Transcript of Top Trump Official Cross-Examined for His War Crimes!!! New

Über eine ganz besondere Apotheke wird gerade gequatscht wie über keine andere. Shop-Apotheke. Und das nicht ohne Grund. Tausende Kunden geben Shop-Apotheke Top-Bewertungen. Und insgesamt vertrauen Millionen auf den Mega-Service. Übrigens inklusive super unkompliziertem Scannen deines E-Rezepts. Einfach App runterladen, Krankenkassenkarte ans Handy halten und schon liegt alles im Warenkorb. Probier's jetzt aus. Alle Infos gibt's in der App und auf shop-apotheke.com.

Wow. Democrats in the United States Senate just had the opportunity to cross-examine a top Donald Trump official on the war crimes being committed by the Trump regime. And these Democrats in the United States Senate did not hold back as they were cross-examining the ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Walls, as well as the representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for UN management and reform, a guy by the name of Jeff Bartos. I wanna show you what went down as Democratic Senator Van Hollen cross-examined Mike Walls about the war crimes being committed by the Trump regime. Watch Mike Walls, Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, squirm. And I should note, this is the first time that any top Trump official was able to sit before the United States Senate before any was presented before the United States Senate to be cross-examined. And this hearing was supposed to be about an entirely different topic, but Democrats utilized it to expose the war crimes being committed by the Trump regime and the complicity. Watch this, you're going to be shocked here. Play this clip.

Would you agree that we should enforce and that there be consequences for war crimes? And let me ask you a different way. Would you agree it would be a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure in Iran because Iran did not agree to open the Strait of Hormuz. That would be a violation of international humanitarian law if we actually did.

Actually, that's— that, that is incorrect. Uh, there are— we have a long history. We could show— look at video after video of the bridges that we bombed in World War II and Vietnam and conflict after conflict, uh, power plants in Serbia under the Clinton administration.

This was not my question. My question was, it has full use.

Well, I'm going to have military with civilian uses.

Mr. Ambassador, that was not my question. President Trump threatened to hit civilian infrastructure if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz. We all know international law. We know there are some exceptions to the general rule that you shouldn't hit civilian infrastructure if the enemy is occupying it. But my question was different. You don't think it's a violation of international law to blow up a bunch of civilian infrastructure because the government of Iran refused to open the Strait of Hormuz? You don't think that would be— I think President Trump, the American I think that would be a violation of international law.

I think that's having to use every bit of leverage that he has.

I'm asking you if—

And if you have military units using bridges to go down to the Straits of Hormuz to attack international shipping and launch missiles into resorts and airports and ports across the strait, then that's absolutely a valid use.

So, Mr.

Ambassador, essentially what you're saying—

And I got to tell you, as a veteran who had to pull these triggers, I think the president's absolutely in the right.

Mr. Ambassador, I know you all like to talk rather than answer questions, but let me ask you this. Your testimony is that if you have an authoritarian regime anywhere in the world, that because they're authoritarian regime, if they don't obey the U.S. demands, you can wipe out their civilian infrastructure. Let me ask you this. Would it be a violation of international law to destroy a civilization? Would that be a violation of international humanitarian law?

I think what you're talking about, Senator, is a mean tweet that got with a regime that's genocidal. Chance death to America. And you're going to talk about some tough language that actually the result of it was diplomacy. Well, the result of it was the highest meeting in the history of the United States and the Iranian regime, uh, was a return to the ceasefire.

So once again, we're focused on what he says, and maybe we should return to the time when the Strait of Hormuz was open before we started the war that closed the Strait of Hormuz and got a more radical and more extremist Now, if that doesn't shock your conscience, I'm gonna show you another clip right here where Democratic Senator Van Hollen cross-examined Mike Walls about a statement that he made when he was in the House of Representatives. He used to be a Congress member, Mike Walls. So he was asked, hey, remember when you were a member of Congress and you said Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and that if Biden didn't say that, which by the way, Biden did say it, that you would impeach Biden and Biden should be removed from power. Remember when you said that? So Is Putin a war criminal? Again, watch Mike Walls, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, squirm. This is so utterly pathetic. Play this clip.

