in them, and then their phones start ringing, and everybody looks at them like, all right, what are you doing?
		And then they try to act like there's not a phone in their purse and it's ringing.
		Any case, you can't brief Congress on everything, but the element of surprise can still be there, just like it was in both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war.
		And they could be briefing us.
		And by the way, to talk about another inconsistency here, I saw Mike Johnson tweeted.
		He said, hey, there was an imminent threat to America.
		And so the president had to act.
		Well, why were we on recess?
		By the way, I submitted my war powers resolution while we were on recess.
		They do something called a pro forma session every three days where the house is open for like five minutes.
		And you can jump in there and introduce legislation during those five minutes.
		And that's when I put the war powers resolution in the hopper.
		But what really should have happened is Mike Johnson should have called all of us back, and we should have all been in D.C. receiving briefings and talking about what the next step should be.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What is your War Powers Act?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What does that do?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		So it's a privileged resolution, which means unless Speaker Johnson does something really funky, and he could do some really funky things with the Rules Committee, unless he does something really funky, the law requires him to bring up our resolution and have a vote on whether this president is authorized to stay engaged in hostilities.
		If my resolution succeeded, it would keep the president from going any further.
		So basically, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
		If he says he did three strikes and that's it and he's done, why not be in favor of my resolution or at least agnostic to it?
		Because it just says you have to withdraw from hostilities.
		It doesn't impeach him or anything or even incriminate him for something that he's already done.
		And by the way, Tim, I hear people saying, oh, well, the president had the authority to do this without Congress.
		And they cite the War Powers Act, the very legislation that I'm using to bring this bill to the floor.
		Well, there is a situation in which the president doesn't need to come to Congress that's outlined in the War Powers Act.
		It says if there's an imminent threat to America.
		Now, there was no such imminent threat to America.
		The reason they put that in there is they anticipated situations where they couldn't get Congress assembled in time to respond to something or something was a kinetic situation that needed to be reacted to.
		But even in that circumstance, Tim, guess what?
		The War Powers Act requires within 60 days the president stop all hostilities and come to Congress for a vote.
		He can get a 30-day extension, but that's it.
		There's going to be a Vote on this.
		And I'm going to lead that effort.
		And even if it's not the process that I think could get me to the floor by July 14th, there will be a vote on this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But is there any, do you have any real fear of Iran getting access to a nuclear weapon, be it just a warhead to launch from a missile or even dirty bombs and smaller, more disastrous weapons?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, presumably they could buy one from North Korea or from one of the there's probably some floating around from where the Soviet Union dissolved, and maybe with enough money you could pick one of those up on the black market.
		I don't know how they would get one at this point, but I am concerned that American troops and America in general is under greater threat.
		Iran doesn't have a ballistic missile that can reach the United States.
		They could reach some of our bases.
		They can reach Israel.
		They can reach parts of Europe, parts of Eastern Africa, Russia, India, Pakistan, but their missiles don't go beyond that.
		I'm not worried about a direct attack, if you will, from missiles, but they could obviously hit one of our assets in the Middle East.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's a report that Russia, a former president of Russia, said other nations are already lining up to sell nuclear weapons or the means to make them to Iran because of this attack.
		And there are some rumors that Iran may have met with Pakistan.
		So it seems like, additionally, Telegraph as well as the New York Times have reported following the strike, the U.S. is not sure where the fissile material went.
		Some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium was smuggled out days before the strike.
		I'm curious your thoughts on this.
		If Trump comes to Congress and says, here's the satellite imagery, they're dispersing weapons-grade uranium.
		We have to stop them now.
		Would you still say no to U.S. involvement?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, let me say this, and this should be obvious to everybody.
		I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
		Okay, that's obvious.
		But is our policy going to be over the next five or 10 years, we're going to bomb anybody that has access or has acquired a nuclear or could acquire a nuclear weapon?
		I'm as concerned about artificial intelligence five years from now, where the prompt, you put in the prompt, hey, how can I make a nuclear weapon 10 times as quickly as it's been done in the past with only these resources, which are inside of my country?
		And it pops out the answer.
