PART 3 ANTI-ANTI-NAZI BARBARIAN HORDES ARE KNOCKING DOWN THE

[admin]

Max Blumenthal : Did Trump and Netanyahu Fake Their Animosity?
Judge Napolitano - Judging Freedom
Streamed live 4 hours ago

Max Blumenthal : Did Trump and Netanyahu Fake Their Animosity?



Transcript

Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napalitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Thursday, June 4th, 2026. Max Blumenthal will be
with us in just a moment. Did Trump and Netanyahu fake their animosity? Well, who would believe them anyway?
Welcome here, my friend. Do you think that um Trump and Netanyahu concocted this animosity
much like Joe Biden did a few years ago when he pretended to be uh angry at the Israeli leader?
Well, I'm glad you brought up the context of Biden because he leaked to the same reporters when he sought to
continue the status quo and enable Israeli escalation from Gaza to Lebanon, which ultimately led to war with Iran.
He would go to Barack Ravid, the former Israeli spy unit 8200 operative who was an Israeli reservist until 2021 and is
Axios's chief dumpster. Now for Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump,
the Biden people would go to Barack Ravid. So that's who this leak was furnished to along with his fellow uh
receptacle for leaks, Mark Caputo. this character who would be uh applying for
food stamps and various other welfare benefits if the government somehow collapsed because he would have no source of reporting is a self-described
Florida man whose whole career has focused around being the water boy the
gangaden for Marco Rubio. And so I assume this leak came from Marco Rubio based on what I know about these
reporters. Actually, a couple weeks ago, I called Mark Caputo Marco Rubio's water boy because he p pumped out a totally
fake story about Cuba planning to attack Key West with 300 drones. Obviously, it came from Marco Rubio. And he responded
by calling me Marxist Max Blumenthal, who's funded by Iran. That was his response. I mean, these characters are so thin skinned. Barack Ravid when
everyone was calling him out for like help working with Trump to manipulate markets and send all these fake messages
about negotiations working with Iran. Uh he accused all of his critics of anti-semitism. So these are thin-kinned
characters who are deeply unprofessional and they're very useful to power. So Trump and Mar and I think Marco Rubio,
people around Trump wanted this message out there that Donald Trump was livid at Benjamin Netanyahu. Why? Number one, the
Republican base is not happy. Elements in the Republican base are not very happy with Netanyahu and they want to just see Trump uh demonstrating some
strength and independence from this tiny little apartheid state that seems to control him at every turn. Uh number
two, Donald uh Trump had h um to call
off or had to impose pressure on Netanyahu to not destroy or bombard the
Dia district of Beirut, which had been evacuated a day before by the Israeli
army. they were going to attack the civilian base, the Shia community, uh because
they could not uh they could not succeed in their campaign against Hzbollah in southern Lebanon. And this was also the
result of pressure on Netanyahu from far-right elements in his own coalition like Idomar Bengir and Bezel Motrich. We
can talk about that in a second. Um the the operation had to be stopped because of Iran. The real reason was not Trump
finally decided to stand up to Netanyahu. It was that Trump was afraid that Iran would actually launch counter
strikes on US targets in the region and even attack Israel and that Iran was beginning to deter US and Israeli
aggression in a way that it hadn't before. Uh in addition, Donald Trump wants to relieve the economic pressure that Iran has imposed by basically
besieging the besieur by closing off the straight of Hormuz. And there are other economic cards that Iran can play. So all of this has to do with Iran under
finally uh getting out of the tit fortat dynamic that had colored US Iranian
military conflicts in the past and actually establishing escalation dominance through as asymmetrical warfare and pulling Trump's card. Trump
is afraid now of going back to war with Iran. And so in order to look strong, he leaked this story or Rubio leaked this
story that Trump was just furious at Netanyahu for continuing to escalate.
But this is actually story of Donald Trump's weakness in the face of Iranian strength.
And of course, there was no noticeable letup on the invasion in southern Lebanon and even the attacks on the Beirut suburbs, was there?
Well, the Bay Okay, Donald Trump said he convinced Netanyahu not to send troops to Beirut. Like,
well, he actually said the IDF is turning around his phrase.
8 minutesYeah, I think he was like back in 1982 in his own mind, uh, Israel wasn't going to send troops. was going to send US-made GBU bombs into apartment
buildings all across Dahi and to slaughter civilians and just destroy for the sake of attacking the Shia
community. there were but so Trump I don't even think he understood what he had stopped and so in order as Israel
pulled was forced to pull back this air campaign from Daha which is the southern district of Beirut that is the Shia majority district they escalated on the
city of Ty which is a biblical era city on the Mediterranean that is um very
close to the militarized frontiers of Israel in southern Lebanon and they just began attacking civilian areas in that
city as as they continued their assault on civilians across the south, killing first responders, um killing just uh
civilians in their cars, on motorcycles, and then claiming, "Oh, we attacked Hezbollah targets." This was in
violation of the uh ceasefire that they've been violating since November 2024.
It's also now a violation of this this fake ceasefire that was just agreed upon by Lebanese authorities who do not
represent the Lebanese public who are in completely illegitimate government operating absolutely outside the Lebanese constitution to negotiate with
Israel through the US for a ceasefire that puts all of the onus on Hezbollah to disarm and to stop defending Lebanese
territory but almost nothing no impetus on Israel to withdraw. And they're using the US, a government which is
essentially controlled by Israeli forces, the Trump administration, as their mediator, not involving regional
mediators such as, for example, Egypt or Turkey, uh, powerful regional countries.
So, it's an invalid ceasefire, which Israel is, um, violating. Hezbollah is retaliating. They have fired launched
rockets into northern Israel uh today and their FPV drones. These firstperson
view drones which are linked to fiber optic wire and impossible to jam. They um have foiled all electronic
countermeasures continue to torment Israel. A an Israeli major general, one of the highest ranking figures in the
field, escaped an assassination attempt from one of these drones by just a matter of seconds. This was just reported today. So, Israel really has no
uh clear means of winning this war except by attacking civilians. And that means that the pressure will continue to
grow on Netanyahu, whose electoral coalition is coming apart at the seams from the extreme figures to go back and
attack Dahi. And at some point, I think it's reasonable to expect given the irrationality
of Israel and the sheer blood lust that they will attack Beirut. And in that case, Iran will come back into the
theater of conflict uh in defense of its allies in Lebanon and war will begin again and it will be a massive massive
diplomatic failure by the US or or maybe a success if you consider the forces that are really pulling the strings in
Washington. Right. Here's um uh Trump's uh posting on Truth Social. This is the
day before the supposed shouting match was concocted and well I don't know when it was concocted but when it was revealed. I had a conver I won't read
the whole thing. I had a conversation with BB Netanyahu today asking him not to go into a major raid of Beirut
Lebanon. He here you go Max turned his troops around. Thank you BB. This is just farcical that the president would
say this and expect the American public to uh to believe it. So are these negotiations
between the illegitimate negotiators for Lebanon and somebody from Israel actually going on in Washington?
Yeah, but they're fake negotiations.
Like the real negotiations were what Trump hinted at, although he doesn't even understand what they are, where he said that he he actually spoke to
Hezbollah. That's who you have to talk to.
Well, did he actually I can't imagine Hezbollah spoke with him.
No, he would have gone through the um speaker of parliament Nabi Bry who uh represents a Shia party um and has
traditionally served as a back channel to Hezbollah. At the same time, Iran's government was speaking to Nabi Bry and emphasizing
um I I think it was his counterpart Muhammad Galibah or someone like that emphasizing that Iran is not going to
leave Lebanon out of a ceasefire, especially after establishing deterrence and and claiming dominance on the
escalation ladder through asymmetrical force and control over the straight of Hormuz. Why would Iran um you know we go play go limp at the negotiating table?
This means that Trump has to force a real ceasefire all across southern Lebanon in order to get Iran to the
table to relax its chokeold on the straight of Hormuz. Exactly.
Uh and to uh relax Trump's political crisis, which is the economy. I mean, strategic reserves of petroleum globally
are now at a 43-year low, and this is because of the Trump's refusal and inability to negotiate an end to the conflict with Iran.
So, you have the summer driving season coming up and you have the strategic reserves very low. Gee, I wonder what
gas will be like by the end of July. But here's a clip from Trump. Uh this is
June 3rd, yesterday, Max, claiming he spoke to Hezbollah and then a bizarre
answer to a question about how do you how do you define ceasefire? Cut number three.
We actually spoke with Hezbollah for the first time ever. We didn't know they spoke. How do you define ceasefire?
Uh pretty much the way it is. It's a different part of the world, you know.
I'd say in that part of the world ceasefire is when you're shooting in a more moderate manner.
When you're shooting in a more moderate manner. Now he's like Joe Stalin defining his own words redefining history.
Well, yeah. Well, I don't I don't think that uh Iran understands a ceasefire in that way. More moderate firing. What Iran
seems to have recognized though, and this is, you know, based on public statements I see in their media, is that
they are they're going to be a target of hybrid warfare for as long as it takes
to actually get a real deal or for the US to stand down or for US elites to finally break from the special
relationship with Israel. And that's what Trump seems to be hinting at. Um, and at the same time, he's he seems to be accepting that Israel can wage this
campaign of terror all through southern Lebanon, which really is about ethnic cleansing. Israel is actively aiming to
destroy as many homes of the of of Shia in southern Lebanon as possible and pit
Christians against the Shia population to keep them out of their communities.
Um, you know, I've seen reports of Christians actually setting up roadblocks in their communities to keep Shia out because of the amount of
pressure they're getting. You know, we'll bomb your neighborhood if you if you let too many Shia in because they'll say they're Hezbollah. This is a
campaign of ethnic cleansing and Trump isn't taking it seriously and that means that at any moment war can return with
Iran. I don't think he understands the seriousness of Iran. But Iran sent a clear message by attacking Kuwait's airport and by attacking targets in
Kuwait, a country which has been playing host to US aggression, continued US aggression on Iran after the US attacked
uh Keshum Island in Iran that Iran will actually escalate for each US attack. So
Trump I mean he he talked about a deal two weeks ago. There was enormous push back from all the Israeli Israel first
operatives like Mark Dubowitz who got him in this mess and now here he is unable to even define what a ceasefire is.
Here's um Prime Minister Netanyahu being asked. He gives a snarky response
uh about uh regime change in Iran. This is yesterday, June 3rd. I think it's a Fox interview. Press number five.
You were talking about regime change. Why is nobody talking about that now?
Why do you say we're not talking about it? I said the other day, because President Trump is seems ready to make a deal with this current regime.
Yeah, but doesn't mean that he wants this regime to stay. What is he driving at?
That a deal would not be a deal. that after Trump and and Iran entered into a peace agreement, BB attacks again.
There is every reason to believe that Netanyahu will attack Iran again or will use
hybrid warfare to create the conditions for a renewal of warfare in order to draw the United
States back in. And the clock is ticking on Netanyahu.
He doesn't look healthy when he's in public. There's something wrong. There's something seems to be kind of wrong with him. His he may actually be unseated as prime minister.
There's a seessaw of polls that last week showed he might, you know, hold on by two seats a week before. Likud would lose. The clock is ticking. The midterms
are coming up in the United States. So, he needs to get the US back in. There was an article in Israel Hyome, which is
the pro- Netanyahu adenf funded paper in Israel, hyping up the Mossad's new uh kind of Iran hybrid warfare division.
And in that article, which was basically public relations or hazah for this
supposed previously secret division that was instituted by outgoing Mossad director David Barnea.
Barna said or or the dire one of the directors of the division said if you give us all the resources we need by the
end of the year we can have regime change. So Israel is constantly trying to create this illusion that regime
change can be imposed on Iran. Uh but they also acknowledge in the same article that everything they tried including the Kurdish option when they
were going to arm all these Kurdish militias to destabilize Iran along with the protesters had completely failed.
Everything they have done has completely failed. They got Trump into this war and now they need to continuously fuel the
illusion of regime change to try to keep Trump interested. But I think once Trump finally decides there is not going to be
a replacement of the Islamic Republic of Iran and that there's not some Deli Rodriguez figure there which was part of
his original fantasy that led him into this morass. Uh then the Israelis are I mean they don't have anything left to sell him.
Who could blame New York City Mayor Zoron Mandani for refusing to march in
the Israel Day parade with people like Randy Fine and Bellisil Smootri?
Well, you know, it's it's Pride Month now and there going to be a lot of pride parades and I think, you know, if you
anyone wants to be marching with out and proud gay people, they would go to a pride parade. Um, you know, if you want
to hang out with rollick and cinjun revelers and black Indians, you go to New Orleans and you go to Mardigra. Um,
also, you know, some topless women and you throw beads at them. And if you want to um march with genocidal wanted war
criminals and out and proud baby killers who worship an ethnosuppreist apartheid state, you go to the Israel
Day parade. That's what that's what it is. That's just kind of what it's about.
Zoan Mdani understood that. This is a guy who has been involved in Palestine solidarity activism since he was in
college. He knows who's going to be at that parade and he really dodged a bullet there politically and I don't
know I mean he might have dodged a real bullet because they seem to really hate him these people. Yeah.
Kind of seemed like a JFK going to Dallas scenario where they're like we dare you to come to our parade and hate you and want to destroy you.
So he certainly dodged a political bullet as soon as it was revealed that Smotech was there.
Um the the criticism of him died down because it just dropped off the front page.
No, I mean what happened was truly amazing. I mean, I think this is this is this is part of the this was a signal moment in the unraveling of the special
relationship, especially as far as Democrats are concerned because well, you know, Eric Adams went because he's on the Israeli payroll like he was just
making a pilgrimage to the Rebe's grave, the uh Moshiach of the Habad cult recently. You know, he's he's he's
22 minutesgetting like, you know, Israel crypto deposits in his account every week. So, we don't expect much of
him, but like um Leticia James, the attorney general, um Jessica Tish, who comes from a very
Zionist family and is the police commissioner, but these are like liberal Democrats. They all went and they they
became collateral damage and all had to issue these statements like we condemn Bezel Smoltz. He's an Islamophobe. No,
he's not an Islamophobe. He's an ICC wanted war criminal who is the finance minister in Israel's government. who is
personally responsible for the settler violence in the West Bank for authorizing mass annexation of
Palestinian land, a war crime. Uh, Itsac was
let me get his name right. Sacerlof, who is a member of Kasset in Israel, was at this march. This is a figure who was
filmed uh cheering on soldiers as they entered Gaza and urging them to seize babies and dash them against the rocks.
Uh who else was there? uh uh Amihai Eliu who is another minister in the Israeli
government who has called for the Israeli military to drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza, refer Palestinians as Amalch, meaning kill them, you know,
commit genocide and called for blowing up the Alaka compound and replacing it with a third Jewish temple. They were all brought there by the Israeli
consulate and now there's this, you know, to turn down the temperature. The Israeli consulate said, "Well, we didn't tell all the Democrats marching." Well,
what do you think attracts them to this parade? Again, it's like, you know, gay
people go to a pride parade. Zionist fascists go to an Israel day parade because it's an ethnosuppreist state
that is filled with fascists in their ministerial positions. I personally had
wandered upon Israel Day parade many years ago. I was just like walking through Central Park. I didn't even realize it was the day of of the parade.
And you know, I was shocked by the displays of hatred that I saw and wound up like having a uh halfhour
conversation with members of the Jewish Defense League um handing out, you know, uh placards that said Kahana was right
and you know, telling me how much support they're getting. You know, you can just you can just un I mean I you
have to understand what Israel is to know what you're getting into. And so that's how mom Donnie dodged this bullet and the rest of these Democrats need to
be held accountable for participating in this parade.
I can't resist asking, have you heard from Congressman Fine since he ran away from you in the Capitol building?
Well, I mean, again, like Randy Fine is very outspoken and one of the nastiest, most incendiary anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian figures in Congress.
But the thing that struck me when I challenged him was just how meek he was and how he kind of crumpled once he was lightly questioned. And so, you'll never
see him going into an adversarial atmosphere anymore. All of his appearances in the media are limited to Fox News or Newsmax and uh you know
those sorts of channels. These these are figures who can't be challenged directly. I would love to see a debate with him and his opponent Dan Bilzerian.
I mean that that would be uh worth watching.
This is his uh opponent for his re-election bid in Florida. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Max, thank you very much.
Thanks for all of this as always. All the best. We'll look forward to seeing you again soon, my friend. Thanks a lot, Judge. Thank you.
Wow, a terrific analysis that you really don't get from anybody else of this depth. Uh, coming up at 2:00 on all of
this, Colonel Lawrence Wilson. Oh, excuse me, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson.
And at , Colonel Douglas McGregor, trust the Paulo for judging freedom.

[admin]

Iran's Missile STRIKES US Destroyer, Trump PARALYZED | Larry Johnson & Col. Lawrence Wilkerson
Danny Haiphong
Streamed live 78 minutes ago #iran #trump #iranwar

Former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson and Col. Lawrence Wilkerson join the show as Iran continues to retaliate against US aggression, this time launching missiles at a US Destroyer in the Gulf of Oman. Iran has said it isn't done yet, and Trump appears paralyzed. Two of the top analysts in geopolitics with a wealth of experience break down what's happening and where we are headed.



