Joe Kent Resigns Over Iran! Save Act on the Brink! Some Stuff From Canada AND MORE!
Joe Kent resigns as National Counterterrorism Center director, citing the Iran war as a non-imminent threat driven by Israeli pressure and a misinformation campaign undermining President Trump's America First platform. Despite his 11 deployments and loss of his wife Shannon, Kent faces hypocrisy accusations regarding past draft comments while JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard advised quiet departures. The episode also analyzes the Save America Act's voter ID requirements, critiques Pierre Poilievre's strategic errors in Canada, and argues that striking Iran would fail against a persistent empire, suggesting Kent may preemptively distance himself from future war crime allegations. Ultimately, these events highlight deep fractures within the administration and systemic political cynicism. [Automatically generated summary]
And gentlemen of the interwebs, you will notice from the tinniness in my voice that I'm not in studio.
We are on the road in central Florida.
And to make sure that the internet is going to be capable of streaming tonight's stream, I will start with a test, a video, a question.
Have you ever seen a turtle climb a tree?
Behold.
I'm going to turn this around the front around the front so I can just so I can record it and then.
Stop palette, stop palette, stop palette.
Okay.
Look at that.
Look at that.
Okay.
I don't think anybody can see.
That is the wildest thing ever.
There's a turtle right there.
Hold the tree.
Hold the tree in there.
He's jumping off.
We're getting blown.
Oh my gosh.
We're going back.
We're going.
Wait, wait, wait.
Don't screw it off.
Don't scar it off.
All right, we're not scaring him.
Slide us forward more with your with your reverse hand inward.
Don't you follow these orders?
I'm joking.
That was a joke.
You're not grabbing him.
But look at this.
It's an actual.
Slide us up.
Slide us on the front.
I just got to get so I can see it myself.
Now, pull that tree.
Pull the tree in there.
There you go.
There you go.
This is all I want to.
Look at this guy.
What the heck is he doing?
This is the Sylvester Stallone of Turtles.
This is Cliffhanger.
He doesn't know what Cliffhanger is.
That is so cool.
Okay, leave him there.
Leave now.
I don't think a baby turtle eyes.
We have to see if they're baby turtles.
Those.
They're definitely eggs.
They look like apples now, but they're bigger and paler.
Okay, slide up, slide up, slide up.
Okay, it's the turtle is in gripped in with its claws on the tree.
It appears to be a baby snapping turtle.
And it's getting warm in the sun.
Oh, that's right.
The sun is up this side.
All right.
So now we're just going to go like this.
And we're going to push off.
And we're going to say goodbye, turtle.
And you're going to get the context.
The broader picture.
Basking away.
I've never seen a turtle climb a tree before.
That is so cool.
And now the wind just blew the stuff out of the way.
The Spanish moss.
And we could see this turtle for all of its raw climbing glory.
Okay.
Okay.
Now just push off the tree.
Push off the tree.
And yeah, we're good.
Okay, that's it.
All right.
It's done.
All right.
That was amazing.
That was amazing.
Amazing.
Amazing.
Okay.
We're stuck.
We were not stuck, people.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
As you can tell, I'm not in a bathroom.
I'm in the section between a bathroom and a bedroom where I'm told that people put on makeup.
And I don't know.
It's the infinity mirror behind me.
That's what I find particularly cool about this.
We're on the road.
It's spring break weekend or week.
And we're doing the good spring break.
You know, like none of that stupid getting drunk and partying on the East Coast.
We're in central Florida and we were hanging out all afternoon and evening with Allison Morrow and family.
That's who you could hear behind us.
And we went on a kayak thingy thing down.
I got, let me see, I don't know if you can see how red I got.
I might have gotten a little bit too much sun, but it's good sun.
And we went kayaking down Rainbow Spring River or something along those lines.
Bad echo.
I can't really do anything about the echo, so that we're gonna have to deal with.
But it was amazing.
Echo cancellation is on.
Noise suppression is on.
So yeah, we're gonna.
If I open the door, then it might, that might make the echo a little bit better.
Open it like that.
Okay.
And it's been amazing.
We saw a turtle climbing a tree.
We saw the animal that is cute, the otter, in the water.
It was amazing.
And that's it.
So I'm going to be off schedule all week.
And I'll hopefully be able to get a stream in every day.
Sunday show will still be at six o'clock, but This is it.
We're doing the best that we can.
Yeah, if you say better, I'll open up that door a little bit more.
Okay, there we go.
Road Trip News Talk00:02:20
It just now, now it's asymmetrical on this side, and there's no nothing I can really do on that side.
So that's it.
We're going to do our best to do this.
And I am not turtly enough for you.
Oh, Stillwater.
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Viva Fry, David Fry, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
For those of you who don't know who I am, yeah, you decide to go on a road trip, and the day we go on the road trip, all hell breaks loose in the news.
We're going to talk about the Joe Kent resignation, the letter, the follow-up, the backlash.
I'm going to add what I think are actually going to be insights that I have not yet heard across the interwebs.
It's like someone made a comment, and it sort of stuck with me because sometimes you want to not, you know, you don't want it to be true.
And if you feel that you're getting to that point, you know, you want to course correct.
But someone said, like, a lot of the news feels like reaction news.
And I was thinking about it, like, all right, people do those stupid reaction videos and they play a video and all they do is, oh, oh, react and show this, you know, their emotions.
It's garbage.
Some people were complaining that it feels like politics now is reaction news.
And if I ever get there, I want people to tell me.
If I'm not adding insight or meaningful analysis, I want people to tell me.
I think I've got a unique perspective, or at least an element that I have not seen other people discuss yet about Joe Kent's resignation.
And although I haven't listened to everybody, we've been struggling to keep up with the news.
We're going to talk about that.
We're going to talk about the Save Act.
I was going to start off the video with another video from Carol Castanueva, who's covering the Save Act.
And my understanding is it's running into potential problems to get passed, not the least of which is, you know, people wear titles, big R, Big D, and then some of the big Rs do jokes in here, which I will not make.
Some of the big R's act like big, big, you know, tards and then are actually just big Ds in disguise.
Lots of dirty jokes.
I won't make them.
Lisa Murkowski, apparently voting no on the Save Act.
And, you know, they can't afford to lose too many so-called Republicans for that to pass.
Pierre Poiliev on Podcasts00:06:50
Why am I in a bathroom?
Because I'm in a small unit with a family of five, my mother-in-law and my daughter's best friend.
And I believe they're watching 22 Jump Street.
And I found the room in the unit that is as far from the television as possible.
And it's not a bathroom.
It's that section between the bathroom and the powder room where women apply makeup and do all sorts of things.
And I wanted to start off the show with some other breaking news.
And it's not a question of saying, I told you so, but I freaking told you so.
Where is it?
I'm going to just bring this up here.
And I'm not, it's like when you say I told you so, it's got sort of like a malicious, you should have listened to me.
When I say I told you so, it's not the malicious, you should have done it for your own betterment.
