The Trump Tucker Carlson MAGA Civil War Just Got Worse
PDS Published 03/03/2026
-
The war in the Middle East has now killed at least six US troops, 700+ Iranian civilians, and dozens of others in Lebanon and across the region.
Donald Trump is already saying the conflict may last longer than he initially all said while refusing to rule out boots on the ground.
And there is seemingly no one in his administration who can give a clear answer as to why he started this war and what the real objective is.
But let’s start with what’s actually happening on the ground.
With one of the leading headlines today being the Israeli military taking out the building that hosts the 88 people in charge of “electing” Iran’s new supreme leader.
Which is something they now have to do for the first time since 1989 since the US and Israel started this war with strikes that killed not only the previous supreme leader but dozens of the country’s other top officials.
Now, with all that, as of recording, it’s not clear whether any members of this council – which is called the Assembly of Experts—have actually been killed (BROLL)
And that’s because it’s apparently not clear whether they were actually meeting in the building that was hit.
WIth Iranian media downplaying the significance of the operation—and claiming it was an old building that wasn’t even used for meetings anymore. []
So we’ll have to wait for more updates there, but either way, the US and Israel have kept up strikes not just in the capital, but all across Iran.
With the Iranian Red Crescent Society most recently reporting that at least 787 civilians had been killed since the conflict began.
Israel’s military has said that the targets have included industrial sites “throughout” the country that were used to produce weapons including ballistic missiles.
And you also had the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that buildings at the entrance to the country’s primary uranium enrichment site had been damaged.
Also, beyond typical military targets like missile sites, naval vessels, and nuclear facilities, the US and Israel have been going after police stations, detention centers, intelligence offices, and other targets associated with Iran’s security agencies.
The agencies which, among other things, have been involved in brutal crackdowns on protesters that have killed thousands.
And with that, according to experts, this may be part of a strategy to encourage Iranians to rise up and take action against what’s left of the regime.
Especially because strikes have apparently specifically targeted security forces in the largely Kurdish regions of western Iran.
Which experts say may be because members of the country’s ethnic Kurdish minority are among those who have been most actively involved in anti-government protests over the years and have ambitions for autonomy in their regions.
And that’s without mentioning that several of those groups have armed affiliates across the border in neighboring Iraq who may be getting ready to join the fight.[]
And, in fact, to that point, you had officials from two Kurdish militias in Iran telling the New York Times that they were preparing to send in operatives.
But then, outside of Iran, Israel is also escalating its attacks in Lebanon in response to Hezbollah’s retaliation for the killing of Iran’s supreme leader.
Right, as of recording, Israeli airstrikes targeting the southern part of the country as well as the capital of Beirut have reportedly killed 52 people and displaced at least 30,000 in Lebanon.[]
And, today, Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu, along with the country’s defense minister, approved a ground incursion into the southern part of the country.
With the military issuing new evacuation orders for dozens of locations there. .
And all this as it’s only been around a year and a half since the two sides signed a ceasefire to end months of fighting that killed thousands of people.
And although that hasn’t totally ended the fighting—with Israel launching strikes on a near-daily basis—this has sparked all new fears of a bigger war picking back up.
With people fleeing from their homes and seeking shelter in parking garages, schools and mosques—and some even heading to the border with Syria, hoping to get out of the country.
And people, of course, have different opinions about who to blame.
Some are reportedly unhappy with Hezbollah’s decision to attack, blaming the group for drawing them into yet another conflict, but some feel it was justified.
With those people noting that Israel repeatedly violated the cease-fire with its constant attacks and continued occupation of some villages in the south.
But speaking of occupation, we should also talk about the West Bank.
Right, after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, 2023—and all eyes turned to the Israeli response in Gaza–we saw a surge in displacements, illegal settlements, and violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
And now, similarly, tensions over settler activity and violence in the territory have reportedly intensified since the strikes on Iran began, according to Israelis and Palestinians who monitor settler activity.
With the latest incident happening yesterday, when Israeli settlers shot and killed two Palestinian brothers.
But, moving on, on the flip side of all this, we of course have the Iranian response.
Right, the country has fired hundreds of missiles and drones at countries all across the region.
