Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red calmly points out what was missing from the coverage of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's Senate testimony and masterfully explains the Trump administration's rationale for after Iran... "We're in a world of fact. I think Andrew McCabe's characterization of her answer goes very far from what... she actually said. The question of whether or not something is imminent to the point where you're going to order military strikes is separate, and is the decision -- the sole decision maker there is the President. It's based on the intelligence that they're getting. And Tulsi Gabbard's point was we present the probabilities of what is a potential threat, and the President gets to decide with counsel whether or not he believes that it qualifies as imminent. To the point of what imminent means, it's not the same as what we all use this term. It started with the Bush doctrine. It expanded greatly under Obama, and they're basically arguing three main points, I think, for what imminent threat actually can be in this role: whether or not you have a window of opportunity -- and they had, obviously, a window of opportunity in this case, most of the people in Iran are no longer alive, the ability to go after someone who is in fact, or an organization or regime is a potential threat. Do they have the capabilities to threaten us? And the argument from the beginning wasn't solely about tomorrow, they can have nuclear capabilities. It was whether or not they were going to have the ballistic missile coverage to ensure that they can, in fact, cover their nuclear capability."show more

Curtis Houck

117,911 subscribers

16,657 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Ossoff: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Gabbard: The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. Ossoff: It is precisely your responsibility. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony quote, you represent the ic's assessment of threats.

Ossoff: Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Gabbard: The only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president. It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. Ossoff: It is precisely your responsibility. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony quote, you represent the ic's assessment of threats.

Acyn

1,816,298 views • 5 months ago

.Ossoff's Office: "Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" DNI Tulsi Gabbard: "The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: "False."

.Ossoff's Office: "Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" DNI Tulsi Gabbard: "The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: "False."

CSPAN

678,158 views • 5 months ago

WATCH: After stating that the assessment of the Intelligence Community (IC) is that “Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated” by last year’s airstrikes, DNI Tulsi Gabbard repeatedly refuses to say whether it was the IC’s asessment that Iran posed an “imminent nuclear threat” as of March 1, 2026, as claimed by the White House. “It is not the Intelligence Community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she says. Sen. Jon Ossoff: “This is the ‘Worldwide Threats’ hearing... You are here to represent the IC’s ‘assessment of threats.’ That’s a quote from your own opening statement...”

WATCH: After stating that the assessment of the Intelligence Community (IC) is that “Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated” by last year’s airstrikes, DNI Tulsi Gabbard repeatedly refuses to say whether it was the IC’s asessment that Iran posed an “imminent nuclear threat” as of March 1, 2026, as claimed by the White House. “It is not the Intelligence Community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” she says. Sen. Jon Ossoff: “This is the ‘Worldwide Threats’ hearing... You are here to represent the IC’s ‘assessment of threats.’ That’s a quote from your own opening statement...”

Decensored News

24,333 views • 5 months ago

Victor Davis Hanson draws an uncanny comparison between President Trump and Winston Churchill — two leaders warning about a growing threat while the world refuses to listen. Hanson said that for 47 years, every U.S. president promised to deal with Iran, but Trump is the first one to actually do it. HANSON: “In 1939 Churchill had warned everybody about the threat of fascism on the continent…nobody listened to him.” “Then after the war broke out, nobody called on him and then finally he came in and from May 10th of 1940 he was saying to everybody, these people want to take over the continent.” “He was the voice in the wilderness.” “That’s what Trump is trying to do, trying to say to the American Democratic party, what’s left of it, you don’t understand what’s going on here.” “You Europeans don’t understand, you people in the Middle East don’t fully understand what this regime is about.” “When people say we did not have an imminent threat, we didn’t have an imminent threat when they took our hostages, when they blew up our barracks.” “Nobody said we better attack Iran because we need an imminent threat when they blew up our embassy, they always acted spontaneously with surprises and we never knew what they were going to do.” “The idea you have to have a telegraphed imminent threat, it’s not the nature of that regime.” “It’s lying, disguise and dissimulation. That’s their pattern for the last 47 years.” “But nobody’s taken them seriously.” “Every president’s said we’re going to deal with this, all seven of them and all seven did not.” “And then all seven of them when they got out of office said I regret that I didn’t” “He’s the first one that warned the world and said he’s not going to be one of those presidents.”

