The full transcript

Tonight, the debate continues.

And we ain't gonna sit there while Democratic Socialists run their revolution.

You fell for a Democrat op?

No!

But this time, we've included some of the biggest voices in the movement. How did a once unified coalition, with a stated goal of making America great again, come to a place where some of the most powerful voices in the movement are now leaving?

Don't have a good way of establishing regime change.

Your entire position requires on telepathy.

That's ridiculous.

Who has caused the MAGA divide?

↳ P1 raised again here · first raised at U-058

And you've got people on the right saying, we're no longer supporting the guy that got us here, that we're never really there to begin with.

It should have been for America first.

Raise your hand if you've ever been paid to post content that would benefit a foreign nation.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-559

Trump has said his entire political career, no nuclear weapon for Iran.

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-267

This war is going to devastate our economy and Israel's sitting back laughing about it.

What? The hell are you talking about?

And if Will is going to say that, well, this isn't as bad as Vietnam yet, that's not the way we should be analyzing a conflict the United States is in.

In the intelligence community, we assess 2 things: intent and capability.

This is the exact mistake Israel made in the run-up to October 7th.

Are flock cameras a serious threat to American citizens' right to privacy?

It was a non-issue until they started using it to round up illegals.

You especially, Will, don't have to be concerned, right? Because you're a raging Zionist. I have to be concerned.

+4 R-2.2 · Contesting identity in place of argument · Joel Webbon · low confidence: excluded from score

People are pissed because Trump went—

What the hell do you want to do about it?

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-374

I want him to stop what he's doing!

Great!

Wait the fuck up! Wow, what a wonderful plan! I want him to stop!

He's been the best president we've had on immigration in a century. He's the only president to ever meaningfully combat anti-white discrimination.

Those are huge, monumental wins that on their own would have been the defining moments of other presidents' tenure.

It's either he responds to ego or He was wrong.

Should we vote Republican?

If there's a candidate that I don't think is honoring the vision that I want for the country, no.

God.

Why hasn't Trump called and apologized to him?

These were his supporters until they weren't.

You guys have been talking mad shit about this guy.

What do you mean?

But Alex, you called for him to be 25th.

You did it twice.

The overall goal is to figure out exactly what we're going to do after President Trump.

This idea that you're gonna create something that is more authentically America First than what Trump has been able to deliver So you had to spend political capital, which is all the more reason why it shouldn't have been spent on Iran.

We were with a bombastic president who's like a used car salesman sometimes.

Well, sorry, dude, used car salesmen don't control the goddamn nuclear weapons.

How many times have you predicted World War III now?

We're in World War III.

It is not World War III.

We are not the ones that have been doing World War III alarmism forever. That's actually been done about Iran and a nuclear weapon for decades.

You sound like a leftist.

There is an America after Trump.

Well, I want to say this is the most hardcore debate ever. I hope it airs before we all die in nuclear war.

My name is Andrew Wilson, and I'm Team MAGA.

I'm Will Chamberlain, and I'm Team MAGA.

I'm Gerald Morgan, and I'm Team MAGA. I'm John Doyle.

and I'm Team MAGA.

I'm Joe Kent. I'm on Team America First.

I'm Joel Webben, and I'm Team America First.

I'm Kai Schwemmer, and I'm America First.

I'm Alex Jones with America First, which translates to 1776 Unstoppable.

My name is Brandon Strock, and tonight my job is to moderate Alex Jones. Does anybody have a taser? Tonight the debate continues, but this time we've included some of the biggest voices in the movement, and some who have been inside the administration to address how and why the conservative movement has become so fractured. And can anything be done about it? At times, there appear to be glimmers of hope for some type of reconciliation. And then just as quickly, we all take 3 steps back. It's almost impossible to have an opinion on either side of the great MAGA divide without believing that the other side is being paid to cause dissent by a foreign country. Nearly everyone on this stage tonight has at one point or another fired shots at someone, sitting just a few feet across from them. So the question remains, how did we get here? How did a once unified coalition with a stated goal of making America great again come to a place where some of the most powerful voices in the movement are now leaving to start a new political movement? Let's see how much we can uncover tonight and where we go from here. We're calling this a dinner table debate, meaning we're going to keep it open forum. You are allowed to interrupt each other and keep the passion flowing. I'll interject if anything becomes disrespectful or crosses a line. The only exception to that rule is going to be the very first question, in which I ask that everybody agree not to interrupt and that we allow each panelist their turn without any interjection. So to start, I'd like to give everyone 1 minute uninterrupted. And the question is, who has caused or is causing the MAGA divide and why? Let's start with Team America First and Alex Jones.

Well, thank you. I'm glad to fire the first shot. Trump ran on not expanding or having big new wars. He said, if you vote for Kamala, it's World War III with Iran. And regardless, there's been such a departure and they haven't clearly defined it. It's been so half-baked. It was about getting the missiles, it was about getting the nuke material, it was about regime change. It's really about regime change. And it's a failed war. We've run out of half the munitions. It'll take 4 to 5 years to get them built back up. So on its face, a failed war is a failure. outside of the debate. I'd love to teleport the mullahs to Mars, but that's not what's happened. And now it's an expanding war. Now Ukraine has gotten involved, seeing Iranian ships. As Joe Kent warned just 2 weeks into this war, we're now 170-something days into it, that this is a potential American empire-killing move. And so at the end of the day, I think it's very important that we put as much public pressure on this already incredibly unpopular war to end it as quickly as possible, but force the issue of admitting that it is a war, and it's turned into a new global war with the Ukraine-Russia-NATO war now merging, uh, with the Iranian fiasco.

↳ evidence for the P1 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-058

Joe Kent.

I think at the end of the day, President Trump is the, is the president. So he has the ultimate power right now to either continue to fracture the movement and harm our country, or he has the power to get us out of this disastrous war and start putting the coalition that, that he built back together. Unfortunately, we had outside interests. We had the Israeli lobby. We had a lot of folks who are neoconservatives who want us in these perpetual wars, who got us into this war by misleading the president, by basically creating an echo chamber around him of lobbyists, of people who told him information that was not true, that got us into this conflict. And now here we are. There appears to be no end in sight. Iran is in a stronger position. They're certainly more radical. We have had basically the security guarantees that underpin the security of the entire region. Those have been shown to be broken. basically on sand because our bases did not defend our Gulf allies, and now there's a real threat to the petrodollar, which is a threat to our status as a prime reserve currency holder. The effects of the Strait of Hormuz being choked off are affecting prices here at home as well.

Joel.

The buck stops with Trump. He's the President of the United States. That said, he's the greatest president in my lifetime. I appreciate Trump. I'm grateful for him. You can talk about who's responsible for splitting the right, but part of it is just the product of victory. Unity is something that is produced often by losing. When your backs are against the wall, when you have a common threat, a common enemy like we did 2020 to '24, we have wives, we have children, we have churches, we have neighbors, we got to do whatever it takes. Let's unite. Christendom and all these denominations and everything, even within Christianity, it's the high watermark of Christians in their victorious era that gives you 3,000 different denominations. So I think part of it is This is the cost of such an undeniable victory in 2024 with that election, is that people on the right are going to get cocky. They're going to want to do their own thing. They're going to split. But if there's anyone who could rally the troops, it is Donald Trump. He needs to step in, apologize when you're wrong, do what you need to do.

Kai?

Yeah, I think as we analyze the shift in the right wing, it's a continuation actually of what happened in 2016, where we had powers that be try to shut Trump out from actually being successful in the first place. Now that he is successful, I don't think that MAGA and America First need to be mutually exclusive, but they will be insofar as the people who support the president are no longer aligned with the vision that he gave to the American people in 2016, which was the right vision. So I think this, this fracture comes from some of these promises which have been broken, but also the retreat to maybe some of the more neoconservative traditions and certainly to lobbyists, whether they be from foreign countries or from corporations domestically who don't have the interests of the American people at heart. And I think that's what the divide is over. It is about fulfilling this vision. And to the extent that we support the vision that the president has, I think we can all agree. But if we are willing to support the president even when he is not in alignment with his vision, I think that's where the disagreement begins to, to kind of form. Thanks, Kai.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-031

Same question for Team MAGA. Who is causing the MAGA divide and why?

A bunch of stupid people who think Democrats are going to save us from anything. Who've expanded, who've expanded multiple wars starting with Clinton, right? We have Clinton, he expanded a war. Obama, he expanded a war. Democrats always expand wars. I don't know where they get this idea that Democrats are gonna come in and save us from the war. They're not. They never have. It's never happened once. You can't point to it in my lifetime where Democrats have saved us from nothing. When you say what is dividing it, Well, this is an interesting question. Honing in on it, you actually started to see the cracks before there was any war. Going back with Epstein, the thing that was interesting is Trump pointed this out rightly. There's a Democrat op here. They're going to run with this in order to defame me as much as they possibly can. Right wing—you saw left wing operatives promoting this everywhere. Trump's a pedophile. No evidence for it. Trump is diddling kids. No evidence for it. Trump's a rapist. No evidence for it. And the right ran over and joined with them.

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-003

+7.5 R-1.1 · Strawman of the America First side as pro-Democrat · Andrew Wilson

Time. All right. Will.

People who've lost perspective. I mean, you know, the Vietnam War, we lost tens of thousands. The Iraq War, we lost 3,000. In this war that's supposedly World War III, catastrophic, we've lost 15 people. And this is the reason we're supposed to reject the president who has done more on the border, more for core issues for the Republican Party, more for the America First movement? I think it's just a bunch of people who lost their perspective about what matters and have let their ego in the sense of thinking that because the president made a foreign policy call they don't agree with, they're suddenly just going to react against him. Gerald?

+4 R-2.2 · Attributing ego rather than engaging the argument · Will Chamberlain

I think it's a broad coalition. We talked about that before. We don't really know how to win in this country well. There are a lot of people that were never conservatives to begin with. You've seen that with some of the picks in the Trump administration. They talk about having language kind of police and having these dog whistles that we've used for the left for a very long time and people kind of parroting those same talking points. And you've got people on the right running out and saying, we're no longer supporting the guy that got us here, that we're never really there to begin with. And I think that's where a lot of this fracture goes— comes from. And I think Andrew rightly said, this was happening before the Iran War. You've got a lot of people who didn't know what it was like to be here. We didn't have anybody on the right talking about hate speech. And now Pam Bondi starts talking about hate speech in the Trump administration. We don't know how to win. There are a lot of problems that need to be solved. But when we won, we started fracturing over every single issue that came up, and Iran is just the latest biggest one to come up and separate people. Fortunately, you don't have to burn everything down to fix this. You can just make it better with what we have, and Trump has done a lot more than any other president I know of time to move culture.

John, yeah, I think that this is a largely online phenomenon that leftist media has been very happy to amplify. I mean, even before the Iran war. We were seeing articles in The Atlantic and The Washington Post assuring people that the MAGA civil war was a definitely real thing that's going on. And don't worry, leftists, because this coalition is fracturing. But we've all been following this long enough to have seen like 10 iterations of this. I mean, whether it was in 2017, 2020, or 2021, this is just the most recent iteration of Trump has betrayed us. We have to now move on to something else. And so now there's actually discussions of a new movement, a new party even. Something that could realign the American electorate towards something authentically America First, that's actually some kind of political division that leaves the online sphere. And I think that is at best misguided, at worst something disastrous and perhaps nefarious that could get us all killed. This idea that you're going to create something that is more authentically America First than what Trump has been able to deliver is just false. It's never been done. There's no candidates. There's nothing that could actually exist outside of what Trump is has been able to do in spite of the efforts from the bipartisan political establishment.

So we're going to open tonight with a question about arguably the most central issue in the divide right now, Iran. In our first MAGA versus America First debate, Gavin McInnes stated that he doesn't view the current situation in Iran as a war because we don't have troops on the ground. He also stated that if we end up having troops on the ground, he would jump off the Trump train. Now we're seeing more and more people talk about the possibility of ground troops being President Trump, though, has maintained he's not planning for boots on the ground in the war with Iran.

No, I'm not putting troops anywhere. If I were, I certainly wouldn't tell you.

But on Monday, Trump's Secretary of Defense said the aim of the U.S.

was not regime change and refused to rule out putting U.S. troops on the ground.

With more U.S.

forces headed to the Middle East, at the White House, President Trump said the attacks would continue for at least 4 to 5 weeks. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he expects more U.S.

casualties.

We expect to take additional losses, and as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses.

But as the Secretary said, this is major combat operations. The military, the next step would be escalation by ground combat. Do you anticipate that escalation?

Sure, I think it'd be unhelpful for me to opine on hypotheticals. What I can tell you is we always develop an unbelievable amount of options.

So I want to start with Team MAGA. Is this situation in Iran a war? And would sending troops in on the ground have any impact on how you feel about the administration?

+4 C-3.1 · Direct answer to the off-ramp question · Andrew Wilson

Yeah, it's— I'm fine calling it a war. I don't think there's any problem with that. And if there was a full-scale ground invasion, totally against it. And boots on the ground is definitely a deal breaker for me because we could end up in another quagmire war. I'm not willing to cede any ground to Democrats, to leftists at all.

So boots on the ground is a deal breaker for you?

Yes. Well, yes.

What would that mean?

That would mean a full-scale invasion.

No, no, no. I mean, what would a deal breaker mean?

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-082

A deal breaker, at that point, I would have to concede that I can no longer support Trump's agenda. At that point, if you moved it into a quagmire, unless there was some ungodly good justification for it, that would turn into a quagmire very quickly.

↳ evidence for the P7 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-083

I mean, yeah, but I would just also point out, like, that's not even in the cards. There's no— you'd have troop mobilizations that would be hinting at that possibility. I think the only troops that are there are like a Marine Expeditionary Unit of like a couple thousand people, which at most could like take over one of the islands.

Do you agree it's not a possibility?

It's certainly a possibility. And we already have boots on the ground. We're defining wars by lines that don't really exist anymore with drone technology, with ballistic missile technology. If you have troops in range and we've already proven that there's active combat there, we've tragically lost 18. So to a certain extent, there already is boots on the ground. The problem is we, as you know, has been reported in the news, we are running out of options. We may be running out of munitions, but we're running out of how many different times we can bomb with standoff weaponry and get a different effect. So if President Trump tries to continue to apply the same military formula he's been trying to apply this entire time, that's going to run into its limits very, very quickly, and he's going to have to escalate. That's why I think pulling people out right now now and going back to the negotiating table using the tools of economic leverage is a much smarter position than staying and waiting for the Iranians to hit us and drag us back in on their own terms, because that's the Iranians' next move, is to drag us back in or to hit us to try and have us retreat bloodied and defeated as a means of deterrence so they don't continue to get hit.