With Qatari officials saying yesterday that its Air Force actually shot down two Iranian bomber jets—which was the first reported instance of Iran attempting to attack its Persian Gulf neighbors with warplanes.
And with that, even though the vast majority of Iranian attacks have been intercepted, that can still be deadly due to falling debris—and, of course, attacks that do make it through have the potential to do even more damage.
And ultimately death and destruction have been reported in at least nine countries so far.
One of the latest major attacks involved two drones hitting the US embassy in Saudi Arabia.
And with that, we’ve actually seen the US closing that embassy, as well as the one in Kuwait.
With the State Department also urging Americans in 14 Middle East countries to get the hell out if they can—because of “serious safety risks.”
And beyond that, of course, the fallout has extended to major impacts on travel and the global economy.
Right, I mean, at least 11,000 flights to and from Middle Eastern countries were canceled—reportedly affecting more than one million travelers.[]
And although some flights have resumed on a limited basis, airline stocks have taken a hit.
With the share prices of American Airlines, United and Delta falling more than 6 percent at one point.
Although, notably, that may have less to do with flight disruptions than the possibility of higher energy costs long-term.
Right, because oil and gas prices are way up, after targets of Iranian attacks have included energy installations in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, a tanker in the Gulf of Oman, and three commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
And actually, on that last one, you had a senior Iranian military official threatening yesterday to “set on fire” any ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz—saying “not a single drop of oil” will leave the region.
Which is significant because roughly 15 percent of the world’s oil and 20 percent of its liquefied natural gas goes through that passage at one point or another. []
And while the US is relatively insulated from a lot of this since it has so much of its own oil, it’s not immune.
The price of gasoline, for example, jumped up 11 cents overnight, according to Triple A..[]
And these energy shocks translate to an effect on the economy more broadly.
As one example, you’ve had stocks and bonds dropping pretty significantly this week, with the S&P 500 having fallen 1.5 percent as trading got underway this morning. []
And with all that, you have a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and a professor at Harvard, saying:
“We’re in a very precarious period.”
“It’s a little bit like asking, when the Archduke Ferdinand got killed, what the macroeconomic consequences would be, and having no idea what was next” – adding:
“When World War I started, everyone thought it would end in a month.”
And with that, a month is about how long Trump suggested this war might take, but who really knows?
What we do know is that it only took a couple of days for six American troops to be killed—with the administration confirming yesterday that two more had died as a result of an Iranian strike against a military facility in Kuwait on Sunday.
And kind of connected to that, you had the White House hosting an event yesterday meant to honor men who fought and died in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
With Trump also acknowledging the American lives lost so far because of the war on Iran:
“Today we grieve for the four heroic American service members who have been killed in action and send our love and support to their families. In their memory, we continue this mission with ferocious unyielding resolve to crush the threat this terrorist regime poses to the American people and a threat indeed it is.” (7:22-7:45)
And the time he gave to those four troops? It was about the same amount of time he spent talking about the curtains he’s picked out for the White House and his new ballroom — although there were several more minutes dedicated to an update on “Operation Epic Fury.”
“Today, the United States military continues to carry out large scale combat operations in Iran to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible terrorist regime.” (3:23-3:38)
And with that, he went on to lay out some of the aims and justifications for the war in Iran—which, as we’ve talked about, are not always consistent or backed by facts.
He repeated the claim, for example, that one reason for the attack was that Iran “would have missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America” —but American intelligence agencies believe Iran was as much as a decade from that.
He also mentioned for the first time since the war began his decision to pull out of the nuclear deal made under Obama—saying:
“That was a horrible, horrible dangerous document [that would have given Iran] “nuclear weapons three years ago.”
Although, notably, Iran was largely abiding by the agreement until Trump pulled out of it, and though it was under NO restrictions after that, it still didn’t make a nuclear weapon.
But, moving on, he also said that while they had projected four to five weeks for its operation, the US has “capability to go far longer than that’ – saying:
“Whatever the time is, it’s OK, whatever it takes,”
And that kind of stands out when you consider that he also told the New York Post yesterday that he wasn’t ruling out boots on the ground in Iran.
Not to mention Secretary of War Crimes Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also haven’t ruled out the possibility of deploying troops.
You also had Hegseth answering questions at the Pentagon and spending a lot of time berating reporters for their questions rather than just, you known, answering them.
