Part Of The Problem - The Signal Disaster

Episode Date: March 26, 2025

Dave Smith brings you the latest in politics! On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by co-host Robbie "The Fire" Bernstein to discuss the leaked private chat revealing plans to bomb Yemen to the public, the legal proceedings that have occurred since, and more.Support Our Sponsors:Monetary Metals - https://www.monetary-metals.com/potp/Part Of The Problem is available for early pre-release at https://partoftheproblem.com as well as an exclusive episode on Thursday!Get your tickets to Porch Tour here:https://porchtour.comFind Run Your Mouth here:YouTube - http://youtube.com/@RunYourMouthiTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/run-your-mouth-podcast/id1211469807Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/4ka50RAKTxFTxbtyPP8AHmFollow the show on social media:X:http://x.com/ComicDaveSmithhttp://x.com/RobbieTheFireInstagram:http://instagram.com/theproblemdavesmithhttp://instagram.com/robbiethefire#libertarianSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This new year, why not let Audible expand your life by listening? Audible CA contains over 890,000 total titles within its current library, including audiobooks, podcasts, and exclusive Audible originals that'll inspire and motivate you. Tap into your well-being with advice and insight from leading professionals and experts on better health, relationships, career, finance, investing, and more. Maybe you want to kick a bad habit or start a good one. If you're looking to encourage positive change in your life, one day and challenge at a time,

look no further than Tabitha Brown's I Did a New Thing, 30 Days to Living Free. In the audiobook, Tab shares her own stories and those of others alongside gentle guidance and encouragement to create these incredible changes for yourself and see what good can come from them. Trust me, listening on Audible can help you reach the goals you set for yourself. Start listening today when you sign up for a free 30-day trial at audible.com slash wonder ECA. That's audible.com slash wonder ECA. Hey guys, today's show is brought to you by yo, cradom.com home of the $60 kilo long time sponsor of part of the problem and a

great company run by great guys. If you are over the age of 21 and you enjoy cradom, make sure you go get your cradom from YoKratom.com. All of their stuff is lab tested. It's delivered right to your door. So you don't got to go driving around looking for it. And it's the best price you will find anywhere. The only price I can think of over the last five years that has not gone up. YoKratom.com home of the $60 kilo. All right, let's start today's show.

What's up? What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. Live in studio, live only to people watching at Part of the Problem.com. That's where you got to go to sign up to support the show, to get the episodes live, ad free, uncensored. Be part of our live chat. You get the bonus episode every week. But for everybody else, you just consume it wherever else you get podcasts. Of course, I'm joined by Robbie the Fire Bernstein.

How are you, sir? I'm doing well. I'm excited to head up to Boston work on some jokes We are going up to Boston the day after tomorrow Which would be March 27th 28th and 29th. Well, we'll be up there I'm very much looking forward to going back to Boston been a while since we've been there and been a while I think What's the spot we're playing at laugh Boston? I think is this but never done spot. We've never done that. In the past we did Nick's Comedy Stop. That's right. So this is our first time at Laugh Boston. I'm trying to think if I've ever done...

Because I've done shows with you in Boston. Right, it was back at Nick's Comedy Stop. That's right. And this is a more proper comedy club. There, there you go. We did it at Nick's Comedy Stop and I believe it was me and Lewis co-headlining and you and Tim Dillon were the special guests Who talked about three people being in the same place and one person being drastically further than them. Holy moly

Alright guys, Tim Dillon special guest this week. It's will be alright. I can't back that up, but it will be a great show I'm just kidding. We're not in the same place. We're fucking killing it bro doing good And then we got a bunch of stuff coming up after that. Nashville coming up pretty soon. Comicdavesmith.com for all me and Rob's gigs together throughout the year. And then of course you've got some stuff coming up as well. Des Moines, which apparently is supposed to be

pronounced differently, but I give up on getting names right. I always thought it was Des Moines. I don't give a shit anymore. However the fuck it's supposed to be sounded out in the most logical way is now the name of your city. And I will make that, if I have to run for government in order to get that law passed,

that it needs to be spelled the most logical way that it should be read. Or we just get real angry, Jew, about it, and we call everything New York. Or not New York. Or like it could just be, it York seven new New York we could go a lot of different ways of this but we can't learn how to pronounce all these goddamn names although I do always enjoy coming to your towns and then also up in

steamboat and I think I have my entire porch door mapped out and so that will be announced shortly ooh new spots same spots, same spots. Mix of both? Mix of both. Mix of both. And then hopefully we'll be able to tack on some porches as more people reach out and extend their yards to the cause. All right. Well, you heard it here first. If you're, when you're planning out the rest of the porch tour, maybe stay away from signal. Maybe not the best. Or if you're going to do it,

just add the right people. from Signal. Maybe not the best. Or if you're going to do it, just add the right people to it. If anything, what an endorsement that our own government relies on the software of Signal to keep its messaging safe and secured. Who would have known? This is a wild story. you know, it's funny, the story broke about, I want to say a half hour was less than an hour before we went live yesterday. So I saw this story, but, uh, let's just say it's from a not very trustworthy source. And so I was like, well, I got to like actually dig into this before I just take this on air and give a

thought on it. Cause I don't want to like come on here and then give a whole take on it and then be like, Oh, it turned out it wasn't true at all. Um, now that it's kind of 24 hours old, I mean, Jesus Christ, not only is this thing real, but it is, um, let's just say there's a lot of questions raised by it. So for, for anybody who doesn't know, uh, there is, I hesitate to even use the word journalist. Um, but there is a, there's a hack propagandist named Jeffrey Goldberg.

Could be from any ethnicity or background. No way to know for sure. Um, he was a bit, he, he's the, I believe he's the like the editor in chief now or senior editor. He's one of the big shots at the, at the Atlantic, um, which is a pretty garbage publication, but he was known for, um, being one of the, like the Russia gate, you know, like, you know, if you go find all his Russia gate takes that it'd be embarrassing how bad you know like promising We've got the dirt Donald Trump is clearly in a conspiracy with Vladimir Putin

He is one of Not that this is that Small of a list, but he's one of the journalists who Donald Trump really hates He's like called him out by name many times. Trump does not like this guy. Okay. So evidently, Waltz, the national security advisor who is one of Trump's worst picks. I know this from both his public persona and inside information that I've gotten. Just one of the absolute worst picks that Trump made.

