Democrat Leader: What the President is Doing is Batsh*t Crazy

right here on the DSR network.

And there's no better way to enjoy the DSR network than by becoming a member. Members enjoying ad-free listening experience, access to our discord community, exclusive content, early episode access, and more. Choose code at DSR 26 for a 25% off discount on sign up at the DSR network.com. That's code at DSR 26 at the DSR network.com/buy.

Thank you, and enjoy the show.

“This is Deep State Radio, coming to you direct from our super secret studio in the third”

sub-basement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington, D.C. and from other, undisclosed locations

across America and around the world. Hello and welcome to a special edition of Need to Know. This is David Rothkoff, your host. We are joined today by Congressman Ted Lou, California Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Caucus. And clearly, we want to get to the news right away.

Congressman this morning, President Trump shocked the world with a true social post in which he threatened to end Iranian civilization, something that's been around for 7,000 years, and which certainly appears to be kind of threat that American presidents don't typically make. I was wondering what your reaction is.

Thank you, David, for your question.

“Both the uniform code military justice and federal law prohibit war crimes and killing”

and higher civilization never to be brought back again, which is what Trump said, that

will be a war crime. And I have directly let the joint choose a staff know that they must not obey illegal orders to commit war crimes. And if they do, then a future administration will prosecute them. The President's statement builds upon earlier threats to attack and destroy Iran's power

generation infrastructure and other critical elements of the country's infrastructure. This too has been asserted by many to be war crimes since it is attacking parts of Iran, which are for civilian use. What is your view of attacks that fall short of genocide, but none the less target civilian elements within Iran?

I started after duty in the United States Air Force for four years and then there's on 21 years in the reserves. I talk the law of armed conflict as part of my duties. And under the standard for war crimes, the test is not only is it a military or civilian target, but also would the military strike cause excessive or disproportional harm to civilians.

And Trump yesterday said that he would blow up every power plan. That would also be a war crime because that would cause excessive or disproportional harm to the civilian population. And Trump when asked about this at the White House easter egg ceremonies, said did it

“trouble him and he said no because they are animals, you're reaction to that?”

There is nothing in the Geneva Convention of 1949 which are codified in the federal law that has an exception that if you don't like your enemy, you can commit war crimes. That's not how it works. And again, if any of these military generals give orders, commit war crimes or execute orders to commit war crimes, then a future administration will prosecute them.

There is no statutory limitations on committing war crimes. There does seem to be a pattern within this administration that in and of itself is troubling. I saw a data point earlier today that suggested that since the civil war, something like it does and forced our generals and admirals had been removed from office. And that in the case of this administration in the course of the past 15 months, nearly

We have the example last week of the Army Chief of Staff being removed from office because

he wouldn't block the promotion of several people to women, to people of color, to becoming general officers. We have a prior example of the commander of South Common Parently being forced out of office because he wouldn't approve illegal strikes. This administration seems to be running a campaign within the military to get rid of people

who think independently or who are respectful of international law or the uniform code of military justice.

“Is that what you are seeing and does the pattern concern you?”

So all I have to go on is the public reporting.

However, I do believe we will flip the house in November and after we do that, we will conduct

investigations and get to the bottom of why this administration is firing. Not just so many generals, but so many generals who have done a terrific job. The Army Chief of Staff, that was fired by L.O. counts, he was an outstanding general and certainly it does send a message of chaos to the American people and to other countries in the world who are watching this when you fire generals in the middle of a war.

And Secretary of Defense, Hanks, I also targeted members of Congress who reminded everybody that indeed, the uniform code of military justice requires people reject illegal orders. So it does seem to be a campaign, he is a guy who ran, or if not ran for office, he certainly promoted himself in the public eye by suggesting that rules of engagement that prohibited

certain war crimes were too soft.

“That seems to be the message from the top in this department of defense.”

It seems to me that that in and of itself is a subject of investigation. Is that correct? Well, let me just be as clear as I can, federal laws specifically prohibits committing war crimes. There is no statute of limitations on committing war crimes.

