Popular Posts

>> Jim Hansen's a former U.S. Army Special Forces and Chief Strategist for the Middle East Forum. Jim, what do you think is going on today in Tehran? >> I think they are scrambling and anybody who says this fracture between the religious leadership and the military and their civilian political leadership is a bad thing doesn't understand how to break a tyrannical regime. Of course we want them arguing with each other and obviously I think the military will come out on top as you said they do have the guns but in the end they don't have much in the way of weapons left and anytime they poke any of those weapons out of their holes we destroy them. So they've got a very short window before they run out of money, they run out of the ability to pump oil, they already can't sell it and there's not any money coming in to run the regime. Anybody who thinks they're ahead in this game is not paying attention. >> So is it more of a negotiating tactic or is it them trying to consolidate power as they lead negotiations going forward? >> They want the world and anybody else to think that they are ahead. That's why you hear them say things like 26 ships broke the blockade, well no, 26 ships got turned back and the 27th got a free engine room redecoration courtesy of a U.S.S. destroyers five inch gun, free ventilation, that's not how you win. Next we take a tanker and now we've got 2 million barrels of free oil. They don't have any way to come out ahead in the blockade game. They're wrong if they can think they can wait President Trump out and if he has to start breaking some more of their stuff to emphasize the point, we have plenty of ways to do that. They have nothing but maybe an opportunity to attack a ship trying to transit the strait. >> And they don't have a lot of time left. You heard Bessin say these oil wells, they're going to fill up and they're going to have to shuttle production soon. Do you think the president waits and sees how things unfold inside Tehran or do you think he needs to give him a little nudge? >> Here's the thing. Anything the president blows up right now causes damage for the Iranian people and he's got the opportunity, there was a point there where I guess the defeat mongers thought they were going to convince the world that President Trump had to stop this because of the pressure. We can absorb some short term oil price jumps and the political pressure at home is not going to change President Trump's calculation. He can beat them at this game. The fewer things he blows up from here going forward, the better, but they shouldn't think for a second, he will not give them an object lesson in how to make the rubble bounce. >> And the United States and Israel have been accumulating so much intelligence over the last two weeks that whatever fighting does break out will end pretty quickly. Is that your understanding? >> Yeah, we've got all of their people identified. If we wanted to, we could take out another layer of their leadership again, but we need somebody to go ahead and quasi surrender whatever this ends up being. So if they want to try and I mean, they can't fight in the normal use of that word. They can cause damage, they can be a terrorist state breaking other people's things, but they can't take us on force. And if they want to go ahead and let the IRGC take a run at being the heads of a military as opposed to a theocracy, that will be a very short-lived event.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

It's a truly historic day, and under this president's leadership, this historic peace deal has been truly made into reality. When people actually go back and look at the history, you hit the high points there. These two countries have been in some form of conflict, sometimes very bloody, other times a very tense situation where conflict could spark out again at any moment for over 35 years. So for this event to happen today, again, President Trump said in some of his remarks today that his aspiration, his greatest aspiration as president is to bring about peace and stability. This is yet another example of his effective leadership that brought these two leaders together in a way that hasn't happened before. And I can tell you there was a lot of work that led to this moment. This wasn't something that just happened overnight. Again, when you look at over 35 years of conflict, under President Trump's leadership, he encouraged and helped move along this ongoing negotiation between these two leaders and their countries that led to this truly historic and great event.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

We revoked her visa. It's an F-1 visa, I believe. We revoked it, and here's why. And I'll say it again. I said it everywhere. Let me be abundantly clear. If you go apply for a visa right now, anywhere in the world, let me just send this message out. If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us that the reason why you're coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus, we're not going to give you a visa. If you lie to us and get a visa and then enter the United States and with that visa participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa. And once you've lost your visa, you're no longer legally in the United States, and we have a right, like every country in the world has a right, to remove you from our country. So it's just that simple. I think it's crazy. I think it's stupid. For any country in the world to welcome people into their country, they're going to go to your universities as visitors. They're visitors and say, "I'm going to your universities to start a riot. I'm going to your universities to take over a library and harass people. I don't care what movement you're involved in." Why would any country in the world allow people to come and disrupt? We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses. And if we've given you a visa and then you decide to do that, we're going to take it away. I encourage every country to do that, by the way, because I think it's crazy to invite students into your country that are coming onto your campus and destabilizing it. We're just not going to have it. So we'll revoke your visa, and once your visa's revoked, you're illegally in the country and you have to leave. Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn't. If you invite me into your home, because you say, "I want to come to your house for dinner, and I go to your house and I start putting mud on your couch and spray painting your kitchen, I bet you you're going to kick me out." Well, we're going to do the same thing if you come into the United States as a visitor and create a ruckus for us. We don't want it. We don't want it. We don't want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country, but you're not going to do it in our country.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

We will have victory on November 5th. Save America. That's what we're going to do. Thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

