The NELK Netanyahu Situation is Pathetic
PDS Published 07/22/2025
-
The Nelk Boys are facing massive backlash after interviewing Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right, The Nelk Boys? If you don’t know them, they got big with their prank videos and vlogs.
And lately, they’ve been sort of dipping their toes into politics, let’s say – becoming part of a larger group of influencers, podcasters, and streamers who seemingly gave Trump a huge boost in the last election – especially with young men.
Right, last year, for example, you had Trump appearing on their “Full Send” podcast for the second time and even inviting them on his plane.
And now, of course, you have Netanyahu on the show.
Right, and Netanyahu? I’m sure you know, but to recap, he’s the prime minister of Israel, which is a country many rights groups and experts say is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza.
With Netanyahu himself wanted by the International Criminal Court on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity – including the use of starvation as a method of war. []
Right, which I highlight, because as we ac tually talked about yesterday, and as the UN and rights groups have long warned would happen, we’re really now starting to see hunger and malnutrition take an even bigger toll in Gaza.
With local officials saying today 15 people had died of starvation in Gaza over the previous 24 hours.
Which reportedly brings the total number of people who have died of hunger during the conflict – including many children – to 101, with most of them over the past few weeks. []
And that’s on top of the nearly 60,000 people who have been directly killed so far, according to Gaza’s health ministry, with more than half of them reportedly being women and children.
And that’s as there’s also been the destruction of most homes and buildings, mass displacement, and allegations and evidence of all sorts of other crimes.
But with all that, the interview? It actually took place on July 8th – which is when Netanyahu was in the US meeting with Trump.
With outlets like Axios reporting at the time that the move seemed to echo Trump's campaign strategy of building support outside of traditional mainstream channels, with Axios writing:
“It's a sign that Netanyahu recognizes the influence of the MAGA media universe and wants to build support for Israel and the prime minister's own policies within a key segment of Trump's base.” []
And now that the interview has been released, you have some saying it’s clear why Netanyahu chose the Nelk Boys.
And to be fair, they did start the episode showing at least a little bit of self-awareness:
"“This is fucking nuts, dude. This is so crazy. We are so not qualified to do this.”
“This is probably one of the most, if not the most, controversial podcast we–
“--For sure the most–”
“-- have ever done.”
“Yeah, 100%.”
“And by the way, too, I'm not claiming to be an expert on this issue or anything like that.”
“I see so much stuff about, you know, what’s going on in Israel and, you know, Iran and Palestine. And to be honest, I just really don’t know what is going on there.” (BYTE: 1:11-1:17, 1:31-1:40, 1:48-1:52, 2:08-2:19, )
But of course, as many have since pointed out, the big problem with interviewing someone about something you know almost nothing about – especially when that person has a vested interest in pushing a certain narrative?
When that person says something that isn’t true, you can’t point that out.
And when you have a massive platform like the Nelk Boys, you’re then letting that person push their own narrative onto??
But we’ll get more into the criticism later, let’s first talk about what else was actually said.
Right, the whole thing kind of kicked off with Netanyahu laying it on thick for old Donnie Trump – complementing his sense of humor, claiming he’s a good person at heart, and praising his leadership:
“Okay. I think there’s never been a friend like Donald Trump in the White House for Israel. I think he’s a remarkable leader. I think he’s changing history. He said he’ll make America great again. He’s already done it. You know, America is widely admired now around the world.” (BYTE: 4:09-4:29)
But of course, in reality, the opposite seems to be true – at least talking about America being admired around the world.
Right, according to one recent Ipsos poll, for example, the number of people saying the US will have a positive influence on world affairs fell in 26 out of 29 countries since Trump got elected.
And a Pew research poll last month similarly found that the number of people who view the U.S. favorably has dropped in most of 24 measured countries.
But with that, going back to the interview, you actually had the Nelk Boys not asking what the world thinks about America, but what Americans think about Israel.
“I think the broad segments of the American public support Israel, but I’m concerned that the young people in America, some of them are getting the wrong picture of Israel, vilification, demonization. You can feed them a lot of lies. So, the only way you can fight lies is with the truth.” (BYTE: 7:36-7:57)
“To have young Americans march and support these mass rapists, these people who beheaded men, who burned babies alive. I’m talking about the Hamas monsters. Is that their ideal? They know nothing. I mean, they don’t know what they’re talking about and I want to bring that truth to them.” (BYTE:10:24-10:42)
But notably there, just what he was saying there, it wasn’t exactly the truth.