And so I am confident a future administration, if they believe someone committed war crimes, they're going to prosecute that person or other people who committed war crimes. And so that's as clear as I can say it, that's the law. Shortly before we recorded this, House Minority Leader Jeffries indicated that the possibility of another war powers vote was possible given that the margin for the Republicans is

quite thin. What's your view on that? The Constitution is very clear. It says only Congress can declare war, and we're clearly in a war against Iran. The President has called it a war, the Secretary of Defense has called it a war, and until

the President comes up and asks for approval for this war, I'm going to vote not for a single penny of additional funding for the war, and I'm going to vote for the war powers resolution that's going to terminate hostilities until this administration asks for an authorization for the use of military force. So David, let me also add, it's not just a constitutional requirement.

The framers are very smart. They knew that if you made the President ask for approval before engaging in war, it also makes United States safer in our war execution planning better, because had the President come and ask for approval to engage in war, that all sorts of questions would have been asked of the Executive Branch and the Department of Defense.

They would have had to answer, for example, what happens if Iran closes the street or or moves? What happens if Iran strikes 13 of our military bases and renders a number of them in

“operable? What happens if Iran strikes a bunch of anti-versilities in other countries?”

All of these questions could have been asked, and the Department of Defense could have planned much better for what happened? I don't know indeed, that's the case. Is the fact that the President has conducted what he calls military operations without such approval, another legal issue, particularly since the United States, is doing a

little bit of chest thumping that they've already destroyed 13,000 targets in Iran, that we know that a couple of thousand people are dead in Iran, that we know that that has included schoolchildren, in other words, there are elements of this already that enter the realm

acting in a way that the Constitution prohibits.

The Constitution clearly prohibits this war. Having certain activity clearly, I'm not against war, but I am against wars, they're unconstitutional, and this war against Iran

“is unconstitutional, and that's why as soon as we can, when it bring up the war powers”

resolution vote again, and I do believe this time we might have enough Republicans to join us, to pass it in the House representatives. The silence of Republicans in the House of Representatives is not only for, and the Senate, for that matter is not only deafening, but interestingly, it's contrasting with what we're starting to hear from some former members of the MAGA movement. It's, you know, from

Martry Taylor Greene to podcasters, to radio broadcasters, what the president seems to be doing is extremely unpopular within his base. It is obviously directly contrary to the no more foreign wars kind of message that he offered on the campaign trail, is your interaction with your colleagues on the hill suggesting that in any way the president's coalition is feeling this is being altered by it in any way?

I do see a number of MAGA influencers turning now on the president, and I do urge my Republican colleagues to recognize that what the president is doing is batshit crazy. You cannot

threaten to eradicate and higher civilization and say never to be brought back again.

And let's think about what that means. There's really only one weapon that would do

“that. That would be a nuclear weapon. And that's why Senator Marky and I have repeatedly”

introduced legislation that would prohibit the president from launching a pre-meditated nuclear first strike without approval of Congress. And so we'll be deeply concerned about the state of mind of our current president. And we need to be publicans to recognize reality and during with Democrats to vote yes on the upcoming war power resolution vote. Now, the president has also, in the course of the past week or so, floated that he is

going to request $1.5 trillion for the defense budget. And as you've noted, you're someone who's served and is certainly in favor of strong defense. $1.5 trillion is a 50% increase over

“the level of our current spending. And in order to pay for this, it seems as though the”

president and the administration are proposing even more cuts to social programs, including everything, you know, the heating programs for the poor and more cuts to to Medicaid and other sorts of programs. I'm interested in what your position is, what the Democrats position is on this kind of extraordinary funding request for the Department of Defense at a moment like this. I am not going to vote for another dime of military funding, unless the president

first asks for approval for this unconstitutional war and Iran. I also know that if the president

forces Republicans and Congress in the Senate to vote for a budget or the cutting healthcare and cutting vital services to fund this unconstitutional war, that will be a political extinction level event for Republicans in Congress. I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party,

I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, I'm not going to vote for the Democratic Party, like the attacks, if they were to produce regime change, have produced more hardliner control.

to be more aggressive in its management, if you will, if the straight-of-war moves, it's

“actually given Iran more international leverage than they have had.”

