Transcript of Top Trump Officials Throw him Under the Bus at War Hearing

In diesem Jahr werden über 10.000 Elektrofahrzeuge für Amazon-Lieferungen in ganz Europa eingesetzt. Für Lieferungen wie Fußbälle für junge Kicker. Ich fass' nicht! 10.000 Elektrofahrzeuge und es werden immer mehr. Basierend auf geplanten Fahrzeugen unserer Lieferpartner in der EU und Großbritannien bis Ende 2026.

Sag mal, Nicola, hast du auch immer dieses Gefühl, bei der Steuererklärung mit einem Bein schon im Knast zu stehen?

Boah, nee, gar nicht. WISO Steuer ist so die Steuer-App, mit der ich wirklich nichts falsch machen kann. Wow!

Das heißt, damit ist alles sicher?

Ja, genau. WISO Steuer ist die Steuer-App, die dich versteht. Weil Steuern betrifft ja dein ganzes Leben. Arbeit, Kinder, Partner. Du kannst nichts falsch machen.

Stimmt. Nice. Fühlt sich gar nicht wie Steuern an.

Steuern erledigt?

Safe.

Mit WISO Steuer. Jetzt kostenlos testen.

Wow, Donald Trump is getting thrown under the bus by his own top officials in this hearing that's taking place before the United States House of Representatives. So yesterday you had Donald Trump's top intelligence officials, Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director. And today Kash Patel is there as well before the House of Representatives. Yesterday, they were kind of cagey with their responses because I think all of them all assessed that Iran did not pose any imminent threat to the United States. And in their threat assessments that they gave to Donald Trump, they said Iran did not pose any imminent threat. They looked all cagey yesterday. And all the MAGA people were going after them, especially as you had Joe Kent, this like ultra MAGA right-wing guy who was the number 2 to Tulsi Gabbard. He resigned. He did a Tucker Carlson appearance where he was like, Iran definitely didn't pose an imminent threat to the United States. This was all directed by Israel and Donald Trump following Netanyahu's lead. This was Trump's top official as of 72 hours ago, right? As of last week. And the guy resigned. He was working with Tulsi Gabbard.

Tulsi Gabbard's whole thing was no foreign wars in the Middle East. That's literally her entire message in her political political life. And so she looked like an utter fool before the United States Senate. So she and John Ratcliffe, and to some extent Kash Patel today, they kind of changed their tactic and they were very much distancing themselves from Donald Trump during these House hearings today. I mean, even in Tulsi Gabbard's opening statement, she goes, I'm here to provide a threat assessment. I'm not giving you my own personal views or my opinion. So she already starts off by kind of distancing herself, saying, I may not believe what, you know, what these things are. Here, let's just play this clip.

I'm here today to present the 2026 annual threat assessment and joined by my colleagues, the directors of the CIA, the DIA, FBI, and NSA. This briefing is being provided in accordance with ODNI statutory responsibility. What I'm briefing here today does not represent my personal views or opinions. But rather the assessments of the intelligence community of the threats that facing the United States, our homeland, and our interests. In this assessment, we're following the structure of priorities that were laid out in the president's national security strategy, starting with threats to our homeland and then shifting to global risks.

Then one by one, as Democratic Congress members and even Republican Congress members are asking Tulsi Gabbard questions, which is so, Why are we listening to Israel and following them in this war? Why don't we have our own views of things? Uh, why, why is your assessment this and Donald Trump doing that? Isn't Iran more dangerous now than they were before? And ultimately what Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, would say is, well, you know, ultimately Donald Trump's the one who makes those calls. He makes those decisions. To which at one point, you know, these Democratic Congress members like, well, what's the point of your job then? What are you doing? What's your— what is the point of your existence in this government role? If you just say, well, Donald Trump does it, Donald Trump does it, it's a dictatorship. So over here you have Congressmember Carson saying, so is there any evidence at all that Iran intended to do any preemptive attack on the United States? And then Tulsi Gabbard is like, ultimately it is Donald Trump who is responsible. It is Donald Trump responsible. and she'll keep repeating that over again. But here, play this clip.

Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe, is there any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the United States? And I ask this because 13 service members have been killed in Trump's war, including Captain Seth Koval, a husband and a dad from my state of Indiana, and my constituents want answers. So is there any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the US prior to beginning this war? Yes or no?

Congressman, uh, the answer to this question needs to be reserved for a closed hearing. I will say, however, the intelligence community does provide the assessments of the threats that exist to the president so that he can make that determination within the body of information and intelligence and activities within the region that ultimately he is responsible for what is an imminent threat. And, and if there is an imminent threat, what actions need to be taken.

Then you have Democratic Congressmember Crowe. Watch this exchange with Tulsi Gabbard where she's like, the imminent nature of threats, that's not determined by me. That's determined by Donald Trump. Play this clip.

Did you or the IC make any assessments as to the timing of potential threats facing the United States from Iran? In the last 90 days?

I'm sure there was timelines factored into the intelligence assessments that were, that were delivered.

Did any of them show imminence?

The imminent nature of a threat is provided— is, is determined by the president based on a totality of the intelligence and information provided to him.

Did any of them show that there were attacks anticipated within the next 90 days from Iran?

It's too simplistic of a statement to say that because it depends on various scenarios occurring or not occurring.

Did those assessments show timelines for the threats that Iran posed to the United States?

The totality of threats, yes, there were timelines involved where it applied and where that information was available. But again, to your question about the determination of imminence, the president makes that determination based on the totality of information and intelligence.

The bottom line is there was no evidence provided and you know that, and there's no product that shows that. I yield back.

And this was some scathing cross-examination here by Democratic Congressmember Gomez. I want you to watch this. Let's play this clip. More from Congressmember Gomez right here. Play this clip.

Last year you testified that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Do you stand by that statement? Yes or no?

Context matters with that. Yes or no? Iran had all of—

I reclaim my time.

I reclaim my time to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. It's an easy answer. You either stand by what you said last year or not.

It is a serious question that requires the—

Director Gabbard, I reclaim my time. I reclaim my time.

And more from Congressmember Gomez. Play this clip.

Today you said that only the president, only the only person who can determine what is an imminent threat is the president of the United States. Do you stand by that statement?

Yes, I do.

Director Ratcliffe, do you agree with that assessment that the president is the only person that can determine if something is an imminent threat or not?

The president as commander-in-chief gets to make a decision about what's an imminent threat. The intelligence community— well, the intelligence—

reclaim my time. I reclaim my intelligence community has provided a body of intelligence. That's the reason why decision that if the president can determine and ignore what you're doing, why do you guys even have a job? Why are you even— like, why do you even advise them? So you're saying tomorrow the president of the United States can say China is an imminent threat and then he can take his own— no matter what the intelligence says, he can take his own action? So that's what you're basically—

let's go back to Democratic Congressmember Crow himself, an Army Ranger right here who served many combat tours of duty, who knows what war is actually like firsthand. Watch this. Play this clip.

Director Gabbard, it is your job and the job of your agency and department to assess the views of Iranian leadership, their policy beliefs and policy positions, correct?

Yes.

That includes now deceased Ali Khamenei of Iran, correct?

Yes.

And is not the now leader his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, correct?

Yes.

The son is considered more of a hardliner than his father, isn't that correct?

Yes.

Uh, so hardline that even some of Iran's leaders thought he was too aggressive, isn't that correct?

That is the intelligence community assessment, yes.

Mujtaba, the son, is particularly close to the brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and their most hardline commanders, correct?

That is the intelligence community assessment.

He was involved in ordering violent crackdowns on Iranian protesters, including their murder, correct?

Yes.

And we don't know if the son will continue his father's religious ban on developing nuclear weapons, is that correct?

It's unknown at this time.

You testified before this committee last year that the elder, now deceased, Khamenei had in 2003 banned the nuclear weapons program or suspended it, correct?

There was a fatwa in place that stated that.

And that fatwa remained in place last year when you testified before this committee, correct?

Yes.

And that fatwa remained in place recently, correct?

As far as I know, it has not been lifted.

Yeah. You're aware of no information that would lift that fatwa?