Right, for sure, Hamas massacred hundreds of civilians on October 7th and took 251 people hostage.
And investigations by the ICC, rights groups, and media outlets have all uncovered evidence of war crimes and atrocities including rape and sexual violence.
Notably, however, those claims about beheading or burning babies? They’ve been discredited.
And on the flip side, of course, investigators have uncovered evidence of war crimes and atrocities committed by Israel – also including rape and sexual violence.
And overall, Israel’s alleged crimes have taken place on a much bigger scale in terms of total casualty numbers – and you actually had the Nelk Boys asking Netanyahu about that.
He said this:
“...the reason we have civilian casualties in Gaza is because Hamas…
“…Hamas embeds itself in the civilian population of Gaza.”
“We tell the Palestinians, hey, leave because after they butchered us and raped our women, and beheaded our men, and burned our babies, you know, we have to remove this threat. So, we come in to take care of the Hamas terrorists. But the Hamas terrorists don’t leave the civilian neighborhoods. And we say to the civilians, we call them up because we have their telephone numbers. We say, ‘Leave. Please leave.’ We send them leaflets, millions of leaflets. Please leave. We, you know, we do everything that is possible that no army has done. They want to leave. You know what Hamas does. They shoot them. We want you to stay because we want to have civilian casualties because then they can show it on CNN or all these other networks and so on and claim that Israel is deliberately doing this. We’re not deliberately doing anything.” (BYTE: 11:07-11:14, 11:53-11:57, 12:00-12:53)
You also had Netanyahu similarly trying to shift blame to Hamas when asked about accusations that Israel is starving the people of Gaza.
“Well, because we’re trying to get the food in, and we let food trucks in, and guess what happens when we let them in? Hamas steals the food, takes the good chunk for itself, then sells at inflated prices. They jack up the prices and then they sell the food to its population—to its hungry population—if they give them any at all, and then use the money that they take from their own people to recruit more killers into their terror machine. That’s what happens.” (BYTE: 15:09-15:37).
Except…that’s not what happens.
Or at least, Israel hasn’t provided proof that Hamas has systematically stolen aid.
And the UN, the European Commission and major international aid organizations have said they also have no evidence that this is happening.
And then, of course, something we’ve talked about several times, it’s not been looting, but Israeli bullets that have stopped hundreds of Palestinians from getting aid over the past few months (1, 2, 3, 4).
Right, ever since the implementation of a new aid system run by the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
But speaking of the US and Israel working together, you also Netanyahu in the interview reiterating his support for relocating people out of Gaza – with him saying they should have the “freedom of choice” to do that.
Although, of course, experts say it wouldn’t really be a choice at all, and would likely amount to a forced population transfer that could be considered a crime against humanity.
But with that, you also had Netanyahu getting back to the topic of support for Palestine in the US – equating it with support for Hamas – but also calling it anti-American:
“I come here and I see these protests. The people who are protesting for Hamas and against Israel, they burn American flags. They not only burn the flag of Israel, they burn American flags. They’re anti-American. They’re not MAGA. They’re not supporters. You know, who do they support? You know who they support? They support Iran and its proxy Hamas or Hezbollah.” (17:18-17:44)
And interestingly, this actually led to a quick exchange about Zohran Mamdani – the Democratic candidate in the New York mayor’s race – with this exchange seemingly being the one part of this interview picked up on by mainstream media.
“I'm just trying to figure it out too 'cause even in New York City, right? What's – Zohran?”
“Yeah.”
“He's an anti-Semitic guy. The highest – I think the highest population of Jews in New York City. How's that even possible?”
“Well, it's possible because a lot of people have been taken in by this nonsense. I mean, what? You want to defund the police? You want to have people go into stores and you know, rob them and be free? You think that really creates a good society? You want to crush all enterprise? You want to tax people to death? I mean, you know, that's a one-term effort, but you know, sometimes you have to get mugged by reality to understand how stupid that is.” (BYTE: 19:58-20:35)
Of course, Mamdani has forcefully denied accusations of antisemitism – promising to govern for Jewish New Yorkers and increase funding to combat hate.