Iranians are gaining support from the Chinese, helping them replenish their missile program, from the Russians. Iran's principal ally, the Russians, have been given sanctions relief that has strengthened them enormously financially, even Iranian sanctions have been lifted, which is a much bigger windfall for the Iranians than anything, dreamt of back in the day of the JCPOA nuclear deal, struck in 2015.

Everything Trump has done to make Iran weaker has had the opposite effect, and on top of all of that, the entire Middle East right now is a much less stable region, because Iran has recognized that by targeting countries that are close to the United States,

“it can also impact the U.S. and can use it to seek to influence the U.S. behavior.”

What's your grade? What's your valuation of the conduct of this war that started on February 28 quite apart from its legality? There is a book called "On Strategy" about the Vietnam War, and it opens with a famous scene where an American colonel and a North Vietnamese colonel meet, and the American colonel says something, "The effect of, you know, we've won every battle." And the North Vietnamese colonel says, "Yes, but that is irrelevant."

And so what we're seeing playing out is the American military is amazing at what we've done

tactically, but as Clausewitz says, war is extension of politics by other means. There has been a complete lack of strategy from the President of this administration. They don't know what their strategic goals are, they don't know what the day after is going to look like, they don't know how to wind down this war. There's a lot of questions they still cannot answer. And so on the strategy front, what you're seeing is that Iran has effectively closed

a straight-of-horse moves to many countries, including United States, they've jacked up oil prices, and the President of United States doesn't know how to get out of this jam. And above and beyond that, this war isn't limited to the one that we talk about every day. Well, thousands have been killed in our attacks on Iran, our attacks with the Israelis. The Israelis have gone into Lebanon now, control something like 12 to 14% of Lebanon,

thousands of people have died there, over a million people have been dislocated there.

And that's not getting a lot of attention here, but that in and of itself is also destabilizing.

“What's your view of the Israeli in Persian in Lebanon?”

So Israel has absolutely right to define itself, and if Hezbollah is attacking Israel in the north, and I think Israel has the right to respond. What does does show is that this has the capability to escalate to a much wider regional conflict. And that again is going to increase oil prices even more, and had the administration come before Congress and said, "Look, we want to attack Iran that we could have gone through all these other scenarios and had the

administration plan things out." But the administration did not do that, they violated the Constitution, and now they're stuck. And the President doesn't know what to do other than to launch social media, war crimes threats. And that is not only reckless, it tells that Iranians,

what the greatest weakness of this President is, he's basically signaling with a bullhorn,

"Hey, look, I am really, really scared about the straight-of-horse moves, and you better open it." Well, what do you think Iranians are going to do? And also, and this is a tough question for a lot of people, including a lot of democratic politicians. Israel has a right to defend itself clearly that right does not extend to a next-wing territory. Israel is continuing to conduct operations in Gaza.

And Israel is seen by many as having goded or inspired or encouraged Trump to move ahead with this Iran attack, which may be the long-standing, and is, in fact, the long-standing goal of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but plays more into his own politics than it does at U.S. national interest.

growing more and more alienated in terms of mutual interest from the Israeli government,

“while we still maintain affinity for and desire to support the Israeli people.”

How do you split the difference there? How should Democrats handle that going forward and is the era of the blank check for Israel over?

So, I guess my view is that America is a greatest country in the world with the most amazing

military in the world. Donald Trump is president of United States. No one tells the American President what to do. Donald Trump alone made this decision to attack Iran. Donald Trump owns it. And I'm not going to blame any other leader or any other country. This is Donald Trump's decision. He owns it, and we're Republicans who support him own this decision.

“It's obviously got greater geopolitical consequences. Let me talk to you about two of them”

in the time that we have remaining. One is that we're depleting our weapons stocks in a variety of ways, notably with regard to interceptor weapons that are important with regard to missile and drone attacks. Prior to this war starting, the thought was that a lot of those might make their way to Ukraine given the threat they face for Russia. During the Biden administration, of course, we provided those directly. Trump changed the policy there and said European nations should be buying these

from us and providing them. The European said, "Okay, they'll go ahead with that." But the same time as we're depleting those stocks, President Trump is attacking NATO, which has been the foundational alliance of U.S. National Security for nearly 80 years.

