Speaker 1: So let me start by saying, yes, if you are
Speaker 1: angry over what you saw that happened to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: today in New York, you should be angry. Are we
Speaker 1: living in the bananak public based on what's happening week
Speaker 1: after week right now against former President Donald Trump? I
Speaker 1: think the answer is very much yes. We are on
Speaker 1: the verge of entering a territory that our founding fathers
Speaker 1: would be rolling over in their grave if they witnessed.
Speaker 1: I said this earlier today when someone asked me about
Speaker 1: this absurd ruling against Donald Trump for three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty four million dollars in fines from a radical activist
Speaker 1: judge that was waiving at the TV cameras from day one.
Speaker 1: He was wanting to be famous, and it was very
Speaker 1: clear that he was going to find Donald Trump guilty.
Speaker 1: This judge, Arthur Ingron or whatever the hell his name is,
Speaker 1: might as well get on a plane, go to Russia
Speaker 1: and become a judge there, because he's a judge that
Speaker 1: already knows what he's going to do before he's ever
Speaker 1: heard the case. This is what they do in communists
Speaker 1: and socialist nations. But what this judge has done finding
Speaker 1: Trump three hundred and fifty four million dollars is more
Speaker 1: than the GDP of some small countries.
Speaker 2: Around the world.
Speaker 1: Not only that, it has also barred him from running
Speaker 1: businesses in New York for three years, it also weaponized
Speaker 1: our justicism to go after the children of Donald J.
Speaker 2: Trump.
Speaker 1: And what you need to understand about this judge is
Speaker 1: this judge is proud of himself. Judge Arthur finding the
Speaker 1: former president and the Trump organization on Friday in the
Speaker 1: civil fraud case for more than three hundred and fifty million,
Speaker 1: barring him from serving as even an officer or a
Speaker 1: director of any New York corporation for three years is
Speaker 1: in essence of essentence to the business of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: in his life's work in New York. I want to
Speaker 1: remind you that the New York Attorney General, Miss James,
Speaker 1: sought to essentially bankrupt Trump by calling for the three
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy million dollars fine in a lifetime from
Speaker 1: the real estate industry in New York State, saying you
Speaker 1: can't do anything in the real estate industry. Lemire also
Speaker 1: remind you that James claim that Trump committed financial fraud.
Speaker 2: Here's the problem. No one was defrauded.
Speaker 1: No one lost money, and no one actually sued Donald J.
Speaker 2: Trump.
Speaker 1: The banks even came in that loaned him the money
Speaker 1: and said they were not defrauded and defended the deals
Speaker 1: that they did with Trump, saying they were paid back
Speaker 1: in full. Now you think about this, and again, this
Speaker 1: Sky might as well be a judge in communists China.
Speaker 1: He might as well be a judge in Russia or
Speaker 1: in Cuba, where you go go in and attack and
Speaker 1: lock up your political enemies, and you destroy their lives
Speaker 1: and their families' lives, and you take everything from them
Speaker 1: until they bow down to you. That is what this
Speaker 1: judge was wanting to do, and that is what the
Speaker 1: Attorney General James sought to do.
Speaker 2: And ran on.
Speaker 1: James ran the New York Attorney General ran on, saying
Speaker 1: I am going to go after Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Vote for me.
Speaker 1: I will find a crime and I will convict him
Speaker 1: of a crime if you vote for me. And that's
Speaker 1: exactly what the Democratic Socialists, Communist Marxist Party has now done.
Speaker 1: Now what does this mean moving forward? Donald Trump plans
Speaker 1: to appeal the ruling. This is a case that should
Speaker 1: have never been brought, and it's a case where no
Speaker 1: one is entitled to damages. No one is entitled to damages.
Speaker 1: So the question is who gets the three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty sixty seventy million dollars because there were no victims
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump or his businesses. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley
Speaker 1: called the ruling extreme and abusive. The judgment, by the way,
Speaker 1: is the second this year in which Trump was found
Speaker 1: guilty and required to pay millions of dollars. Remember Egen
Speaker 1: Carroll her defamation case against him. The judge ordered Trump
Speaker 1: to pay eighty three point three million dollars. It was
Speaker 1: an absurd case, a case where there was no crime committed,
Speaker 1: but then they said Donald Trump slandered the woman that
Speaker 1: accused him of rape that she then said never happened.