Transcript

Welcome everyone. Welcome back to the show. It's Danny Haiphong here. As you can see, I'm joined by former US Army
Colonel and Chief of Staff uh for Colin Powell. That is Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. And we have former CI analyst
Larry Johnson. Uh gentlemen, thanks so much for joining me today.
Hey, hey, looking forward to looking forward to it. You know, a week without high without hi is like a I don't know.
like a week without bread.
Well, I'm glad that uh this show gives you so much life, Larry, and to you to Colonel Wilkerson. Well, all right, everybody, hit the like button because
that will give the stream life uh boost it in the algorithm. And let's get started with uh the latest developments.
Uh first, we have Iran. And I can begin with you, Larry. Uh Iran has announced that it had to follow up. They said they
were not done with targeting those US forces that had been responsible for these strikes on Keshum Island in recent
days. Uh Iran says that they targeted and hit a US destroyer in the Gulf of Oman and they said this was a command
and control center for these actions against commercial shipping. Uh also
there are uh new uh satellite imagery uh that shows that the strikes that Iran
conducted on uh uh Kuwait, US forces and US assets in Kuwait and Bahrain had done
a lot more damage than Sentcom will even admit. Sentcom admits none of it. But here is a satellite image from uh shared
by Tehran Times. Here is what they are showing to be a drone aircraft shelter at Ali Al Salam air base in Kuwait.
There's a big uh crater there where that shelter was once oh yeah
standing. So gone absolutely gone. But gentlemen, how so
Larry let me kick it to you. Trump has been very pretty mum, pretty silent about what's happened in recent days.
He's even saying that there will be no strikes on Iran as long as US troops are not injured or killed. What do you make
of these developments, especially in light of Iran escalating to its retaliation in order to essentially
deter these uh ongoing US attacks that at least for now have seemed to go silent? What's your thoughts on this?
Trump believes that they now have a nuclear weapon and are prepared to demonstrate it, which will humiliate him.
So this this is uh the result of uh Pepe Esscobar and I were uh presented with information last well a week ago today.
Um and it was from a Pakistani source.
We we had enough description. We had an intermediary that was in direct contact with this source. But uh from the
description we had a confidence that the the individual providing this information was not just some nobody. Uh
you know this is a this would be a somebody like a Colonel Wilkerson reporting on what was going on with Colon Powell sort of with that kind of access.
And the the the message that was provided was that the in in the aftermath of those first strikes that the United States made last week on
Iranian tankers and then bombings on Kempsh Island and bond bombings in Bonder Abbas and blowing up uh two uh
small naval fast boats that killed four crewmen. Uh the Iranians were pissed off. They met, made a decision and sent
President Peskin off to communicate said decision to the prime minister of Pakistan, fellow named Sharif.
And Pzeskin's message, you know, I guess he talked to Sharief for about an hour and . And I have subsequently
learned or confirmed that that conversation took place over a nonsecure line. In other words, an open line, one
that could be listened into and was. Um, and in in the course of that conversation, Peskin and remember this
was last Thursday said, "We, the Iranians, have made the decision, we're going to we're going to cut off talks with the United States. We're not going to have any more talks particular on nuclear issues.
um we will not consider any kind of framework like JCPOA or other for uh
this uh solution to this issue and we're we're going to do a demonstration explosion with a nuclear device so that the west will know that we got one.
Now this was communicated to Sharif.
Sharif believed Pesashkin and then got a hold of foreign minister Ishakdar and
said, "Hey, this is what you got to go tell Marco Rubio." So, um, now I am I can I prove this? I
haven't seen the intel, but I guarantee you that that conversation between Peskian and Sharif that was intercepted
by NSA, might have been intercepted as well by CIA. CIA does have those capabilities.
Said information was put out in a pretty I would say a flash cable that hey, we got some interesting intel here. and
they got confirmation of it when Dar the foreign minister of Pakistan made the phone call to Marco Rubio.
So we notice about the time that Rubio gets informed of this that Iran may have or Robin the Pakistanis believe that Iran has a nuke.
Notice a complete change in Donald Trump's demeanor how he talks about Iran. You know, before he was talking
about end civilization, bombing them to hell, talking about the homosexual uh Ayatollah and and then just scandalous scathing comments.
Then, you know, like on Tuesday this week, you know, two days ago, when uh the United States hits an Iranian tanker
with a Hellfire missile, then B blows up a communication center on Keshum, and then the Iranians immediately retaliate.
They hit a US ship with an anti-ship missile and then they basically waxed the floor up in Kuwait with both the air
base and the army uh facility. And what does Trump say? Well, you know, ceasefire means there doesn't mean that
there's no fire being exchanged, but it's it's small. And you're going, okay, go find the aliens that kidnapped the
real Donald Trump because this is not Donald Trump. So, he has been completely low-key since then. And but today we
picked up uh Pepe and I we just got off the phone a little bit ago and uh with uh and and learned that what uh Iran the
Pakistanis now believe the P let me emphasize the Pakistanis believe the ones who are involved with these negotiations that they are close to
getting a deal between the United States and Iran in which Donald Trump will travel to Islamabad
somewhere in the next 30 case to sign what they'll be known as the Islamabad Accord. Now, there's a whole bunch of
problems with that, but I'm just pointing out this is what the Pakistanis believe where the state of this situation lies and it contented upon
Donald Trump reigning in Israel, which both Pepe and I go, yeah, I wouldn't I wouldn't put too much money on that, but go ahead if that's
your hope. um and and that uh Iran will be able to start recovering money that
of you know not directly the frozen assets but by charging a toll. So h with all that as background there's there's a
lot going on but Trump is definitely I think I think they got a little bit of a wakeup call here from Iran visav
Pakistan because how else do you explain Trump's complete reversal in his tone and comments about Iran?
Well uh Colonel Wilkerson to you your your assessment and thoughts.
Well let me say this. Um, I kind of believe I agree with Larry because I've heard the same thing and I'm sure it's probably coming from similar sources.
Let me back up though and go back to your other uh your starting comments about Kuwait. Um, I saw a video this
morning that apparently demonstrated, it's very hard to tell because the videos are not clear, but that one of
the things that did some damage in Kuwait was not a US or an Iranian well
was not an Iranian attack on Kuwait. I mean, that happened. There's no question about that. But it was a US supplied air
defense system fired at the incoming Iranian missile. And the video showed the missile going very short distance
and gyating and coming right back down and hitting a target in Kuwait and doing considerable damage from this video. So
if it was a legitimate video, we did as much damage to facilities at Kuwait apparently as Iran did because of this
air air defense missile. Uh then the second thing I saw video of the and it was an Iranian provided video. Then I
saw what was purported to be a US provided video. I don't know how they did it because it was from about the
same perspective. In other words, a land perspective of the missile flying out to
the supposed US combatant. Again, I couldn't see enough of the profile of the combatant to tell if she was a
destroyer or what, but I did see the missile appear to impact. And then I
asked a friend at Sencom and got nope, no hit. We've not taken a hit. Well, I trust that about as far as I trust my
spit. But um and then coming to Larry's point, which is a far more important point, but I'll elaborate on that a
little bit. I think he's right. I think at least the science show he's right.
And I think we've got a real problem right now with Netanyahu because Netany had a problem with Netanyahu all along
because Netanyahu's political dilemma right now which looks like it's going to be fatal for him is not because of
11 minutessomething he's doing that's kind, generous, and humane. It's because he's not doing enough in Lebanon, in Kaza, on
the West Bank, and elsewhere to satisfy that 80% or so of the Jewish population that still wants to do what he's doing
and do it even more. And he's killing people in Gaza every day. Humanitarian Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is actually helping. We've got UN reports on that.
Um, and so you've got this situation here now where Trump needs him to stop in Lebanon and you got reports that
they've affected a stop and then you've got commanders on the ground in the IDF saying the hell we have um, we're going
ahead. We're going to the Zatani, I think it is. It's a second river. We're going beyond the Latani. We're we're already beyond the Latani. We're not
going back to the Latani. We're not going any further back than we have to.
And in all of these talks and the discordant voices that are coming out about them, the only people you have pronouncing are the Lebanese government
and the US government. Hezbollah has not said anything. In fact, Hezbollah's alleged leader right now has said [ __ ] Um, so what's going on there?
And I think that's putting real pressure on Donald Trump because one of the things he's got to do to get any kind of settlement with Iran is restrain
Netanyahu. and Netanyahu can't be restrained because it's suicide for him, political suicide. So, we're back to a dilemma in that sense.
Yeah. And just just something to make a comment too about this agreement ostensibly reached yesterday between Lebanon and Israel.
Um, yeah. Yeah. Well, that that's the point.
Asah is not at the table. Yeah. So, so they're making all these agreements and yet the the ones that uh they're
expecting Hezbollah to give up its weapons, which they're not going to, and to retreat to the north of the Latani
River, that ain't going to happen. But but the fact that these, you know, the the Lebanese delegation sat with the
Israeli delegation and they shook hands on something that's just so delusional is I don't I I won't say it's shocking,
but it's it's so it's so typical of what has plagued this entire region for years that that they indulge such stupidity.
Uh I mean really this is um Hezbollah is the right now they are I would argue
winning the tactical battle on the ground. Um, Israel prevails in the air,
but on the ground the Israeli troops are having a tough time of it and Hezbollah is taking casualt is inflicting
significant casualties on the Israelis and and there's not anything the Israelis can do about it except, you know, they can complain and whine, but uh they're not letting up.
Yeah, it's so interesting to see how things are playing out there because uh in in large part it it this whole issue
the Lebanon Lebanon and the other fronts but Lebanon being the most I guess you could say hot even though Israel is
striking Gaza and Palestine as well but uh uh it does feel like a lot of the push here is because
Iran is really dictating terms but of course Israel doesn't want to come to any terms and the United States either
that uh would satisfy the actual realities on the ground. Um and you know I wanted to just pull this up really
quick before getting into Donald Trump's reactions. You know, I I've seen things come out uh Larry too and Colonel
Wilkerson where this is Kuwait's uh this is a Kuwaiti government uh account and it's sharing a video of what they
presume to be during Iran's retaliation a uh Iranian drone striking the Terminal One uh at the International Airport.
Now, Iran has actually denied this and uh some have been saying that uh this is first of all during the middle of the
day and it also uh is very suspicious that uh the drone is black and and not
the typical Shahed white. But nonetheless, you're not you're not suggesting that this is AI generated, are you? Good
lord. But yeah, which is what like but it's so interesting that even the attempts to make Iran look like an
aggressor, it just kind of makes Iran look stronger in its position. uh and many people don't even believe the uh
what I'm seeing is that a lot of people are very suspect at anything that comes out of sentcom affiliated uh regimes,
outlets, anything like this because um they've only been saying nothing has been happening for so long. And the only
time they will admit to something happening is when they're trying to demonize Iran and make it look like an aggressor.
Well, Colonel Colonel Wilkerson, I sent him I think Did you have a chance to read that email I forwarded to you? I did. Yeah, I did.
Yeah. So, I I sent him we I got an email from a recently retired officer, US Army officer, a West Point grad uh who served as Sentcom. Oh my god.
Oh my god. Colonel, maybe you can give him sort of your assessment of it as having been a an officer and and responsible for troops.
Well, it sounded to me like an a complete disaster in Tampa. Um, part of the part of the complaint, I think, was
17 minutesthe transition from gorilla gorilla to Bradley Cooper.
the the attitude, you know, gorilla gorilla was sort of like a pretend patent. I don't think he had the genius of patent and I'm not even sure he had
the the savvoir affair. Patton could be pretty pretty cool when he needed to be.
And then comes in Bradley C. This guy like is dominating the staff briefings, dominating the table, you know, you can
just see him like beating his fists on the table and say, "We got to get him.
We got to get him. We got to get him." Blah blah blah blah. And then it comes in Bradley Cooper, a naval surface warfare officer whom I've known a lot of
them. They were populated my seminars at Newport for two two and a half years.
Um, and he's milk toast really. Um, you saw a little of that milk toast when he started trying to answer the questions
of Seth Molton from Massachusetts and I think Jason Crowe in the Congress when they were grilling him about what was
going on. But the thing that really amazed me about this, and uh I I didn't tell Larry this, but I have another
individual who's telling me similar stories from Langley, the tactical intelligence center at Langley, and then another individual who had been telling
me about uh stories about Special Operations Command. And they sort of jive in terms of morale and in terms of how they feel about what they're doing.
And I the the special operations command individual was talking about the fact
that the black mark on the armed forces of the United States and particularly on the special operating forces which I think he convinced me these strikes at
sea are exclusively soft. There may be some naval surface assets, naval air assets involved in picking up
intelligence in acting on the intelligence initially. you know that sort of thing in the A but basically the the soft is doing most
of the special operating forces doing most of this and there's a lot of unrest uh at both the uh higher command if you
will the special operations command command headquarters as well as at the AO owner the southern command commander
so that there there's tension developing now partly because the you might call it the morality of it you might call it the
legality of it or whatever, but not a lot of happy campers with one one person said, "How are we going to put this on
our guide on? How are we going to put this up as a fl a campaign flag?
A dead person lying in a boat in the Pacific or the Caribbean." Um, so there's a lot of unrest out there in the mix. And I I was kind of
surprised because I was hearing the other story from the other side of the equation, if you will, the military religious freedom foundation where a lot
of people were talking about how he was packing the ranks and packing all the levels and packing it with Christian nationalists and so forth who are all in
accord with what's going on. It's not true from what I'm hearing on the other side of this, if you will. The morale is rock bottom. And you would expect that
now that we're what, two months plus into this so-called war of choice and we haven't even articulated a mission
really. We haven't the the guys on the ground, the guys in the air uh ground, I mean at sea and such. Uh they don't well
there was some ground pounders. They don't have a real clear mission. And so if you don't have a real clear mission then you don't have a purpose. You know,
mission is really two things. It's the task to be accomplished and the purpose for which you're accomplishing it. They don't have either except in the case of they have a task of hitting this island.
They have a task of dropping bombs and so forth. So, it's confusing for them and the morale is reflecting that and I
think this cable that Larry got or email that Larry got is reflective of that.
Yeah. Well, uh certainly in terms of in terms of mission, I mean it it does feel like just now Iran is saying that this
has gone from like naked war of aggression to now hybrid war, but uh that's a difficult concept for those who
have to sit out in massively hot weather in the Persian Gulf and stay there for as long as Yeah.
When you're under bombs, it it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if if bombs are dropping on you. And and one one person told me, "Well, our our
mission is to drop bombs." Yeah. Oh, okay.
For what purpose? To kill people? Is that the purpose?
No. To get them to relent? Uh, it ain't working.
No. No. And uh uh and and Donald Trump, I just want to show Larry before I get your comments the differing tone that he
has been showing since then. almost as if he's in a kind of uh action paralysis. Yeah. A warp, so to speak.
Here is this is directly after the uh Kuwait strikes uh before uh Iran said
that it also targeted the US Navy. But this is when a reporter asked him about what he said.
Mr. President, Mr. President, given Mr. President, Mr. Mr President, given Iran's attacks
on Kuwait's uh latest attack on Kuwait, is the ceasefire with Iran still on?
Well, you know, there's a reason for everything. And we hit them pretty hard the night before and actually last
night. And when it was explained to me, I said, "All right, so we'll do that." But we we've been hitting them pretty hard a little bit. So there is a reason
for certain things. And it's usually a reason that Oh, the video is terrible. I don't know what's going on with the video there.
Uh, did you catch that? We've been hitting them really hard a little bit.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so basically he said they were reciprocating. They were slightly provoked. Um, I don't know what
happened to that video, but here's another one. When he was asked about what the definition of a ceasefire is now, uh, after all this has happened, here's what he said.
How do you define ceasefire?
uh uh pretty much the way it is. It's a different part of the world. You know, I'd say in that part of the world
ceasefires when you're shooting in a more moderate manner.
So yeah, I I I said that that was his uh um Wallace Shawn moment from The Princess
Bride with Mandy Patinkan where Shawn keeps saying inconceivable.
And and and and finally Mandy Patinkin says, "I I don't think that word means what you think it means." And so no, Mr.
President, cease fire means cease. Don't do it anymore. firing. I mean, as I'm a pistol instructor and when I got
students on the firing line, when I say cease fire, I don't want to hear someone say, "I'm just going to take one more shot." No, you stop shooting. That's
what that means. So, but what's fascinating about those two clips is and and I you know, I heard that Kavor
Massing says, "Oh, it is irresponsible for Larry and Pepe to say that they run has a nuke." Hey, it's like shut the
[ __ ] up. Okay, we're reporting what's being said. If you don't want to hear what's being said, go bury your head in
the sand. But this is what is being said. And we're seeing a reaction from Donald Trump who apparently believes
that is true. And I got confirmation of that from Robert Barnes who former Trump lawyer and he does have sources in the
White House. And he said, "What you guys reported is exactly correct. Trump now believes that Iran has a nuke and
because before he knew they didn't, but he was using that as a we're going to go rough them up. Now that they got one, it's like you stand in there, you know,
you may you have a club in your hand, you're threatening somebody, and then all of a sudden you realize they got a gun. Okay, you back off on the threatening.
And that's what we're seeing. Trump is backing off of the threats because he now believes and I and do do I know
whether Iran has a nuke? No, I don't. I don't claim that they do. I don't claim that they don't. What I do claim is a
source that we that uh I consider very credible with access. He believes it. So
all you can do, you know, and this is like this welcome to the world of of intelligence where it's not all black and white and it's not all with flashy
neon signs telling you what the truth is. There are there can be a hall of mirrors. All I know is what I'm
observing. The Iranians claim that they got a nuke. The Pakistanis believe they have a nuke. And Donald Trump's acting
like Iran now has a nuke and is treading very very carefully.
Yeah. Well, uh we've seen even the limited strikes on Iran become even more
limited over time uh since all of this has happened. And some some may claim that that's uh simply military
limitations uh from the United States as well as the fact that uh Iran does have the ability to hit back harder and
harder and maybe that's not where the US wants to go right now. Colonel Wilkerson, I mean this what do you make of uh Trump's comments here and uh this
broader point of yeah Ron Ir Ron does appear to be building quite an effective long term because you can't really stop
the US and Israel in the short term from uh doing what uh the wararmongers do best. But in the long term it feels like
Iran is really building up quite a deterrence package so to speak. Well, if you really look at it logically and you
ask yourself who has 5,889 nuclear warheads arrayed all around the world and who has maybe one or two?
I mean, is this a real change in the balance of power? A significant change in the balance of power? And believe me, I've asked this same question about
North Korea. Although now they're up to something like 50 55 bombs I'm told. But still they're vastly outnumbered. And
I'm not just talking about deterrence in the traditional sense of deterrence. But I'm talking about if you've got one or
two and I've got 5,000 plus. Who's got the advantage?
Have you got the advantage militarily speaking? Or do I? So I dare you to use that nuclear weapon. Now
fast forward from that logic though and look at what a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran tested in the dashi kavir
or wherever and very visible does to Israel not even used on Israel yet
that is the real equation here and then the question becomes what does that mean to Donald Trump and what does it mean to BB and Donald
Trump's relationship and in particular with the relationship that is going to get him unelected here very shortly and
probably present Trump with an even worse leadership and BB in jail. Where does Donald go then? I mean, I don't
think Iran having a nuclear weapon, while I might in some ways revel at it because that's what they should have
done all along to prevent this war from even happening. Um, I don't think it really changes the the situation as much
as we might think it does. And I don't know how much it will change the situation actually until I see it happen
and I see what Israel's political uh situation reveals. what that means to them and what they do to change their
course of action or because we got there's so much else here that is at stake and maybe if you look at Saudi
Arabia and their position you can understand fundamentally what I mean I think we have soured MBS forever on any
kind of relationship with Israel that's positive because they will not agree to his stipulation that there be a a a
viable able plan of some sort to change this situation and to make a home
for the Palestinians in the region and it's got to be a viable solution.
Now, we forget that Iran Iran is behind that too. They're very much behind that. The Houthis are very much behind that.
So until we get out of this um you know this context of BB Trump BB the Iranians the Pakistanis and everything else and
really talk seriously about the real issues in this region. I don't know that a nuclear weapon changes the equation all that much. It certainly changes it
for Israel. That's for sure. But I don't know that it changes it that much for us unless we're so locked with Israel we're going to go commit suicide with them.
And there's a good point. There's a good uh, you know, counterpoint to it.
Yeah. My my Rody is barking at God knows what I know, Danny. This this sounds
coldarted and everything or be bizarre, but after all, the balance of power is the balance of power.
And the balance of power between Israel and Iran is what we're talking about.
That's the critical balance of power. It isn't the balance of power between the United States and Iran. Just because we have a stupid president who started this
war and a stupid military that's going along with it doesn't justify it.
Yeah. Well, uh Larry Netanyahu said there was the whole row, we haven't talked about it yet, the so-called row,
the phone call that all fits in within I think this entire picture where uh Trump supposedly called Netanyahu effing crazy.
You know, nobody likes you. Uh, nobody's going to like you after all of this if you continue on this path, all of this
kind of stuff. But, uh, I think nobody's going to like you.
Did you see Did you see BB's Did you see BB's response? Yes. That's what I wanted to ask about.
Uh, Larry, if you saw BB's, what was his response?
One of which, I believe it was, and car workers, you could fill in any gaps. Uh, you said, uh, we have tactical differences on
We love each other. really we love each other but we some tactical differences which like family he said like family
right well I mean look the reality is they're trying to if we try to personalize this with BB Netanyahu with
hey man if we just get rid of Netanyahu all the problems go away uh you know that the the Israeli
position v the Palestinians and Lebanese is not going to change they want to get rid of them They want to take that land.
They want to control it. Now, some more than others, uh, you know, the the settler movement and, uh, the the
Misrai, that element, the Benges, the Smokes, etc. Yeah. Boy, they're they're
hard over. But um if the United States can exercise significant control over
what Israel does by withholding aid, pulling back uh supplies
uh but so far Trump not no Trump hasn't shown a willingness to do that and that what is he's being pressured to do that
right now in the course of these negotiations that Pakistan is engaged with that, you know, you got to reign in
u Iran or I mean Israel and and you saw Iran you know after April 7th they
signed the initial peace uh ceasefire deal with the United States but then you know stopped short of implementing it
saying uh you got to get Israel to stop and Israel on April 15th the United States ostensibly got them to stop sort
of but uh you know within another three, four weeks, Israel is back at it.
Bombing in southern B Lebanon and even bombing in Beirut. So that on this latest one, uh the Iranians have made it
very clear, you know, you got to stop Israel from bombing Beirut. If they attack Beirut, we're going to we're going to relaunch the the missile war on
them. So far, Israel has they, you know, apparently Trump that was part of the
conversation with BB and BB has issued the appropriate orders and they're not bombing southern Lebanon. I don't know
how how long that'll hold, but um once if once Israel stops abiding by that,
then you know, Katie bar the door because uh Iran's made it very clear they're going to they're going to make the northern part of Israel uninhabitable.
and and people according to Hahares the latest edition online there are people in the IDF who said [ __ ]
no one of them one of them actually said I'm on the Zahani river and I'm not going an inch further south
they they did say they were going to surrender the castle they were going to surrender one other strategic point I forget which which it was but then as
they said that the next article said the hell we will. So there's contention in the IDF on the ground in Lebanon as to
whether or not they're going to correspond with this ceasefire. Yeah.
And if Israel's previous record is any guide.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, the bottom line is that anybody that think even like right now the Pakistanis believe that they're they're on the verge of
getting Peskian and Trump to come to Islamabad to sign an accord. Okay. Well, but accord
carries no legal weight with the United States. It's not an obligation. It's sort of a promise, you know, and and as
we've already seen, Donald Trump blew up the JCPOA, which was an accord. It wasn't a treaty. What, you know, if if
if I'm a wrong and I say, "Look, I'm serious. I want an end to this war with the United States. I don't we we can't be involved. We got to have a treaty."
and a treaty implies it's going to be ratified by the Senate and that you've got political approval. So the the polit
the the public and the elected representatives, they support the deal.
So now it's not just what Donald Trump feels at the moment, it's what the public feels and wants. Um they're not
going to get that yet. So that that means this is whatever accord is signed is still just very very vulnerable to being blown up at a moment's notice.
100% agree. 100% agree. And I I I can't imagine the Senate passing what the House just passed with regard to the War
Powers Act. I can't imagine that happening in the Senate without if even if it did, if you managed to get a few
Republicans, Trump would do what he did with the one we got passed in both houses with regard to Yemen in the war there and our support for Saudi Arabia.
He veto it.
Yeah. Well, let's uh let's look at something here. Uh this is uh what Donald Trump said on True Social about that House vote on the War Powers Act.
You know, this has gone through uh the chambers of Congress a few times and has been uh uh you know, voted down a few
times, now voted up by the House. Four bad Republicans, all the Democrats, says Donald Trump yesterday in a meaningless
vote to limit my war powers right in the middle of my final negotiations to end the war with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why would you do such an
unpatriotic thing? They know where the negotiations stand. The Democrats are fueled by Trump derangement syndrome.
They'd rather our country fail, then give me another of many victories. The four Republicans, that's a whole other story. They're grandstandards. They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA.
Uh Larry, in Colonel Workers, I thought that the uh negotiations were over. I
thought that Iran wasn't talking to the United States and Iran said that they are actually in conversation with the United States. But Trump is claiming they're at the end and and you mentioned
these accords. Uh is this anything that can lead to anything conclusive, Larry?
And I I mean it just seems it seems still very far off, but your thoughts. What do you mean by conclusive?
Like it will like it will change the the situation.
Well, so let's separate it. Are we looking at something that's going to be present a solid foundation
for a longlasting agreement that will ultimately lead to the creation of a Palestinian state and the end of the war
between Israel and the and the Palestinians? And on that I say no.
Um, will they be able to buy uh create a a short-term excuse
for the United States to declare victory and get out of the Middle East? Possibly.
And they do by saying, "Hey, we've now guaranteed that Iran's not going to have a nuke." Now, they said, "Well, how you're saying that they got a nuke now?"
Well, they could actually have a nuke now. And as part of the agreement, okay, we're giving those up. they're going to be given under supervision to Russia or
China. Uh and you know until some time as we get a treaty in place, we're going to reserve the right that we can recall
get access to those if you attack us again. So, but you know, within that, you're going to look at uh security
guarantees that Iran's going to demand uh that will the US be willing to respect the reported demands of Qatar
and Saudi Arabia for the US to basically leave the those countries, leave the bases and no longer operate from those
places. Uh, and underlying all of this, this is what really puzzles the hell out
of me, is the global economic impact of what's going on with the Persian Gulf.
The we we do not have any time in history that we can point to when 20% up to 20%,
some say maybe a little less, of the world's oil supply has now been cut off.
it it's not there. We're reduced. 25% of the liquid natural gas supply cut off.
No longer there. 35% of uh ura and sulfur for fertilizers principally, but
also other industrial applications cut off. Uh and just we we just just north
of me about 15 miles. Mosaic Mo Mining Company. They're big in Tampa. They're one of the biggest fertilizer producers in the United States. What did they do?
They've cut their production in half at at a time where the price is through the roof and they could sell if as much as they could produce. They're cutting
their production in half because they don't have sulfur.
So that's and then as a result, cut their production in half means they're laying people off. And then last, helium.
Who knew, you know, before February 28th? I had no clue. I knew. I knew.
Yeah, we're not talking about sucking on balloons. Come on.
But but the the role that helium plays in the production of computer chips. So, gee, what what's the big push that
Donald Trump's hoping will rescue the economy? AI. What does AI need? They need data centers. In addition to the
the electrical power to uh to keep them fired up and going uh inside those data centers are these things called
computers. And inside those computers are things called data chips. Computer chips and the production on that now is
falling off. So that at the time when you got growing demand for these chips,
the supply is going down. And that gap right there creates a huge price impact.
So we got we got recipe for global inflation, global recession. And I'd note that yesterday it was announced Canada is now in an official recession.
They've had two straight quarters of negative growth.
Yeah. Well, Colonel Wilkerson, uh, to follow up on that, many people there are many people who believe that all of this
in large part is for the United States to gobble up oil markets. But what Larry is outlining here is a disaster that
comes out of this. And usually in economic crisis and recession, too, uh, we have, of course, negative growth, but
we also have a lot of, uh, consolidation. And I'm just wondering if you believe that a lot of this is about
the US trying to as an empire corner and gobble up energy markets, but to what end? I mean I mean to what end? What
43 minutesdoes that really lead to? If that's the case, I don't think so. There could be some people behind the scenes that think that might be a part of it or trying to make
that a part of it or trying to figure out a way to do that. I think we're tied together still in a way that makes it
impossible to do. You might be able to do it in niches, but you're not going to be able to do it overall as Larry just pointed out. You got problems in Florida. You got problems with in Iowa.
You got problems in Southern California.
You got problems all over the country, I imagine. But those three places I know particularly we have problems. And farmers aren't putting their crops down.
They aren't expecting to do anything.
Insurance companies that insure farmers aren't getting the bids for the insurance. Things aren't looking too good. And I think that would per
permeate the economy generally speaking if we got into the situation that Larry was just talking about. Uh if we had a global recession for example even let
alone a global depression. And I want to come back to one thing that I think you know I'm not tooting my own horn
here in anyway um about a speech I gave at the National Press Club many many moons ago when I
said very explicitly having quoted from the Joint Staff report the analysis done
by the Joint Staff for General George Catllet Marshall on what it would mean if we did what we
did in 1948 partition and then the rest of it and that report reads like a description
change just a few terms of what's happening today and the title of my remarks was is Israel a strategic asset
or strategic liability my conclusion was the latter profoundly and I come to that point because no
matter what we do with this volatile situation in southwest West Asia. The foreign minister of Oman's remarks echo
and reverberate across the entire region. The real problem in the region is Israel.
And until something is done about that, until Israel suddenly sees the light and becomes willing to accept a one-state
solution, a democratic state that is truly democratic and recognizes all of its citizens in rough equality or some
other solution that's viable. We aren't going to settle this problem and I think it's going to get worse, not better.
Yeah.
Yeah. your your thoughts about that, uh, Larry?
No, no, I agree. Um, Israel has become a rogue nation.
You know, we've we've seen in our, you know, when Colonel Wilkerson and I were uh much younger, uh, you know, in 1960, was there a time we were younger?
Yeah. Yeah. I barely remember. Um but you know the e I call it the Exodus generation where we were introduced to
the story of the birth of Israel via Paul Newman and uh was it Marie St.
Clair? So I forget the the actress.
Yeah. Marie Marie Saint or something like that.
Yeah. Yeah. And uh you know part of it part of it was it was a piece of masterful propaganda
because it was designed to shape a perception of Israel and to you know sear it into the memories of of of
people. And you know, one of the story line is uh uh they the the it it was remarkable in that the rewriting of the
movie they actually talked about the I can't remember if it was Irun or Stern Gang, one of the terrorist groups in I believe. Yeah.
Yeah, it was Irun. So the the the brother the brother of one of the protagonists was was a terrorist held in
prison, but at the end he gets out. he gets free cuz he's not really a bad terrorist because he's killing those Arabs and the Brits and they sort of ask
for it. Um, but you get this, you know, blonde almost white blonde girl named
Karen. She's Danish, but she's a survivor of the Holocaust. And she goes to Israel to find gets into a kabuts
and and and falls in love with with a guy who had been a slunder commando, you know, the one picking bodies out of the
gas chambers. Uh and uh then at the end of the movie, she's murdered. Now, I'm going through all the detail of this.
just yesterday. It shapes a story of little David, little Israel fighting against this Goliath Arabs. And so a
whole generation of people my age, older, a little younger were were painted with that propaganda and came to
believe it. But now, thanks to social media, which is one of the reason they flipped out and tried to shut down Tik Tok, Yeah.
you're seeing the Israelis killing babies.
They're not the David. They are the Goliath and a monstrous Goliath at that.
And that they are in an unreoverable public relations position. You can't
there's not enough lipstick in a in a in a million tubes to put on this pig and make it look attractive. It is they're
beyond that. And and that's one of the dilemmas that they're facing right now is that they right this is generational.
the next generation coming up is not lining up to say, "Hey, man, we stand with Israel." No, it's going the opposite direction.
Yeah.
This will take this will take a long time. Uh it'll work itself through the American public. We may destroy ourselves before it has full effect. But
he's right. It is going to change the whole and BB knows that. That's the reason he's desperate to get this section 294, I think it is, in the uh
House bill for the National Defense Authorization Act because he wants to get something in there to cement the relationship with a little oversight
while he can because he knows it's going away.
Yeah. What What is this? Yeah, I haven't looked into it too hard, but maybe both you can help me understand better. This idea people have been throwing around
about the US and Israel fusing their militaries. Now, you know, I'm very critical of the US military because of how it's used and
wielded, uh, you know, and all the criticisms that you all you both have brought on this show. Uh, Israel's military though, it doesn't really it's
like a it's it's it's more of a a settler kind of mercenary force. It doesn't really fight wars beyond uh
those that it's trying to uh, you know, these genocidal campaigns to expand borders. in its uh uh re area in its
general uh settler area Lebanon, Syria, Palestine of course. So what is this all about? This so idea of fusing the
militaries together whoever wants to begin.
Well, I see it as a effort to do exactly what BB Netanyahu hinted he was going to do, but do it in a way that's beneficial
to Israel. You remember he was talking about we don't need you anymore. We we don't need a new memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of
understanding is supposed to be renewed for 2027. It lasts 10 years. Guarantees 3.8 bill or something like that per year
for those 10 years. Um we go beyond that well beyond that when they get into rest like there are right now. Um but what
this would do is take that whole process which at least has exposure. It has exposure under the Lehi law and under
other restrictions on the use of US military equipment and arms overseas against targets we don't prefer to have
them used against like women and children. And even though Blinken and Sullivan and uh Biden Biden and dementia
I think but probably Joe Biden would have done this anyway because Israel is so sacros. They get away with
everything. But at least there's visibility. Why did Josh Paul leave political military affairs in the State Department? Because we weren't enforcing
the laws. But at least there was that visibility of those laws. Now Rumsfel made an attempt to do this when he was
Secretary of Defense. He tried to get the Congress to approve taking appropriation authority
that was states to spend and given it to DoD. IMAT was a good example international military education and
training. They wanted to determine who got IMAT, not state. But when you do that, when you put oversight for these functions at DoD, forget the oversight.
It's not going to happen because the Sask and the Hass are not going to provide the oversight. They don't want to provide the oversight. It's too much trouble and they love Israel. So what
you get is you get this relationship not only between the United States and Israel that's perfidious, insidious,
pernicious and deadly. You also throw Lheed Martin, Grumman, RTX, Boeing, and
a host of other people in there who will contaminate the whole process beautifully with things like propri proprietary maintenance and so forth.
They'll make a fortune out of this and so will the Israeli defense people and there will be no visibility that the American people will have and that's
what Netanyahu likes about it because there will be none of this publicity about what happens between Israel and the United States.
Yeah, it's going to pass. It's probably going to pass.
I I checked with the guys who with Josh Paul's group uh a couple of days ago and some others too, Pentagon Budget Campaign, a number of others and it's probably going to pass in both houses.
What are the problems uh that this uh could pose, Larry? Because uh a lot of this seems to focus on technology and
that's the kind of fusion especially with the way that the US military now and uh it's its boss I guess you could
say. Pete Hegth uh very obsessed with AI and high-tech kind of warfare. Uh what
kind of problems though does this pose if any?
Well, it let me suggest it doesn't necessarily propose any solutions.
So you know so to join US and Israeli research and development testing evaluations of so-called advanced technologies.
Well, both countries have a have a track record, a proven track record of proving
of producing very expensive military technology that doesn't work. Okay.
So whether we're talking Patriot or THAAD or David Slang, you know, they produce these systems that frankly they
don't work or they're they're really expensive and they don't work against ballistic missiles. Um then they're
talking about co-production, licensing, industrial partnerships. You know, I don't see that as uh necessarily some,
you know, tremendous change in what we already have. There's that's that's already actually happening. Uh and
again, I'm not sure it has it's it'll be more to the benefit of Israel than it will be to the United States. I I think
the real the real concern comes down to what they're calling network integration and data fusion uh where they allowed
shared military data networks. Now that that goes to intelligence but in my experience while the Israelis
always want to know what we have because they they assume correctly that at least from the CIA side that the
CIA will hide keep information from Israel. The the reality is that with respect to countries in the Middle East
with Syria, with Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, even Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Israelis
have far more robust and accurate, oh, not necessarily accurate, but far more robust
intelligence. And if you look at who's using what, it's the United States that's using the Israeli intelligence,
not the opposite way around. Uh I know just and just to illustrate uh when John Brennan was chief of station in Saudi
Arabia back in 1995, I think that was the year that Kobar Towers was blown up uh killing um some US servicemen and killing some Saudis.
uh the chief of base is an old friend of mine and he told me later that uh they
had you know the suspicions well while subsequent blamed Iran on that it wasn't Iran it was al-Qaeda.
Yeah. But but the reason was that Don John Brennan had imposed restrictions on
CIA officers being able to collect try to collect sources and collect intelligence on the Bin Laden network.
Bottom line. So that's why I say you've got the United States has sort of hamstrung itself and made itself
vulnerable where Israel releases intelligence to us that is completely manipulated to drive us to a certain
conclusion. So that that's the real danger. But the other thing that Colonel Wilkerson, you know, correctly noted,
this this embedding it in this uh military aid package in the way they're
talking about it takes it out of where you're able to do an any evaluation, any assessment, any followup and
discovering corruption and and other inefficiencies. So again, it's just this is one more sign that the US government
is a captive of the uh Zionist network.
Yeah, Colonel Wilkins, any final thoughts?
No, I I think we're in deep deep trouble here with this war and I think we're going to see just what kind of trouble we're in over the next six months or so.
And I think it's going to be manifested most dramatically and dangerously economically.
Yeah. Well, uh, Michael, it's why Trump needs to move and he needs to get out of it and he needs to put his foot down if he's possible. Yeah. Get out of it.
Michael Morendian 4513 said, "Is it possible to ask the colonel what citizens can do about the USIsraeli military cooperation bill?" Which we've
just discussed quite extensively. Uh there just just Google the uh uh I
forget the name of the pack. It's an anti-APAC pack that Josh Paul has started. I'll be glad to send it to you.
Um but you can just Google uh Josh Paul and you'll get it because he's he's the he's the guy running it.
All right. They've got a full campaign going, a full campaign going trying to counter this or at least give enough visibility to the American people where
they understand what they're getting into.
Yeah, that's great. Uh, definitely do that. I can share. In the 90s, I work for Boeing, says Empire. We are F-15
avionics. Boeing built 25 F-15s for Israel, the F-15i. It was identical in all capabilities, including nuclear, to the American F-15E.
Um, so, uh, that's all folks. Uh, I want to thank Larry Johnson and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson for joining me today.
It's always a great show when they come on. Tomorrow, I'll be back 1 p.m.
Eastern time with Andre Martian. So, be sure to check that out. June 5th, 1 p.m.
Eastern time. Hit the like button before you go. Larry Johnson's blog, Sonar 21, is in the video description below. Hit the like button. That helps boost the
show. And all the place to support this show is in the video description as well. Larry Colonel Wilkerson, any final words of goodbye? Hey, thank you.
Yep. Hang in there, Danny.
Hanging in, hanging in. We're all in it together, everybody. All right, I'll see you tomorrow. 1 PM Eastern. Uh uh June 5th. Andre Martina. See you then.