That's what they want, and that's what they've been begging for, and that's when he resigned 2 weeks into this disaster. He predicted this. This has all been war-gamed completely out. And that's why I said I'm against this war, because the Pentagon's own assessments are the mullahs probably won't fall. They will close the strait. That will really damage the world economy. It'll kill the Trump recovery plan with the inflation. And here we are as it gets deeper and deeper. Now Israel's ministers have said this is ideal for us. We want a quagmire as long as it hurts Iran long term. But it also hurts the rest of the world. It causes inflation. It causes massive increases in the prices of everything, and half the munitions are gone conservatively. Four to five years to bring them back. We have China. We have Russia now saying that imminently they're getting ready to start striking NATO targets as a test and to expand the war because NATO supplying weapons hitting them. This is now a new world war. We this has now inflamed, and it's got all these other interests involved, and it's spread into Morocco, and it's it's spread into attacks in Egypt, and it's. spread into the Houthis attacking the Red Sea. And now there's North Korean troops in Ukraine. And this is, this is how these alliances, all like dominoes, fall. And that's what all the major war planners and think tanks said. There's a probability this goes to a full world war. And so, like I said, I support Venezuelan regime change because they're involved in our politics. Hang on. You're manipulating us.

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-059

You think it is a world war right now?

People think of a world war as, as a nuclear war. No, no, we don't think of a world war as being a nuclear war. Yes. Yes. When you have major powers through proxies battling each other and it's already dominoing into multiple continents and multiple regions, that's the definition of a world war. We are in a world war.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-044

We're definitely not in a world war. First of all, the Ukraine conflict with Russia. Who did that start under?

That started under Obama and under The things that Nuland and that Soros, the rest of them did.

No, I mean when Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

The special military action started 4 and a half years ago. Yeah. That started after— since 1991, the encroachment onto Russia's territory, moving nuclear-capable missiles up to the border. No, what president was it under? That was under Biden. Biden.

It was under Joe Biden. That is when Russia attacked Ukraine, right? So what you're saying is that there's global heads who were gaming this out, that Trump would someday win, and then they were going to be right there to help him make all the rest of these dominoes fall, Alex?

No, you said earlier that we support the Democrats and a bunch of other ad hominem attacks that we've never said. And it's the same thing right there.

I never said any of you support Democrats.

No, no, no. In your opening statement, you're like, oh, they all think this, which is not something we've said.

I didn't specifically say you support Democrats.

My point is the idea— we know there's a uniparty when it comes to military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower in his Farewell Address warned us of in '61. And so the point is there's been a long-term project to expand NATO and even have a war with Russia. That's the unelected EU Commission stated business plan. And so the idea that under Biden we got into an escalation in an ongoing war, shadow war, hybrid war, proxy war with Russia, it escalated. Now under Trump, it's escalated even more. And now it's linked up in that 700-kilometer corridor down into Iran. And I guess you must not be reading the academic think tanks, but it is a consensus this is a new world war.

When do we get to the world actually being at war here?

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-096

You know, World War I started World War II.

It started with the Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated. You mean with the Archduke Ferdinand being assassinated? Triggering in smaller conflicts. And why didn't it trigger?

Why aren't Russia and China invading? Right.

Like, I mean, Russia and China are giving targeting information to obliterate our bases. Yeah. Like, we are at war with China and Russia.

We are at war with Russia. That means— and that's what they think. Every war is a world war.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-109

And you've redefined—

the Chinese are intervening because they're getting everything they want right now. They're watching America bleed out in another stupid Middle Eastern war. They want—

they want Iranian oil.

They're sending billions and billions of dollars in munitions.

to the Ukrainians. And they're watching the petrodollar and our status as a world reserve currency holder. That erosion started with the sanctions package we threw at Russia. They're watching the rest of the world start to slowly shift away from the petrodollar.

↳ P14 raised again here · first raised at U-061

I think that's nonsense.

And I think honestly, your plan— The dollar is sliding.

Oil is $75 a barrel.

↳ evidence for the P14 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-117

+2 R-2.6 · Dismissing the oil price as AI manipulation · Alex Jones

What's gas prices at the pump? That's AI manipulation. So, so is gas prices up? Notice that the price of oil doesn't correspond to the price of gas.

It doesn't normally, Alex. It takes time for that stuff to happen.

If the oil situation—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Cutting into Kent to take the floor · Alex Jones

hold on, you're laughing about gas prices aren't up. Diesel is— diesel and gas isn't way up. Real energy's way up, but magically the price of a barrel's down. How is the barrel lower that always corresponded to these?

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-120

It doesn't. It always lags. Every time oil goes up on the futures market, gas prices go up too, and it always lags for them.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-121

We predicted the war would be a disaster. We're right.

But hold on, you got to stick to the points that you're making. We can't redefine what War, boots on the ground. I'm sorry, Joe, I understand what you're saying and I agree. If troops are in harm's way, you got to treat that with the utmost respect. That's not what— hold on. That's not what anybody's saying boots on the ground means. Boots on the ground is an invasion of Iran to overthrow that government. We haven't done that yet. Right? Everybody agree that that hasn't happened?

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-092

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground with Kent on respecting troops in harm's way · Gerald Morgan Jr.

No, that hasn't happened. The weapons systems can reach our troops and our troops are there in the region.

You can't redefine what people are saying. What you're saying is valid.

But what I'm saying is—

If you want to say for definition's sake, boots on Right.

Just definition, because that's what we're saying too. We're saying, hey, if we go full-scale, Alex, one second. If we go a full-scale invasion, that's for every country.

Well, then let's get some definitions.

Like, if an invasion of Karg Island, is that boots on the ground?

Does that qualify? Yeah, I would consider that.

I would imagine.

Would that be a deal breaker for you? I would consider that to be boots on the ground.

Trump's leading towards an invasion, but he's not doing that.

Well, I think you have to look at this debate through the multiple months now that this war has been going on, because I've been able to listen to clips of many of you on this panel who have, like, time and time again underestimated the ability for this conflict to be dragged on. Andrew, I heard you in your debate with Owen Schroyer say, well, it's only been 7 weeks. It's not the big war everybody's been saying, and it looks like it's even winding down. That's absolutely not true.

But at the time, it was.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. I understand at the time it looked like it. At the time, was it true? Here's the problem.

Hang on, I ain't got to answer that. At the time, was it true?

I don't even disagree that at the time it was true. The problem is that nobody goes into a forever war No president has ever said we're going to have a forever war. And if Will is going to say that, well, this isn't as bad as Vietnam yet, that's not the way we should be analyzing a conflict the United States is in. You should be able to see that time and time again, this war has not gotten easier to exit. It's gotten more difficult. It's turning into a quagmire. The only ones who have been right in predicting the trajectory of this conflict have been us. False. No, that's not true.

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession that the earlier characterisation was true at the time · Kai Schwemmer

Tucker predicted 20,000 deaths within, like, the first week of the war.

No, I basically laid it out. At the very beginning, the Iranians would react. If we killed the Ayatollah, the Iranians would become more hardened, less likely to negotiate with us, or take away the ability for them to even negotiate with us. The Straits of Hormuz would be shut down. This isn't just—

So you're saying your brilliant prediction is killing their leader would lead them to be mad at us?

+4 R-2.2 · Mockery reducing Kent's prediction to a triviality · Will Chamberlain

Yeah, exactly. Which Israel is by no means. And that's exactly why they advised not to do it.

Trump didn't know that. Sorry, that's Joe's question.

How do you know that he didn't?

Joe, answer the question, which is his resignation letter. Hold on.

But can I say, that was a total obfuscation of what the point was, which is that, hey, we actually don't have a good way of establishing regime change, despite the fact that in December prior—

Which is why I was never hopeful.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Okay, that's ridiculous. You just can't go out—

Oh, I guess you just weren't listening.

No, no, no. Israel advised the killing of the mullah to have a quagmire. Israel admits they want a quagmire and chaos.

So you're admitting it wasn't us who did the regime change. You're conceding the point to Will Smith.

Will, look, you have to look—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Cutting into Schwemmer to take the floor · Alex Jones

Any idiot knows you kill them, that makes them stronger. You have to kill their pope. They get more pissed, man. And Israel advised Trump to make a move that was stupid. Like, what are you talking about? The mullahs are bad to want to kill Trump, we're told, which I don't want them to do. And they are bad. But then when we kill their, their leader, it's good and strong and great.

Right. Well, let's, let's, let's say there's bad—

let's, let's hold on. London only made them get behind the war. It's a stupid move if you want negotiations to have them give in, to kill their religious leader. And Israel knew when they advised Trump to do that. that was meant to widen this war and get us into a quagmire, which Israel now admits was their plan.

That's not true, Alex. That's just not true.

Their frickin' economic minister last week, Ben-Gvir 2 weeks ago, they said this is ideal, what we've got to do. They knew when they advised Trump that it wasn't going to be 4 days or 5 weeks.

Well, that's totally contradictory to, like, the idea that they were going for a big regime change with the Kurds and all that, right? Like the idea that you're suddenly saying now they actually want a quagmire and a war that never resolves itself.

No, Israel wants regime change as long as it takes. Go ahead.

No, the Israelis' goal was regime decapitation.

Right.

They had to sell us on the idea of regime change because we're not comfortable with chaos. The Israelis are very comfortable with chaos. The Israelis are very pragmatic. They wanted to kill the Ayatollah. They wanted to kill as many leaders as they could. If chaos ensued, they knew it would, they were fine with that. That's why they used their echo chamber. They circumvented the intelligence community to influence President Trump that this would be a super easy thing. They had a plan. It'd be the Kurds, it'd be the lobby, something like that. The details didn't matter. They just wanted to get us on board with killing the Ayatollah, getting President Trump to brag about it. So therefore, that would kill any potential of negotiation because we were on the cusp of getting a really good deal with the Iranians.

That's nonsense. The Israelis have bragged.

Well, that's why the Israelis speed ran the war for the 12-day war, because Whitkopf was about to get it.

Netanyahu brags he struck on February 28th to drag us in and Midnight Hammer. Do you understand that the Israelis. We can pull the clips up. When I get this on my show, I'm gonna show the clips. They have bragged that they embroiled us in this and this was their plan.

Oh, that's just nonsense.

I was just saying that, like, we're talking about Trump, okay? So at a certain level, Trump has been surrounded, and maybe other people have deceived him or whatever, but he has allowed himself to be influenced in such a way— he's the president, he's in charge. And if Israel was using us as a proxy to do their dirty work to suppress Iran so they could, whatever, Greater Israel Project, that's still Trump. Bibi Netanyahu is not my president. Trump is. And I think he should have known. He should have known. He should have listened to better counsel. There were guys who were telling him not to do this. Suzy Wiles is holding everybody who's dissenting at arm's length. And we got played.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Concession that Trump, not Israel, bears responsibility · Joel Webbon

Do you think that we on this side, I don't know about you, but do you think that we on this side are pro-Iran No, I've listened to you, Andrew.

+3 C-2.1 · Acknowledging the opponents are not pro-Iran · Joel Webbon

I know that you're not.

Not at all. Go ahead. So the nuances come in with the claims, right? Alex says it's a world war. Yeah, we can disagree about that, okay, whether or not it's a world war. But the truth is, is that the MAGA side's not happy about what's going on in Iran either. And we're trying to roll back Trump from these actions as well. That is kind of beside the point, though. I'm not— the idea that we're just supposed to argue about the microcosm of Iran rather than the greater idea here, which is what the hell are we going to do about it? Right. Right. That's the real thing, right? What are we going to do about it? Because you guys want to form a new party, and I think that's insane.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground that both sides want the war ended · Andrew Wilson

That's a separate issue from the war. We want an off-ramp.

But it's the war itself that's driving that, right?

No, they're just exploring it or to build a system to try to take back control of the Republican Party. Can the Republican Party be— here's the thing. We all know Trump was a Populist, nationalist, Tea Party, anti-war, laissez-faire, bring the jobs back, national sovereignty, America first, and Trump began to deviate. You know, in your opening statement, you're like, even on Epstein, they joined with the Democrats. The Democrats know when something's wrong trying to block an investigation. Just because they seize on something and are doing something right for a change doesn't mean they're not the Democrat Socialists of America plague, absolute enemies that we should be focusing most of our attention on. We're not in a cult. So when we see Trump going sideways, those 3.2 million emails is the sex slaves have been delivered at the hotel. Bill Gates says, how do we kill them? How do we kill the poor people? You know, we're delivering the human flesh. I mean, this is real. I've already studied all this. I know Trump was never implicated in anything real.

↳ evidence for the P26 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-175

Right.

The Jane Does.

Then what are we talking about?

Because now he's covering up for the deep state and the Democrats and all the, quote, his friends that will get embarrassed. Like Howard Lednick, and that is the reality.

So the information is out on Howard.

No, no, they're holding back three plus million because of nasty.

You're just assuming what they do.

He said you are not MAGA if you think Epstein's a hoax. Epstein's a hoax.

What did he mean by that, Alex? Yeah. No, I know. No, no. Hold on. Hold on. Can we wrap up? We have to get this. No, he means we will be back to our rant.

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-182

You bring up Epstein like it's something bad we did, that we're upset that that this is a no.

You fell for Democrat op.

↳ P9 raised again here · first raised at U-003

No. Yes, I first covered Epstein 20 years ago.

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-177

Nobody here saying Epstein could— no, the Democrats—

Just because Democrats seize on something legitimate doesn't mean—

↳ evidence for the P9 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-177

The Democrats never seize on anything legitimate.

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-188

No, no, they're using it because Trump made a big mistake.

Godless heathens.

Trump made a big mistake. Even Pam Bondi said, if we do investigate Epstein, it'll kill the stock market because so many billionaires are implicated who were former Democrats like Ludnick. who came running, kissing his ass, and then he gave them protection. So by extension, Trump joined in and became an accomplice after the fact.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-177

So you're saying that Trump right now, Donald Trump, you believe he's protecting pedophiles?

↳ evidence for the P10 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-188

He says Bill Clinton's a great guy.

I'm asking you directly, do you think Trump—

I don't think he's 100% protecting Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, and people don't like it. And we could even hold our nose if he didn't rub our face in it and say that we're not MAGA and we're Low IQ when it destroyed him in the polls. You know, he was like 57% a year ago. He's went down to like 30% right now.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-177

So at the time of this recording, Ukraine has bombed an Iranian ship in the Caspian Sea. This has even caused a great leftist divide with the leftist media completely split. USA Today is stating that with assurance that the 2 wars will not converge into a greater war, while the New York Times is issuing warnings of how the 2 wars could spiral into convergence. At the risk of being labeled a panicking, again, does the threat of the 2 theaters converging into a greater war concern anybody here?

Time and time again, the division exists because I think that your side is willing to follow the president to whatever he will say, and we are trying to align ourselves with a vision. To get to the prompt, the world is not isolated. Individual actors, like, on the world stage are not islands, despite the fact that some of them geographically literally are. Everything is interconnected. It is the world we live in. There is truly free trade internationally. All of these things bleed into each other. The fact that we have depleted our critical missile interceptors is going to affect our ability to defend Taiwan, to defend our own hemisphere if something were to arise. That is a significant threat. And by the way, Trump himself agrees. Trump himself constantly says that it is Biden's fault that the interceptor stockpiles are depleted because of the war in Ukraine. Ukraine. If his argument, to the extent that Biden depleted them, is true, the same thing can be said about the war in Iran and our using of those missile interceptors in that conflict.