		Does that mean we're going to bomb everybody that has an AI that's smart enough to do that?
		This is a never-ending chase.
		I think we should bolster our own missile defense.
		We've watched some lessons there, I think, in Israel.
		Hopefully we've learned from that and our missile defense is better now than it was.
		But I suspect ours isn't good enough and could be overwhelmed at some point with enough missiles.
		And so we should be working on defensive strategies instead of just pretending we can blow up everybody and every project that's a danger to the United States anywhere on the globe anytime we want.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So Trump put out this very long truth social post.
		He called you weak.
		He said MAGA should dump you.
		You should be primaried.
		And he's going to be working very, very hard to see that you lose your next election.
		I'm curious your thoughts.
		I assume you read it.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Can you put the post on the screen?
		It's like a dissertation.
		I know he went to Wharton, but I bet he never wrote a paper that long when he was at Wharton.
		But it's amazing that the president of the United States, the guy who launched seven B-2 bombers to the other side of the planet to bomb targets over there and returned them, he got up and spent 15 minutes writing a tweet about a Republican, not a Democrat, a Republican congressman from Kentucky.
		I responded to that tweet.
		I actually quoted it.
		And I just said, you know, President Trump's declared so much war on me in the last day that it should require an act of Congress at this point.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, with Rand Paul even and the Big Beautiful Bill, I know that you were both opponents of it to varying degrees.
		I know you agree with some of it, you disagree with some of it, and you want changes.
		Trump is going after Republicans on this one.
		Is it because he doesn't feel like you're not going to convince a Democrat?
		So any Republican who breaks from the party line is a threat?
		What is this about?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think he's going after me in particular to keep other Republicans from breaking, whether it's his support for Israel's war or whether it's his zeal for the deal on the big, beautiful bill that has lots of issues with it.
		When he sees me say something that's absolutely true about it, notice that the president has never refuted any of the things that I've said.
		His press secretary does, but he hasn't.
		And that just shows you that he's coming after me to show the other Republicans in Congress, hey, that horse got out of the barn and we're whipping that horse as hard as we can.
		You can't withstand that kind of whipping.
		You better stay in the barn.
		And I've had interactions with President Trump going all the way back to 2020.
		Some of them have been cordial.
		Some of them have been adversarial.
		What he does know is I'm not changing my mind on this stuff.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Rand Paul said that he knows he's going to get a call from the president.
		He's going to yell at him for an hour.
		And, you know, Rand's going to say, here's what we need to make happen for the big, beautiful bill.
		But Rand did say that if it came down to it and he was the deciding vote, he would vote in favor of it.
		Would you do for the big, beautiful bill?
		Would you do the same thing?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		I won't.
		And in fact, I would love to have that opportunity because you know what happens if we take down the big, beautiful bill?
		We write a better for better, more beautiful bill that doesn't have the warts and canker sores that this bill has, one that doesn't bankrupt the country.
		Like negotiations, Trump knows this, negotiations don't Start until one side says no.
		And the reason the blue state Republicans got what they wanted in the House version of the bill and the Freedom Caucus did not is the Freedom Caucus wasn't willing to vote no.
		They weren't willing to go against what they presumed President Trump wants.
		But those blue state Republicans were willing to go no.
		And so they got what they wanted.
		Now, the Senate says they're taking that blue state giveaway that would enrich actually sanctuary cities and states like California and New York.
		The Senate says they're taking that out now.
		So that'll set up an interesting dynamic when this bill comes back to the House.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That was the salt, the state and local tax deductions.
		Yeah.
		The argument.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		It means if you live in a sanctuary city that has super high real estate taxes and you're affluent and you itemize your taxes, that you don't have to pay as much tax as somebody who lives in Kentucky and has the same income but has lower property taxes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		So do you think where are we at with that?
		Is that that's coming up for a vote in a couple weeks?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, they're going to play brinksmanship with it.
		Let's talk about that.
		The Senate is, you know, they're taking their sweet time and they have every right to be deliberative and go through this bill one by one.
		And they actually might make it better.
		I don't know if they can make it better enough that I would vote for it.
		There's a possibility.
		I'm not an absolute no on something I haven't read.