[admin]

China’s Closest Allies Mobilize? After Putin’s ‘Secret Shipments,’ Kim Jong-Un Accelerates Nuke Push
Hindustan Times
Jun 4, 2026 #NorthKorea #Russia #KimJongUn

After reports of covert Russian weapons shipments, Kim Jong‑un has made a major nuclear move and toured a new factory for weapons‑grade material, boasting doubled production capacity. As Russia and North Korea tighten their alignment and China’s partners prepare for a Taiwan conflict, Washington faces shrinking options in a rapidly militarizing Indo‑Pacific.



Transcript

After reports surfaced of a covert shipment of advanced weapons tied to Moscow, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has reportedly made a consequential
nuclear move, an action that analysts say could further destabilize regional security and complicate diplomatic containment efforts. Kim is
simultaneously expanding his country's infrastructure for producing weaponsgrade nuclear material, investing in facilities and technologies that would increase Pyongyang's capacity to
sustain a larger and more diverse nuclear arsenal amid the wider crisis around Iran. China's closest strategic partners are accelerating preparedness
measures in response to growing fears of a potential Taiwanese invasion, stepping up joint planning, logistics, and covert support options to brace for highintensity crossstrade contingency.
Together, Russia and North Korea appear position to constrain US options and absorb political pressure while China pursues coercive moves toward Taiwan, a
deacto alignment that could limit Washington's freedom of action and reshape alliance calculations in the Indoacific. North Korea's leader, Kim
Jong-un, personally inspected a newly reported factory dedicated to producing nuclear materials, a high-profile visit that signals Pyongyangs intense focus on
expanding its nuclear production infrastructure and projecting strength to both domestic and international audiences. During the tour, Kim reviewed
production lines described as employing advanced technology. According to reports dated June 3rd, a claim that North Korean state media and allied
outlets used to underscore improvements in efficiency and technical sophistication at the facility. Details of the North Korean leaders inspection were carried by Sputnik International,
which cited official sources and imagery to outline the itinerary and the regime's public narrative about the facto's capabilities and strategic importance. North Korea's state news
agency KCNA quoted via Sputnik claimed that the country's capacity to produce weaponsgrade nuclear material has doubled over the past 5 years. An
assertion intended to portray rapid progress in Pyongyangs nuclear program and to deter external pressure. Kim Jong-un also convened a highle meeting
focused on bolstering North Korea's nuclear forces, a session that reportedly reviewed force posture, production priorities, and plans to
accelerate modernization across the nuclear enterprise. In his remarks, Kim was reported to have said that strengthening nuclear deterrence is
essential for national security, framing the expansion of capabilities as a defensive necessity in the face of perceived external threats. The timing
of Kim Jong-uns inspection followed media reports alleging secretive shipments from Russia to North Korea, a linkage that analysts say could have influenced Pyongyangs decision to
highlight its own production advances and to coordinate messaging with Moscow.
As tensions escalate around Taiwan, analysts and commentators are increasingly voicing concerns and speculation that an armed shipment may be on route to one of China's key
regional allies. A development that could further complicate an already volatile security environment and prompt fresh international scrutiny. According
to investigative reports and maritime tracking data, a Russian flagged cargo vessel that has previously been implicated in suspected armed smuggling activities made a port call in North
Korea. [music] An event that has raised alarms among regional security watchers and added a new layer of suspicion to the ship's recent movements. Prior reporting and open- source intelligence
link this freighter to covert logistics networks [music] thought to have transported military material in support of operations related to the conflict in Ukraine, casting its subsequent voyage
to North Korea in a more troubling light for observers monitoring global arms flows. On June 2nd, the investigative outlet NK News published a detailed
account of the purported Russian shipment to North Korea, laying out timelines, satellite imagery, and vessel tracking anomalies. The NK News probe
concluded that the Russian freighter engaged in deliberate efforts to obscure its voyage maneuvers that included turning off tracking transponders and altering reported course data.
Investigators found the cargo was reportedly offloaded at the North Korean port of Raisin during May and that the vessel took deliberate measures to conceal [music] its precise location
during that period. Imagery and observer accounts indicate the ship was seen transferring objects that looked like wooden crates onto the dock, but the contents of those crates remain
unverified and unspecified, leaving open serious questions about whether they contain conventional goods, dual-use materials, or prohibited [music]
4 minutesweaponry. Tracking records show the vessel ceased broadcasting its geoloccation on May 28th. a move that coincided with an unexpected detour
toward the North Korean coastline and which analysts interpret as a calculated step to [music] evade routine maritime surveillance systems. After the period
of silence, the freighter restarted its automatic identification system transmissions on May 30th, reporting a course that placed it back on route toward Russian waters near Vladivosto.
The 3-day interruption in the ship's broadcast history coincides precisely with the window in which the freighter was observed at the DPRK's Raisin Port
on May 29th to 30th, creating a suspicious overlap that strengthens the case made by investigators that the communication blackout was intended to facilitate an unreported transfer.
Before its voyage toward Raisin, the Russian vessel maintained continuous transmissions of its position and movements. According to reports,
satellite imagery captured by Planet Labs documented the ship's arrival at Soviet Sky Gavin on May 22nd, providing visual confirmation of the vessel's
presence there and giving analysts a time-stamp reference for reconstructing its subsequent itinerary. Once in port, the freighter was recorded as birthing
at a pier directly adjacent to a Smal facility known for shipping timber goods, an alignment that observers note could provide a convenient cover story
for loading or unloading cargo while minimizing outside scrutiny. The clanderstein shipping trip took place against a backdrop of sharply heightened concern over potential China [music]
Taiwan conflict. A tense regional atmosphere that has amplified the strategic consequences of any suspected arms movements or unusual maritime
activity. Speculation about an imminent invasion of Taiwan has surged in recent weeks following US President Trump's trip to China. A diplomatic event that
many analysts say has intensified debate over Beijing's intentions and the timing of any potential military action.
Chinese President Xi Jinping issued an explicit warning to the United States against intervening over Taiwan, publicly cautioning that interference
could lead to serious confrontation and using language that underscored Beijing's readiness to defend what it considers its sovereign interests.
for the good of our nation. Let's work together and let's truly make America great again.
The fastest news breaks [music] requested PM saying that we will have to speak to Putin and to Zalinski. The biggest news makers.
The relationship with India is probably the most important bilateral relationship the US will have for the rest of this century.
The capital delivered quite an election result today.
Expert analysis. The milliondoll question today is how to stop this dance [music] of death.
Crown reports.
I'm standing at the crossroad of the kum mea. Behind me are more than 100 entry hearts long form interviews.
Exclusionary politics is reflected in Manipur [music] case as well. You don't border because this is a small state.
Deep dive into burning issues.
It's often [music] said DRC could be the richest country in the whole world. It's because of what sits underneath.
Why exactly did the US topple the Shakina government?
HD [music] videos. We don't just break news, we break it down.

[admin]

Abier
@abierkhatib
18h
These people are built differently…. bringing life into an apocalyptic reality.
https://x.com/abierkhatib/status/2062377775885898164/video/1

************

Mohamad Safa
@mhdksafa
Jun 3
Lebanon is the second most-documented genocide in history after Palestine, yet the most denied.
https://x.com/mhdksafa/status/2062292471858561359/video/1


*************

https://x.com/mhdksafa/status/2062604162622525450
Mohamad Safa
@mhdksafa
3h

Israelis who block aid trucks to feed starving children in Gaza are considered civilians.

Yemenis who block trade routes to prevent genocide in Gaza are considered pirates.

Americans who block aid ships to feed starving children in Cuba are considered peacemakers.

Iranians who block Strait of Hormuz to prevent ethnic cleansing in Lebanon are considered terrorists.

They invented a language to conceal their crimes against humanity. It’s as simple as that.

**************

Caitlin Johnstone
@caitoz
13h
People show you examples of discrimination against Jews and it’s somebody wearing a watermelon pin or saying “from the river to the sea”. People show you examples of discrimination against Arabs and it’s families being burned alive in Palestine and Lebanon with western backing.
https://x.com/caitoz/status/2062445860294959273

*****************

TMZ
@TMZ
Jun 3
TMZ obtained video of the incident from CODEPINK, where Rep. Luna says a protester assaulted her. x.com/TMZ/status/206…
https://x.com/TMZ/status/2062280616922771721/video/1

******************

Defiant Ghost
@TheDefiantGhost
Jun 3
Theo Von unloaded on America’s relationship with Israel, no script, no filter.

“I do have a lot of uncomfort about America’s relationship with Israel… It just feels like a satanic regime at this point.”

Then he went deeper:

“It feels like he’s just been compromised by Israel, by this dark government over there… It’s f*cking baffling. And it’s sick.”

Theo continued: “I don't believe the Israeli leaders have any intention to stop that or they have any care for the American people.”

