Identified as a trouble maker by the authorities since childhood, and resolved to live up to the description, Charles Carreon soon discovered that mischief is most effectively fomented through speech. Having mastered the art of flinging verbal pipe-bombs and molotov cocktails at an early age, he refined his skills by writing legal briefs and journalistic exposes, while developing a poetic style that meandered from the lyrical to the political. Journey with him into the dark caves of the human experience, illuminated by the torch of an outraged sense of injustice.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Who is John Barron? by Charles Carreon February 23, 2026
Transcript
Hey there, this is Charles Carreon, and you know sometimes things just can't wait any longer and I've been planning on starting to do some podcasting. So this is the first podcast because you know we're faced with a question of international import. Who is John Baron? No, no, no, don't tell me it's Donald Trump. That is like unacceptable. It makes no sense. And yet, we have all heard the audio and we know it's him. And voice analysis will probably confirm that shortly. I haven't taken the time to use one of the online voice analyzers to do it, but the one in my head is also perfectly adequate. And in fact, being able to recognize the sound of a person's voice in a telephone is admissible evidence. It is direct evidence that is received in every courtroom all the time. So, um, your judgment that Donald Trump is John Barren is perfectly valid and could actually be submitted as evidence court. We have millions and millions, in fact shortly, probably a billion more people who could actually testify that John Beer is Donald Trump based upon their actually at this point expert analysis since we've been listening to that craven [ __ ] up. What is that voice anyway? It's it's like a it's it's like a river of garbage that just keeps flowing endlessly. And uh wow. Now we can see that it's unquestionably flowing from the mind of a person who is uh so unaware of what they are doing that they're just playing scripts that are laying around in their brain. And I I remember when my dad suffered dementia and it took him years to lose his facility with words and his ability to run clever scripts before everyone was able to see that he had dementia. I could see it right away though because I couldn't pick a fight with him. I couldn't get him to argue with me. he he just kind of couldn't do it and he would just revert to proverating and going into some kind of handy theme that I'd heard before. So, it kind of made me sad, but um it sure worked with other people. He was totally capable of carrying on what appeared to be very lucid conversations, but generally speaking, he was dominating them. And he was basically using his uh his skills as a speaker, his eloquence, which was burned into his brain to control the interaction. So people couldn't really, you know, I got to cross-examine an old man who's talking about his memories and stuff like that. it worked great for him for oh I think it was at least 10 years. So I think Trump is deep into that phase if uh uh you know that he's he's got a dementia that uh we can't see because he has so many scripts that he runs and they're just powered by anger. Um they come into play as soon as the stimulus hits and this is what we know is that he cannot control his impulse to respond. Um there's no impulse control and you know impulse control is kind of the core uh of a good person. Uh he doesn't have any at all. There's a uh scene in the end of Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson where there's there's a guy who gets his way by riding around on a motorcycle with a hydrogen warhead in the side car and tattooed on his forehead it says poor impulse control. So, he pretty much gets his way and uh reminds me a lot of Trump. All righty, that was my first podcast. Come visit again.
Did Trump call C-SPAN and claim to be John Barron? Feb 22, 2026
A man named John Barron called into C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” on Friday morning to express his discontent with the Supreme Court’s ruling against President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
Barron was described as a Republican from Virginia, and as he began discussing what he called the “worst decision” the Supreme Court has ever made, his voice sounded remarkably similar to Trump’s. Who is this guy? Could he be Trump himself? You decide!ould he be Trump himself? You decide!
Who is John Barron? Part 2: In which I explain the basic conman technique of accusing others of exactly what you are doing. by Charles Carreon 2/23/2026
Transcript
Hi folks, Charles Carreon again speaking to you about John Barron. The topic continues to fascinate me as I hope continues to fascinate the rest of the world. Obviously jumping right in here if for some reason you haven't heard it before. President Trump called into uh TV show I believe it was and claimed to be John Baron, a person whose name he has invented and used before back in his real estate mogul days. So we're familiar with it. and then proceeded to give his usual set speech of uh hate, bile and deception. Uh which it's like his signature immediately recognizable as recognizable as his signature. And um and of course um the fact that he does this con man trick is uh it's it's kind of hard for people wrap their hands around it. And so I thought I'd talk about my experience with dealing with uh the first con man that I ever met in my legal career or actually had to litigate against which was Steven Michael Cohen who was the man who stole sex.com from Gary Kman. And I started working on the case back in 1999 when domain names weren't even known to be property. It struck me that if there was a domain name that was property, it would have to be sex.com because it was certainly the most valuable domain in the world at that time. So Steve Cohen was smart enough to steal it right after he got out of prison for doing what? Impersonating lawyers. And yeah, literally he uh I I took that position of his wife and she testified that he had a she thought he was a lawyer. He had his closet full of suits and go to court all the time and indeed he did and um he was uh believe convicted of bankruptcy fraud and um as part of that impersonating a lawyer and he was a pretty tough guy to deal with. Uh it was really hard to prevail in court because first of all there's a tendency to believe that people who wear suits and use paperwork aren't intentionally lying. even when they do engage in shady business practices thought to be maybe kind of like exceeding the commercial speed limit but really not like they went out there to cheat people. So it's actually kind of difficult to get over that hump. You really need solid evidence and often it is said that frauds have to be proven with clear and convincing evidence which is a higher standard than sounds likely to me. It's like clear and convincing somewhere more proof than uh than probability than uh likelihood which is what we call preponderance of the evidence which is what will allow you to win a civil suit say for negligence personal injury but fraud a lot of the time does have to be proved higher level of proof well in this case we had all the proof we really needed we had a forged document um that was not written by Gary Kman that purported to give sex.com to Steve Cohen But Steve had a good answer to it and it was that actually um Cohen uh Kreman was the thief. Cohen was the creative guy who picked up the domain name and put it to use. And now Kreman having discovered that what he gave away um was actually worth millions and millions of dollars, he wanted it back. So he was going to steal it back from Cohen through litigation. That was literally his defense. And it's the sort of thing when you're, you know, when your plaintiff's layer on the other side kind of knocks you on your ass. You expect what? My clients honesty is being questioned here. That's it's weird. How could that be? I'm the pliff here. And you really have to gear up to it. And the way we geared up to it was by getting all the evidence of his past criminal conduct and digging into it and undermining his credibility. And Cohen actually eventually collapsed under pressure, made a bad move, stole a bunch of subpoenaed documents from Kinko's down in Chula Vista while they