It's to highlight to the people who gave me shit during the Canadian election when I said Pierre Poiliev, the so-called leader of the so-called Conservative Party of Canada, that he should have gone on American podcasts.
And I remember the shit I took from so-called Canadian conservatives.
Vivo, nobody in Canada listens to Rogan or Patrick Bette David or Theo Vaughan.
First of all, bullshit, but okay, bullshit.
Then other people told me, Vivo, the Canadian media would demonize Pierre Poiliev if he went on with Joe Rogan.
They would call him Trumpish.
They would call him far-right extremists.
Wouldn't help him win the election.
And I said, A, bullshit.
B, he still lost the election.
And then the guys say, well, if he had done it, it would have been an even bigger majority for the liberals.
I took crap from conservative Canadians for lambasting, harpooning, needling Pierre Polyev for not going on Joe Rogan.
I was called, you're just trying to sabotage him, Viva.
Just support every stupid mistake that Pierre Polyev does.
That's how you'll get him elected.
Oh, what?
What is this that we see here?
Pierre Polyev fought for Canadian workers and Canadian interests on the world's biggest podcast.
Thank you, Joe Rogan, for an amazing conversation.
Let's get tariff-free trade.
Sign up to watch it first.
And he's using it to drive people to the Conservative Party of Canada.
It's March 2026.
It's about a year too late, Pierre.
About a year too late.
But now he's doing it.
The world's biggest podcast.
Why the hell didn't you go on the podcast when people were telling you to do it back in April 2025?
And what I love is, I just have to go back and fish out some of my old tweets.
This was in response.
Oh no, this was a tweet where I said, Canada calls election, Carnia WEF fraud, Pierre Polyev skyrockets, interview with truck driver Plev.
This was fun.
And yes, we need Pierre Polyev on Joe Rogan as well.
Then there was another one.
Not trying to be a jerk, so read this with sincerity.
Okay, boomers don't want this was in response to boomers don't watch Rogan.
Bullshit, but okay, boomers don't watch Rogan.
Do you think boomers watch legacy media?
Do you think legacy media would have reported on Pierre being on Rogan?
Do you think boomers would have been watching legacy media reporting on Rogan having hosted Pierre?
Do you see how you bypass legacy media to reach boomers who may not watch Rogan directly?
I also disagree that boomers don't watch Rogan.
Everybody pretty much watches or listens to Rogan.
Do you now understand why your assessment is wrong?
That was the other one there.
And then there was another one.
Viva, even if Pierre did PBD, Rogan, Alex Jones, et cetera, what would that accomplish?
The Canadian that would tune in to listen to these or already does is already voting for Pierre.
I refer to my previous answer.
It might put in the headlines what he's complaining about not being in the headlines for starters.
He's done it.
Now, Scott Adams.
Hopefully he's on, I say hopefully, you know, hopefully his wager or his educated bet of finding God before passing away.
Hopefully he's up there in whatever the afterlife is looking down.
Scott Adams always said, it's loser think to say, why didn't you do it sooner?
That's true.
Sometimes, however, it is to prove a point.
And that point right now, you guessed it.
I was right.
Sorry.
And everyone who gave me shit, you were wrong.
And now it's a year too late, a government too late, an election too late, and Pierre is finally doing the right thing.
And now, I have an operating theory.
I actually have an operating theory that Pierre is officially controlled opposition, that Pierre doesn't actually want to win.
And so he does the wrong things when he needs to win and then the right things after so he can say, I did the right things after.
They did nothing right during that election.
They did nothing right when it came to the slaughter of the ostriches, sat there twiddling their stupid little thumbs.
Nothing.
They did nothing right when it came to dealing with Trump's annexing Canada comments.
Nothing right.
So I say, I told you so.
Better late than never, but unfortunately, now it was too late to accomplish what needed to be accomplished during the last federal election.
But I think Pierre is controlled opposition.
Sincerely believe, in my humble opinion, that the reason why he did not intervene in the ostrich slaughter is because he is as much in bed with big pharma as the liberals, and that that slaughter of those ostriches was a big pharma slaughter to kill, no pun intended, the research that that farm was doing.
And that in three to five years from now, we're going to find some pharmaceutical company out there in Canada that's going to magically have discovered some form of so-called vaccine for an avian flu influenza.
Mark my words, it's here.
I've said it before, and we'll see if it ages, as well as my critique for not going on rogue.
Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are new to the channel, or for those of you who are new to watching, I do not typically do streams in the bathroom.
Let me just hear what this sounds like.
Oh, dude, who was complaining about Echo?
That's actually surprisingly good.
Almost, that's with the Mac microphone in a someone's going to have to tell me what a boudoir is.
This is what a boudoir is.
Whatever the room is like, but I love the forever.
Oh, and the soap.
We got the soap there.
It's not a bathroom, and I'm not sitting on a toilet, people.
I'm sitting on a chair that I brought into the bathroom.
Ow.
Okay, let's get into it.
SAVE Act Election Debate00:12:28
First things first, the SAVE Act.
I've been talking about it.
I've been following it.
It's very interesting.
Taking a little shit from people on the internet, but that's what the internet is for.
I want to play the clip from Cara Castra Nuova, who is, she's awesome, doing like real journalism, real on-the-street journalism.
Some people could accuse her for letting her opinion known, but journalism does not mean dissociative.
What's the word when you disimpassioned?
You can have an opinion, you can let your opinion known while still doing journalism.
And Cara does just that.
Here she's on the street asking people in DC if they support the SAVE Act.
The SAVE Act would be federal legislation that requires basic things like proving citizenship before you can vote in a federal election, cleaning up voter rolls.
There's something.
Oh, yeah, and reducing, restricting, regulating mail-in ballots, you know, making it for people who actually need mail-in ballots, not so that you can have mass harvesting like you did in 2020.
I won't play the whole thing.
I'm going to give you all the links.
Please go show it some love.
This is Cara doing the Lord's work of journalism.
After hearing that a large number of Democrats support voter ID and the Save America Act, I wanted to test that myself.
So I went into the heart of deep blue, Washington, D.C. to talk to people on the street.
And the takeaway was unmistakable.
I'm a Democrat.
Proud Democrat.
Proud Democrat.
Do you think that you should be required to show ID to vote?
Yes, I do.
And do you think that you should have to prove you're a United States citizen to register to vote?
Yes.
Do you think that people should have to come in and show ID to prove who they are when they vote?
If you're in the United States, yes.
If you're in another country, they got their own rules and regulations, but the United States has a constitution.
Do you think it would be difficult for some people to prove they're a citizen?
Yeah, if you snuck here illegally.
If you were born here, you shouldn't have an issue.
I'm born and raised here.
You've got to show some kind of ID because you know you're an alias, right?
Everyone's supposed to have an ID.
Yep, that's a law.
That's a law.
I have one right here.
So you have your ID with you?
Yeah, I'm a citizen.