Speaker 1: And then what happened, she sued for defamation. Found an
Speaker 1: activist judge and a judge that said, not only are
Speaker 1: we going to find you guilty of defamation against a
Speaker 1: woman that longfully accused you of a crime that never happened,
Speaker 1: but we're going to bankrupt you and you have to
Speaker 1: pay her eighty three point three million. NBC News reported
Speaker 1: specifics of that case, saying, quote James contended the defendant
Speaker 1: use the inflated financial statements to obtain bank loans and
Speaker 1: insurance policies at rates he otherwise wouldn't have been entitled
Speaker 1: and reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in ill gotten gains.
Speaker 1: Among the examples cited as fraud by the Attorney General's
Speaker 1: Office during the trial was Trump valuing his home in
Speaker 1: Trump Tower, New York City at three times its actual
Speaker 1: size and value, as well as including a brand value
Speaker 1: to increase the valuation of his golf courses on the
Speaker 1: financial statements which explicitly said brand values were not included.
Speaker 1: Another example pointed to by the Attorney General clearly got
Speaker 1: under his skin. This is how the unbiased NBC News
Speaker 1: was reporting this case. Hey dispute over the value of Marlago,
Speaker 1: his social club and residence in Florida. Trump's financial statements
Speaker 1: between twenty eleven and twenty twenty one valued mar Lago
Speaker 1: at between four hundred and twenty six million to six
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve million, while the Palm Beach County Accessor
Speaker 1: appraise the properties market value to be between eighteen and
Speaker 1: twenty seven million during the same time frame. There isn't
Speaker 1: an investor in America today that wouldn't buy mar Lago
Speaker 1: for eighteen to twenty seven million dollars. And if you've
Speaker 1: ever been to Marlago, you know that it is not
Speaker 1: worth eighteen to twenty seven million dollars. You know it's
Speaker 1: worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Everyone knows that it
Speaker 1: is not hard to figure out that it's worth more
Speaker 1: than eighteen to twenty seven million dollars. But what did
Speaker 1: this judge say? This judge also said, I'm not done there.
Speaker 1: I'm finding Trump's adult sons, Don Junior and Eric Lible
Speaker 1: for a host of civil fraud counts in New York, including,
Speaker 1: he says, issuing false financial statements, falsifying.
Speaker 2: Business records, and conspiracy.
Speaker 1: He ordered each of them to pay four million for
Speaker 1: their personal for their personal profits from the quote unquote
Speaker 1: fraud where no one was defrauded. In addition, the judge
Speaker 1: find former Trump Organization chief financial officer Alan Weisenberg another
Speaker 1: million dollars.
Speaker 2: Why did this happen?
Speaker 1: Because you had activist das and activist judges that said,
Speaker 1: we can do whatever we want and we're going to
Speaker 1: ruin Donald Trump. Not a single person testify that they
Speaker 1: were harmed by Trump. That they that they felt like
Speaker 1: they were lied to by Trump, that they lost money
Speaker 1: because of the deals with Trump. There were no victims here.
Speaker 1: There was no one that lost money. There was nobody
Speaker 1: that wasn't paid back. All of this was trumped up
Speaker 1: by activists who went after their political enemies. This is
Speaker 1: no different than Vladimir Putin killing another one of his
Speaker 1: political enemies yesterday. This is exactly what we're now doing
Speaker 1: in this country. We're going after and allowing our judges
Speaker 1: and activist das to go after Donald Trump or other
Speaker 1: people they hate in politics now, and they're able to
Speaker 1: do it if they're in a liberal place of business.
Speaker 1: This is disgusting on a level that this country has
Speaker 1: never seen before.
Speaker 2: And if they can do it to him, they will
Speaker 2: do it to you. Now, let's just pause.
Speaker 1: Real quick on what's happening in New York and go
Speaker 1: back to the other headline that's being covered up because
Speaker 1: of this headline in New York, And that's what's happening
Speaker 1: in Georgia with the Rico charges against Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: other conservatives. Right as I mentioned a second ago, they'll
Speaker 1: do it to Donald Trump, they'll do it to you. Well,
Speaker 1: you've got well over a dozen other Conservatives that were
Speaker 1: charged with crimes in Georgia by another activist, da Fanny Willis.