So I just say it's a sad day for this country when you have something like this, and remember the words, should have been started three years ago if they were gonna start it at all, and then you wouldn't be quibbling over what week it's gonna end, days, they're quibbling over days and hours, they wouldn't be quibbling at all, they never started it. And you know why they didn't start it? Because they didn't know I'd be running, and they didn't know how well I'd do. And if I were not running, or if I were doing poorly like everyone else has done, because they're all gone, they're all knocked out except for Crooked Joe Biden, if I were doing poorly, this wouldn't be happening, none of these trials would have been happening. If I wasn't running, they wouldn't be happening. So it's a sad day in our country in many respects.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Welcome back, America. In addition to denying President Trump attorney-client privilege in one case and executive privilege in the other case and his communications with his vice president, you see anything else weird going on here, Jim Trusty? Yeah. I mean, look, I think there's a real parallel between two investigations that speak volumes about this attorney general and his integrity. The IRS whistleblowers on the Hunter Biden case said that they went to the assistant U.S. attorney ready to do a search warrant to find documents belonging to Hunter Biden. It could be a real treasure trove, of course. The AUSA didn't just say, "No, we're not doing the search warrant." She picked up the phone and called Hunter's lawyers and said, "The IRS is trying to search location X." Okay? In my book, that's basically obstruction of justice. The parallel on the Mar-a-Lago case is that you have the high-level DOJ official, according to a statement submitted as an officer to the court to a federal judge, told Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nada, that it would be a shame, essentially, if he endangered his pending judgeship by not flipping Nada against President Trump. Again, it's extortion. And so the people that we are entrusting in our criminal justice system to fairly and partially and transparently pursue justice are actually obstructionists, because they're so hell-bent on going after one target against President Trump. And I hope your viewers recognize there's a lot of details, a lot of legal and factual arguments. I hope and try to be an evidence-driven guy, but there's evidence from both of those cases that suggest this Department of Justice, if those accusations are right, has no compunction about breaking the rules, about destroying the rule of law because of their political interest in being the ones that got President Trump. Do we know where that extortion case is now, what the judge has found? I mean, it would seem to me it's relevant to the judge in Florida that the judge in D.C. come to a conclusion. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, look, you had a presiding judge in D.C. that had a case that suddenly became indicted in Florida, and I'm not saying that it was bad for the president, that the case moved to Florida, but there's a lot of shenanigans in terms of grand jury usage. You know, you don't do a grand jury investigation for a year only to move it to another district unless there's more to the story. I'm concerned that some of those abusive behaviors we talked about played out in front of the grand jury in D.C., and so what Florida got was a much sanitized version of what was presented over the course of a year in D.C. So again, I'm not on the case. There'll be litigation, I assume, that relates to these issues of how the grand jury was used or abused, but it's certainly, again, new territory when DOJ shifts an investigation at the last minute to an entirely different venue. And they would start an investigation in a grand jury in one place and move it to another, which violates the rules of the Department of Justice. But there's a lot of reasons you can do that if you're really a sleazy prosecutor, including you feel you can get a better grand jury from your perspective in Washington, D.C. than in Florida. You're making a point, I'm reading between the lines here, that a lot of stuff took place in that grand jury in Washington, D.C., that the grand jury and the judge in Florida can't possibly know about. You talked about sanitizing that process. I assume some of that, I'm guessing, has to do with attorney-client privilege information and so forth. The reason I'm saying that is past people I have talked to that have faced this man, Smith, say that's exactly what he does. He pierces attorney-client privilege by hook or by crook, gets it in front of the grand jury. It's used in front of the grand jury. And now in this case, he's moved it to another grand jury. And so the grand jury in Florida and the judge in Florida don't know anything about it unless Trump's lawyers are good enough to raise it with them. Is that your point? Yeah, I think that's right. Again, I think there's a lot to be looked into. Of course, the grand jury proceedings in general are one-sided, right? The old saying about the grand jury on the Ida Ham sandwich if a prosecutor asked them to. We understand that. We're not pretending that the grand jury should be like a full-blown trial. It's not. But when judges make historic decisions based on ex parte submissions, in other words, one-sided submissions that defense attorneys don't get to even challenge, to make history. And then, by the way, to avoid all appeals by rushing the witnesses in the grand jury right after they get the friendly ruling, I mean, all of that smells rotten to me. And I think it's the type of stuff that will hopefully be brought to the attention of Judge Cannon or Judge Chutkin, depending on what the specific issue is in Florida or in D.C. And as you started out, the idea that this is being done to a former president who's running for president again, the stretching of laws, the application of laws that have nothing to do, in many cases, with what's taking place, a general warrant rather than a very clean, laser-focused warrant, sending SWAT teams in, where his Biden son, his lawyers get a heads up from the government and so forth. This damn thing is so completely out of control. Jim, trust you, I want to thank you very, very much. God bless you, my friend. All right. Thanks, Mark. Good talking to you. We'll be right back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.