Top Trump Official Falls Apart Under Cross-Exam on War!!

I'm saying, you can say that you're a hero.

You're a hero, right? But you don't understand. Exactly, it's just a challenge. You're just a hero. You're just a hero. And if you work, you're a hero. - That's right? - Save. You're a hero. - You're just a hero. - Now you're a hero.

That's fair, and there's a lot to tell. Stop! Let's take a look at the recruiting game. With Stepstown All-Jobs, we'll show you everything for one year. In one package to a fixed price. So let's take a look at the 50% cost-probe value and have a flexible time.

Now let's take a look at Stepstown.de/All-Jobs.

“Stepstown is the most important talent for all-Jobs.”

In this year, there are over 10,000 Electro-Fahrzeuge for Amazon Leverungen in all-Europe. For Leverungen, like football, for younger kids. I don't know. 10,000 Electro-Fahrzeuge and it will be more. Based on the plans for our Leverpartner in the EU

and Großbritannians will end 26. One of Donald Trump's top-state department officials got grilled under cross-examination before the House of Representatives and the United States Senate while he was testifying

under oath about the disastrous war in Iran. The individual testifying is named Thomas De Nano and he holds the title "Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security."

“He's the guy who deals with our international arms trade deals,”

whether that's with Israel or whether that's with other nations in the Middle East, or with NATO, or wherever. And he's also the individual who's supposed to deal with, like nuclear arms control, treaties, new start, which expired last February.

And this guy got grilled under cross-examination. He did not handle it well when he was asked some pretty basic questions under oath.

For example, first in the House of Representatives,

Congress Member Castro, cross-examined this guy, De Nano, about whether or not Israel has been hiding nuclear weapons. As Congress Member Castro says, "We are four weeks into war where both sides have targeted each other's nuclear facilities. We risk nuclear disaster, get the main Trump official on arms control,

refuse to answer my question on Israel's nuclear capabilities, and told me to go and ask the Israeli government, watch this great cross-examination by Democratic Congress Member Castro. Let's play it. But Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons.

I can't comment on that specific question. You'd have to refer to the Israelis on that. Does Israel have nuclear weapons? I'm not prepared to comment on that. You know, prepared to comment on it?

It's a very basic question. We are with an ally conducting a war against Iran. This war continues to escalate. Tell us something as Congress, as the oversight body,

“what is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?”

I can't comment on that specific question. You'd have to refer to the Israelis on that. Does that mean you don't know? I can't comment on that, sir. You're the main person in charge of knowing this and understanding it.

Will you not give us an answer? I don't understand why this issue is so taboo when it's a basic question. And we're in a war alongside Israel against Iran. We're dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout,

and you won't answer this basic question. Well, again, it would be outside of my purview as the arms control non-proferation under Secretary to discuss that specific question. Sir, that is a dereliction of duty.

Next, I want to show you the cross-examination by Democratic Congress member Keating. And he grills Denono about the Trump regime's support of Putin, whether or not they view Putin as a war criminal,

hinting Denono basically refuses to answer the question,

and he's like all over the place with his answer. And this Congress member's like,

And bolstering support for Russia?

Like, what are you doing right now?

“I want you to watch as Denono who exposes himself yet again,”

and this whole Trump regime has Putin puppets right here. Watch him get crushed under cross-examination. Let's play this clip. You're also cutting the support we have for the general prosecutor, Ukraine. This prosecuting war crimes is Vladimir Putin, a war criminal sir.

Sir, again, that's well outside of my purview as the T. Undersecretary. Well, what, no, no, how about as an American? No, as an American person, and as citizen, yes sir. And someone curious, is he on both?

Vladimir is Vladimir Putin a war criminal? I understand that on both. No, yes or no, no sir, I'm not going to answer yes or no. I'm going to answer, I'm not going to answer yes or no. That's quite an answer.

Yes, that's right. Yes, oh yes, no, it's yes or no, yes. You can't even ask a simple question like that. We have to know, because we have to put the question under your agency's support for the prosecutor general.

And you know what that support has been doing? It's been preserving evidence and training so these war crimes, including sexual assault of young girls in front of their parents and grandparents by Russian soldiers, which is tens

of thousands of young people being taken from their families, maybe never to come back and

put in Russian film, definite war crimes, we are supporting that and you're cutting that support in the guise of reorganizing for the prosecutor to preserve the evidence and to move forward on these war crimes, these horrific heinous war crimes Russia is committing. So what I want to ask you sir, this is under your purview. No sir, you should be doing more.