You said that President Biden needed to make clear that, quote, Putin is an absolute war criminal, unquote. Do you stand by your statement that Putin was an absolute war criminal?

I'll tell you, Senator, statements I made as a member of Congress very different than what I make now as an ambassador to the UN working for President Trump and representing the United States. So are you retracting? I certainly— I support President Trump in everything he is doing in trying to end this awful conflict.

I just find it very interesting, Mr. Ambassador, that you called upon the former president Biden in no uncertain terms to condemn Putin as a war criminal, and you won't call upon President Trump to do the same thing. As you know, he has refused to do what you called upon President Biden to do. Let me move on.

You know, Senator, it's quite difficult to mediate the end of the war, uh, if you take such maximalist approaches. And now being a diplomat and a mediator and fulfilling his goals, working for him and his agenda, is very different than when you're elected a senator.

It's interesting, Mr. Ambassador, I was a simple question. I guess you, or You're not asking this president to do what you asked the last president to.

Next up, you have Democratic Senator Murphy cross-examining Mike Waltz about his statements about destroying the entire civilization of Iran. Play this clip.

But President Trump has said that if Iran does not comply with his demands, that he will end Iran's civilization with specific threats to target civilian infrastructure. This looks to a lot of us and to the world like a promise by the president of the United States to commit war crimes. I'm sure you don't— I'm sure you don't agree with that assessment, but we have never had a president before threaten to end an entire civilization and double down on that claim if that country does not accede to the demands of the United States. So what does the president mean when he says that if these negotiations don't work out, he will end Iran's civilization?

Well, Senator, I think that statement in the broader context, he also talked about attacking infrastructure, bridges, power plants. And we all know Iran has a long history of co-mingling both civilian and military, of hiding weapons in hospitals and schools. And using what could be just pure civilian infrastructure to also power factories for drones, for missiles. And the IRGC controls nearly 50% of the economy. I think it looks like, frankly, well, look, I guess what does it mean?

What does it mean to end a civilization?

But I think we have to look at the fact that you have a regime that literally chants death to America for the last for 47 years and has acted on it, has killed thousands of Americans, has slaughtered its own people. Do you know how many— I mean, how many machine gun bullets does it take over the course of a week to kill 40,000 of its own people?

Right.

But does that— so does that merit a threat to—

I think it's civilization, Senator. It was some tough talk. And what are the results? What are the results? Was we had the highest level engagement in the history of the Iranian regime with the vice president and speaker of the parliament. Less than a week later, we had a ceasefire 48 hours later. They clearly got the message and they clearly came back to the table.

Yeah. And I guess it's an open question as to whether we should try to pursue our aims by threatening another nation with mass civilian casualty. I don't know that that's something that we should celebrate, that we are able to cow nations to our demands by threatening to kill civilians.

But as a former military member, and I'm safe in speaking for our military, uh, they take every precaution possible, uh, to avoid civilian casualties. But this regime responded, and again, if we focus on the results over the rhetoric, uh, they came to the table, they got the message, they put the ceasefire in place. They haven't honored it with the Straits of Hormuz, and now, uh, we have talks ongoing.

More cross-examination here by Democratic Senator Murphy to Mike Walls about the Strait of Hormuz and whether or you all anticipated that the Strait of Hormuz would be shut down by Iran? To which Mike Walls is like, of course we war-gamed it out. Well, Donald Trump didn't say that. Donald Trump said it was all one big surprise. What about regime change, Mike Walls? Here, play this clip.

Results over the rhetoric. They came to the table, they got the message, they put the ceasefire in place. They haven't honored it with the Straits of Hormuz. And now we have talks ongoing.

Let me ask you about the strait, because obviously that is what is impacting our constituents in a significant way. Did the administration anticipate that Iran would close the strait, or was that a surprise?