I'm not aware of any intelligence reporting that states that. To be clear on the Mojtaba, the son who has been named to replace him, it is unclear of his status or his involvement. He was injured very severely through one of the Israeli strikes. Uh, and so the decision-making, uh, is, is unclear about what's happening in the Iranian leadership.

It's unclear. So we're less certain of the positions of Iranian leadership and their intentions than we were 60 days ago, correct?

That's an accurate assessment.

Okay.

And you had Congressmember Gottheimer over here saying, by the way, that's why this hearing was relatively bipartisan as well, saying, what are we doing in Iran? Uh, Congressmember Gottheimer said, so did the IC brief the president on the impacts to the global supply chain. And she's like, yeah, we told them, we told them. Here, play this clip.

American people— Director, were you in a meeting to discuss a possible strike on Iran?

Uh, Congressman, there were several meetings that were held, uh, in advance. I'm sure I was in at least some of them.

Did the intelligence community brief the president on the potential impacts a conflict could have on global supply chains and on oil and gas prices prior to the outbreak of hostilities? Uh, were you in a meeting? Were you in any meetings where that came up?

Yes, that, that is the intelligence community's assessments, and those were provided.

Director, did the IC— Director Radcliffe, if I can ask this to you— did the IC brief the president on who would succeed the Supreme Leader if he was killed and the likelihood that a replacement would be a hardliner?

Was the president— say it again.

Did the IC brief the president on who would succeed the Supreme Leader if he was killed and the likelihood that a replacement would be a hardliner or could be a hardliner?

So to be clear, the president's objectives with respect to Operation Epic Fury did not include regime change. That may be different from what Israel's objectives were. But you can— but yes, the president was briefed in the event that Supreme Leader—

That's great. Thank you so much. I'm sorry to cut you off. I just have 20 seconds. Director Patel. Does Iran—

How about Congressmember Bera? Here, play this clip.

Did you—

There is no imminent threat of nuclear breakout. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?

I have delivered the intelligence community's assessments to the president.

There was no imminent nuclear threat to the United States. There was no evidence of imminence that Iran was going to attack American assets. That was different from anything they've done over 4 decades. That was going to attack our homeland. There was no imminent threat. Imminent is defined in the dictionary as something that is about to happen, not something that's been happening for 4 decades, not something that is going to happen 3 months from now, not something that's going to happen a year from now. Imminent said this is about to happen. Did you deliver that assessment to the president?

I delivered the intelligence community's objective analysis of the threats, the severity of those threats, and the scope, along with assessments of the different scenarios and contexts that exist within the Middle East.

The president owes it to the American people to go on television to explain to the American people, to the service members who have died in action serving our country, why we are at war with Iran. He needs to go on television and explain that directly to the American people. What the imminent threat was.

All right, I want to ask you something. What's the most ridiculous subscription you've ever found buried in your bank statement? I'll tell you mine. I realized I was paying for two streaming services I didn't even use anymore, and somehow I had duplicate subscriptions to one of them. I kept telling myself I'd go cancel them later, and of course later never came. That was before I started using Rocket Money. Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. What I love is that it actually shows view every subscription in one place, and if you don't want it, you can cancel right inside the app with just a few taps. No digging through passwords, no sitting on hold, it's simple. It also automatically categorizes your transactions across accounts, so you can actually see where your money is going. Dining, shopping, subscriptions, it's eye-opening. And once you see the patterns, you can set budgets and goals that actually make sense. It feels like having a financial assistant keeping you honest. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster.

Join at rocketmoney.com/midas-touch. That's rocketmoney.com/midas-touch. Rocketmoney.com/midas-touch.

M-E-I-D-A-S-T-O-U-C-H. Elise Stefanik was getting in on the action. Congresswoman Stefanik, let's play it.

Assessments.

Thank you. I also wanted to ask this because this week there was a high-profile resignation of, uh, Director of National Counterterrorism Center. Now, I want to be clear from the outset, I've communicated directly with President Trump my support for Operation Epic Fury, and I was very not only disappointed, but how inappropriate this letter was. And I want to read a statement that— and get your personal assessment whether you agree or disagree with that. And that's this: Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States and that you should strike now. There was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into a disastrous Iraq war. Now, I cannot say how much I disagree with that statement. Do you agree or disagree with what this letter was put out by former Director Kent?