Right, for example, you had one saying “people also want to know what they’re sending their men and women to war for” asking whether he was worried about this spiraling into a wider war.
And Hegseth responded:
“Did you not hear my remarks?”
“We’re ensuring the mission gets accomplished, but we are very cleareyed, as the president has been, unlike other presidents, about the foolish policies in the past that recklessly pulled us into things that were not tethered to actual, clear objectives.” (0:20-0:39)
Except this administration has yet to really give a consistent message on what its objectives are and when this will end.
I mean, they’ve been all over the place on the question of regime change, and today you had Trump saying “most of the people” they had in mind to take over are dead– as are most of their back-up options. []
And then, Rubio? That’s a whole other fucking shit show.
While speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill yesterday, he said that the U.S. military response we’ve seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg:
“But the hardest hits are yet to come from the U.S. military. The next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now.” (12:55-13:04 link)
But those weren’t even the comments that Rubio got the most attention for yesterday — right, during the same briefing, he also offered yet another competing justification for attacking Iran.
Claiming that the strikes were done in response to an “imminent threat” to the U.S., but then going on to describe them as preemptive, saying they were only necessary because Israel struck Iran first:
“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed, and then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn’t act.” (1:22-1:39 link)
“There absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked – and we believe they would be attacked – that they would immediately come after us.” (3:51-3:59)
With Rubio then going on to lay out military objectives that had nothing to do with imminent threats to the U.S. and providing yet ANOTHER totally new rationale for the attacks:
“Going back to the purpose, the purpose of this is to destroy that missile capability. Why does Iran want that ballistic missile capability? What they are trying to do and have been trying to do for a very long time is build a conventional weapons capability as a shield where they can hide behind.” (1:40-1:56)
“That is what they were trying to do, is put themselves in a place of immunity where the damage they can inflict on the region would be so high that no one can do anything about their nuclear program or their nuclear ambitions.”(2:07-2:17 link)
Okay, so a ton of different things we need to unpack here, starting with those last claims about Iran building a missile shield to protect its nuclear program.
Right, first of all, as I mentioned yesterday, top nuclear authorities and even America’s own intelligence have found that there is no credible evidence Iran has a nuclear program or is actively trying to build a nuclear weapon.
And, as The Washington Post notes, three-plus days into the conflict, the U.S. and Israeli strikes we’ve seen have “largely left Iran’s main nuclear installations untouched” which indicates that those sites “are not currently seen as a priority threat.”
And to that point, experts also say if Rubio’s claim is true, and the main impetus behind the strikes is to prevent Iran from building a missile shield, that raises serious questions about Trump’s decision to act without Congress here.
Right, the president can take unilateral military action when there is an immediate, time-sensitive threat, but experts say this would go beyond those powers.[]
And that brings us to Rubio’s other claim here: that the U.S. couldn’t stop Israel from bombing Iran, so it had to launch preemptive strikes to ensure Iran didn’t retaliate against U.S. forces.
Okay, so, first of all, experts and officials say that the U.S. clearly had the power to pressure Israel not to attack Iran.
Right, Israel has openly said that it worked with the U.S. for months to actively plan the strikes.
It’s even been reported that U.S. intelligence was key to making the initial leadership strike possible.
And while Bibi had been pushing Trump to strike Iran since December, Israeli officials have told reporters that he wouldn’t have taken action without Trump’s direct approval, and he would have postponed if Trump wanted to continue nuclear talks.
Hell, you even had Bibi and Trump themselves seemingly contradicting Rubio.
With Netanyahu telling Fox News last night that Trump “can't be dragged” into anything and acts on his own judgment.
And just today, Trump directly contradicted Rubio’s claim that Trump only conducted strikes because Israel forced his hand, saying he made the call himself because he believed Iran was going to attack first:
“I think they were going to attack first, and I didn’t want that to happen. So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.” 00:37 - 00:45
But, very notably here, as we mentioned yesterday, it’s been reported that Pentagon officials told Congress there were no signs that Iran was going to attack U.S. forces in the region first.
And recent history also backs that up — over the last two years, Iran has only fired missiles after attacks on its territory or interests, but not preemptively.[]
Right, and with all this, the administration’s total failure to provide anything even close to a cohesive reason for entering into such a major conflict has prompted widespread outrage — and that actually came from both sides of the aisle.