But he’s also accused the Israeli government of genocide and said he would arrest Netanyahu if he ever visited, citing the ICC’s arrest warrant.
He has forcefully denied accusations of antisemitism – promising to govern for Jewish New Yorkers and increase funding to combat hate.
He has also said he will not defund the police – instead saying he wants to move resources around to make sure officers are focusing on the most serious crimes.
And that he plans to keep the current New York Police Department headcount. []
But with that, getting back to Netanyahu, there’s more we could unpack with this interview, but in some ways, the more interesting part has been the response.
Right, starting with just the comment section, you had them taking an absolute beating, saying he was platforming a war criminal, and basically saying they were being use by Israel, with one person writing:
“This was pitched to Netanyahu like this: ‘don’t worry these guys are idiots, you can use their platform to push whatever propaganda you want and they won’t push back on anything.’” []
And they actually responded to all that criticism and more on a Kick stream yesterday, saying things like:
“Someone said having Netanyahu on is like having modern-day Hitler –
“I saw that.”
“Which is – honestly, guys, I’ll be honest, I’m here to – it’s a good point. We’re here to fucking learn to be honest guys.” (56:38-56:51)
And who better to learn from than far-right ant-semitic podcasters?
Right, I guess they thought because they had the Israeli prime minister on, they could balance it out by speaking to people who have literally denied the holocaust – including Nick Fuente as just one example.
Although, that said, Fuentes did pretty effectively explain to them why young people would be rubbed the wrong way by this interview:
“They see this as like a push by Netanyahu for public relations. He's gonna come on your show to try to get all the young, conservative, frat guys, you know, all the masculine men, the manosphere types, streaming types, to get back in the pocket of Israel.” (1:08:11-1:08:26)
And he argued that even if it was not the intent for them to do PR for Netanyahu, it comes across like they were doing image rehabilitation for him.
And that is also part of why Netanyahu opted to sit down with them in the first place.
“He's not gonna take a hard interview with the journalist who's gonna push back, who's actually going to interrogate him over the situation over there. He kind of cynically used the platform to take advantage in a certain way.” (1:08:54-1:09:06)
But then, on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, you also had Hasan Piker coming on the stream, who said they weren’t equipped to have that conversation with Netanyahu – also questioning whether they can really be neutral.
Hasan: “What about Adolf Hitler?
“I think we'd always kind of play a neutral role to be honest.”
Hasan: “You would play a neutral role interviewing Adolf Hitler? I don’t think that’s the case. I think you’re just saying that because you wanna –
“We’re just not the best at grilling guests and pushing back on them to be honest. Like I said, we’re not claiming to be good journalists. Like we can ask a question but when it comes to like a follow-up a question, I’’ll be honest, we’re not the most – like, never claimed to be super educated on this…” (2:01:50-2:02:19)
But with that, you also had Hasan arguing it might not be worth interviewing some people even if you do know what you’re doing – actually pointing to Fuentes as an example.
“I would use the same principle for Nick Fuentes, for example, except with Nick Fuentes, he hasn't he I mean, he's a neo-Nazi, but he hasn't done literal crimes like Benjamin Netanyahu, while also simultaneously being a neo-Nazi of a different sort. So, it’s even worse than someone like Nicholas Wentz. And I don’t think that Nicholas Wentz is appropriate to also platform in this situation.”
“The reason why I would still choose not to platform neo-Nazis and things of that nature, regardless of how equipped I am at talking to them about these issues and being able to push back adequately, is because a lot of these guys are simply looking for any opportunity to get their message to a broader audience. They don’t actually care about the truth. They don’t actually care about coming across like good or bad. They just want to be heard, because every single time they go in front of a larger audience, they end up winning over some people in the margins to their side.” (36:18-36:41, 37:20-37:54)
But with that, there’s obviously way more we could talk about, right with the interview itself, with all the conversations that happened on this Kick stream, and just the situation in general, but I gotta pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts with all this?