Oh sir, it's not. Yes, it is by the way. Not. I understand what the prosecutor general was office is, by the way, I know everything's new to you.

No, no, it's not actually new to me, right? You have funds to help train and move forward with the prosecution and help the prosecutor general and Ukraine.

If there is a specific program that you feel or that you know that funded a legal advisor

in the office, I don't know about any of these things.

“And then you should know about it with all due respect.”

I've got eight seconds to your homework. Come back here. I'm a representative. Let's do it with. I yield back.

Shifting gears for a moment from the House of Representatives to the United States Senate. Let me show you democratic Senator Van Hollins cross examination of undersecretary of state de nano, watch de nano squirm as Aaron Rupert puts it in response to a series of questions about his involvement in the transfer of U.S. bombs to the Netanyahu government. Let's play this clip, the administration's emergency declaration.

If there's ever a circumstance, that's an emergency. This would be it. Mr. DeNan. Let me just not ask you. I'd like to ask you whether, I'd like to ask you whether, whether you come off of my answer.

If you let me finish, I'm happy to answer your question, sir. That being said, I sat before the committee during my confirmation process and committed to working with the committee to follow the law. The law does allow for the emergency exemption. That's why we used it.

“I'm not asking you about, I understand that, but I think the context is important, sir.”

I know, because I submitted a question for the record and you said, you would comply with cat policy. Now I'm asking you whether you were involved in reviewing the transfer of 20,000 bombs to the Netanyahu government with respect to compliance with the cat policy. Any foreign military sale that we do would fall underneath the conventional arms transfer

did you personally review that assessment? Again, Senator, the emergency declaration, no, not the emergency declaration. Did you review the assessment regarding whether or not that transfer of 20,000 bombs comply with the cat policy? Everything that we do complies with the law, did you personally, or were you personally

involved in that review? I was involved with the transfer and anything that we would be consistent with our cat policy, which is compliant with the law. So I'm going to take it as a note that you do not personally review whether or not that transfer complied with cat policy.

I just, did you personally review that? You can take it any way you want. Did you? I've already told you I was involved with the policy. I obviously, the political military of your, did you personally review, I reviewed hundreds

with the law, and most importantly, I think it's important for the community that we lay out

who are not trying to establish a new norm that will continue to, on a case-by-case basis, look at emergencies. If they exist, just like the Biden administration did in 2023, I'll finish the same, use the same authority about that. I'm not a servant.

Let me finish my comment. I'm not asking you about that. I know, but I'm trying to address your concern. I know you've actually, yes, sir. I am.

Were you, are you concerned that Israeli Defense Minister Katz said with respect to Lebanon that

“they were going to use the quote, "Roth a model" in Gaza?”

Does that concern you? I have not, I'm not familiar with that comment, right, it's a matter of public record. Did you take a look at it and get bad, happily? Let me know if that concerns you. Yes, sir.

What happened now? This was a particularly shocking, dystopian scary moment during the Senate hearing, where they were grilling dinano. You have Democratic Senator Rosen, cross-examining dinano, on Donald Trump's desire to start back up nuclear testing in the United States.

These big nuclear craters, whether it's in Nevada or New Mexico or Idaho, or throughout the country that Trump wants to drop bombs or do underground nuclear testing in the United States.

“How utterly deranged, but I want you to watch because this guy, dinano, doesn't deny”

that we're going to be doing nuclear tests in the United States. Think about the environmental impact on that. Think about all of the efforts that we've been through as a country to try to stop that earplay this clip. Thank you, Chairman Rich, ranking member Shaheen for today's hearing and thank you, Mr.

Dinano, for joining us today. I want to go and talk about Nevada, a little bit, because in Nevada, National Security Site, the NNSS, was ground zero for the vast majority of the United States, explosive nuclear testing from 1951 to 1992, which during which there were 100 atmospheric tests and 828 underground tests conducted.

Many Nevada's and downwind communities suffered from these exposures. They're still waiting for justice and compensation.