Evidently, Waltz set up a signal private chat. This was weeks ago, right before the US started bombing Yemen again, the most recent time. And apparently on this signal chat, it seems that it was there were several people. It seems it was obviously Waltz, Hegseth the defense secretary, Tulsi Gabbard the national security advisor, Marco Rubio the secretary of state, JD Vance the vice president and Ratcliffe the CIA director

and then Witkoff I think was on it as well. Anyway, so there's a big. And they add this guy and just some anti-Trump reporter. So some. So anyway, so this is the story there. He has released the signal chats with but redacted, taking out some parts for national security. and then he

just ran this big piece on it yesterday now they've got I'd say at this point as of right now the the evidence is overwhelming seems like an under statement I'd say it's conclusively the case that these people were all on signal they were they were talking about the bombing before it happened, then the bombing happened, then they were celebrating the bombing happening after that. There was some discussion about how people felt about it. We'll kind of get into all of that.

But more importantly than any of that, at this point what we have today that we didn't have yesterday is that Hegseth has been asked about this. Tulsi Gabbard and Ratcliffe both testified before Congress today, and they've all kind of admitted it. In the sense that none of them are denying it. It ranges from, I think, Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard would be in the not denying it camp, and then Ratcliffe was just in the like, yeah, we did it and there's nothing wrong with us doing that.

So anyway, this pretty clearly happened. There's a few different angles we could go with this. So you could, any thoughts you have, Rob, just about the story in general? Well, first, I'll just say that it's odd that our world leaders are discussing bombing Yemen like it's planning a barbecue amongst friends. Who is it?

And the casualness and the way that it's in this group. JD Vance, hell of an employee. Hey, I don't agree with this, but if that's what you guys want to do, I'll back it. What's most surprising to me about the story is as to how this guy was added and no one realized amongst that group of people to go Hey, who's this other person in our group? I mean just think of you're talking Secretary of State. Yeah, it's a price price It's a pretty exclusive club for someone to be like The CIA director. I mean if that was the room of people that get together minus the president

I guess to make really big decisions. It's remarkable to not go, Hey, who's the other name here? Well, that's and there's just the other part that's just really shady about this story is usually when there's trouble in an administration, it's a very long time before anything gets investigated. Think about the lapse of time between the Hillary Clinton email scandal, and when she was actually brought in front of Congress or think about how little we've seen a Fauci as we unwind this COVID story.

I was unable to watch the hearing because it was while I was driving here. But the fact that they had a hearing today to address what happened yesterday. When is the last time you saw that happen in government? That is a good point. I think that there's also just look it just to start the thing because there's no kind of getting around it. It is Remarkable the level of incompetence to allow this to happen or

Perhaps this was intentional But those are kind of the only two options right here now There's I still can't believe that government relies on private technology for secret communications. Well, there's I do not think this is how it's supposed to go. Well, I understand that they're supposed to be, I guess, the presidential records act. And I also understand that if you're working a government job, I mean, I've worked at sales jobs and I don't want a record of every conversation I'm having about every sale. And so you use your own email

I mean it's so like I understand if you're why Hillary Clinton was using a private email server Yeah, I get that. She's not allowed to do that. I also get why she's doing that and Anyways if I'm working there, I don't understand how first day you're not calling up CIA and going Hey, where's my Blackberry for communicating with my team? It's shocking that it's a public app that's the best technological option for these people to have a private conversation. Well, look, when if you have Hillary Clinton using a private a private email where she's talking about, say, like whatever she's yoga. Yeah. Well, you know, she's talking about some private and then some very

You know like kind of shady public. That's one thing. This is not there's nothing that They're planning out a military strike, which is going to be made public It's not like there was some secret scandal that happened here and you could see in there like oh This is why they wanted it on signal. It is wild to think that the, again, you can't overstate it here. The absolute highest levels of our government, the highest levels of the foreign policy regime are communicating about a, uh, upcoming bombing campaign on signal.

That is just bizarre. Like they're all in washington dc I guess the vice president wasn't um, he mentioned that in the chat But aside from that the rest of them are all in dc like isn't there? I don't know. I always thought there was a like a Situation room type fit. I don't know something like this is just very bizarre. And again, your point, which just cannot be overstated and it really implicates all of them in terms of incompetence, not in terms of like necessarily being malicious. I think waltz is the, is the one who's there's a question mark about. Um, but yeah, that nobody noticed,

Hey, who's this other fella in here? I've literally had friends, firstly, I don't do any group messages. I just mute it, I can't stand it, it drives me nuts, it's too many notifications, and then I start getting too concerned about what I'm saying in a group format. 10 years ago when I partook in group messages

or group WhatsApps, I always check the group to make sure, hey, hey wait who's in this group Yeah, even Rob would have been like hey, who's this JG right here? Who's that guy even before just saying some offensive? Stupid remark I would check that it seems very remarkable to me that they're having their Exclusive group of what ten names that are supposed to make these giant decisions in a secretive way And they're not just checking wait wait, who's this other name? It's unbelievable. By the way, uh, twice in the group chat that got me, he wrote a Joseph Gervos.

That's what they thought. It's funny. Um, it is. Yeah, it's, it's unbelievable that they wouldn't have seen that either. The Trump administration is being undermined by the walls guy I hadn't even I'm not I wasn't too familiar with him or his name Or this is classic Donald Trump administration where there's some good and then there's some reckless slop Yep, no, well, it's look. I'm not sure which one it is. I will just say Okay, this is I might really be speaking out of turn here speculating. I just know that, you know,

I've sent the wrong text message before, you know what I mean, like text the wrong person, like texted my buddy, like I love you baby, be home soon or whatever, but it's always because that was the last guy I was texting and my wife was the other last person out. Like these were the last two people I was texting and I hit the wrong one or something like that. It seems very weird that Walls would add a Trump hating Atlantic journal.

Like how did that mistake get made? What? Now he's claiming, the way that he's never, he has no relationship with Goldberg. That he's like, I don't know this guy, I've never talked to him, I've never anything. It's like, that seems weird to me. I don't use Signal, but like wouldn't you have to have his name saved in your thing to add him?

