What's really happening is you're undermining the success of incredible B-2 pilots and incredible F-35 pilots and incredible refuelers and incredible air defenders who accomplished their mission, set back a nuclear program in ways that other presidents would have dreamed. [00:00:15] How about we celebrate that? How about we talk about how special America is, that we only we have these capabilities? I think it's too much to ask. Unfortunately for the fake news. I mean, there are definitely some elements of America that are special, [00:00:32] if you know what I mean. But this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth chided, chided the media during a press conference at the Pentagon. He and others in the Trump administration, of course, are still furious over a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency report. [00:00:48] It was a preliminary report that made it appear as though the US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites only set Iran back a few months. But again, that was a preliminary Report. Now that report was leaked to CNN. [00:01:05] And again, it alleged that the U.S. Wasn't as successful as the Trump administration would have you believe. Now, here's more from Hegseth in response to that leak. And again, he's definitely not happy with the press in reporting about it. Let's watch. [00:01:20] You and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically you, the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard. It's like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so bad. [00:01:37] You have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren't effective. Maybe the way the Trump administration has represented him isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, [00:01:53] and then spin it. Spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind, the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written about how hard it is to. [00:02:09] I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours. As MSNBC done that story as Fox. Have we done the story? How hard that is? - Have we done it 2 or 3 times? - Come on, Pete. Like come on. Okay. Look, I actually understand his rage. [00:02:28] And I do blame the media, but not in the way that he's blaming the media. So my problem is just because someone from the Pentagon is leaking a preliminary report. Journalists shouldn't just be stenographers [00:02:43] who regurgitate it without questioning. Okay, wait. Why was this leaked to me? And what is the motivation here? And I don't think that they reported on this simply because they hate Trump and they want to see him fail. I think they reported on this. A because the reporters who got the leak felt like, oh, I'm special. [00:03:02] I have a scoop and I'm going to break a story, but also the media doesn't tend to question the motivation or the motivation of the leaker itself. Right. And honestly, I do think that leaking a preliminary report before fully investigating, you know, the destruction of those nuclear sites is meant [00:03:21] to go the US into further war with Iran. That's my interpretation of it. I'm curious what you think, though, Jake. Yeah. I mean, you're taking a lot of the words right out of my mouth. So first, stuff like this gets leaked all the time in both administrations, and it's almost always to spur further war. [00:03:37] And that is the point of the leak, is to say, oh, we didn't do enough. We need to bomb more. Now, there could be a lot of different factors and forces within the government that want to leak something like that could be pro-Israel forces, but it could just be military contractor forces, oil company forces, [00:03:52] or or just a group of people who are ideologically believe in war. And, you know, there's a lot of interesting interviews we've done recently. I did one during the military parade with, Colin Powell's former chief of staff during the Iraq War. So he has a lot of expertise in this. [00:04:08] He actually literally talked to those guys and and knows how they started the Iraq war, because he was right in the middle of it. And he says, yeah, there are a group of people in America, in the American government and some outside, they tend to be older and they believe in perpetual war, and they're constantly [00:04:23] pushing the government towards that. So my point is, there's a lot of forces who want war, and they usually leak this kind of stuff and it doesn't. This is really important, guys. It doesn't have to be false because the intelligence community usually prepares reports that says, well, we might have gotten it. [00:04:38] This is the evidence for us actually wiping out their nuclear facilities in whole. And then they'll have a separate report saying, now, this is our evidence for the fact that we might not have wiped out all of their uranium stock. Right. So you can then cherry pick and leak whichever one you like, [00:04:56] because almost certainly both exist. So the forces for war cherry pick the one that says, oh, we didn't get it all and leak it. And then CNN then does something that is. I don't know if they know they're being disingenuous or not, [00:05:11] but it is disingenuous because CNN will then say it's real. Our sources are real. And we got this leaked from an actual person. No, no, no, I'm not in MAGA. I'm not. I don't believe Trump and Hegseth, etc.. You don't have to convince me that there's a real report [00:05:27] or a real person who gave you the report. Right. But did you ask them, hey, is there