Speaker 1: Now we found out a hell of a lot more
Speaker 1: about the corruption around Fanny Willis and how she is
Speaker 1: probably going to be kicked off of this case because
Speaker 1: of her corruption. I want you to hear my conversation
Speaker 1: about what has happened in Georgia with Senator Ted Cruz.
Speaker 1: We talked about this on our podcast as I host
Speaker 1: with him, Verdict with Ted Cruz, and I want you
Speaker 1: to hear his take on exactly what's going down in Georgia.
Speaker 3: Well, as we know, there are four pending prosecutions against
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, and the effort of the Democrats to try
Speaker 3: to destroy Donald Trump and in particular to try to
Speaker 3: prevent the voters from being able to vote for him
Speaker 3: and elect him, is massive. One of the most problematic cases.
Speaker 3: All of them are messed up. You look at the
Speaker 3: Georgia case. The Georgia case is an absolute disaster. And
Speaker 3: I will tell you, if you are a wild eyed
Speaker 3: left wing partisan that wants to see Donald Trump prosecuted,
Speaker 3: this week was a very, very bad week for you.
Speaker 3: Because Fanny Willis, the Fulton County DA testified and it
Speaker 3: turns out the lead prosecutor that she hired was a man.
Speaker 3: She was sleeping with a man, She was having an
Speaker 3: affair with a man, She was paying hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of dollars a taxpayer money, including tens of thousands of
Speaker 3: dollars in cash under the table, and she lied to
Speaker 3: the court about it. I mean, it is as bad
Speaker 3: a train wreck as you've ever seen. And by the way,
Speaker 3: if you don't believe me, listen to what MSNBC had
Speaker 3: to say about this week.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: Don't let the legal liest fool you. This is epic,
Speaker 5: This is monumental. If things are going in the direction
Speaker 5: we think Fannie Willis lied to the court, it's a
Speaker 5: game over for her. She will be disqualified. If they
Speaker 5: had a relationship prior to when they represent it to
Speaker 5: the court. It's a huge deal. I can overstate it.
Speaker 2: I can overstate it lying to the court.
Speaker 1: Center can you explain how big of a deal that is,
Speaker 1: especially if you're the DA, and on top of that,
Speaker 1: you've hired the special prosecutor who you're funneling taxpayer dollars too,
Speaker 1: that you're in a relationship with. This is corruption at
Speaker 1: like Biden crime family level.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a massive problem. She was caught with her
Speaker 3: hand in the cookie jar, and it undermines the entire prosecution.
Speaker 3: It makes clear that this was a partisan hit job
Speaker 3: from day one. But here listen to her testimony at
Speaker 3: the trial.
Speaker 4: It's interesting that we'll hear about this money. Mister Wade
Speaker 4: is used to women that, as he told me one time,
Speaker 4: the only thing a woman can do for him is
Speaker 4: make him a sandwich. We would have brutal arguments about
Speaker 4: the fact that I am your equal. I don't need
Speaker 4: anything from a man. A man is not a plan.
Speaker 4: A man is a companion, and so there was tension
Speaker 4: always in our relationship, which is why I would give
Speaker 4: him his money back. I don't need anybody to put
Speaker 4: my bills. The only man who's ever put my bills
Speaker 4: completely is my daddy.
Speaker 1: I mean, Sarah, that's a new excuse I've never heard
Speaker 1: for funneling money to your boyfriend lover's sash special prosecutor.
Speaker 3: That's impressive, No, it really is. And understand this is bizarre.
Speaker 3: District attorneys do not pay prosecutors and lawyers that they
Speaker 3: have hired on the taxpayer dime. In stacks of cash.
Speaker 3: That's what drug dealers do. And listen to the rest
Speaker 3: of our testimony. Listen to this much.
Speaker 4: Less cash that time, probably four or five hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: And then I paid for a bunch of stuff. I
Speaker 4: think we did two different wine truth that you do,
Speaker 4: which are pretty expensive. I think I bought him he
Speaker 4: likes wine. I don't really like wine, to be honest
Speaker 4: with you, I like Gray Goose. I bought him a
Speaker 4: bottle of wine while we were there. And the sippings
Speaker 4: that you do. I can't remember how like four or
Speaker 4: five different places you go. I remember we went to
Speaker 4: to this place that they do pairings. That was the
Speaker 4: most expensive thing that I think that we did while
Speaker 4: we were there. So they would pair uh, they would
Speaker 4: pair uh champagne chocolate and champagne, chocolate and caviar. It
Speaker 4: was a three and it was like three different things. Sweden, Russia,
Speaker 4: someplace else. I'll make that up, but that that was
Speaker 4: the most expensive thing we did that trip, and I
Speaker 4: paid for I paid for that. Do you pay cash
Speaker 4: for us doing that? Yeah? I think.
