Search Posts

this will be the entrance into the ballroom the ballroom will be right here this is a glass beautiful glass tunnel beautiful tunnel it goes right into the ballroom bones right there pretty good right you've had so much fun I feel like designing this well I did it's gonna be one of the greatest I would say it will be the greatest facility of its kind ever built by far they'll never be anything like it and we're ahead of schedule we're right on budget and it's a gift from me and from great patriots that you know it's gonna cost the country nothing

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

>> 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.

over eight years ago, when I was doing my radio show on that Thursday night, as I was preparing, I started to pull news articles together, website reports together, and I started to see a pattern. A pattern that there was an effort by the Obama regime during the Trump campaign in 2016 and subsequently during the Trump transition and during his early presidency to interfere with the campaign and then to destroy his presidency. I broke it first on radio, then with Pete Hegseth the following Sunday, I guess that's March 5th or 6th, 2017, and it was a big story. The media attacked me, the media denied it all, but I used all their reports, all their reports, and so I want to give you the context of this this evening as we get into it and what Tulsi Gabbard has done, which is very, very important, and you're hearing people say, "Well, we already knew all this. We didn't know all of it." Or they're out there saying, "What's the big deal? There's not a crime. We have immunity." They're not exactly right about that. So stick with us. It's a full program. We're going to take it from beginning to end. Check it out again. This is March 5th, I believe it is, on Fox & Friends Sunday morning with Pete Hegseth eight and a half years ago. Go. On your Thursday evening radio broadcast, you laid out a devastating case about executive overreach of the Obama administration, which many believe have metamorphosized itself to tweets that President Trump sent out on Saturday morning accusing potential wiretapping in Trump Tower. We want to give you a case here this morning to lay out what you know, what you know about it, the evidence you have for the potential executive overreach of the Obama administration. Well, pleasure to be here. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not about President Trump's tweeting. This is about the Obama administration's spying. And the question isn't whether it's spied. We know they went to the FISA court twice. The question is, who did they spy on, the extent of the spying? That is the Trump campaign, the Trump transition, Trump surrogates. And I want to walk you through this. The American people exhibit one. All right, let's stop right there for a moment. Now, America, keep in mind, this is the first time anybody ever pulled all this together. I didn't have access to classified information. I can't issue subpoenas. I was doing my radio show prepping and I said, wait a minute, something's going on here. I saw a pattern that went over the course of months as a former Chief of Staff to Attorney General. I could tell there had been leaks out of the DOJ and the FBI and the intelligence agencies. This is literally the first time on television anywhere that this was pulled together and explained the first time it was exposed. Go. Head Street, two separate sources with links to the counterintelligence community have confirmed that the FBI sought and was granted a foreign intelligence surveillance act court. This is spying in October, giving counterintelligence permission to examine the activity of, quote, U.S. persons in Donald Trump's campaign with ties to Russia. Let me go on. Since it me, they say the first FISA request, sources say named Trump, was denied back in June, denied by the court. But the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server possibly related to the Trump campaign and its alleged links to two banks. Now, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern U.S. persons. Now, I know people are hung up with Trump's word wiretapping. Well, how did they get access to this server information? Does it really matter if it was wiretapping, electronic surveillance or whatever it was? Exhibit two, The Guardian, a well-known right wing British paper. Here it is, quote, The Guardian has learned the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. Keep in mind this is during a presidential election. The sitting president, the incumbent party is now investigating the presidential candidate of the Republican Party and his campaign. To some extent, the FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counterintelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October. Exhibit three, McClatchy, another well-known right wing newspaper. Here they have the agency's headline. FBI, five other agencies, five other Obama administration agencies, pro possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump. The FBI and five other law enforcement intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from Kremlin covertly aided presidential elect Donald Trump. Two people familiar with the matter said the agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department's financial crimes enforcement network and representatives of the director of the national intelligence. Are you telling me Barack Obama didn't know it was going on in the six agencies? As you go on, hold on, hold on. Okay, keep going. I'm not done. I need to make the case because the media seems to be confused about their own reporting. New York Times, another well-known liberal outlet, intercepted Russian communications, part of inquiry into Trump associates January 19. The FBI is leading the investigations aided by the NSA, the CIA, Treasury Department's financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks, but have found no exclusive conclusive evidence or wrong to listen to this. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretap communications had been provided to the White House. This is the New York Times. Another right wing outlet. Another right wing outlet. Let's continue. New York Times, again, NSA gets more latitude to share intercepted communications in the final days of the Obama administration. The administration has expanded the power of the NSA to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government, 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. Now, why would they do this on the way out the door? Well, March 1, Exhibit 6, Obama administration rushed to preserve intelligence of Russian election hacking. In the Obama administration's last days, listen to this, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Trump and Russians across the government. I'm not done. Exhibit 7, New York Times. Flynn is said to have talked to Russians about sanctions. Trump took office. Well, where'd they get this information? Well, Mark, you know the FISA court. They're always monitoring the Russian ambassador and so on. How do we know that? Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but there's an awful lot of other activity. Sure. Here we have Washington Post. One more. Washington Post, March 2nd. U.S. investigators have examined contacts Attorney General Sessions had with Russian officials during the time he was advising Donald Trump's campaign. The focus of the U.S. counterintelligence investigation has been on communication between Trump campaign officials in Russia. Listen to this. The inquiry involving Sessions is examining his contacts while serving as Trump's foreign policy advisor in the spring and summer of 2016. This has been going on for a year now. As you do on your radio program, you lay out a devastating case based on public documents, as you point out, and not right-wing sources, but mainstream, left-stream sources. How confident are you that this new, this investigation, which was on Russian, so-called Russian hacking, but now the White House says this morning will be broadened to looking into executive overreach. How confident are you that they will find something there? I don't know, but they already found something. The issue isn't whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, or transition, or certain of its surrogates. The issue is the extent of it. They went into court a second time. They were so aggressive. They waited four or five months. They go back in October, weeks before the general election. They narrow their request. All of a sudden, we have leaks coming out on Flynn. Then we have a horrible meeting that took place between Sessions and so forth. And I'm telling you, as a former chief of staff to an attorney general of the United States in the Reagan administration, these are police state tactics. Now, what did Barack Obama know? He knew everything I just read to you apart from one or two articles. You know how I know? It's in the newspapers. It's right there. So Barack Obama not only knew this, but he gets a daily intelligence briefing. And let me tell you something about daily intelligence briefings. If your attorney general and your FBI is going to the FISA court to get a warrant to investigate aspects of an opposition party in the middle of a general election campaign, how much do you want to bet the president of the United States knew that? I don't want to bet you on that. How does this play out in the media? How are they going to continue to cover this story? Let me first say this is the case made by the New York Times, The Washington Post, McClatchy, and the rest of them. I just put it together as a former Justice Department official. And Donald Trump here is being attacked for what he tweeted. Donald Trump is the victim. His campaign is the victim. His transition team is the victim. His surrogates are the victim. These are police state tactics. I am telling you this as a former chief of staff to an attorney general. If this had been done to Barack Obama, all hell would break loose. And it should. And Barack Obama's statement is pathetic. Let me just say this. Where does it go from here? They ought to release both FISA court applications where they sought the one, the one in the summer and the one in October. So we know exactly what they were doing. That's number one. Number two, Congress needs to see the daily presidential intelligence briefings over the past year or so. Those are the beginnings of a serious investigation. Number three, for the Republicans in Congress, you control the majority. If the Democrats do not want to assist and they won't, because I'm starting to think Chuck Schumer and the others are participating in all this cover up activity, then plow ahead without them. But this is important to the country. We cannot have a sitting presidential administration unleashing six federal agencies, intelligence and law enforcement. I don't mean the president personally sitting there and saying, you know what, Valerie, let's go get them. Obviously the attorney general and the FBI were involved in this. This is how you get a FISA court application prepared and submitted. Do you think former President Obama was involved in this? And if so, how much was he involved? I'm not Nostradamus here. I just think that we ought to find out. But I will tell you this. He's more involved than he says. I mean, it's his executive branch. It's his justice department. Mine's for the IRS. All of a sudden, the IRS is targeting American citizens. I don't know anything about it. We have reporters, including James Rose and the AP, where the Obama administration did more investigations of reporters than any administration in American history. They're quite capable of these things, but it doesn't matter. We want to know what took place. And there ought to be public hearings on this stuff too. I agree with the Democrats. Let's get to the bottom of this. So join me.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Let's talk about the moment you walked back in this office, this desk, this room, your carpet, how did you feel? Well, it was a lot of work, and as you know, I felt that we shouldn't have had to necessarily be here. It could have been done, a lot of work. It would have been over, we wouldn't have inflation, we wouldn't have had the Afghanistan disaster. We wouldn't have October 7th with Israel where so many people were killed, and you wouldn't have a Ukraine war going on. But with all that being said, I think it's bigger. It's bigger than if it were more traditional.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Mark your calendars now, speaking of asking questions, for a special Faulkner focus coming up next week. Wednesday, October 16th, former President Trump will join me in the battleground state of Georgia in a beautiful town hall in coming Georgia. I will moderate a special town hall Q&A. So you're going to actually give -- it won't really be coming from me. It'll be voters in an intimate setting at the Reed Barn venue, a very beautiful place. The audience will be comprised entirely of women. Women, as you know, make up the largest group of registered and active voters in our nation. It is essential that those voters understand where these presidential candidates stand on the issues, which they say matter most to them. Those key issues we'll talk about include the economy, abortion, immigration, healthcare, daycare, childcare and more. Members of the audience will put their questions to former President Trump and current Republican White House nominee. Again, be sure to tune in Wednesday, October 16th, just right around the corner, right here on the Faulkner Focus.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Donald Trump on One Nation, he tells Brian what worries him most plus why he's all in on crypto. I think it's going to be a very hot industry. Watch the one-on-one interview tonight.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.