“How do you feel this war is affecting our security interests outside of the Middle East?”

And particularly with regard to Europe, Russia and Ukraine? Let me tell you about the strategic, probably, United States has now shown the world.

So, a sad missile, it's an amazing system. It's very accurate. But one missile costs about $1,000,000,000.

And Iran's missiles cost significantly less. One patriot missile costs $44,000,000. And Iranian drone costs between $30,000 and $50,000. So this is like launching Ferraris at Frisbees. It is not sustainable. In addition, the U.S. makes about eight fan missiles a month for a total of 96 a year. So last year, in a 12-day conflict where Iran's shot of bunch of boats and missiles at Israel, United States stopped many of those missiles working with other countries. But we launch over 150

fat missiles doing that. That was about a year and a half's worth of inventory. And then we launch a lot more in this a conflict as well. So we're rapidly depleting a lot of our intercepted missiles, and we just can't replenish them fast enough. And even with these amazing systems, Iran has struck 13 U.S. bases and rendered a number of them not operational. And so China is looking at this going, oh, we just have to build up a whole bunch of drones and offensive missiles

and any pro-long conflict, the U.S. is literally going to run out of munitions. And every base and endoposific is going to be struck. So we've got to change our entire defense strategy in an oppressive base on what this Iran war has shown. Yes, but as I was doubting, the president is also, he's not just depleting our resources. He is undermining our alliances and both in the case of NATO, but also in the past few days, he has attacked the stance of Japan, Australia, South Korea,

when it comes to their lack of support for his illegal war. And that too has to have the effect of sort of encouraging or potentially opening the eyes of the Chinese and the Russians to potential future U.S. weakness, no? The president completely misunderstands NATO. It is a defensive

alliance. It is not designed to help member countries attack other countries. That was never

the design of NATO. And so the president simply just doesn't understand how defensive alliance works. And yes, this president has made relations with a number of our allies much worse. His random

sort of motive to try to get Greenland has really offended a number of European countries. And so

“this president has set back U.S. foreign policy and our relations with other countries in a very”

dramatic way. So my final question ties back to the first question. And that is, you know,

what do we do tomorrow morning, later this week? If the United States has embroiled in an ongoing campaign to degrade Iran's infrastructures, civilian infrastructure, there is no end in sight. And, you know, you've talked to some extent about another shot at the War Powers Act. And in the distant future, after the elections, potentially investigations, is there anything else? Democratic leaders, those who oppose what the president is doing can do in the event of this.

“Do you believe you should see people taking to the streets more into the administration? Do you?”

Are there other steps that can be taken? Should the rhetoric of others change with regard to this? Can more Republicans be pressured to stand up in opposition? What else could we do if we feel we are sinking deeper and deeper into an illegal Quagbar? So I'm a quote James Madison, who has 1788, essentially said some of the lines of the

“virtue of the democracy depends on its people. And so the Democratic elected officials would”

do what we can, but ultimately it's going to be the American people that have to speak up and speak

out and let the representatives know, especially Republicans, that what's going on is batshit crazy. And they need to stop basically bending the knee to a crazy president. And they need to take votes that will rain in this presence authority. And I hope Republicans will join House Democrats when we do the War Powers vote. And then I hope Senate Republicans will do the same thing. And so you've got to get these Republicans elected officials to start doing the right thing.

And it is a good to see mega influencers start to turn on this president. And at least they recognize that the president has conned them all. He's lied to his base. And he's done the exact opposite what he said he was going to do, which is lower prices and have no more foreign wars.

Thank you Congressman Lou. As ever, it's good to talk to you from you. We always get clarity and

thoughtful responses. We look forward to speaking with you again in the future. But for now, we are grateful. I know our listeners are grateful. And to all of our listeners, please stick with us each and every day as we follow this deepening crisis. Bye bye.