Or maybe not, maybe I'm wrong about that. It seems like a strange mistake to make. I'll just say that. It seems like a really strange mistake to make. And I also just can't believe the way that foreign policy is being implemented based off of the scattered screenshots that were apparently, I guess he put enough screenshots over to go, look, I was in this conversation and I couldn't believe I was and that the details turned Out to be true and then he took out all the military details. That's the way. Yeah, I understand it the Conversation flow of JD Vance pointing out. Hey our entire messaging right now is we need to do things

They're in the strategic interest the United States. Why are we doing this when it benefits them? No conversation at all about civilian casualties. Oh, that's yeah. Well, let's let's get into that in a second because I do think that's really worth diving into. I will say the only thing in it, did you read his piece in the Atlantic that he Well, it was a paywalled and I couldn't maybe I was sophisticated on getting around paywalls. I didn't think of mine was paywall. They may have had it behind the paywall and taken it off. But I didn't or maybe they had it off They may have had it behind the paywall and taken it off,

or maybe they had it off and then put it behind, I'm not sure. But I read it and did not subscribe to the Atlantic, and I didn't go through the archives or anything. But the one thing that stuck out to me that was like a head-scratcher, that was like something here doesn't add up, is that he says he removed himself from the conversation. Bullshit. And he was like, oh, this is gonna let him know that I'm leaving, but I've got what I need,

I'm outta here. Who the hell removes, what journalist would remove themselves from that conversation? Like you just accidentally found yourself in a conversation between the national security advisor, the director of national intelligence, the defense secretary, the vice president, and the secretary of state and you're just sitting there and the CIA director and all that and you're just sitting there like what they just accidentally left the press in and then

Clearly you've gotten deep enough into the thing where you're like nobody's checking who's in this group and then you just left That seemed very strange. You know why it was because uh radcliffe at the cia said hey guys I just got my orders from the uh jews that uh, you know run things He goes i'm out Um it uh Yeah, I I guess all right, you know what fine let's just Let's get into that right now because you kind of touched on it and it is in many ways to me the the most interesting part of all of this Um, and it is in many ways to me the most interesting part of all of this.

And of course, I do want to be clear. This guy is literally is a professional liar whose job it is to damage Donald Trump and who might also like to damage other people too. So it is not, I don't want to assume that it's quite possible that he took out other stuff too. So it is not, I don't want to assume that it's quite possible that he took out other stuff too. Like maybe there would have been some message that made Tulsi Gabbard look really good. Like she had some principled opposition to this or something and he didn't put

that in. It doesn't seem like it though. And it seems like, cause really if you remove yourself, if you, if you zoom out the real scandal here, which is so much bigger than this signal scandal or so much bigger than any of the other times, the real scandal here is that you have after like 20 plus years of what have been dubbed forever wars, the longest wars in American history, the longer wars than most countries ever fight, and most countries don't ever fight a 20 year long war. We fought essentially two of them,

three if you count Somalia, where there's the JSOC war the whole time there, and also regime changes in Yemen and Libya, and ultimately in syria So after all this debt all these wars donald trump runs on this america first We're we're not going to be involved in stupid wars anymore down to specifically yemen and i'm not even talking about him uh uh Objecting to say like obama's drone bomb campaign in Yemen in 2009 or him

objecting to the Saudis invasion and Obama backing the Saudis invasion in 2015. I'm saying during the 2024 election, it was on Tim Poole's show, Donald Trump was straight-up asked about the issue of war and peace and he brought up Joe Biden bombing Yemen over the, the shipping lanes and talking about how stupid it is and how, so like, Donald Trump comes in now at his most popular wins. Every swing state has all of this energy behind him. And yet we're still within a month and a half bombing another country in the middle East. And like, that is the bigger scandal out of all of this.

It's like the old Tom woods had this old saying, and man, does it age well. No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain. Like, that's just always what ends up happening. You vote for Barack Obama. Sorry. All we can do is John McCain Oh, you like donald trump. Sorry, you're getting john mccain no matter who wins we get john mccain's foreign policy And so that's kind of the backdrop of this and then of course What is the most interesting thing politically in this is that at least from what's being reported? Only one person in the room seems to even have a principled objection to this at all and it is JD Vance now I

Got to say That in itself is some is an important piece of information that we should keep in our minds like going forward if you were thinking About who you might support in 2028 let's say I mean JD but now to your point too and in 2028 let's say I mean JD now to your point too and I you know like I'll give him a little bit of credit for being the only one who stood up but I gotta say it was like pathetically weak pathetically weak totally with the contingency of like I'll go along I mean like if you guys want to bomb them I'll bomb them but and the only objection he has is over the like, the, it's always the worst Trumpian objection

is that Europe should pay for the bombing a little bit more. That's essentially what his objection is. I'll read it in a sec. I was just somewhat shocked that it's not much of a strategy conversation, it's more of an optics conversation. And I would just think that, you know, for the pitch of maybe we don't always see the geopolitics

behind what these conversations actually are, no one's coming in and going, well, we've planned this out in strategic strike and we know that we can have blank result. Or, hey, this is a clear directive from the president. It's a very loose conversation of, it's almost like the way I would go, hey, I don't know if we need any TVs in the studio, but I saw a good deal over here. Oh yeah, maybe maybe that's a good idea.

It's a very casual conversation. There's not a lot of, hey, I just got the military intelligence on this and we know that the bad guys are hiding out here and we can have a real impact, but we got to act quickly. There's no like significant intelligence here. It's mostly a conversation about, Hey, should we go? I think we're going to go and do this. And I think the optics match the president's agenda at the moment. Okay. I'm all right with that. Yeah, I'm going to know it too. They're alluding to Trump seems to be the loosest of directives like they're like at Donald Trump

He kind of he gave the green light you go He said open back up the shipping lanes and then it's kind of left up to us to figure out how so like in your example You're almost like we were like, oh, you know I saw this monitor that looks cool and this one's on sale and then you'd be like well the owner of the studio said Make it look cool You know like there's not even like a specific thing, like you were tasked with getting this monitor and I found it at a good price and therefore, it was just a general like,

yeah, whatever you think looks good kind of thing. And so anyway, so this is the only real, aside from this, it all seems to just be them agreeing. By the way, you know, again, there might be something here that wasn't reported. No principled objection from Tulsi Gabbard whatsoever. Look, I'm just saying, I think I, I think we were saying this the whole time, right?