were um being copied and uh misrepres as in himself. And now I'm finally getting around the topic of misrepresenting yourself. He walked into the Kingos and misrepresented himself as one of the other lawyers on Kreman's team, a guy named Rich Diesel from San Francisco. He said, "I'm Rich Diesel. I paid for the documents using my credit card." That was true. Diesel had paid for the documents. So Cohen didn't have to pay the 600 bucks for the big copying cost. And he walks out and the video ultimately that we collect, we police. They put it all together and you see it's him pretending to be Rich Diesel. Picks up the documents, walks out the door, then comes back in the door, grabs an envelope, which he will later use to send the sanitized document stack that he's already gone through to Rich D. Why? so rich can't claim that it was a theft, but the $600 was stolen. And now that I think of it, that was my credit card. And so I called up the police and you know, I said it's a crime. It was investigated. Ultimately, when Judge James Aware saw that video, that was really the end of Steve Cohen's case. As soon as he saw it, basically he transferred the sex.com domain name to very preman immediately became a wealthy pornographer. But um this thing of deception, of pretending to be other people, this thing was Steve Cohen would pretend to be anybody that it was useful to pretend to be. And it happened to be Rich Diesel on that day, but he would pretend to be a lawyer, which he wasn't. and he also would do press releases um under the names of people that either didn't exist or he was not. And sometimes you would do really wild press releases like that would drive the financial markets that would drive traffic to sex.com by all these curious eyeballs. What is sex.com? He would use PR Newswire news releases to publish lies and ultimately I came down with a method for dealing with Steve and it was called take him at his word. So every time he told a lie what we do is we would say if that is true then this this this and this other thing must also be true and we will go search for evidence of those things even though you would think that's a really weird thing to do. Why would you go search for evidence to support the lies that the guy is telling? And the reason is because you're going to not find anything. you're going to find no evidence to support their lives. But you don't get there unless you take their work. So don't get frustrated when you're dealing with a liar. Don't get frustrated with a con man who says you're doing what they're actually doing. Take a look at what they're actually doing. Document it and then ask looking at other facts whether what they're doing actually jives with what they claim to be doing and it'll turn out to be that they're not. And so I've had a kind of a jump start on the entire Trump era and that I'm really familiar with how con think uh the hardest part of dethroning a con really is to overcome that basic skepticism that people have that this person is honest about their dishonest that the basic assumption that we just make. We just make a positive assumption about people because you know what mostly in life we have not been ripped off and betrayed. I have a saying. It says, you know, nothing goes wrong until something goes right. And that simply means that nobody will bother to steal your [ __ ] until you have it. And then the second apherism is it's too late when the blood is in the water. And I think that kind of explains itself. Once you've started bleeding, once you've started losing, the sharks are going to kick you. It's too late. So you really got to prevent yourself from injured. And so what that means is when something's going right, you got to protect it. If you're finally getting rich, that stack is now in danger like it never was before because it didn't exist before. And you need to start thinking in terms of the old saying, if you wish for peace, prepare for war. for war. Prepare for war. As soon as you've got something good in the United States of America, the presidency, well, for the possessor of it, it is a very good thing. And we can see what's happening. We didn't protect it. Congress didn't protect it. Politicians didn't protect it. No one really protected that presidency from being stolen. And like the Daqing says, a mass store of golden jade and no one can protect well store golden jade. That's trivial treasure compared to what President Trump and uh I think this John Baron episode must not be forgotten. We have to keep talking about it. And I just wanted to eliminate this other side of it that this business of being John Baron part of Trump's longstanding method of deceiving us all. So, have a good day.
WAPO Win in Natanson Warrant Case Holds Important Lessons for Visionary Religion Lawyers by Charles Carreon 2/25/26
Transcript
Good afternoon. It's February 25, 2026 and this is Charles Carreon and I am here in Silver City, New Mexico to talk about law and policy and uh visionary medicine and uh search warrants and the Department of Justice. And uh let me uh start out by sharing my screen with you here. Let's see the screen. Here we go. Done it last. All righty. Federal judge rejects government's request to search Washington Post reporters devices. And uh this pretty much tells a story uh that uh federal judge rejected the Department of Justice's demand to continue its search of a Washington Post reporter's phone and other electronic devices for information that might help an FBI investigation into the leaking of classified information. So, uh, this is another case of the, uh, DOJ managing to get in trouble with the federal judge basically because, as we're going to discover, they just don't care about following the law and very likely really just don't know what they're doing. They're embroiled in ethical misconduct everywhere. And the reason is pretty simp. They have fired or seen most of the smart lawyers at the DOJ league because anyone smart is not going to work in a slave factory um where you're forced to lie to judges and you don't even get to have the dignity of being an honest advocate. Um, it takes a stupid not very, you know, intelligent person to think that that's the right way to conduct a law practice. And so that's really all they've got left at the DOJ. I mean, I'm sure there are some people with brains and no ethics, but that's kind of a rare combination actually. Ethics leads to intelligent conduct and intelligent conduct always suggests ethical approaches. So, um, where are we going to start out? Well, I'm going to tell you, um, what happened here. I've got some notes that I'm going to refer to. What happened was, um, January 8th, 2026, the Department of Justice charged a man named Perez Lugones. that's just his last name, Perez Lugones, arrested him and charged him with unlawful retention of defense information. And then 4 days later on January 12th, they went to the court and they said they needed to search Nathansson's house and seize all of her devices. And because there was information about her communications with Mr. Perez Lugones, why would she have communications with him? because she has assiduously cultivated informant relationships on the um r/fed news subreddit on Reddit and has actually contacted 1,200 leakers who are communicating with her or have been communicating with her via signal. And so apparently this is one person um who is the government claims um has leaked information to Miss Nathansson who is a Washington Post reporter. Um the judge denied the uh search warrant because you know as usual the Department of Justice doesn't really have control of its case anymore. or they just have to rush ahead and do whatever the crazy man at the top of the heap is shouting about today in his orange rage. And um so the warrant is rejected and the next day they try again. They be in heavier people and it's rejected again. Then the judge, the magistrate judge, too kindly, altogether too kindly, spends five hours going back and forth with these guys and finally issues a search warrant with very specific limits to only information about Mr. Pettis Lugonus's communication from October 1, 2025 to the present. So basically, what's up? It's about a 5-month period about one man. What do they do? Well, they execute that search warrant and um they uh seize basically all of her laptops, her phones, everything. Put her completely out