I'm going to put it on pause here.
We're noticing that Cara has interviewed four black people, thus far.
Black American.
Black Americans, I would imagine, I can't pretend to speak for Black America.
I can't tend to speak for anybody who's not myself.
If someone were to tell me, the poor boy, you're too incapable of getting an ID, so you don't need to show one at all, I would be pissed off.
And what you're seeing right here is the entire class of people that these capital D Democrats have been belittling with their patronizing soft bigotry of low expectations.
Say, you Democrats don't speak for me either.
I can get ID and I demand that everybody else show ID.
Common sense.
Common sense.
And it's insulting.
Not that I find that insulting as an argument.
It's demeaning.
Degrading to the people they purport to represent and they're letting you know see the photo, that's important Democrat or a Republican Democrat?
It is good that you have to present identification and proof of citizenship in order to vote.
Uh, it makes sense to me.
While most people we spoke to supported voter id, we did find somebody that disagreed.
Do you think that you need to show an id in order to vote?
No, are you a citizen?
Yet I tried to this year.
Okay, someone might accuse that of.
Do you support it?
No, are you a citizen?
No comment.
Uh, what is it?
She'll pull a a Tiffany Henyard.
Um, no comment.
It's uh, it's quite stunning.
The thing that I ask myself is, after having the Democrats treat you so poorly, you know, demean and degrade you and and I you know, it's soft bigotry of low expectations, it's just bigotry after having these Democrats act like bigots by telling black Americans that they're incapable of procuring id and that it would be disenfranchising for black America to have voter id laws, why do they still vote Democrat?
And I say this as much with the Jewish community?
I don't know if it's quite as statistically homogeneous or, you know, less so than it might have been, but like the the, the demographics that have been systematically abused and besmirched by the Democrats, somehow and for some reason still mass vote for Democrats.
You look at the Jewish population in America, I think it's 75 that vote and maybe more vote Democrat.
Black Americans also do the same to the party that exploits them as though they're political you know pawns and treats them as though they're incapable of getting photo id.
And yet they still vote Democrat.
And the only question is going to be you know there was a tide being turned in the last election.
The question's going to be, has that gain been reversed in light of certain policies?
But the Save Act, the Save Act is now up for.
I say up for passage, and I want to know what the ideological adversary has to say about it.
Washington Compost, you can rely on them to be garbage, to be partisan rubbish and to be unreliable.
Relying on them to be unreliable, I still want to know what they have to say.
The Washington Compost has this report today.
The voting bill Trump says will secure victory could backfire the Save America Acts.
Effects are unpredictable, But changes in voting patterns could make more stringent requirements a problem for Republicans.
That may, oh, let's let's let's hear this out.
Let's see where this is going.
President Donald Trump has ramped up pressure on Republicans in recent weeks to pass the Save America Act, said he won't endorse any Republican who doesn't vote for the act about freaking time.
I would argue that any Republican who doesn't vote for the act is not a Republican.
Yada yada yada.
Trump has gone so far to declare that he will not sign any other legislation until Congress passes the bill, vowed Tuesday never to endorse anyone who voted against what he dubbed one of the most important and consequential pieces of legislation in the history of Congress.
He promised Republican lawmakers last week that passing the bill would, quote, guarantee the midterms, end quote, for the GOP.
Probably not the thing you want to say when you don't want to be accused of passing this piece of legislation to steal elections.
And I'm saying that glibly.
The only people who have abused of changing voting laws to steal elections were the Democrats in 2020.
Literally.
They didn't call it fraud, though.
They called it fortification.
But the bill might not help Republicans as much as Trump thinks it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections.
Ah, yes.
Requiring Americans to prove that they are citizens when they register to vote in an effort to root out the extremely rare, extremely rare cases of non-citizens voting would throw up roadblocks for the polls for millions of eligible voters across the political spectrum, and in some cases could hurt Republicans more.
Ah, where?
Are you just pulling this out of their butts?
The bill also instructs states to hand over their voting rolls to the Department of Homeland Security, raising privacy and surveillance.
So understand what they've made right here a contentious statement that even if it were to hurt Republicans more, I'm sure they would say, well, that's the price we're going to have to pay to have clean elections.
I'm not sure that it would ever hurt Republicans more.
I am certain it would not hurt Republicans more, but this is the confession through projection Darvo that they want to lead you to believe.
I don't know who's reading this crap anyhow with anything less than a stink eye.
Beyond the voting's related aspects, Trump has demanded Congress pass an expanded version of the legislation that would bar transgender women from participating in women's sports.
Yada yada yada.
How would the Save America Act affect voting?
Everyone would need to present a photo ID to cast a ballot, but the bill would have the greatest impact on the registration process.
While the bill does not explicitly require everyone to re-register to vote, a significant number of currently registered voters could be asked to provide documentation to remain on the rolls.
Others may have to re-register because of a move or a name change, and this registration would need to take place in person.
An analysis by the Washington Post found that a greater number of Republican-held congressional districts have at least 5% of the residents who would need to re-register to vote because they're considered inactive voters.
That means they fail to verify their address with election officials, haven't voted in two or more consecutive elections, or have no valid or current address.
In about 54% of Republican-held congressional districts, at least 5% of the residents would have to re-release.
Okay, good.
More than 30%, 36% of Democrat-held congressional districts, in which at least 5% of the residents would need to register.
About 21 million U.S. residents, citizens of voting age, 9% do not have or lack easy access to documents proving their citizenship, according to a 2023 survey.
I mean, that's a big problem for even talking about the current elections.
But let's just back it all up and just operate on the basis of what the Washington Compost is saying.
If it would make it harder and detrimental for Republicans, why wouldn't Democrats vote for it?
This is where like, you don't have to agree with a premise in order to flip the premise on the person who's proposing the premise and say, this is how stupid your theory is.
Okay, it'll hurt Republicans more.
Then why would Democrats not vote for it?
Out of principle.
It would hurt Republicans more, guys.
We're doing it for you, but we're not voting for it out of principle.
Not because we have systematically been abusing of mail-in voting to try and steal elections.
And the only reason we didn't do it in 2024 was because they tightened down a lot of the rules.
So, yeah, the best argument I've heard thus far, and it's typically what I'm taking shit on the internet for my views, is this federalizes the elections.
Anyone who's a constitutionalist should not want the federal government imposing a law that would effectively regulate at the state level, elections.
Elections are at the state level.
It's up to them to apply the rules and regulations.
Such a person is named Cine.
The SAVE Act federalizes USA elections.
Why the fuck would you want the feds to control their own elections?
Let's also agree to disagree.
I don't agree that it federalizes elections in any meaningful sense, but let's just operate on that premise, disputed premise.
But you're arguing, and you don't want to have to debate the underlying premise if you don't need to.
Okay, it will federalize elections.
Disenfranchising voters at the state level is itself a federal issue.
In my humble Canadian, not yet a master of the American Constitution, maybe one day I will be, but I think I'm pretty damn good nonetheless, maybe above average.
