Top Trump Officials Throw him Under the Bus at War Hearing

Do you really want to talk about it?

No, not at all. This story is my taste base. Do you know everything about it? Yes, exactly.

“This story is the story of the story that really remains.”

It is about the studio, the job or the house. It remains. Really? I don't feel like the story. The story is about the story. The story is about the story.

What is the story? For Amazon, there are more than 50% of the population with less population. For example, in Papia, where there is also a very low population.

When the night is over, Italy is played.

As we know, the 9-year-old cop for a meeting with the population in the population, the population of the population is almost at the time of the year of 2015 in the big botanian and the EU. The rest of the time is for all of the price. Milsani Milsnek, 10,820 grams for only one euro, 79 grams. Or Dr. Etka Vitalis Milsli, 10,16 grams for only two euro, 22.

All the. Good for all. 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 Gabber, the director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, and today, Cash Petell is there as well before the House of Representatives. Yesterday, they were kind of KG 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 KG yesterday and all the mega people were going after them, especially as you had Joe Kent, this like ultra mega rightling guy, who was the number two to Tulsi Gabbard he resigned.

He did a Tucker Carlson appearance where he was like, Iran definitely didn't impose an imminent threat to the United States. This was all directed by Israel and Donald Trump following Netanyahu's leave. 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 all thing was no foreign wars in the Middle East. That's literally her entire message in her political life. And so she looked like an utter fool before the United States Senate. So she and John Ratcliffe and to some extent cash but tell 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 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 ODI and I 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 relate 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?”

Why does 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,

cash, but I would say, well, 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 Congress member 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 Tulsi keep repeating it over again, but here play this clip.

>> Breakfast, Gabbard and Ratcliffe, is there any evidence that Iran intended to conduct a preemptive attack on the United States? And I asked this because 13 service members have been killed in Trump's war, including Captain Seth Kovall, 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

>> Congressman, the answer to this question needs to be reserved for 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 if there is an imminent threat, what actions need to be taken?”

>> Then you have Democratic Congress member 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. >> And you or the I.C., 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 delivered. >> But any of them show evidence? >> The imminent nature of a threat is determined by the president based on a totality of the intelligence and information provided to them.

>> 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 in 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.

>> And there's no evidence for that and you know that and there's no product that shows that. >> And this was some skating cross examination here by Democratic Congress member Gomez. I want you to watch this, let's play this clip. More from Congress member 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 statement. Iran had all of it. >> 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 serious question that requires the totality of it. >> I reclaim my time. >> And more from Congress member Gomez, play this clip.

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

“>> Director Rack Cliff, 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's commander and chief gets to make a decision about what's an imminent threat. >> So no, well the intelligence is a-- >> Reclam my time, is intelligence. >> Reclam my time.

>> Reclam my time. >> Reclam my time. >> This is why the president can determine and ignore what you're doing. Why do you guys even have a job? 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.

>> That's what you're basically.

>> Let's go back to Democratic Congress member Crow himself. And Army Ranger right here who serve many combat tours of duty who knows what war is actually like first and 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 Komine Iran correct? >> Yes. >> And the now leader is Sun Muj Taba Komine, correct? >> Yes.

>> The Sun is considered more of a hardliner than his father. Isn't that correct? >> Yes. >> 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.

>> Muj Taba, the Sun is particularly close to the brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

and their most hardline commanders, correct? >> That is the intelligence community assessment. >> It was involved in ordering violent crackdowns and Iranian protesters, including their murder, correct? >> Yes. >> And we don't know if the Sun will continue his father's religious ban on developing nuclear weapons.

Is that correct? >> Is unknown at this time. >> You testified before this committee last year that the elder now deceased Komine had in 2003 banned the nuclear weapons program, or suspended it, correct? >> There was a Fatwa in place that stated that.

>> 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 supporting that states that. To be clear on the Muj Taba, the Sun 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.

And so the decision-making is unclear about what's happening in the Iranian leadership. >> We're less certain of the positions of Iranian leadership in their intentions than we were 60 days ago, correct? >> That's an accurate assessment.

“And you had Congressmember Gothheimer over here saying, by the way, that's why this peering was relatively bipartisan as well.”

What are we doing in Iran? Congressmember Gothheimer said so did the IC brief the president on the impacts to the global supply chain? And she's like, yeah, we told him, we told him here play this clip.

>> American people, director, were you in a meeting to discuss a possible strike on Iran?