Today, the NNSS plays a critical role in certifying the reliability, safety, and effectiveness

of our nuclear stockpile, but without, without, I'm going to emphasize that, I could say to 100 times, without the need for explosive testing. So you can imagine my surprise when President Trump and others such as Assistant Secretary Yaw suggested that the U.S. should resume explosive nuclear testing. So, Mr. Dinano, what is the state's department's position on explosive nuclear testing

“in a President Trump board or to order a nuclear test? How do you expect Russia, China, to respond?”

What about other countries with nuclear weapons? And how would we manage the inevitable damage that this is going to cause to your efforts to pursue multilateral arms control and risk reduction measures? Sorry, thank you, Senator. Let me start by saying, the President has laid out a view that I elaborated on in Assistant Secretary Yaw elaborated upon where the President instructed

the War Department and the Energy Department to test on an equal basis to that with our adversaries. The backdrop of that is important to understand that both the Russians and the Chinese are testing at yield. And I can tell you that in our U1A tunnel and the, of the radiographic things that we have there and the new kinds of technology we have, we have adequately without explosive testing

ensured the capabilities of our nuclear stockpile. So thank you, Senator, look at a couple of points to make. Number one, we're still assessing with, we've made no decision specifically on how or what that any testing program would look like. So that's a pretty decisional. If the administration comes to that decision, I'm sure would happy, come back and talk to you, you better go back and talk to me, because the people

of Nevada and the people of Utah and the people all around you think what happens in Nevada with an explosive test, stays in Nevada, because it sure doesn't. I think you're referring to any potential atmospheric testing.

there's ground war, it doesn't go away.

Let me, let me, let me, let me answer your concern if I could. I have not been in any discussions that have, where atmosphere and open atmosphere at testing has been under consideration. The testing, any testing is under consideration, again, it is currently pre-decisional,

“but the president has laid out and I think it's important to understand that the United”

States is important to understand that he better come talk to us in Nevada if he is planning to do that. Yes, man, because the people of Nevada have a stake and the people of Utah have a stake in that. And I will look, everybody, Idaho, right above us, Texas, the win, everything

goes around this country, trust me.

I understand that, man, and I appreciate your concern. I'll move on to something else. Well, hold on, I want to address that. I think it's important. You're talking about the wind, that there is no discussion that I've been a part of, that any atmosphere testing would take place. Again, that the Chinese and Russian programs are underground,

they are at yields that I can't talk too much about in this open hearing, but for example, the Chinese underground testing program would be in the hundreds of tons. No discussions again, I've been part of would in any way talk about winds or downrange, that is, I've heard nothing to that effect. And you would understand my, of course, I would.

My concern, yes, man. I'm proud of you for a visual, the site that ground cratering in, and we have made millions of billions of dollars of investments in radiographic and other technology using math, using physics, using science to be sure that we ensure the integrity of our nuclear arsenal. We have been very specific in that. And we can, I'm glad to take you down there if you haven't

been to see what they're doing and how they're doing it before you enter into more of these

“conditions. Yes, man. I'd happily go there. I know what they do there. And again, I think”

it's extremely important to understand that the Russian and Chinese systems, the Russians and Chinese are testing it yield, that creates an intolerable disadvantage for the United States by not testing. And again, I've heard no discussion of any sort of atmosphere to testing whatsoever. Well, I tend to disagree with you, but I yield. Thank you. Hey, quick question. Have you ever looked at your bank statement and thought, what am I

even paying for right now? I have that moment not too long ago. Random subscriptions, duplicate charges, stuff I completely forgot about. It adds up fast. That's when I started using

Rocket Money. Then honestly, it's been a huge game changer. Rocket Money is a personal

finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors you're spending and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. What I love is how easy it makes everything. It tracks all your subscriptions in one place. And if you see something you don't want, you can cancel it right in the app with just a few taps. No more hunting through websites or dealing with customer service. And also automatically categorizes your

spending so you could actually see where your money is going each month. That's been huge for me. Just having that visibility helped me cut back in areas. I did not even realize I was overspending. And you could set budgets, get alerts for big transactions. And basically stay on top of your finance without constantly stressing about it. Let Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at RocketMoney.com/MitisTouch. That's RocketMoney.com/MitisTouch.

RocketMoney.com/MitisTouch. M-E-I-D-A-S-T-O-U-C-H.