		And it seems like they are making it a little bit better.
		So when they send it back over, that could be something that I vote for, but they're going to play brinksmanship with it.
		Here in the House, we had just a few hours to read the big, beautiful bill before it passed.
		And I think they're going to do the same thing, but they're going to use the pressure of the debt limit expiring and having a default on our national debt.
		And they're going to try to use that pressure sometime in July when all that expires.
		So I think they've picked a deadline and they're really just wasting time until we get to that deadline so they can use that crisis to motivate even more votes for that bill.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, Trump says in that post that taxes are going to go up by 68%.
		You know, there's a lot of Americans who see that short-term tax relief, no tax on tips.
		And then you got the gun rights people.
		They love the short and the Hearing Protection Act in there.
		The issue of the deficit, deficit spending and the debt is a bit more foreign to the average person.
		They don't understand how it's going to negatively impact them.
		So what is your concern with those issues?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, first of all, I'm the chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus here in the House of Representatives.
		I couldn't be more excited that there won't be attacks on suppressors.
		Okay.
		That is excellent.
		I would take it off of all of the NFA weapons.
		I would take them all out of the registry.
		I would repeal the 1934 NFA.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wait, wait, wait.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Tell them you want that in the bill and you'll vote on it.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, right.
		So, yeah, maybe we can get even sweeter here with that, with the gun provisions.
		But I'm in favor of that.
		And also as far as extending the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, that wouldn't be a hard vote for me.
		I voted for the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act.
		Okay.
		But there's a reason all of those tax cuts expire this year, and that's because they couldn't make the budget balance and keep those tax cuts going on forever.
		So they set up a situation in 2025 where they knew this would be an issue.
		Guess what they're doing inside of this bill again?
		They're going to extend the Tax Cut and Jobs Act for 10 years, but the no tax on tips, the tax break for seniors, and the no tax on overtime is only going to last three years.
		And conveniently, that means when it all expires, Trump's not going to be president.
		There will have been two Senate elections and two House elections between now and then.
		So a lot of these people won't be around.
		And the people who inherit this are going to call those expiring provisions a fiscal cliff.
		And so they will renew those tax cuts.
		Also, what will expire is there's $100 billion more of military spending in this big, beautiful bill.
		But it's all in the first three years.
		And so when that expires, they're going to say, oh, my gosh, you're going to decimate our military.
		They'll call it a fiscal cliff.
		And so those savings, the way they get these 10-year budgets to balance is they spend like drunken sailors in the first five years.
		They give everybody all the goodies they want in the first five years.
		And then in the second five years, they take the goodies away and they keep a lot of this spending in and it never does balance.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to go back to Iran because there are a lot of people when Donald Trump was running for his reelection, they said Trump is the no-new wars president.
		And I particularly appreciated that.
		I did not vote to have strikes in Iran.
		I'm not going to go so crazy and say Trump should be impeached like AOC or anything like that.
		I hope it works out for the best.
		But there are a lot of people that are just immediately on board, many prominent personalities.
		I'm curious your thoughts on that phenomenon where many people who touted this no-new wars are now saying, Trump's doing it.
		I trust Trump.
		Great.
		Let's go.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, some of them are my friends, like J.D. Vance.
		He was very skeptical of the war in Ukraine.
		He and I had private meetings over at a building near here about how to wind down the war in Ukraine when he was a U.S. Senator.
		Tulsi Gabbard and I had a lot of conversations on the floor of the House about how we didn't need to be at war in Syria and we shouldn't be doing the covert operations that were going on there.
		So I know that coalition still exists.
		They cannot be as vocal now in the jobs they have as I think they would be otherwise.
		Marjorie Taylor Greene is, she's staying true to the course here on the MAGA promise of no new wars, no regime change.
		A lot of us are getting whiplash, though, because the president has changed course.
		I think even some of his advisors and spokespeople, they go out one day and say this isn't about regime change.
		And then the next day, he blows all that up with a tweet.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		that's always been what he does.
		He put out that truth post saying regime change.
		But it sounds like what he's saying.
		I think J.D. Vance asked about this.