Right, unsurprisingly, you had a lot of Democrats slamming the administration, including Senate Democrats who emerged from a private meeting with Rubio and other top administration officials yesterday, saying their explanations were totally inadequate.
With Sen. Mark Warner — the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee — telling reporters:
“There was no imminent threat to the United States by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the US, then we are in uncharted territory.” (0:08-0:34 link)
But the inconsistent and contradictory justifications have also incited yet another MAGA civil war, with many of the biggest conservative commentators absolutely exploding at the administration’s complete failure to provide any kind of legitimate rationale.
This including the likes of Megyn Kelly, who attacked the administration’s claims about needing a preemptive strike:
“Does it make any sense to you that Iran was planning preemptive strikes against us and our civilians, knowing full well of the massive military assets we had moved into the region, the aircraft carriers and so on? Obviously, it doesn't.” (4:45-5:03 link)
With her also going on to accuse the administration of getting sucked into a war because it’s what Israel wants, claiming they are acting in the interest of Israel, not the American people:
“Look, there are massive divisions over what we've done here, and people are going to change their minds over the coming days and weeks, one way or the other, but my own my own feeling is no one should have to die for a foreign country. I I don't think those four service members died for the United States. I think they died for Iran or for Israel.”(1:11-1:35 link)
You also had Marjorie Taylor Greene making an appearance on Kelly’s show, where she railed against Trump and others in the administration for getting drawn into a war after campaigning on promises to stop foreign wars:
“All of them promised it. And we're a year in, a year in and we're in another fucking war and we've got American troops being killed. I think it's time for America to rip the band-aid off and we need to have a serious conversation about what the fuck is happening to this country and who in the hell is is are these decisions being made for and who is making these decisions.”(17:59-18:23 link)
Tucker Carlson also absolutely tore Trump a new one on his show yesterday, echoing Megyn’s claims that this war is for Israel, not to protect Americans:
“This happened because Israel wanted it to happen. This is Israel's war. This is not the United States's war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives to make the United States safer or richer. This war is not actually even about weapons of mass destruction, nukes, chem/bio. No, this war is waged purely because Israel wanted it to be waged.” 00:35 - 1:00
“It's hard to say this, but the United States didn't make the decision here. Benjamin Netanyahu did.” 15:03 - 15:10
“Three Americans just died for Bibi in a war that nobody wants? In a war designed to hurt the United States? And that’s cost-free? And it's a lot more than three. And I say that with real sadness.” 55:20 - 55:32
But, VERY notably here, we saw Trump himself directly hitting back at Megyn and Tucker, telling a reporter:
“I think that MAGA is Trump — MAGA’s not the other two.”
And then going on to make the very bold claim that “MAGA loves what I’m doing — every aspect of it,” adding:
“This is a detour that we have to take in order to keep our country safe and keep other countries safe, frankly.”
But, of course, the big question here is: does MAGA actually love what Trump is doing? Is this something that conservatives support? And will this move the needle come election time?
Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: Squarespace & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!
-
[But getting back into the news], the masked people breaking into homes and throwing people into unmarked cars are largely untrained, and Kristie Noem just defended them to Congress.
Last week, ex-ICE agent Ryan Schwank gave a pretty damning testimony about ICE training cuts in front of the Senate.
I am here because I am dutybound to report that the legally required training program at the ICE Academy is deficient, defective and broken. For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program, cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584-hour program. Classes that teach the Constitution, our legal system, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention and the limits of officers’ authority.” (23:15-23:39, 22:26-22:38)
Schwank made accusations that his ICE supervisors gave him blatantly illegal orders and coerced him into following them. []
“I was instructed to read and return a memo in my supervisor’s presence which claimed ICE officers could enter homes without a judicial warrant. Incredibly, I was being shown this memo in secret by my supervisor who made sure that I understood that disobedience could cost me my job.” (26:37-26:44, 27:11-27:20)
Separately from the documents informing the Post’s reporting, Democrats released DHS documents that also indicated disturbing changes and reductions to ICE’s training programs. []
Of course, at the time, DHS denied Schwank’s claims, saying, “Despite false claims from the media and sanctuary politicians, no training hours have been cut.” []
However, they followed that up with claims that ICE training had been “streamlined…without sacrificing basic subject matter content.” []
It didn’t add up then, and it’s definitely not adding up after a recent article from the Washington Post that corroborates Schwank’s story.