Disenfranchising a federal election at the state level is a federal issue.
And you imagine individual states do not get to cheat and disenfranchise an entire nation.
One state does not get to mess around and alter the results, which goes by the Electoral College, Federal Electoral College.
They don't get to futz around and then effectively disenfranchise half of the country.
The measures proposed in this act are entirely reasonable to prevent disenfranchisement at the federal level.
And I think that makes sense.
So that's what's going on with the SAVE Act.
We'll see.
My understanding is it should pass.
And hopefully, whether or not it needs JD as the tiebreaker, it shouldn't.
The so-called Republicans who would vote against this, and I'm not even saying this as like you're a Republican, you got to do everything the Republicans say.
You're simply not a Republican.
I'm fairly certain, like, what's her name?
Collins and Murkowski are generally regarded as not being Republicans, not just not true Republicans, just not Republicans.
But any Republican who votes against this, you can de facto assume they're not Republican.
And any Democrat who votes against this, you can pretty much safely assume as a Democrat, and they want to preserve their ability to fortify future elections, you know, by like they did in Wisconsin, just declare everybody indefinitely confined, get hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, go to nursing homes and harvest them ballots real good, like.
American Spirit vs Cynicism00:04:21
And if you need them, break a water pipe at three o'clock in the morning and bring in a duffel bag of whatever you need to make up the difference from the day of.
In-person voting, day of, paper ballots, phono ID.
End of story.
Like every other civilized country on earth and like every other uncivilized country on earth.
And that's that.
Now, oh, hope, I didn't do one thing.
I didn't do one thing.
So I don't know if I'm going to be able to pull up these.
I'm not going to be able to pull the rumble rants up the way I typically do.
Duck Fat says Bill Tong called and demanded you quit sitting on Anton's firm and I'll tell you one thing.
When we were on the kayaking all day, I had to make sure I didn't have any peppercorn stuck in my teeth.
We went through two bags of Anton's Bill Tong and it was delicious.
Viva, why do you think any politician is for the people and not themselves?
It's, I mean, look, I've gotten sufficiently blackpilled, but I've gotten cynical and more cynical than I would have thought that I would ever have gotten.
And I still appreciate that I am not cynical enough and I will still get even more cynical.
As my wife always says, you know, to the extent, you know, as a family, I'm not the driving force, but I have a very driving energy.
And if I, you know, if I'm happy and excitable, then, you know, everyone loves it.
And when I get depressed or stressed, so do others.
So I'm trying not to impute that or impose that.
Impart that is the word I'm looking for, not impute or impose.
I'm trying not to impart my growing skepticism and growing realization that, you know, maybe it's always been this way and maybe it's always going to continue to be this way.
And the world is going to continue to roll on.
And there will be voices like mine that will come in and try to make sense of it and try to change things in as much as they can, but ultimately it won't ever change.
There's a reason why politicians, lawyers have been loathed and despised for thousands of years.
And I don't think it's changing in the next 10 to 20.
So with that said, Dominion after dark says, Diva, have you put the paperwork to become a U.S. citizen yet?
If not, why not?
I have.
So I've been here for four years.
I mean, that's been here for four years already.
It's crazy.
It's crazy.
And it's an amazing, the journey.
Like, you know, I go through Florida now and we're driving through Florida.
It's, I know it's not, you know, I don't know, it is technically home, but I'm still, you know, not a U.S. citizen.
I love Florida.
America is amazing for all its foibles.
It's still the greatest country on earth.
And Americans, for all their foibles, are still the say among the last of the people on earth that truly, there's a lot of Canadians with what I call an American spirit in terms of government, in terms of freedom, in terms of self-governance.
There's a lot of Canadians like that with the American spirit.
The only problem, there's a lot more Canadians with the liberal spirit, and that is micromanaging Karen nanny type government that thinks they know better than you.
And a lot of Canadians that say, you know, I will, the government is my new God, and I'll listen to them.
And if I make a mistake, it wasn't my decision.
I was just following orders.
Dominion after dark says, the idea of one person, one vote type of democracy is a relatively new invention of the last 100 years or so.
Before only property owners were allowed to vote, hard to have, oh, had to have skin in the game.
Yeah, it's, I was listening to, I'm going to hopefully be able to get Rachel Wilson on, but before women had the right to vote, before suffrage, the suffrage movement, you know, her arguments, and it's an interesting historical perspective, is that, you know, women weren't fighting for the right to vote themselves.
And, you know, we live in a world now with the 19th Amendment and only misogynists say repeal the 19th Amendment, even though there's a lot of women who say, I don't know if it's tongue-in-cheek.
But yeah, you appreciate landowner, taxpayers, and that typically, you know, they have skin in the game.
And to the same extent, I think, you know, only people with children should be able to decide whether or not to initiate wars.
And even then, they don't get the carte blanche.
But yeah, no, the vote is for everybody who's a citizen.
Anti-Semitic Claims and Facts00:14:32
So there's that.
All right.
Now, Joe Kent comes out and puts out a post, a public statement that has set the world on fire, set American politics on fire.
And it's, you know, you knew that it was going to cause an absolute poopstorm.
And it has.
And now people are like I, you know, sort of doesn't take much insight or foresight or wisdom to say, yeah, they're going to go hogwash, hogwash.
They're going to go hog wild on Joe Kent to demonize Joe Kent.
I'm going to read the statement.
A little lengthy, but I want to like you know flag statements in the statement that people can disagree with as a matter of fact.
Joe Kent, and I'm sure you've seen it all now because it's been the headline news for the last day and a half when we hit the road, says, After much reflection, I've decided to resign from my position of director of National Counterterrorism Center effective today.
I cannot, in good conscience, support the ongoing war in Iran.
Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is thus clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.
It has been an honor serving under POTUS and DNI Gabbard and leading the professionals at the National Counterterrorism Center.
May God bless America.
And then in the statement, and I'm going to like emphasize so that it's clear the statements that I appreciate people will disagree with as, I say, matters of fact, but they're ultimately matters of opinion.
After much reflection, oh, President Trump, this is his letter.
President Trump, after much reflection, I've decided to resign from my position as director of the National Counterterrorism Center effective today.
I cannot, in good conscience, support this ongoing war in Iran.
Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.
And it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.
I support the values and the foreign policies that you campaigned on in 2016, 2020, 2024, which you enacted in your first term.
Until June 2025, you understood that the wars in the Middle East were a trap that robbed America of the precious lives of our patriots and depleted the wealth and prosperity of our nation.
Worth noting, if you didn't know, Joe Kent's wife was a translator.
She died, I believe it was an IED.
It was either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I forget which, but that doesn't, you know, that detail is irrelevant to the point that his wife died in battle.
I just forget which one now offhand.
So this is not someone who speaks from nothing.
In your first administration, you understood better than any president how to decisively apply military power without getting us drawn into never-ending wars.