War in Iran, good.

Okay, I understand that. The problem is, time and time again, you seem to move the goalposts. No, I want to stick with the goalposts. Then let's— then let me address— define it.

Let me address what you're saying.

Well, let's define it, because what I see is you have a lot of people who started saying, well, I don't support any kind of strike I am a non-interventionist. I don't want an engagement in the Middle East. I don't want another war in the Middle East. Then after Midnight Hammer, people started to say, well, as long as there's not boots on the ground, as long as no American dies, I'm fine with it. Then Americans died and they said, like Wilt Chamberlain, well, but it's not as bad as Vietnam. The goalpost continues to move and it moves with what the president pursues. But this conflict has gotten worse for Americans. And so I'm asking you now to stake out a claim the way that Brandon asked as well. What is the thing that will get you to say, once the war reaches that point, I'm off the train? I'm not going to stay. I think it's very clear. So we all agree that an invasion of Karg Island would absolutely be a deal breaker.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-142

↳ P7 raised again here · first raised at U-082

No, I don't agree with that at all.

Okay, see, this is my point.

I don't agree with that at all. This is my point. I'm not getting it.

I don't agree with Chamberlain on this, but I want to know what's too far for you then.

Is it at least 500,000 troops to go to even—

Yeah, that would be too much. I think that's ridiculous. But he's not going to do that, so I'm not even slightly concerned.

Okay, you know why he won't do it? He said we don't have the stomach for it. What we don't have is the troops for it. And the Iranians are set up for that low-intensity, point-blank range conflict. And all of our fancy technology is going to be bullshit.

I don't think that's true.

Oh, really? No. You're like Lindsey Graham. I believe in the Marines.

+4 R-2.2 · Guilt-by-association jab comparing Chamberlain to Lindsey Graham · Alex Jones

2 weeks turning Bandar Abbas into Gaza Part 2, and Iran did what?

And how's it— and how's it—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Talking over Schwemmer · Will Chamberlain

And their military is degraded.

They still have the straits closed down. They still were able to reach our bases.

7 million barrels a day.

If we took the bait and we take that Mentality, we will be sucked into a quagmire. Let me ask once we take losses.

↳ P8 raised again here · first raised at U-092

You support the MOU? Let me ask the anti-Neville Chamberlain question.

Okay, you actually debate with me because I disagree with you guys. I think that's a joke there.

If you look at this situation, it's designed to be total war. Israel wants us sucked into a total war. That's what this is designed to be. So it's a lie to say it's about getting the WMDs or getting rid of their missiles. With 93 million people in Iran, an armed camp that we couldn't beat in our proxy war in the '80s with the Iran-Iraq War, the idea that I heard from Lindsey Graham and others that we can easily send in troops and that they're not even a worthy adversary, from all the analysts I've seen in my own research, it makes Vietnam look like a cakewalk.

+3 C-2.1 · Agreement that a full ground invasion would be a disaster · Will Chamberlain

I agree with you on that point. Right. Like, I'm— and I certainly am not proposing a full-scale ground invasion. Trump isn't doing that. The troops aren't there to do it. There's a reason that the entire war has been an air war up until this point, basically, right? And the most that Trump has said in terms of troops is like a 2,000-person Marine expeditionary unit because he's wanted to have the option to go after Qa'at. But that's it.

↳ evidence for the P8 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-090

Which then makes them a target upon sacrifice of the Iraqi split lien.

Right. But no, he's keeping them far away to the point that they haven't been able to kill them, right? Again, the point, they haven't—

If they can hit them in Jordan, they can't hit them in Iraq.

Iranian Navy's at the bottom of the sea. Iran hasn't hit a single ship of the United States despite the fact that we've had carriers offshore conducting operations.

Why are we having to negotiate them with the Straits of Hormuz? We got in the MOU. The reason that we're worried about it is because we're worried about the attacks on the Gulf states and their infrastructure.

That's the fundamental part.

No, but President Trump also said we are 4 months, 4 weeks away from potentially having a major economic backlash here economically because of what's taking place with the Straits of Hormuz being choked off with oil and gas coming out of the Straits.

Right, but it seems like, I mean, the most recent stuff has made it so that the Iranians really are having trouble stopping the Shipping, especially on the southern route and Straits.

I'm hearing, I'm hearing for the 30th time ever that no, no, but actually Iran's actually really close to collapse, guys. That you've said this every single week for the entire span of the war, and you're making claims that aren't substantiated.

↳ P6 raised again here · first raised at U-142

It is not World War III. These wars are not linked together yet.

How many times have you predicted World War III now? Like every, every time, the entire time.

You speak of World War III as nuclear. We're in World War III. Yeah, no, we're not.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-044

Do you think it's responsible for an American president?

That's why we assess— that they only want to do a breakout state and that they don't want a nuke? Listen, in the intelligence community, we assess 2 things: intent and capability. Now, the Iranians may have made— the people, when they go out and they yell death to America, you can debate, do they actually intend to come to America and kill us? There's no data to support that.

This is a very massive assault on our soil.

For over a decade, Donald Trump has been the face of the Republican Party.

ending political careers and absorbing every single faction into the party of MAGA. But in less than 2 years, all of that is about to change. So if the question of what comes next and this debate is fascinating to you, then you have to attend the NXR Studios 2026 Annual Conference. It's titled Christ is King: America After Trump. I'll be there along with Alex Jones, comedian JP Sears, the one and only Buckley Carlson, That's right. And other pastors, authors, and politicians to talk about America after Trump. The conference takes place on November 12th, 13th, and 14th right here in Dallas, Texas, and you can register by going to newchristianright.com/conference. Use promo code WALKAWAY, all one word, no spaces, all caps. Promo code WALKAWAY by September 15th To get 40% off your order. Again, go to newchristianright.com/conference.

What happens if someone in your family gets sick at 2 AM? Would you rather wait for care or already have the medications you need? That's why The Wellness Company created the Medical Emergency Kit, a doctor-prescribed kit containing 8 life-saving medications including antibiotics, ivermectin, and more, designed to help treat more than 30 common conditions like UTIs, pneumonia, and strep throat. But does having treatment on hand really make a difference? To answer that question, the wellness company conducted the first study of its kind among more than 500 verified medical emergency kit owners. 86% avoided a clinic, urgent care, or hospital, and more than 80% reported meaningful improvement within just 3 days. Simply complete a quick online medical questionnaire. If approved by a licensed physician, your kit ships directly to your door. So visit twc.health/walkaway and use code WALKAWAY for $30 off plus free shipping. Kits available to U.S. residents only.

No, no, but actually Iran's actually really close to collapse, guys. You've said this every single week for the entire span of the war.

When is it Did I miss that? I thought it was— I said it like—

Well, let me throw it back. Let me throw it back the other direction. I was trying to engage with this earlier. Okay. You've also on that side have been hysterical since the beginning. It was always World War III. We always—

we did always agree at the beginning that we shouldn't be in another Cold War.

This is World War III. It's World War III. More World War III. Hang on. That's what you've been saying since the beginning. And it's not that. I will push back against hysteria too. Okay. Yes. Right. So the idea is I can both be against the Iranian conflict and push back on hysteria from the opposite side saying this is going to be a global nuclear holocaust. It's like, you know what, let's, let's take a step back from that. But it's also not good.

↳ evidence for the P6 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-139

We're also not clearly winning this thing. We're not moments away from victory like we've been told in every other Middle Eastern quagmire. Yeah, I look—

but you know what a threat escalation ladder is. You know what those are. And this has already merged with the Russia-Ukraine-NATO conflict. Hold on. You know, Russia probably said in the next few months, like, they're getting ready to hit Ukraine.

Just shot at the Iranians. Is that a war? Are we— are these like— Alex, where's the evidence that these wars—

Ukraine is trying to enter the war to get— because they're having their US support.

So there's one, there's one, right, that we just talked about. One thing that just happened. And that's now these countries are all going to war. To be accurate, the Iranians have been supplying the drones to the Russians, but they've been doing that for a very long time.

So that's how these things start and build up, and then you see—

Of course, this is how these things can do that, right? They can do that. But there's no— hold on, Alex is speaking, and I love you, Alex, but you have a giant audience of people right now who are hiding under mattresses because they think nuclear Armageddon is coming, and you're making claims that aren't substantiated. It is not World War III. These wars are not linked together yet. It could happen. Yes, a lot of things can happen in life. That is not true. And there's a lot of people running for cover because of those kinds of states.

↳ evidence for the P4 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-234

That is your— Gerald, anybody can go to—

That's the evidence.

Anybody can go to the RAND Corporation or the Army War College or read what even people that are for the wars are saying. They are calling this an expanding, multi-regional, intersecting conflict going into a new world war. It's affecting the whole world. A lot of this is economic. It's a strategic defeat already for the US. Thousands of drones. a week that are directed by U.S. satellites and telemetry are fired out of Ukraine into Russia. And then a few years ago, Operation Spiderweb hit their nuclear triad, blew up their Big Bear bombers. If the Russians did that to us out of Canada, we'd nuke them in 3 minutes.

↳ P4 raised again here · first raised at U-044

Why haven't they?

So because, because they understand that this is the edge of nuclear war, but they have officially—

So they understand it better than we do. They're willing to stay out of it more than we are.

Yeah, they're, they're, they weren't expanding into Russia's on our border. Do you understand that official Russian spokespersons and their foreign minister, all of them, have said, okay, our next targets are France, Poland, the UK, and Germany. We're going to hit these weapon depots. And they've even said we're going to probably hit them with our multiple reentry device ballistic missiles without warheads as a demonstration of the next attack is going to be nuclear. So the Russian state media is saying In a negotiation, you keep— I mean, Moscow's on fire. Oil refineries, hotels burning up. They're blowing up beaches full of men, women, and children. Thousands of drones coming in a week hitting their nuclear bases. I mean, they know they're under attack from NATO. Okay. The proxy is it's Ukraine. And so they said, okay, we're going to hit your bases soon and we're ready to have a negotiation at that point, or we're ready for full nuclear war. Their subs are off our coast. They're ready to go.

They know the threat of nuclear war better than we do, yet they're about to strike NATO. No, they're already being struck.

They're being struck by NATO. We are?

Yeah. I mean, we are the ones that we push NATO up onto the border of Russia.

We escalate; they escalate. But they're behind us. You understand this is how this happens? Like no, this is the Rand Corporation threat escalation ladder. This this goes to total death, and it goes up into the thirties, and then you're in total, and we're going for the thirties right now. This is all well studied.

I think what's what's really funny is the way that. The same lines are being used now, just on the opposite side. We're not the ones that have been doing World War III alarmism forever. That's actually been done about Iran and a nuclear weapon for decades. The argument that we're on the brink, we're on the brink of like this imminent destruction, that they've been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon, we've heard that for decades.

And now you're the one that's telling us, hey, we've been running around trying to explain, like Steve Wicoff, who I think everybody here trusts, right? He explained right after the strikes in February, he explained very clearly what had happened. He went to Geneva to negotiate with Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, and he was saying, look, Trump wants you to give up your nuclear program. We're willing to give you all the nuclear fuel you want for— at low enrichment, but you can't enrich on your own territory. And Araghchi told him, one, we're not giving you anything you didn't win militarily at the negotiating table. Two, we have enough nuclear material for 10 nuclear weapons. And three, basically, fuck off. And the idea that this is sort of, one, that it wasn't a threat, like, also remember, ICBM hit Diego Garcia, 4,000 miles. The Iranians said they only could shoot a ballistic missile 2,000 miles. Are we supposed to wait until a ballistic missile can hit Bermuda before the American president, who, by the way, everybody says Trump is betraying his promise. Trump has said his entire political career, no nuclear weapon for Iran.

No, I know that. It's a caveat. It's a caveat for though, I'm not going to have a war with Iran. But go ahead, Joe. But I just want to tell you something. I'm on record 15 years ago saying they have the fissile material for 5 nuclear weapons. And I actually know that from my information that they have it. They've been worried about delivery systems. It's already too late. Pakistan, if Israel hits them with a nuke, is going to hit Israel. North Korea has already said they'll hit Israel. We can't go to war with North Korea. They already have it. Saudi Arabia already has nukes on the tarmac. They have— they've had them for 15 years.

I'm confused. We went to war with them.

The nukes are everywhere. It's too late.

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-268

But it's not too late for the Iranian nuke.

No, the issue— Witkoff was on the cusp of getting a deal prior to the 12-day war because we didn't use the poison pill of zero enrichment. The Iranians have always said they're going to retain some ability to enrich.

Why is that a poison pill?

Yeah, because it's a poison pill to the Iranians, because if they gave up all of their enriched material, they would end up like Muammar Gaddafi.

No, no, no, no. There's a huge variation.

They gave up all of it.

We're not saying— we were only going to say they could have enriched. The question is whether they could enrich themselves.

↳ evidence for the P18 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-273

Yes, they wanted the ability to continue to enrich.

Why do they need that power?

Because it's a deterrence. And they also realized they would invite—

They wanted to deter us with the threat of—

No, no, they wanted to be a breakout state. They didn't want to have a nuclear weapon, but they also at the same time wanted the ability to actually—

Right. So do you think the American president should look at a country that says, Mar Bar America, death to America, has a Death to America Day, a martyrdom complex? Has pioneered the use of suicide terrorism. You think it's responsible for an American president to hope that they only want to be a breakout state and that they don't want to nuke?

↳ P15 raised again here · first raised at U-267

Listen, in the intelligence community, we assess two things: intent and capability. Now, the Iranians may have made the people when they go out and they yell death to America. You can debate: Do they actually intend to come to America and kill us? There's no data to support that. The Iranians have never supported attacks on U.S. foreign.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-238

↳ evidence for the P15 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-238

You know, there was a very massive attack Israel made in the run-up to October seventh. They focused on capability— sorry, they focused on intent, not capability.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-283

October 7th is completely different.

No, but you're making the—

you would have to make the same argument.

I'm not an Israeli, so I don't really care what they do.

The point being that you would say that President Trump should focus only on the potential intent of the Iranians rather than saying these are nasty people that should not have nuclear capability, period.

Should North Korea have nukes?

No, but like they have them and it sucks.

The way that the red line was moving, got us into this conflict was the Israeli lobby. There was senior-level government officials of the Israeli defense apparatus that were coming directly to President Trump and repeating the same tired talking point from Mike Pompeo in 2018, saying the policy was zero enrichment, zero enrichment, knowing that that would basically sabotage any kind of negotiations.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-272

No, it's—

The Iranians said, hey, we have a fatwa that goes back to 2003. And yeah, we shouldn't trust fatwas, but what we should trust is being able to measure actions over time. Since 2003, the Iranians took no action to actually develop a nuclear weapon.