Like the whole time throughout Trump, uh, before the election, after the election during his, uh, selecting his his cabinet that you were just like, look, he put a lot of bad people in there and the foreign policy team isn't good. And even Tulsi Gabbard is not good when it comes to this type of like, target targeted strikes. Anyway, okay, so I'm going to read from the article. At this point, a fascinating policy discussion commenced. The account labeled JD Vance Responded at 8 16 team. I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan But I think we are making a mistake

He also was in Michigan. So this is part of the reason the part of what was confirming that He writes three percent of US trade runs through the Suez, 40% of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn't understand this or why it's necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as Pota said, to send a message. Now, look, I give Vance some credit for at least being against this thing. Kind of. I mean, he does say, I think we're making a mistake. Um, but this idea that like, well, it's a, it's a bigger percentage of Europe's

trade, therefore it's kind of like we're bailing out their trade. I mean, this is the. Like if there were a list of 15 reasons why you shouldn't do this, this is 15th. This is the last reason, you know, like I'm not even saying it's not a reason at all, but it's not one of the major ones. It's not as if he's sitting there and saying something like, which I can. You could call me like a hippie or something like that, all you want to, but like, is it really that unreasonable that when my political leaders are murdering people, they might consider whether the murder

is absolutely necessary or not? Like you know, we're dropping huge bombs on people here. There's gonna be civilians who get killed. Do we really need to do this? I just don't think it's that crazy that that could maybe even enter the conversation. Of course it is that crazy and it doesn't enter the conversation at all. Then you would think after that the concern would be that like we could be getting dragged into a wider war, you know, if the whole argument is that Iran is arming

them. Well, okay. Do we really want to move closer toward a conflict with Iran? Do we want to move closer toward a conflict in Yemen? Why are we doing this? It's not in our national security interest. We're doing this on behalf of a foreign country. None of that comes up at all.

It's just this vague, I think it's a mistake. Vance goes on to say, I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There's a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself, But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month doing the messaging work on why this matters Seeing where the economy is, etc Then a joke can't I forgot Joe Kent was on this Joe Kent then comes in and says there is nothing time

Sensitive during the timeline will have the exact same options in a month Okay, they Pete Hegseth comes in and says VP I understand your concerns and fully support you raising with press with POTUS Important considerations most of which are tough to know how they play out economy, Ukraine, peace, Gaza, et cetera. I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what. Nobody knows who the Houthis are, which is why we would need to stay focused on one, Biden failed and two, Iran funded. Isn't that just disgusting? unfunded.

Isn't that just disgusting? Like, you know, you're sitting here, it's only, by the way, I, I just cannot stress for like, um, I think for people, Americans like us, how, how unique this is about our country. And I know that there's sometimes like when things happen in your country you just kind of think of them as normal I'm saying like throughout the world and throughout human history how Abnormal it is to be

Bombing a group of people who you have no idea who they are Like for most of human history if there was a war on the people of that nation would know who they were fighting a war against and understand why they were fighting a war against them. We're such a rich country and such a powerful empire that we're just bombing little third world shitholes. And you're like, yeah, the problem here is the American people don't even know. And you know what? You're there. Absolutely right. I mean, how many Americans, what percentage of Americans do you think could find Yemen on a map,

let alone know the name of the group of people who are in charge? You know, like, I don't know. Like I'll even give them a hint. I'll be like, here's a map. Find Yemen. Oh, it's, it's right at the bottom of the Arabian and the Arabian peninsula. Go. How many Americans you think could turn and find that on a map? And so it's like, look for him to be saying this, it's like, yeah, in other words, stated differently, there is absolutely zero political desire from your base for you to go bomb Yemen.

is absolutely zero political desire from your base for you to go bomb Yemen. There's no it's not even kind of like it's almost it's said in plain English right there because I mean he's not saying it but it's all it's in the information he's giving out right is that there is this is a totally top-down move not bottom-up there is nobody this isn't mass deportations or you know eliminating waste in government or turning around the economy or bringing prices down. This isn't like oh there's this desire from the people and they elected you to do this. You're saying how do we trick them into thinking this and here's the answer. One and two. By the way, this is something

that should be a useful tool for people. This is one of the positive things to come out of this Signal Chat and it's one of the things that I kind of challenge people. Like I'm talking to you, listeners of our show right now. When you see the MAGA influencers out there, right? When you're thinking about who to listen to. Oh, this guy makes a good point who to listen to oh this guy makes a good point But then I also think this guy makes a good point, but I like this lady's point there So I acted like women make points fine. I'm just saying for the sake of argument Think about how many of them were just saying number one and number two Right after this strike in Yemen, and I'm not like alleging that they're colluding with Pete Hegseth

I'm just saying they're repeating the same dumb fucking mindless propaganda. Keep in mind here, Pete Hegseth is not saying, this is a very clear sentence. Pete Hegseth is not saying the reason we need to do this is because number one, Biden failed, and number two, they're backed by Iran. He's saying that's what you tell the fucking people. It's the only thing I could think of to tell people that they'll maybe resonate

with them. Is there is there a real desire amongst the MAGA base for us to start bombing the shit out of the poorest country in the Middle East? No. But they do think Joe Biden's awfully weak and they're pretty suspicious of Iran because we've been Propagandizing them with a bunch of bullshit about them for for years. So that's how he's saying you could sell this to people It's a very revealing comment And anyway, so that's that's what you were getting from Pete Hagseth Okay

All right Hagseth message went on to state Okay. All right. A message went on to state waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus to immediate risks on waiting. Number one, two immediate risks on waiting. One, this leaks and we look indecisive to Israel takes a Shit. Oh man. Did I not know I may not a screen grab the right part there

Okay To Israel, sorry, you can accuse me of covering up for the Israelis now. I'm not sure what that was. I lost it It's a the Atlantic piece I'm not sure what the title is. I just uh screen grabbed this part. Hold on one second Okay, there's um I'll go on but if you find it, that's that's fine. Oh, wait. Hold on. Sorry. Um israel takes in associated Uh and levy them on the europeans now, I don't think that's the right part. Um, JD Vance goes on to say, uh, to Pete Hegseth, if you agree, we should do it, let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.