You demonstrated this by killing Qassam Soleimani and by defeating ISIS.
Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.
Now, some people are going to argue that this is disclosing classified information, while simultaneously other people are going to say this is factually incorrect.
And I appreciate the argument that classified information doesn't necessarily need to be accurate, but there is something of a mutual incompatibility with some people saying, oh my goodness, he disclosed classified information, while others saying this is anti-Semitic rubbish.
This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States and that you should strike and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory.
This was a lie.
Some people are going to say this is also classified info that he shouldn't be disclosing.
And is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war?
People are going to object to whether or not it was Israel that dragged America into that war, vice versa, simultaneous, whatever, and cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women, including his wife, first wife.
We cannot make this mistake.
Again, as a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a gold star husband who lost my beloved wife Shannon in a war manufactured by Israel, some people are going to take that statement particularly badly, manufactured by Israel.
I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives.
I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran and who we are doing it for.
The time for bold action is now.
You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation, or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos.
You hold the cards.
It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation, Joseph Kent.
Now, I didn't say much to this.
No one can say that he didn't have more information than the rest of us.
Did he have as much as others?
No.
And everyone's going to say he had access to some stuff, but not as much as others, and therefore his opinion should be disregarded.
He had more information than a great many people.
And to a point where people are suggesting that he revealed classified information in that letter to the president.
No one can say he did not selflessly serve country.
I don't think anybody can disagree with that.
You might say he learned the wrong lessons, or you might say he's changed, man, and he's not the same person.
No one can say he betrayed his sincerely held beliefs.
People are calling him a hypocrite.
We'll get into that in a second.
People will attack him.
I imagine the campaign will be vicious and remorseless despite all of his sacrifice.
And spoiler, it has been.
Here's the link to that tweet.
Now, two things.
This one's not particularly insightful, but you remember when people were clamoring that Dan Bongino resign from the FBI and say, you know, submit a resignation letter.
What that letter had to say or, you know, could have said could have been ambiguous.
But people are like, he's got to leave.
Get him out.
You know, it's quite clear the DOJ, they're butting heads.
I mean, Bongino alluded to as much when he posted that Grok screenshot, suggesting that he left at a time when there were issues of transparency coming from the top down from Pam Bondi, and that led to his resignation or his leaving in 2025.
I said at the time, there's no way that Dan could have left the FBI without throwing the FBI under the bus or making it known to the general population that there were fundamental problems going on at the FBI.
And I mean, I said it.
It's interesting to go back and read these things now.
This was from December 2025.
It's not that far long ago.
Dan is leaving the FBI, and people will hypothesize on the why.
Bongino is too much of a gentleman and a patriot to air any dirty laundry, should any exist.
And no, I'm not relying on the Vanity Fair hip piece.
Lol.
Dan wanted to serve country and he did.
He achieved a lot and actively made the country safer.
For that, we should be thankful.
I've always been sympathetic to the impossible position Dan was in.
He was in the social media.
He was the social media punching bag for the legitimate criticism of the decisions that were not his to make.
Some have accused me, some of you accused me of being a sycophant for my interpretation, but I think people fail to appreciate the hierarchy within the DOJ.
Also, I don't care.
My assessment was based on the fairness of facts and my knowledge of Dan's character.
Many of you said that if it is so broken in the DOJ, FBI, Dan should just step down.
Whether or not that is how he got there, this is where we are.
I would have preferred Dan to stay.
My sincere belief is that the FBI as an institution is irremediably broken, corrupt, irrespective of that.
So in one of these posts, I said, like, you know, if Dan were to say, it's broken, it's so corrupt, I can't even believe it.
We can't get anything done.
Pam Bondi's an idiot.
Todd Blanche is a saboteur.
If he were to have done that, as I said in another post, that sabotages or at least puts a stick in the wheels of this administration.
And Dan wants this administration to succeed.
And there was no way for him to do it that way without compromising the very administration he joined to serve and that he still wants to succeed, even if there are what I believe, and I have no insider knowledge on any of this, inherent internal problems at the FBI that Bongino saw firsthand while he was there, that embarrassed him firsthand while he was there.
But he decided to take the punches and be the punching bag and then leave without embarrassing the administration and then become the cheerleader for the administration as he's doing right now.
Kent took another path.
There's no way to look at that letter and view it as any other way than saying this administration is compromised.
Now, people can get offended all they want.
And I've been watching all these reactions.
I just saw Constantine Kisson, you know, who's himself very skeptical that this is going to go well in Iran, saying, you know, his letter, Joe Kent's letter, it's offensive to Donald Trump.
It suggests that Trump, as big and powerful as he is, isn't in control and that he's, you know, the BB's bitch, as some people say, Robert Barnes.
I don't say that I'm just quoting other people who said, you know, people look at Trump and say, you know, BB is dog walking.
And people believe it.
And you can call them all sorts of names.
You can call them anti-Semitic if you want.
That's not a substantive response.
You can call them anti-Semitic.
Okay, now address the substance of what they're saying.
Calling someone anti-Semitic, just so you understand this, only impacts and only affects the intent behind what they're saying.
It doesn't affect the truth of what they're saying.
They might be anti-Semitic and what they're saying might be right.
And what they're saying is not necessarily wrong because they're anti-Semitic.
So you got to get over that.
Nobody cares.
Someone might be anti-Semitic, someone might be racist, but what they say might still be true.
And you're not going to get out of disproving what they said by undermining their intent behind why they said it.
Set that aside.
What Kent did make the administration look bad in that this is a man who was not a nobody in the administration, did not have access to nothing within the administration.
He's sharing what is some of his opinion and what other people are saying is classified information.
And he's basically saying Trump has changed course in such a way that I can't any longer be a part of this administration.
We're going to get to all the hypocrisy later on.
You know, let's get to the hypocrisy right now.
People are pulling up tweets left, right, and center of things that Joe Kent said.
Let's get this one.
And by the way, people double check your facts.
I mean, it might not change anything, but my understanding is this clip that's now going viral of Joe Kent on the Sean Ryan podcast.
It's not from three months ago.
It's from August 2024.
Unless I've made a mistake.
And if I have, I'll go look in the chat right now as I play it and correct myself in real time.
But I'm fairly certain it's from August 2024.
Not three months ago, might not change anything, but know your facts before you formulate your opinion because it makes it a whole hell of a lot harder to change your opinion afterwards once you've based it on erroneous facts.
This is what they said.
This is what Joe Kent said.
And this is what people are saying makes him a hypocrite.
They're still registering for the draft, aren't they?
Like, that's the logical conclusion to the direction that we're heading in right now, unless we make some serious changes.
I mean, it's already, it's, I've already heard rumors that Fifth Group is going to be sending guys to Iraq because of the escalated situation with Iran now.
Yeah.
I mean, most Americans aren't aware of it.
We've, our troops in Iraq and Syria have been attacked 150 plus times by Iranian proxies.
And when we say Iranian proxies, we got to be clear on what that is.