“If we don't speak up now our children won't have the chance to speak up…either by law or worse.”

https://x.com/TheDefiantGhost/status/2062231716954054789/video/1

********************

Drop Site
@DropSiteNews
3h
The House voted today on a new measure to fuse elements of the Israeli and US militaries, particularly on the cyberweapons front. Section 224, as its known, is included in the National Defense Authorization Act. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced an amendment to strip it from the bill. Watch as a stream of Republicans and Democrats stand up in support of the enhanced cooperation. Only Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.) joined Khanna, and the measure failed in a voice vote. Watch:
Ryan Grim
@ryangrim
Massively important vote happening live, link below, on the question of effectively merging the Israeli and US militaries x.com/ryangrim/statu…
https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2062613067859706230/video/1

*********************

Sobh Festival
@Sobh_festival
5h
"The streets are no longer mere streets; they are the front lines of war"

Poetry recitation by Afghan influencer Shaiq Kafshani during a nighttime Tehran rally

https://x.com/Sobh_festival/status/2062577337174999296/video/1

10:48 AM · Jun 4, 2026

[admin]

June 4: Leader warns of enemy's hybrid warfare as Iran rejects Kuwait Airport strike claims
by Press TV Website Staff
Thursday, 04 June 2026 9:52 PM [ Last Update: Thursday, 04 June 2026 9:52 PM ]
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/0 ... tack-claim

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei, in a message marking the 37th anniversary of Imam Khomeini’s passing on Thursday, said enemies have shifted to “hybrid warfare” after suffering defeat on the battlefield.

A massive ceremony commemorating the passing anniversary of the founder of the Islamic Revolution was held at his mausoleum in Tehran in the presence of senior officials.

At the same time, millions of Iranians took part in nationwide Eid al-Ghadir celebrations, renewing their allegiance to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) rejected claims that Iran’s armed forces had targeted Kuwait International Airport during their retaliatory operation.

The IRGC also called for an immediate halt to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, while reaffirming that any ceasefire agreement must include all fronts.

Iran’s UN mission also issued a statement on accountability for US-Israeli attacks on children.

Key developments on day 97 of the war, the 57th day of the ceasefire:

• Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Mojtaba Khamenei said Iran’s enemies have turned to “hybrid warfare” tactics after suffering a humiliating defeat in the face of the country’s armed forces, urging national unity and vigilance to neutralise enemies’ plots.
• Tens of thousands of people gathered at the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini in southern Tehran to commemorate the 37th anniversary of his passing. The ceremony also saw the attendance of many senior officials.
• Millions of Iranians poured onto the streets of Tehran and cities across the country for the annual Ghadir celebrations, using the occasion of one of Shia Islam's holiest holidays to renew their allegiance to the new Leader and to demonstrate national unity amid the ongoing terrorist war against Iran.
• IRGC Spokesman Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi said a malfunctioning Patriot interceptor, not an Iranian missile, struck Kuwait International Airport. Mohebbi said that investigations show the IRGC Aerospace Force had not fired at the Kuwaiti airport terminal.
• The IRGC called for an immediate halt to Israeli attacks on Lebanon and rejected any ceasefire that does not include all fronts.
• Iran's mission to the UN Office in Geneva commemorated 168 students killed by the United States and Israel in the Minab school bombing during the war against Iran, and called for accountability for attacks on children.
• Commander of IRGC Quds Force Brigadier General Esmaeil Qaani said the minimum demand of Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement is a full Israeli withdrawal to the positions it held before the US-Israeli-imposed 40-day war.
• Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in an interview, said Iran does not seek war, but is prepared to continue defending itself if necessary, underlining the enhanced status of the Islamic Republic's armed forces.
• Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem expressed gratitude to Iran for its support of Lebanon, saying the US and Western countries do not want the Islamic Republic to serve as a model of resistance and justice, but instead seek to turn it into a follower of their interests and influence.
• A drone launched by Hezbollah struck the area where Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior regime officials were present during a visit to the northern borders of occupied Palestine, forcing Netanyahu to flee to a shelter, the Israeli i24 News network reported.
• The Palestinian resistance movement Hamas praised Iran’s insistence on securing a simultaneous end to the war across all regional fronts and thanked Tehran for its continued support for the Palestinian people and their struggle against Israeli occupation.
• The United States said Lebanon and Israel have agreed to implement a new ceasefire following Washington-mediated talks in the US capital, as Hezbollah stressed that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has any authority to dictate the future of the Lebanese resistance movement.
• The US House of Representatives approved a resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's war powers in relation to Iran, marking a significant challenge to the administration's handling of aggression targeting the Islamic Republic. The measure was passed on Wednesday by a vote of 215-208.
• The international hacker group Handala claimed that a senior official of the Israeli spy agency Mossad had been killed following a bomb explosion in his personal vehicle.
• Bahrani forces arrested 20 more people, including five Shia scholars, on fabricated charges of collaborating with Tehran as the Al Khalifah regime ramps up its repression of Shia Muslims following the US-Israeli war against Iran.
• Germany suffered a humiliating defeat in its bid for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat, with Berlin acknowledging that its unwavering support for Israel had cost it key votes in the General Assembly.

**************************

IRGC: Malfunctioning US Patriot, not Iranian missile, hit Kuwait airport
Thursday, 04 June 2026 6:31 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 04 June 2026 6:31 AM ]
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/0 ... it-airport

[x]
This handout photo provided by the Kuwaiti News Agency (KUNA) on June 3, 2026 shows Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Ahmad al-Abdullah al Sabah (C) inspecting the damaged airport after an attack, in Kuwait City. (Via AFP)

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says a malfunctioning Patriot interceptor, not an Iranian missile, struck Kuwait International Airport.

IRGC Spokesman Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi made the remarks on Wednesday after Kuwait blamed Iran for strikes on its airport that killed one person, wounded dozens and briefly closed the facility.

Mohebbi said that investigations show the IRGC Aerospace Force had not fired at the Kuwaiti airport terminal.

“The destruction of the Kuwait airport passenger terminal was caused by an error in American Patriot systems, which came down on the terminal after failing to intercept Iranian missiles,” he added.

In the early hours of Wednesday, the IRGC announced it had launched missiles and drones against the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, a US Air Force base in Kuwait and other American military assets in the Persian Gulf region.

The attacks were in retaliation for a US strike on an Iranian vessel in the Gulf of Oman and for a US attack on a communications tower south of Qeshm Island.

The exchange was the latest in back-and-forth attacks by Iran and the US.

Iran's Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Tehran will use "all its capabilities" to confront acts of aggression, including by striking their origin and source.

"The action of any country in allowing aggressor parties to use its land, sea, or air territory or facilities and bases located within their territory to carry out or support military aggression against Iran constitutes a clear violation of fundamental rules of international law and the principle of good neighborliness.”

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/03/769754/Iran-condemns-US-aggression-against-Iranian-tanker,-telecom-mast-in-Qeshm
Iran vows to use ‘all capabilities’ to confront any new US aggression
Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemns aggressive American attacks against an Iranian oil tanker and a telecommunications mast on the island of Qeshm.

Following the attacks, Kuwait’s Foreign Ministry summoned Iran's charge d'affaires to Kuwait City, Hamed Ya'qoubi Far, to deliver him an official protest note.

It also declared two members of the Iranian diplomatic mission persona non grata and asked them to leave Kuwait within 24 hours.

The unjustified US-Israeli aggression on Iran began on February 28 with airstrikes that assassinated senior Iranian officials and commanders.

The Iranian armed forces unleashed 100 waves of successful retaliatory strikes against sensitive and strategic American and Israeli targets throughout the region and restricted transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

On April 8, forty days into the war, an Islamabad-brokered temporary ceasefire went into effect. However, the first round of Tehran-Washington negotiations failed to reach an agreement.

The US unilaterally extended the truce after its expiry, but imposed an inhumane “naval blockade” of Iran while using its bases in the Arab Persian Gulf countries to fuel tensions against Iran.

[admin]

Israel's Draft Crisis Spirals Out Of Control? Bibi Warns Of Tough Action Against Ultra Orthodox Jews
Hindustan Times
Jun 4, 2026 #Israel #Netanyahu #Haredi

Is Israel heading toward a domestic crisis just as regional security threats continue to mount? A long-simmering dispute over military conscription has exploded into public confrontation, exposing deep divisions within Israeli society over who should serve in the country's armed forces.

The controversy intensified after dozens of ultra-Orthodox protesters gathered outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, a key figure in rulings related to Haredi military service. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strongly condemned the demonstration and called for strict action against those involved, while the incident triggered an emotional response from Sohlberg's family and renewed debate over the future of draft exemptions.

At the heart of the dispute is the expiration of the legal framework that had allowed many ultra-Orthodox Jewish men to avoid compulsory military service. As pressure grows on the government to create a new system, anti-draft protests have escalated, including highway blockades and reported confrontations with police.

The debate comes at a sensitive moment for Israel's security establishment. With military commitments stretching across multiple fronts and ongoing regional tensions, the demand for additional personnel has increased dramatically. Can Netanyahu balance the political influence of the ultra-Orthodox community with the military's growing manpower needs? And is the draft crisis becoming one of the biggest domestic challenges facing Israel today?

INTERNATIONAL NEWS



Transcript

Is Benjamin Netanyahu facing a growing military manpower crisis? Just [music] as fears of renewed confrontation with Iran continue to dominate Israel's
security calculations and regional strategy, Israel is increasingly turning inward as a bitter dispute over military
conscription pushes the country toward a political and social breaking point unlike anything seen in recent years.
Anger within the ultraorththodox community has now spilled into the streets with protesters gathering outside the home of a senior Supreme Court justice at the center [music] of the draft exemption controversy.
Netanyahu has strongly condemned the demonstrators and demanded firm action from law enforcement authorities as tensions escalate over efforts to crack down on military draft evasion.
Dozens of ultraorththodox protesters gathered outside the home of a Supreme Court justice, turning a long-running dispute over military conscription into
a direct confrontation with Israel's judiciary. The judge [music] had previously backed measures against ultraorththodox Jewish students who
refused mandatory military service, including orders related to the enforcement of draft obligations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned
[music] the protest and called on police to take what he described as a hardline against those responsible for the unrest.
The Israeli prime minister took to social media and said, "I strongly condemn the violent rioting against Judge Nome Soulberg. Law enforcement
authorities must exhaust the full severity of the law against the rioters." Justice Nome Soulberg had previously
called for stronger enforcement measures against Hardy draft evasion, [music] arguing that the state needed to take meaningful steps to address military service violations. Following the
protest outside their residence, Justice Soulberg's wife, Meera Soulberg, publicly spoke out about the incident, describing the unrest and damage in remarks reported by the Jerusalem Post.
Wife of Supreme Court Justice Nome Soulberg, Meera Soulberg told to the reporters of the Jerusalem Post, and I quote,

"It cannot be that Jews do this to one another. We are children of Holocaust survivors. Jews harming each other like this? How can it be? How can it be? Look at the destruction. A pilgrim. What is this? A Kristallnacht? How is this possible? There are no words.

The demonstrations were part of a broader wave of ultraorththodox opposition to military conscription with protesters rallying against court-backed efforts to expand draft enforcement. According to reports, anti-draft activists also harassed police officers at their homes on two separate occasions over the past two weeks as tensions continued to escalate. Opponents of conscription further disrupted public life by blocking major highways in protest against attempts to enforce [music] military service obligations.
The unrest comes after the legal framework that had long allowed widespread Hardy draft exemptions expired in June 2023, leaving the issue
unresolved. As the crisis deepened, pressure mounted on Israel's governing coalition to pass new legislation addressing military service requirements
for the ultraorththodox community. In a key ruling, Justice Nome Soulberg argued that meaningful criminal penalties should be considered as part of a
broader effort to combat military draft evasion.
[music]
Israeli authorities have increasingly moved to limit long-standing draft exemptions as the military faces growing manpower pressures and seeks to expand
recruitment. The debate has intensified as Israel continues military operations on multiple fronts with ongoing conflicts and security [music]
commitments adding to the demand for additional personnel.
With Israel and Hezbollah continuing to trade blows across the border, [music] US President Donald Trump is reportedly fuming behind the scenes. Donald Trump
and his ally Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly held a heated conversation
[music]
on June 1st as tensions escalated. The call allegedly deteriorated to the point where Trump called Netanyahu
crazy. According to an [music] Axio's report, the expletivefilled outburst reportedly reflected Trump's growing frustration with Israel's actions in
[music] the region. Iran had allegedly threatened to walk away from negotiations with Washington, [music]
citing Israel's strikes in Lebanon.
Trump also reportedly accused Netanyahu of showing ingratitude and demanded an immediate halt to Israeli air strikes.
[music] The US president allegedly warned Netanyahu that threats to bomb Beirut could leave [music] Israel increasingly isolated worldwide. Trump
reportedly reminded the Israeli premere that he had stood by him during his corruption [music] trial troubles. Trump said, and I quote, "What are you doing?
You're crazy. You'd be in prison if [music] it weren't for me. I'm saving you. Everybody hates you now. Everybody
hates Israel because of this." Trump also allegedly argued that Israel was responding to Hezbollah attacks [music] in a disproportionate manner. The US
president's reported rant comes as Israel expands military [music] operations deeper into southern Lebanon.
The Trump administration is also said to be concerned about the rising civilian death toll [music] in Lebanon. Axios reported a US official told Axios that
Trump effectively steamrolled Netanyahu during the June 1st conversation.
Following Trump's rebuke, Israel [music] reportedly pledged to stop striking Hezbollah linked targets inside Beirut.
[music]
However, after the phone call, Netanyahu [music] posted on X that Israel's position remains the same. Tensions stayed elevated along the Israel Lebanon
frontier as Netanyahu reportedly [music] ordered additional military strikes.
Together with the Minister of Defense, I instructed the IDF to attack terror targets in Beirut. There will be no situation where Hezbollah attacks our
6 minutescities and citizens and its terror headquarters in Beirut in the Dah suburb remain out of bounds. We continue to
deepen our activity on the ground in southern Lebanon, eliminating Hezbollah strongholds. Hezbollah is on the run. We
are determined to restore security to the residents of the north just as we did to the residents of south.
Israel's policy in Lebanon is clear. The IDF maneuvered and established territory up to the Nonet line, the yellow line, to distance daily raids and direct fire
on Israeli settlements based on the fundamental principle that residents do not leave the north. Subsequently, IDF forces maneuvered and expanded the area
up to the Bowford Fortress, which became a dominant position and part of the security zone, whose total area is about 600 km. For comparison, the entire area
of Gaza is 365 km. The role of the security zone is to protect Israeli settlements and IDF forces. There are no
residents in this area. It is only populated by IDF and it operates to thwart terrorists, weapons, and the terror infrastructures below and above
ground, including security in all Lebanese contact villages that served as terror outposts for all intents and purposes and their destruction as part
of Operation Silveret will be completed soon. The IDF is conducting aerial attacks on Hezbollah's launch targets from the south and north of the Litani,
working to thwart targets, Hezbollah targets, and any threat throughout Lebanon, and is considering additional maneuvers as needed. Following the US
request, the IDF refrained until yesterday from intense attacks in Beirut, except for targeted eliminations due to US contacts for an agreement with
Iran. Yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I led a move together with the IDF aimed at creating an equation that says that the law of Dah in Beirut
is like the law of the northern settlements in Israel. And if Israeli settlements continue to be attacked, we will attack most of the Shiite Dah in Beirut, which is Hezbollah's stronghold.
There will no longer be a situation of quiet in Beirut and attacked Israeli settlements. In this arena, the prime minister and I published several
announcements that conveyed the principle and its conditions and the IDF spokesperson also published an evacuation notice to the residents of
Dia ahead of an attack with a continuation of fire on Israeli settlements. The immediate result was the evacuation of hundreds of thousands
of residents from most of Dah, 600,000 by yesterday evening. It may still be ongoing. 600,000 out of 950,000 Dia
residents were evacuated by yesterday, creating heavy pressure on Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. This principle was also clarified to the American
administration before the move was executed that we will not tolerate fire on Israeli settlements and will act accordingly. And so it was also in Prime
Minister Netanyahu's call yesterday with the US president. The United States endorsed this principle which is a change from what was and announced it to
the Lebanese government and all relevant parties. the Israeli settlements against Beirut. There will be no quiet here.
There will be no quiet there. Within Lebanon, there is no ceasefire. And the IDF continues operations against Hezbollah with the ultimate goal
long-term of dismantling Hezbollah of its weapons and the immediate goal related to the purpose of the operation in Lebanon is a disarmament of the
entire Leani area beyond the yellow line currently controlled by the IDF and up to the Litani line. Disarmament from Hezbollah militants weapons with Israeli
security control. This is the goal and we are working to advance it with all the means I mentioned here. The test for the defense policy for the settlements
will be simple and will become clear in the coming days. If the fire on the settlements stops or if there is fire on the settlements and we attack in Dah in Beirut, this equation will be realized.
There will be no situation for us of fire on our settlements without responding forcefully against most of Dah in Beirut while evacuating its residents. as we have done in the past.
Those who bring all these great achievements are the IDF commanders and their heroic soldiers in regular and reserve duty who fight bravely with great commitment for the security of the
northern residents. And of course, the northern residents who show courage and resilience in difficult circumstances to allow the IDF to complete its missions
for their defense. The IDF protects the northern residents and pays a heavy price. Soldiers are killed and injured during their missions and the pain is
great. I embrace the berieved families and wish a speedy recovery to the wounded. We are challenged by the fiber drones that are below the technological
thwarting threshold and exact a heavy price and we operate at all levels both strategically and tactically and some of you I assume are also involved in this
issue with all means to provide solutions and responses to this issue.
Israel is determined not to return to the situation before October 7th as part of the new security policy. The IDF is present and interposes between jihadist
enemies and the borders and settlements in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and wherever it is needed, and operates proactively to remove threats in Iran, Yemen, and everywhere. Yeah.

[admin]

"NO MORE WAITING": Arab Nations Push UN For 'Consequences' Against Israel
Times Now World
Jun 5, 2026

Watch the full, high-stakes Joint Security Council Media Stakeout featuring Riyad Mansour (Permanent Observer of Palestine to the UN) and Abdulaziz M. Alwasil (Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia) representing the Arab and OIC groups. In a rare moment of unified diplomatic urgency, representatives from the State of Palestine, the Arab Group, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have confronted the UN Security Council.

The joint briefing warns that the ongoing regional conflicts are being used as cover to implement decisive, irreversible changes on the ground, including the controversial 'E1 Plan' in the West Bank and expanding military control in Gaza. The briefing heavily cites UN Security Council Resolution 2803, Resolution 2334, and recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinions to demand immediate international accountability and "meaningful consequences".

THE 64-NATION DIPLOMATIC ALIGNMENT EXPLAINED:

Behind this singular podium stands a massive, cross-regional global coalition representing more than a third of the United Nations' entire membership:The 57-Member Arab & OIC Bloc: The briefing was formally delivered on behalf of the State of Palestine, the 22 sovereign nations of the Arab Group, and the overarching 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). 7 Security Council Cross-Endorsements: In a unique diplomatic shift, this Arab-OIC initiative was formally backed and endorsed by 7 critical powers currently on the UN Security Council—including China, Russia, and 5 European council members. Together, these 64 aligned nations are moving in lockstep to demand that the Security Council transition from verbal condemnation to enforceable international consequences.



Transcript
Chapter 1: Introduction: Deteriorating Situation in Palestine
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for being with us, the media. So, always good to see your faces uh and we are very grateful that you responded quickly to the call of all of us, the Arab group, the OIC and other friends, and of course the state of Palestine for this press conference. Of course, the reason why we are calling for this conference because the situation is extremely deteriorating in the occupied Palestinian territory, and extremely dangerous, whether in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip, or in the whole general region. And because of that we felt that we cannot continue waiting as it relates to the question of Palestine until things to be sorted out in the regio, the war in the Gulf region, and also what's happening in Lebanon, and the aggression against them.

If we keep waiting, then this extreme Israeli government will sneak in under the smoke of the war and to make decisive changes in the occupied Palestinian territory through annexation, destructions of the hope of the state of the two-state solution, and making the miserable situation in the Gaza strip to even more miserable situation.

Chapter 2: The Dangerous 'E1 Plan' Explained
So that's why we send a letter at the beginning of the week, and one of my colleagues if you wish if you haven't seen the letter, we will be more than happy to give it to you, in which we listed the violations, and the dangerous situation in the West Bank, starting from the great possibility of the implementation of E1 plan. That plan is extremely dangerous in a sense that it wants to connect through more settlements, building and expanding settlements, connecting East Jerusalem with E1 settlements, and connecting with the Kanel Ahmar, and through the Jordan Valley, reaching the Jordan River, meaning dividing the north and the south of the West Bank.

Chapter 3: Gaza Territorial Expansion & UNRWA Compound Seizure
And if you also think of Gaza, they are occupying 53% of the land, expanded to 60% of the land, and Netanyahu is also saying we want to expand to 70% of the land. So occupying 70%, dividing east and north and south of the west bank, then in essence Benjamin Netanyahu and Ben Gvir who are saying we are going to destroy the two-state solution, are taking practical steps in this connection.

You add to it the terrorism of the settlers, the invoking of the land registration to open it for Jews in the occupied Palestinian territory, which is illegal, and also the release of the listing of Israel, and with the specific documentation as it relates to sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners, including girls and women, and you know everybody is saying we have the evidence regarding to that, but Netanyahu wants to shield those who are committing these crimes, and attacking the secretary general, and we salute him for the listing attacking you know the civil society organization, the international organization, all those who have the evidence. Instead of taking those who commit these crimes to court, he is shielding and protecting them.

Chapter 4: Saudi Arabia / Arab Group Joint Statement
I'm just giving you some of the elements that are in the letter that we sent to the security council. We are grateful to Libya and Somalia, the Arab representative in the security council. When we ask them that the security council cannot remain silent, it should act, and as we are meeting in front of you, they are having informal consultation in the content of our letter and other documents, the UN documents, and you know other agency documents about all these crimes. We are saying that these crimes should be stopped. These illegal policies and practices should be condemned, and Israel should be held accountable, and those who committed the crimes of sexual violence should face justice, and it should not be tolerated.

We want the security council, as the main organ of the UN in charge of the maintenance of international peace and security, to act, to shoulder its responsibility to stop these crimes. And I hope those who are meeting inside to act on the basis of many things, including international law, including the 20-point plan of President Trump and security council resolution 2803 that says, among other things, no to annexation, no to occupation, no to the continuation of this situation.