Speaker 1: But by the way, Sentator, at least we now have
Speaker 1: some real Russian collusions. She likes herself, some vodka from
Speaker 1: from from from Russia.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: She likes a Goose, champagne, chocolate and caviar and look
Speaker 3: to pay cash. I mean, to be honest, Ben, when
Speaker 3: is the last time you paid cash in anything more
Speaker 3: than a McDonald's.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I haven't seen cash like this.
Speaker 1: And we're talking from what they were saying at trial today,
Speaker 1: not speculation.
Speaker 2: This is tens of thousands of dollars in cash.
Speaker 3: This is not small amounts. And to be honest, this
Speaker 3: is you reference the Biden crime family. This is reminiscent
Speaker 3: of when you make massive payments to multiple bank accounts.
Speaker 3: You're doing it to hide what is happening. Nobody pays
Speaker 3: thousands and thousands of dollars in cash unless you want
Speaker 3: people not to know. And I got to say, listen
Speaker 3: to her boyfriend's testimony because if anything, is even more shocking.
Speaker 1: And this, by the way, her boyfriend that we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, this is the special prosecutor.
Speaker 3: If she hired with sax Paramney.
Speaker 2: That is billed one hundreds and hundreds of thousands.
Speaker 3: Of dollars to go after Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: You got down Trump up to a million, they think,
Speaker 1: and this is what he was asked about these credit
Speaker 1: card statements and who paid for what?
Speaker 6: Okay, and let's just talk about that travel.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: The first trip is Belize in March twenty twenty three.
Speaker 6: Is that a trip that you took with miss Willis?
Speaker 7: Are you asking did.
Speaker 6: You take a trip with miss Willis in twenty twenty
Speaker 6: three to the Belize?
Speaker 7: I did?
Speaker 6: Did you take a trip to California with Miss Willis
Speaker 6: in twenty twenty three?
Speaker 7: I did?
Speaker 2: Did you.
Speaker 6: Pay for those trips on that credit card?
Speaker 7: I used a credit card to book to travel?
Speaker 4: But understand she paid your back cash.
Speaker 7: Well, let me say this. Let's take the Belize trip
Speaker 7: for example. So you started there. That was a birthday
Speaker 7: gift to me. So I paid nothing for that trip zero.
Speaker 6: Okay. So the charges that are on your card she
Speaker 6: gave you cash for she did. Okay, So all of
Speaker 6: the charges.
Speaker 7: The witness I finish chance on the question, oh did
Speaker 7: your mom I did? Okay. I wanted to get into
Speaker 7: the charges on the car because so traveling with her
Speaker 7: is a is a task. You can probably imagine the
Speaker 7: attention that that happens. So for safety reasons, she would
Speaker 7: limit her transactions. I mean imagine trying to walk through
Speaker 7: an airport or sit at the restaurant or do anything.
Speaker 7: So there was no there's no attempt to conceal is
Speaker 7: a credit card. Everything is here, so and that's.
Speaker 6: Not what I asked. What I asked was the charges
Speaker 6: for believes in March twenty twenty three, on that credit card,
Speaker 6: those are things you purchased to go with miss Waite,
Speaker 6: with miss Willis.
Speaker 2: To believe, those.
Speaker 7: Are things that we booked with my card that she paid.
Speaker 6: Yes, yes, so those show up on your credit card.
Speaker 7: They do.
Speaker 6: And you're saying that she paid you cash to reimburse
Speaker 6: you for all of that she did, and she paid
Speaker 6: you cash for both of your portions are just hers both?
Speaker 7: Okay?
Speaker 6: So that trip believes just believee she paid you for
Speaker 6: everything on belief, the entire trip. So the food, tattoo parlor,
Speaker 6: all that stuff she paid for.
Speaker 1: I'm good. I sorry anything the question.
Speaker 7: There was no there was no tattoo parlor.
Speaker 6: In believe the charges. There's a there's a tattoo parlor
Speaker 6: on the charges. I'm not getting into what it was for.
Speaker 6: I'm just asking if everything that's on that card related
Speaker 6: to belize she paid you back for she paid for.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay.
