Transcript of Top Trump Officials Collapse Under Cross-Exam on War

Amazon bietet allen frischgebackenen Eltern in den Logistikzentren extra Familienboni. So wie Anton, der gerade seine neugeborene Tochter im Arm hält. Ihr Glucksen ist für ihn das schönste Geräusch der Welt. Das heißt, vielleicht ist das Geräusch das schönste von allen.

Okay, Nicola, Quizfrage: Homeofficepauschale oder Fahrtkosten? Was bringt uns mehr?

Moment, ich check das kurz. Oha, Homeoffice gewinnt, bringt uns 150 mehr im Jahr.

Ja, richtig. Aber wieso weißt du so was?

Weil WISO Steuer die Erstattung live anzeigt. Das ist einfach die Steuer-App für alle Fälle.

Ja, und Fragen beantwortet sie auch.

24/7 und ohne Beamtendeutsch. Das ist einfach die App, die uns versteht.

Steuern erledigt?

Safe!

Mit WISO Steuer. Jetzt kostenlos ausprobieren.

Wow, Donald Trump's top officials just collapsed under cross-examination during a United States Senate hearing regarding Trump's unlawful war in Iran. During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Donald Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and Donald Trump's Director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, were cross-examined about the justification for this unlawful war and whether they had briefed Donald Trump about the dangers of this war and that it could spiral out of control Precisely what is happening right now. I want you to watch what took place at this Senate hearing. Democratic Senator John Ossoff cross-examined Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Watch how she responded.

Play this clip.

The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote. That's a statement from the White House. Quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment.

Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?

Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.

False.

This is the worldwide—

this is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence, timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that, quote, there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.

Okay.

That is up to the president based on a volume of information that he receives. It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the Worldwide Threats Hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is, as you're here to present the IC's assessment threats? Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.

You won't answer the question.

The nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume—

you're here to be timely—

intelligence that he is provided with.

You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

Exactly what I'm doing.

No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. Let me ask you about—

Very pathetic indeed. Great cross-exam there by Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff. More cross-exam right here from John Ossoff.

Let's play it.

Yes.

And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC's assessment of threats. Correct. That opening statement, as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing, stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote. Correct.

That's right.

And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community?

Yes.

So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes?

Yes.

In the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote. Correct?

That's right.

And that's the assessment of the intelligence community?

Yes.

The White House stated on March 1st—

Next, you have Democratic Senator Kelly cross-examining John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, and Tulsi Gabbard. Here are their responses to his very basic questions.

Let's play this clip.

Or did he just disregard it? And I just want to point out something that was released about 6 days ago. This is a fundraising email from the president, from the president of the United States. And in this email here, where there's multiple links to donate money, it says, as a national security briefing member, you'll receive my private national security briefings. Director Gabbard or Director Radcliffe, do you think the public should be able to supporters of the president should be able to pay and receive his private national security briefings. I assume these are briefings, Director Radcliffe, that you provide to the president that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a—

regardless of what that—

that—

I don't know what that document is, um, but regardless of what it says, it didn't happen.

Uh, oh no, this was new.

But what I'm telling you is that, uh, the Hatch Act would prevent me from— in an apolitical role— from engaging in that. I'm not aware that anything like that happened.

Yeah, this says unfiltered updates. So, Director Gabbard, do you have any comment on whether unfiltered updates of private national security briefings should be made to individuals that donate to the president?

I'm not, I'm not familiar with that document, and, uh, it's, it's been made very public 6 days ago.

We'll, we'll get you a copy here because I agree with you, Director Ratcliffe, that the Hatch Act should prohibit this type of conduct.

Thank you.

Senator Lankford. More from Senator Kelly right here.

Let's play it.

Okay. And is it accurate that China is continuing to receive preferential oil flows from Iran despite the conflict, as Iran allows its own tankers to transit the strait? Director Gabbard, I'm going to go back and forth between the two of you.

There has been some reporting of China, India, and other countries being able to move their tankers through the strait. However, it is unclear the volume or the measure of that.

Okay. So it sounds like it's accurate. Thank you. I'm going to move on, Director.

And here Senator Kelly just wants to understand at a very basic level whether Donald Trump is even getting intelligence briefs At all? Do you even brief Donald Trump? Do you know what your role is at the CIA as the Director of National Intelligence? You're claiming that you don't give threat assessments and that you can't share whether or not your threat assessments are valid or not. Are you sharing information with Donald Trump? Is he even asking you?

Let's watch this clip.

On Director Gabbard, you tweeted yesterday that President Trump concluded there was an imminent threat and made a decision to attack Iran after carefully reviewing all of the information before him. I think the country deserves to know what the information was. I'm going to ask a series of questions and just want a yes or no. We don't need any explanation, just yes or no. Starting with, uh, were you asked— I'm not asking if you did brief this— were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?

I'm not going to comment on what the president did or didn't ask me on any topic.