We want consequences, and we want the security council to act. We are grateful for almost every member of the security council that endorsed our request through the Arab representative. It is so unique that five members of the European countries endorsed the call, along with China and Russia and everybody else.

Chapter 5: OIC Statement on Al-Aqsa Status Quo
This is a unique moment, and this is also a sign that on our issue, still the security council is united, and they want action. We are grateful to them. I'm grateful to my colleagues and brothers, brother Abdullah, who is the chair of the Arab group for this month. We had a meeting yesterday. They endorsed this call. They called for this press conference, and they authorized my brother Abdullah to give a statement on behalf of the other Abd Aziz Afwan Abd Azizwasel, to give a statement on behalf of the Arab group which he will, and also we had consultation with the chairman of the OIC group, Ambassador Ahmed and his deputy, will be here to deliver a statement on behalf half of the OIC. And you see that there is a massive support for Palestine in spite of everything.

The war in the Gulf cannot continue to steal away the attention of the international community for justice for the Palestinian people, and we cannot remain silent. We have to do our duty here at the UN. We are ambassadors at the UN.

Chapter 6: Q&A: Will the US Veto Stop the Security Council?
It is our job to work with the security council, the general assembly, the secretary general, that Palestine cannot continue to wait on the margin. Justice has to prevail. This illegal occupation has to end, and freedom and independence of the state of Palestine should take place as quickly as possible.

We thank you for being with us, and I give the floor to my brother Abd Aziz Wasul. You have the floor my brother.

Good afternoon everyone. Glad to be here. Let me start by thanking Dr. Riyad for the introduction, and now I will read the statement on behalf of the Arab group.

The Arab group expresses its deep alarm at the rapidly escalating situation in the occupied Palestinian territory where Israel continues to implement policies that amount to exhilarated annexation and the systematic dismantling of the Palestinian rights. The group stresses that Israel's recent measures are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a coordinated strategy to entrench permanent control over the Palestinian land, and alter the demographic and geographic reality on the ground, and eliminate the possibility of the independent state of Palestine as a sovereign, viable and contiguous states, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolution.

Chapter 7: Mansour Invokes Trump's Stance on Annexation
In this regard, the dangerous steps taken by the by the Israeli government to advance the E1 plan constitute an existential threat to Palestinian independence, and to the prospects for just and lasting peace, and must be immediately reversed. The Arab group rejects all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character, and the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including interelia, the construction and the expansion of settlements, and the forced displacement of Palestinian civilians in violation of international law and security council resolutions, including resolution 2334 of 2016. The group also warns against the ongoing attacks on the historic and legal status quo, particularly with regard to al-Haram a sharif. We also condemns Israel and unilateral measures targeting UNWRA and its decision to establish military facilities in the UNWRA compound in East Jerusalem, a move that yet another manifestation of its continued violation of the UN privilege and immunities.

Arab group recalls the conclusion of the International Court of Justice that quote "the sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying power, through annexation and assertation of permanent control over occupied Palestinian territory, and continued frustration of the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law, and renders Israel's presence in the occupied Palestinian territory unlawful." End quote.

We remind third parties of their obligations under the charter. Relevant United Nations resolutions and international law, including the prohibition of acquisition of territory by force. These obligations include non recognition, non assistance and distinction, as well as the duty to ensure that any impediment resulting from Israel illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory to the exercise by the Palestinian people of their rights to self-determination is brought to an end. In Gaza, the Arab group underscores that the expansion of Israeli military control, ongoing assault, and deliberate restrictions of humanitarian access have created a grave humanitarian emergency. Civilians continue to suffer the consequences of policies that deprive them of protection, essential services, and the most basic necessities of life.

They stress the need for full respect of the principles reflected in resolution 2803, including with regard to the ceasefire, humanitarian access, the prohibition of occupation and annexation, and the rejection of any displacements of Palestinian people. The Arab unequivocally denounces Israel's annexationist policy, and insists that such violations demand immediate international rejection, and meaningful consequences. The Arab group urged the security council and the international community to take decisive decision to immediately halt and reverse annexation related activities in settlement expansion, cease the forced displacement of Palestinians, put an end to all ongoing illegal measures through the occupied Palestinian territory, and ensure accountability in accordance with international law. I thank you.

Thank you very much brother Abdul Aziz for that statement of the Arab group. And as I said before, the security council is meeting. I am delighted that my brother you know the ambassador of Pakistan who was supposed to be inside he's inside he's outside he is
everywhere he's with us and we thank you as long and also the other representatives in the of the security
council inside including my brother from Bahrain and others because somebody told me that maybe I confuse Bahrain with with Libya.
Forgive me for that mistake. Of course, Li, you're okay with that.
And uh allow me now to give the floor to my sister, the deputy ambassador of uh Turkey to speak on behalf of the OIC.
You have the floor.
Estee members of the press, um we thank you for being here. Minister Mansour, um
Ambassador Abdul Aiz, um we thank you for your remarks and to complement uh their remarks. I uh have the honor to
make the following press statement on behalf of the OIC New York group. The IC wishes to draw the Security Council's
urgent attention to Israel's continued efforts to accelerate the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory in clear violation of international law.
These include the expansion of settlement plans in the E1 area, jeopardizing the territorial unity and
integrity of the occupied Palestinian territory by fragmenting the West Bank and severing East Jerusalem from its Palestinian environment.
measures relating to land registration and property rights, land expropriation, and seizure of sites of religious, cultural, and historical significance.
Continued excursions by extremist Israeli settlers into Alaska mosque, Alaka Mosque, and Alh Haram al-Shariff.
forcible displacement of Palestinians accelerated by restrictions or movement, recurrent military incursions, land
confiscation, the demolition of homes, agricultural lands and olive growth, and escalating settler violence, the
approval of a military compound on the site of the unlawfully seized and demolished Andra headquarters and
occupied East Jerusalem in violation of United Nations privileges and immunities. Furthermore, in Gaza, the
continued expansion of Israeli control, ongoing military operations, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance
continue to inflict immense suffering on the Palestinian civilian population.
The OC group condemns in the strongest terms Israel's attempts to entrench its illegal occupation and annexation of
Palestinian territory. These actions constitute flagrant violations of international law, relevant security
council and general assembly resolutions. The fourth Geneva Convention, ICJ advisory opinions and
orders, the historical and legal status at the holy sites in occupied East Jerusalem. The IC group calls on the
security council and all states to take urgent and effective measures to hold all annexation activities, settlement,
expansion, forcible displacement, the other unlawful practices in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East
Jerusalem, and to ensure accountability in accordance with international law. We thank you for your kind attention.
Thank you. [clears throat] Thank you very much and we will keep you informed of exactly what is going on
inside, what the security council will do and what other steps that we will
take and we will do whatever it takes in order you know to put an end to this tragedy of the Palestinian. How sure are
you that the security council will do something? Because from our experience throughout the years any decisions that
does not benefit Israel and protect it. It's
it collides with the veto power inside the council and we are no better off today than we have been like 20 years
ago. What are the steps can be taken and I know the answer more or less to this.
What can we do to avoid this trap of the security council and the veto power?
Well uh thank you brother Talar for asking this question. We will not
allow the security council to run away from its responsibility.
They have a mandate given to them by the charter of the UN to maintain international peace and security. And
what is happening in our region, what is happening in Palestine is a threat to international peace and security. And
they have to elevate themselves to the level of addressing this issue. That's number one. Number two, they adopted
resolution 2803 which it said among other things that no to annexation, no to occupation
and also the whole process that should lead for self-determination and statethood for the Palestinian
people. They all agreed and it was introduced initially by the United States of America and nobody voted
against it in the security council. We want the security council to honor and respect its resolutions all of them
including this one including 23 23 2334 and many other resolutions. So we
will keep knocking on their door. In addition to that, the fact that we are talking to you and through you to the
whole world of the position of the Arab countries,
[cough]
the OIC countries and others who are with us from other groups is an indication that the position of the
international community is crystal clear and is in line with international law and in line with the principles
enshrined in the charter of the UN. So it is your duty to help us and through your outfits tell the whole world that
we are for peace, we are for justice, we are for putting an end to the war. We
are for resolving these issues through peaceful method as the the charter tells us. Uh and I believe the great majority
of nations and people they don't want wars. They want to see peace and they want to see the end of the tragedy of
the Palestinian people. We cannot be left behind. This illegal occupation has to end. We need to enjoy freedom and
dignity in our homeland. They want to kick us off away from our land. Look at our people in Gaza.
They endured that no person can endure.
But yet they are refusing to leave the homeland. We have no homeland except Palestine. Including the precious part
of it, which is Gaza, including the the the the jewel on top of the crown, which
is Jerusalem and the Holy Land and the holy sites in Jerusalem. And we are grateful for the eight ministers, the
Arabs and the Muslims who issued a statement against the desecration of Alaka Mos and Al Haram Sharif and all of
the things that extremists like Sitri and Bingver are doing in order to uh
usurp such important holy sites from us and the custodianship of of Jordan in
this regard. So we appreciate all these things but we need to keep telling our story and there is a shift of public
opinion in here and in Europe but we need that shift including in the UN to be translated into action to stop the
crimes to stop the annexation to stop the occupation to stop violating our rights to withdraw from Gaza to withdraw
23 minutesfrom the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to allow for the two states solution to become a reality. We are not going to
go away from that path and we are grateful for everyone who is with us and it is almost everyone. That is the
obvious reality. Let us see it being implemented.
Mr. Ambassador, what has been the United States reaction to this new initiative?
We just keep repeating what President Trump said, no annexation.
We know that he told Netanyahu, including recently, stop the nonsense in Lebanon. Stop the craziness. You know, you are not allowed
to annex the land. I know that President Trump is capable and he has the tools to
stop Netanyahu in his tracks in order not to keep the whole region in turmoil
and wars and occupation and to move in the direction of peace and justice. That is why the majority of us are working
with them and the majority of us including the eight Arab and Muslim states supported also by Palestine and
the security council through not uh rejecting security council resolution 2803.
We are also we are all doing our duty.
We need others, including the US administration, to stop Israel from continuing to do the things that it is
doing to all of us. What we want is peace and what we want is the essence of what was proposed to us and we accept
it. And one day that is going to happen. We are not going to be the exception to the rule.
If it if it happened in South Africa to put an end to apartheide, it is going to happen in Palestine to put an end to
appetite, to occupation, to discrimination, and for the Palestinian people to have their own freedom and
dignity and the two-state solution to become a reality. I think we thank you if I can speak on behalf of everyone and
we will continue the conversation with you. Please tell our story. If you need copies of our uh letter, please uh Loren
uh could you please uh give those who want copies of the document. Thank you very much.
Thank you colleagues.

[admin]

Trump Embarrassed Again As Footage Reveals How USS Ford Nearly Turned To Ashes In 'Laundry Fire'
Hindustan Times
Jun 5, 2026



New footage obtained by CNN reveals the extent of damage caused by a major fire aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s most advanced and expensive aircraft carrier. The blaze reportedly broke out in March while the carrier was supporting operations linked to Iran, forcing sailors into a 30-hour firefight after an automated suppression system allegedly failed to activate. Charred berthing spaces, collapsed ceilings, hanging wires, and sanitation issues have raised fresh questions about the carrier’s readiness, with reports suggesting repairs could keep the $13-billion warship sidelined for months. Meanwhile, attention is also turning to China’s latest next-generation fighter developments as the global naval and air power competition intensifies.



Transcript

The first images have now revealed the shocking scale of destruction on America's biggest warship. America's 13 billion dollar flagship carrier has been reduced to a maze of charred rooms and collapsed ceilings. US sailors fought the blaze for nearly 30 exhausting hours trying to extinguish the flames. Yet, the new footage raises questions over whether they truly managed to save the USS Ford at all.

American media has now embarrassed the Trump administration by airing exclusive footage from inside the USS Ford. The USS Ford was nearly reduced to ashes right as Trump rushes headlong into Iran War 2.0. And after the disaster aboard the USS Ford, Iran is now being accused of damaging yet another American warship.

CNN has obtained new video from inside the USS Gerald R. Ford, showing in stark detail the damage caused by a major fire on board the carrier. The blaze erupted in March at a time when the carrier was deployed in support of US operations against Iran, turning a frontline asset into its own emergency. The US Navy initially claimed the fire started in a laundry room and then spread to other parts of the ship, presenting it as a contained incident caused by an internal mishap.

Iran, meanwhile, quickly seized on the event and the carrier's retreat from the combat zone, hailing the fire as a symbolic victory over American power. At the time, Navy spokespeople insisted the blaze had been contained, and that the ship remained fully operational, downplaying any long-term impact on the carrier's mission. However, the new video reviewed by CNN shows destroyed birthing spaces and extensive internal damage, challenging the early, more reassuring public narrative. Charred bed frames, collapsed ceilings, and tangled hanging wires can be seen throughout the footage, revealing just how intense and widespread the blaze really was. One sailor told CNN that in the worst moments of the fire, he genuinely feared the USS Gerald R. Ford could be lost entirely, underscoring how close the crew felt they were to catastrophe.

CNN also reported that the carrier's automated fire suppression system failed to activate when the blaze broke out, stripping the crew of a critical line of defense. That failure forced sailors to battle the fire manually with hoses and portable equipment, even as flames spread through compartments deep inside the ship. According to the report, crews spent nearly 30 hours not only extinguishing the fire, but also continuously checking for hot spots to prevent the flames from reigniting. The resulting damage left roughly 600 sailors without access to their regular birthing areas, forcing them to be relocated elsewhere on the already crowded carrier.

A senior US official admitted to CNN that the Navy's initial public account had downplayed the true extent of the damage, raising concerns about transparency. The same official acknowledged that the fire did temporarily degrade the carrier's combat capabilities, even if those capabilities were later restored. Admiral Daryl Cordell later confirmed that the Ford needed about 2 days before it could resume fight operations, highlighting the operational pause caused by the blaze.

Following the incident, the carrier was forced to divert to Greece for temporary repairs, stepping back from frontline duties to address critical damage. CNN further reported repeated sanitation failures aboard the ship during its record-breaking deployment, painting a picture of mounting problems at sea. Video from inside the carrier showed overflowing toilets and unsanitary conditions, adding to the list of challenges sailors were forced to endure.

After an exhausting 11-month combat deployment, the USS Gerald R. Ford finally returned to Virginia, its crew carrying scars from both combat and the onboard disaster. Officials told CNN that the carrier could require up to a year of repairs before it is ready to sail again, meaning America's most expensive warship may be sidelined for a long time.

Donald Trump reportedly told senior aids he would end the ceasefire only if Iran was responsible for killing US troops. Trump privately indicated that the death of US personnel could trigger a return to direct military action. The position suggested he was prepared to tolerate limited clashes rather than risk a broader regional escalation.

The latest tensions followed some of the most intense exchanges of fire since the truce first took effect. US officials told the Wall Street Journal that repeated Iranian attacks had significantly increased pressure on Trump. Officials also warned the attacks had raised fresh concerns about the long-term survival of the ceasefire. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump continued to believe an agreement with Tehran remained achievable despite tensions.

However, the report said Trump showed little urgency to finalize a comprehensive agreement with Tehran. Trump told the Wall Street Journal it remained possible the US blockade of Iran could continue until Labor Day [September 7). The administration was reportedly working on a 60-day framework to guide future negotiations with Iran.

The Wall Street Journal said Trump rejected Iran's latest offer and demanded additional concessions from Tehran. He reportedly insisted Iran must make significant concessions before receiving any sanctions relief. Iran maintained that nuclear negotiations could advance only after meaningful financial relief was provided. Tehran continued to seek access to frozen assets as part of any future understanding with Washington.

[Donald Trump] This is as you probably have been watching. So from 1922 to president really never worked because we took a strong action for a different reason. So they were reciprocating.

Mr. President can you explain ...

[Trump] The negotiation itself has gone very well, actually very well.

Mr. President, ...

[Trump] It could happen. I mean, if it happens, and it might not happen, you know, who knows, but if it happens, it could happen like over the weekend, but [snorts] as it stands now, we will go in at sometime in the not too distant future. It's very safe down there. You know, we have with Space Force, we have cameras, every angle of that those three sites are being watched at all times. If anybody went there, we'll see exactly what's happening. And we'll blow it up a little bit further. But as far as getting -- it is very -- the B2 bombers did a job like nobody's ever seen in the night with no moon, dead darkness, at 1:00 in the morning or so. They dropped those bombs the biggest just about as big a bomb as you can ever find. And it hit went down air shoots. It went --hard to believe that they can do the technology. It followed a beam right into the air shoots right exploded. Very hard to get that material, but I still nevertheless won it. And I don't want to do it if we're in conflict. I don't want to put men in that kind of danger. I remember Jimmy Carter had some bad problems in Iran with the hostages. I don't want to ever put our people in that kind of danger. But when it's over, it as of this moment, it's agreed that we will go in with them. We will get it, and we will destroy it. It will be destroyed.

The Iranian Navy says that on June 3rd, it targeted the command and control systems aboard a US destroyer, striking at what it describes as the ship's brain in Gulf waters. Tehran insists the strike was a direct response to what it calls aggressive US measures against Iranian commercial shipping, accusing Washington of harassment at sea. This development was announced in an official statement issued by Iran's Army Public Relations Office, giving the claim the stamp of formal military approval. According to that statement, the US destroyer was attempting to enter Iranian waters, a move Tehran frames as a clear violation of its sovereignty and red lines.

However, US Central Command has flatly denied Iran's account, rejecting the claim that any US Navy destroyer was hit or successfully targeted. Centcom went so far as to say Iran is lying, insisting that American assets at sea are operating freely and without damage, despite Tehran's statements. Iran's statement said, and I quote, "A few hours ago, following aggressive actions, violations of the regulations governing the Strait of Hormuz, and hostile acts against Iranian commercial vessels in the Sea of Oman by the terrorist and aggressive US military, the Navy, immediately upon detecting and identifying the source of those actions, targeted the command and control center responsible for them." End quote.

Meanwhile, eyewitnesses inside Iran reported hearing the sounds of explosions and active air defenses. According to Iran International, suggesting something significant was unfolding in the skies. Residents in eastern Tehran described the distinct thud of air defense fire and then a single loud explosion around 8:45 p.m., sending people rushing to their windows and balconies. Similar air defense sounds were reported from Karaj and Nurmia while blasts were heard near
Bjnord airport pointing to a wider pattern of aerial activity across multiple Iranian cities. Iran stressed that its navy is closely monitoring what it calls a criminal and aggressive enemy presence, keeping constant watch on US movements in the region. The statement warns that the navy will respond to any hostile act in the shortest possible time, signaling readiness for rapid retaliation if it feels provoked.

Tehran further vowed that its forces will exact revenge in the harshest manner for the blood of the sailors of the destroyer Dena, framing its actions as avenging fallen martyrs. This latest claimed attack comes after both Tehran and Washington exchanged fire under the shadow of a fragile ceasefire, raising fears that the truce is rapidly unraveling in the Gulf. At least one person has been killed in the devastating aftermath of Iran's deadly strikes on Kuwait.

...Iran rejects Kuwait Airport strike claims...

[T]he Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) rejected claims that Iran’s armed forces had targeted Kuwait International Airport during their retaliatory operation....

IRGC Spokesman Brigadier General Hossein Mohebbi said a malfunctioning Patriot interceptor, not an Iranian missile, struck Kuwait International Airport. Mohebbi said that investigations show the IRGC Aerospace Force had not fired at the Kuwaiti airport terminal.

-- June 4: Leader warns of enemy's hybrid warfare as Iran rejects Kuwait Airport strike claims
by Press TV Website Staff

Kuwaiti authorities also alleged that multiple people sustained injuries following Iran's drone attacks with the international airport suffering significant damage. Kuwait has suspended all commercial flight operations. Airport operations in Kuwait are reportedly [music] expected to remain halted until further notice from authorities. The airport had only reopened for normal operations on June 1st before the strikes took place. Kuwait's Ministry of Defense confirmed that Iran launched multiple hostile drones during its June 3rd attack. According to Kuwait's Ministry of Defense, Iran fired 13 ballistic missiles and 17 drones during the assault.

Gulf allies have now come out strongly against Iran following attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait. The Gulf Cooperation Council released a statement on June 3rd condemning what it called ongoing aggression. The GCC reportedly accused Iran of carrying out cowardly attacks against civilians in Bahrain and Kuwait. GCC Secretary General Jason Muhammad Albui also accused Iran of hostile actions against Gulf nations.

The statement further alleged that Iran's attacks amounted to violations of international law and accepted norms. Albui also urged the international community to take a firm stand and end Iran's aggression. The Gulf Council Secretary General said, and I quote,

"The attacks reflect the Iranian regime's insistence on pursuing rejected hostile policies targeting the security, stability, and sovereignty of the member
states. Iran is in violation of international law, the United Nations Charter, and all international norms, stressing that this requires a firm international stance to put an end to these dangerous Iranian aggressive practices.

We underscored that the
security of the Kingdom of Bahrain and the state of Kuwait is an integral part of the security of the GCC states and that the cooperation council states
stand united in confronting these attacks and fully support all measures and procedures taken by the two countries to defend their security, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
End quote.
On June 3rd, the United States and Iran exchanged missile strikes across the region despite a fragile ceasefire.
American bases in Kuwait and Bahrain came under fire following US self-defense strikes against Iran. Press TV's report said, and I quote, "Iran's
IRGC announced that it struck a US military air base and the US fifth fleet headquarters with missiles and drones in retaliation for American attacks. The
IRGC said a US war plane first hit an Iranian tanker near the Straight of Hormuz late last night, causing engine
room damage. In response, the IRGC targeted a US affiliated vessel named Panaya with naval missiles after a
subsequent US strike on an IRGC telecom tower on Keshum Island. The IRGC aerospace force attacked a US Air and helicopter base in a regional country as well as the fifth fleet command center.
The IRGC warned that any violation of security in the Strait of Hormuz would bring a harsh price for the US military." Iran has reportedly stopped
communicating with mediators regarding a possible extension of the ceasefire.
However, US President Donald Trump rejected those claims and insisted that talks with Iran remain ongoing.
[music]

[admin]

Part 1 of 3

Trump BALLROOM Project UNDER FIRE in Court!!!
Legal AF
Streamed live 4 hours ago

Q. So move fast and break things and then there's no standing? ... So move fast and bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, and no one has standing?