Victor Davis Hanson draws an uncanny comparison between President Trump and Winston Churchill — two leaders warning about a growing threat while the world refuses to listen. Hanson said that for 47 years, every U.S. president promised to deal with Iran, but Trump is the first one to actually do it. HANSON: “In 1939 Churchill had warned everybody about the threat of fascism on the continent…nobody listened to him.” “Then after the war broke out, nobody called on him and then finally he came in and from May 10th of 1940 he was saying to everybody, these people want to take over the continent.” “He was the voice in the wilderness.” “That’s what Trump is trying to do, trying to say to the American Democratic party, what’s left of it, you don’t understand what’s going on here.” “You Europeans don’t understand, you people in the Middle East don’t fully understand what this regime is about.” “When people say we did not have an imminent threat, we didn’t have an imminent threat when they took our hostages, when they blew up our barracks.” “Nobody said we better attack Iran because we need an imminent threat when they blew up our embassy, they always acted spontaneously with surprises and we never knew what they were going to do.” “The idea you have to have a telegraphed imminent threat, it’s not the nature of that regime.” “It’s lying, disguise and dissimulation. That’s their pattern for the last 47 years.” “But nobody’s taken them seriously.” “Every president’s said we’re going to deal with this, all seven of them and all seven did not.” “And then all seven of them when they got out of office said I regret that I didn’t” “He’s the first one that warned the world and said he’s not going to be one of those presidents.”

Overton

85,279 views • 5 months ago

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

What is Netanyahu expected to say to the president? The main problem with the ballistic-missile story is that the Iranians have caught on to the daylight—the gap—between Israel and the United States. What happened here is that Donald Trump gave his word and then broke it. "We will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons." But he didn’t talk about conventional weapons—the ballistic missiles that threaten Israel. They threaten Israel to such an extent that Netanyahu himself, in a video announcing to the Israeli people that he was launching Operation Nation of Lions, said that two existential threats had developed. The nuclear threat—you’ve known about for years—but also the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles. What has happened since then? The Iranians are not acting at all on the nuclear front, as far as we know. They have not even extracted the enriched material buried underground. But they are very much intensifying their experiments with ballistic missiles. Either because they think it is threatening, or because, as Netanyahu says, it is an existential threat to Israel. We also have a race between the number of their missiles and the number of our missiles—and let’s say that both countries need to recover on this issue. Let’s ask the question now, and here I don’t have an answer. When Netanyahu goes to Washington to talk to Trump about this, is he talking to him about a combined attack—which seems a bit far-fetched to me, because the Americans really have no intention of getting involved in a conventional weapons conflict anywhere in the world; otherwise they would never get out of it—or is he content to give Israel permission to attack on its own, with the U.S. providing a defensive umbrella? One. Two, it should also be said, in this context, that there is a big debate in the Israeli cabinet and at the top about whether it is possible to launch an attack every six months. You cannot—unlike the nuclear project—you cannot eliminate the Iranian ballistic threat. Is it sustainable to come every six months, eight months, and launch another round, which includes them firing at us, all the flights leaving Israel, and all the implications for the economy? There is no decision in Israel. There is no decision in the U.S. that's what they will discuss.

Amit Segal

273,898 views • 8 months ago

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Clash Report

17,487 views • 3 months ago

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red on Joe Kent's resignation claiming Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.... "But there's one point that I think is important in that Marco Rubio was part of all of the intelligence briefings on this, and Joe Kent was not. So, Marco Rubio had access to everything that Joe Kent did not have access to. What was also left out of that letter was Joe Kent's plans now -- I suppose to be part of this resistance -- go on podcasts that have been very critical of Israel. This is someone who, over the course of the next few days, you'll see more reporting on how he was seen as a chief leaker in this White House. And that goes to some of the problems I have with -- with some folks who are now amplifying Joe Kent as if they agree with him or as if they suddenly believe that he is someone to be trusted"

.Jason Rantz on Seattle Red on Joe Kent's resignation claiming Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S.... "But there's one point that I think is important in that Marco Rubio was part of all of the intelligence briefings on this, and Joe Kent was not. So, Marco Rubio had access to everything that Joe Kent did not have access to. What was also left out of that letter was Joe Kent's plans now -- I suppose to be part of this resistance -- go on podcasts that have been very critical of Israel. This is someone who, over the course of the next few days, you'll see more reporting on how he was seen as a chief leaker in this White House. And that goes to some of the problems I have with -- with some folks who are now amplifying Joe Kent as if they agree with him or as if they suddenly believe that he is someone to be trusted"