I'm not even— I'm not asking if you briefed it. I'm just asking if there was a request.

I understand.

By the White House. Director Ratcliffe, were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz?

The, the briefings to the, to the president, the White House, typically don't come at the request of the White House. So typically when we get intelligence that we want the president to be aware of, the intelligence community brings that to, to the president.

Did you produce the analysis for the Straits of Hormuz?

There has been and continues to be analysis with respect to that.

We asked to brief on how our adversaries and allies would respond to the war in Iran? I imagine I'll get the same answer. So it's just a point out here, it's challenging to— forget about actually what was in the brief for a second. We're having a hard time finding out not only if you briefed the president on something, but even if the White House asked if they could be briefed on something, or if analysis was produced So I just—

and we have Senator Reid cross-examining Tulsi Gabbard.

Let's play this clip.

Regime in, uh, Iran now trying to, uh, promote the deceased Ayatollah as a martyr, uh, who should be followed, and that helped them consolidate, uh, support.

Senator, the Iranians are certainly using that as a call to action. The effects of that from an intelligence standpoint remain to be seen.

There is a tradition in Shia, though, to honor martyrs. One of their greatest celebrations is the martyrdom of the grandson of Muhammad. Is that correct?

That's right.

So he might have played into their cultural biases erroneously.

Then we hear from Democratic Senator Warner, and he's wondering why, Tulsi Gabbard, in your printed remarks you stated— you didn't read this during your opening remarks, but it's written in your printed statements— that there has been no efforts by Iran to rebuild their nuclear enrichment capabilities since the prior strikes last June, and thus they posed no imminent threat. It says that in your written report, so why did you not read it when the cameras were on you? Did you not think that we were going to ask you about it?

Here, play this clip.

I do not. Thank you.

Let me move to Iran. Now, I understand And I appreciated Director Gabbard's comments yesterday about agreeing that the president has sole authority, I guess in his bones, to declare whether something is an imminent threat. I didn't agree with your friend, Mr. Kent, but I didn't, again, I agreed with him yesterday on the fact that there was no imminent threat. I guess what I'm concerned about, one thing is, Even in your printed testimony today on page 6, in your last paragraph on page 6, as a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There's been no efforts to try to rebuild their enrichment capability. You omitted that paragraph from your oral opening.

Was that because the president said there was an imminent threat 2 weeks No, sir, I recognize that the time was running long and I skipped through some of the portions.

You chose to take my oral delivered remarks, chose to omit the parts that can contradict the president.

Delete.me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As someone with a very active online presence, privacy is so important to me. And when you spend as much time online as I do, you start realizing how much of your personal information about you is just floating around out there. Your name, contact info, home address, even details about family members can be compiled by data brokers and sold online. Your data is basically a commodity, and anyone on the web can buy your private details. That's why I love using DeleteMe. Their team works to remove your personal data from hundreds of data broker websites, which helps you protect yourself from things like identity theft, phishing attempts, and harassment. And they're highly trusted too. The New York Times Wirecutter has named DeleteMe their top pick for data removal services. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindelete.me.com/mitis and use promo code MITIS at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindelete.me.com/mitis and enter code MITIS at checkout. That's joindelete.me.com/mitis, code MITIS, M-E-I-D-A-S.

More cross-examination here from Senator Warner. Of Tulsi Gabbard. And notice that they continued to basically say these Trump lackeys, these Trump witnesses, oh, we never saw that. I don't know about this. I never read this. Oh, I don't know anything about that.

Here, play this clip.

He chose to omit the parts that contradict the president. The president continues to say as well that, you know, he had no idea, was shocked that the Iranians had moved to take over the Strait of Hormuz. Did you provide any intelligence that would say that it would be— that it was not likely that the Iranians would try to move on the Strait?

I'm not aware of those remarks, and I think those of us here at the table can point to the fact that historically the Iranians have always threatened to leverage their control over the Strait.

Why would the president say he was amazed?

I'm not aware of those remarks.

What about the comments the president made that thought that he was surprised again, reports, that Iran struck the adjacent Gulf states.

Again, I'm not aware of those remarks. We have—

well, let me ask you this. Did you brief the president? Did you brief the president? Did you brief the president if he starts a war of choice that the likely result would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz? Did you brief him on those two facts that I think have been consistently the assumptions of the intelligence community?

I have not and won't divulge internal conversations. I will say that those of us within the intelligence community continue to provide the president with all of the best objective intelligence available to inform his decisions.

Senator, show you some questioning from Senator King right here. Can you give us an update on whether Russia is providing information to Iran about American assets, about target to kill Americans. Does that concern you, Tulsi? And she repeats this Trump line. Well, if they're doing it, they're not really doing a very good job. I'm not sure what war you're watching right now, but America's stuck in an utter quagmire right now.

Here, play this clip.

Update us on the intelligence on Russian intelligence sharing with Iran in the current conflict. What, what do we know, uh, Senator?