The Post found “previously unreported records,” which have yet to be disclosed, that “offer new details about what was cut from ICE’s basic training program." []
And that already sounds different from the picture DHS was trying to paint.
As Schwank testified, the Post reports that ICE “removed about 240 hours from its basic training program,” which is “more than 40 percent of instructional time,” and the public has noticed. []
(0:35-0:42 - No clear dialogue)
The Post says that most of the cuts happened in August, right around the time that Pam Bondi directed law enforcement in the nation’s capital to cooperate with immigration enforcement to protect their city from what she calls this dangerous “proliferation of illegal aliens.” []
So, as ICE agents were being pumped into sanctuary cities, proper protocol was being pumped out of their training. (BROLL 0:34-0:40)
Documents obtained by the post suggest that “later that fall, ICE had eliminated three-quarters of the hours dedicated to evaluating recruits’ practical skills, including firearms handling.”
They also “eliminated time for driving tests” and “cut all 26 hours used for evaluating recruits’ grasp of skills specific to immigration enforcement and deportation operations,” because who needs that, right? [] (BROLL 0:02-0:07, 0:40-0:46)
The Post’s report says that by the top of this year, more than 900 ICE officers had completed a truncated version of ICE’s basic training program. []
Their basic training program was reportedly cut by about two weeks, which the Post says the agency claimed was due to removing a Spanish language requirement.
“You know what sir? Now talking to you, hearing that you have an accent, I have reason to believe that you are not born of this country. So what country are you from?” (0:23-0:40)
The issue there is that Spanish wasn’t even one of the required basic training classes.
Without getting into a laundry list of the other misleading information the agency has offered about the changes they’ve made, the modifications have brought an onslaught of backlash.
Some concerns include that masks have become a part of the ICE agent uniform. (BROLL 0:05-0:16)
And despite the obvious danger there, those concerns only scratch the surface, as the agency has been involved in reckless driving resulting in death, senselessly escalated conflicts, and many unlawful arrests. (BROLL 0:48-0:51, 0:04-0:08, 0:37-0:40)
Given these tensions, it seems well overdue that we finally see Noem officially questioned over ICE for the first time since the murder of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.
The hearing came as Noem’s department has been operating under a shutdown while both sides of the aisle battle over how to reform the Trump administration’s immigration operations. The funding lapse started on February 14th.
“Senate Democrats who have chosen not to fund the department and have held this department hostage. As a result, critical national security missions, including border security, immigration enforcement, aviation security, disaster response, cyber security and the protection of critical infrastructure are all being strained,” (4:53-5:11)
With both sides weeks-deep into proposals for reforms, DHS has been pressing the urgency of the funding issues amidst rising concerns related to the war in Iran.
Getting more into the testimony, before Noem could even start, tensions were boiling over.
“Kristie Noem, you should be ashamed of yourself. I’m a former FEMA employee. You have disgraced our agency. FEMA employees should be responding to disasters.”(0:24-0:33)
Senator Charles Grassley opened up the hearing praising Noem and the Trump administration while slamming the Biden administration for their shameful open border policy.
He said, quote, “transparency brings accountability to government,” which is interesting because it seems like Noem’s strategy was to avoid accountability and tag the Biden administration into the ring instead. []
Immigration remained a huge part of the hearing, and the conversation seemed to be more focused on fear mongering and avoiding answers than actually making any ground toward a potential resolution with Democrats on funding proposals.
“(Graham) Who’s this guy? (Noem) He’s the man who conducted the horrific act in Austin. (Graham) What country did he come from? (Noem) Senegal. (Graham) And he was killed in Austin, TX, right? (Noem)He was. (Graham) And the shirt said what? (Noem)Property of Allah. (Graham) And when you went to his house, you found a what kind of flag? (Noem) Iranian. (Graham) Iranian flag. I wonder how many people are like that here, waiting to pounce.(8:03-8:29)
As it relates to ICE, Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar slammed Noem about ICE agents’ conduct, such as dragging elderly people out of their homes in freezing weather with nothing more on than their underwear. (BROLL 0:03-0:10)
Noem also denied calling Pretti a domestic terrorist after he was shot and killed by ICE, saying instead that she just classified his actions as that of a domestic terrorist.