↳ P16 raised again here · first raised at U-238

They had 60% enriched uranium.

↳ evidence for the P16 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-283

Look, Iranians have now said what you said earlier. They have said they got enough to make 10 bombs. The point is they want to be like Israel, act like they don't have it, but actually have the ability to like put it together. It's like saying we don't have a steak ready for dinner, but there's one in the refrigerator and the grill's heated up. So it's apples to oranges.

But you, you, you're ultimately— I mean, you remember the hostage crisis, right?

Okay. What we've now shown them though is if they don't get a nuclear weapon, that they will get attacked. So we have basically worked against our own— well, that's been true since Gaddafi, and that's why the Iranians wanted to retain the ability to enrich, right?

And that's why we shouldn't let them. Let me explain.

That's why they stand— deterrence— you go— they go, if we do a negotiation with you, Israel's still going to hit us, you'll break the deal, our back's against the wall, all we've got's the Strait, and you're running out of weapons. And they decided a war of attrition. And they've just— and then when it comes to war of attrition and a strategic victory. They are now currently having it. Trump could still declare victory. This is not going to age well.

Will, why after we pulled out of the JCPOA did they wait a year to begin enriching above the appropriate level? Why did they wait a year?

I don't know. Do you have a theory on that?

Yeah, absolutely. It's the fact that they are not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, or at least at the time they did not feel the exact same necessity to. But we basically cornered them into this position where they can't but get a nuclear weapon.

No, no, no, dude, dude, dude.

+4 R-2.2 · Ad hominem: opponent argues like a second grader · Kai Schwemmer

Okay, Will, Will, Will. I understand. I understand, Will. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I understand, Will, that you take anything that somebody says and you say it the way a second grader would, but this is not a ridiculous calculation.

You think you know something about Iran, you should know.

We had a standing agreement with the Iranians. We pull out, sanctions are imposed, and yet they wait an entire year to begin enriching past what they should have originally Now, the benefit that they derived from the JCPOA was no longer there, but they still decided to wait a year. Why did they wait a year?

↳ P17 raised again here · first raised at U-302

Well, there's actually a few reasons. Because they want to keep the Europeans happy because the Europeans are still in the agreement.

I didn't think of that. And what benefit did they derive from Europe rather than the US?

The ability to keep trading as opposed to having sanctions snap back on them.

↳ evidence for the P17 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-309

A big reason why they waited and the reason why they're at the negotiating table with President Trump, the reason why they stopped their proxies from attacking us once Trump came into office And this is the tragedy of the whole thing. President Trump's strategy against Iran that he implemented in his first administration was actually working. Max pressure sanctions, lean into the negotiations. If they stick their head up and someone kills an American soldier, you whack Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Mohandas and you send them a message, but you don't take the neocon bait of getting involved into a regime change war that will bleed us dry. That plays to all of Iran's strengths. He was smart enough to avoid that in his first administration, but unfortunately, he listened to people who have long despised President Trump's foreign policy, and he jumped right in with what the pro-Israel lobby, the neocons, the hawks, the same people who couldn't stand him in 2016, exactly what they wanted, and now we're locked into this war.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-061

Absolutely. I mean, this was the real policy that was working, and that's why they were scared of Trump, and then he got convinced by Netanyahu's brag. There's Lindsey Graham tapes of him before he died, with them on the phone. We finally convinced them. We finally got this done. The reason the Pentagon, the other presidents never did this is because there was a very low probability of it working. So we can all discuss how we got here all day long. At some point, we might discuss how does this end?

Because that's where I want to get.

If it continues, it's only going to get worse. And you're probably the leading expert on that here with us today.

I think we should walk away. The Iranians will not be incentivized to continue to choke off the Straits of Hormuz or have the Houthis choke off the Bab el-Mandeb.

We killed their entire senior leadership. If we leave, why would they do that?

But then why are we having senior leadership that stays forever? That's exactly right.

That's exactly why. So capitulating is the solution?

No, we're not capitulating. We're not capitulating. We leave and we say we won. We met all our military objectives like you just laid out, like President Trump lays out. We won. We don't need this anymore. Are the Iranians going to continue then to be like the pirates of the Straits of Hormuz? Exactly.

No, they want to be viewed as— No, no, no.

You declare victory and now they're pirates. Stealing everybody's oil.

And then you go to the Iranians, you say, "Hey, if you want to sell your oil, we will lift sanctions as long as the straits are open." Weren't they engaging in piracy in the strait long before the Iranians? No, the straits were open before. They were charging a million dollars.

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-320

No, the Iranians were not.

That was a good idea they had. No, no, no.

The Iranians don't think they're going to charge anybody anything to go through before 28 Feb. Yeah, no, before the conflict.

After 28 Feb. Yeah, but no one's going to put up with that in the region. because they'll now be the villain instead of us.

Hold on, hold on, time out, time out.

0 R-6.3 · Procedural cut-off: calls time on the crossfire · Gerald Morgan Jr.

Wars are about hearts and minds.

I think we're on the right track.

And Israel's the most unpopular country in the world, and they have gotten us into a war for the Middle East.

I'm almost going to agree with you if you hold on for one second. Hold on, hold on. You got to like— you got to let me say something here. I think we're on the right track that we need to extricate ourselves from this situation. I think it's pure folly to think that Iran won't go, hmm, we can just close the strait. The biggest baddest boy on the block left and didn't do anything about it. Do you really think they're just going to go back? Hold on. You might be right that we— I'm not saying— I'm not giving a prescription. I'm just saying saying that they'll go back to the way it was before isn't something that I think is based in reality.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-317

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-234

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground: agree we should extricate · Gerald Morgan Jr.

I don't think we're saying they'll go back.

He literally just said that. That's why I'm just calling that out.

I mean, I heard the secretary say we got to get the Straits open. It was open before Israel dragged us into this. And use psychology. This is how it works. No one's going to put up with Iran, including China and India and everybody going in there and keeping it closed once we leave. So you declare victory, like he said 2 weeks into the war when he predicted what would happen. This is what all the real people that study this say. You pull out, you declare victory, you keep massive sanctions on them until they completely pull back. And now Israel can shut up because a lot of their weapons and systems have been degraded, which we originally sold Midnight Hammer, this is really all about.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-316

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-327

This position makes no sense, and I'll explain really simply why.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-317

Staying in the war makes sense?

No, your position that they are more likely to be cooperative and, you know, accede to what the Gulf wants if we are gone, that doesn't make sense. The Gulf allies rely on us for their military protection.

↳ evidence for the P11 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-317

They're not, but once the war kicked off, the bases we put in their backyards were strategic liabilities, not assets. We are not a—

we are not an added Israel's gamble just finally kicked our empire out, which needed to happen anyways because of China and issues at home. We need to deal about CONUS and our security perimeter and China. We need to pull the hell out of that place.

The entire goal right now that Trump's working towards with the MOU, what he's trying to negotiate right now, is getting the Straits of Hormuz open. Yeah, so we can kind of split the difference here. If we got our troops out, the Iranians can't hit us to suck us back in. But then, to your point, we can crush them economically. Because then we can say, great, Iran, congratulations, you control the straits, tell your people how great that is, you're not getting nothing from us. Or you can open the Straits of Hormuz and we'll start taking sanctions off your oil. And then we can start to reintroduce you depending on your behavior, based on good behavior.

↳ P11 raised again here · first raised at U-316

↳ evidence for the P12 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-320

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground: split the difference on withdrawal · Joe Kent

I mean, it feels like our positions are actually not quite as far apart as we seem to assume. Like, my position is not full-scale invasion. My position is maintain the blockade, right?

+4.5 C-2.1 · Common ground: positions not far apart on the blockade · Will Chamberlain

Yours is stay there forever.

You want to maintain an economic blockade. I want to maintain an economic and a naval blockade.

↳ P12 raised again here · first raised at U-317

The problem with the physical blockade, especially post-Jordan when their ballistic missiles were able to vector fire through our air defenses onto our base, they can easily do that to one of our ships. And then what?

It seems like it's a conversation about the success or the expedience of the Iran War. And I think that it's been a great conversation, but as it's had popularly, that conversation very quickly gets into territory of like, so Trump betrayed us and he's going to institute a draft and we're all going to have to die for Israel. And the problem with that is then that conversation gets into exactly exactly this divide where it's like we have to graduate beyond Trump and get into something else, which I just don't think is viable. I think it's destructive. And so—

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-071

Well, Trump is going to be gone in 2 years, so you better—

Right. But that immediately gets into a Vance conversation.

Right. Notice the left continues not to attack Rubio. They continue to attack Vance because they know he has the best shot. He's a good person. He's very smart. And he's the person that can win in 2028. And that's why we need to end this war as soon as possible.

all of Trump's domestic agenda because you don't like what's going on in Iran. I agree with you in spirit. I want to see the Iran conflict over quickly. But there's a huge, massive domestic agenda that's going on too. You say, well, Trump's gone in 2 years. It's like, yeah, that's true, but we could have a Democrat president in 2 years. So we only got 2 years right now with somebody who could enforce our agenda. If we're going to look at this objectively, Trump is right now our best shot. Because we're not guaranteed a president in 2 years.

If he was America first, we'd be guaranteed the next 5 presidents.

He's in this conflict now, and even his staunchest supporters—

If he'd have gone after the Epstein people, there'd be 5 Republican presidents already.

You start with, oh, we should stop talking about how we got here, and then you go right back to talking about how we got here. No, no, no, no. I'm talking about where we're at.

With the FBI guy saying, look, the guys that were on podcasts, it's a cover-up. Here's how it works. Look, there's no cover-up. And then you're an idiot if you think it. Crooks acted alone, and Iran war is wonderful. We're gonna win in four days. People are pissed because Trump went totally different direction.

↳ P10 raised again here · first raised at U-177

No one's disputing that people are upset right now. Trump is in office right now. He does have a base that's trying to rein him back in right now.

There is division. Good. He shouldn't then call us. He shouldn't call us low IQ.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-359

I know you're pissed at Trump.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-356

When is Trump gonna apologize to this guy? I'm not kissing his ass. A goddamn hero right here. We're telling the truth. Why hasn't Trump called and apologized to him? Everything he said was fucking true! When does someone else get to speak? No, it's bullshit!

It's bullshit!

We're right!

So what the hell do you want to do about it?

I want him to stop what he's doing and wake the fuck up! Great! Wow, what a wonderful plan!

I want him to stop!

That's why I'm not kissing his ass! No!

Hey, Gerald, do you want him to stop?

I would like him to stop. What a great plan, Alex! I'm a constructive one!

Kill him!

I'm not a— I'm not a— I'm not a yard gnome. I'm not a potted plant. When I see somebody I put in there going wrong, I'm going to tell them because I'm not in a cult.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-177

How are we in a cult? We're literally agreeing with you.

No, we're not.

Hang on. That we want to pull back. Well, when we're talking about the domestic policies, you say, I want Trump to stop. It's like, great, so do we. But right this second, you're not going to pull your support from Trump on any of these domestic policies, domestic issues. You're going to give it— yeah, you're going to give him his kudos. You're going to— all of that, right?

↳ P25 raised again here · first raised at U-374

I have.

So then How is this different from our position? My show is Balls and Strikes. So how's this different from our position?

I actually said I think your position from your perspective is legitimate. But, but when it comes from the Republican Party, you're a bunch of Democrat communists on the Qatari payroll and you work for the Russians and you're low IQ.

I mean, I'm getting told I get paid $7,000 by Israel.

By the way, I'm a lot more expensive than that. So $5 billion, Israel. We're not a cult. We need to be outsmarted. outspoken about what we believe. But I believe my position is original MAGA.

So I reject this idea that because you're MAGA and you're Trump supporter, you're in a cult. I think that that's crazy. And that, by the way, that was an old Democrat talking point.

Trump's approval rating would go to 60 if he had Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard back to the White House and apologize to him.

↳ P23 raised again here · first raised at U-359

It wouldn't at all. That's ridiculous.

Why not? It wouldn't, because it wouldn't be enough.

↳ evidence for the P23 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-380

Look at all the grievances you have, by the way, Alex.

But if he pulled us out of this war, you would like it.

Definitely If he pulled this out of the score, it'd be great. We agree. Out of a cannon.

But Alex, you called for him to be 25th. That's not pushing him. Hold on, hold on.

I said that twice. Brutes on the ground. I want him 25th amendment.

No, you did not, sir. I watched your broadcast. There's one time you did that. There's another time you said because he's going to bring back the draft, but the president can't do that by himself. And there was one other reason you gave that he needs to be 25th. That's not pushing him in the right direction. That's saying I want J.D. Vance in the White House. Yeah, I do. You want J.D. Vance in the White House right now? You want a kneecapped party that can't do anything, like Andrew said, for the next 2+ years?

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-385

And then we got Ronald Reagan. And then what?

We're not going to get it. It's— we can't get 25th Amendment. You're not going to get the impeachment.

Timothy, why'd you call for it?

You saw a 10-second clip on the national news.

I watched 5 minutes of this.

Okay, well, let me tell you what I said. I said, hey, Hey, if I was going down a mountain and all of a sudden my brakes went out, I'm going to pull the emergency brake even though it's going to be a little bit violent. I said, you're not going to get the 25th. We asked you this, this, and that. You're not going to get the impeachment stuff we need right now. But to put pressure, to get enough pressure to get the war powers invoked— we only failed by 3 votes to have them invoke that and make them have a vote and state what this war is and what the objective is. I said, we need to call for it all to get his attention. And I said, it's an emergency brake. The national news took what I said out of context, and that's what they do.

↳ P24 raised again here · first raised at U-385

↳ evidence for the P24 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-386

All right. Moving on to the US's ties with Israel. As Congress considers measures that would deepen military cooperation and defense integration with Israel, does that inevitably increase the likelihood that future Israeli conflicts become American obligations? If so, should that be a cause for concern? This seems like a good question for you, Mr. Joe Kent.

Yeah, it's a major concern. So speaking about Section 219, the so-called merger or blending of some of our most sensitive capabilities with the Israelis. What this does specifically is it takes our research on quantum, AI, very sensitive technologies, and it gives the Israelis unfettered access. It basically makes them a part of our military intelligence industrial base. We don't do this with any other country. This also takes away a lot of the leverage that we have over countries that we give aid to. We should be telling countries that we give aid to, like Israel, what they will and what they will not do. We haven't been able to do that. The Israelis have basically been running roughshod over us, getting us to fight their wars in the Middle East. Section 219 in this merger would give them very, very dangerous access to these sensitive technologies. And in the past, the Israelis have, through Jonathan Pollard, an American spy, they've taken some of our technology that they obtained and they've sold it to our adversaries like the Russians during the Cold War.

China.

And China. This is a major, major threat to our national security, and it does speak to just how lopsided and off-balanced our relationship is with Israel. It's one of the number one things we have to address.