another report that says the opposite? Why are you leaking this to me? What is your motivation? Did you talk about the potential motivations for that leak? And the answer is hell no. Hell no. [00:05:45] And if you're wondering why another really good interview honestly happened recently, it's on our YouTube channel Tara Palmeri. She worked at ABC, CNN, Politico, etc. And she said, these news organizations are obsessed with access so they could break news. [00:06:01] So they lean towards their sources and protect them. Not in terms of I'm not going to tell you their identity. That's standard, but they frame the story to make their sources look good. And they and and they protect them in other ways. [00:06:18] So they're not giving you the actual news. They're giving you the news framed to benefit whoever that source is. And in this case, it's almost certainly a source that's pro-war. So Trump also attacked the press because I think in the case of Trump, [00:06:33] he wants the strikes to be a success. He's really proud of the strikes. But I think what's more interesting about this whole debacle is that this morning, Hegseth was especially combative with Fox News reporter. Her name is Jennifer Griffin. I actually am not familiar with her. [00:06:51] I haven't really watched much of her content at all, but we'll explain why. It's particularly interesting that they had a back and forth in just a moment. But first, let's watch their exchange. Do you have certainty that all the highly enriched uranium [00:07:08] was inside the Fordo mountain, or some of it because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance. Are you certain none of that highly enriched uranium was moved? Of course, we're watching every single aspect. But, Jennifer, you've been about the worst. [00:07:24] The the one who misrepresents the most intentionally. What what the president says. I'm familiar about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night. And in fact, I was the first to describe the B-2 bombers, the refueling, [00:07:40] the entire mission with great accuracy. So I take issue with that. - I appreciate you acknowledging. - That this. Was the first operation, the most successful mission based on operational security that this department has done since you've been here. And I appreciate that. [00:07:56] Now, Jennifer Griffin actually came up in conversation on a podcast episode recently, and that was actually how I first learned about her. She is a Fox News reporter. She reports out of the Pentagon. And if you don't believe me, someone who actually knows her personally [00:08:14] worked at the same network as her. Has a little bit of insight to share. Let's watch. So they're all in extension. You know, CNN and all these other they're all an extension of the intelligence community being fed this information. Given these sources. So they can never say a negative thing about them [00:08:31] because then you cut off your sources. You know, Jennifer Griffin, as this was all unfolding, and it was clear to me that there were a lot of questions about what was actually in those nuclear sites, because a week earlier, Israel had struck two of them. [00:08:47] So do you think that Iran just kind of hung out and just, like, got a broom out and cleaned some stuff up and just put like the pictures back up on the wall? No, they were empty. Jen Griffin is a liar, but also very liberal. Wow. True Trump hater to the point where I complained about her and I really tried [00:09:05] not to complain about other people at Fox when I worked there because, like, I don't like that, you know, office politics stuff. But she was discrediting the channel. She was such a Trump hater. Boy, you could not touch Jennifer Griffin. I don't know what that's about, but, Well, if you have an office in the Pentagon, [00:09:23] maybe that's what that's about. - Maybe. - I mean, or I don't know. And when you have an office in the Pentagon, you're going to get some details about the B-2 bombers and how the operation was carried out. [00:09:39] I don't think that you can call yourself a journalist when you have these comfy, cozy ties with the Pentagon to the point where you literally have an office within the Pentagon. Yeah, I feel like there might be a conflict of interest there, but I don't know. - I'm curious what you think, Jake. - Yeah. So I've seen Jennifer Griffin a bunch of times. [00:09:56] I never saw anything that aroused my suspicion about her sources or her facts. But do her sources, come from the military industrial complex and the people pushing for war? Almost every time. And so, like, she's a Trump hater. No, no. [00:10:13] My guess is that whatever. Trump was opposed to further strikes. That's when one of her sources would give her a leak about how Trump was wrong. And we needed more war. And then she would come out and say that, and then Trump would perceive her as a Trump hater. But really, that's not the point. And and she's just a vessel. [00:10:31] She, like all these so-called reporters, aren't really reporters. They're messengers. Like, they like, you know, messenger pigeons. They just pick up a message from the donor class, military industrial complex, Israeli lobbyists, whatever it might be, and then they deliver that message [00:10:49] to their audience and that's it. They don't put any critical thought into it. Hey, what is why are they doing this? Should I give some context and analysis? No, they just talk about like, okay, the B-2 bombers are like this, and then we didn't destroy