Speaker 1: By the way, Senator, just the conversation general is hysterical,
Speaker 1: but also the fact that they're both saying the same thing.
Speaker 1: There is no pay per trayal I got paid back
Speaker 1: in cash for every everything, every everything in cash. They're
Speaker 1: in a single receipt. There's nothing here. And by the way,
Speaker 1: one of those trips was my birthday, so she paid
Speaker 1: for everything.
Speaker 3: Look, neither you nor I or Spring Chickens. You're forty
Speaker 3: plus years old. I'm fifty plus years old. Have you
Speaker 3: ever taken a trip where you like, reimburse someone tens
Speaker 3: of thousands of dollars in cash? I mean, just imagine
Speaker 3: what kind of look like. This is not normal behavior.
Speaker 3: This is the behavior of people who are concealing transactions
Speaker 3: they don't want to have to happen. And by the way,
Speaker 3: it's pretty nice that he charges everything to his credit card,
Speaker 3: including the tattoo parlor. But he denies, but apparently it's
Speaker 3: on his credit card. So I don't know if they
Speaker 3: both got tattooed on their rear ends. We hate Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: I don't know what they got tattooed.
Speaker 2: We hate maggot, right.
Speaker 3: But even the like little charges he's like, no, no, no,
Speaker 3: I didn't pay a penny, understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, by the way, he's like, he's bragging.
Speaker 3: Basically, he's like, damn straight, every penny she paid for.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and pay me back in cash on all of it,
Speaker 2: all of it.
Speaker 1: It's incredible to the seriousness of this for a moment,
Speaker 1: because that is just hysterical what we played for you.
Speaker 2: But how big of a victory is this? Number one
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: And if she has taken off the case, which means
Speaker 1: he would be taking off the case, what does that
Speaker 1: do moving forward for this case when it deals with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and they're going after again rico charges which
Speaker 1: are serious against him.
Speaker 2: That's how they put all this together.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, it's not clear, but the prosecution is in shambles.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor is at this point revealed to have liked
Speaker 3: lied to the court, to be corrupt, to be funneling money,
Speaker 3: to be paying taxpayer money to her lover and profiting
Speaker 3: off that money. It ain't good at all, and that
Speaker 3: means the case is Look as the MSNBC analyst said,
Speaker 3: it's game over.
Speaker 2: Look.
Speaker 3: Could they try to revive it with some other prosecutor. Sure,
Speaker 3: But this was always I think a rabid partisan Democrat
Speaker 3: who hated Donald Trump, who wanted to make a name
Speaker 3: for herself. And I got to say, you know, listening
Speaker 3: to the story of his saying it's hard to travel
Speaker 3: with her, I don't know. I'm kind of skeptical that
Speaker 3: walking through an airport anyone has any idea who Fanny
Speaker 3: Willis is. But if that's his theories like we had
Speaker 3: to hide it because everyone knows who she is, Listen,
Speaker 3: I think that was the objective of bringing this case,
Speaker 3: and maybe it worked. I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I definitely did.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you think that this means
Speaker 1: that this is the you know, a want and done
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump's going to get to move back to
Speaker 1: the campaign, You're wrong. Donald Trump's New York custo money case,
Speaker 1: this is that criminal case there will start March to
Speaker 1: twenty fifth. It's the first of his criminal trials. And
Speaker 1: final question on this center. Is this the reason why
Speaker 1: Democrats basically went around the country and started throwing jello
Speaker 1: at a wall and seeing if they get any of
Speaker 1: it to stick. And they're doing all of these cases
Speaker 1: so that if this one falls, hey, we start another
Speaker 1: one March the twenty fifth and if that one falls,
Speaker 1: we'll start another one in May or June.
Speaker 3: Look, yes and no, I don't think this is a
Speaker 3: grand conspiracy. I don't think there's one grand puba in
Speaker 3: a smoke filled room saying you bring this case, you
Speaker 3: bring this case, you bring this case. And part of
Speaker 3: the reason is if you were trying to do a
Speaker 3: grand conspiracy, no one would pick Fanny Willis to be
Speaker 3: part of it, Like this prosecutor is a mess, and
Speaker 3: so I think it is.
Speaker 1: Instead, is it political opportunists that are just saying I
Speaker 1: got to make a name for myself and I.