Curtis Houck

67,563 views • 5 months ago

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

American Surgeon shows the actual letter from UnitedHealthcare DENYING a patient in emergency condition from receiving care “This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms” “I think we all knew this would happen. I had another patient come in and share with me that UnitedHealthcare denied her inpatient's day. So this is a patient who had shortness of breath and some chest pain, and she just knew that something wasn't right in her body. She had a family history of blood clots and she'd had a deep flap surgery a couple of weeks ago. She went to the hospital and they saw her and they found that she had a life threatening condition known as pulmonary embolisms. So she was admitted to the hospital and taken care of really well by the doctors there. And they ordered all the right things. After a couple of days, she was discharged. She got a letter from UnitedHealthcare explaining that they didn't agree with the level of her care and that they would not cover it. So I'm gonna share some of the language of that letter with you, and I want you to know that my patient that we talked about previously who had her surgery denied had almost exactly the same letter shared. So there's some troubling things in this letter. I think this term is really interesting. United is saying they reviewed the request for inpatient admission. So let's all just pause and consider that. This is a woman who was in the emergency room with pulmonary embolisms, and the doctor wasn't really requesting anything. They were saying this patient needs to be in the hospital. But an insurance company sees this as a request, and that's part of this prior auth environment that we're living in. So I think it's important as patients and as physicians to just acknowledge that this is our reality now. Someone can think that there's a good medical decision for you and can write orders and wanna do the right thing for you, but your insurance company is seeing that as a request and deciding whether or not they wanna do it. One of the criteria that this insurance company used to decide whether or not to accept or deny this request was whether it's medically necessary. And it's so interesting that we're letting insurance companies and the doctors who work for insurance companies determine what's medically necessary and not just the doctor in front of the patient in the emergency room. So this is a really bold statement from UnitedHealthcare for my patient. They say you did not have to be admitted as an inpatient to the hospital for this care. I think we all need to just reflect on that. An insurance company is telling a patient and her doctor that they disagree with the plan of care to keep that patient safe. I know that this is boiling down to whether it's an inpatient admission or an observation admission, and that's really about money. But what I wanna point out to you is they're making medical decisions. This insurance company is actually weighing in and disagreeing with a doctor who made a medical decision to admit this patient for her safety. So this specific sentence, when a doctor or facility treats a patient above the recommended level of care, we cannot cover it. What the heck? That's what we do. We go above and beyond as physicians. It's clear that insurance companies don't, and they're actually saying it here.”

Wall Street Apes

115,712 views • 1 year ago

In an exchange with Sen. Jon Ossoff at the Senate's Worldwide Threats hearing, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said it's not her job to determine what is an "imminent threat." Gabbard told lawmakers that "the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president." Read more:

In an exchange with Sen. Jon Ossoff at the Senate's Worldwide Threats hearing, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said it's not her job to determine what is an "imminent threat." Gabbard told lawmakers that "the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president." Read more:

CNN

238,359 views • 5 months ago

🚨 MARCO RUBIO ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEBATE WITH POPE LEO: "What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics and Christians and others for that matter!" "It goes back to the central point. I think the President, without trying to speak for him, but I think I can characterize it this way. He doesn't understand why anybody, leave aside the Pope." "The President and I for that matter, I think most people, I cannot understand why ANYONE would think that it's a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon." "Look what they're doing with the Straits right now. They're holding the whole world hostage." "They have these sailors on commercial ships that are going to starve to death out there. They don't care. They don't care that this is melting the economies around the world, even of their own allies." "This is what they're doing with the Straits. What do you think they would do if they had a nuclear weapon? They would hold the world hostage with that nuclear weapon. That's what they would do."

🚨 MARCO RUBIO ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S DEBATE WITH POPE LEO: "What the President basically said is that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon because they would use it against places that have a lot of Catholics and Christians and others for that matter!" "It goes back to the central point. I think the President, without trying to speak for him, but I think I can characterize it this way. He doesn't understand why anybody, leave aside the Pope." "The President and I for that matter, I think most people, I cannot understand why ANYONE would think that it's a good idea for Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon." "Look what they're doing with the Straits right now. They're holding the whole world hostage." "They have these sailors on commercial ships that are going to starve to death out there. They don't care. They don't care that this is melting the economies around the world, even of their own allies." "This is what they're doing with the Straits. What do you think they would do if they had a nuclear weapon? They would hold the world hostage with that nuclear weapon. That's what they would do."

Eric Daugherty

18,840 views • 4 months ago

Senator Ossoff: "Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" Gabbard: "The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: "False."