So again, JD Vance, who is, I suppose the hero in the room here, judging on a curve, if you turn that heat down a little bit, Rob, um, he literally goes, Hey, you guys want to do it? Fine. Let's do it. I just hate bailing out Europe. So there is simply in JD Vance, no concern about killing innocent people, no concern about us getting drawn into a wider war, no concern about dropping bombs on people on behalf of other countries. This is clearly a result of Israel's beef, not ours,

but he sure doesn't like those those Europeans being welfare moms. Doesn't seem to have any issue with Israel being a fat welfare mom, but he really doesn't like the Europeans being on the doll. So that's what you that's what we got here so far. Hegseth responded to that said VP I fully share your loathing of Europeans freeloading. It's pathetic capital letters, but Mike is correct we are the only ones on the planet on our side of the ledger who can do this nobody else even close question is timing I feel like now is as good a time as any given

POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes that's what I was referring to before I think we should go but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space all right guys let's take a moment so we can thank our sponsor for today's show which is monetary metals an amazing company I've been telling you guys about for a while if you own gold You've probably been happy to see prices hitting all-time highs this year But your gold can do more than just sit there waiting for the price to go up It can generate passive income for you. With monetary metals, you can earn up to 5% interest on your gold and silver paid in more ounces of

metal and accredited investors can even achieve double digit returns in their bond offerings. All interest payments are made in ounces of gold and silver stored in your account free of charge. Whether your metal is gathering dust at home or costing you annual storage fees, it's time to stop paying to own gold and start getting paid to own it and put it to work with monetary metals. Check them out. Monetary-metals.com to learn more about how you can start growing your wealth in

ounces today. That's monetary dash metals.com. All right, let's get back into the show. All right. So what can you say about this, Rob? I mean, it's just, it's really just a, you know, it's not to be unexpected, but man, it is disappointing. And it's just, I will say it's, there's already just signs of You know Look like you kind of said before this is what you get with Donald Trump. It's it's a mixed bag

I suppose a mixed bag is preferable to a bag of nothing but shit but There's there is just this level of like incompetence But there is just this level of like incompetence that not just to be doing this whole signal chat and to forget it. I'm totally open to the possibility that the national security advisor was setting them up, but no one else to notice. And that is a pretty high level of incompetence. Nobody else goes like, you know, from what I've understood, because some people have been talking about this, it's like, you know, from what I've understood, cause some people have been talking about this, it's like, you know, signal might be used between these

types of people to like coordinate a meeting or something like that. We're all meeting here at this place or whatever. But there seems to be no feeling from any of them that like, hey, we're talking about like a planned targeted strike and we're doing this over signal that seems pretty weird. There is no one of the things I found particularly disgusting again people can call me a hippie for this shit if you want to but after the bombings done everybody's

just sharing emojis which is like first on one level you're like what is the fucking money only one might be only grown man who doesn't text emojis? But wouldn't everyone become a teenage chick, including the secretary of defense, evidently, but it's all just like, I mean, again, call me crazy. I think when you drop bombs on human beings, even if there were like, even let's just say in a scenario where you had to take out some bad guys and it came with killing some innocent people, but it had to be done.

Let's just, I'll, that's the starting point that I'm wrong and that it has to be done and these innocent people have to be killed. You still think there would be a little bit of a somber tone. You know, it's like, I don't know, you know, it's so funny because like I'm not, um, you know, like I believe in God, but I'm not like a particularly religious person But all of these people uh tulsi's got her own thing going on But like pete hegseth and all these guys they lead with how christian they are That's like a big part of what they present themselves as and run on and it's like but yeah But don't do any of you really believe in god?

Because like wouldn't you wouldn't you think like if you just killed some people there'd at least be a party that was like man I sure do hope that God understands Why I had to do it, you know, you think you would have to at least show a little bit of like that part sure does suck That's a tragedy. Sorry about that. No, it's it's muscle emojis and American flag emojis Oh emojis and American flag emojis. Oh, it was muscle. It was a lot of a lot of from what I understand the bicep and the American flag and then you know something like about a hot boy not calling you back. I don't know. It's all ridiculous to me. But this is someone in the chat just said this is my Vivek moment where I'm going after emojis. This is someone in the chat just said, this is my Vivek moment where I'm going

after emojis. This is where there's, I don't care. They're all gay. You're all very, very gay for doing this. Stop it. All right, fine. You could put, put the emojis in the chat. But you know what I'm saying? Anyway, there's just, just none of that. None of it whatsoever. But look, I'm sorry. It's just, it's hard to not look what Elon Musk is doing over at Doge. I think is awesome. Um, uh, it's, it's inserted these ideas back into the national conversation, but I gotta say we're looking at this already.

And it's very hard for me to not point out that it does seem that like in terms of the actual mechanisms of government, there's just so much failure around already. And it's just like even Doge, right? Like everyone in the news could talk about how they're making these severe cuts, but they're not, there aren't drastic spending cuts. You know what I'm saying? Like we just passed a CR that's, that's increasing the deficit. Like there's, we're not having drastic spending cuts.

And, you know, we're not having mass deportations. Look at the numbers. There's no mass deportations going on, but we are sending a few hundred to this horrible prison in El Salvador. Like what is, when you finally actually have the support of the people for mass deportations and you're elected on that, so your move is to just send a few of them to the like worst fucking prison, what are you trying to poison the well against mass deportations?