A. No.

Q. And so no court can stop this construction from happening, even if you are found to have no authority to do this?

A. Yes.

Q. So complete lawlessness by the government cannot be stopped?

A. Yes.

Q. So only the Congress can stop this?

A. Yes.

Join Popok for Legal AF’s live stream of the key oral argument before the DC Federal Appellate Court about whether Trump’s Ballroom plan violates the constitution and Congress’ laws, and needs to be blocked permanently.



Transcript

[Michael Popak] Welcome to our live coverage here on Legal AF of this momentous appellet hearing. An oral argument before a three
judge panel DC federal court. Three randomly selected judges hold the fate of the
White House and our historic legacy. And whether we're going to be able to stop Donald Trump from remaking Washington DC
in his own image is in the hands of Judge Millet, Obama appointee, Judge
Garcia, a Biden appointee, and Judge uh Naomi Reo, a Trump appointee, and yes,
who the judges were appointed by matters. Let me tell you up front, I'm Michael Popak. You're here. Thank you for being here. I have a video up
already this morning concerning uh this um like a preview of this oral argument, but very very important. Let me focus on
Judge Naomi Reo for a minute. She is, how do I put this? She's campaigning hard to be on the United States Supreme Court. She was a Clarence Thomas clerk.
She is the rightest of right-wings. And in her career, having been appointed by Donald Trump in the first term, she has
almost never, I don't think, ever sided against Donald Trump and anything he's ever wanted on the appellet court. This
appellet court is particularly um prestigious. It's considered a feeder court, a a training academy, if you
will, to the United States Supreme Court. many of the judges that are are justices on the Supreme Court came out of the um either the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals or this Circuit Court of Appeals. Um and Naomi Reo, I doubt I
doubt I would be shocked if she asked the question that indicated she was against the ballroom construction. I think I think the other we have to count
on the other two. Millet who's been up against the the president before, including during his criminal convictions as to whether he had
immunity, and Judge Garcia. Now, just to um prove my point, there is currently in
place a stay order by this appellet court blocking the lower judge, the
district court judge. his name is um Judge Leon, Richard Leyon. Um he had
issued an injunction to temporarily block or preliminarily block the construction of the vertical structure
of the ballroom but allowing the below ground construction to continue. The appellet court 2 to one blocked Judge
Leyon's block. So we have a block of a block. What does that mean? That means they lifted the injunction allowing the below ground work to continue. So if you
went by the White House, I happen to be in Philadelphia today, which I'll talk about in a moment. But if you went by the White House, the other historic one
of the historic cities in America, you would see cranes and and construction.
And that's because the appellet court said, "Listen, um this is a three-year project. We'll let it go another month until we have oral argument. Then
they'll make a decision as to whether the injunction should continue or be re-imposed from now until the end of the
appeals process which could be with Supreme Court could be six or eight months. You know of Donald Trump if he doesn't like the result here and he
loses two to one he'll run to the United States Supreme Court and try to get on their shadow docket to get a ruling in
his favor. Naomi Reeo would be the first Southeast AsianAmerican to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court. She is
um salivating for the position according to insiders and I doubt she's going to blow her audition
by um siding against the ballroom. So watch her when this oral argument starts and I'm going to be talking until we get
signal from my producer that the oral argument has started. You're not going to lose anything. You're not going to miss anything. I'm not talking over the oral argument. They're scheduled for 15
minutes aside. It'll go much longer than that. Buckle buckle up. This is going to be at least an hour of oral argument.
I'll stay in the chat. I'll try to guide you as to what the issues are. The first issue that's going to be up on the
docket on the plate is going to be does the National Trust have standing to bring this case? That's the main
argument uh by the Department of Justice and it's the one that the judges will have to take up first. They may take it
up quickly and move on, but they need to take up the issue of whether the National Trust, the congressionally created entity from the early 1900s, has
the right type of injury and representative standing or representative injury to come into court
and to litigate this issue. Because fundamentally the first thing every court has to do is determine whether they have jurisdiction. And if a party
doesn't have standing, if they don't have real injury, if they're asking for what amounts to an advisory opinion, if
the parties are not adversarial, in other words, Trump suing his Internal Revenue Service, um there's not a real
party in interest on either side of the V, then courts say, "We don't have jurisdiction. We just don't have jurisdiction." You might have a
meritorious case. We just don't have the right party to carry the water for that case. And it happens. You know, you've seen the Supreme Court, for instance, in
the Mythopristone abortion pill, medication abortion pill issue, at least on one occasion, they were able to block
the attempt to um have a federal judge stop allowing medication abortion bills to be sent to women by arguing that the
group that came to court didn't have standing. the these doctors who said um oh we're injured because we have to treat women who have mishaps because of
the medication abortion pills and they were like no that's not the kind of injury that gets you into a courtroom. So, first issue is going to be standing.
You've seen in the in the briefing that's going on here and there's been three briefs. One, two by the Trump side
because they're the what we call the appellant. They're the the party taking the appeal because they lost before Judge Leon. One brief by the National
Trust. And then a bunch of other briefs filed, what we call Amichi briefs or amicus briefs, and they've been filed by friends of the court. They've been
accepted. the American Civil Liberties Union, National Architects Institute, other public interest groups, all the Amichi briefs are against the ballroom.
So there there nobody rushed to Donald Trump's aid. You know, you don't see any senators, you know, Republican senators saying, "We want the ballroom and it's
billion dollar price tag." Yeah, they don't want that. Politically, they don't want that. So all the briefs come in and then the clerks that work for the judges
do an initial screening and then they do some summaries and then they turn the briefs over to the judges. The judges read all the briefs and they ask
questions that are important to them from the bench. We call it a hot bench if there's a lot of questions uh aimed
at one or both parties. That's I've I've done appellet advocacy. you get a hot bench. Um, and you have to, you know, you may come in with your outline just to give you a little inside baseball.
You know, I'll come in with an with an outline of what I want to argue and and two or three points I know I have to make before I'm done. But you have to go
with where the questions take you. You know, it's almost like you're a boat at sea and you're getting hit with various waves. You have to go. Now, you also
have to navigate it to answer to to make sure you make your points. You know, it's sort of like a press conference.
You get the question, but then you got to pivot and bring it back to your argument, but you have to answer the question. And sometimes you start if
you're if you're skilled, and we'll see skilled advocates today, you start using the the judges against each other. Well, as Judge Millet said, well, I agree with
Judge Garcia, as Judge uh Rayo asked my opponent, you know, and you and you work it that way. We'll watch a lot of that, but we'll know if it's a hot bench. If
they're just sitting there on their hands, which I doubt, that's a cold bench. um they they really don't have many questions to ask. And then we'll have to see how the advocates handle
this. It'll be either Greg uh uh either Brett Shoemate who's the head of the civil division for the Department of Justice or somebody in his office. And
it's on the other side for the National Trust. It'll be Greg Craig who's about 80 and had been Don um Barack Obama's
White House counselor or somebody in his office like an appellet specialist, probably the appellet specialist. And um you know, I've gone up there and said,
you know, a two-minute spiel and looked around and wasn't getting questions and I'll say, "Well, if there's no further questions, I'll I'll sit down. I'll I'll
I'll save my time for rebuttal or whatever it's going to be." Um, but usually judges will jump right in because they've been waiting on this
issue and they know the eyes of the nation are upon this this court. Uh, and and they want to get it right. At least two out of the three want to get it
right. If you want to ask a question while I'm doing the pregame, uh, because we are live, put it in the, uh, notes in
the in the comments, which I'll pull up now and see how see how we're doing.
What do we got with us today? We got 2,000 people with us. So, put it in notes. I'll try to answer the questions.
Um, somebody two sheds Jackson says, "I could never talk this long non-stop." Yeah, it's my job.
It's my job, you know, and this is in the context and of course the judges are people. Judges are people, too. And they see what's going on in Washington. They
see Donald Trump wants to like pave over the backyard of the Lincoln Memorial to make a pavilion down to the POTOMAC, you know. Um Oh, oops. I knocked it over.
You know, that's what we're all afraid of, you know, while he's out there. Uh oh, I damaged the Lincoln Memorial.
We'll have to tear it. We'll have to tear it down. Uh, sorry. I was life life coming in.
Um, give me one second so I can tell people what's going on.
Okay. Um, you know, and they they know about the arc the triumph that Donald Trump wants to build with his handpicked
board of of uh architects who have said, "No, it's okay. If you're building a giant monument, you don't have to comply with federal law or zoning or you can
put it up and worry about airplanes flying into it." Sure. I mean, you know, Donald Trump's goal is to be, you know,
the builder chief and try to remake the face of Washington DC in his image. I'm in Philadelphia right now because I'm um
I'm in the I'm with the media row, so to speak, at Netroots. So, those who want to visit me at the Philadelphia Convention Center, I'm there this
afternoon. But, you know, I I shed a tear literally this morning. I walked over, you know, to water my own tree of
liberty. I walked over to Independence Hall and I wanted to see what was happening at the um the location where
George Washington's house was located where the National Park Service had put up plaques uh under the Biden administration and a video display about
the enslaved people that George Washington and his family owned. you know, they have a list of 10 or 12 of them and those those plaques were torn
down because Donald Trump doesn't want to he wants to whitewash literally history and and they just was an oral argument at the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals about this and it's sad. I mean, I'm going to be doing a video about that that oral argument um as soon as I'm done here and you'll see it up later
today, but uh with my own pictures that I took of the display. I mean to see ripped from the walls
leaving just anchors, metal anchors, and then somebody, you know, first amendment expression, somebody who's following the
story with with handwritten um paper signs has taped them all over to describe what's happened, why there are
holes here. And the weird thing is, which I don't I can't figure out, is they ripped off the plaques and the lawyer actually told the third circuit
court of appeals, "Yes, Donald Trump gets to rewrite history when it comes to slavery if that's not what he wants to display." Like, really? Um, but right
next to the plaques that are now missing is a video display with TV screens of the same story and it's still running.
So, explain that to me. Anyway, that's another oral argument and I'll be reporting on that. Um I I kind of got uh
geeked up to do it after after visiting um Independence Hall today this morning in Philadelphia. Okay, so back to the
ballroom. Um what could happen? What are the repercussions? The judges won't rule from the bench. So don't don't don't
think that's going to happen. They're going to take it under advisement. Could be two weeks or a month or a little bit longer. And we're going to get a ruling.
In the meantime, the ballroom construction below ground continues.
It's a two and a half year project. So, it's not like it's it's going up overnight. It's not inflatable. It's not going up overnight. Despite the AI generated photos, I think Donald Trump
thinks he lives in an AI generated world like Candyland. Um, but he doesn't. And so things take time to build. Uh, so
they're going to move as quickly as possible. I would predict a ruling, I don't know, you know, courts have senses
of humor. You could get a ruling on July 4th or July 3rd or whenever Donald Trump's 250th birthday party is. I mean, you know, they could crank out an order.
It'll be two to one. It's going to be Garcia and Millet against the ballroom, I think. I I mean, I'll I'll reserve judgment till I hear the oral argument.
And it's going to be Rayo against and a two to one decision. Um, so I think it comes out in a month, Fourth of July
weekend, something like that. Courts work overtime. Trump will take, if he loses, he'll take an immediate shadow docket appeal. It goes to Judge Roberts,
Chief Justice Roberts first. He'll he'll probably continue to block the ballroom or or block the block of the ballroom.
So, allow the ballroom construction and set a fast briefing schedule. I think we'll have a final ruling about whether that ballroom gets built or not by the
end of July. That's how fast I think this could go. You know, I could be off by a month, but that that's where it's going to go. But we'll know from the
bench when you and I listen and I'll try to guide you in the chat. We'll know how the votes are being split here. Let me
while we got a few more minutes, let me see if there's any other questions.
Um, you know, as to exquisite timing, you know, Judge um, Krenshaw on the Abbrego
Garcia case in Tennessee, he issued it on Memorial Day effectively on Memorial Day to dismiss the indictment for
Crenshaw, I mean for um, Abrao Garcia finding vindictive prosecution by the Department of Justice.
Can the Supreme Court make up laws swanned 6563? Yes. They're not supposed to, but they certainly adopt doctrines
out of the blue. They don't consistently apply them. They reverse engineer. You know, the six or whoever has the
majority says, "This is where we want to be. This is the proclamation we want to make." And and the case. That's the
That's the problem. This is not supposed to be a They're a court of of last resort and limited jurisdiction on
appeal. the record below is supposed to matter. They can't adopt new facts. But how many times have we heard the Supreme Court MAGA 6 say a version of well let's
not get bogged down in the record because it's very confusing. That's the right. If you if you untether the case from the record, then what are you doing
then? You're just making edicts and fiats from your perch as Supreme Court justices, not tethered to the case. Now
you're a legislator. Now you're making law. They they deny it. Oh, we would never make law. We we we you know, we are originalists. We're textualists.
You're not you're not not the way this court is.

*****************

Oral argument before the DC Federal Appellate Court about whether Trump’s Ballroom plan violates the constitution and Congress’ laws, and needs to be blocked permanently.