“One thing hovering over this hearing that I think is important. And I've reported on in here,”

it's not getting enough attention. Is the expiration of what was called new start? The new strategic arms reduction treaty, which was a bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia signed in 2010 under, yes, who former President Obama had entered full force and effect in 2011, which limited each side to 1,515 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs, submarine launch

ballistic missiles and heavy bombers, along with verification methods like data exchange and onsite expansion and inspections rather. So the treaty had a built-in 10-year duration with one possible five-year extension. The five-year extension was invoked, but this last February, February 5, 2026, it just expired and Donald Trump professed that he would be

been hovering in the background. And this guy, DiNano, is the guy implementing Donald Trump's policy.

So next person I'll show you is Senators Shaheen. And Senators Shaheen, cross-examines DiNano, are we actually getting our European allies? The weapons that we're promising them like, are they actually receiving the weapons? And you'll see DiNano does not answer the question. He's like, well, this is why we're so nimble under the Trump Department. The State Department in record time is able to have, it's like, do just answer the question. Are our European

allies, why don't even know if they're allies anymore? I don't think they are. After all of the crap Donald Trump put them through, I don't know how they don't see the United States as a friend, you know, they see the United States as a bigger threat than China or Russia, many European countries do. It's one of the reasons we hear at the Midas Touch Network are trying to build

“the international pro-democracy community. I think it's one of the most important things.”

No, we can be doing. But in Europe, they're out there. The Continuously, basically saying, you know, we're not getting the weapons that we were promised at all and we're just not getting

them. So here's what Senators Shaheen said, play this clip. We really pushed our European allies

to step up on their own defense and on Ukraine. And they have right now, they spend more than we do supporting Ukraine. And they're spending that money on American weapons. Are we in a position where we can actually deliver the weapons that they're buying from us? Thanks for the question, Senator. I think it's an important one. And I think really shows why the reorganization of the state's barmen in putting all of the bureaus that do international security together makes sense

“because I think in relation to our political military bureau and the work that we're doing to modernize”

our defense industrial base, we have released two executive orders. We work very closely with the war department. As part of the most recent executive order had announced that it wanted an executive council to stand up between the Communist Department, the State Department and the war department. And that council let me into a place within a month that's unheard of bureaucratic speed. I can tell you. So that doesn't make me feel better.

There's not a very high bar. No. The commitment to modernizing a defense industrial base is couldn't be stronger. I heard it loud and clear during my confirmation process. The State Department role here is to make sure that our regulatory approach doesn't constrain our allies and partners that the demand signal from every part of the government, from this committee, for my leadership, was to move faster and to provide more capability.

“I think our recent America First Arms Transfer Strategy is a really good iteration on that.”

That for our partners in allies around the world, it might not always require our most

exquisite platform, it might not require an F-35, might not require our patriotsystem. But there are other systems that are certainly good enough that complement existing US posture in the region and that can send a demand signal to industry to stand up other capabilities. So again, the State Department piece of this is to open up the aperture, take on a little more risk and move faster, it really is dwarfed by the reforms they're making

in the water department and under Secretary Duffy and his team are making a drastic reforms. We work very closely with them, I'm on a call with them weekly, driving change, driving integration. So it is a priority for us, and again, I think it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to be easy or painless, I think we need to work together the administration and the Congress to under, there may be some legislative relief we may need along the way here,

but as absolute national security imperative, not only for the security of the United States, but as well as our partners in allies, and I think this is what you're seeing play out. And here you have, I think it's Republican Senator McCormick. McCormick, he grills Denono on the Russian space weapons that are out there and what we're doing to combat it. Let's play this clip. According to also according to Director of National Intelligence,

2026 annual threat assessment, Russia is developing anti-Satellite nuclear weapons,

space or architecture. So under Secretary, how should the United States respond to the expanding threat of outer space weapons, challenges by peer and neopear adversaries, and which arms control approaches, along with risk reduction measures, offer the most promise given the expiration of the new start treaty? Thanks to the question, Senator again, very important question, specifically to the Russian outer space system. I don't want to come in to too much detail here

in an open forum, but what I can say is that any deployment of that system would be a violation of the outer space treaty, so sort of directly focused on the arms control piece of it.