That's the Iraqi government that we pay.
Because after the Iraqi military, we spent $2 trillion on surrendered to ISIS, we had to go back in there in very short order and stand a military back up again.
And guess who filled the breach?
The Shia militias controlled by Iran did.
And the Iraqi government's controlled by Iran.
So these are, they're still registering for the draft.
If you're going to try to find a clip that makes Joe Kent look like a hypocrite, this might not be the one.
Especially since it cuts off mid-thought.
And I'm not sure that the conclusion that you would come to from this clip is that Joe Kent has now done a 180 and he's been brain rotted by the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel crowd versus him saying, whatever the hell we do in these regions makes it worse.
And there have been attacks on U.S. soldiers.
And some people are going to say, well, that's an imminent threat to the nation of America.
And others might say, well, that has always existed in the Middle East.
And that was an issue that was kind of on the ballot in 2024 when we were discussing not getting bogged down in more quagmires like that in the Middle East.
And so I don't think that that's something that shows an inherent degree of incompatibility with the position now with what Joe Kent and the GOP peace ticket ran on.
Also, it's from pre-election.
But now, let's get to some better ones here.
And I want to make sure I get the right ones here.
Let's see this here.
No, not that one.
Joe Kent here.
This is on Tucker Carlson, the flip side.
This is another thing where, when over time, people have not done reversals, but spoken at length in meticulous detail about the nuances of foreign conflict, you might be able to find clips where some things they say might be at odds with the reality or situations years later.
This is from Tucker Carlson.
I don't know if I have the exact year on this, but this is from when he's at his TCN.
So it's obviously post-Fox.
Listen to this about Joe Kent talking about this particular very quagmire.
Let me just ask you one last question because he called it 60 years ago.
You referred to what a war with Iran would do to the United States.
And I don't know that a lot of people in this country fully understand what Iran is as a nation state.
It's not Afghanistan.
What do you think the immediate and then longer term effects of a war with Iran would be on the United States?
P.S.
This is pre-Venezuela.
It's not Venezuela either.
People say it's not Iraq.
Shock Awe Campaign Critique00:02:11
I don't know if they mean that in a good way or a bad way.
It's not Iraq.
It's actually a much bigger potential problem than Iraq.
Immediately, it would be a very bloody, I have no doubt that we could probably defeat some of their air defense and go in there and have another shock and awe campaign.
But again, like we saw how the shock and awe campaign in Iraq really didn't actually work in the long run.
So I have no doubt that we'd have some immediate results that people would cheer about here in the United States.
But Iran, Persia, has always been an empire.
It's been around longer than any of the other players in the modern Middle East right now, and they are not going anywhere.
And right now, Iran has a lot of internal problems.
They have a lot of internal strife with the Ayatollah and that government's only been in power since 1979.
But again, if we start conducting strikes in Iran, everyone in Iran will rally around their leader and they will become even more revolutionary.
We can pause it right there.
That sounds pretty reasonable, pretty consistent.
Now, admittedly, and I'm going to get to the clip from JD Vance: when you sign on to represent a team, you can have your disagreements privately, but you don't air them out publicly.
And once you do, once you basically say, I'm not supporting this decision of my captain, my commander-in-chief, well, you're basically off the team.
But that's a pretty insightful commentary that some of us have been, you know, warning about for a very long time.
What happened when Trump started talking about Canada, annexing Canada?
Did it turn the Canadians against their disgusting, tyrannical liberal government?
No.
They all started rallying behind their oppressor, the liberal government of Canada.
That is what actually happened.
Now, oh, it's not wartime.
The Canadian people weren't clamoring for liberation from the liberal times.
I'm sorry, a lot of them were.
A lot of Canadians were clamoring for liberation from the tyrannical liberal government.
And the second Trump talked about annexing Canada through non-military means, everybody rallied around the flag and the liberals won an election that was supposed to be a landslide for the conservatives.
Nuclear Ambitions and War Crimes00:15:07
But now getting into what he's effectively made a public statement, which is, I'm off this team.
I no longer support this team.
And some of you out there should are saying, it's funny.
There is no proper course of action that would not result in a massive swath of the American population criticizing whatever that action was.
Sit there and stay and shut your mouth.
Oh, you'll get shit on by everybody who opposes this Iranian strike, this Iranian Operation Epic Fury.
Leave silently like others have done, and you'll get shit on for being a coward and for not having stood up and stood by your principles, but you're leaving, taking the easy way out.
Leave with your principles the way Joe Kent did, whether you agree with them or not.
And you're going to get shit on by everybody who says, you should have just left quietly.
This is not how you leave a party.
This is not how you leave your party.
And then others are going to say, you sure as sugar should not be going on Candace Owens.
I don't care about that.
Set that aside.
JD Vance had the best take on this.
And JD Vance is, I think, 100% right.
And I'm not, you know, there's that old tale.
Let me just, let me take this back out.
There's the old tale.
It's an old wise tale.
It has to do with a village rabbi, but it could just be the village elder.
It's the village rabbi, the one person goes up to the rabbi and says, this man, you know, killed my goat wrongly and now he should pay me.
And then the rabbi says, you're right.
And then the other guy says, no, no, no, his goat was on my property and I was killing it to protect my animals.
And then the rabbi says, oh, you're right.
And then the third guy comes in and says, no, no, no.
There was no need to kill that goat at any point.
They could have, whatever.
And the rabbi says, I screwed it up.
I screwed it up entirely.
The third guy comes in and says, they can't both be right.
And the rabbi says, you're right.
I'm not playing that game.
In terms of, I'm not hedging my bets here.
I think I believe that what Joe Kent did is authentic, sincere, based on his deeply held beliefs.
The fact that he said certain things that you might construe or misconstrue as contradicting what he's doing now and then imputing his intentions for having done it, you're idiots.
I mean, people pulling up tweets that I say that I don't see anything mutually incompatible with this tweet and prior tweets.
Let me just give you one because I enjoy taking crap on the internet for trying to be as reasonable as I can.
Someone says, how is this not incompatible here?
Let's pull up this tweet right here.
This is a tweet from January 8th or August 1st, 2020.
Joe Kent tweets, we should not sit back and wait for the next attack, wipe Iran's ballistic capability out and get our troops out of Iraq.
They are only targets now.
No U.S. wounded in action, killed in action is a tribute to the professionalism of our military and intel professionals.
No U.S. wounded in action, killed in action, is a tribute to the professionalism of our military and intel professionals, not Iranian restraint.
Now, some of you are going to say, how can he have said this six years ago and said what he said the other day?
First of all, this was six years ago.
Not that that gives you a carte blanche to be a total hypocrite.
We should not sit and wait for the next attack.
Wipe Iran's ballistic capability out.
That would mean something of a methodical precision strike like what we saw with the 12-day war that wasn't a war.
And get our troops out of Iraq.
They are only targets now.
Well, to the extent that what was recommended six years ago hasn't been done the way it should have been, things will be different six years later.