all the facilities. We got to go get more. And that's what my sources say. [00:11:04] You know, very standard stuff. And so. Okay. And and I agree with you on your earlier statement, too. Look, I don't like the way they're going after her or the press. And I don't say that, like, as a toss away. I really don't like it because it's it's done in a way to, like, [00:11:24] try to suppress, anyone opposing the Trump administration criticizing. Them. Or even exactly what I was going to say, or even questioning the Trump administration. So I hate the way they're doing it. But I do like that they're pushing back against cherry picked intelligence [00:11:40] to drive us to war if they stated it. You know, honestly, like the way we are here, I think they would be more popular because then a lot of people on the right and the left in the middle would go, oh, I see they're cherry picking the intelligence like they did in Iraq. And to get us into war. [00:11:56] Yeah, to goad us into war. Exactly. Otherwise, it just looks like the Trump administration is doing, quite frankly, what they always do, which is just attack journalists and journalism when it's critical of the Trump administration, in many cases, rightly so, obviously. [00:12:13] Now, putting that aside, I do want to just go to one other video here because man, the Warhawks, they're like trying to work every single angle to go go to war with Iran. And of course, Lindsey Graham, Senator Lindsey Graham, who's never met a war he [00:12:29] doesn't love, is one of those figures. And get a load of what he said today. Watch. The program was obliterated at those three sites, but they still have ambitions. I don't know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists, [00:12:46] but it wasn't part of the target set in. The real question have we obliterated their desire to have a nuclear weapon as long as they desire one, as long as they want to kill all the Jews, you still have a problem on your hands. I don't want people to think that the site wasn't severely damaged or obliterated. [00:13:03] It was. But having said that, I don't want people to think the problem is over because it's not. They're going to keep trying this as long as they change until they change their stated goal. Now, will they ever do that? I don't know. Let's bomb Iran over their thought crimes. [00:13:20] Like, what was that? What was that? Yeah. We might have obliterated their actual capability to build a nuclear weapon. I mean, I agree with that. But are they still wanting to build nuclear weapons? What do we do to obliterate that? This guy is such a loser. [00:13:38] Like total loser loves to send other people's kids to war. Disgusting. Yeah. It's funny. Like, you know, we talked a lot about this. How they should have the NASCAR patches on their suits for who, which donors they represent. And people might think that Lindsey Graham mainly represents AIPAC. [00:13:53] And sure, his interests are very, very often aligned with AIPAC. And he has taken plenty of money from AIPAC. But he represents the military industrial complex more than anything else. He is the senator from defense contractors. He's the senator from Raytheon. Right. So he's like, well, okay, we don't have any excuse to go to war anymore, [00:14:12] but I'm in favor of perpetual war because it makes my donors really, really rich and they share a couple of crumbs off their table and I'm their bitch. So, okay, you know what? I think Iran, someone in Iran might have had an idea that we don't like. [00:14:27] Yeah. Good enough. Let's keep going to war against them. Okay? Come on. Preposterous. But there's one other thing that he said in there that I want to draw your attention to. So this is another perpetual excuse, and it's utter nonsense. And yes, I'm saying it's utter nonsense. Okay. [00:14:44] When they say, well, I mean the Iranians, they want to kill all the Jews, so we have to kill them first. No, no, this whole thing is giant excuse. Oh, they wrote on a charter this. So they said, oh, we're against Israel because they're doing the occupation [00:15:01] and oh, we want to kill the Jews. I don't even some of them say it. Some of them don't say it. You can find a radical to say anything. You can find a radical inside America that says kill all the Jews. That doesn't mean you should bomb us. Right? And if you say, oh, it's their government said, yeah, there's there. Saber rattling. [00:15:17] What? What is the Israeli government say? The Israeli government says we're going to starve the Palestinians and steal their land. And then they actually do it. Then they actually do it. Oh, so they wrote in a charter that we don't have a right to exist. But, brother, you already do exist, and you're blocking the Palestinians [00:15:33] from existing. Don't worry about what we actually do. Worry about one sentence in a document over there so that we can go to war forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and kill all of them because they want to, in their heads, kill us. [00:15:49] BS I know a lot of people believe it. I know a lot of people are paranoid about it. Oh my God, they're gonna kill us all. With what? Stones. They don't even have any planes left, right? No, you're actually killing them. You're worried about their hypothetical counterattacks? [00:16:05] No. This is always an excuse for more war and taking more Muslim land for Israel. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets his wings. Totally not true. But it does keep you updated on our live shows.