of business. All of her sources go silent and therefore Pam Bondi accomplished her goal. She destroyed Miss Nathansson's ability to communicate with,200 informants. They're not coming forth anymore. So mission accomplished and when you think that there's a victory here well well there is but only to the extent that we can start getting the department of justice to behave justly because that is not what it is about and you know that I know that the uh department of justice lawyers and are then uh contacted by the Washington Post lawyers they talk for six days DOJ guys are never able to do a deal because they don't have any authority. So, they can't agree on anything. They refuse to hold off on searching the materials any further. Washington Post lawyers go to the court and invoke uh a important search warrant case from the fourth circuit and get a standstill order and apparently the government complies with it. A standstill order meaning don't look at anything. So then the arguments are joined and what happens? Well, let's go ahead and take a share of the article it of the uh court ruling. Where is it's not showing up. Maybe if I open it in a tab that will probably doesn't want to see it in Adobe. So sorry guys. Okay, there we go. Now we should be able to see it for you. Okay. So, share away and screen share. There we go. Okay, folks. So, taking a look here at the screen share. We've got the basic facts that we just went through. And now we'll go down to the point where the judge starts blowing up because it's worth giving it to him verbatim. These are all the facts that I just went through. And here we go. And so then the judge goes through the arguments of both parties. The government of course says it can keep everything and that their lawyers can sort through anything it needs to be sorted through. And of course the Washington Post lawyers say no um you just give it back to us and we'll comply with this subpoena that you sent to the Washington Post. And um so those are basically the arguments that are posed. And then of course there's the alternative of having the judge go through the files and not letting the Department of Justice do it because they can't be trusted. And ultimately uh you know no suspense here. That's how the judge rules. But um let's take a look at this part before reaching the merits. The court addresses a matter of significant concern. the government's failure to identify and analyze the privacy protection act of 1980 in its search warrant application. Okay. And so he says I had never received the court had never received such an application. In other words never received a search warrant application to uh search a reporter and was unaware of the PPA. Okay. I just want to do a quick little experiment and see how it goes if we just go directly over to Chat GPT and I'm going to share a different page with you now. Just go over to chat and see what happens. I haven't tried this. Um, see what happens if we ask it. As a federal law expert, please identify any statutes that regulate the DOJ's use of warrants to seize information and property from reporters, journalists. Let's just uh Okay, let's see what happens. Let's see if the judge could have figured this out using chat GP. There we go. It's working away. Yep, there it is. Pops up right away. Important statutes like the Privacy Protection Act. Okay, so here the judge, magistrate judge probably got himself. He's got he's probably got three really smart clerks, you know, them basic stuff. So, uh there you go. uh just assuming that a judge is going to research the law just because it's search warrant application. That's a big assumption to make and apparently not a safe one. So, uh let's go back to the opinion because it's it's filled with juicy stuff and go back to the opinion. Yeah, you can learn something by reading them. And what do I want to learn here? Well, I want to learn what they did that was so bad. Okay. And what they did is right here. The PPA, the Privacy Protection Act, is directed at government lawyers in its terms require the attorney general to issue regulations. Oh, wow. They already issued them. Look, they're here at 28. Go to federal regulations. 50.1083. Gee, you'd think they might know that. and the Department of Justice Manual 913 for Oh gosh, just how can you help but want to look that up, you know? Give me a second here. So, let's find our Justice Manual. Take a look at that. Oh, look at this. Obtaining evidence. There it is. It's right in here. So, let's switch you over here and let's take a look at it. Here we go. See, they have a whole manual over at the Department of Justice. Thing is, they don't like to read it. And so what did we learn? We're supposed to be looking at 9-13400. So that's not very hard to do. Here it is. G whole code federal regulations and justice department manual section. obtaining information from or records of members of the news media and questioning, arresting or charging members of the news media. The purpose of these regulations is to strike the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information, the public's interest in effective law enforcement, and the fair administration of justice. Under this policy, the department will continue to limit the use of compulsory legal process recognizing that investigative techniques relating to news gathering are an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort once essential to a successful investigation or prosecution. So let's ask ourselves how they did in reaching the balance. What did they do? They were looking for information about one leaker who had been criminally charged. So they seized all of her computers, all of her phones, all of her written work, and put her completely out of business. So it would seem to me that they got that policy completely upside down. They have caused huge harm to obtain a tiny bit of evidentiary benefit in one case. What we see here is um as I said a lawless department of justice that is bent upon what they've already accomplished here which is to silence leakers and to intimidate the press so that they don't pursue these kinds of stories. And it didn't work. Um, the judge was quite disturbed by it, who's quite upset by the shenanigans they pulled. And I'm going to take a look at another source of info here for me. Get you some quotes from the judge. They tell him, "Oh, we we didn't we didn't know either." And um, this judge says, "How could you miss it? How could you think it didn't apply? And how what effect did it have on the case?" It judge said this omission this failure to tell me about the privacy protection act has seriously undermined the court's confidence in the government's disclosures. And the third one the court finds that seizing the totality of a reporter's electronic work product constitutes a restraint on the exercise of first amendment rights and nothing like a good cliche to uh wrap up the analysis. the equivalent letting the government um look through the documents without any control over that is the equivalent of leaving the government's Fox in charge of the Washington Post's hen house. So um the uh judge was not pleased. It caused them to lose this. This was called a 41G motion under the rules of federal criminal procedure and it allowed them to dig into the honesty or dishonesty um of the FBI agent who swore out the affidavit. Now, I'm going to segue over into a topic of my own interest, which is visionary religion. And um I'm going to discuss how the visionary religion community suffers from the same types of abuses that Nathansson suffered in this case. Now what happens in your average case that involves a visionary religion practitioner? they um usually um end up having their home searched because they ordered some vegetable substance from Peru or Colombia, usually Peru. And it might be Iawaska, it might contain a little bit of DMT, it might be cocoa leaves. Um it uh let's just say it's one of those. And so both of those are scheduled controlled substances. Um IA is contains a controlled substance is dimethylryptamine and therefore the government considers it a controlled substance even though Iaska itself isn't on the list but DMT is. So what happens is the government gets a search warrant. The postal uh letter carrier comes, delivers the item and that is surveiled and then the police swoop in and they say they have accepted the contraband. They