But I say that there's nothing incompatible with this tweet from 2020 and its current position in 2026.
And I don't see how there is.
What he's highlighting is it's been bungled Middle East wars from the get-go.
You need to destroy their nuclear facilities.
Go ahead and do it.
And he did.
And then apparently it wasn't done quite as well as it had to have been.
I don't know why the dog is barking like that, but I presume everybody hears it.
So let's get to JD and hear what JD has to say about this.
Because JD is quite right in what he said.
It doesn't invalidate.
By the way, JD Vance and Telsey Gabbard have come up with their own statements.
And in as much as what they said is 100% correct and accurate, they haven't actually substantively said that Joe Kent is wrong in his beliefs.
Listen to this.
Three weeks ago.
Now you asked about Joe Kent.
Now I know Joe Kent a little bit.
I like Joe Kent.
You heard the President of the United States say yesterday that he likes Joe Kent too.
But it's one thing to have a disagreement of opinion.
I know the president very well.
He welcomes differences of opinion.
He likes it when people express their views about what should happen.
He listens to everybody.
It's one of the great things I like about him is that whether you're the gardener at Mar-a-Lago or whether you're the Secretary of the State, the president cares about what you think about an issue.
He recognizes that everybody has smarts and everybody has wisdom.
That said, whatever your view is, when the president of the United States makes a decision, it's your job to help make that decision as effective and successful as possible.
And so the president said this yesterday.
If you are on the team and you can't help implement the decisions of his administration, he has the right to make those decisions, then it's a good thing for you to resign.
And I think that's exactly right.
It's fine to disagree.
But once the president makes a decision, it's up to everybody who serves in his administration to make it as successful as possible.
That's how I do my job.
And I think that's how everybody in the administration should do their job too.
Absolutely 100% accurate and on point.
And now some people are going to say JD Vance is covering his butt.
He's basically telling the world, I'm following the orders of the commander-in-chief because that's the team that I'm on.
That's what I signed up for.
That's who appointed me to his ticket for VP.
That's the team I'm on.
I'm not on this team to lose.
And I'm not the one calling the shots.
And if I disagree, I'll disagree privately.
But if I'm on the team, I'm promoting and supporting the actions of this team through and through.
That's what JD's seeing.
Some people are going to say he's covering his own butt because if this goes south, in two years from now, he can say, I didn't support it behind closed doors, but I'm pro-team America, and I was supporting my commander-in-chief at the time.
And then others are going to say, well, you know, Joe Kent, all he has to do is leave quietly.
This is my unique insight, and people can feel free to tell me if I'm wrong or if you disagree and why.
To some extent, everybody's not trying to cover their butts.
Everybody's trying to do what they believe is right.
Inasmuch as they are constrained, in as much as they have the freedom to do what they think is right.
I don't think that Bongino wanted to throw the administration under the bus in a way that would compromise its ability to win the midterms, win 2028.
Whether or not he made the right decision, only time will tell.
And even then, things might work out for the wrong reasons and things might not work out for the right reasons.
That doesn't make sense.
JD is saying, I'm on this team, I'm supporting this team.
Joe Kent is saying, I'm off this team.
It violates what I believe.
It violates what I believe this party represented.
And my thought is: Joe Kent might be seeing some writing on the wall that some people have been talking about, and that is the potential for serious legal ramifications, impeachment, potential, and I'm not saying this with approval or with disapproval, potential war crimes.
Joe Kent might be saying, I'm not leaving having approved of this, where you talk about, you know, war in a way that some might deem to be impeachable, where you conduct war in a way that some people might deem to be impeachable.
Some people say he's a coward if what he did by leaving this way is cover his ass for potential future impeachment proceedings and potential war crime accusations.
Don't have any illusions.
There will be war crime accusations, regardless of who's waging the war, and I would even argue, especially given who's waging the war.
So he might be saying, I'm doing this publicly.
I don't want to be a part of what some people are already saying might be war crimes, whether it's torpedoing the warship that you lured into participating in war games and then didn't assist with saving the drowning soldiers, but you gave the coordinates to neighboring countries.
So he might be doing that.
And you could say he's a coward for trying to cover his own ass, or this is what he thinks is morally right.
So that's my call it original insight.
One thing that I think is abundantly clear is people are mincing words.
And when Joe Kent came out in his statement and said they pose no imminent threat to the nation, to the nation of America, they've always posed a threat to soldiers in the area, in bases in the air.
That's baked into the equation.
And so the question is: when the commander-in-chief says it's an imminent threat, it becomes sort of, say, not a legal fact, it becomes a fact of war that you're engaged in.
Trump is the commander-in-chief.
He determines in his own assessment what is and is not an imminent threat.
It's a subjective element in the first place, but he's the commander-in-chief and he makes that determination.
When Joe Kent comes out and says, in my view, it wasn't an imminent threat because you have all of these threats on bases, which are baked into the equations of the existence of American soldiers in bases throughout the Middle East, throughout Europe, baked to the equation.
That was on the equation when we had the 2024 election.
And so there was nothing new that showed there was an imminent threat to what we would say is the nation of America, which, in the minds of most, would mean civilians or, I mean, basically anything other than military targets.
Now, some of you might disagree with that, and then at least you know where you disagree.
But you get a very distinct understanding of the semantics when you hear John Ratcliffe say why he thinks Joe Kent was completely wrong.
I'm going to play it and then we're going to break it down.
Listen to this.
The head of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned saying that Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the United States.
Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?
Senator, no, in fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary.
So you disagree with Mr. Kent.
I do.
I would think any fair-minded assessment of the situation, even based on open sources, would reflect the danger Iran poses, the regime poses to the United States.
The head of the so you appreciate the semantics here, and they're not irrelevant semantics.
In July, and I'm fairly certain Joe Kent supported the 12-day war, which was the strikes on the nuclear reactors as part of their nuclear ambitions.
No boots on the ground, no talk about boots of ground on the ground, no talk about potential draft on the table.
Also, no Americans died, no U.S. military died in that operation.
It was clear.
The objective was clear.
It was carried out punctually.
And, you know, by all accounts, they had obliterated, using their word, Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Listen to the language here.
They're not saying that there was an imminent nuclear threat, that they still had declared their intention to renew their nuclear program and then use that as a threat.
Listen, the National Counterterrorism Center resigned saying that Iran did not represent an imminent threat to the United States.
An imminent threat to the United States.
Do you disagree?
Ratcliffe says, I disagree.
Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions?
Nuclear ambitions.
Or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles.
Desire.
It's ambitions.
It's desire to build ballistic missiles.
Is that imminent threat that would warrant this?
Joe Kent says no.
And after fluffing the words like that, I want to hear it one more time.
States.
Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?
Is there any indication that they eliminated, ended their desire or their ambition to continue building ballistic missiles to then use to threaten?
That question, and I'm not trying to, you know, virtue signal or even take a position on this intervention.