		He's saying internally they should remove their government, not U.S. boots on the ground.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		How do you do that?
		I mean, cross your fingers and then.
		Here's what else happens.
		You take out a government, the country collapses and it devolves into anarchy and civil war.
		And you've got all these adversarial ethnic groups inside of Iran, similar to Iraq, and they'll be vying for power.
		It won't be obvious what evolved from that.
		And somebody has to step in and restore some kind of semblance of structure in the meantime.
		And that just, that's where you get bogged down.
		Then we've got to look the biggest, do you know what, this isn't like a Tucker Carlson, do you know the population of Iran?
		I'll give you the answer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		92 million.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I'll give you the answer.
		Guess we're the biggest embassy in the world, not just the biggest U.S. embassy, the biggest embassy in the world by acreage, by cost.
		It's in Iraq.
		Okay.
		Like we're going to end up building a giant, if there's like regime change in Iran, we'll probably build, you know, a Tajma embassy in Iran.
		And then, you know, nobody wants to see on the evening news pictures of the embassy being overrun like we saw in Libya.
		So they build a really big one.
		These are like anchors that keep us there forever.
		That's what I'm concerned about.
		That's if the people who've been in charge in the deep state, you know, in the part of the government that doesn't change when you have elections, if they have their way, we'll be there forever.
		And the military-industrial complex is, you know, they're just going to be giddy that we're blowing up all these missiles right now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, last question, just real quick.
		You know, J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, they don't want war.
		They were, I mean, even J.D. Vance was critical of hitting the Houthis.
		Is this, you know, Donald Trump has been saying for decades Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
		Is this strike now a product of Donald Trump adamantly refusing the advice of those around him?
		Or is the deep state saying, you got to do this?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		I think it's the deep state.
		I think it's Israel, the lobbyist from Israel.
		I think it's the military-industrial complex.
		He may think in some way this helps the economy.
		This also, you know, it may help his popularity rating, frankly.
		It's unpopular to be against a president who's at war.
		The founders knew this, and that's why they didn't want the executive to have the authority to declare war, because the laurels go to the commander-in-chief.
		So I'd say there are a lot of different reasons for it.
		I don't want to say he's insincere.
		He probably does want to take out any nuclear capability of Iran.
		It's just not clear that we're going to be able to do that and that we're not on a treadmill now where every year you have to bomb something based on some report from some foreign government's intelligence.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the media is going to be on board.
		I think we might start seeing articles pop up saying Trump has never been more presidential.
		Their ratings are going to skyrocket from this.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Look, that's the irony.
		All of the media who hates Trump is going to like him for this.
		The Bushes and the Cheneys who have Trump derangement syndrome, he's like their favorite president now.
		Bolton praised him for doing this attack.
		There are people who, by the way, Liz Cheney, Max donated to my primary opponent.
		And now she's the happiest can be with Donald Trump.
		And if I could, before we run out of time, I do want to say something about my next primary because yoked with that.
		So I've been, you can't run to the right of me in Kentucky.
		There is no room to the right of me.
		So for three primaries in a row, people have tried running to the Trump of me.
		They say I'm not Trump enough.
		But the reality is when you dig down into it, I'm the original America First Congressman.
		That has always been my platform, even when it cost me in popularity.
		And so over 12 years, I've developed that understanding with my constituents.
		And so I think it's going to be hard to come at me from the right, but the president now, the cronies that are around him, the leeches that make money off of his political enterprise, they say they're starting a super PAC now whose sole purpose is to take me out of office.
		And then you have APAC, which is the Israeli lobby, spent $400,000 against me last cycle.
		I would say a lot of the money that those leeches that are around Trump are going to use is probably going to be Israeli lobby money because what American would waste their money trying to take out an America first congressman?
		So that's what you're going to see.
		It's going to be a hell of a fight.
		I mean, I've never got less than 75% in any of my primaries.
		I'm not saying that's going to be the case this time.
		I'll probably have millions and millions of dollars spent against me.
		They still haven't found a candidate yet who wants to try this.
		And trust me, they're searching hard in my district.
		Eventually, they'll find some schmuck to be in the TV commercials who has no record whatsoever.