come in, they search the entire home. And this happened recently to a client of mine in California and the amount of of contraband seized was ridiculously small. was just absolutely absurd. Um and it uh immediately brought um law enforcement in the homes of these people. They were threatened with, you know, of course, weapons and and uh cross-examined about everything they do in their own home and forced to give up information about their friends and uh forced to go through the contents of their cellular phone, open it up and allow these DHS Straightly speaking, it you don't need to open your phone. Just remember that you're not required to unlock your phone. Call me. Um, but it it uh it uh put me in a situation where on behalf of another client who was implicated by the statements of these folks whose house was searched, we had to reach out to DHS on their behalf and tell them to not pull the same trick with my my client, the client who had not been searched. And uh because uh why? Because like there is a privacy protection act that is intended to protect reporters. There is a religious freedom restoration act that is intended to pract protect the practitioners of visionary religion. It's the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it provides that you shall have a defense to federal criminal charges of importing or trafficking or manufacturing or distributing under the Controlled Substances Act. if you're a sincere religious practitioner and this is a practice that you engage in as part of your religious free exercise, your right of free exercise. And so I wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security agents and I copied 13 San Francisco um Department of Justice attorneys via email and I had it delivered to each of them personally at their Golden Gate office there in downtown San Francisco advising them of the existence of RFA. Good idea since you know the ones who are searching reporters houses don't know there's a PPA. Well, you might as well tell the ones who are chasing after visionary religion practitioners that there is a law applicable to that. And then I provided some information showing that indeed this contraband substance is used for ceremonial purposes and therefore you have to tell all this to the judge. If you don't tell it to the judge, then after you get your warrant, what'll do we do? We'll move filing what's called a Frank's motion under the federal rules of criminal procedure. And the Frank's motion will allow us to inform the magistrate or the judge who issued the search warrant that the government's agents lied to them that they were in bad faith that they either concealed relevant facts or relevant law as the attorneys did. In this case, the FBI agent probably didn't have to do much lying. It was the deception by the attorneys and not telling the judge about the Privacy Protection Act. And that deception occurs routinely in all of these drug interception cases. And attorneys for visionary religion practitioners need to know how to attack unlawful search warrants just like the Washington Post lawyers did here in Nathansson's case and got a good result. So, uh, thank you for listening and, uh, please come back. um follow whatever you're supposed to do to uh make this podcast uh be a regular thing that you do. Um please do that. And um we really appreciate your visit and we'll see you again
Tucker Carlson vs. Mike Huckabee by Charles Carreon 2/26/26
Corrections: 1. "Spy" = Jonathan Pollard; 2. met Pollard in U.S. embassy, not Israeli; 3. "Israel," not "Egypt" gets all the land.
Transcript
Hi folks, it's February 26, 2026. I'm Charles Carreon and I am here to deliver the verdict. Today we're going to be talking about the encounter between Tucker Carlson and Mike Huckabee in the diplomatic center in the Tel Aviv airport. And Tucker's presentation of it starts out with his loud complaints about the thuggery of the intelligence agents there at the airport who made him and his staff miserable and basically threatened them with not being able to leave the country and uh interrogated them at length about the very interview that they had conducted. Like there really isn't a free press there, that's for sure. And Tucker put Mike Huckabee on hotspot several times. I think the first question that he landed him with was, "Will you ask Israel to stop sheltering pedophiles, indicted fugitives and sex criminals who flee the United States and take refuge in the state of Israel from which they apparently have no fear of being extradited?" And so he just point blank said, you know, are you willing to go and talk to your friends here in the Israeli government and ask them to return some of these sex criminals? And his response was, and he looks very patriarchal now, he grew a nice little gray rug on his face, and so he looks like he's kind of thinking of himself as a patriarch here. And then when you hear him, there's no question about it. And so he was completely unhelpful. He basically said, "No, I wouldn't do that. I don't have any objection to it. Sure, fine. Just flip send them all back. But adopting no personal interest, showing no compassion for the fact that these are people who have victims in the United States who are waiting for justice. And h he's really good. Huckabee is really good at claiming not to know stuff. He just does it with this manner that's like I can't know everything and you know, I just don't happen to know that. But you know, Tucker's all prepared with the facts and feeds them to him and tells him the one about the Israeli diplomatic core guy,, or at any rate important guy in Vegas. He goes and commits some kind of sex crime. At least he's indicted for it. And then he flees to Israel. I'm not giving all the details. It was all in the news. I mean, many of us read it. You probably did. But not Huckabee. And you just can't get Huckabee to rise to debate. Nope. Nope. Don't know anything about that. Can't can't express an opinion about something if I can't verify the facts myself. He very loyally dodged. He deploys again and again. And basically then he says, "Yeah, it's up to the Department of Justice." You know, like apparently he hasn't heard that Pam Bondi is protecting dozens, maybe hundreds of identified sex criminals who were known to her and Kash Patel through the Epstein files. And he's completely naive about what this Department of Justice is doing. He's like ambassador leave it to the DOJ. Then Tucker asked him about the 200 dead journalists that have been killed by the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, the I think of them as the Einsatzen group because the Einsatzen groupin were the particular Nazis who were charged with exterminating Jews in Eastern Europe and you know they seem to have adopted the same policies, seem to adopt the exact same tactics. IDF clearly is an army seeking to exterminate. Many of us expect that they will resume that effort and pursue it in alternative forms. But in any event when asked about the 200 dead journalists his response response that they weren't really all journalists that lots of them were terrorists and that was shown and proven and I just really have a hard time just intuitively I mean if you were a terrorist, right, they might even know your face, would you go out there on the front lines and wear a press pass or would you rather do what they usually do which is hide in the shadows, and shoot from secrecy, and retreat back into the tunnels. I thought that was the methodology for terrorism. I didn't think hanging a press pass around yourself and standing right out there where the snipers are plugging away, that just doesn't seem like a terrorist tactic to me. I mean, what's the point? But he took that line and of course we know that's just a talking point that is put out by the Netanyahu government and is just a lie. Real journalists are being killed. Totally dodged the question, didn't even answer it effectively. Then he asked him why he sought clemency for, and I don't even remember this guy's name, the most famous spy for Israel [Jonathan Pollard] who gave away precious military secrets and was indicted and was serving I believe a life sentence certainly longer than he did serve because his pals including Mike Huckabee went to bat for him and asked that he be given clemency. But when asked about this, it's like, you know, hey, God been in prison a long time. I