-
That is the message Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have after CBS cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
Right, last week CBS announced the show will be coming to an end in 2026, citing financial reasons. []
But many suspected the motive was political considering CBS’s parent company, Paramount, controversially agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against CBS News,
And that settlement just happened to come as Paramount is seeking a merger with the media company Skydance, which they will need approval from the Trump administration for. []
And this was something that Colbert recently mocked on his show, just days before he was sacked:
“Now, I believe that this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles: it’s big fat bribe.” (3:42-3:50)
And so when CBS announced on Thursday that Colbert’s show was going away, many thought it looked like some good old fashioned censorship to appease Trump amid this merger, especially since Colbert is an outspoken Trump critic.
And last night, Colbert got to address all of this on his show, saying:
“Folks, I’m just gonna say it, cancel culture has gone too far.” (0:08-0:13)
“Now, for the next 10 months, the gloves are off. I can finally speak unvarnished truth to power and say what I really think about Donald Trump, starting right now...I don’t care for him.”(1:20-1:46)
“Go fuck yourself.” (5:00-5:01)
He then did a bit parodying that Coldplay concert where an audience cam landed on TV hosts and comedians before landing on Trump and Paramount, who hid as though they were having an affair.
But Colbert was not alone in calling out CBS last night, his former colleague Jon Stewart also ripped into the network on The Daily Show, which also falls under the Paramount umbrella.
“This is not a 'We speak truth to power.' We don't. We speak opinions to television cameras. But we try. We fucking try, every night. If you believe as corporations or as networks, you can make yourselves so innocuous that you can serve a gruel so flavorless that you will never again be on the boy king’s radar … Why will anyone watch you? And you are fucking wrong.”(22:41-23:10)
With him then saying that he does not believe Colbert’s cancellation was for financial reasons and instead:
“I think the answer is in the fear and pre-compliance that is gripping all of America’s institutions at this very moment — institutions that have chosen not to fight the vengeful and vindictive actions of our pubic hair-doodling commander in chief. This is not the moment to give in. I’m not giving in!” (24:40-24:59)
And he closed the segment by repeatedly singing the phrase “fuck yourself” accompanied by a gospel choir.
Politicians have condemned CBS and Paramount here, concerned that this is a “a politically motivated attack on free speech.”[][][]
Some also arguing that you just need to see Trump’s truth social post celebrating Colbert’s firing to know it was a political decision. []
Others noting that while, sure, late night TV has seen better days, Colbert was the highest-rated program in the field. []
And because of all his, you had the Writers Guild demanding an investigation into CBS’s decision here, writing that:[]
“For ten years, the show has been one of the most successful, beloved and profitable programs on CBS.”
“Given Paramount’s recent capitulation to President Trump in the CBS News lawsuit, the Writers Guild of America has significant concerns that The Late Show’s cancelation is a bribe, sacrificing free speech to curry favor with the Trump Administration as the company looks for merger approval.”
“Cancelations are part of the business, but a corporation terminating a show in bad faith due to explicit or implicit political pressure is dangerous and unacceptable in a democratic society.”
Many are also interested in more of the details of the Skydance and Paramount merger as it relates to the Trump administration, since there has been reporting of a “side deal.”
With Trump previously saying that instead of just a $16 million settlement, he got a total of around $35 million.
And so yesterday, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Ron Wyden released a statement demanding answers on what this means, writing:
“These reports raise fresh questions about corruption in the Trump Administration and President Trump’s willingness to accept payments from entities with significant policy interests before agencies he controls.”[]
“Reporting suggests that a secret side deal with Skydance may include public service announcements ‘and other broadcast transmissions’ worth between $15 million and $20 million that ‘support conservative causes supported by President Trump.’”
With the Senators asking Skydance CEO David Ellison to answer questions regarding:
“whether Skydance’s actions comply with federal anti-bribery laws, including about the contents of the secret deal with President Trump, whether the deal’s participants discussed the pending Paramount-Skydance transaction, and whether Skydance executives were involved in the decision to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”
And I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, on Colbert and his response, on what you think it means for CBS to be cutting the cord here, and on everything regarding this merger.
-
Ghislaine Maxwell is going to spill her secrets — maybe.
Right, this morning, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the DOJ is trying to meet with the imprisoned Epstein associate.
With Bondi posting a statement from Deputy Attorney Todd Blanche saying he had spoken with Maxwell’s lawyers to determine if she was willing to speak with the DOJ, claiming:
“President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.”[]
With Blanche going on to say that he expects to meet with Maxwell “in the coming days,” and claiming that the DOJ under previous administrations had never tried to speak with her.