Uh, he said a lot of things in that letter. Ultimately, we have provided the president with the intelligence assessments, and the president is elected by the American people and makes his own decisions based on the information that's available to him.

But do you agree with— does that statement he made blaming Israel concern you?

Yes.

More over here, an exchange between Democratic Congressmember Castro and Tulsi Gabbard. Let's play it.

So the death and destruction continues, the economic cost to the United States. To Israel, to the Gulf states, and to the world continues to increase. So I want to ask you, to the best of your knowledge, do you know whether Israel is supportive of the president's call to make a deal with Iran?

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know Israel's position on that.

And to what do you attribute Israel's decision to strike Iranian energy infrastructure despite President Trump's call to keep those facilities off limits?

I don't have an answer for that.

So they ignored the president. Do you agree with that?

I'm not privy to any of their deliberations or what went into their calculus in launching this or other attacks. I'm not— we are, we are not involved with the, in the operational element of this. We're providing continuously on a daily basis the intelligence assessments of the events that are occurring.

Uh, and I guess, uh, I know the FBI can't because they're domestic, but can anybody else at the table provide any insight into that?

I guess I'm not sure what the question you're asking. Uh, Congressman Castro, I guess a couple things. The goals that the president set out are clearly defined. The DNI related those. What was not included is a goal of the U.S. campaign.

Let me start with this question. You asked what my question is. Let me reclaim my time, Director. Come on. Do you know why Israel decided to strike that infrastructure despite the fact that the president said it should be off-limits?

I wouldn't, I wouldn't speak for Israel.

And what do you guys know?

We're at war.

What do you guys know? We'll have to take that for the record. Yes, let's take it for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And here when John Ratcliffe said, to be clear, the president's objectives for Operation Epic Fury did not include regime change, that was just Israel. Here, play this clip right here.

This to you. Did the IC brief the president on who would succeed the Supreme Leader? If he was killed and the likelihood that a replacement would be a hardliner?

Was the president— say it again.

Did the IC brief the president on who would succeed the Supreme Leader if he was killed and the likelihood that a replacement would be a hardliner or could be a hardliner?

So to be clear, the president's objectives with respect to Operation Epic Fury did not include regime change. That may be different from what Israel's objectives were, but you can But yes, the president was briefed in the event that Supreme Leader—

That's great. Thank you so much. I'm sorry to cut you off. I just have 20 seconds. Director.

And finally, take a look at Congressmember Cohen, his cross-exam with Gabbard. Let's play it.

Director Gabbard, are you familiar with CI-12?

I'm not, Congressman.

Okay.

Let me ask you this question. In the intelligence community's unclassified annual threat assessment from last year, It said, quote, Iran's large conventional forces are capable of inflicting substantial damage to an attacker, executing regional strikes, and disrupting shipping, particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz. It seems the IC was entirely correct in its assessment about Iranian retaliation in the Strait. Did the IC's assessment about Iranian capabilities in the Straits of Hormuz change in the past year?

No, Congressman.

Does Iran still have the capability to threaten shipping in the Straits of Hormuz with missiles, mines, and small boats?

Their capabilities have been largely degraded, but yes, they still have means to threaten passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

And how long can they keep the strait closed?

Uh, based on current events, I'd have to get an updated assessment from the intelligence community on that.

Uh, did you have an analysis of the impact of a war on global supply change and the price of oil and gas?

I believe that assessment may have come from the Department of Treasury or Energy.

Who didn't come through your office?

Uh, it came from their element within Department of Energy or Energy.

Do you know if the president was briefed on those assessments?

I believe so, but I can't confirm.

So if he was briefed on those assessments that that was a problem and the Straits of Hormuz could be shut off, and that's causing a great problem in the world's economy with oil prices going up to like under $120 or something a barrel and an effect on all countries' economies, why would the president not have taken actions to strengthen defense around the Strait of Hormuz?

All I can say is that the president ultimately is responsible for making the decisions based on the totality of information and intelligence that he has available to him.

The intelligence that he has available to him. That's a scary thought.

Well, there you have it, folks. Let me know what you think over there. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. And thanks, everybody, 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.