If, if there is that sharing going on, um, that would be an answer that would be appropriate for a closed session.

Well, it's been in, in the public press. This is open source that it's occurring. Uh, is it occurring?

Again, uh, if it is occurring, that would be an answer appropriate for a closed session. Uh, what I can tell you is that according, um, to the Department of War, uh, any support that Iran may be receiving is not inhibiting their operational effects.

Okay. That's sort of the first cousin of a yes, I guess. Um, according—

more questioning from Senator King right here where he says Donald Trump's been saying publicly that nobody knew that this was never even conceived of, that Iran might strike their Arab neighbors with American bases in it if America invaded Iran, or that Iran would shut down the Strait of Hormuz? Did you not know that? Because kind of everybody knew that. So tell us about that, Tulsi. Tell us about that, Ratcliffe.

Here, play this clip.

I'm asking the question is there seems to be a discrepancy between between what the intelligence committee— community has reported over the years and what the president has said in terms of his— of this action. For example, Senator Wyden read the report from a year ago that strikes against neighboring states and action to close the Strait of Hormuz was predicted by the intelligence community. And yet the president says nobody knew. And my question is, did you tell him? Anybody want to answer that question?

Senator, I'll answer the question. So, with regard to briefings, the president gets briefings constantly about intelligence. Now, the comments that you talked about, I had not heard, but what I can tell you is that Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region. And that's why the Department of War and the Department of State took measures for force protection and personnel protection in advance of Operation Epic Fury. I think that's what's most important.

Any, any predictions to the president about the Strait of Hormuz? All you got to do is look at a map and you'll see that the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz— was that, was that part of the briefing, Director Gabbard?

I think Director Ratcliffe made the point here is that this has long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.

My question is, was that communicated to the president in the lead-up to this action?

And it's because of that longstanding assessment that the IC has continued to report that the Department of War took the preemptive planning measures that it did.

Well, they've stated that they did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz. The president said, who knew that was going to happen? Anyway, let's move on. Does the president take a daily brief?

More cross-exam here from, uh, Senator Warner. And Senator Warner's asking, so, you know, you were involved in an FBI operation to seize ballots in Georgia. Where's the authority, uh, for you to involve yourself in domestic law enforcement activity? And she's like, oh, I, I never actually was involved in it. I was just there watching and I was just there observing, but I wasn't actually involved in it. I don't even know what was happening here.

Play this clip.

I want to correct one of your statements that you've made multiple times, which is false. I did not participate in a law enforcement activity, nor would I, because that does not exist within my authorities.

You were present on the scene. Are the photos, are the photos of you on the scene?

I was at Fulton County, sir, uh, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action, uh, that had—

You were just observing and watching. What'd you observe there, Tulsi? What, what, what, why were you there, Tulsi, in the first place? What were you doing in Georgia? More questions here from Democratic Senator Kelly. Watch as he says, uh, so you're all aware that Russia Russia is making huge amounts of money right now from this war in Iran, right? They're the ones who are benefiting a lot from this while killing Americans, and Donald Trump's removing these sanctions against Russia so they can sell their oil and make more money while they're targeting Americans with Iranians. What, what, what say you?

Here, play this clip.

That brings us to the war with Iran. So this has created one of the largest ever supply shocks to the global oil supply, which has sent gas prices skyrocketing for Americans. But not everybody is losing. Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe, is it accurate that Russia has gained billions of dollars in additional oil revenue due to price spikes as a result of the war and loosened sanctions? Director Gabbard.

Uh, that is what has been reported. I defer to the Director of, uh, Secretary of Treasury and Energy on that front for details.

Director Ratcliffe.

Yeah, I'm not an economist, not gonna, uh, try and do those calculations, but as I talked about earlier, sometimes there are decisions made that will benefit adversaries at the same time policymakers think that it will benefit the American people.

Clear. I think we'd all agree that sanctions were loosened and that means more money into the coffers of Vladimir Putin.

Uh, then Senator King has more questions about, you know, does Donald Trump take a daily brief from the intelligence community? And then you'll notice that there is a non-answer. This is a yes or no question. Senator King, is he doing daily intelligence briefings? Like, oh, we call him like, uh, We speak to them like 15 times a week. They're all such despicable liars.

Here, let's play this clip right here.

Move on. Does the president take a daily brief from the intelligence community? This is a, this is a yes or no question.

Yeah, the president, um, I would say, Senator, in my estimation, on average, I briefed the President of the United States on intelligence, probably on average 10 to 15 times a week, where I have conversations with him about specific discrete issues. Sometimes there are dedicated sessions that last hours in length. Sometimes I'm briefing him on specific issues, sometimes 3 or 4 times a day. But I would say on average, my interactions where I'm briefing the President on important national security matters Uh, happens probably on average 10 to 15 times per week.

Thank you.

Well, there you have it, folks. Let me know what you think about this all. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thank you all so much for watching.

Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at MidasPlus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski, ad-free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at MidasPlus.com.