Though, very notably here, he also says that the DOJ stands by a statement it issued earlier this month asserting that its review of the Epstein files produced no evidence that would warrant prosecution of third parties that have not been charged.
And, in response, you had a lawyer for Maxwell issuing a statement saying:
“I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.”[]
Now, of course, it’s unclear exactly what a potential interview with Maxwell would look like or if any part of it would be released to the public.
But this announcement is still notable because it marks yet another instance of the Trump administration bending to pressure as the outrage over their handling of the case rages on with no signs of dying down anytime soon.
Right, and this latest announcement also comes as a growing number of lawmakers have been calling for Maxwell to testify about her relationship with Epstein.
Including some who have called for her to be subpoenaed to appear before Congress.
And in fact, just hours after Bondi’s announcement, we saw the House Oversight Committee voting unanimously to subpoena Maxwell to testify at a deposition.
And VERY significantly here, the motion to subpoena Maxwell was actually introduced by a Republican — Rep. Tim Burchett — who notably said he didn’t consult Trump first.
With the committee’s Republican chair, Rep. James Comer, also telling reporters that he too had not communicated with the White House, but that “Republicans on the committee overwhelmingly support” the move, adding:
“I know that President Trump has said he's going to release all the information they have, but we have members that want to go a little bit further, be a little more aggressive.”
But, at the same time, we’ve also seen Democrats arguing that this move likely won’t achieve much at the end of the day.
With Rep. Jamie Raskin arguing that the subpoena is an “evasive ploy to obscure the fact that they are not doing the one thing they promised to do ... which is release the Epstein file.”
Saying that Democrats will still “welcome the opportunity to question” Maxwell, but adding:
“given that Ms. Maxwell's hopes for freedom depend on clemency and a pardon from President Trump, her testimony about Trump, his relationship with Epstein and the extent of Trump's role in any conspiracy simply has no reliability.”
Beyond that, you also have many noting that while some Republicans voted for the subpoena, party leadership has been actively stonewalling efforts to release the files.
In fact, while all of this was playing out today, you had Mike Johnson literally shutting down House business and sending the chamber to its weeks-long summer recess early in order to avoid voting on legislation that could force the release of the Epstein files.
Even though he literally said LAST NIGHT that he wouldn’t send lawmakers home early.
And this also despite the fact that Johnson’s actions here have brought the House to a complete standstill, functionally preventing Republicans from working on ANY major legislative business or passing important parts of their OWN agenda before the recess.
That’s how bad they don’t want any kind of vote on the Epstein files, even as many of their own members have been pushing for it.
Right, and specifically, the change in schedule came after a major blow-up on the House Rules Committee, which decides how legislation is sent to the floor and was initially planning on moving several bills for a vote before recess.
But Democrats announced their plan to force the panel to vote on a measure aimed at pressuring the DOJ to release the Epstein files while the committee teed up votes on unrelated measures.
But instead of taking a potentially embarrassing vote that would force Republicans to either bend to pressure from the public to release the files or stay loyal to Trump, GOP leaders just decided to recess the committee altogether.
And because the Rules Committee is necessary to tee up votes on other bills, there was basically nothing left for the House to do, which is why Johnson is sending them on vacation early.
But Johnson took this whole situation even further — he’s literally refusing to hold a vote on an Epstein-related measure from members of his OWN party.
Right, last week, Republicans on the Rules Committee were able to agree on a non-binding resolution calling for the release of Epstein-related files.
A proposal that is largely symbolic because it won’t legally compel the DOJ to do anything, but just allows the GOP to be on record saying they support the release of the files.
But Johnson wouldn’t even allow his own members to go on the record before recess, arguing:
“My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing, and if further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we’ll look at that, but I don’t think we’re at that point right now, because we agree with the president.”
So, as a result, you have Democrats accusing leadership of fleeing the Capitol early for vacation to avoid votes on the Epstein files that their own members want to have.
Claiming that they are just doing this in hopes that people will forget about it, and they won’t have to deal with it by the time they come back.
Which is why you have many Democrats vowing to continue their work on this when the session picks up again in September.
And that’s even been echoed by some Republicans, with Rep. Thomas Massie saying he will continue pushing to force a vote on legislation to release the files.