Oh, I can tell you, having formally worked in the Pentagon and been in the military for 27 years and the committees I sat on in Congress, that has been war-gamed over and over and over again by CENTCOM, And as you know, the CENTCOM commander was the former Fifth Fleet commander out of Bahrain.

So it was anticipated?

Well, it was anticipated to my knowledge. Again, I'm sitting up at the UN. Absolutely. But at the same time, the measures they took to sink nearly two dozen minelayers, to go after those land-based missiles that they are using, to go after the drone, not not just the drones but the manufacturing capability, was to drastically reduce that threat, which is why I think you've seen now dozens of ships moving over the last few days.

And dozens of shipments moving compared to hundreds of ships normally.

Well, sure.

I mean, Iran, in violation of international law, declared now the Straits of Hormuz its own waters. Last— uh, it's, it's essentially punishing the entire world. And I think the president should be applauded for flipping the script because now their ships can't move.

Lastly, just one clarification on another war Is it a goal of the war to enact regime change? And if so, have you accomplished that goal? The president has referred to the regime having changed and that being a successful byproduct of the war.

Senator, I think the president's made his goals quite clear from a military standpoint. The vice president made it clear in Islamabad: open the sea lanes, no nuclear program, end its decades of support for terrorism. And have a negotiated arrangement that's verifiable and enforceable.

So not regime change?

Well, if you— if the regime ends up changing in some fashion or form, I'll tell you what, the regime's got to change its behavior. It's unacceptable. We cannot let it have a nuclear weapon.

What I found interesting and also very pathetic about Mike Walls' testimony right there is when he was like, you know, because of Donald Trump's harsh statements and his social media posts, that's what got Iran to the ceasefire negotiations.

No, it didn't.

What did is Donald Trump lied and said that he was agreeable to Iran's 10-point negotiating framework, which gave Iran everything, control over the Strait of Hormuz, keeping all of their ballistic missiles, enriching uranium, permanent security guarantees for Iran, Hezbollah, uh, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite groups in Iraq, and much more millions of dollars per ship that goes through the Strait of That's why Iran entered the negotiating table, because those representations were made. And then did you notice what Walt said is, and now Iran is not honoring the ceasefire. They agreed to the 10-point framework and y'all changed the deal.

Ever wake up sweaty, freezing, or just uncomfortable? The temperature in your bedroom can make or break your sleep. That's why I switched to Miracle-Made Sheets. They're inspired by NASA technology and use silver-infused temperature-regulating fabric to help you sleep perfectly all night long. Miracle-Made sheets feel just as good, if not better, than sheets you'd find at a 5-star hotel, but without the steep price tag. Smooth, breathable, and ridiculously comfortable. Thanks to their antibacterial silver technology, Miracle-Made sheets stay cleaner and fresher up to 3 times longer than regular sheets. That means fewer odors, fewer wash cycles, and way less laundry. All that hidden bacteria in regular sheets, it can clog your pores and cause breakouts. Miracle-Maid's antibacterial design helps you sleep cleaner and clearer night after night. Miracle-Maid sheets are crafted with NASA-inspired silver-infused fabric that helps regulate your body temperature. Hot sleeper, cold sleeper, doesn't matter. These sheets help keep you in the comfort zone all night long. Upgrade your sleep or give the gift of better rest. Go to trymiracle.com/midas to try Miracle-Maid sheets today. You'll save over 40%, and when you use the promo code MIDAS, you'll get an extra 20% off plus a free 3-piece towel set.

They make for an amazing gift, and with a 30-day money-back guarantee, there's no risk. That's trymiracle.com/mitis, code MITIS at checkout. Thanks to Miracle Maid for sponsoring this episode.

Any event, let me show you Democratic Senator Coons. Here's the cross-examination that he did at Mike Walls talking about war authorization, that this is the duty of the United States Senate, and the Congress in general controls war authorization. So what do you think about You know, a little something called war authorization. And I don't know, Article 1, the authority to declare war ultimately rests with the United States Congress. So tell us about that. Play this clip.