Oh, yay. Oh, yay. Oh, yay. All persons having business before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit are admonished to draw near and give their attention for the
court is now sitting. God say United States and his honorable court be seated, please.
Case number 26-5123 at all National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States versus National Park Service at all appellants
Mr. Roth for the appellence and Mr. Yur for the apple. Good morning.
May it please the court Yakov Roth on behalf of defendants. The district court's injunction is legally indefensible and equitably inconceivable.
We've set forth three separate grounds for reversal, and I'd like to walk through each of those in turn. Starting with standing,
the trust premises its standing on asserted harms to one of its members, Miss Hogland. I think the key uh
paragraphs in her declaration are paragraphs 12 and 13, which appear on JA7677.
Paragraph 12 uh says that Miss Hogland expects to uh have reason to be in the White House area about once a month.
And then paragraph 13 objects to and criticizes the architectural statement that she thinks that the construction of
the ballroom will send. There's no explanation there as to how the project will harm her particularized interests.
There's no explanation as to how it will impede her professional research. There is no suggestion that her plans will
change at all as a result of the project. It is simply that she thinks she does will not like how it looks
after the uh the building is built. That is a classic generalized grievance. I think this court's decision in
environmental defense fund is controlling on that point. That's the case about the FK pipeline that involved constructing a metering station about half a mile from the plaintiff's home.
She said it would be an eyesore. It would ruin the character of her neighborhood. She would have to drive by it several times a week. This court said
that's not good enough for article 3 injury. I think the Supreme Court's decision in Alliance for Hypocratic Medicine is to the same effect. There we
had the doctors who said they derived professional and aesthetic enjoyment from delivering human life and that
seeing abortions occur was going to uh detract from that professional and aesthetic enjoyment. Supreme Court in a
footnote rejected that theory of standing citing Valley Forge for the proposition that distress or disagreement with uh someone's
activities does not count as article 3 injury.
Now uh the trust relies on the aesthetic injury uh line of cases and I think those cases stand for the proposition that if the government is doing
something that is going to prevent you from doing or seeing something that you want to do or see there might be cognizable injury. So if you want to
swim in the lake you there just imagine the declaration simply said I travel to Lafayette Square to view the
White House once a month. I uh enjoy the building's modest design. If this new massive ballroom is completed, it will
harm my aesthetic interests uh and enjoyment of the building. Is that enough understanding?
I don't think that's enough, your honor, because I still think uh the White House, she can still come and look at the White House. White House isn't
changing. What she's really saying is there's this other thing that you're putting up that's going to sort of make me enjoy it less. I don't think that's
distinguishable from EDF where the plaintiff said this is going to ruin the character of my neighborhood. And I don't think it's distinguishable from Alliance where the doctor said, you
know, having to witness these abortions in my hospital, my workplace where I come every day to uh derive professional
satisfaction, that's not enough uh to count as article 3 injury either. We do have a lot of cases, environmental cases
usually where someone wants to visit a site and say uh view a battlefield Sierra Club V tool from 2014 and the
government was uh proposing to approve some coal mining on part of the battlefield. Wasn't going to totally
obstruct the view. Wasn't going to totally obstruct the battlefield, but the articulated interest was in viewing the battlefield as it is. and we held it
there withstanding. Can you think of a distinction between that case and this one?
So, a couple things, your honor. First of all, I I don't think the declaration here actually says all the things that I appreciate those arguments.
So, there's some factual distinction. I think the second point is um I think there's a self-inflicted aspect here that may not have been present there.
So, uh, it's clear from the record that there will still be places to stand and see the White House where you cannot see
the ballroom at all. Now, the district court said there will be places where you could stand where you might have a view, but he pointed to a series of
renderings that equally make clear that at least in the classic locations where people come to view the White House, the from the south, uh, you cannot you will
not be able to see the east wing. It is obstructed by the Jefferson mounds. If you come to the front from the north view, the classic view, the trees are
designed to shield the view. And that testimony is at testimonies at J225. The district court also pointed to some
renderings that that are uh that have pictures, but the point is you want to come and see the White House and not see the ballroom, you can still do that. So
there there is an aspect of this that you know either it's going to be an incidental viewing, right? Like I happen to be walking by, she says, you know, I'm going to a doctor's appointment. I'm
I'm going to an exhibition in the area or it's going to be self-inflicted. You know, intentionally putting yourself in the position where you see this thing that you don't like. So, I think those
are those are distinction. will have to walk a different way, change their route, um look at the White House from
only a certain vantage point, and if they wish to look at it from one they routinely do, or look at it from multiple vantage points as people often
want to do with special sites, that's not an injury.
So, your honor, the two things again on that. Number one, she doesn't say that. So, we're sort of question.
Yeah. Yeah. No, I I and I'll I'll answer the legal question. I just want to say that's not what the declaration says here. I I don't think that would be enough for standing in in this type of
context where you are still able to see the thing you want to see. And again, I'm assuming that the environmental cases wants to see the White House
complex um in a way that perpetuates the architectural design of modesty and simplicity.
Um and when you say, "Well, hold your hand like this while you look
at it and you'll be good." That's not an injury. So that that's not
quite what I was saying that you is that she's going to have to intentionally avoid it ways to look at it without seeing the ballroom.
I think it's actually more that she would have to be self-inflicted to put your hand down.
I think she would have to intentionally put herself in the spec the very narrow locations where you can actually view it. The whole point is it's designed to be
findings by the district court that there's some odd obscure narrow place that's the only place you're going to be
able to see a 90,000 square foot ballroom. Is there a fact finding to that effect? cited. He has a footnote on
this where he cites uh a link to pictures that are in the National Capital Planning Commission uh
ubmission that show how it looks from many many different vantage points. So is gone. Yeah.
See the east wing from the north viewpoint or in the south viewpoint before and now it won't be there. And what will be there, even if she doesn't
see the ballroom, is a completely different colonade, a much larger um asymmetrical colony. The whole thing,
that whole side of the White House um you have all these arguments about how important this is to protect the stability of the White House itself.
Y all right. So the whole side is gone.
You sort of a third, if you think of people looking at it in sort of three parts, a third is gone.
Right. And so all you have, you said, is he cites to these pictures. Is there a fact finding? This seems like a really important fact. If it if someone had to
sort of, you know, get a telescope or crawl through bushes or something like that to try to see something, I I take
your point. Um, but if right up front looking at it, gone and or and with this
design replaced by something bigger, different, leading to something even much bigger. Um that's that seems
important you need to know and that that's not the record that was made.
So the only record the the evidence in the record is JA225 which is the declaration that explains how the views
will not be impacted. That was not contradicted by any declaration from the other side. In fact when we initially said we initially took the position she
won't be able to see it at all and the trust's response to that was that's irrelevant. Not that it's not true. They said, "No, it's irrelevant that we can't
see it in an aesthetic injury case." Which I think speaks to the fact that if you look at their declar her declaration, it's much more about harm
to the park, harm to the cultural resources, harm to the community. It's very abstract and it's not tied to her.
But regardless, the district court did make a finding no that he said, "No, it's not true that she won't be able to see it at all. It will be visible." And he cited these pictures from certain
locations. My point is just she doesn't say she specifically wants to see it from those locations. Um, and she doesn't actually say that she wants to
see it at all. Uh, we're reading that into the declaration. Um, I can move on to sort of the legal point. I don't think legally it would it would change
the outcome if she had said, "Yes, I want to see it from that vantage point." I still don't think that is really distinguishable from an article 3
standpoint from EDF and alliance where the the injury was or the asserted injury was there's going to be
something. I'm going to see it. I'm going to not like it. it's going to hurt my enjoyment and satisfaction. And under the Valley Forge,
buying a car, she walks there because she's on her way to meetings um at the Decatur House, right?
Patty Corner to right the White House um about historic places, their preservation,
historic architecture, right?
Um and she's doing that at least monthly. and she is um someone who studies this. It's been important. This
isn't something that just flew on her screen when this construction started.
She has been studying this for years and years and years as part of her profession, but also now as part of her
volunteer role um and her responsibilities as a trustee. Right.
And she it's it's right there. The Decator House is right there and it's part of the president's park. So, two things on that, your honor.
First of all, I think the fact that she says she sees it because she's going to meetings at the Kater House is actually right in line with the language from EDF
about incidental viewing, right? She does not say, "I'm coming because I want to enjoy this view." She's saying, "I'm coming there anyway. I have reason to be in the neighborhood."
She has the means and she has the walks that she takes. And as an architect, she takes it as someone who is there to look at architecture. And this is a very, very special place.
It is. Um and I think that the fact that she has very strong views and opinions about the architecture connection to it from her profession.
Yes. But it's different from saying for example um you know my profession my research involves taking pictures of this beetle and studying the beetle and
I'm not going to be able to find the beetle anymore if these government actions are taken. I think that is a much more tangible impediment to something the plaintiff wants to do.
Government standing in the way of that.
If it's just I'm just not going to enjoy this as much. I'm not going to like this view as much as I used to. I don't think that crosses the line because I think at
that point we're opening the door to anyone who says government's doing something. There's a visual manifestation of it and that upsets me.
Right? So imagine uh you know I don't like the the picture that they've decided to put on the $10 bill and I I'm
really into currency so I care about this a lot. I don't I think this court would say that's a generalized grievance. Classic generalized grievance.
Well, suppose Oh, please go ahead. I I mean it it seems under our precedence it may not be that difficult for a
different plaintiff or member of the trust to make allegations that satisfy our standing
requirements because they're not that rigorous. Um even if these declarations do not. So I'm wondering if you could speak to germanineess.
Sure.
And whether this is gerine to the trust's purposes because even if such another you know plaintiff were to come along um
I there you know as I've already written that there are some problems with germanine. Sure. Absolutely. And and I'm I agree.
We're not taking the position that there's no possible person who might have standing here. It's possible. I I don't think she's cleared the bar. But
I, you know, I'm not saying it's impossible for somebody to have uh real injury. Um but I do think Germaine is a separate barrier here. Uh because the
trust is a congressionally chartered entity. Its purposes are set forth by
statute and enumerated. And that's in uh 54 USC 312102.
Subsection be says the purposes of the national trust shall be to and then lists four things and the trust does not argue that this lawsuit or the white
house implicates any of those four things.
I think that's dispositive. They point to subsection A which speaks much more generally about why Congress established
the trust and that has more general language. But I think you have to read the statute as a whole. And subsection B
then manifests the specific ways that Congress wants the trust to carry out those broader policy goals. And those do
not relate. It's un undisputed and it was undisputable out. those do not relate to um to this case or to the
White House at all. And so I think that's a separate basis for rejecting standing here.
Can I get back to you said so people could have standing to object?
Who imagine what would the what who would the declarant be? I'm a little reluctant to give them ideas, but uh I
think for example, if you had somebody, let's say somebody who lived next door and was bothered by the noise of the construction, it's a little bit more
analogous to a common law nuisance claim. I think that type of injury is there anyone to I guess I didn't clarify my question. uh the visual harm.
The only real example I could come up with is uh imagine that somebody's view
was going let's say their property, you know, was the view from their property was going to be obstructed by the new building and that could actually impact the property value. I think that would be a viewbased that's a monetary thing.
That's not a visual injury. So I'm asking you is there any visual injury?
I would say I would say no. I don't think visual injury from a new structure is gonna is gonna qualify.
Imagine you're a descendant of the slaves who built the original White House. I'm talking about the center mansion now, not the wings.
And future president says, "We need to make this safer. We need to harden it. We
need to make it bigger." And all the new modern security measures for protection.
We're gonna bulldoze the White House.
And when I'm using that phrase, I mean the mansion itself. Yeah.
We're bulldozing the mansion and replacing it with steel and glass, right? Um special glass um skyscraper.
Could a descendant of a slave who once a month walks by looks,
contemplates a sacrifice, feels a connection to it in that basis
just because it's changing. It's changing. You're knocking it down and you're putting something in its place, right?
I don't have that historical connection to it. So, what I would say is I think that person if they sued before the demolition happened would
No, they're everything's exactly the same because there wasn't notice of the demolition happening so they couldn't they thought there was going to be a public participation process which there
wasn't so they didn't have a chance same as this. So once the one I mean if if the hypothetical is that the White House
has already been bulldozed uh then I don't think somebody would have standing to just move fast enough nobody has standing to challenge it even if they have that type of personal connection.
So I do think that that is correct that the the injury it becomes non-redressible. I will say no that I'm not talking redressibility
is a different question. And I'm asking whether the descendants of the slaves or a descendant of a slave. Yeah.
Who routinely walks by and looks and appreciates and values um their ancestors work forced work.
Yeah.
Um does that visual the loss of the ability to see that sacrifice that was made
does that count as an injury in its own right?
Yes. So I'm I'm I'm trying to answer your honest question. the I think that that if it predated right if the suit
predated the destruction then somebody could say the demolition is going to impact my ability to see this thing that has special meaning to me and that would
be much more analogous to the environment have that chance if that's gone and it's done and that part of the injury is not redressed so I think you have answered the answer
is no they can't sue as long as the government goes too fast before anyone can file a lawsuit or in fact says there's going to be a public input process
and then moves moves immediate quickly before that process even starts.
So I correct. Yes. Okay. So just move fast and break things and nobody has standing.
But let me let me push back a little bit just to the extent you're suggest there's a suggestion about what happened here. I I know there's a dispute about the whether the the initial announcement
said that the old east wing will be retained or not. So I'm not trying to quibble with that. But it is certainly
clear that it was announced that a very large new structure was going to be erected. That was announced in July of 2025
and they did not sue in August or September or October or November until December.
Okay. So, and their injury is not was it not said that um the White House president was going to go through a public participation process, get public
input on this proposal that was being made to build this ballroom. Is that accurate? I I don't remember but that was that did happen that is in the
record and that did happen after the fact after the after the demolition.
No no it was part of the original announcement around the same time as the original announcement that there was going to be this process. So if someone had sued right then
I expect the justice department would have come in and said it's not right. We're having this public input process
and we probably would have been asked to file joint status reports updating on what's happening with the project.
Yeah. We can't they don't have a standing. We can't have you do joint status reports. We don't have jurisdiction. I I I think that if the claimed injury was
what the claimed injury is now, which is you're going to build this big new thing that is going to overshadow and therefore harm the architectural
statement sent by the White House. That was very clear in July because they thought there was going to be another avenue pre-lawsuit one. I mean,
we're lawyers. lawsuits seem fine to us, but to to people who are not lawyers, if there's another avenue for for raising
their concerns first, they're told there's going to be one and then there's not. It all just happens precipitously, then
that's that's a problem. I understand your I I think I understand your argument that you have to go right away.
You can't have any visual loss in the fact that you no longer are able to see a historic site built by your ancestor.
That's gone. You are I'm not seeing I I I apologize.
I'm not seeing in the press release there was some statement that something was going to happen before this was constructed that that maybe it's somewhere else in the record but in
July committed to working with the appropriate organizations to preserve the special history of the White House.
Yeah. And that and they had an opportunity to comment and they did comment. The National Trust participated in the NCPC process. They submitted
their comments on the design which was at the time that was their concern. It's too big after the disruption, right? and and the the complaint that is
in Hogland's declaration does not talk about the old east wing, right? Her injury is not I really loved the old east wing and now I can't see it
anymore. That's not in her declaration and her declaration barely mentions the old east wing. She says this new structure is so big it's going to overshadow things.
Well, that much was clear in July. I do think a fair reading is that there was there there was symmetry that's you're going to have that was the imbalance
that will come from the new colonade not the ball colonade I guess it's going to be really long because the ballroom's
far away from the white house um but the so the symmetry is gone the simplicity is gone both decolonate and ballroom
it's all gone it's going to be unbalanced and it's not going to reflect um the the the the plan, right?
It's not going to be the same sort of architectural appearance. Yes.
The messaging and and just to get back to sort of the big picture legal point, you know, our position is that that is not a cognizable injury under Valley Forge,
under EDF, under Alliance, that is a generalized grievance. You don't like how something is going to look that the government is doing.
That's the same for the descendant of a slave.
Yes. I don't think it depends on the the particular uh connection that one government decided to move very quickly
and bulldoze the statue of liberty the people who ancestors that was the first
thing they saw coming to this country but the government moved too fast
nothing can be done I think I think that's right it has there we can move to the merits if there
no other questions on standing. Thank you. Um so just as a little bit of uh set the stage for the merits um the
White House does have a unique dual role. It's both the home and office of the president. It's also designated by Congress as a national park. And so
that's why there are two sets of statutes that address the the the area.
There are two sets of authorities. There are two sets of funding, two streams of funding. Um and so that's why we've addressed both. But the trust says in
their response brief, uh, look, even if you're right about 105D, you know, the money that you're using is coming from
the National Park Service side, and so you still need to be right about the National Park Service Organic Act in order to prevail here. Um, and so I'm
I'm inclined to just jump right there because that in one shot takes care of both the authority and the funding. And I'm of course happy to answer questions
on 105D as well, but I think the National Park Service is a little bit cleaner because it hits both of the
aspects of of the project. Um, the NPS Organic Act for over 100 years has
authorized the park service to promote the use of the national parks. And one of the ways the National Park Service has always promoted the use of the
national parks is by building things in national parks, welcome centers, sports facilities, comfort stations,
administrative office space. The declaration on that is a JA 401 that gives examples.
So council, you might, it does seem like maybe you have a decent practice-based argument. Do you have any textual
argument that given the statute that says you need express authority to erect structures in the District of Columbia
that the ent statute gives that expression?
So I mean we think it does give the authority and even the district court sort of read right but even on your argument it is
implicitly granting authority to construct buildings right it says promote the purposes of the parks.
Yeah. by means specifically talk about construction of anything.
That's that's right. It's included within the concept of promoting and for 100 years that's how they've carried it out including in
against the 8106 statute that says you need express authority to from Congress to construct within the District of Columbia. I think you need an argument
that that that statute does not apply right because the organic act again has
been understood implicitly maybe uh to authorize construction but you you I think you you have to agree it doesn't
give express authority to construct anything.
So I I I wouldn't no I don't I don't think I do agree. I I think it's included in a broader term but I don't think that means it's not express. I
think it is promote to promote the uses of the National Park Service equals express authority to erect
yes. Yes, that's our position and that by the way that is how it was understood pretty much at the time right so we have
this exchange that we identified uh from the um from the then director of the DC
parks uh general grant major grant excuse me related to general grant um where he explained somebody asked him
you know how are you allowed to build things in the parks given this statute and he said no no we asked for that language that's there to prevent other people.
This was 15 years after the statute was enacted. It was about 10 years.
But any I'll give you a decade after the statute was enacted.
Um and it was in a statement by someone who very much wanted that authority. It wasn't a legislator even though even
postto legislator statements. This is somebody who says this is about whether I have authority and guess what I'm here to tell you. We had a conversation. We
have the authority 10 years after the fact. What's your best case that has any relevance whatsoever in statutory interpretation?

[admin]