That question is the evidence of the lack of imminent, immediate threat to the United States.
They didn't announce that they didn't have any ambition to continue with their program to potentially build a ballistic missile with the nuclear capability that they would use to threaten.
Is there anything to indicate that Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions or in its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East?
Senator, no, in fact, the intelligence reflects the contrary.
So the question is this.
I mean, that question, by definition, it's funny that it was posted to show what a hypocrite breaking.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe says Joe Kent was completely wrong to say Iran did not pose an imminent threat.
Did we just listen to the same video clip?
Kent was kept out of all briefings over fears that he was leaking Intel.
Leaking Intel is a separate issue.
That question and that answer highlights and illustrates it was not imminent.
It was a potential prospective threat if they were to continue with their ambitions to the extent that they were not actually obliterated back in July of last year.
Tulsi Gabbard Intel Leak00:07:24
I'm going to give everybody that clip.
So we're not playing semantics here.
So that was the question.
Joe Kent says it wasn't imminent to warrant getting bogged down in another Middle East war with Iran barely eight months after having declared their nuclear capabilities obliterated.
And we are where we are now.
I want to bring up Tulsi Gabbard's statement because it's also another good statement.
It's a good statement of a team player who is politely, albeit discreetly, in my humble view, showing that she's not taking a position on what the president is saying, presumably because she might not totally agree with it, but she is indicating it's the president's call and we're on the president's team.
We are there to serve the president.
And if we decide we can no longer serve the president, then we resign.
And then the only question is how you resign politely, which will never please everybody.
Tulsi Gabbard on the statement from yesterday: Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our president and commander-in-chief.
True, and shorthand form for saying it's not my decision.
As our commander-in-chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people, and our country.
He solely, she didn't say solely, he is responsible, not me.
I don't have that luxury, and I don't second-guess it.
The office of the director of national intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the president and commander-in-chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.
We advise, he decides.
This is a beautifully written statement.
After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat, and he took action based on that conclusion.
Wasn't my conclusion, wasn't my analysis, wasn't my decision, but we are there to help.
Some people might say Tulsi, get the hell out, others might say Tulsi played politics better than Joe Kent.
In 2028, if Tulsi decides to run for president and this Iran war, pray to God that it doesn't go south.
Pray to God that he gets out as soon as humanly possible.
And whatever damage to the GOP, whatever loss of life is minimized.
Pray to God he gets out yesterday.
If this goes south, as many people believe it will, Tulsi Gabbard in 2028 gets to say, I was a loyal servant to these United States of America.
It wasn't my decision.
I didn't agree with it, but I wasn't throwing the administration under the bus.
And nobody can hold this statement against me in three years.
Two years.
Holy crap, it's already in two years.
It's a perfect statement.
And Tulsi is loyal.
Tulsi probably still believes she can be more value added to saving America, to making America great again inside the administration than by leaving.
And Joe Kent decided otherwise, left on his terms, which some people are going to criticize him for, others are going to praise him for.
And it is where we are right now.
I want to see what's going on in the chat because I haven't been paying attention to it.
And I want to see if people think I'm a total jackass.
Not that it matters.
And we're going to get ready for a slight afterparty on vivabarneslaw.locals.com with the Rumble After Party.
Oh, what did I just do?
Tabar Nush.
Don wadder second vevas pur requere tout mes super chats.
Not ste la beuves derexia.
Oh, taba wet.
I think I just lost all of the rumble rants that were on the screen.
No, I didn't.
Okay, here, check this out.
Very lucky.
We got King of Biltong.
That's the only one that's new.
Do not eat my Biltong in the loo.
Do not put my Biltong in your shoe.
If you need energy for a while, eat my Biltong and you will smile.
Get some at Billtongusa.com.
Use code Viva for 10% off.
Now, everybody, Oh, we got the idea that one person one vote.
Okay, so I got this before.
Uh, I don't know what time I'm gonna be live tomorrow.
We're gonna go and hang out with Allison.
I'm gonna see her goat, Peter the Goat.
I like Peter the Goat, and we'll see what time we do that.
But, um, oh, yeah, I wanted to check out the chat is what I wanted to do.
Let's see, see what's going on here.
Just tell Barnes to look at the lens of his camera.
Calamity Sue says, Read the Constitution because that's not what it says, and that's what this government wants you to believe.
Okay, I don't know what that means, Tim O'Birth.
Uh, but W someone tell Viva to turn off those free hotel tanning lights.
No, no, no, that's from being on that's from being on a kayak all day in the sun.
Well, I could probably bring up the chat so it looks a little less crazy.
No, that looks much crazier.
The rest of humanity, especially this way, this way.
Um, he is always the commander-in-chief, he is the leader of the military at all times.
Nice try, though.
Never advance.
I get out of here.
Okay.
Um, maybe we're not going to get much uh value.
I agree with Viva on this point.
Thank you.
I'm not sure which one.
Anyways, I hope I hope you appreciate my insights.
Again, I'm not, I don't want to be just like reaction news, uh, and I don't want to just rehash other opinions.
And if I've got, it's tough, but uh, those are my thoughts on the Save Act, get her done, on the and it'll never be perfect, nothing will ever be perfect.
But the idea that you don't have to vote on paper ballots, show ID, and in-person on-day voting unless you've got a medical condition or whatever makes no sense.
And um, I would love to have Joe Camp back on.
I've had him on before, I know he's gonna eat a lot of crow.
Tucker Carlson, I think, is less object.
I don't think there's anything wrong with going on Tucker Carlson, I don't think there's anything wrong with going on with anybody, but you knew he'll he's gonna understandably get a shit ton of shit for going on with Candace Owens.
Um, and Tucker Carlson, I think anybody who says he's wrong for going out with Tucker Carlson is an idiot and should shut their traps, so to speak, metaphorically speaking.
And I believe that is it now.
We're gonna go take this party on over to Rumble Premium.
Let me just see if there was anything else that I forgot.
Uh, okay, that was another one about uh Bongino.
Um, let's go over to vivabarnslaw.locals.com.
I'll give everybody the link.
If you want to support the channel, you know what to do.
Like, share, subscribe.
If you want to tip with cryptocurrency, hit the tip button, get a wallet, get Rumble Wallet, download it.
It's Rumble.
What is it?
I mean, I know you can get it at the App Store.
Is it?
I don't want to just get the exact address.
It's not the sponsor for today's show, but it's pretty much the sponsor for every show.
The Rumble wallet is at it's rumble.wallet.com or wallet.rumble.com.
Let me just say it should be Rumble.
It's wallet.rumble.com.
Get the Rumble wallet if you want to invest in crypto at your own risks and perils.
If you want to tip crypto creators, but come on over to vivabarneslaw.locals.com for the after parties, which we do after every show.
We're going to do now.
I'm kind of hankering to get that martini, that dry martini, to cool myself down, which I might do for the after show.
If you're not coming, I don't know when I'm going to be live tomorrow or the day after or Friday.