		And they'll try to make him out to be, you know, the next Ronald Reagan or something.
		But I need money, and I've been raising money.
		Every time the president attacks me, and trust me, I would prefer not to have the president attack me.
		People are like, oh, Massey's just doing this to raise money.
		That is not a fact.
		But once I get attacked, I have to raise money.
		When Trump attacked me the first time this year, I raised almost $400,000.
		The last time I raised $50,000.
		And in the last 24 hours, I've received $100,000.
		Wow.
		And that's off Twitter.
		I don't have campaign consultants that are doing a lot of work out there.
		This is just people sending me money because they know on X that I'm in trouble.
		So I just wanted to point out that that's how this works.
		I'm not grifting.
		I'm just trying to stay in office so I can promote the true America First agenda.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Where can people find more?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Well, since I'm in my congressional office, I am not going to give out my campaign website because I've got the capital back here.
		And people would love to catch me up on that one.
		But you can tell them after I get off the screen.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They can follow your X account, can't they?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I've got an official and a campaign account.
		So my official account is at rep Thomas Massey.
		Follow me there for official news.
		And, you know, that's my day job.
		That's what I do to fight for the American people.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, Representative Massey, I appreciate you joining me, explaining all of this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, and we'll see you next time.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Tam.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
		That, of course, is Representative Thomas Massey, who I think is the best we have in Congress.
		I'm a huge fan.
		I think he's principled.
		I think he does a good job.
		I think Trump attacking him is not the apocalypse.
		I don't see him losing, and I don't completely agree with him.
		I like Rand Paul as well.
		Rand said if he's the deciding vote on the bill, he's going to vote for it.
		I think it's the right thing to do.
		But there are a lot of people that want to rag on Massey because Trump's ragging on Massey, but Massey does a good job.
		He's a man of honor and principle, and I respect it.
		Even when I disagree with it, and I hope that's what we get more of in Congress.
		I don't actually know his website.
		I can just probably search for it.
unidentified		His campaign website?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		I googled it.
		It didn't pop up.
		Sorry, Red Massey.
		I don't know.
		Massey.house.gov.
		You guys can learn more.
		Maybe you disagree with him.
		Maybe you agree with Trump.
		That's fine.
		I was thinking it would be great to get his perspective on these things as they were going.
		So now we're going to get that raid for you guys and send you to hang out with Russell Brand, who is gearing up to go live right now.
		Smash the like button.
		Share the show with everyone.
		You know, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
		Thank you guys so much for hanging out.
		And shout out to Rhett Massey.
		And we had Senator Paul on last week.
		It's been good hearing their perspectives.
		I don't know, guys.
		I'm fairly moderate.
		I trust Trump in this regard.
		I think he knows things we don't.
		I begrudgingly say okay to what's going on.
		I don't like it.
		I'm not for it.
		I think it's a stain on his presidency.
		I will criticize it.
		I will say what I can.
		But I think Trump has done too good of a job.
		He has done so many good things in his first term and his second term that I view it largely as just good, just generally good.
		I said the other day that I view this as this brings his presidency into a net negative territory.
		Let me clarify that.
		I'm saying if this goes beyond the scope of what we expect it to be right now, we're in trouble.
		We're in net negative territory.
		As of right now, where we're at, we're teetering on the line, in my view.
		That's just me.
		I don't know everything.
		I'm just saying striking Iran could open the door to devastating price increases, destabilization in the region, loss of human life.
		American soldiers are at risk right now.
		It's such tremendous risks to this.
		But I recognize I don't know the real security ramifications of what happens if Iran is giving out fissile material to lunatics.
		That's why I say it's a rock and a hard place.
		I would just vote no.
		Prove it to me before we drop bombs in a foreign country without going to Congress.
		Prove it to me.
		I don't think they did that.
		That's why I'm pissed.
		I feel like we were misled.
		But we'll see, my friends.
		We've got more segments coming up.
		Smash that like button.
		Share the show with everyone.
		You know, as I said, you can go to TimCast.com, join our Discord server.
		Explain to us why I'm right, why I'm wrong, whatever it is you think, and join the community.

▲