And then of course here on foreign policy, I mean this stuff is just, we're already bombing a poor country in the Middle East. Hasn't even been two months since Donald Trump's been in. And again, it's kind of like the first time around all over again. It's like the worst thing about Donald Trump is not any of the things that the Democrats tell you about Donald Trump. You know, the worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's pretty much the same as Obama and Biden. Like that's the actual actually the worst thing about him is that he's not

that much different than all the other presidents we've had. When it actually, I'm sorry when it actually comes down to substance you know stylistically he's much different and and on the substance he's maybe 5% maybe 10% better than the other presidents and that comes with a whole lot of Incompetence too. And so that's kind of the mixed bag that we're in and people can try to Convince me otherwise, but it's just I Got to call him like I see him It's kind of no way around that

I don't know rob any any thoughts on any of this stuff or anything else I it seems so incredibly sloppy this early into the administration You never want to have a moment where even Hillary Clinton can go You know what? I mean Hillary Clinton. What legs does she have to stand on on any topic whatsoever? But even on this one she tweeted something like did she I didn't yeah, maybe you might be able to find it It was just something like this is crazy and And, or maybe it was just actually talking about emojis. It might have just been like the look at this emoji. And even on that, you'd be like that you got a point Hillary, how

often how often does something so sloppy happen that even Hillary Clinton can open up her dumb mouth and you can go well, you got a point on that one. Yeah, that's that's that's when you know you're really screwing up when anybody when when Hillary Clinton is ever Granted a point on anything, you know, it's a you know, it's not going good. Oh Here's the Trump Yeah, and what can I say Hillary's got a point

And of all the reporters to send this to Jeffrey Goldberg, oh my god. Oh, it's just horrible. Now I will say that, and I saw yesterday after we got done with the show, I saw Sager and Jetty from Breaking Points, who I think is great. You know, he was tweeting about this and look, he's, he's posing this stuff and I guess I'm retweeting some of the stuff he said too for our own kind of very opportunistic isn't the exact right word, but like, okay, we don't like the national security advisor so where, but he was saying like, yo, he's got to be fired for this. Like, I'm sorry, this is crazy. It's like you this is Could not be a better example of a fireable offense like you

You Look we'll get into some of the details in a second because we're gonna play some of the video of what's been said here But you leaked very sensitive information about an upcoming military strike you the video of what's been said here, but you leaked very sensitive information about an upcoming military strike. You accidentally leaked that to a journalist who the president hates his fucking guts, who hates the president's guts. It's embarrassing. It's created a scandal for the president. Like it has all of the things that you would be like, okay, well you gotta get fired over this.

And at least as of now, Trump is doubling down that he supports him and that he's a good guy and shouldn't be fired for it so we will see let's uh we got a couple videos here if we could go let's go to the Pete Hegseth uh video first because I did I found this to be kind of interesting I mean he's doing what he can here but here's the Secretary of Defense. One question. Can you share how your information about war plans against the Houthis in Yemen was shared with the journalists in the Atlantic and were those details classified? So I'm, you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia,

Russia, Russia or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax. So this is the guy that pedals in garbage. This is what he does. I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign because of the skill and courage of our troops. I've monitored it very closely from the beginning. And you see, we've been managing four years

of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration. Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at as targets. Our ships couldn't sail through. for the And we will ultimately decimate the Houthis, which is exactly what we're doing as we speak from the beginning. Overwhelmingly. Why would those details? Um, I mean, look, what can I say that all of that's just pathetic? It's just pathetic. It's a, I understand the situation he's in. It's probably the best answer you could give, but you could sit here and say,

yes, we all agree. Pete Hagseth. Yes, Goldberg is trash. He's a terrible, uh, journalist, but the fact that he was pushing the Russiagate hoax or the fact that he was pushing the very fine people on both sides hoax, you're not calling this a hoax. And also he didn't put, you can't really demonize him on this because at least according to the story, he didn't push it. He didn't go you can't really demonize him on this because at least according to the story he didn't push it He didn't go searching for it. He didn't decide to run this story He got added by your national security advisor to a group chat

With the most powerful people in the world leaking war plans and he was like, well, I mean I'm gonna run this in my publication There's just nothing here unless something else comes out that we don't have right here. There's really nothing you can blame him for. And so then to turn it around and then to try to, to try to pivot toward Joe Biden was weak. And that's where we were struggling. Like, Hey, I recognize this. This is number one. I think you're giving them the old number one. I was waiting for a round to come in after that. Like, oh yeah, right, right.

Okay. And by the way, it's just not true. It's just not true. Joe Biden bombed them for the exact same reason, the exact same way. It had absolutely no impact and didn't change anything just like this one. Mark my words on that, by the way.

There's the, who these are still gonna be messing with ships in the Suez. Like, you know, I don't know this this is just this is pathetic he's got nothing. It seems like a particularly bad move when the White House isn't otherwise denying the incident. Yeah and it seems like almost getting thrown under the bus when you get asked the question you're I mean I guess he doesn't deny it as much as he says that that guy's terrible but that's trying to deny it and you might as well own it because everyone else's and this just makes you look like more of a douche yeah yeah hey that was an epic fail and the team's gonna have to get together because clearly we need to use other

platforms and protocol so that plans of this nature aren't getting in front of the media. I stand in front of what we did and we obviously have to address that. Yeah, I also only way to respond to this. Look, I know that the the Yemen's you know, I'd have to go back and check this remember from reading it last week, but Yemen's like health officials said that I think they claimed that 53, uh, um, uh, like civilians were killed, something like that number.

And then there were like a few hundred who were wounded or something like that. And you know, maybe that number is not right. You never know your trust in governments and government agencies. I, our own government doesn't tell us the truth. I'm not saying we should take the word of some other government. Um, but there is something that I really object to that I just hate where it's like, uh, you know, Pete Hagseth having this, uh, this line of like, you know, I'd love to talk about the precision and the, the, you know, the excellence of our troops and how they pulled off this strike. And that's actually really just not the most interesting conversation.

And there's also something about it that's a little bit offensive, that's a little bit, it's kind of cheap in a way. That ends up being what defense secretaries always want to say. I've heard this so much, by the way, you know, it's meet the new boss. You know, like I've heard this so much over the last 25 years from all the different defense secretaries,

whether it was Rumsfeld or Gates or Gates again under Obama or whoever, you know. They always like brag about the precision with this latest flare up in the war and how great you wouldn't believe what our boys can do. You know, and there's something, um, I guess this really started in Vietnam. Um, although it does seem like it's really in a whole different league in the war on terrorism.