Speaker 3: There's a concept in antitrust law called conscious parallelism, which
Speaker 3: is it's a bunch of rabid partisan Democrats, all of
Speaker 3: whom hate Donald Trump, and they're all racing to I'm
Speaker 3: gonna get him. No, I'm gonna get him. No, I'm
Speaker 3: gonna get him. So whether it is Fanny Willis, whether
Speaker 3: it is Alvin Bragg, whether it's Jack Smith, whether it's
Speaker 3: Letitia James, They're all like, I'm an ambitious Democrat and
Speaker 3: I hate the person that I think is the devil,
Speaker 3: So let's go abuse the justice system to go after him.
Speaker 1: I want to move to another really important, big story,
Speaker 1: and this is one that has not been reported on
Speaker 1: by the media at all, and it deals with a
Speaker 1: Hamas command tunnel under the United Nations Gaza headquarters. It
Speaker 1: seems unbelievable, but it also backs up with reality of
Speaker 1: what we saw in Gaza with the Associated Press and
Speaker 1: Reuters and others who had their offices in the same
Speaker 1: offices where Hamas had apparently intel centers and command centers.
Speaker 1: And now we find out that Hamas had a command
Speaker 1: tunnel under a un guys A headquarters. How did the
Speaker 1: United Nations not know about this, Senator.
Speaker 3: Well, listen. The organization is something that's called UNRA, and
Speaker 3: an UNRA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works
Speaker 3: Agency and it is a part of the United Nations
Speaker 3: that is focused on giving aid to the Palestinians. And
Speaker 3: major stories have broken. UNRA has always had massive corruption,
Speaker 3: massive aid to Hamas, and so last month the news
Speaker 3: broke that a dozen staff of UNRA, a dozen people
Speaker 3: working for the un took part in the October seventh
Speaker 3: massacre by Hamas. They were actively terrorists engaging in the
Speaker 3: October seventh attack which killed over twelve hundred people and
Speaker 3: took over two hundred and fifty hostages. Now, pause and
Speaker 3: think about it. The United Nations is employing and paying terrorists.
Speaker 3: But then the news broke just a few days ago
Speaker 3: that not only was the un employing terrorists, but beneath
Speaker 3: the headquarters of UNRA was a subterranean data center. It
Speaker 3: had an electrical room, it had industrial battery power banks,
Speaker 3: and it had living quarters for hamas terrorists who were
Speaker 3: operating the computer servers. And it was built directly under
Speaker 3: the location of the headquarters of UNRA. Now, that could
Speaker 3: not have happened by accident, and it totally reveals UNRA
Speaker 3: as a facilitating entity for terrorists.
Speaker 2: So all the money here.
Speaker 1: If andra's getting funds from the United Nations, and we're
Speaker 1: the biggest donor to the United Nations, we're giving money
Speaker 1: and it's being funneled to those that are helping carry
Speaker 1: out terrorist attacks as well as protecting terrasts and the
Speaker 1: planning and the rockets that are being shot into Israel
Speaker 1: for years now while they've been in the same building.
Speaker 3: Now, that's exactly right. As The Times of Israel reported,
Speaker 3: unro's Gaza headquarters is located in Gaza City's upscale Remal neighborhood,
Speaker 3: an area that the Israeli the IDF had previously operated
Speaker 3: in and dismantled the local Hamas battalion and withdrawn its
Speaker 3: troops from And here's a quote from Colonel Benny Aharon
Speaker 3: from the IDF, who says, quote, the IDF was here previously.
Speaker 3: The first time was to destroy the enemy. But when
Speaker 3: we were here the last time, we collected a lot
Speaker 3: of intelligence documents and findings, a lot of prisoners, and
Speaker 3: thanks to this we reached here. Now we carried out
Speaker 3: a targeted operation to take this capability away. We had
Speaker 3: a basis of information, but not enough to be able
Speaker 3: to dig down twenty meters to find it twenty meters
Speaker 3: about sixty feet. We needed a bit more. There's information
Speaker 3: we get from prisoners, we capture from computers, we find
Speaker 3: from documents, maps, and they went down and discovered this
Speaker 3: terror tunnel. Hazan, who is tasked with coordinating the brigade's
Speaker 3: underground operation, said the main entrance to the tunnel was
Speaker 3: located under an unrushed school in the area. Wo and
Speaker 3: this look the UN you want to talk about number one.