No, clearly not. First off, I mean, it's R&D cooperation. And I mean, Israel is a leader in cybersecurity technology, in drones and missile defense, obviously, given how much they've been defending themselves. We want the benefit of that technology for ourselves. The idea that there's no other countries that are like, have this sort of integration is wrong. That's Five Eyes. The, you know, this isn't— and really the whole concept that this is like some sort of merger is just like Soros-funded nonsense coming from the Quincy Institute, right? Like, they're the people behind most of this stuff. The head of the Quincy Institute, she was the head of George Soros's foreign policy operation for a decade before she went there. And now they're like putting out, via Responsible Statecraft, stuff like the Israeli and US militaries are merging. They're not, right? There's no merger of the chains of command.

It's R&D. It's our most sensitive technology.

It's their most sensitive technology, too, that we get the benefit of.

↳ evidence for the P19 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-398

We don't give them unfettered access.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-399

We give them intelligence, not R&D from DARPA, right down to telemetry and satellite directives. It says it creates a special office that is only oversaw by the president, and it talks about mergers, integration, lifetime of everything through the entire chain. And you talk about, oh, Soros is behind this. Soros is upset. The Pentagon 2 days after it passed out of committee in the House, now passed the full House, is at the Senate. Unprecedented, literal coup over our most sensitive stuff. The Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency, joined by 6 other agencies, said Israel is now the highest level national security threat for infiltration and spying and espionage. Are they controlled by George Soros? It says over and over again in 219, And there's a Senate bill that Senator Cotton's supporting that integrates all the intelligence as well. That's also in Section 219. So to say that, oh, they've got some missile systems— Netanyahu wrote letters to the committee chairman thanking him for including his language that he wrote, then Section 224, now Section 219. Netanyahu wrote the section that literally says that this individual is coequal to the Secretary of Defense. defense and can merge everything in live time. You don't believe me? Go read—

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-395

Any of this, you create a cabinet— they're creating a cabinet position?

No, it creates a special officer within the Pentagon who only reports to Congress once a year and to the president, and who has— and who cannot be challenged, it says, by any other Pentagon head. Word for word. Don't believe me? Go to the NDAA, Defense Authorization Act 2027, now in the U.S. Senate, and read Section 219. Do not believe me.

↳ P19 raised again here · first raised at U-395

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-402

Okay. I mean, I suspect— I doubt that, but I will— you know, we don't have it in front of us.

It says no other department head can even question them.

Okay. But even just the concept, if there's something that we like that the Israelis are doing in, you know, counter-drone, counter-missile technology, then we can come up with a unilateral contract where we say, hey, we're going to work together on this one. The unfettered access is just a major mistake for us to do with any country, but especially a country that's led us off into war.

↳ evidence for the P20 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-399

Yeah, it's gotta be unilateral. Piece by piece is fine. But, but I mean, look, Israel doesn't run a ship.

But do you reject the framing of—

And fighters to Turkey. I mean, but think about this. Israel, anything they contribute to, they co-own. Netanyahu says, we won't need your money anymore because we'll be merged with your military-industrial complex. We got a big enough problem having our own government running that. Much less is— but Israel won't be a 51st state.

Israel will be coequal in this. Okay. But just to establish a couple of things, can we establish that this framing, that this merges our militaries, is wrong? Yeah, that framing is completely incorrect. A lot of the framing that's coming from the other side, from the supposed anti-Trump right, is they are rhetorically lying to people over and over and over and over and over saying this is a merger of the United States military with Israeli military or Israel's military. And it's not that. And you guys have seen that.

↳ P20 raised again here · first raised at U-398

Not crazy. Israel already dragged us into this war. That sounds like they're in charge.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: agrees Israel dragged us into war · Andrew Wilson

I don't have to dispute those things because I agree with them. Yeah. The problem comes in when we have incorrect framing that comes from the new dissident right, that when they're as as big of fucking liars as these leftists are. They come out and they say, oh, they're merging the militaries.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-411

Our position is that Trump is the president of the United States. The buck stops there. But by us staying in proxy engaged with Iran, it leaves open the constant possibility for them to draw us in.

What Trump is doing is very much in line with how he campaigned, how he's talked about Iran for 50 years almost now, since the— since the revolution.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-511

No, he's clear on Iran.

Is this—

is this with the notable exception If that's the case, if Trump's resisting that, if he's not doing a ground invasion, Israel wants it. They want chaos. They want this. But he's playing— that's the case. If that's the case, how can he make the claim that Israel's in charge?

You keep asking questions. You let him talk.

0 R-6.3 · Procedural cut-off: let him talk · Alex Jones

He's resisting putting his hand in the fire, but he's still standing right next to it. It's too dangerous.

On my show, I'm interviewing people in politics, entertainment, and culture, and I'm talking to people on the right, left, and center of all beliefs and backgrounds because I believe that knowledge is power and all stories matter and help us find common ground and maybe even a little slice of unity in a broken world. So please check out The Brandon Strock Show on YouTube and Rumble on my channel at The Brandon Strock. Again, be sure to subscribe and click the bell. And the show is also on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, so please check it out, and I really think you all will love it. Thanks, everybody.

The problem comes in when we have— when we have incorrect framing that comes from the new dissident right, that when they're as big of fucking liars as these leftists are, they come out and they say, oh, they're merging the militaries.

↳ P21 raised again here · first raised at U-411

Here's another one. AIPAC already is able to primary whoever they want and brag about it. And the language is so broad you can interpret it as that. So has it been done? Have they actually— I imagine the Pentagon, even if they got legislation, would push back. That's basic territorialism. But the point is, what you read in Section 219, I've read it like 10 times. It says integration, fusion, live-time telemetry, weapons systems, satellites, cyber.

Yes, there's— I agree with you. There are certain technologies which the United States and Israel are trying to cooperate to share. I would prefer not to have any sort of integration like this. I think it's a terrible idea with any other nation for us to be involved in this sort of intricate—

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: integration is a bad idea · Andrew Wilson

Especially ones that have a famous history of selling our secrets?

Well, and they have the Stuxnet virus and they have all sorts of different things that they've done. They've done all sorts of things. There has been blowback from this. I agree. The problem is, though, right, is It's the rhetoric of it's merging the U.S. and Israel. Trump's a traitor. And that's what I hear. Come on.

I mean, we just saw Israel drag us into a war. Primary Massie. Sorry.

Wouldn't it just be easy to say that that's not what we're talking about?

+3 C-1.2 · Partial concession: overstating the merger was my bad · Alex Jones

Yeah, we don't need to. Yeah. So that's my bad.

Joe says it. Everybody. Alex, can we just agree with Joe?

Donald Trump primaried Massie. We're not talking about merging.

The problem is merging the R&D. But I get But here's the thing. That's not— and you said it's some retarded people on the internet. I'm like, listen, they have large followings.

Yes, I know.

And people going, we're merging. That's treasonous. That's not some guy with an egg saying no.

But Carlson said we need Nuremberg-style trials. And I'm saying if—

Like I said, it's not a guy with an egg saying it.

No, no, I was agreeing.

My point is, is that you can't— you— that's Tucker's interpretation because you read 219 and you could logically look at that and say that's what this is. Regardless, it's way too much because of AIPAC. Because of Israel launching the war. Did Israel drag us into this war? Is that a question?

↳ evidence for the P21 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-429

I think that's— No, no. Trump wanted to do this war. No, Israel absolutely wanted— Israel didn't drag—

Without the Israeli lobbyist influence, we would have a deal right now or we'd still be in the process.

Israeli lobby? How did it— This theory doesn't make sense.

You said, you said, you said when you resigned, you said Israel is going to attack every time there's a peace deal.

Oh, yeah. Every time.

Yeah. 100%. Yeah. That's why I say step one is we do have to restrain the Israelis. We have to reset that relationship with the Israelis. The Iranians and President Trump were at the table. It was the lobby that moved the red line through Israeli officials and through an echo chamber in the media and talking heads and foundations that defend Israel.

↳ P18 raised again here · first raised at U-272

So Trump just passively let that happen?

No, no, no. There's elements that want war that aren't the Israelis. But Israel has the lobbying muscle through AIPAC to get what those other lobbies want. Right.

But how does that have any effect on President Trump's decision-making? He's the billionaire real estate magnate. Okay.

100% does, because he had to bring people into his coalition who were dictated to him by Miriam Adelson, like John Ratcliffe, like Mike Waltz. And we have AIPAC bragging that they put the national security adviser and the CIA director into their position.

You guys aren't answering my question. How does that make President Trump do anything?

Hold on. People that are presenting the information Yeah. Telling President Trump how easy it's going to be to take down the regime, but also moving his red line. Every single time we were getting close to having a negotiation with the Iranians that would have allowed them to keep some kind of enrichment that would have gotten us a better deal than the JCPOA, you had people going out onto the media saying zero enrichment, we have to have zero enrichment, coming from, you know, Mark Dubowitz, Mark Levin, from all these different talking heads saying the exact same thing that people were saying to President Trump. in private who were circumventing what the intelligence community was telling him. That's exactly how we ended up in this war. President Trump did midnight hammer to take the enrichment issue off the table. Guess who kept coming because we didn't restrain them? The Israelis continued to push us into this war.

↳ P3 raised again here · first raised at U-061

And have you not seen the posthumous videos of Wall Street Journal and CNN with Lindsey Graham going, we finally got it, we sold him, great job?

Right. Obviously, Lindsey Graham wanted this to happen. The point being, Nobody can drag President Trump into anything.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-488

There's always this idea, right, that, you know, people are dragged kicking and screaming and it has to be blackmail. That's actually not the way that this works most of the time. And I know we're gonna get into this with like who's being paid influencer-wise, right? What it's not actually is people being paid to say stuff they don't believe. It's convincing them. It is convincing them by putting people in their ear who do not have their best interests in mind and telling them, no, no, no, no, no, anybody who opposes the war on Iran, they don't know what's going on. This is gonna make you the best president ever. convincing them they will be able to be— or convincing Trump that he will be successful in order to change the regime.

It was Susie Wiles blocking everybody else and freezing them out. Yeah. And then it was— that Yahoo brags. And then they were able to come in and convince Trump that they would— it would happen in 4 days to 5 weeks.

We're not saying that Trump was forced. We're not saying that. We're not saying Trump was deceived, got bad counsel. Bingo. Now, part of the reason I'm frustrated with Trump is because that's how leadership, federal headship works.

+4.5 C-1.2 · Partial concession: Trump bears responsibility · Joel Webbon

The buck stops here.

Trump is a bad judge of character. He has surrounded himself with Trumpers multiple times, whether it's Pam Bondi— like, he did it the first administration, and he certainly did it the second. So he bears that responsibility, a lack of discernment. But we're not saying Trump was forced.

Of course he's the president. You guys are saying he was handcuffed. I don't agree with that framing. Did Trump hire you? Hold on. Hang on. Hang on. Did Trump hire you? Yeah. Okay, great. Did he hire every— stop, bro. Stop. Did he hire Tulsi Gabbard? Yeah. Okay, so he's hired— hang on, hang on. He's hired plenty of good people too.

Yeah, Vance.

He's his VP. And then when you point out— when you point this out and you're just like, hey, there's nobody there to counter this message. Yeah, there is.

Not now.

Yes, he did bring in some good people to his administration. Yes, he brought in some bad ones. Not thrilled about Pam Ponte. Nobody's talked more trash about her than me. We all saw how the Epstein rollout went. We all saw many of the failures of her. But we also saw that Trump did hire good people and has had good people coming through the administration. You can't say that he hasn't. You're sitting next to one he had. So he may not take— who they've demonized. Yeah, they may not take the advice. And maybe there's good reason for the demonization that we can get into. But the point is, is that—

I mean, he said the war wouldn't go well, and he's been proven right.

He's bad. Great, but there's other there's other factors here.

What I'm saying is maybe he is.

What I'm saying maybe he is bad. Well, what is he bad?

Tell us. Maybe he's bad. Tell us. Hold on, hold on. I just love that little thing. Maybe he is bad. Tell me how he's bad.

With with Joe Kent. You said maybe he is bad. Yeah, that's tangential to my point. Oh, it's a little side, which we can get into in a second. Maybe you're bad. Maybe you're bad.

Maybe you got yeah, maybe that guy's bad.

It's tangential to the point that I'm. The principle and the point that I'm making is, yeah, Trump has had bad people around him. He's also had very good people around him. And it is true that he's had massive disagreements. He's probably far shorter with them now than he was in his first administration because he was getting knifed in the back by everybody. He got knifed in the back by Comey, got knifed in the back by everybody in his first administration.

Well, he likes the people that knife him in the back that were never Trumpers. He has all the never Trumpers like they're— and they're like God. All the people that were faithful are bad.

Well, a lot of the people who were supposedly going to be faithful, we're knifing them in the back like James Comey.

A lot of the folks who have the most influence within the administration have been, to put it mildly, very, very sympathetic to the pro-Israel cause.

Of course. Is AIPAC an American institution or an Israeli institution? Obviously it's a mix, but I would say it serves the interest of Israel first and foremost. So how do we have a lobby— we hear about Russian interference and all this other stuff. Obviously Chinese is real, Russians there but weak and anemic, fine. block it. But, but, but, but is, is AIPAC an Israeli or an American institution?

It's American. And the reason it's American is because every single dollar it takes is from American sources. Now, those are American pro-Israel sources, obviously. But like the reason they— the whole foreign agent debate, the reason they're not a foreign agent is because they don't take any money from foreign—

What about the Knesset, $1.3 billion to pay influencers for propaganda?

That's not through AIPAC.

But okay, but how is Israel paying $1.3 billion to fund Right.

Well, those people, if they were taking the money, would have to register as foreign agents. But that's different from AIPAC.

And that would be the former White House campaign head. He has taken money.

Parscale, right. And he registered.

Could I offer an olive branch? What if we just said that they had to register under FARA? Would that solve the problem?

That would be much better.

I mean, you'd have to rewrite the law.

The problem is taking the money in the first place.

You can say that there's people that he's had around who you think aren't great and that he's listened to them, things like this. But the question here is like, who's in charge? You keep saying Israel is the one who's calling the shots.

Well, they launched the war.

His point, though, is, wait a second, there's lots of good people in Trump's administration who you guys probably even like. Okay. If that's the case, you can't just say like, ah, it has nothing to do with Trump. He's Israel's bitch. Why can't we reframe this to Israel's Trump's bitch? What would the evidence be against that exactly?

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-413

We're fighting the war for them. We're fighting the war at their back.

But if it's Trump's idea, if Trump wants to fight that war—

He didn't want to. He was influenced into fighting that war. He was convinced by bad information.

But let me say this, because of the influence and access the Israelis have. You kept saying, oh, he brought in a bunch of good people and some bad people. He's been demoting or kicking out the good people and promoting the Never Trumper neocon Israeli operatives. I don't think anybody watching can debate that.