figured things were better for him. And then Huckabe met with him in the Israeli [U.S.] embassy. Met with him twice and met with him and he's like, "Oh yeah, cuz I you know, his wife died, says Huckabe, his wife died." And you know, I said I I I expressed my condolences. And then he asked if he could meet me personally to express his thanks. So we just had an official visit at the embassy. Nothing secret about that because you know the embassy is a public place. There's marines everywhere. You know it's just porous. You know what happens in the embassy is known to all. I Carlson didn't confront him on the absurdity of that and and the fact that secret meetings are held at the embassy all the time and that the CIA often operates out of the embassy and has its own office there you know and certainly what they are doing is not known to the public. asked him if he'd uh what what his opinion was about the the IDF killing children, you know, and he was very specific, you know, 14year-old boy. And uh and um you know, Hakabe's approach was simply, well, you know, if they're out there endangering the lives of IDF soldiers, then um you know, well, let God sort them out. Well, he didn't say let God sort them out, but that's basically what he said. He he just put it on God. literally said, "Well, you know, if if they that's the situation, then, you know, God help him, you know." So, it doesn't sound like Hakabe was going to help him at any rate. And God, you know, kind of thinly represented there in the Middle East. We just don't see his hand in operation. You know, if it that's the hand of mercy doesn't seem to be there. And I thought his compassion was repellent. He often tried to pretend like he really cared about everybody. And I mean very preacherly and lawyerly to the point of like wa say all the right words and espouse all the uncompassionate positions. He parroths Bible wisdom uh in support of Israel's right to be there um and own this land. And it's at this point that Tucker gets really interesting and focuses on something that I think, you know, we should should all think about, which is why, first of all, why is the United States, just to put it very simply, damned financially and militarily generous with the state of Israel when the United States is in a tough financial condition? Oh well, that's the perfect opportunity for Huckabe to booster support the chief and Trump has made it all better. Our economy is so great now we have nothing to worry about. And oh, and he raises Tucker raises the issue. Well, well, you know, basically if we initiate a war with Iran, which only 20% of Americans want, basically because Netanyahu is demanding it, what's it going to do to our economy when Iran closes the straight of Hormuz? Well, that won't affect us at all, says Hak, because Trump has made everything better because we have energy independence. Tucker's like, "You think America's sets oil prices worldwide is you think Saudi oil production being taken out of, you know, Emirates production? You know, he names off these Gulf States, you know, is you you you think that we can just bounce over that up, you know, it's all good with him. You know, he just get out that MAGA flag and and he's comfortable there. Nothing to fear. War? No, no problem. No problem. Just have that war, you know." He's like, and Net, you know, doesn't want the war. And then he plays all these cute little games that it's like, you know, we don't want war. Why would I want war? He says, you know, I'll be right here on the front lines. You know, it's like, yeah, under the Iron Dome, dude. You know, we know. It's like, you have everything lined up in your head in a way that uh is just perfect for Mr. Netanyahu. I'm sure that he is watching this interview with total approval. And so it's great to be Israeli. I mean, from the perspective of your free health care, you know, and all of the other social benefits, the excellent infrastructure that is all being paid for by American tax dollars. It's a really good deal to be an Israeli. So Hucker says, "What's it take to be one?" Well, let me cut to the chase. Hakabe never is clear at all. This is if you're talking about immigration like keeping in and letting in the right people and keeping out the people who were not supposed to be Israelis. His his definitions do no good. He said it could be either due to your ethnic origin or due to your language or due to your religious belief. But if you have the right ethnic origin, which somehow strangely enough in Netanyahu's case is Eastern European ability to speak Hebrew until he learned it as a part of the Israeli regimen, which was to recreate, rebreathe life into a dead language called Hebrew, which had been completely supplanted in European fury by something called Yiddish, which has now been extinguished. So the linguistic connection is non-existent. It's like really just been created after the fact as part of dressing up the state of Israel as historically entitled to the land that it is actively stealing. And of course we know that uh you know in the in the latter part of the interview I mean everybody's heard it. The big headline is that Huckabe would be just fine with Egypt [Israel] taking over all the land that is designated in the Bible as having been theirs. You know, a rank absurdity and and he just goes along with it. So, we know that being Israeli and being the nation of Israel from his point of view is the most advantaged citizenship and nation that you could have. And there's no definition for how you get to be an Israeli that really makes any sense at all. And there's nothing that legitimizes Israel as a nation except for the fact that the United Nations in Declaration 42, I believe it was, forgive me if I'm wrong, but in any event, in a declaration made by what? The major powers who won the war against Germany and Japan. They were the ones who made that happen. And why did they create the state of Israel? So it could take the place of the exiting British and French forces that until that time had kept a colonial grip on the area and in order to deal with what happened in the Middle East, which is that these nations remanifested their authority and they had to be countered on the part of Western American and European forces. The Arab states, the new Gulf states who are emerging in their power had to be countered with a powerful military force, a government force and that is the state of Israel. And whether that was the intention from the very beginning or just evolved into the strategy, I could not tell you. But clearly at this point that is what has occurred is that Israel is not only the counterweight but now during the Trump administration has become the launching pad for expansionist American military activity which the next stage of god forbid maybe the attack on Irma and about that as I said hucks no problem uh it'll it'll cause us no economic hiccups and um it'll it just what has to happen. You know, just what has to happen. And Israel's special status with respect to the United States is, I think, the thing that Tucker harps on the most. shows us that the American ambassador to Israel is completely on the side of Israel's expansionist tendencies and will have nothing to the contrary to say in fact will be an agent for convincing people in the United States that we should continue to coddle Israel and its citizens even as it has turned into a clearly racist state on some bizarre basis of who is entitled to live there. Engaging in an ethnic cleansing campaign against the native peoples who definitely lived there for at least hundreds of years before and taking that ethnic cleansing to the level of attempted genocide. If we think of genocide as the completed act of actually exterminating a peoples and not just the act of intending to do so. And so I see Huckabee as a corrupt, foolish man, impressed with his own sense of holiness and gentility. And it is a very sad thing really to see a man's mind turned into an agent of evil and yet appearing grandfatherly, gentle, kind, presenting an attitude and words of compassion. So I would just say not that my you'll ever hear it from me but you ought be thinking about what you going to tell your maker about this you're pulling down here dude because if you seriously believe you're going to meet him if I were you I would not be too comfortable about things. All right. And that's the verdict.