>> Congressmen, there were several meetings that were held in advance. I'm sure I was in at least some of them. >> Do the intelligence community brief the president on the potential impacts a conflict could have on global supply chains? And an oil and gas prices prior to the outbreak of hostilities? >> Were you meeting with any meetings with that came up?

>> Yes, that is the intelligence communities assessments and those were provided. Director of 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 our placement would be a hardliner? >> Was the president put the same again? >> Did the IC brief the president on who would succeed the supreme leader if he was killed?

And the likelihood that our placement 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 yes, the president was brief in the event that the supreme leader. >> That's great. Thank you so much.

I'm sorry to cut you off. I just have 20 seconds. Director Patel.

“>> How about Congress member Barra here play this clip?”

>> Robert, 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 imminent that Iran was going to attack American assets.

That was different from anything they've done over four 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 four decades.

Not something that's going to happen three 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 deliver 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 context 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 died in action serving our country. Why we're 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. 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 are spending and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. What I love is that it actually shows you every subscription in one place. If you don't want it, you can cancel right inside the app with just a few taps.

You can go through passwords and those 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 rock and money.com/mitis-touch. That's rock and money.com/mitis-touch. N-E-I-D-I-S-T-O-U-C-H.

At least, Dephonic was getting in on the action. Congresswoman's Dephonic, let's play it. Disassments. Thank you. I also wanted to ask this because this week there was a high profile resignation of director of National Counterterrorism Center.

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 to 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 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 it's the same tactic these 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? 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, but an exchange between democratic Congress member Castro and Tulsi Gabbard. Let's play it.

So the death and destruction continues. The economic costs the United States, the 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 ignore the president. Do you agree with that? I'm not privy to any of their deliberations or what went into their calculus and launching this or other attacks. We are not involved with the operational element of this. We're providing continuously on a daily basis the intelligence assessments of the events that are occurring.

And I guess 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 Congress will cast. I guess a couple of 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.

Well, director, let me start with this question. Let me reclaim my time director, come on. Do you know why Israel decided to strike that infrastructure? I wouldn't like the fact that the president said it should be off limits. I wouldn't speak for Israel.

And what do you guys know? We're at war. What do you guys know? Let the 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 Fearing did not include regime change. That was just Israel.

Do you replay this clip right here? Just to you.

“Did the I.C. brief the president and who would succeed this premier leader?”

If he was killed and the likelihood that our placement would be a hardliner? Was the president put it said again? Did the I.C. brief the president and who would succeed this premier leader? If he was killed and the likelihood that our placement would be a hardliner or could be a hardliner? So to be clear, the president's objectives with respect to Operation Epic Fearing

did not include regime change. That may be different from what Israel's objectives were. But you can. But yes, the president was brief in the event that the Supreme Leader. That's great.

Thank you so much. I'm sorry to cut you off. There's a 22nd Strictor.

And finally, take a look at Congress member Cohen.

His cross-exam with Gabbard. Let's play it. Director Gabbard, are you familiar with C.A. 12? I'm not Congresswoman. Okay.

Let me ask you this question. In the intelligence communities, 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 to the straight of war moves. It seems the AC was entirely correct in assessment about Iranian retaliation

Did the ACs assessment about Iranian capabilities and the straight to

form moves change in the past year? No, Congressmen.

“Does Iran still have the capability to threaten shipping in the”

straight to our moon? Our moves with missiles, mines and small boats. There capabilities have been largely degraded. But yes, they still have means to threaten passage to the straight from most.

And how long can they keep the straight closed? Based on current events, I'd have to get an updated assessment from the intelligence community on that. Did you have an analysis of the impact of a war on global supply change in the price of the oil and gas?

“I believe that assessment may have come from the department of”

Treasury or Energy. Who'd ten comes through your office? It came from their element within department of energy or energy. Do you know if the president was briefed on most assessments? I believe so, but I can't confirm.

So if he's briefed on those assessments that that was a problem.

“And the straights of war moves could be shut off and that's causing a”

great problem in the world to economy with the oil prices going up to like under $120 or something of barrel and an effect on all of country's economies. Why would the president not take an action to strengthen defense around the straights of war moves?

All I can say is that the president ultimately is responsible for making

the decisions based on the totality of information intelligence that he has available to him. Intelligent City has available to him. That's a scary thought. There you have it folks.

Let me know what you think over there. Hit subscribe.

Let's get to seven million subscribers and things everybody

for watching.