But you know, if you go back to, uh, if you, if you. Targeted firebombing in Cambodia. Well, look, I mean this right. Well, the point I'm making is that if you, you know, when you read about say world war one, okay. Now before, uh, American entry into world war one, um, world war one is like it, it's already the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of the world. You know, they don't know that there's a part two coming, but at the time, it's the worst thing in the history of the world. By the way,

that just reminded me is one of my favorite, uh, Simpsons jokes. I don't know if you remember that. God damn the Simpsons in their day. We're so great. There was it. It's a flashback to the grandpa. Abe says, uh, Abe Simpson and he's fighting in world war one. And he goes, I can't believe I'm sitting here fighting in world war one. And all those platoon guys are like, why do you keep calling at that? And he goes, you'll see anyway. But if you read about fighting, right. So they're fighting to like the bloodiest of stalemates.

It's essentially a big stalemate before America gets in because like, you know, I don't remember the details But like the Germans are running out of shoes and the Brits are running out of ammo But you're in like a foxhole and there's tremendous Parity between these militaries like it's an even fight kind of you got young boys shooting rifles on their side And they got young boys shooting back at you on on your side You know, it's kind of an even fight even in World War two Obviously, there's been technological advances and of course by the end of the war we dropped the atom bombs, but at the it

Certainly before American entry into the war and I think even after American entry into the war it's in doubt who's going to win like like losing a war back then was a possibility and I don't mean losing the way we lose a war today I don't mean meaning like oh we couldn't the army that we built in Afghanistan couldn't stand and the Taliban took back over we lost the war I mean losing the war like your fucking forces got annihilated and you had to surrender to the enemy there by vietnam you've got like these kind of sophisticated weapons that we're using against like just like a poor peasant you know population but in the terror wars now it's like it's almost like if you looked at the, the world war, like if you looked at world war one, world war two,

and then you'd think America as an economic superpower just keeps advancing and advancing and advancing. And then we went to fight a war with a group of people who were less sophisticated than those countries, less sophisticated than Europe in the forties. You know, our boys are going in there. We have night vision and they have monkey bars We call in airstrikes and they have more monkey bars. We send in the Navy They have more monkey, but like it's just and so when you're bragging about like how fucking awesome it was

Nobody doesn't get that. We're awesome at blowing shit up Nobody doesn't get that nobody Nobody doesn't understand that our military and our level of technology and sophistication and so but so but when you're doing that you're essentially like it's it's I mean it's like a grown man fighting a toddler you know what I'm saying. Now I'm not trying to downplay the risks I mean people do get killed and things still happen and like when someone's shooting a gun at you, that's still a gun being shot at you. But it's just a little bit in bad taste to like be bragging about the persi-

Especially when we're going on our third decade of these fucking wars in the Middle East. That you're like, nah dude, but you should have seen us man. We blew up their shit. Our boys were so brave. They were so brave for having technology a hundred thousand times more powerful than the enemies and blowing up their shit. Like I Don't know. Can we just get to some real questions here? Like why exactly we had to do this? I mean if you're saying in your own goddamn signal messages that like yeah, the time frames not really important We could do this in a month. We could do this now. No one's click. Can someone clearly articulate why it had to be done? What is it?

What did they articulate in the message? The truth is the show of force. It's a show of force. Let them know who's boss. Just let them know. We can do whatever the fuck we want. Even in your part of the world, we can do whatever the fuck we want and you should cause no problems for it for us. You know, of the world. We can do whatever the fuck we want and you should cause no problems for it for us, you know, no type of thought of dealing in like what's the strategic plan here? What's the best path to peace and prosperity? Do they have a legitimate grievance? What's going on? Is there a diplomatic solution to that? None of that. Blow shit up and then praise our boys for blowing shit up. I

Don't know. I just don't I'll just never go along with that shit. I Also don't you know is Bill Maher Bill Maher got fired if you remember what he got fired for the bravery thing Yeah, there's like, you know, Bill Maher was right when he fucking said that it was absolutely right and You know, Bill Maher was right when he fucking said that he was absolutely right. And, uh, like if that offends anybody, like I don't give a shit, that's fine. This isn't fucking 2002 and I don't work for ABC. So I get to say whatever I want, but it's like, if you're just talking about bravery, like there's,

it's hard to argue that someone fighting with 19th century weapons against someone fighting with 21st century weapons doesn't automatically win the bravery competition. There's something braver about going after the US military with nothing than it is to be like, oh, the bravery of our boys. Launching Tomahawk missiles on the poorest country in the Middle East Okay All right, let's go to uh, let's go to some of the the congressional testimony videos the that it didn't include any targeting information or battle sequence. That is your testimony. That's your testimony.

And I'm a little staggered that that is your view, Director Radcliffe. Does the CIA have any rules about handling of classified information? Yes or no? Yes. Thank you, Director Radcliffe. Do you agree? Secretary of Defense Pete Hexeth said this morning when asked by members of the press what had happened, he said this morning in Hawaii that Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeff Goldberg is a quote

deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of providing hoaxes time and time again. Do you share that evaluation, the Secretary of Defense's evaluation of Jeff Goldberg as a journalist? Senator I didn't see those comments I don't know Jeff Goldberg. So do you share that view of the Secretary of Defense? Well, I don't have a view on. OK. Assuming that he has that view, I'm curious about whether you are the CIA director.

This has happened. We know it's happened. Did Jeff Goldberg somehow, was it a, did he create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this signal thread? Please answer the question. You don't, don't, don't insult the intelligence of the American people. Did he invite himself to the signal thread? I don't know how he was invited, but clearly he was added. Clearly it was? Finish your sentence, please. Clearly he was added to the signal group. Your question is-

No, you don't know that the president's national security advisor invited him to join the signal threat. Everybody in America knows that. Does the CIA director not know that? I've seen conflicting reports about who added the reporter to the signal messaging group. It's perfectly appropriate that there was a reporter added, especially one that the Secretary of Defense says is deceitful, highly discredited, a so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes over and over again. Is your testimony that it was appropriate that he was added to this signal threat? No, of course not. Why did you not call—

Hold on, Senator. You are the C- You're mischaracterizing my testimony. Good, you answered the question. Let me ask you. When he was added to the thread, you're the CIA director. Why didn't you call out that he was present

on the signal thread? I don't know if you use signal messaging app. I do, I do I do not for classified information not for targeting. Well neither do I senator. Neither do I senator. Well that's what your testimony is today. It absolutely is not senator. Were you not listening at the beginning? No. When I said that I was using it as permitted it is permissible. I agree that's your testimony. Yeah. I agree that's your testimony. Yeah. I agree that's your testimony.