So for now, we’ll just have to wait and see how all these various pieces play out — both with Congress itself and these potential testimonies from Maxwell.
Just go to Zocdoc and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today!
-
Is Donald Trump going to arrest Barack Obama?
That’s a real question people are now asking after what is surely not a desperate effort to refocus attention anywhere but Jeffrey Epstein.
With this starting when National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard released a trove of documents over the weekend purporting to show that the Obama administration deliberately manufactured the Russiagate hoax to undermine Trump. [Headline and image]
And specifically, she’s referring to an intelligence assessment made just before Trump took office in 2017 finding that Russia interfered in the election.
Namely by hacking the DNC and leaking Hillary Clinton’s emails, and using internet troll farms to spread disinformation.
Findings that were later backed up by a three-year bipartisan Senate committee probe, which then Senator and now Secretary of State Marco Rubio chaired.
Even the Durham report, which was highly critical of the original investigation for its alleged bias, found no criminal conspiracy by Obama administration officials to sabotage Trump. [Quote, find “Durham reported”]
But now, Tulsi Gabbard is claiming the opposite, telling Fox News: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 03:29 - 03:37] Caption: “This treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office.”
[Clip, 04:45 - 05:04] Caption: “So the effect of what President Obama and his senior national security team did was subvert the will of the American people, undermining our democratic republic and enacting what would be essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.”
And in support of that claim, she told the following story.
First, in the months leading up to the 2016 election, and for weeks afterward, intelligence assessments consistently found that Russia did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to influence the results. [Quote, find “December 7”]
But then, in December, she says then President Obama had his intelligence agencies draft a new assessment detailing the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election.” [Quote same link]
After which the White House allegedly leaked false statements to the media and released an assessment it knew to be manufactured, contradicting its own previous assessments. [Quote same link, find “leaked” and “January 6” and “facts reveal”]
An original sin which, according to Gabbard, laid the groundwork for everything that followed — the Mueller probe, the impeachments, the high-level indictments, heightened U.S.-Russia tensions and more. [Same quote]
Or in other words …
[Clip, 04:11 - 04:12] Caption: “A years-long coup.”
[Clip, 08:04 - 08:06] Caption: “Years-long coup.”
[Clip, 03:15 - 03:17] Caption: “A years-long coup.”
[Clip, 11:37 - 11:38] Caption: “Treasonous conspiracy.”
[Clip, 05:41 - 05:43] Caption: “This treasonous conspiracy.”
[Clip, 06:27 - 06:29] Caption: “A treasonous conspiracy.”
[Clip, 04:04 - 04:07] Caption: “This treasonous conspiracy.”
[Clip, 15:29 - 15:31] Caption: “Seditious conspiracy.”
But as many critics have pointed out, including members of that Senate committee and authors of the intelligence report, Gabbard’s conflating two separate things here.
Right, because her argument is that the claim post-election that Russia did interfere contradicts the findings pre-election that Russia didn’t successfully hack voting systems.
But the post-election assessment never claimed that Russia hacked voting systems; it only claimed that Russia hacked the DNC and spread disinformation through troll farms.
So critics say that by conflating those claims, Gabbard’s able to pull off this sleight of hand, manufacturing a conspiracy where there wasn’t one.
Now on any ordinary day, this would just be a nothing burger of a story, but Gabbard went on Fox and revealed that she’s actually looking to put people in prison over this. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 10:26 - 10:36; Clip, 11:50 - 11:59] Caption: “We are referring all of the documents that we have uncovered to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a criminal referral. … In my view, we have the evidence to be able to move forward and bring about justice, yes, to prosecute and indict those responsible.”
With the DoJ now confirming to Fox News that it has indeed received Gabbard’s criminal referral. [Headline]
So naturally the question on people’s minds is: who’s getting indicted?
And in her DNI press release, Gabbard named several people in this supposed conspiracy: James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, John Kerry, Loretta Lynch, Andrew McCabe and others. [Quote, find “Lynch”]
But she’s also made it clear that she believes Obama was personally culpable, and has repeatedly stressed that everyone involved should be prosecuted, no matter how high up or powerful they are.