And I'm not, but I am trying to be charitable to the position that's being said that's not being answered to. So I hear him put out this position.

Hey, wait a second. Wait a second. Let me say, I don't think I have any influence with Democrats. The only reason I'm on Trump's ass, I think we have influence with him. So you keep going, oh, the Democrats, they're over there.

We talk about Democrats.

No, you brought up at the start of your thing, why are we focusing on Trump? Because— because Trump is our creature. He— we put him in. He says he's America first. He works for us.

↳ evidence for the P25 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-177

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

So, so, I know, but you've said probably 10 times—

Actually, this might be the fundamental mistake, contrary to what you say. The whole point is that Trump's in the chair making the decisions after we elected him. Right. He— and sometimes he's not going to make the decisions that you guys don't like. That doesn't mean he's not the same guy. It might just mean— I mean, he has far more information than any of us do. Right. Far more information than you had. And he's come to a different conclusion.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-488

↳ evidence for the P3 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-452

That's what the Israeli ambassador to the US, Mike Huckabee, said. He said, yeah, 80% don't want the war, but we— but you elected us, so we know better.

That might actually be true. Trump hasn't changed. Everyone else has. Is that what you're saying?

I'm not saying everybody else has changed. Right. Well, basically, but I think basically what I think happened is that people had— everybody has their own vision of what Trump is in their mind. That's why they voted for him. But what Trump is doing is very much in line with how he campaigned, how he's talked about Iran for 50 years almost now, since the revolution.

No, he's clear on Iran.

Is this with the notable exception of not getting involved in another foreign war?

Yeah, but he was also—

You read the platform.

Hold on, hold on. Most of the time he said no big new war, come all the way in war with Iran, but he would add the proviso, no nuke. So he's trying—

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-503

That is his policy.

Like, what is his policy? He's trying solve the nuclear problem while avoiding, like, an all-out major war, which is why he keeps going back to the table over and over and over again, which is why he went to, you know, with the Russia-Ukraine thing, he had that huge summit in Alaska, rolled out the red carpet for Putin, tried to do diplomacy.

There's a pro-war angle saying he's a pussy for going back to the table. That's smart. He's going back to the table with the smart war planners that have a real plan. So I think it's great he keeps going back to the table. I think it's great.

So he's, again, following exactly what he said he would be doing in the campaign in that sense. He's trying to resolve the tension between, we do need to solve the Iranian nuclear problem, but we don't want the war to be too big. And we want to be— he's being extremely judicious.

Hold on, the what?

The war to be— yeah, he doesn't want the war to be too big.

The war that he started that he said he wouldn't start?

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Kai Schwemmer · ruling prints at U-504

Did he say that he wouldn't start that?

He said he wouldn't start another foreign war. The Iranians have forced him to make a choice between those promises.

Yeah, because they hold the cards now. now in a war of attrition and we're now in a strategic defeat.

↳ evidence for the P29 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-503

But the point is they held the cards in saying they could refuse to give up on their nuclear program and force him to either give up the promise of stopping an Iranian nuke or give up on the promise of no war with Iran.

↳ P29 raised again here · first raised at U-511

You know the Iranians aren't going to fall anytime soon. So every day this goes, the bigger defeat we have. We should declare victory now like he said and get the fuck out of there.

I think that honestly they're getting squeezed. And like, the thing is, control of the Strait of Hormuz is a depreciating asset. As time goes on, they just hit the new pipelines. Like the pipelines are getting underground, and like they're building new pipelines. They hit the cost centers. Like then why is the oil price at 75, Alex?

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-228

+2 R-2.6 · Unfalsifiable dismissal of the oil price · Alex Jones

That is a false AI manipulation. The price of the pump. This is what you're relying on to say the oil reserves are almost depleted of the EU, China, and the U.S. That's true. And they are manipulating the price of the barrel. That's not the real price of a barrel. The US Petroleum Council told Trump 2 months ago, they said if this continues, oil will be at $140 a barrel and gas will be $6 a gallon. And we—

↳ P13 raised again here · first raised at U-120

and it's $75. Okay, well, we can— and we struck them for—

What about Trump blaming the oil companies for like $10 billion profit, $14 billion profit, trillions of dollars?

It's the same thing Biden did when he was like, you guys are being greedy, the corporations, you're charging too much.

The idea being that the spot price of price of oil has gone down, but the price at the pump hasn't, which means that his theory, which is not unreasonable, is that the oil companies are gouging.

↳ evidence for the P13 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-119

That's literally the same thing that Biden said, that all the gas stations—

5 years ago. Well, listen, listen, we can go round and round and round on this. Let's get back to who's in charge, because I think you guys have a problem on your side. I don't want any foreign influence, right? We can all agree with that. That's not a debate topic here, right? We don't want that influence. But every single thing that you say about Trump not being in control and Israel Joe, really quickly.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-488

No, he's following—

No, hold on. Your name is not Joe. Joe, what does Israel want us to do right now with regard to Iran?

They want us to stay engaged in the war.

Do they want us more or less engaged?

They want us more engaged, but they understand America—

Did they want that during the Project Midnight Hammer? Did they want us more engaged?

They wanted us— no, they wanted us more engaged in Midnight Hammer. Correct. Midnight Hammer—

they didn't just want this, right?

No, no, they didn't even want Midnight They Hammer. didn't care about that. Midnight Hammer was the first effort to kill off the enrichment program. I understand that. So that we could take it off the table and move back to the negotiating table.

That's why the Iranians— But that's not what Israel wants, right? That's why the Iranians— Hold on, hold on, hold on. Don't go too far.

Israel says they want that.

Hold on.

Listen, I will give you all the time to respond, but that's not what Israel wanted, right?

No, Israel wants decapitation of Hamas.

Okay, fantastic. Is Trump doing everything that Israel wants?

Uh, he—

+0.5 R-6.1 · Cut in on Kent's answer to take the floor · Gerald Morgan Jr.

The answer is objectively by your statement— No, no, no, no. Hang on. No, it is not. There is counter evidence to Trump being in charge. I let him finish one time. After I finish, I will absolutely let you tear my position apart, which you might very well do. That's fine. Plenty of evidence from you guys saying, "Well, of course Israel's in control," and then I go, "But look at the counter evidence. Israel wants way more," and President Trump said, "You don't know what the Israel doing," and President Trump has said, "No, I'm not going to do this several times." Who does that sound like is in control? Trump has told Israel to stop bombing.

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-488

Isn't it at least equally as likely?

I'm saying publicly that Trump is in control and you absolutely reject it because you don't want to stand by that.

+6 R-2.2 · Motive attribution to opponents · Gerald Morgan Jr. · low confidence: excluded from score

You don't understand our position. So our position is not that Israel is in control.

+7.5 R-1.1 · Attributing an unheld position on control · Gerald Morgan Jr. · low confidence: excluded from score

Our position is that Trump— Even though that was just stated.

No, our position is that Trump is the President of the United States. The buck stops there. But by us staying in proxy engage with Iran, it leaves open the constant possibility for them to draw us in.

I agree to that, but that has no bearing on what I just said.

Which is what Israel wants.

Nothing to do with what I said at all.

It makes it a poor calculus on Trump's part.

Trump has said Israel keeps drawing us back in. So has J.D. Vance. You're arguing—

I'm not arguing that at all. I'm just saying there's other evidence that you're completely excluding, and I want to know why.

The ability to drag us back in is controlled.

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-496

Yeah, but it sounds like what Gerald's saying is he's resisting Israel bringing us further and further into this war. If that's the case, if Trump's resisting that, if he's not doing a ground invasion— Israel wants it. They want chaos. They want this. But if that's the case, if that's the case, how can he make the claim that Israel's in charge.

This war is going to continue on and it's going to devastate our economy, and Israel's sitting back laughing about it. So that's what all the smart money's on. So there's no debate. If you're losing a war, it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong. Why the fuck are you doing it?

Raise your hand if you've ever been paid to post content that would benefit a foreign nation in any way. Are vlog cameras a serious threat to American citizen citizens' right to privacy.

It was a non-issue until they started using it to round up illegals.

You especially, Will, don't have to be concerned, right? Because you're a raging Zionist.

+4 R-2.2 · Labeling opponent a raging Zionist · Joel Webbon · low confidence: excluded from score

I have to be concerned. Did you guys know that you can support Walk Away by going to our shop and getting some incredible merch and swag so that you can wear proudly your message that you support the Walk Away movement? Well, whether you want a t-shirt or a sweatshirt, hats, backpacks, coffee mugs, phone cases, there's just about nothing that you can't find on our shop that has really great messaging that you'll feel proud to wear out in public to show that you support Walk Away. So please go to walkaway.shop. Any purchase that you make 100% goes to support the movement. So again, your purchasing of a shirt, hat, or anything for Walk Away is a donation to the movement that helps us drive our mission to reach as many people on the left as we can to wake them up and get them to walk away. This is what helps us get into college campuses, do marches, rallies, town halls, and debates all over the country. So get your Walk Away swag— shirts, hats, everything you can imagine— at walkaway.shop. Wear it proudly and help support the movement. Again, that's walkaway.shop.

If that's the case, if Trump's resisting that, if he's not doing a ground invasion, Israel wants it. They want chaos. They want this. But if that's the case, if that's the case, how can he make the claim that Israel's in charge?

You keep asking questions. Let him talk.

He's resisting putting his hand in the fire, but he's still standing right next to it. It's too dangerous. Iran will draw us in. They need to get back. Call it a victory. Take your chips. We lost some.

We're not getting them back. I think Joe deserves to respond because I was interacting with Joe.

This is exactly why at the beginning of the war, The Israelis got us on board with killing the Supreme Leader because they knew that President Trump would say, okay, Israel, if you think this is gonna be quick and easy, I'll take the gamble. We'll kill the Supreme Leader, and then like you said, everything will fall. The Israelis knew everything was not going to fall. They knew the actual decapitation and regime— They knew it would take a long time. Eventual regime change would take a very long time. If you interacted with the Israelis one-on-one, they would tell you that. So they got Trump on board right away, kill the Ayatollah. That creates a rally around the flag effect. Inside of Iran, then they went about killing lots of the negotiators so that we had no one to negotiate with. Knowing that once this war basically became a quagmire because the Straits of Hormuz would get shut down, that this war would become unpopular domestically. And the president, that's what happened.

Alex, let's say that I conceded all of that. Let's say that right now I was like, fine, everything you said. Hold on, listen, timeout. Let's say that I conceded that Donald Trump still hasn't done what they want him to do. How are they in?

↳ P22 raised again here · first raised at U-488

Control of Donald Trump. But he also hasn't done what the American people want him to do, which is extract ourselves from—

It's a completely irrelevant fact to Donald Trump being controlled by Israel.

Please answer that question. Israel's finance minister said this is ideal chaos.

I think the struggle is, guys, that there's plenty of counter-evidence and you're not taking it into account. That really is the issue.

Listen, listen, I am taking it— The Israelis are not dictating every last tactical move to President Trump.

So they're not in control.

If they were doing that—

We didn't say they're in control. Varying degrees of control. They have a ton of influence right now. They know they psychologically profiled President Trump well enough to know that once he's locked into this war, there's no one for him to negotiate with in Iran. He's not just going to do what I'm saying. He's not just going to walk away. He is going to stay because he's going to want a deal on paper that the Iranians will not give them because we've radicalized and galvanized that entire population. Trump has to win. They also know that by doing incremental strikes like we're doing right now, we won't get the effects that we're trying to achieve.

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Joe Kent · ruling prints at U-573

You know, Ahmadinejad was a secret agent of Israel in the US. Yeah. And then they blow up his house and said, oh, we accidentally almost killed you. He went, oh my God, because they didn't even want that. That was all a setup to sell Trump that Ahmadinejad was going to lead this uprising. And it was set. And then they tried to kill Ahmadinejad.

Well, now you're switching it because the whole point was—

No, no, no.

Whoa, whoa, Alex, give me— please just give me a second. No, I just explained it. You missed the part where I talked about the fact that Araghchi and Ghalibaf, the two— Araghchi is the foreign minister, Ghalibaf is the head of the parliament. They were kept around. Those were— and those are people that were negotiating with Trump all the way back before Midnight Hammer.

They just haven't been able to—

so like, who told you that, that we killed Larrin Johnny, we killed other ones?

Yeah, we killed other senior leadership.

He couldn't say who he was negotiating with because the Israelis would kill them.

Here's the difference. The Iranians won't even get on a Zoom call now from their location. They do it through intermediaries. I wouldn't. Right.

I wouldn't either.

Well, I get it. That makes sense.

But even then, after killing the Ayatollah, the moderates like, like, uh, Ghalibaf and Arachi, they can't cut a deal because domestically they can't cut a deal with the guys who just killed the Supreme Leader and bombed the girls' school. The Israelis knew all of this going into it. That's why they got us into killing the Supreme Leader, because it would make it so that we couldn't negotiate. And then they knew that President Trump either wanted a deal that they couldn't get or military victory.

You guys know Israel admits all this. Right? Like, this is not debatable what he's saying.

It's absolutely debatable. And Israel hasn't said that.

I think, I think when we talk about—

Kai, go ahead.

Yeah, I think, I think when we talk about Trump being controlled, it's not that he's like being puppeteered around. I think it's a variety of things. The first I mentioned, right, is that he has people around him who convince him that this is the right idea. I don't think you could get him to do something if he himself didn't believe it was right. But I think you can absolutely get him to believe that it's right. Yes. The second thing, though, is that they basically put us in a situation where automatically any path to diplomacy is just absolutely destroyed because they are going to attack Lebanon in a totally outsized way, by the way. You know, 4 IDF soldiers die, 17 people, innocent people die in Lebanon. Really?

How many Israeli soldiers should they let die?

Well, I think 4 people is less than 17. So maybe it's an outsized reaction.

I guess the legal argument to make is that the terrorists kill them. Is that how wars should be conducted?

I think we can very clearly define that 17 innocent people are different than 4 military targets that, by the way, aren't even in Israel. They're in Lebanon. Second of all, we dive into this idea of our negotiation. You sound like a leftist as Americans. The interest of the president of the United States of America is to negotiate. Can I sound like a leftist?

That is it. With that. All right.

Anyway, so at the beginning of the war, though, if we cared about Lebanon and Israel at the beginning of the war, the Iranians were not able to dictate. terms about what happens inside of Lebanon. They are now. They've taken strikes against Israel because of what Israel's doing inside of Lebanon.

They have been able to say now— Why did Israel strike Lebanon in the first place?

Because now they're in an upper— because now the Iranians are in a position of strength because they've come out much stronger in this fight. They're able to say, terms of our agreement, which we had to put in the MOU, which were later violated, was Israel, how they conduct themselves inside of Lebanon. Strategic victory. So we were in a much better position before February 28th. The strait was open. The Iranians weren't able to project power. We're in negotiations.

What took place between Israel and Lebanon? Hezbollah and Iran are stronger in Lebanon today than they were before.