“The Russian exotic systems are getting crazy even for the Russians. So I think this”

president's approach, again, to the in the ranking member's earlier question, about there are bilateral, as well as, you know, other multilateral ways to get at the problem

the answer is yes. That's not that's obviously a system that diplomatically we would pressure

aggressively pressure the Russians, and I'm sure it'll come up in our P5 engagement, which is imminent. So again, I don't want to talk too much more about the Russian capability and open forum but certainly the exotic systems, the underwater system, the Poseidon, the Burvestonic, which is their nuclear power cruise missile, these are all systems that fall outside of new start to your point that we need to have a direct conversation with the Russians, and I'm

sure we will. And finally, back in the House of Representatives, this was Congress member Meek's cross-examination, we'll play it for you right here. It is a truly amazing fact that the advances made in the science of nuclear weapons over the last 25 years, allow the NSA labs to now know and understand more about the function and performance of nuclear weapons than they did in the days of testing. The NSA complex is old, much of it dates back to the Manhattan project

and the early days of the Cold War, and it needs to be replaced or refurbished.

“Fourth, we should never forget that ultimately it is people who sustain our deterrent, military”

and civilians at DOD and NSA work to maintain the continuum of deterrence, beginning with threat prevention and non-proliferation. They need support, and we need to ensure that the entire nuclear

enterprise always has the best and the brightest. And fifth, our allies and partners also rely on

the U.S. nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of their security against nuclear attack, however remote the possibility. As much as they want the U.S. deterrent to be safe, secure, and reliable, they do not want a new arms race, and a return to the days of mutual assured destruction. As of September 2017, the U.S. has 3,822 warheads in its stockpile, more than enough. With another 2,000 plus warheads awaiting dismantlement, this is down from the mid-60s peak

of 31,255 warheads. We surely don't want a return to those days and increase the risk of nuclear war rather than reduce it. In conclusion, in my prepared testimony, I referenced a 2010 op-ed by former National Security Advisor Brent Skowcroft and Jake Garn, a former Republican Senator from Utah, supporting New START. In that piece, they cautioned against seeking a silver bullet that solves all problems. New START was under consideration at the time that they wrote the

op-ed and was being criticized for not covering the full range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In many respects, that is what the Trump administration is doing again, with respect to extending

new START, criticizing it for what it isn't and was never intended to be a silver bullet treaty.

The treaty should be extended and time provided to take the next step towards stability.

“Thank you for holding this hearing on a very important topic that isn't discussed enough”

and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Ms. Creeden. Mr. McQwen. Mr. Chairman, I can remember Kisnaker, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the importance of arms control agreements with Russia. I agree with much of what was said, if not all of it, by my two colleagues, I'll try very hard not to duplicate what they said. I will focus primarily on new START. An extension of new START, which we discussed already,

would bring significant benefits to American security. For the same reasons,

New START contains an inspection and verification regime that includes regular exchanges of data,

regular notifications, including advance notification of launches, an intrusive onsite inspections of the military bases on the territory of the other party, where nuclear forces are based. General Heitin, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command,

“testified last winter that the insight provided by the verification measures are unbelievably important,”

quote unquote, to his understanding of Russian force posture. Without a treaty, our confidence levels about the size, location, and nature of Russian forces would decrease, and the intelligence resources required to monitor such forces would increase, but they would not yield information equivalent to that which can be obtained through the onsite inspections. The treaty limits the number

“of strategic launchers and more heads that each party may deploy, as well as a combined”

limit on deployed and non-deployed launchers. This structure provides several advantages to the

department of defense and the Department of Energy. First, the Commander of Strategic Command

can devise the war plans, secure in the knowledge about the size and location of Russian nuclear forces. Without the treaty, he would be required to engage in worst case planning assumptions, which eventually could result in decisions to increase the size of deployed forces. There you have it, folks. I know that hearings like this, you're probably not seeing in many other

“places, right? It's why, at the mightest tension network, it is so important that we cover things”

like this because you're not getting this on corporate news. You're not seeing these things,

nuclear testing in the United States. I mean, there's a dangerous critical hearing, and it got

very little fanfare and attention, so it's important that we cover it here and show you what's really going on. We hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Have you subscribed to Scott McFarlane's channel on YouTube. It's already over 100,000 subscribers. Not bad. Not bad. Hit subscribe. Thanks for watching. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, add free videos,

and custom emojis by becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today. You can also give membership to others. Let's keep growing together.