And then, after sharing those clips of Gabbard, Donald Trump reposted an AI-generated video on Truth Social of Obama getting arrested. [B roll, 00:39]
With FBI agents bursting into the Oval Office, pushing Obama to his knees and handcuffing him, all while Trump looks on smiling and the song “Y.M.C.A.” plays. [Same B roll]
And then Obama in an orange jumpsuit pacing around in a jail cell. [Same B roll]
Now of course, whether that’s just a fantasy, a threat, or an actual glimpse of what’s to come is yet to be seen.
But you have Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, giving his opinion to Face the Nation. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 07:02 - 07:20, 07:30 - 07:41] Caption: “Four, five, six weeks from now, let’s see if this administration — Tulsi Gabbard accusing a former president of treason — let’s see if they bring charges. They won’t. They won’t, because there’s not a judge in the land, not a single judge who will treat this with anything other than laughter. … And now we’re gonna be in Epstein world, where we’re like, ‘wait a minute, treasonous conspiracy by a former president! Why isn’t the department of Justice bringing charges?’ And the answer to that question is that it is a lie.”
-
In his latest attempt to distract from the Epstein situation, Donald Trump has just dropped previously classified files on MLK’s assassination - against the family’s wishes.
Right, the National Archives, on the orders of Donald Trump, has just published 6,000 documents with hundreds of thousands of pages relating to the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. back in 1968. []
WIth officials saying the files include notes on the leads investigators pursued, interviews with people who knew the assassin James Earl Ray, and previously unreleased details of interactions with foreign intelligence services during the manhunt. []
We’re talking upwards of 200,000 pages of documents that were sealed back in 1977. []
With the Department of National Intelligence saying in a statement that the release includes "internal FBI memos" and "never-before-seen CIA records" behind the hunt for MLK’s killer. []
What was absent for this release, however -as the New York Times points out - is the FBI wiretap recordings of MLK that will remain under court seal until 2027. []
Now, while Trump did make the promise while on the campaign trail to release these files, along with those pertaining to the deaths of JFK and RFK, this drop yesterday came with no notice.
With Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard saying in a statement along with the publication yesterday,
"The American people have waited nearly 60 years to see the full scope of the federal government’s investigation into Dr. King’s assassination. Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ensuring that no stone is left unturned in our mission to deliver complete transparency on this pivotal and tragic event in our nation’s history.” []
And other members of Team Trump echoed that sentiment - like Attorney General Pam Bondi who said,
"The American people deserve answers decades after the horrific assassination of one of our nation’s great leaders. The Department of Justice is proud to partner with Director Gabbard and the ODNI at President Trump’s direction for this latest disclosure." []
But there is definitely something to be said about the timing here - with critics saying this is an obvious and clumsy attempt by Trump to divert attention.
With Reverend Al Sharpton, the civil rights activist, saying
“Trump releasing the MLK assassination files is not about transparency or justice. It’s a desperate attempt to distract people from the firestorm engulfing Trump over the Epstein files and the public unraveling of his credibility among the MAGA base.” []
Regardless of the motives behind this release, it isn’t exactly clear how much insight these documents really provide.
With David Garrow, the author of an award-winning biography on MLK as well as a book about the FBI's spying campaign on him, said there was little of public interest in the files. []
Adding,
“I saw nothing that struck me as new.”
And others have expressed outright skepticism - like Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
Who is reviewing this latest drop with his own team of researchers and told the New York Times,
“You’ve got to read this carefully and don’t take it at face value.” []
Going on to note that he is wary of anything from the FBI regarding MLK because there’s a chance agents inflated or manufactured material to appease J. Edgar Hoover.
With Sabato saying,
“He wanted dirt on M.L.K. and his movements and his associates.” []
But the real kicker here is that these files were reportedly released against the wishes of MLK’s family. []
His children - Bernice King and Martin Luther King III - were given advanced access to the documents and put out a statement following their release.
Asking the public to view the files, quote, “within their full historical context” and with “empathy, restraint, and respect for our family’s continuing grief.” []
Adding,
“During our father’s lifetime, he was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” []
They went on to say,
“While we support transparency and historical accountability, we object to any attacks on our father's legacy or attempts to weaponize it to spread falsehoods.” []
And they maintained their long-held position that MLK’s killer, James Early Ray, was not solely responsible for their father’s death.