Tucker Confronts Mike Huckabee on America’s Toxic Relationship With Israel Tucker Carlson Premiered Feb 20, 2026 The Tucker Carlson Show
The Mike Huckabee interview, and the truth about America’s deeply unhealthy relationship with Israel
Why We Were Interrogated in Israel
We're about to play you an interview we did with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabe two days ago in Israel. In general, it's never worth talking about the backstory behind an interview. It's kind of not the point. It makes it about the interviewer, not the person being interviewed for one thing. For another, it's not that interesting most of the time. Um, and for another, it's kind of off the record. you know, the other person hasn't consented to you telling the story. So, in general, we don't do that. Who'd want to hear that? Let the interview speak for itself. But in this case, we want to tell you just a few things about how this interview came about because they are pretty interesting, revealing, and now weirdly relevant apparently. So, this interview with Mike Huckabe came about a couple of weeks ago um on Twitter. One of our producers showed me, he said something to the effect of, "You're talking to Middle Eastern Christians, Tucker Carlson. Maybe you should talk to me. Why don't you come do an interview?" And I paused for a minute. I thought in the past about trying to interview Mike Huckabe, whom I've known for over 30 years and worked adjacent to at Fox and I had mixed feelings about it. Um, mostly because it's hard if you're me to interview Mike Huckabe because of just the personal affect. to my cuckabe is jovial, comes off as friendly. He's a grandfather when annoyed. I can be nasty in interviews. And so it's it takes a lot of self-control to interview someone like Mike Huckabe. Not not cuz I hate him, but because it's hard to ask him tough questions and not come off as a jerk, which I often am. So, but I thought in this case, yeah, I should definitely do this. Um, for a bunch of different reasons. mainly the United States is moving toward a big war, a real war with Iran, a regime change war. Um, the biggest war we've had since the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003. And Israel is driving that. We are doing this at the behest, at the demand of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So, it seems like now is the time for more Americans to understand the dynamic between the US and Israel and to call attention to that. And for another, Huckabee's behavior in the last year in Jerusalem as the ambassador has been very very striking. He famously had a meeting with the most damaging spy in American history. Um, and why did he do that? He hadn't been asked uh by anybody up until two days ago, why did you do that? So, I I wanted to be able to ask him that. Um, and so we accepted and then began the usual negotiations about when and where the interview would take place. And we were constrained because we weren't expecting this. We wanted to do it quickly, but we had tons of travel. So, we threw them a date, them being the American embassy, uh, we can do it on this date. And they were very accommodating. And then the question became, well, where do we do it? And maybe a Christian holy site. We said, we've got to get in and out really quick. Got to be back to do a bunch of other interviews, but we've got this time frame. They said, "Well, why don't you do it at the US embassy or maybe we set that?" Great. US embassy. So, the US embassy is about an hour 55 minutes from the big airport in uh Israel, Bengarian. So, we said, "Okay, what about security?" Now, at this time, the Israeli government, the prime minister included, were attacking me in this show. Netanyahu suggested I was a Nazi, uh, for example. And so, we thought, you know, how about security? Obviously, um not because the Israeli government necessarily would do something bad, but because there are a lot of people in Israel who think because they've been told, you know, that I'm an anti-semite or a Nazi or want to kill Jews, this kind of crazy overstatement. Um all untrue, obviously. Uh but it would be good to have security. And I should say, uh having done interviews on six out of seven continents over 35 years, I'm not very security conscious at all. never really feel uncomfortable, but this seemed like a a prudent thing to do. So, we were told by the embassy spokesman, "No, we're not going to provide security." And so, we said, "Okay, I guess we'll get private security, but could we get someone from the embassy to ride in the car with us from the airport to the interview?" And we were told, "No, could we get what they call a control officer, just an American with us, an offic, you know, in an official capacity as a embassy employee with us?" No. quote, "For legal reasons, we can't do that." So, I thought, "Well, that's very strange." And then they said, "But instead, we're turning you over to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, MFA, and they're going to arrange everything in Israel." Well, this was within 24 hours of the Deputy Foreign Minister, Sharon Haskell, releasing a video calling me an anti-semite and an enemy of Israel. This was the person who the embassy was telling us was going to handle all of our travel. So it was at this point that I just called I called the spokesman from for the US embassy in Israel and I said okay I'm an American citizen responding to an invitation from the American ambassador to Israel and by the way I'm the son of US ambassador so I have some sense not an expert obviously but I have some sense of how this works and I think that the US ambassador has discretion to send somebody from his office to the airport to accompany someone in. I think that's right. And if it's not right, tell me what law you're talking about, what legal reason you're talking about that would prevent that. And now you're sending me over to a government official who's been calling me a Nazi. That's the person in charge of getting us to the embassy. Like, what is going on here? And the embassy spokesman, who's totally nice, said, "Well, this was the decision of someone called David Brownstein. He's the DCM, the number two guy in the embassy." And I said, "Well, put him on a text exchange. Like, what is going on here?" And so Branstein got on and didn't answer the question, but basically said, well, okay, let's just do the interview at the airport in the diplomatic reception area at the airport. Okay. I said, um, we're going to be flying in from Europe, uh, and we had to be in and out really quickly, so at great expense, we chartered a plane, which I never do cuz I'm cheap. Um, but we did. And so then I said to them, "Okay, I want to send you uh the flight information, tail number, flight number, route, um and I want you to pass that on to the Israeli military just so you know they don't mistake us for an Iranian drone or something." I mean, not to be paranoid, but again, this is probably the most violent country in the world, Israel. Is there a country in the world where a higher percentage of the population has held a gun or shot someone? I mean, I don't know the answer, but this is a country uh famously waging a sevenfront war with all of its neighbors, you know. So, this is also the country that bombed the USS Liberty knowing, we know this from NSA intercepts, that it was an American ship. So, don't, you know, just send the military our flight information and uh, you know, we can all just sort of know it's on the record and we can all calm down a little bit. No, they said