Senator Ossoff: "Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" Gabbard: "The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: "False."

unusual_whales

356,379 views • 5 months ago

#WATCH | Ranchi: Harsh Kumar, intervener in the petitions filed against cancellations of exams, says, "The 'prima facie' case rests solely on the point that they were not granted a hearing. The issue isn't about who is right or wrong; the question of law being addressed is simply whether or not they have the right to a hearing. That is the extent of the question. It does not go into whether or not there was mass bungling... A stay was granted..."

#WATCH | Ranchi: Harsh Kumar, intervener in the petitions filed against cancellations of exams, says, "The 'prima facie' case rests solely on the point that they were not granted a hearing. The issue isn't about who is right or wrong; the question of law being addressed is simply whether or not they have the right to a hearing. That is the extent of the question. It does not go into whether or not there was mass bungling... A stay was granted..."

ANI

21,343 views • 13 days ago

Tulsi Gabbard: 🚨 The Intelligence Community did not assess an imminent nuclear threat from Iran following last Summer’s airstrike Ossoffd: The IC determined that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program enrichment program was obliterated by last summers airstrike. Correct? Gabbard: Yes… Ossoff: Last night, you stated there’s been no effort since then to rebuild their enrichment capability, correct? Gabbard: That’s right.. Ossoff: The WH says this new war was launched to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran. —— “Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" Gabbard: The IC determined that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and grow their nuclear enrichment capabilities. ——The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: False…

Tulsi Gabbard: 🚨 The Intelligence Community did not assess an imminent nuclear threat from Iran following last Summer’s airstrike Ossoffd: The IC determined that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program enrichment program was obliterated by last summers airstrike. Correct? Gabbard: Yes… Ossoff: Last night, you stated there’s been no effort since then to rebuild their enrichment capability, correct? Gabbard: That’s right.. Ossoff: The WH says this new war was launched to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by Iran. —— “Was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that there was an 'imminent nuclear threat' posed by the Iranian regime?" Gabbard: The IC determined that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and grow their nuclear enrichment capabilities. ——The only person who can determine what is and is not a threat is the President—" Ossoff: False…

MJTruthUltra

440,571 views • 5 months ago

🚨 JUST IN: Karoline Leavitt says Iran is doing a lot of tough-talking but can't back ANY of it up "The Iranians are making a lot of threats with their words, but if you look at their actions with respect to their military, they're not as strong or powerful as they were 9 days ago!" 🔥 "That is for sure. We have completely wiped out their navy. Their navy is now deemed combat ineffective. Their retaliatory strikes with ballistic missiles has decreased 90 percent, and as their attacks are decreasing, the power and prowess of the U.S. military is increasing." "We are going to continue to completely obliterate the rogue Iranian regime and ensure that they can never possess a nuclear weapon, that their ballistic missiles can no longer threaten U.S. personnel and our assets in the region." "And the mere fact that Iran is now pointing their capabilities at their Gulf partners in the region, who have tried to remain neutral and at peace with them for many years, they're targeting civilians..." "...It just underscores the point that this operation was necessary, not just to protect the American people and our assets and troops and bases in the region, but also to ensure a truly safe and prosperous Middle East for the rest of the world." "And President Trump is the first president in nearly five decades to actually have the courage to do this, and he should be commended for it."

🚨 JUST IN: Karoline Leavitt says Iran is doing a lot of tough-talking but can't back ANY of it up "The Iranians are making a lot of threats with their words, but if you look at their actions with respect to their military, they're not as strong or powerful as they were 9 days ago!" 🔥 "That is for sure. We have completely wiped out their navy. Their navy is now deemed combat ineffective. Their retaliatory strikes with ballistic missiles has decreased 90 percent, and as their attacks are decreasing, the power and prowess of the U.S. military is increasing." "We are going to continue to completely obliterate the rogue Iranian regime and ensure that they can never possess a nuclear weapon, that their ballistic missiles can no longer threaten U.S. personnel and our assets in the region." "And the mere fact that Iran is now pointing their capabilities at their Gulf partners in the region, who have tried to remain neutral and at peace with them for many years, they're targeting civilians..." "...It just underscores the point that this operation was necessary, not just to protect the American people and our assets and troops and bases in the region, but also to ensure a truly safe and prosperous Middle East for the rest of the world." "And President Trump is the first president in nearly five decades to actually have the courage to do this, and he should be commended for it."