You asked me if I use it. And I said, not for targeting, not for classified information. And I said, I don't either. I also know Jeff Goldberg. I don't use it to communicate with him, but you thought it was appropriate. By the way, I think he's one of the more outstanding

journalists in America, but I'm shocked to find the way, I think he's one of the more outstanding journalists in America. But I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot of a grocery store in Washington, D.C. And your testimony as the director of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate. Is it appropriate? No. The president's— Director, that is not what I—

Okay, go ahead. Please. When did I say it was— When did I use the word appropriate? Well, go ahead, please. Well, I didn't. Everybody in America... Clearly, Senator... ...is what your testimony is.

This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat about this kind of stuff over Signal. In fact, it's so normal that the last administration left it here for us. That's your testimony. All right, we can, we can pause it here. I mean, look, this is, I don't know. Look, obviously this is, you know, you're making the worst people in the world look good. You know, um, it's just one of those things like it's almost, I'm sure we've all had this, just like in our personal lives, whether it's at work or with a friend or in a relationship or something where

you just fuck up and they're just giving it to you. And you're just like, I just got to take this now. There's just really no, like your, your job here now is just to get it is you guys listen, obviously he's grandstanding and obviously he's trying to mischaracterize Ratcliffe's, you know, testimony to some degree. But damn if that's not a punch that packs some weight to go, you're the director of the CIA, you're the head of the central intelligence agency and you couldn't figure out

that there was a freaking Atlantic reporter on your group chat. And he's like, have you ever used signal before? It's like, Jesus Christ. I just can't believe that this is happening one day later. I mean, the way that I've seen government operate, usually after failures, it's five, seven, eight years later, after three months of a Durham or two years of a Durham thing. When have you ever seen a day after a mess up

that all these people get pulled in? Or at least I can't think of other examples of that off the top of my head. No, that's a, it's a good point. It's a very good point and I really don't know what the answer to that is. Like were they coming for something unrelated and then they just made it all about this. I mean, that's pretty crazy that they were there right away. I will say though,

also I haven't ever really seen like the national security state planning a military target and then it's just in the news I mean, this is pretty wild dude, like it's it's hard to get over that. I don't know This is a pretty well reporters are in secret government signal chats. Yeah, what else do they know? Right, and then what was the other video? I think we had the Tulsi Gabbard one just being chastised up there, too Did I send that or no? Okay. Maybe I thought I sent the third one too, but I guess not. Oh, no, you know what? It was just the two. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. Tulsi had to take her her medicine too. And she basically just wouldn't answer. She was like, I'm not

going to comment on an ongoing thing. Yeah. Classic. Well, I got to say, like, in this case, that might be the best way to handle it at ratcliffe seems to be like No, I can explain it to these guys. You're like, you're not having a real conversation here, dude They're just making you take you know, they're making you accept your punishment Yeah, look I don't know what else to to say here I mean I would feel guys look like a bunch of assholes well, I would feel like a little bit more of, uh, I would feel a little bit more motivated to say, like defend the administration. If you don't look like the same way we've defended Doge and

Elon Musk, a bunch where people will say, Hey, this isn't the correct process. He's doing this in a sloppy way, he's got these young tech guys who have all this information, have we vetted that? We don't know. All these things you go, okay, even though some of that is legitimate criticism, I don't know man, they're trying to do the right thing. It's vitally necessary for this to be done and none of the proper channels have a 1% chance of working. It's a 0% chance that

this is going to happen through the appropriate channels. So you know what? You got to try something new and there might be some mistakes made along the way, but at least they're trying something new. If that were the case, like if this was a meeting where they were trying to end a war and it got, it'd be like, yeah, let me defend them here. Okay, they're using signal, but you know what? This is a new team they're trying but they're not they're just in the business of trying to defend yet another act of war in the Middle East and so what the fuck you guys it's the worst of all worlds the worst of all worlds and I gotta say and you know I don't I take no pleasure in

saying this and I'll give her the slight caveat of I don't trust this Journalist and not everything has been released but particularly for Tulsi Gabbard I just think it's damning that like look you could say like she's the director of national intelligence It's not exactly like she's at the Defense Department But like when the vice president's weighing in and saying, I think we're making a mistake, maybe Tulsi should have caught his back there and been like, yeah, this is kind of a mistake. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard at least is supposed to be good on this type of stuff.

You know, you know who the Houthis are enemies of, by the way? Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that's their big enemy in Yemen. That's like the Saudis, the Israelis and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That's their big enemy in Yemen. That's like the Saudis, the Israelis, and Al Qaeda. That's their enemy. So you're saying we should team up with Al Qaeda, work in Syria. Well I'm saying we are teaming up with Al Qaeda and have been in Yemen as well as Syria and Libya. And you'd think that might be one thing that Tulsi is at least good on.

It's time to discuss the strategic asset that we're investing in of Al Qaeda. Yeah, really? That's the, that's the congressional hearing that we need is finally coming for the American people and making the Al Qaeda pitch. Right. Because Al Qaeda and going against them was the failures of the prior administrations, Obama and Biden who did such terrible work against our best

adversary. I mean, our best ally in the Middle East, Israel. Well, look, I'll we could end the show on this note, but there's evidently is just as we're recording the show, it's the Washington Post is reporting right now that Russia and Ukraine agree to expand the partial ceasefire So you see if they could just wait one day You could say after they saw the American might and Houthis they feared the Russian the Ukrainians to respect Yeah, there you go make a deal if they could have just delayed this hearing by one day and got on their story straight

It more like they like look This is still America and we're ending a war and you can't really end a war. So we just have to move the war. No, Europe only backed us because we said that if they go along with our peace agreement, we would take care of their problem in Yemen. Yeah. No one else has the strength to do so. Yeah, there you go. I'm for hire.

I got to pay later. All right. But an absolute disaster. That's our show for today. All right. Peace. absolute disaster. That's our show for