Speaker 3: The UN has always been just a pit of anti Semitism,
Speaker 3: anti Israel hatred, but they have funneled billions of dollars
Speaker 3: to UNRA, which in turn is supporting terrorists and supporting
Speaker 3: Hamas and employing people who participated in the October seventh
Speaker 3: terror attack.
Speaker 1: What will America's response be to this, as the Biden
Speaker 1: administration said anything? And are there anyone in his administration
Speaker 1: or the UN ambassador asking questions saying what the hell
Speaker 1: is going on at the United Nations Relief and Work
Speaker 1: Agency that's been knowingly, as you described it, providing support
Speaker 1: to Hamas terrorists who committed these atrocies against over a
Speaker 1: thousand Israelies and dozens of Americans as well, which I
Speaker 1: think has been overlooked as well by this administration.
Speaker 3: Yes, so sadly, the Biden administration from day one has
Speaker 3: been funneling money into Gaza. Look early on in the
Speaker 3: Biden administration, I led a group of seventeen senators saying,
Speaker 3: do not get give money to Gaza because if you
Speaker 3: give money to Gaza, that will flow directly to Hamas
Speaker 3: and be used for terrorist activities. At the time I
Speaker 3: sent that letter, there were one hundred and fifty House
Speaker 3: Democrats who sent a letter to the administration saying please
Speaker 3: do give money to Gaza even though it will likely
Speaker 3: be used by Hamas for terrorism. We now know because
Speaker 3: it's been publicly reported how the Biden administration resolved that issue.
Speaker 3: The Biden administration concluded that it was quote highly likely
Speaker 3: those are their terms, highly likely that money given to
Speaker 3: Gaza would be used by Hamas for terrorism. Now ordinarily
Speaker 3: been under US anti terrorism law. If it's highly likely
Speaker 3: the money will be used for terrorism, you can't send
Speaker 3: the money. That would be common sense. Well, what the
Speaker 3: Biden administration did instead is they formally waived US anti
Speaker 3: terrorism law because their political ideology, they so wanted to
Speaker 3: send the money they didn't care if it would be
Speaker 3: used by Hamas for terrorism. So, in a very real sense,
Speaker 3: Joe Biden and the Democrats funded Hamas and the October
Speaker 3: seventh terror attack.
Speaker 1: Which goes back to the bigger question in the aid.
Speaker 1: It looks like American aid. We say, hey, we're going
Speaker 1: to send some to Israel, but we're also wanting to
Speaker 1: send aid to Gaza. How do we not How do
Speaker 1: we assure that that money's not going to go directly
Speaker 1: in the hands of the terrorists.
Speaker 3: We can't, and it is truly asinine. And in the
Speaker 3: wake of this horrific terror attack, what did Joe Biden
Speaker 3: the Democrats want to do. Let's send more money to Gaza.
Speaker 3: Let's send more money to Gaza. And my view is
Speaker 3: stop sending money to people who want to kill us.
Speaker 3: If you cannot assure that the money doesn't go to
Speaker 3: terrorists who want to murder Americans, don't send the money.
Speaker 3: And by the way, this past week, I let a
Speaker 3: group of senators urging the Justice Department to open but
Speaker 3: a criminal investigation into a US based nonprofit that raises
Speaker 3: money for UNRA. And it's a group called UNRA USA,
Speaker 3: which is a nonprofit with the self described mission to
Speaker 3: support the quote work of UNRA through fundraising, education, and
Speaker 3: advocacy in the United States. And as I pointed out,
Speaker 3: here's what I wrote in the letter with several other senators. Quote,
Speaker 3: we write to call on you to open a criminal
Speaker 3: investigation into UNRA USA, its principles, and its leadership for
Speaker 3: knowingly providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations including hamas.
Speaker 3: This support facilitated and continues to facilitate terrorism, including the
Speaker 3: October seventh terrorist attack in which Palestinian terrorist killed or
Speaker 3: kidnapped dozens of Americans and over one thy two hundred Israelis.
Speaker 3: According to its twenty twenty one annual report, RA USA
Speaker 3: dispersed nearly five million dollars in donations to ANRA that year,
Speaker 3: making the organization ora's largest institutional donor.
Speaker 2: Make sure you share a podcast please.
Speaker 1: Everywhere you're on social media, write us a five star
Speaker 1: review and I'll see you back here tomorrow morning