Eric Daugherty

84,735 views • 5 months ago

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that

Devin Nunes explains various charges that are likely to be brought against Comey and company "On Comey, the answer is for this, it's very specific, and it's over whether or not he lied on this one part. The larger part is whether or not you can bring a Grand Conspiracy case. And there's the law, which is, lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, but there's also a term in there called misleading. And what a lot of these guys did is they made up things using intelligence that didn't exist, but acted like they knew something that actually wasn't there, and they lied and misled the American people. And by doing that, all the times they testified before Congress, the Senate, they lied over and over and again with this, oh, we've seen something, we can't tell you about it because it's classified. But what do we now know by everything that's been declassified is, is that they didn't have any intelligence on Russia colluding with Trump. In fact, the only intelligence that they had is that the Russians were very well aware of Clinton's plan. And they actually not only thought Clinton was going to win, but likely preferred that she would win. So going back to the cover up of her missing emails that, by the way, are still missing, they all got involved in this plan. They all got the FBI exercise. They were able to go spy on the Trump campaign. They were able to then get the Mueller witch hunt going, that then led to the Ukraine. Remember, that dies off, then you have the fake whistleblower and the Ukraine impeachment. I mean, that means a whole investigation in and of itself. We now know the latest information that happened on January 6th now with agents that were out there, the pipe bombs, all this other stuff that is, who broke the windows that I asked when I was in Congress, I really wanted to know that. But most importantly, Maria, who's the victim in this? The victim is President Trump and his family. They raided Mar-a-Lago. That's a problem and we need answers to that

Svetlana Lokhova

25,150 views • 11 months ago

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump has carried out a MASTERFUL maneuver of forcing the Iranians to realize "we actually DON'T control the Strait, Trump does" SEC. WRIGHT: "I think the fear that the United States' military is going to open the Strait whether Iran wants it or not, made them realize, if that's true, we've got nothing! We have no remaining leverage!" "Maybe we should get more reasonable and get back to the table with the United States and see what we can get out of this." "What the Iranians saw with Project Freedom, is one way or the other. The United States is going to have free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. It can be in an agreement with Iran, or it can be without an agreement with Iran." "We're going to have to give up our nuclear program. We're going to have to stop terrorizing the Middle East. Hey, maybe the 90 million people in Iran can find a way to a better life!" Rapid Response 47 Exactly. This was intentional.

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump has carried out a MASTERFUL maneuver of forcing the Iranians to realize "we actually DON'T control the Strait, Trump does" SEC. WRIGHT: "I think the fear that the United States' military is going to open the Strait whether Iran wants it or not, made them realize, if that's true, we've got nothing! We have no remaining leverage!" "Maybe we should get more reasonable and get back to the table with the United States and see what we can get out of this." "What the Iranians saw with Project Freedom, is one way or the other. The United States is going to have free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. It can be in an agreement with Iran, or it can be without an agreement with Iran." "We're going to have to give up our nuclear program. We're going to have to stop terrorizing the Middle East. Hey, maybe the 90 million people in Iran can find a way to a better life!" Rapid Response 47 Exactly. This was intentional.

Eric Daugherty

52,230 views • 4 months ago

Leavitt: Regarding Iran… I have a message directly from the president, and I quote, " based on the fact that there is a chance of substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."

Leavitt: Regarding Iran… I have a message directly from the president, and I quote, " based on the fact that there is a chance of substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."

Acyn

366,431 views • 1 year ago

Marco Rubio: We're not members of the ICC. We never signed that treaty, we never joined it. And they somehow claim that they have a right nonetheless to go after non-treaty members and put heads of state and others in jail. We've long had quarrels with them and we have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the US military, maybe even the president or a future president with crimes and this not gonna happen, it's just not going to happen. If people want to sign it and be a part of that stupid organization they can, but we're not going to be a part of it and they're not going to apply their jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it, now or in the future and we've warned them about it repeatedly. And now they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us.

Marco Rubio: We're not members of the ICC. We never signed that treaty, we never joined it. And they somehow claim that they have a right nonetheless to go after non-treaty members and put heads of state and others in jail. We've long had quarrels with them and we have lunatics and crazies involved in the ICC that are talking about charging members of the US military, maybe even the president or a future president with crimes and this not gonna happen, it's just not going to happen. If people want to sign it and be a part of that stupid organization they can, but we're not going to be a part of it and they're not going to apply their jurisdiction to Americans. That's just not going to happen. We're not going to tolerate it, now or in the future and we've warned them about it repeatedly. And now they're going to see the consequences of ignoring us.

Clash Report

288,801 views • 1 month ago