the US embassy said, "No, this is your flight is not a a matter of concern to the Israeli military." I said, "Okay, now now you're making me uncomfortable. Isn't the airspace of Israel the purview of the Israeli military? Aren't they in charge of maintaining the integrity of their airspace? When you fly over the country of Israel or any country, its military keeps track of you because that's their job. So, why wouldn't you send our flight information to the Israeli military? You're making me nervous. I sent this exchange. I took a a screenshot of it and sent it to a bunch of people, including in the US government um because I'm not a paranoid person and I'm not a jumpy person. I said, "Is this weird behavior?" Yeah, it's really weird behavior. All of them said that. So, I got pretty aggressive and just said, "Look, you got to do this." Okay. and they to their credit got back to us and said yes we will we will do that but I just thought that was completely bizarre and menacing by the way now at the same time and I think this is relevant certainly it goes to motive I was attempting to set up a meeting as I have been for the past 3 months with the prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu who I've dealt with a lot in the past um and who denounced me as a Nazi uh in public a member of the woke reich And why was I trying to do that? Not an interview. I knew he wouldn't sit for an interview. Um but I wanted just to meet with him in person. One, to show that I'm willing to go to Israel. I don't hate Israel as a country. Um but two, just to to say directly to him, this is bad. This should be deescalated. This kind of rhetoric doesn't help anybody. Calling people calling me specifically a Nazi and an anti-semite when you know that I'm not. By the way, if I was, I would just admit it. I've said many times, I think anti-semitism is immoral. It's against my religion, just as hating any group on the basis of their bloodline is immoral.
So I really pushed hard for this meeting and I called a lot of people who know him and who are in regular contact with him. In fact, I went to go see some of those people directly. Please, can you help me get a sit down for 5 minutes with Benjamin Netanyahu and I probably called or met with six, seven, eight, maybe more people on this question. People in official capacities, people in the Israeli government. I know I know a number of people in the Israeli government, people in Israel, a friend of mine in California who knows him. I mean, I really really tried and I did so for two reasons. Um, one, because there was a threat to my family, uh, the Israeli government and Netanyahu himself tried to punish two members of my family. I won't be more specific, but actually punish two members of my family because he, as he has said in public many times, believes in blood guilt. Amalecch. You know, when someone commits a crime against you, you punish not just him, but his family, his bloodline. There's no idea that's less western than that, more anti-Christian than that. Christians reject that. Um Netanyahu doesn't. That's why he's talking about Amalcch. And he was going after my family, literally. Uh so I felt very threatened by that. But moreover, I think it's bad for my country to have people using that kind of language. Round them up, bring them to the camps, gas chambers, Nazis, anti-semitism. It scares the heck out of people. It makes people crazy and hysterical. And certainly in my case, none of that is true. I hate collective punishment. I hate attacking people on the basis of their bloodline. I hate anti-semitism and anti-white racism and all of this, any kind of racism, period. And I've said that a lot. So using that kind of language against someone who is not fundamentally your enemy who just in my case I want Christians in areas controlled by Israel to be treated with dignity to have rights and I don't want the US government involved in a war a regime change war with Iran. Those are my priorities and I've said them out loud. I have no secret agenda. So to attack me as a Nazi for saying that suggests a total unwillingness um to compromise. You know, anyone who doesn't agree with us 100% must be destroyed. His family must be attacked. My family um and must be written off as a Nazi. Well, when you do that, it makes people hysterical. It increases the temperature to a point that, you know, someone's going to get hurt if you keep talking that way. And it's just bad. It's bad for the United States. it's bad for the world. So, I wanted to deliver that message. Um, I finally wind up wound up talking to a guy called Yorum Hazonei who is an Israeli who famously organizes uh the American conserv national conservatism conferences. And I said to him, look, you're having a national conservatism conference in Jerusalem uh this summer. You asked me to speak at the first, I think the first national conserv conservatism conference in the United States and I did. Obviously, I believe in national conservatism, America first. I think every nation should put its own people first. That's why you have governments. Um, and I would like to speak at this one. And moreover, I would like you to ask your friend Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with me. And we had this sort of long back and forth. And it was, "No, you cannot speak at the National Conservatism Conference because you're an anti-semite." "No, I'm not." I said, "Yes, you are," he said. And I said, "Well, I really would like to speak to BB to kind of deescalate this." and he said, uh, it would not be in his political interest to meet with you. That's almost verbatim what he said. Uh, therefore, no. So then I realized, you know, you're dealing with people who are unreasonable, who are inflexible, who are in fact fanatical. Uh, and then add to that, of course, that my tax dollars are paying them. You know, it's all pretty distressing. So that was the backdrop um behind our very brief and highly intense trip to Israel. So we show up on Wednesday, fly in from Europe again at great expense. Um and show up at the diplomatic terminal of Bengurian airport where this interview is going to take place which is bizarre in itself. Filthy building. The windows are so dirty in the terminal you can't see out them barely. There's like exposed drywall. The whole thing is depressing and grim. There's litter outside. Like what is this? This is the diplomatic terminal in Israel. Um I thought that was very strange having been in a lot of diplomatic terminals. I've never seen a rattier one. We go in and Huckabe's there and of course he's totally friendly as he always is. um very very friendly guy and uh cheerful and we sort of chat and the whole place is filled with these guys in t-shirts, thuggish looking guys in t-shirts who are some kind of security. So we do the interview, you're about to watch it. Um it's very long at 2 and a half hoursish and I try my hardest to be friendly. Uh I think I kind of succeeded. You can judge for yourself. Um, but you I really got the sense and again you can decide as you watch it that uh Huckabee was not well able to answer any of the questions um but also not really in charge. You really got the feeling of a guy sort of trying his best to to repeat the talking points but very constrained like unable to say certain things not because those things might harm the interest of the US government. He was happy to attack, for example, the US military and say they're more brutal than the Israeli military. Okay. Um but unwilling to say certain things because they might reflect poorly