We haven't declared war officially in decades, but we have in the previous conflict in the Persian Gulf had hearing after hearing after hearing and votes in Congress for an authorization of the use of military force. And we also, in a number of conflicts, have respected the War Powers Resolution 60-day termination clock. Clock, which if we were following that would have about 15 days left. My simple question is, are you aware of any plans to seek authorization from Congress if a full-scale ground war begins, or if this conflict resumes if the ceasefire stops? Um, and would you support Congress authorizing this conflict so that the warfighters who we are sending into this region know that they have the support of the American people through their elected representatives?

Well, Senator, thank you for the question. I certainly, uh, wouldn't and shouldn't get ahead of the president and his engagement with Congress, uh, and I certainly wouldn't presume that we will have, as you described, full-blown ground, uh, combat. I think we've seen the president, as we're seeing right now, uh, there is a whole, um, slew of options in between where we are now and some type of ground combat and, you know, taking the leverage away from Iran. They are trying to punish the world. And we, with the closure of the Straits of Hormuz, with attacking civilian shipping, I can tell you in the UN, we had a UN record, 135 nations join Bahrain, the GCC countries, the United States condemn Iran for its attacks on hotels and ports, resorts, ports, and neighborhoods, which was incredibly notable to see that kind of unity. But I'm glad also that we agree that we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran, and I'm thankful the president is taking bold, decisive action now before it's too late.

Before I run out of time, Ambassador, I just— we were not briefed on an imminent threat. We were not presented with information either in a classified setting or an open setting that justified the idea that there was an imminent threat and we couldn't pursue negotiations. And the absence of either that briefing or a clear request for Congress to engage in authorizing this conflict has given me a great pause. We share a view on the dangers of the, of the region and of our increasingly aligning adversaries around the world— DPRK, Iran, Russia, China. I am hopeful that you will be, that you'll convey the message back that a prompt briefing on what was the imminent threat precipitated this conflict and an urgency around requesting authorization. Instead, we will simply keep voting on war powers resolutions here that will send a divided message, and I don't want us to send our young men and women into harm's way with a divided message from this Congress.

Next, you have Democratic Senator Kaine from Virginia talking about how Donald Trump ripped up the nuclear disarmament deal that former President Obama negotiated with Iran that was effective And that was working. And you'll notice Mike Walls was like, you know, Iran wasn't obeying the deal. That's why we had to attack their nuclear facilities last June. And we obliterated it. To which Senator Kaine's like, because Trump ripped up the deal in 2018, there was no deal for them to comply with because y'all shredded it. Donald Trump shredded it in 2018. Watch Democratic Senator Kaine play this clip.

We could have controlled it diplomatically. But why do we need to risk American service lives because we tore up a diplomatic deal? It's madness.

That diplomatic deal, Senator, would have had Iran flush with cash, its terrorist proxies flush with cash. The missile component has already expired. The enrichment components expired last year.

The deal did not forbid us from going after any of those activities.

This is incredibly important because the IAEA went to its board of governors and for the first time in decades said Iran was absolutely not in compliance. There is no— after the US tore up the deal, there's no need to enrich to 60%. No country in the world has 60% enriched uranium.

And they wouldn't have had we not tore up the deal. They did not do that until we tore up the deal. We shouldn't have torn up the deal.

But Senator, they were cheating on the deal before the deal. That was exposed in 2018. You were only allowed to see certain sites with a month's advance notice. And they had a whole slew of hidden military sites that not only are allies, but the IAEA exposed. They were absolutely—

I represent— I've been really generous. You have time.

And I—

we've had this debate here a number of times.

Obviously, we haven't resolved the debate, but I appreciate that.

We're off subject.

And then Democratic Senator Kaine also explains what this deal was about and how we got here. I think this is a very strong moment of this hearing as well. Let's play this clip.

But most people in America would not agree with America alone. And I think the interpretation of the actions of the administration, a lot of people are wondering whether it's America first or America alone. I would like to introduce for the record a list of organizations and treaties that the US has withdrawn from during President Trump's first and second administrations. It's a 5-page list, if I might, Mr.