Saying,
"As we review these newly released files, we will assess whether they offer additional insights beyond the findings our family has already accepted.” []
With that, I’m going to pass the question off to you guys - what are your thoughts here?
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
Former Louisville Police Brett Hankison has been sentenced to nearly three years in prison for his involvement in the raid that killed Breonna Taylor —
A ruling that actually marks a MAJOR rebuke of the Trump administration.
Right, Hankison was one of the officers involved in the botched raid where Taylor was fatally shot by Louisville Police.
And specifically, the officers had been serving a warrant in a drug investigation into a former boyfriend of Taylor’s.
But Taylor’s current boyfriend believed the officers were intruders, so he got his gun and fired a warning shot that struck one of the officers in the thigh.
Prompting three of the officers to fire numerous rounds into the apartment, killing Taylor.
With Hankison specifically firing 10 shots through a glass door and window on the side of her building, even though they were both covered by blinds and curtains.
And ultimately, investigators found that none of the bullets Hankison fired had hit anyone, but they had traveled into neighboring apartments.
So, as a result, Hankison was indicted on charges for endangering Taylor’s neighbors, making him the only one of the seven officers involved who faced any charges.
But in 2022, a jury found him not guilty, prompting the Justice Department under Biden to file its own charges.
Accusing Hankison of violating the constitutional rights of Taylor and three of her neighbors by blindly firing into the building.
And after a mistrial and retrial, a jury ultimately found Hankison guilty of violating Taylor’s rights through his use of excessive force.
Now, very notably here, that conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.
But last week, Trump’s Justice Department sent a highly unusual letter asking the federal judge overseeing the case to sentence Hankison to just one single day in prison and three years of supervised release, arguing he doesn’t pose a public threat.
But, VERY notably here, because the department is asking for time Hankison already served to count towards his sentence, he wouldn’t actually have to go to prison at all.
And specifically, the Trump administration argued that the DOJ under Biden should not have prosecuted Hankison on the civil rights charges — even though a jury literally found him guilty.
With administration officials claiming that Hankison has already been punished enough, stating that Hankison didn’t shoot Taylor or anyone else and isn’t responsible for her death.
But you also had lawyers for Taylor’s hitting back at that, issuing a scathing statement saying that her mother is “once again, heartbroken and angry,” and adding:
“This recommendation is an insult to the life of Breonna Taylor and a blatant betrayal of the jury’s decision. When a police officer is found guilty of violating someone’s constitutional rights, there must be real accountability and justice.”
But, beyond that, we also saw experts arguing that the sentencing requested by the DOJ would set a dangerous precedent and indicates that the agency will not hold officers accountable when they violate the law.
And that point was also echoed by U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings — who, very notably, is actually a Trump appointee.
With her officially sentencing Hankison to 33 months in prison and three years of supervised release, arguing that the DOJ’s recommendation was “not appropriate” and would undermine the jury’s verdict.
And while she acknowledged that the officers were responding to the gunshot fired by Taylor’s boyfriend, she added: “that does not allow officers to then do what they want and then be excused.”
Beyond that, Jennings also slammed the DOJ making a “180-degree” turn in its approach to the case after Trump took control of the agency.
With the judge even going as far as to openly claim that the agency’s recommendation of one day seems to have been influenced by political factors.
Right, and to that point, we also saw Breonna’s family and their lawyers making similar arguments, noting that, under Biden, the DOJ had forcefully pushed this case and poured tons of resources into it.
With Taylor’s mother accusing Trump’s DOJ of acting as “another” defense team for Hankison and arguing:
“The judge did the best she could with what she had to work with. There was no prosecution in there for us. There was no prosecution in there for Breonna.”
You also had the family’s lawyer, Ben Crump, accusing the Trump prosecutor of fighting for Hankison instead of the family.
Claiming he had “never” seen a prosecutor “argue so adamantly for a convicted felon who had been convicted by a jury who heard all the evidence.”
But despite all that, you still had Taylor’s family and their legal team issuing a statement saying that while they were upset Hankison didn’t receive a harsher sentence, they were happy that the judge rejected the DOJ’s recommendation, saying:
“While today’s sentence is not what we had hoped for –– nor does it fully reflect the severity of the harm caused –– it is more than what the Department of Justice sought. That, in itself, is a statement.”
Go to ZBIOTICZ and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