Yes. Okay. The Iranians. The Iranians. The Iranians.

No, they're not.

Let me explain to you wars of attrition. As an American, I don't really care about the border dispute between Israel and their neighbors.

Then why are you making a claim?

This will kind of wrap it up.

Real quick, wars of attrition. I like that guy. Like George Washington— I'm not comparing the Mullahs to George Washington, but war-wise, a 6-year war with the British, never defeated as an empire. He lost almost all the battles, but he persevered, won the war through attrition. So if you go to the popularity contest in what's left of Gaza, what's in Lebanon, what's going on all over the place, Iran is more popular than ever with those different groups. But regardless, The point is, is that I'm not here pushing that the mullahs aren't horrible. I'm not pushing they don't have surrogates and aren't attacking Israel. No one's debating that that part of this conflict's going on.

That's right.

The point is, us going in there for regime change, lying and saying it's about missiles and WMDs, isn't going to work. So the debate's over because the mullahs— watch this a year from now— aren't going to fall, and this war is going to continue on. And it's going to devastate our economy. And Israel's sitting back laughing about it. So that's what all the smart money's on. So there's no debate. If you're losing a war, it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong. Why the fuck are you doing it?

↳ P2 raised again here · first raised at U-059

↳ evidence for the P5 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-558

And I guess my point is, yeah, losing.

I think if we're going to talk about winning, if I want to talk about controlling Donald Trump, what I think is being controlled, right, is our options. Our options are severely restricted by Israel. I hope You know, to get back maybe to the original topic, we can all agree that this kind of fusion that's going to occur on the R&D and anything else is probably not good because there's a misalignment in our interests here. The interests of the United States of America, the interests of President Trump are for diplomacy. That is what we've tried to pursue. We tried this new MOU, which was, by the way, worse than the JCPOA. Our negotiating position is not better than it was before the war. It's gotten considerably worse. But every single time that we try to negotiate, Israel does something that poison pills the entire exchange. Now, I believe— I believe—

↳ evidence for the P22 verdict on Kai Schwemmer · ruling prints at U-593

I believe Trump has accused Israel of sabotaging. So has the vice president. You say Trump is basically next to Jesus. Are you saying Trump hasn't said— are you saying Trump hasn't said Israel sabotaging negotiations?

No, I'm certainly— there's like one moment where he—

like, every time enough is enough, you stop sabotaging. You don't hit Lebanon anymore, and Israel hits them with the biggest attack the next day.

+3 C-1.2 · Concedes Trump accused Israel of sabotage · Will Chamberlain · low confidence: excluded from score

Well, I think that's right. I think, to be fair, Kai, you took too long.

I did. I did. Yeah.

Wrap it up. Just don't stop. To do the final wrap-up, I think that's what it is, is our objective, which is diplomacy, is being thwarted by the Israelis in such a way that restricts our ability to withdraw from this conflict the way that we want. Israel should listen to us, not the other way around. They shouldn't restrict our ability to be diplomatic. Your model now is working.

It's just all spoken. It's the fact that the Iranians won't make the needed concessions, and as a result, there's not peace.

Master Yoda.

Who's Yoda?

I think that would be me.

Okay, I'll move back.

Yeah, I think, you know, we do 30 minutes and we kind of measure on the margins how we feel about the success or expedience of Iran. We do 30 minutes talking about the Israel lobby. No one here meaningfully disagrees with those positions except for maybe Will, but I don't want to speak for him. I think ultimately the implication of the debate is, okay, and so what? What are we supposed to do? I think our job as people with varying degrees of influence, some small, some big, is to remind the American public who is at least a little bit sympathetic to our ideas that there's only one governing vehicle. And, you know, we mentioned bad people in Trump's ear. We need as many good people in Trump's ear as we can. And when he sees people— because, you know, he's a boomer, he's maybe on social media a little bit— when he sees people who are aligned with America First ideas not offering criticism in good faith but saying, you've betrayed us, you're a Shabos goy race traitor, you want to go Send me to die for Israel. The rational response from the guy whose temperament we're all aware of is that you guys should, like, go fuck yourself. Like, I'm not gonna listen to you. And there are plenty of things that the Donald Trump administration has done, which I don't think we're even gonna get into today, pertaining to the border, pertaining to drug trafficking, pertaining to crime, which, without exaggeration, is going to save tens of thousands of American lives.

↳ evidence for the P2 verdict on John Doyle · ruling prints at U-346

Oh, yeah.

That is extremely important. That is information that the Amer— I mean, it doesn't get more America First than that, than saving American lives within those countries. context. Curiously, what I see is when we have the America First conversation, I don't hear a peep about that. I hear Trump has betrayed us. And I know that that's not your guys' position, as you've articulated here clearly. The problem is, if you took 100 people, random guys who still say they're on the Trump train, who would maybe listen to us, they would more or less agree with what I'm saying. Regardless of your individual contribution to it, if you took 100 people who are more sympathetic to the America First rather than the MAGA side today, They are not going to say that. They are going to say that Trump has betrayed us. We need to do either a new party, which fractures the GOP, or we just sit out and don't vote because the whole thing is corrupt. That's why Democrats love this conversation. That's why they amplify it in mainstream news. That's why the same social media algorithms which banned me, banned you, I think banned at least 2 other people on this side, all of a sudden now they love conspiracy theories. Why is that? Because the ultimate thing is don't support Trump and disengage from politics.

↳ P26 raised again here · first raised at U-071

↳ P27 raised again here · first raised at U-071

That some people are operatives or somebody gets attention, do it viciously. That's then shown to Trump and then he sides with the Never Trumpers thinking, okay, that's all I've got left. They're our friends.

Sure.

But that is a product of the media editing that down. Joe Kent lovingly said, it's been an honor to serve you. I tried to warn you behind the scenes. I'm doing this to get you off this disaster. You got to get an exit ramp. I'm here to advise you if you want. I'm doing this to draw attention. Trump surrogates then came after him and called him Satan. He did it the classy way. Now, so my point is, as much as some people piranha attacked Trump and said you're a traitor and all this weird, you know, you know, the Jews fly on magic carpets and you fall on a banana peel, they did it. I get all those crazies. But there's been plenty from the other side with Trump being vicious. And so Trump was tricked into a fight with his base, and a lot of people took the bait.

↳ evidence for the P27 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-627

We're going to take a hard turn now to get a subject on the table that I think is ultimately going to impact the rest of the conversation we have tonight. And that is the subject of online influencers being paid to push agendas, and particularly foreign agendas. Interestingly, every person on this stage right now has been accused of taking money to propagandize on behalf of a foreign nation. The America First side is regularly accused of taking money from Qatar, Russia, etc. The MAGA side is regularly accused of taking money from Israel. So now is the moment to come clean. To everybody on the stage, raise your hand right now if you've ever been paid to post content on social media that would benefit a foreign nation in any way.

↳ P30 raised again here · first raised at U-559

Hmm.

All right. So to the America First side, are there any influencers that you feel strongly are being paid to propagandize on behalf of foreign nations?

Well, certainly Laura Limerick. is not getting any money. Definitely not.

Uh, neither is Ben Shapiro.

No, no, no, Ben Shapiro is not openly bankrolled, uh, by Israeli—

See, this is common ground. Like, we can do this.

Neither is Mark Levin.

Salem Media, they openly do get money directly from the Knesset, but that's okay.

Yeah, but Salem Media is registered under FARA, right?

Yeah, yeah. $1.3 billion from the official Israeli government has gone to influencers to influence pro-Israel, pro-war. So I want to know who's getting this money. Let me tell you something. I've never gotten any money. I feel like I've been getting it from big corporations or Republicans, Democrats, Qatar, Israel, nobody. I've never gotten any, any money.

+4 C-3.1 · Direct disclosure on the paid-content question · Alex Jones

Well, this stuff's probably not direct paid, right? It's longer.

And I mean, everybody knows, like, I'm like NASCAR. I'm wearing where I'm getting the money. It's you. So I'm 100% funded. You know who? Yeah, I'm on the people's payroll. Right. All right. I say whatever I think is accurate.

To the point, to the point, right? People who are getting paid by foreign influencers oftentimes don't know it. I can give you an example of this. Remember what happened with Tim Pool and Tenet Media?

Yeah, so Benny Johnson, same deal.

Yes, I talked, I talked with, with Tim Pool about that pretty in-depth. It's like, you know, what the hell happened here? He didn't know what the hell was going on. He thought he was running ads.

+3 C-2.1 · Common ground that paid influence is opaque across sides · Andrew Wilson

For those who don't know, he signed up with an ad agency and then they just run the these ads, and yeah, there's some Russian involvement up the chain.

Yeah, I didn't know. He had no idea. So this stuff is laundered in through, you know, third parties and things like this, you know what I mean? Sometimes you don't even know what's going on. You have no idea.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-645

Let me go for Viso, actually. In the midterms in 2018, right before I got banned on YouTube, it was weird. I think like the Air Force— the Air Force made like a $20,000 buy on YouTube for us, but I didn't ask for it. But it's the exact thing like Benny Johnson and, and, and Tim Pool. That was Russian. With me, I'm like, God, 20,000 from the Air Force. I was like, wow. So that was kind of like, well, Alex, you're helping, you know, 20,000. But I didn't talk to the Air Force. I didn't know. So I just remembered I got 20,000. There's nothing wrong with that.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-640

Like, I mean, that's not foreign.

But also, the Air Force is buying everywhere.

We got a DM today asking— it was from, uh, some person in Russia saying, will you run ads for us or do content related? And they said that they would pay. So like, it is a thing. But I have seen plenty of guys on the America First calling out my own team here, not you guys, but in our larger band who have been pushing some Russia slop.

+3 C-1.2 · Concedes own side pushes Russian propaganda · Joel Webbon

Yeah, well, I have an example of that.

Candace. Yeah, like for instance, I look, I don't I don't want to name specific names.

No, name names.

That's why we're here. I know that's why we're here.

We have seen influencers who have gone to Russia. Dennis Rodman and. have specifically gone to the few parts of Russia that look really nice and doing the camera and look at this, or, you know, like, so we know that's a thing. Andrew's point is wise. Like, so even the people that I'm implying, insinuating, it doesn't necessarily mean that they themselves were nefarious.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Joel Webbon · ruling prints at U-651

I think it looks like perhaps this is going on. I can't prove it. David Wood goes in, you know, to Israel. These wall kissers go to Israel constantly on these guided tours. If these influencers keep going back to a place like Israel, for instance, right? And they're doing these big photo ops. For instance, Destiny. What the hell? Destiny goes on tour of Israel, comes back, most pro-Israel person ever. You know, there's lots and lots of these people who do this, but not just there. They do go to Russia. They do go— I'll give you another great example. Hasan Piker.

Yes.

Hasan Piker just recently went where? Cuba. He went to Cuba. He was giving literal propaganda streams from Cuba, from his laptop. I'm thinking in my head, why isn't this guy getting arrested? The second he gets back home, this guy should be arrested and put on trial.

Whenever we conceptualize lobbying, it's always like you hand a person, you know, a $100 bill and change something.

Never works like that.

That's not how it is. funded trips. It is where you go, you're given a tour that shows you exactly what you need to see, you're given one argument, it is perfectly orchestrated for you, and there is kind of this implicit sense that when you go back, you're going to say something nice about it. Oftentimes it's not even explicit, but it works well enough implicitly to continue doing it.

I'm going to give you another great example of this. Influencer goes to foreign country, comes back and starts talking about how great the foreign country is. Suddenly there's lots of super chats. About how great that foreign country is, using YouTube as basically what I would consider as a yeah money laundering.

So let's let's talk about Natcon and Yoram Hazone. Sure. Because I have friends, still friends. I'm not going to just hate people over this. But guys who like because here's the pitch: Do you want to see the streets where Jesus walked? Mm-hmm. Yep. Right. And so we'll do an all expenses paid trip. But then my friends. Who I still love, who are not treating me very friendly, I hear from other sources on the same trip, other friends, they're sitting in the lobby with Yoram Perzoni talking about how Joel Webman is one of the greatest threats, which I'm flattered.

+2 C-4.1 · Acknowledged not knowing about the Hazony claim · Will Chamberlain

I can't speak to that. I don't know.

I'm flattered.

But the point is, you come on this trip, there's no strings attached. There's no— and there's not. There's no piece of paper that says you have to give your first child now to Bibi. But what happens is you go on the trip, you're ingratiated to Yoram, He is a nationalist, right? That's base. All right, we're nationalists. And then if you go on the trip and you do say some nice things, or at least stop saying some negative things, you might get a breakout session at NatCon, right? And NatCon is over here, but then all of a sudden it's in Jerusalem, right?

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-664

And this is the way that it goes.

So now it's like American nationalism, America First, is acceptable, but there still has to be— the only type that's acceptable is one that has a carve-out For only one foreign nation.

↳ P31 raised again here · first raised at U-664

Okay, so let's go forward. Israel admits they're losing their propaganda war. They're the—

I really do need to get in on this. He just came after my employer.

Yeah, it's his employer. I do want to hear his response.

Yeah. Okay. So Yoram Herzog is your boss, right? Yeah. Well, at least like in a small sense, I help out organizing NatCon conferences so I can speak to how we put together panels. You know, the thing is like there's this idea that it's like, oh, you know, we have a very, very diverse— like we brought in, you know, Kurt Mills. to do in foreign policy debate. We've had tons of realists, restrainer skeptics. They come to NatCon because that's part of the NatCon tent. We are not— if you look at our foreign policy panels, I moderated one where we had Arta Moeney and Michael Brendan Doherty. These are restrainer people, people I probably don't really like very much and don't agree with, but we have them because that's part of the tent. And so, The idea that it's like, oh, you show up on one of these trips and all of a sudden it's like, oh, well, if you say the right things about Israel, you get a panel. It's like, no, actually, that's not how it works at all. And a little bit like, I mean, you can, you can say that if you want. It's just I'm there. It's not true.

↳ evidence for the P32 verdict on Joel Webbon · ruling prints at U-672

But isn't it true that it creates contacts they wouldn't ordinarily have? And oftentimes they may reach out and say, hey, I have an opportunity here for you, opportunity there for you. That's the invasiveness of it. Right? It's not just the idea that, oh, you showed up, here's my pro-Israel pamphlet. It has everything you need about all the money we're going to bribe you with. That's absurd, right?

People need to learn and just not be naive, that look at somebody's rhetoric, judge it on is it accurate. And I think we should just get over all this stuff because Israel's allowed to foreign influence. I think everybody should be, as long as you're not buying secrets from the military or intelligence people. and stuff. The US does this everywhere.

Israel— you want other countries to be able to lobby us?

What I'm saying is, let me ask you a question. Yeah. You want Hasan Piker, who is a nasty, horrible, anti-white, anti-Christian, Islamic commie filthbag. Yeah. But I don't want him arrested for that. But why not? What I'm saying is, you said maybe arrest him.

