Top Trump Officials Collapse Under Cross-Exam on War

From a low-tempo, robust garden is the best choice for the car.

“In addition to the quality and the niedristic price, it has always been in the hands.”

Now all the garden products are in our daily and in the x-nip. Small prices, big friends. . "We are 16 grams for only 2.02. All the." "Goodest for all."

"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." "Critic 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 "a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime and quote. That's a statement from the White House, "the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime was at 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 capabilities.

"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 isn't is not an imminent threat is the president fault.

This is the worldwide threat, searing 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.

That is a question. 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 of threats. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that, as the White House claimed on March

“1, 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. Do you want to answer the question? It is the nature of the imminent threat that the President has to make that determination

based on a collection in volume. You're here to make timely. You're here to make timely. You're here to be timely. You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political consideration.

That's exactly what I'm doing. So 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 John 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 I.C.'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 air strikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and, quote, correct? That's right. And is that, in fact, the assessment of the intelligence community?

So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated

by last summer's air strikes. Yes. And 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." And quote, correct?

That's right. And that's the assessment of the intelligence community. Yes. The White House stated on March 1st of 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.

We're did he just disregard him.

And I just want to point out something that was released about six days ago. This is a fundraising email from the president, from the president in the United States. 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 support

“us of the president should be able to pay and receive his private national security briefings?”

I assume these are briefings to Rector Radcliffe that you provide to the president that is now going to be provided to somebody who makes a... Right. I don't know what that document is, but regardless of what it says, it didn't happen. Oh, no, this is new.

What I'm telling you is that the Hatch Act would prevent me from an apolitical role from engaging in that.

I'm not aware that anything like that happened.

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 familiar with that document and... It's been made very public six days ago.

We'll get you a copy here because I agree with you to Rector Radcliffe 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 street?”

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 street, 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 Gendier, 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 beforehand.

“I think the country deserves to know what the information was.”

I'm going to ask a series of questions and just want to yes or no. We don't need any explanation just yes or no starting with, were you asked? I'm not asking if you did brief this. Were you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the straight of or moves? 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 have briefed it. I'm just asking if there was a request by the White House, Director Rackliffe, or you asked to brief on whether Iran would close the straight of or moves?

The briefings to the President and 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 the President. Do you produce the analysis for the straight of or move?

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.

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 have 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 when we have Senator Reed, cross-examining, Tulsi Gabbard, let's play this clip.

The regime in Iran now trying to remotely deceased Iotola as a matter who should be followed and that helped them consolidate support. Senator the Iranians are certainly using that as a call to action. The effects of that from an intelligence standpoint are remained to be seen. There is a tradition in Syria, though, to honor the martyrs.

One of their greatest celebrations is the martyrdom of the grandson of Mohammed Zakir. That's right. So we might have played into their cultural biases for Ronously. 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?”

You're playing this clip. I do not. Thank you. Let me move to Iran. Now I understand and I appreciate a Dr. Gabbard's comments yesterday about agreeing that the

president has sole authority, I guess in his bones, did 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 and 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 six, and your last paragraph on page six, 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.

“Is that because the president said there was a imminent threat to weeks?”

I recognize that the time was running long and I skipped through some of the portions you chose to take my own deliberate remarks. I chose to admit the parts that can contradict the president. The lead may make 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 delete me. Their team works to remove your personal data from hundreds of data broker websites, which helps you protect yourself from things like identity theft, fishing attempts, and harassment, and they're highly trusted too. The New York Times Wirecutter has named delete me their top pick for data removal services,

take control of your data, and keep your private life private by sending up for delete me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your delete me plan when you go

“to join, delete me dot com slash minus and use promo code minus to check out the only way”

to get 20% off is to go to join the delete me dot com slash minus and enter code minus at checkout that's join delete me dot com slash minus code minus 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 blackies, 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. My show is to admit the parts that can contradict the the president, the president continues to say as well, and that, you know, he had no idea it was shocked that the Iranians would move to take over the straight of our moves.

that the Iranians would try to move on the straight. 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 controller. Why was the president saying he was amazed? I'm not aware of those. What about the comments the president made that sought that he was surprised again reports that Iran struck the adjacent Gulf states again. I'm not aware of those remarks. Let me ask you to introduce the president. Did you breathe the president? Did you breathe 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 straight of our moves. Did you brief him on those two

“facts that I think have been consistently the conundee 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. I'll 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 don't know what war you're watching

right now. But America's stuck in an utter quagmire right now. Here are play this clip. Update us on the intelligence on Russian intelligence sharing with Iran and the current conflict.

“What do we know? Senator, if there is that sharing going on, that would be an answer that”

would be appropriate for a closed session. Well, it's been in the public press. This is an open source that it's occurring. Is it occurring? Again, if it is occurring, that would be an answer appropriate for a closed session, what I can tell you is that according to the Department of War, 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.

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 strut shut down the strait of her moves, did you not know that? Because kind of everybody knew that. So, tell us about that Tulsi. Tell us about that rat cliff. You're play this clip. I'm asking the question is there seems to be a discrepancy between what the intelligence committee has a 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 her moves 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 a briefings constantly about intelligence. Now, the comments that you talked

about, I had not heard what I can tell you is that Iran had specific plans to hit US 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 predictions to the president about the”

strait of her moves? All you got to do is look at a map and you'll see that the vulnerability of the strait of her moves. Was that part of the briefing? Is that the director Radcliffe made the point here? Is that this has long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the strait of her moves as well? And my question is, was that communicated to the president in the lead of this act? And it's because of that long-standing 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 her moves. The president said,

More cross-exam here from 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

for you to involve yourself in domestic law enforcement activity? And she's like, "Oh, I never

actually was involved." And 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. I was at Fullton County sir at the request of the president

and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had--

you were just observing and why do you observe there, Tulsi? 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. So, you're all aware that Russia is making huge amounts of money right now from this war and 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 say you?”

You're playing 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 gathered at Radcliffe. 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 loosens sanctions. Director Gabbard. That is what has been reported. I've deferred

to the director of Secretary of Treasury and Energy on that front for details. Director Rackliffe. I'm not an economist. I'm not going to try and do those calculations. But as I talked about earlier, sometimes our decisions made that will benefit adversaries at the same time policy makers think

“that it will take to 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. Then Senator King has more questions about, 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 brief? Like, oh, we call him like, we speak to him like 15 times a week. They're all such despicable buyers. Here, let's play this clip

right here. Move on. Does the President take a daily brief from the intelligence community? This is a yes or no question. Yeah, the President, I would say Senator in my estimation on average, I brief the President of the United States on intelligence. Probably on average 10 to 15 times a week where I have conversations with him about a specific discrete issues. Sometimes there are dedicated sessions that last hours in length. Sometimes I'm briefing him on specific issues. Sometimes

three or four times a day. But I would say on average, my interactions where I'm briefing the

“President on important national security matters 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.

One is stay plugged in. Become a subscriber for a substack at mydisplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from around Phil Kaoski, add three episodes of our podcast in more exclusive content. Only available at mydisplus.com. Now let's start with the first episode of the podcast. I'm going to start with the first episode of the podcast. I'm going to start with the first episode of the podcast. I'm going to start with the first episode of the podcast.