on the Israeli government. And you sort of thinking about this for a second. You're like, "Wait, you're the US ambassador. You're our representative to a foreign country. Why is your red line criticism of that country? Shouldn't you be representing us?" And it was very obvious he was representing the Israelis. Obvious. And again, you can judge for yourself. But anyway, so we do this interview. It was cordial. And at the end, uh, we're set to fly out. We have a time. We have to get out. And the plane is sitting right outside. And we're ready to go. And for some reason, the Israelis still have our passports. There are five of us um there. And four of us are flying out on this plane. One's flying out commercial with our gear. So my business partner and I were standing there. We we've never left the airport, never went anywhere. But our two producers have spent the night in the night before in Tel Aviv, and they're called into rooms and given the third degree. Now, keep in mind, they're about to get on a plane and leave. In fact, we're late. We have to get out of there. We have a slot to get out. And security, whoever this is, won't won't let them go. So, I don't really know what's going on at this point. I'm like, "Where are our guys? We got to get out of here." So, one of them comes out and he says, "That was the weirdest experience of my life. They asked me questions about the interview. Who did you speak to?" Keep in mind, this was like 8 ft from where we did the interview. Well, the US ambassador Mike Huckabe, what did you talk about? Why did you ask those questions? Was it a hostile interview? Of course, everything in the diplomatic terminal is taped. Everything in Israel is taped. It's a police state. It's a surveillance state. Obviously, you go to Israel, they put software on your phone. Everybody knows this, okay? They're constantly spying on you more than probably any other country. And so they know the answers to these questions, but they're asking my producer like, "Where do you work? How many people work there? Do you go to the office? Where is the office? What are their names?" They're doing like an intel op and humiliation exercise on my producer. This isn't security. We're leaving right now. And they're holding his passport. The interrogator is holding the passport in his hand as he's asking these questions. So he's telling me this and I'm I said, "This is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. Puckabe's gone by this point. You're an American citizen who's just had a conversation with the US ambassador and some thug is demanding details of that conversation and I hope you didn't answer." And he's like, "No, I I didn't. I don't know what to say." Meanwhile, our last guy, our the youngest man who was traveling with us, our last producer is still in a room being questioned. So, I pull over one of the guys and said, "I I we got to get out of here." So, I don't know what this is about. It's outrageous. And you know, there's nothing I can do about this point, but we got to go. And this woman comes up to me and says, "Look, let's just go. We're going to bring you to the plane and he'll come later." I said, "No, it's my producer. He's being interrogated. ask totally over-the-top, fully inappropriate questions that have nothing to do with security at all. You know, pull up your website, show us your text exchanges with other people on your staff, what what are your politics like? And again, what did you say to the US ambassador and what did he say back to you? Those are not relevant questions if you're trying to keep your country secure. Those are intel questions and they're over the top. And I said, I want this guy out now. Let's go. You know, we got to go. Oh, and they said, "No, no, just leave him here. We'll bring him to the plane later." Twice they told me that. Just leave your guy behind. No, I don't think so. So, I was enraged by this. Um, get on the plane, we get a text from a reporter who somehow knew that this had happened. I have no idea how. I had no interest in publicizing it, actually. Um, there was, you know, a a long trail that showed that the US embassy had been coordinating against us in a in a public relations battle before we even got there. You know, they were leaking that we we demanded to do it at the airport because we were afraid to go into Israel. We're cowards. Okay. We're cowards, right? Um, and so I just said to the reporter by text, you know, they pulled my guys into a room interrogating them. This is outrageous, etc., etc., etc. The interesting thing is I never heard from Huckabe or anybody to this moment from the US embassy about what security did to my producers. They didn't ask us and instead Huckabe went out and called me a liar. So, it raises again the question, who exactly is Huckabe working for? We're American citizens in a foreign country. He's our ambassador. He represents our country. We pay his salary, but he's taking the side of the foreign government without even calling to say, "Hey, what happened to you at the airport? Did you get hassled? Did your guys get hassled?" No. He just immediately repeats their lies. without even consulting us. So like what are we looking at here? We're looking at the reality which is if you're an American in Israel, you can be certain that your government will take the side of the Israeli government and not your side. And really, is that so different from the experience of Americans in the United States? Can you be sure that your government will take your side over the Israeli government? No, of course not. will always take the Israeli government's side over yours. And that's the core problem. Even if if you support a war with Iran, I think we really the most pressing issue for Americans is that we kill the Ayatollah or whatever, you still have a fair expectation that your government because it is yours, you pay for it. It exists to serve you and for no other reason. and you have an expectation that your government will take your side against a foreign government. But the daily lived reality, the obvious truth visible to every single American is that's the opposite of reality. In fact, if you criticize Israel in your country, your government will work to censor you. If there's a standoff between you and BB, you know whose side your government's going to take? BB's side. That is not sustainable. That is too humiliating. It's too clearly an inversion of the natural order. Your government exists for you, not for a foreign government. But that's not how we live in this country or in Israel. So that's what we learned. And one last thing, the Israelis apparently went may probably with the help of Mike Huckabe went to uh the surveillance tape inside the diplomatic terminal and pulled some clip and they're of course getting all their little bots online to promote it of me with my arm around somebody to show that actually I'm lying about what happened. That person was our driver who drove us from the plane to the terminal, a short drive. Very nice guy, good guy, Israeli guy. And um right when we arrived and he said, "Could I get a picture?" Of course. He's a nice man. So I just put my arm around him, took a picture. That's what that is. That was before the interview. It was before uh our producers were hassled by the thugs um and asked ridiculous questions. It was before any of this happened. So that's just uh another installment of the propaganda war. I thought we'd give you the backstory on that.
So, with that, here is our interview with Ambassador Mike Huckabe. I hope it's informative. ...