Yes. Yes. Why not? Maybe like get him on the ground and drag his ass to prison.

I love how you did the curb stomp.

I want some ice stomping on you.

I think you're arrested for being a commie, but for being probably a Cuban agent. My point is, I actually agree with you on that, except now you got to arrest Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro because I guarantee you they're getting the money. Hold on. So let's arrest the Cuban message agents and let's arrest— Hold on, John speaks.

I think in the conversation about foreign influence, there's a variable we're overlooking, which is that, you know, is As people involved in politics, we know, like, Politics 101 is always follow the money. The problem we have in the age of technology is that so much of the people we're influencing are themselves foreign. And so we all know as people who maybe have friends in D.C., people in D.C. are actually not motivated by money. They are motivated by— what do they say? Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people. They want to live out their Veep and West Wing fantasy. And so people will be working on the Hill, sharing, like, 6 to an apartment, you know, sleeping on the floor. They will be living in utter squalor simply to be involved in politics, to feel as though they're credentialed. It's the same thing with influencers. A lot of these people are starving, but they continue to do it because the attention they receive— not even necessarily the money, the trips out, but simply the audience that they're cultivating— is largely becoming increasingly foreign. And so as a result, a lot of the talking points we're seeing are becoming increasingly third-world coded, and that's infecting a lot of the right-wing discourse. Everybody in this Everyone in this room ostensibly has an issue with the war in Iran because we want to see the American right succeed.

Right.

We see this as something that's costing us a tremendous amount of political capital and thus makes it harder for the American right to succeed. Sometimes when these influencers get involved in this discourse, they get a little carried away. They want the clicks. They want to be, you know, outlandish. And they get into that kind of harmful, divisive rhetoric that we've been discussing. The problem with that is now all of a sudden you're getting clicks and attention you've never seen before. And they are coming from— they're coming from people in the Middle East, coming from people in Africa, places that have an ethnic grudge to pick with the Israelis.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on John Doyle · ruling prints at U-682

He said he's real. All they want is the fame. And so they're high on it. And so you're right, most of the influencers aren't being paid. They copy what they see being pushed and it's bots and engineered groups doing it. So they're literally just getting this fake currency of numbers that aren't even real.

The most popular political position in the world is that Donald Trump is bad. The second most popular would be Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel are bad. And I think a lot of these influencers who are nominally right-wing, nominally Republican, are cashing in on that incentive to make conditions more difficult for Israel. So how do you thread the needle?

Because I'm mad at Trump for going sideways when we get back. But it's true, whenever I'm doing it, I feel dirty, even though I overall know it's the right thing to do, because it's giving overall support to kind of low-IQ people to get sucked in. to that algorithmic brainwashing system that wants to demonize America in the end once Trump's already gone. And then I get mad at Trump for being not sophisticated enough to see that and buying into Israel that's only thinking one-dimensionally.

I just think that we have to remember the job that we have. You know, again, we are influencers. We are people who broadcast. We are trying to keep the American right level-headed and focused. And we're certainly not trying to advocate for them to burn the whole thing down, which, again, I'm not accusing any of you guys of doing. But that is right now. Obviously, the base is upset. We feel like we've been betrayed with these new wars in the Middle East. I think our job right now is to publicly say, hey, that's so true, that's bad, but look at all these things that are good. And then privately push back, privately take these issues to the administration.

Okay, then why does Trump— I agree with you. If I was, if I was, if I was John Podesta wargaming Democratic Party DNC, if we could hijack Trump's brain for 5 minutes, what would he say? I don't care about any Americans that their financial peril. I only care about war. I don't care about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and childcare. I care about war. Dude, even if you think like that, which I don't, these— I would watch his numbers. I go, he'll go down 5 points on that. He'll go down. I mean, literal seppuku. So you want— I am pissed at Trump for destroying himself. Like, obviously, obviously he's not that stupid. Or maybe he's just gone Megalomaniacal. But what about his administration speechwriters? And high-level people saying that, they know exactly what they're doing. And it makes me mad.

Sure. But there's— wait, sorry. I feel like there's something we're dancing around here, which was the whole point of the question. This is kind of driving me a little bit nuts. There's a split in the conservative movement. We know this. Once— I'm not saying you guys or you guys, but one side of the aisle is saying that the other side is being paid by Middle Eastern countries to push Islamic propaganda.

Orgy of payoffs.

The other side is saying Israel is doing that. And I'm on social media all the time. We're all doing it. Well, I don't see— let me finish, though. I don't see this pro-Islamic propaganda that I keep hearing about. What I do see all the time is copy and paste messages praising Israel or propagandizing on—

+5 R-3.2 · Asymmetric evidentiary bar on pro-Israel versus pro-Islam content · Brandon Straka

Are you talking about the thing that you—

Well, that's what it's—

that's not the only example I've ever seen. I would actually like clarification.

Israel's increased their— increased—

wait a second.

I don't see see the copy and paste. First of all, I don't see any messages saying, you know, siloed to different silos.

↳ P33 raised again here · first raised at U-692

So now hang on. I can explain some of this. Please clear my cookies.

You got to have multiple computers. And I— and I— so you do see it different. I did it well. I think Laura Ingraham is right. Well, no, in general. Oh my gosh, she's a demon. She misrepresents some truths I've got. And I'm going to— is Tucker Carlson being paid by— no, he's not. I know I'm no internet genius, but I knew a long time ago. Here's an example. You know, my wife's sitting there and she goes, my God, these plane tickets are really expensive. I go, clear cookies. Oh my God, they're half the price. So I've got multiple computers, different identities, some fake accounts I use that people don't even know that I have.

I can only imagine what your bedroom looks like.

Well, I mean, I got a bunch of computers. The point is, only because I want to go see— I've got stuff where I click on liberal stuff and do it. I only got a few thousand followers, but I want to be a communist so I can see what commies get. And I've got an account that's a Muslim, and I did all this myself years ago. And then I've got an account, you know, that's a Democrat, and then I've got me, and I've got one where I'm Israeli. And so I want to see the feeds. I'm seeing them all. There is a major Islamic push, and the Jews got caught flat-footed. Now in the last 6 months, they've just hammered in. You're right, you're seeing that.

So I can give— yeah, Alex is right, especially on the last part of what he said. So when you say you don't see the pro-Islam stuff, that's probably just because you've trained your algorithm that way. So the The anti-Islam Christian debaters, which I'm one, we see it all over X, but it's because we're tuned into those Islamic communities. So we see all the influencers on their side, let's say.

And they're attacking back.

Yeah, let's say like Daniel Kakikachu, right? He's a big, you know, pro-Muslim advocate. You'll see—

Sneak up.

Yes, thousands and thousands of posts, right? And a lot of those guys will actually do overlapping. And Kai, you're gonna have to admit that this is true. You'll see the Sneako guys will come over and be like, ah, fuck these Jews, they're destroying everything, they're ruining everything. And yeah, they're all pro-Islam. All of them are pro-Islam. Well, okay, that I agree. And so that's—

↳ P35 raised again here · first raised at U-703

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Andrew Wilson · ruling prints at U-703

And then, oh, now let's kill the Christians next. Yeah, they do.

I don't think of that as a mainstream influencer, but—

You're not— you know, everything that idiot posts gets millions of views.

No, no, no, no. He has a huge audience. I don't think he's a mainstream—

↳ evidence for the P35 verdict on Brandon Straka · ruling prints at U-709

So, Brad has asked about a specific post I made.

Sure.

Right? Like, and you— he went on your show to talk about it, right?

That's true.

It's, uh, the one where I said all this low-IQ antisemitism is turning me into a Zionist.

Yes.

So that's a joke, and the reason it's a joke is because I've been a Zionist the whole time, right? Like, like, I'm kind of pro-Israel. The other things, I do similar jokes.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-376

But the point that's not clear was it was copied and pasted in multiple influencers.

Right, so one of them is Captive Dreamer, whose name is—

he's named after a book written by a former—

so Ian Miles Cheong put the tweet out in the first instance. Captive Dreamer put it out. Captive Dreamer, by the way, is the nom de guerre, or he wrote— that's the book written by a guy who joined the Waffen-SS. So, and he put paid partnership under it.

It was copied and pasted.

Right, it's a joke. It's a meme. I don't know how to explain it. Like, he's—

So you're saying everyone was in on the joke?

↳ evidence for the P34 verdict on Brandon Straka · ruling prints at U-719

That was the joke because everyone was copying and pasting it? I posted Shabbat Shalom paid partnership as a joke, right? Like it's mocking the idea, right? Okay, so that's what this is.

↳ P34 raised again here · first raised at U-718

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Will Chamberlain · ruling prints at U-718

So they don't get it.

Yeah, some people don't. And in fact, somebody just made a meme about it and I see it everywhere. Like, look at all these influencers taking money. But it's a joke.

↳ P34 raised again here · first raised at U-718

That was my point. You see that from the pro-Islam side too. They'll have an inside joke and then 15 of them will post the same thing and then you'll go, look, they're all in cahoots together, right? There is a lot of that that is actually memes and trolling. And then there is some of that that's not. So when you point out the some of it that's not, where it's like, why do all these people have a completely unified message? Sometimes it's not so unified.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-482

Okay.

So let's say, for instance, you have a, um, like a common word. I'll give you an example of this. You remember at the preliminary hearing, which you were at, for Charlie Kirk, people would say overwhelming evidence. It's overwhelming. So what Owens did, she went through, or her people would go through and say, look at all these people who say the evidence is overwhelming. It's like, well, they probably just actually think the evidence is overwhelming, right? It's a very common word. But then you have phraseology that'll come in that's very specific. And people go through and be like, okay, this is the exact same type of phrasing and this kind of thing. And you find out that these accounts are linked. They'll often follow each other around. around. They like each other's posts. Some of these influencers, for instance, who are only X influencers, they can't get 10 people in a live audience on YouTube. They couldn't sell a seat in this room if they wanted to. Well, beyond X, they'll get 10,000 likes on a post because these groups follow each other. One makes a post, all 10,000 of them like it. Another one makes a post. Yeah, they make their own ecosystem.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-482

↳ evidence for the P33 verdict on Gerald Morgan Jr. · ruling prints at U-729

Can I add to that? There is something that we're neglecting as well, which is the existence now of the kind of platforms that allow for the influx of money to pay for specific things. Now, this is things like Influencible. You've got a bunch of others that are cropping up now. Right, right. That is real. And that is where the money gets laundered a little bit, because a lot of these campaigns that you can choose to opt into or not, first of all, there's money associated, of course. And it's actually pretty lucrative. Like, it's not a small amount of money. You could post a single tweet and get a couple hundred dollars. And, you know, what's interesting is there was a campaign that was brought up concerning the merger of Warner Brothers. And it was kind of tangentially related. It wasn't specifically, you have to be against this or pro this. But it concerned the issue in such a way that would provide an advantage to one side or the other. And that's what you have to watch out for. It's very rarely, even when it's laundered, explicitly pointed in one direction.

Exactly. It just creates an astroturf. Well, here's an example.

But here's— well, I do want to add just one more thing. Like, I have never seen one of these campaigns come across through Influencible or some of these platforms I've never seen it be like, and this is why we shouldn't go to war on Iran. I've never seen something like that. I've seen a lot of campaigns where it has been pro-conflict and where it has given an implicit preference to Israel.

↳ evidence for the P30 verdict on Kai Schwemmer · ruling prints at U-732

Israel is losing the PR war, which Trump himself acknowledges. I think still we're focusing too much on the money itself. There has been an effort in the last 3 or 4 years with people like Andrew Tate, his brother Sneako, to make the online right wing, which in fact is a very informs, frankly, the actions of the federal government, something that is at least not hostile to Islam, maybe even sympathetic. We've seen this with the Muslim-Christian Alliance. We've seen this with them giving us permission to laugh at Hitler jokes again. Focusing too much on mass deportations is some kind of psyop to distract you from being drafted to go die in the sand for Israel. This is what young people are tuning into when they are on Instagram and Facebook.

↳ P35 raised again here · first raised at U-703

Sure, well, I'll say this.

This is the conversation.

Nothing hotter than loving Hitler with the young people is totally stupid, and people have already started to it over as they figure out he wasn't this great Christian, he was a loser and a cultist and all the rest of it. And British intelligence didn't control him, but was manipulating him the whole time. And Lord Milner even projected the project to create a Hitler-type character to set up Germany and destroy the German project. And they did it, and total losers. But here's an example. You look up the dark money PACs to— and that's why I was like, oh God, RFK Jr. must be great. And he's gotten some things done, though it's kind of gone sideways, but he's still amazing. It turned out Bill Gates put over $200 million through a couple different dark money groups. You can look this up. We actually discovered it ourselves. Uh, just— I thought, wait, I know that group that's spending money. That's Bill Gates. Look, he's the main contributor. $200-something million just to try to block his nomination. And it wasn't to Congress, it was stories of fake doctors. And they had these online petitions that they themselves were using bots to put fake names on to then deliver to Congress. Here's 100,000 doctors against RFK Jr. That was just one piece of it. Now China's doing it. doing the Confusion Institute and they're like, oh God, no, China's— it's only Israel. It's the same thing. You have Big Pharma. Remember the COVID stuff? I mean, it was billions in propaganda. So I think it's healthy people are learning about this. But it's like people go, oh, I don't hear about cell phones spying on me or the smart meter or my car. It's only Flock. And I'll go on my show and go, no, your phone's even worse. And people are like, you're covering up Flock. We're going to kill you.

Yeah.

So I think people need to understand it's not just Israel.

Unfortunately, the question of who's being paid to push ideas on behalf of whom comes into play with almost every political and cultural topic we engage in. Will, you're going to get picked on one more time.

Oh, God.

Joe Kent.

Another one.

Gerald's going to beat me up.

I recently interviewed you on the Brandon Strock Show, available on YouTube and Rumble on the Brandon Strock channel. And I asked you what you consider to be the most dangerous surveillance threat America The chickens have come home to roost.

Have they?

Right? The jury is back in. It was a mistake.

What do you mean? Hold on, I want to understand.

You said last week it was a mistake.

Everything that Joe Kent said actually panned out and has been fulfilled. So he was right.

Hold on.

What did Joe Kent say would happen?

Mark Levin, that the regime change would cause more problems than good, that it would, it would be this flag rallying. Everything that we've said.

Should we vote Republican?

↳ P36 raised again here · first raised at U-757

If there's a candidate that I don't think is honoring the vision that I want for the country, no.

↳ P28 raised again here · first raised at U-031

God. You guys want to commandeer the party? Fantastic. Get people elected. Show people that you can get people elected. And make sure that they don't have some pie-in-the-sky vision of linking arms with people on the left that would just assume link arms with socialists.

↳ evidence for the P36 verdict on Kai Schwemmer · ruling prints at U-756

And we ain't gonna sit there while Democratic socialists run their revolution. That's what this is about.

↳ evidence for the P36 verdict on Alex Jones · ruling prints at U-757