Part 2 of 3

Well, you know, I think it's that plus then 100 years to that point. Okay. So, do you have any authority that that is relevant to our statutory interpretation task?
I think that that near contemporaneous understanding is relevant. Yes. And I think the practice is also
what's your best case? I'm surprised that this is the Justice Department's view. I'll give you 10 years. I'm not good at math. 10 years
um statement by person claiming authority that seems to be constrained by the statute
is relevance to our statuto interpretation.
So I I just want to be clear though. I I'm not saying he said it, we're done.
My my point is it's a consistent practice that since the enactment of the statute. So if if Congress had responded to him or otherwise said no, what are
you talking about? That's not what we meant. Or if they had not then continue Congress's job is to respond to everybody randomly saying things in a hearing.
No. No. But Congress they didn't legislate.
No, but Congress did then subsequently continue to appropriate tens of millions of dollars annually for NPS to do
construction. and NPS then used that were how much of that was for construction
on in President's Park or on White House grounds or even in the District of Columbia because there there's this you know the the the statute that Judge
Garcia referenced is limited to the district. It doesn't affect what NPS has authority to do nationwide which may well be what this person was talking about.
Well, no. Well, this person was talking about Anacostia Park in DC uh and referred to the appropriation that had been made which was a lump sum. It did
not address the fieldhouse and they said no that's good enough. And then we have the declaration at J41 talks about the
examples of construction in the DC specifically and parkland in DC and gives examples of lots of structures
that have been built over the ensuing decades never with any controversy uh and that did not have specific projectby project approval from Congress. Yes,
they had money. They had to have money to build. So that either came from a lump sum annual appropriation which by the way NPS has this year too or it came
from the donation authority uh which is where I was going to go next because these things are tied together. the NPS has authority to build. It also has
authority to accept donations for purposes of the park system and they've used that I mean under under the economy act um
maybe NPS can do this but this project is being built by the by EXR.
So and EXR under the economy act in order to take NPS funds has to be able to do the building itself. So where is
EXR's authority to do the building under the organic act if you're not going to be if you're not relying on 105D?
Well, we can look at 105D for that piece. Um but because of the the money piece is sort of the starting point.
That's why I started suggesting that the organic the NPS organic act independently can support the project. And so I think
to make that argument, you have to have some account of why EXR has has its own
ability to do this building separate from 105D. I mean, that's that's your you started with that argument and so I'm I didn't see anything in your brief
explaining did NPS delegate this authority to EXR?
Is it able to delegate that authority to EXR? I think you need there's like a missing connection if that's an independent argument.
Yeah. So let me let me try to address that. I think there's two questions. One would be could NPS do this and then the second question would be uh even if NPS
assuming NPS can do it, can they contract with EXR to actually manage the project and oversee the building? So
just on the first even if we didn't have the second piece, we still wouldn't be able to support the injunction as it's written because the injunction says no
defendants can do anything with this project. So even if the court thought there's some problem with the economy act piece, it wouldn't support this injunction. And the second point I would
make is they never challenged the economy act transaction. That was not their argument. So I don't think there is a live non-waved argument that the economy act transaction is problematic.
I don't think the the economy act transaction they don't make that. But you're suggesting it's an independent basis to uphold what's happening.
And so I and I do think the economy act allows for it and we have examples.
There's a J411 and then J419. We have the declarations from NPS and the White House about how they use the economy act
all the time to engage in transactions like this. Now, yes, you you you can't use it to evade some sort of restriction, right? So NPS has to be
able to do the project. NPS has to have money for the project and then there can't be some prohibition or restriction
on the supplying agency's ability to do it. So you in the economy act the receiving agency's ability to do it just
means that there's no prohibition on them doing it.
It's it's two things a practical ability to get it done which I don't think is contested. They're they're doing it right now. Uh and then no prohibition no specific prohibition that would
is there any case law interpreting the economy that act that way or is it like part of like OM practice or or something
like that? It's the red book is really the the place that I and it says that's what ability means.
Yes. It has this language about you can't be a restriction on the supplying agency and there and and they cite examples from comproller general
opinions going back to the 30s and 40s uh where this was done.
Just to just to clarify the argument for me if there was a requirement on this theory that EXR has affirmative
authority from somewhere to lead construction projects. Does it is there any such source of authority?
Yeah, that would be 105D. So 105D is the authority that that the White House uses to do all sorts of projects in the White House.
If on the line of questioning Judge Ralph is asking for the NPS Organic Act to be sealed off, we're asking whether EXR has it. Okay.
So you would have to rely on 105D in order for EXR to be able to lead the if if the court thinks there is there needs to be some additional affirmative
grant of authority to the supplying agency which I don't think is true under the economy act or the red book.
The only place that could come from is 105D.
Okay, I think so. And then this is I mean it's it's this sort of routine like the the economy act transactions are done I know this project is very big but the economy act transactions that have
been done just over the last 10 years you know we have the fence we have the window I mean there's all sorts of things in the white house where they are using the economy act to make sure that
the project is being run by the entity that has the sort of best position to do that whether that's the secret service or the park service or some other
component of of the white house and I don't really know why the plaintiff has any cognizable interest in which part of the executive branch which is signing the contracts.
Sorry, I'm so I'm just trying to understand this economy act. So um
so you so in your view it always has to be something NP NPS or interior um has the authority to do.
Yes, they have to have the legal authority so that they could sort of just do this job themselves. Yes.
Okay. Um but if and then when they contract with another agency this case or another case just trying to understand this
and let's imagine the other agency doesn't hasn't been given any statutory authority to do anything
remotely like this. There's not an express prohibition thou shalt nod but Congress has never conferred this authority on the agency.
Right? is my understanding of your argument, but tell me if I'm wrong, is that that acting agency, performing
agency could still do it because are they do they essentially become
part a are they a contractor just are they like government contractor they lose their agency status or do they
become sort of part of interior part of that agency? I mean it's it's an internal intra government
agency the agency actor an a interior agency agency actor just in their
capacity performing this contract obviously not in anything else they do I think they're acting as the agent or
contractor of the agency what does that mean for one agency to be the agent of another um that's not how Congress
set them up in the first instance right I I mean I think that's just that's just the way the economy acts Then if there's something like EXR, do they become an agency?
No, I don't think it changes their own status. They're just acting pursuant to the economy act transaction.
Acting it's allows one agency to contract with another agency. Yes.
And EXR is not an agency I believe is your position.
That's right. For APA purposes, but there's a different definition for Okay.
Yeah. Although they have that hasn't I think it's just defined differently. But what's the difference in the definition? I don't I I don't recall your honor. They have not challenged that.
Your position is that EXR is an agency for purposes of the economy to the APA as it's performing this action or just
no an APA. They're an agency only for sorry. So they're they're not an agency. We know they're not an agency for APA.
We know they're not an agency for FOYA, but they are conveniently an agency. Um, you're not sure based on what word in
the definition, but some word in the definition makes them an agency under this statute. Are there any other statutes ex?
I I don't I haven't cataloged them all.
Uh, but there are catalog of them. There's lots of them where they are. Oh, I no I haven't been the opposite.
I haven't cataloged all of the definition all the statutes that use the term agency, how they come out, but there are differences among them. Would this perhaps be the first time EXR would
ever be an agency under federal law? Or I could be wrong. Maybe there's other ones where they have.
No, I I don't I don't think so. And and in fact, again, the declaration from the White House gives examples of economy act transactions that components of the
executive office of the president that are not agencies for APA purposes and everyone acknowledges has long carried out transactions under the economy act.
You said there's no cases on this. I mean, we have a statute to interpret here. There there are cases actually there are some cases that address it. It just hasn't been raised in this case. So it's not briefed in this case.
So my understanding of your position is as long as in this case NPS has the authority to do this. It doesn't matter
that EXR let's assume EXR couldn't do it right under 105D. Let's assume it had no authority. Not a prohibition but just no authority at all. There's no 105D.
They could still do it.
Yes. So the economy act has a capacity to give authority to entities.
Well, it's a transfer. I mean, it's transferring within the executive branch who is going to be carrying out.
There was an office in the SEC that had some some people who knew a lot about construction. You could have them lead it. Well, you have to make certain findings.
I mean, if the findings were made, then yes, it could be it could be any agency.
the findings have to be made to com that all of the requirements of the economy act are satisfied which include that this is the best you know this is better
positioned it's more efficient the agency has to make those determinations the agency here did make those determinations by the way they were never challenged so they're not even in
the record because that was not the agency action that they ever challenged uh but the agency did make those determinations that all the requirements of the economy act are satisfied and as
a result that the u that the sort of supervision dayto-day could be done from within the White House, which makes a lot of sense given the personal
involvement of the president in the project. I was going to move to 105. Oh, there's one more question on this.
If um does it have to be some entity within the executive branch? Say they're going to do a nice library doover in the
White House and they want some an expert from the Library of Congress um to really really be the one that executes it. Um, is it only executive branch or
is the definition sort of any governmental office?
I don't know the answer to that, your honor. I apologize.
Okay. The only other thing I wanted to say on this was that the the precedent for using the donation authority for projects on White House grounds dates
back at least to the 70s and President Ford's pool which gave rise to the OLC opinion that said yes, you can do it this way because the White House is
designated as a national park falls within the scope of the organic act uh triggers the unlocks the donation authority that you can use and and we're
good. And so nobody has really questioned that I think since uh the late '7s when that opinion was issued.
Um the trust the trust actually does. So the district court said we're wrong. NPS doesn't have
authority to construct at all. It only has authority to build in so far as Congress appropriates funding specifically for building. I think that
is just fundamentally a misunderstanding of how the appropriations process works.
And actually the best place that I would I think was the district court saying and maybe I'm wrong. Was a district court saying just for the District of Columbia or more broadly broad
more broadly uh he said no authority to build under the organic act. It only comes from the appropriations. I would point the court to the brief that was filed on the other side by the members
of Congress. They lay out the two-step process on pages three to four of their brief. First, Congress authorizes an activity in enabling legislation organic
act. Then it funds the activity. You don't fund something that isn't authorized. And so I think the district court just got this wrong. The fact that
Congress annually gives NPS, you know, $80 million for construction actually proves that the organic act includes the
authority to do that construction. Uh and and and by the way, that wasn't the trust's argument. So I can't blame them for for that error. They they they
didn't make the argument that NPS can't build. They only made the argument below that NPS can't build this because they
said this project was inconsistent with the values and purposes of the park unit, which is a very different argument, not what the district court
said, and I think not a meritorious argument given that NPS did a thorough analysis of that question, wrote a whole
determination as to why it was consistent with the values and purposes, and they've never really tried to grapple with that or show that it's wrong under really any standard.
review that would apply.
So I think this relates to the subject you were just discussing about appropriation authorizations and authority to act and could if we move to 105D.
Yes. Could we just hear your response? Yeah.
In terms of the text of the statute to the trust's argument that 105D is just an appropriation authorization and
not organic legislation. So absolutely the the way the red book explains how the process is supposed to work is they
say there's actually three steps. First you authorize the executive to act. Then you authorize Congress to appropriate
funding. Then Congress appropriates funding. So there's supposed to be three steps. It doesn't always work that way.
Okay. So in this case we have really what we have in the text is the second and then the third. So it's written as Congress can appropriate funds.
They they must have the one is just implicit.
Can I just have a specific question about that that maybe you can help with the first three subsections of 105 all
start by saying the president is authorized to do X Y or Z. Yeah.
D does not say the president is authorized to make improvements. And as you know we usually try to give some
meaning to such stark differences in language and in your view is there any difference. Can you give us
any meaning to ascribe to that differing?
Yeah. So I asked the same question and seems like if you look at the legislative history for the 1978 enactment, Congress was trying to deal
with two very different problems. an issue about personnel and sort of who the White House can hire. And then this question about improvements and things
that had historically been funded through annual appropriations but had never been formally authorized through an authorization bill. And so I think
the difference is that as to D Congress was based on the historical precedent um basically presupposing that the president is going to do these things.
It's just a question of we need to make sure the money is there. Whereas it was a different you know with with with the personnel I think they were much more in
wanted to ensure the president can hire who he wants and that had been a source of controversy that was just differently
situated from D. I I would just because there is a that does almost entirely fit with the the story the
trust would tell which is Congress wanted to authorize the president and doesn't really care all that much about who he hires and how much he pays them
but it sure cares a lot about what uh is done to the White House and so it's going to retain more of a leash on the
kinds of activities the president can undertake. Well, they they certainly do retain more of a leash because you do need the money, right? So, you do need
again so in this year, as you know, there was an appropriation of $2.5 million for maintenance and you know, related
items, right? And so one coherent view of this statute is 105D allows it sets the world up so the
president is available to act just as you said when he receives an appropriation for the purpose of 105D
but that he doesn't just get to go broader and make other uh projects that aren't funded by appropriations. What's the answer to that?
So I look I think there's two answers.
one is we have a different source of funding and so it doesn't matter right so yes the two and a half million goes to 105D but the NPS source is and always
has been a separate source and Congress has always recognized there's two accounts that can be used for the white just looking at 105D I think the better
way of looking at the relationship between the authorization act and the appropriations act is that the authorization act is authorizing the
activity generally and the appropriations act are then providing the funding for that activity. And by the way, that's also how the members of
Congress appear to read it in their amicus brief. So they do not make the argument that the trust makes that this doesn't authorize any activity by the
executive. They say it authorizes alterations and improvements, but that should be read narrowly because of the other words.
Another reading of this statute that it authorizes the president to act when and only to the extent that Congress
appropriates funds. So, he's authorized to make $2.5 million of maintenance changes to the White House. This cannot
be a source of authority for uh demolishing and replacing part of the construction.
You one could read it that way. I think that just though conflates the two steps a little bit. So, the authoriz you know that that that would be how we would
read it. If there was no 105D, there was just an annual appropriation. we would say we need to read into that some sort of authority to use the money but it's
limited to that amount of money. I think the point of having the framework legislation is to do something more general and it it sort of meshes with the way the congressional process.
It goes back to my my first question which is on your view there is no difference between this
statute and one that said the president is authorized to make improvements and on this alternative view there is a difference. There's an implicit
authorization but it is cabined by the extent of the appropriations. It seems like the trust has a fairly strong
argument that we we have to give some difference to this choice of uh language.
Your honor, I think um that the the just the better way to look at it given the
way Congress works is that we need to treat the authorization and the appropriation as distinct. And and by
the way, that tracks how Congress so from a from a legislation standpoint, you know, the 105D doesn't come from the appropriations committee, right? That
comes from the committees with legislative jurisdiction over the issue.
And then it's a separate question of the appropriations committee then decide how much we're giving. But I so I don't think we generally read the
authorization bills as limited by the appropriations bills that come later from a different part of Congress. We
read the appropriations bills as limiting the amount of money that Congress is providing for a set uh a set
of activities that this only really matters if you're Congress I mean first you're all assuming that that 105D
is an authorization of the president as opposed to simply an appropriation authorization uh baseline for Congress.
Right? But here, Congress each year says not only here's your money, it says here's what it may be used for, right?
Um, and your argument is that that doesn't matter. That limitation are your your you agree that
you're bound by those limitations using for that money. Yes. That money. Yeah.
So your argument hinges entirely on reading 105D as an authorization
to the president at Al.
The 105D argument rests on understanding 105D as providing authorization to the
president subject to what monies may be available. And yes, the money that Congress made available this year under
105D is more limited both in amount and in uses. And that is binding. But to the extent there's another lawful source of funds.
No, that's but but but you have to have another you need to have a authorization somewhere. And so is the authorization
you're relying on because we've talked about different things. Yeah.
Is it your reading of the NPS organic act?
It's it's two economy act or 105D. So we think we have two independent sources of authority.
But if so one is 105 one is NPS organic act which is then executed in this instance through the economy act and the other is 105D.
But the 105D authorization doesn't get us the money.
The 105D let's even assume that it's an authorization to the president as opposed to appropriation
authorization of Congress. So I'll give you that. It is textually limited to your list of verbs right
at the executive residence for the executive residence at the White House. Correct.
Um is the east wing or was the east wing part of the executive residence at the White House?
Our position is yes. On what basis?
And that hasn't been disputed. So again, it's another issue that is not briefed based on the trying to figure
out how there's there's a lot of pieces here and you need authorization if we textually not in there.
That's right. So there there's there's two issues. One is the verbs and then you're asking about the scope of the executive res the object. So based on the the history
of how 105D appropriations have been used over time, we our position is that it includes the wings. Okay. They never challenge that.
Congress separately appropriates money to GSA to maintain the wings. That still would be your argument
for Yes. I mean, they can appropriate money for different things to different people, but 105D, my understanding is 105D appropriations have been used for
the wings in the past. to read executive residence at the White House as including I don't think you have to read it that way
for you to have for this if you want I I understand you would still say we got the act no I'm just making the point that just for the 105D point
yeah just for the 105D point I I don't think the court has to weigh into that because it hasn't been disputed so I don't think you need to reach questions
that they have never pressed but it is true that it is that we we felt comfortable that that encompassed the wings based on the historical practice
historical practice the that that money that has been appropriated in the past under 105D has
been used for various projects of this project.
No, there's no there's no record is not in the case.
You said I'm not Oh, I'm not asking in this case. Sorry. I'm saying to look at this record where the government has
long said and taken the position that executive president of the White House that phrase includes the wings. So if we
were to brief that, we would probably submit a declaration. You you asked this.
I confirmed that it was Yeah, I confirmed that that was true. I don't have the details because we never put it in. Okay.
Based on discussions with the White House and their office as to how this has been done. And if if it had been raised, we would have put in a declaration and evidence. I take that.
Um, Miss Roth, so um, one question I had is if 105D provides authorization for this type of
building, does it also then just sort of by its terms include
authorization to use the NPS gift funds?
So I I don't think we can use the NPS gift funds unless the project falls within the scope of the NPS statutes, right?
Because that is what the gift funds have to be used for purposes of the national parks. It happens to be that Congress chose to designate the White House as a
national park in 1961 and as a result of that the gift funds can be used like the OLC opinion explained in the 70s for
projects on White House grounds. And so that's how we they sort of these things come together. Um but for EXR to have authority to use the
NPS gift funds, EXR doesn't have the NPS gift funds unless NPS makes a determination that
this project would satisfy its statute and then it can transfer the funds under the Economy Act to to support that
project. That's how if you thought the economy act alone did not give EXR the ability to do that,
then you could rely on 105D as the authority for them to use those NPS funds.
I think 105D would be the background sort of here's what this what this entity does and can do and it's there's
nothing inconsistent between that and the economy act. But again, the economy act was challenged in this case. So I again I I I think it's important to stick to the arguments that the
council I think this this question is separate from the economy act. Yeah.
I just want to make sure I don't didn't misunderstand something you said. I understood you to just say that if we concluded the NPS organic
statute does not authorize this and all you have is 105D.
You agree that you cannot use the NPS gift funds under only 105D. Is that correct? I just want to understand
I think that's right. Uh although again not to be a broken record they didn't challenge the funding mechanism. So a lot of this is like we're spinning out
well to be fair they have consistently argued that you are limited under 105D
to the funds appropriated under 105D and it actually sounds like you agree with that.
You just say it doesn't matter because the NPS organic statute is giving you the authority. So I I'm not disputing I'm not disputing
that to use the gift funds. The it needs to be consider it needs to advance the purposes of the park system and and and that's the question. I don't
see any serious argument that it doesn't it's being used on a national park to build something on a national park that the park service has determined would advance the purposes of the park unit
and wrote a you know 27page analysis of why that is that they've never contested. So I I think but but but yes by its terms the gift statute
uh authorizes donations for that purpose. So they have to be used for that purpose.
Just to be clear about the implication this means that if if we thought that notwithstanding your able arguments 8106
means you cannot construct structures within the District of Columbia.
That's the end of the case because NPS cannot build and 105D doesn't get you access to those funds.
If you thought that 8106 prevented construction unless Congress specifically authorized
the particular project at issue, which is never how it's been done for 100 years. uh then we would
confront the question of whether they can enforce that statute in this case even though it doesn't confer rights on
them uh in the under global health council. Okay, I understand.
So I think we would get we'll get to there but yes but but the district court didn't see this court really didn't distinguish
uh or didn't read 8106 as uh an additional hurdle. the district court as I read the opinion the district
court said you don't have authority under either 105D or the organic act and therefore I don't even really need to
talk about 8106 uh but you know sort of like confirms but if you did have authority then you would 8106 wouldn't
interpose an additional barrier u maybe I should talk about the equities before just ask one to make sure when you're when you're saying use of the gift funds
are you talking about by NPS directly or are you talking about via the economy or both. I just want to make sure both I'm
saying both, but I mean the the the the donations can be accepted by NPS if they're for the purposes of the parks.
Okay. And so and then NPS has to make that determination.
Well, there's more determinations on economy act. I just want to make sure I said gift funds. You weren't only talking economy act. You were talking about revenue.
Then we're reasoning reading the organic act as authorizing
NPS under your view to do any construction at all on White House
grounds if it's consist if it's consistent with it has to be consist organic acts with limitations which includes which right which
includes they have to make a determination of non-impairment and no significant impact and so on. So there's a whole series of things they have to do, but yes, then they can build. It
also has to be consistent with the uh impacts another statute. We don't need to bring that one in. But it also has to be consistent with the
1961 legislation that establishes the park as as a as a national park. So that has certain provisions in it about how
you know we want you to keep the principal corridor and rooms in the central mansion and you know we the paramount importance should be given to
the use of the of the site by the president. So of course all this project is consistent with all that. If you could imagine something that wouldn't be and then we would have a different problem.
All right I I address the the equities for that. Well maybe we'll have more questions on that too. Are we done just
to make it easier for you on the merits or did you have more? Okay.
All right. So, the final point, our final argument is that even if the court were to conclude that there is or may be standing and that trust has a claim on
the merits, uh it is still an abuse of discretion under winter to grant injunctive relief uh given the that the
balance of harms and public interests are so lopsided in favor of this project. And it's it's really like on the one side even if we think it is
sufficient for article 3 we are talking about one person's architectural preferences for the site and on the
other hand we have senior officials in the military and the secret service saying we need to build this
person that's simply the way standing is shown for the national trust itself. So it's the national trust me sure but they they haven't submitted
other evidence I mean this we have person. There's not one person the plaintiff here. It's a national trust.
The plaintiff is a national trust. The harm the interests that are at issue and the harm that they've substantiated as an association is the harm to Hogland. But whether it's one person or
multiple, it's an architectural preference on one hand and the safety and security of the president of the United States on the other hand. And
that I think really uh mirrors winter where the court said this is not a close call. uh when you put these things
against each other that we have evidence again it started as as classified evidence and now more of it is in the open but we have evidence here that the
old east wing was not adequate to protect the safety and security of the president and others in the white house leadership of the executive branch uh
and that this project is designed to update that th those protective features to ensure uh that they are capable of
withstanding modern weaponry like drones and other uh modern methods of attack uh that are very serious and the entire project was designed with that in mind.
Both the below ground components that have been discussed but also having a structure on top of them that is
sufficient to protect them and to protect the people inside so that the president and the leadership of of the government have a place to go that is
highly secure uh in the event that there is an attack. uh and that is just I just don't see how that can be
compared to the architectural preferences of uh of the trust or its members that even the district court ultimately after the this court's remand
sort of acknowledged yes there will be some things you need to do that you can do for national security you know put a structure on top you know you need to
protect the executive mansion you're going to put a structure there but that sort of compromise is both uh unworkable and inequitable
It's unworkable because I don't really know what it means to say you can put something on top as long as it's not the ballroom. I mean, this structure was
designed specifically in terms of the size, the materials, uh the uh layering, the amount of steel that's being
incorporated, right? All of that is designed to protect uh what is underneath, to protect the people who are inside. Um, and from an equitable
standpoint, I don't know why it is helpful to say build something else, right? It's that's not better from Hogland's perspective. If there's a big
building that we can't use as a as an event space, I don't know why that advances the equitable interests either.
Mr. Rob. Um, one of the things that the trust um, repeatedly states in his brief is that the government has shifted its
position about how the ballroom and the underground facilities are integrated and they make a lot of hay over that and
I'm just curious what the government's response is.
So I they're they are taking it out of context. What happened was at the time of the pro and the PI in December and
January the work that was being done at that time was underground work and we said there's a national security
imperative for what we are doing don't enjoin the work that is going on and the trust said wait if you let them do this
underground work and then the commission of fine arts says we have some feedback on the structure or the national capital
planning commission says we want you change something, it's all going to be locked in and they won't be able to make any changes because of what they're building underground. And we said that's
not true. There are there are little design things they want to change. We'll be able to change them. In fact, we did change them as a result of the the input
from those commissions. Um, and so there's no need if that's your concern, that is not a basis to hold up what
we're doing. We never suggested that the national security design things your representation which the district court expressly relied on
in denying a TTRO is that the underground work would not dictate the structure that goes on top. That's not a little design tweak by somebody.
We we said in the declaration we provided a declaration from the architect or the engineer that said things like moving a window windows or
doors or stairs modest changes to size Did this did council say that the
underground work would not dictate what goes on top the structure that goes on top?
He may have used that terminology that the the actual evidence and the declaration was pretty careful in how we framed it.
Brief denying that the work being done um below ground will dictate the height and width of the building above ground.
Right. Below ground construction will not necessitate any specific above grade design.
Right? The design it was focused on the design and it was focused and we did say modest changes in size uh will still be possible.
There's nothing here to suggest that changes in the ballroom would be impossible.
staircase goes. I mean, that's what the district court said. The whole you you talk about their timing here. They asked for TTRO.
He said, "You don't need it. We just need to focus on this underground stuff.
We'll we'll fight about the ter the size and dimensions of what goes on top later." I just think you got to own what your attorney said.
Okay. You weren't the attorney. Maybe you were. I don't think you were but you know I wasn't at the TRL but but I was at the PI stage in just a month later
denied telling district court something district court and district court's order says I'm expressly relying on these representations. So this is this
is much more serious than they thought we were going to put staircases somewhere else. Your honor, I think it's important to keep in mind that at the
time of the TTRO, the lead claims that the trust was pushing was you need to get input from these other bodies.
And so in that context, we were saying we will be if they have some changes, we will be able to address those heights and depth
including the height. Yes. But but but when we actually then submitted evidence, you know, a TTRO was without, you know, we this that was very rushed,
right? We then submitted further briefing and evidence with the PI opposition that was very clear about what would and would not be alterable
and said modest changes was very clear to the district court. Well, it was clear in the record.
I'm just I'm just reading the district court. I was not in the room. Yeah.
Um but the district court's decision I credit that the district court, you know, judges take attorney's words very
seriously and representations from the government especially most of all. Um and the district court and I said it
again on our remand, you know, felt there had been sort of um uh uh bait and
switch going on here. Now you have your side of the story, they have theirs, but you know, that's not something that's something we take the
district court's determination very seriously, and we don't we aren't going to go back and lecture the district court on misunderstanding representations made to it. No, but I I
think the court can and should look at the the declarations that we submitted including the classified Yeah, we've provided the exparte declarations uh
that before even the first denial of the PI made clear the above ground structure is critical
to shielding and protecting what is beneath. Now that doesn't mean nothing can be changed around about
who's running this project. So that also respectfully I think the trust didn't understand what we were saying but I don't think there was any swishing
around in the very first filing we made clear the project was being run by EXR
that NPS had made the environmental assessment they had done the finding of non-impairment uh we attached all of
those to the record and we said and now we're told under the economy act in fact this is an NPS project EXR is
just its agent and You can't EXR can't be running it if it's just the agent.
It's the principal that runs it. And so you there's Pay no attention to NPS.
They don't have anything to do with this.
Your honor, in Did you tell them up front at that time that this was NPS's project? This was NPS's contract and EXR is just its
agent. So, we said in January in our filings in response to the to the preliminary injunction that the funding
is coming through the economy act from NPS. That's different.
And the reason it's I don't think it's different. That's the key point is the funding is coming through an economy act transaction from NPS. So, we cited the Economy Act. We said there that's where
the money is coming from. Um, and the only reason we didn't say I don't think it's correct to say it's an NPS project
because again we've consistently said we have two sources of authority. So when you look at it from the NPS side, NPS is
making the determinations that it is authorized to do it using the economy act to move funds to pay for it.
Subject to the APA on its end of the economy act of the economy act. But then you guys told the district court that you can't have an APA claim against the
park service because the park service is indisputably not directing the project and there's no park service action that the court could set aside under the APA.
That's not true. If their economy act determinations and the findings they had to make had to could have been reviewed under the APA. That's just wrong.
They um you don't dispute that that was said.
I'm just reading from that was in the brief. the the um the the trust focused its motion and its
injunction. I'm talking about sorry I don't want to talk about I'm talking about what the government told the district court the PI stage when they said oh you're
right there's no APA claim here against the park service I think you cannot I think that has changed you agree that there could have been an APA
I think there could have been an APA challenge if they had identified those as the relevant agency actions and sought to set them aside but that is not
what their focus was their focus well we we were focused on their we were responding this was a responsive brief we were responding
their argument. They were trying to shut down the construction and we said and there's nothing you do to NPS to stop the construction.
No park service action that the court could set aside under the APA. That's a pretty strong statement when in fact if
you knew there was a park service action that could be set aside under the I think it is conceivable that had they
challenged the economy act transaction uh that that could have worked under the APA. I I agree.
Agree. Well, I thought you agreed that in fact the NPS end there is there was there was end there was previously. So all this
happened before but yes there had been NPS action which we told them. So that was in the declaration. The money is coming from NPS. NPS made these
determinations. They never said we want to challenge those actions. They never sought an injunction based on that and they never sought to set aside those agency
about what was told to the district court. That's awful. I think if that I apologize if it was imprecise language.
One one final question just on this argument that the equities alone warrant denial of an injunction. I appreciate
all the arguments. It seems like your best case is winter one. I just want to ask do you have a case where uh a court
has decided that the equities alone are dispositive when the flaw identified as a substantive problem with the executive
branch authority. One of the things Winter emphasized was that that had to do with a procedural failure under NEPA.
Um, and you might think that that kind of situation is different because there surely is a public interest in ensuring that the executive branch operates
within the law, right? So, I agree that's a distinction with Winter. I I would point actually to the trust brief. So, they say they admit
in their brief, this court, yeah, if this were if you were far enough along in the construction, equity would not
allow an injunction to enter. And I think that's a concession that it's not a categorical no matter what we get to
enjoin this simply because it's substantive in nature. It's a concession that you do always have to balance the equities and look at the harms and the public interest. And at some point they
say that will absolutely you you you don't need a case for every proposition. I just there if if uh
you wanted to find a case where there's a a substantive absence of authority to take an action.
Um you don't have one to to direct us to.
So they site a case and I'm not sure what the nature of the harm what the nature of the injury was in the case they site. So I'm not 100% sure on that.
I mean, it comes up all the time in the election cases with PCEL where we say, you know, those are substantive uh claims and courts say, well, I'm still
not going to get involved in this because of the equities. They're too close to an election. Um, but I think, you know, their concession that cost alone would be enough, I think is
dispositive because if cost alone is enough, how can it not be enough when the safety and security of the president of the United States and the seat of the executive branch is under threat?
Thank you. Jason just one other thing then um know after this these rounds in the
district court with stories and the district court's understanding
about sort of changing representations um by the time the discord entered the
PI I took it from both the position here um and back in district court that
things have gone too far this can't be enjoined Given given the safety and security arguments, if we didn't have those, it
would be different. But given the safety and security thing, this has gone far.
This has got to keep this has got to keep going. It was either you had to enjoin it.
Maybe the first PI or maybe we even would have said before the destruction of the East Wing, right?
Um and now it's too late. You can't you can't delay this now. So, if we agree
um and stay this and you know by the time litigation's resolved at least we're going to be even further down the
road in construction, we just imagine that you get the the uh stay that you've requested
um uh or even the PI is overturned on the arguments you have um and then
government loses on the merits but it's a year year and a half from now,
would the government's view be that okay, we can take it down or would it for the same safety and security reasons
be they can't take it down obviously?
Oh yeah, we would oppose an permanent injunction on the same grounds as we're injunction. Yes.
And so your position is they can't this can't be stopped by a court. Well, I I think it's we're
arguments that it would be an abuse of discretion for a court to stop that. Not that you can't.
If it's abuse of discretion, they can't do it.
Then, sure. Yes. I mean, that is our position.
I guess I didn't understand your sentence. You said it would be an abuse of discretion, but doesn't mean they can't exactly what an abuse of discretion means.
I I don't want I I think it would be error to issue an I'm asking a straightforward question. That court,
this court, Supreme Court, no court could stop the building of this. Yeah, that would
that would yes no one can do it today lawfully even if let me let me pack into this assuming you
this is a big assumption um when you certainly don't want to accept but assuming for this question right imagine you are imagine you were wrong
everything I mean straight up imagine it was crystal I mean statutes were as clear as could be understand your arguments here I'm not saying that's this case the
statute was clear as could be both statutes PS and um 105 clears can
be you have no authority to do this and yet you've done it there's nothing to be done that is our position and I think
that's the function of the other factors in the uh in the four step in the fourpart test for an injunction that they have teeth in some cases and I
think this is the classic case where they have teeth because of the national security imperative when did it become a fail complete was it when the destruction happened was it
when you started doing the underground work which is we're now told completely integral and connected and inseparable from a massive ballroom on top when did
it become impossible for courts to stop this project I think it would have been improper to
enjoin it even on day one I do think that the equities have moved in two ways this were complete lawlessness by the
government this again this is complete lawlessness by the government yeah couldn't be sucked
on these theories. I I I think that's right. And could Congress pass a law that says Yeah, that's what that's what I was Yes,
I think they could because I think in that what I would say to that is if Congress has weighed the equities in this particular instance and reached a
conclusion. I'm not sure a court would have the authority to second guessess that.