Chair.

Folks see that. They see the president trash-talking allies, talking about Canada as a 51st state or an invasion of Greenland connected to a NATO ally. They look at a president willy-nilly imposing tariffs on allies, including allies with which we are in trade surplus, like Australia, not trade deficit. Deficit. And they raise the question, is this about America first or is it about America alone? They look at the president's threats to withdraw from NATO and they ask the same question. And I think those questions have been very sharpened by the war in Iran. It's a war where the president has not sought congressional authorization as other presidents have in the past. It's a war where the president did not consult in advance with allies whose economies are being significantly affected by the war. It's a war that the administration has not yet presented to my satisfaction to Congress a clear rationale or a clear plan. And the information that has been presented thus far has only been presented in classified, so that we're not able to share fully with our constituents, even those who have kids deployed in the theater of war. What we know about it.

We're still awaiting the first sets of public hearings. And Mr. Secretary, it is unfair for you to be the first, you know, kind of principal before us because these are questions that aren't completely in your remit, and I get that. But the issue of this war has really sharpened this question of, is the administration pursuing an America First policy or an America Alone policy? As you know, the war has cost 13 service members their lives. Hundreds have been injured. Innocent civilians have been killed, which is always the case, even under the best of circumstances. It's sad that you can't avoid that. And the economic consequences to the United States are sharp. My constituents are paying a dollar more for a gallon of gas than they were on February 27th. Virginians buy 8 million gallons of gas a day. That's $8 million coming out of Virginians' pockets every day. And this is spread throughout the country. And throughout the world. We're reading news about allies like Australia and how they're really suffering because they import oil and what that escalating oil cost since February 27th has done to them. Do we care about allies or are we pursuing an America alone strategy?

Now, Mr. Ambassador, or to the Honorable Waltz, Representative, not Ambassador, you have an ambassador's rank, You know, you've talked about the president wanting to make sure that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. And you know this, but just in case there are folks who are watching who don't know this, the United States over the course of 2 years negotiated a deal with Iran, with our European allies, and with adversaries, China and Russia. And the first page of that agreement statement said as following: Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. That was a forever promise. There were some aspects of the deal that were 10-year promises or 15-year promises. There were two forever promises. One was accession to the Additional Protocol requiring intrusive inspections by the IAEA, and the second one was this forever promise that Iran would never seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. And Iran abided by that until the United States, under President Trump's leadership, tore up the deal unilaterally. Our allies said it was working. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was working. President Trump's first Secretaries of Defense and State, Mattis and Tillerson, urged him to stay in the deal.

That it was working, the president tore it up. And what I find tragic is we have service members now losing their lives because the United States destroyed a diplomatic deal. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.

There you have it, folks. Let me all know, let me know what you think. But I think it's important that you saw all of those clips right there, and it's full context, right? So you can see what's really going on in the Senate and what Donald Trump's top officials are saying. By the way, you know who hasn't testified about the war yet? Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio. By the way, don't you find it interesting as well that the Secretary of State Marco Rubio has had zero involvement in the negotiations with Iran, wasn't in Pakistan, was at a UFC fight instead, as Donald Trump was telling the UFC male fighters how handsome and good-looking men they were. And Marco Rubio was out there like celebrating like he was some like, like celebrity at a UFC fight. What's Rubio doing right now? Is he planning the invasion of Cuba? Is that the detour we go on next? The next war crimes are in Cuba. Well, the war crimes in Cuba are already happening right now with the Trump regime starving the people, the people to death. We could be very critical and have serious, serious issues— understatement— with the regimes.

But what the Trump regime is doing, they're killing the people, the little girls in Manab in Iran, the people who are in the schools and the hospitals, the civilians, the people in Lebanon and Beirut. That's what Donald Trump and Netanyahu were doing. And in Cuba too. Hit subscribe. Let me know what you think. Let's get to 7 million subscribers.

New Midas merch. Head to store.midastouch.com today and get yourself the best pro-democracy gear and show your support. That's store.midastouch.com.