"When you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism. This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of terrorism.” (0:00-0:22)
Maybe I’m just not seeing the difference here, but to get into more of the highlights, she didn’t say anything concrete about the potential of ICE agents at upcoming polls.
She seemed to have more pressing concerns.
“(Coons) Will you rule out the deployment of ICE or CBP to polling places this November? (Noem) There are no plans to have ICE officers at our polling locations. (Coons) I’m glad to hear that, but would you rule it out? Would you say it will not happen? (Noem) Do you plan on illegal aliens voting in our elections?” (0:11-0:28)
At this point, it’s common knowledge that evidence of undocumented immigrants voting is slim to none. []
And this seemed to be the trend at the hearing. There was the usual back and forth across the aisle with no real responsibility on Noem’s part for ICE’s behavior, let alone a plan to hold them or herself more accountable.
Even in responding to Schwank’s testimony, Noem said, “I don’t know how he would speak to how ICE used to do (training) and this individual was only detailed there for a short period of time” []
The hearing seemed nothing more than a case of Noem skirting the issues and pointing the finger, even saying escalated threats against ICE agents have been due to mischaracterizations and the demonization of their, quote, “heroic work.” []
So, unfortunately, despite the stacking complaints against ICE and the wealth of concerns mounting against DHS, I can’t say Noem’s hearing really made any steps toward progress.
But now, moving on to a different hearing.
-
Because we just got footage of both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s Epstein depositions from last week.
We talked about this yesterday, the Clintons wanted their hearings to be broadcast live to the public just like Noem’s, but they were denied.
So instead, they happened behind closed doors, meaning the representatives who grilled them had time to tell their side of the story and craft a spin or narrative before we could actually see what happened.
And one of the biggest conflicts there involved Bill’s comments about Trump.
Because last week, Republicans in the House Oversight Committee insisted that Clinton “exonerated” Trump, while Democrats claimed that his testimony actually raised questions about Trump’s relationship to Epstein. [][]
And what actually happened kind of fell somewhere in the middle, because when Bill was asked if Trump should answer questions in front of the committee, he said:
“That's for you to decide. But he did know him well and I once had a brief discussion with him about it.” (1:56:11-1:56:19)
And the session was about to move on, but Bill then added that Trump:
“Never said anything to me to make me think he was involved in anything improper.” (1:56:46-1:56:50)
“Donald Trump would come out and play a few holes with us. And he somehow knew I had flown in Jeffrey Epstein's aircraft. And he said, ‘You know, we had some great times together over the years, but we fell out all because of a real estate deal.’ and he said, ‘I'm sorry it happened.’ That's all." (1:58:13-1:58:37)
And that notably clashes with Trump’s prior claims that he booted Epstein from Mar-A-Lago because he was a “creep.”[]
And then for her part, Hillary said Trump should “absolutely” be deposed by the committee, arguing:
“Donald Trump has been held civilly liable for sexual assault by a jury of his peers.” (2:20:46-2:20:55)
“That is behavior that fits a pattern if one were looking for a pattern.” (2:21:05-2:21:10)
As far as Hillary is concerned, a lot of the headlines about her center on her interactions with Rep. Nancy Mace.
Because after Hillary spoke last week, Mace claimed that she chewed Hillary up so much that she screamed and became “unhinged and combative.”[]
And now that we have the video, it seems there were a few moments where Hillary felt Mace was prodding her after she said she had no information.
But things really took a turn when Mace started asking about commerce secretary Howard Lutnick:
“And then how do you know Howard Lutnick?... I know Howard Lutnik because when I was senator on 9/11, the firm he headed, suffered the greatest loss of life. As I recall, something like 650 of his employees were murdered by terrorists that day. Howard Lutnik missed being a victim because he was delayed dropping his child off to kindergarten…I know that… You asked the question, I'm going to answer your question…now you’re going to yell at me?...This was what I spent my time doing. I spent my… I am a survivor trying to look out for other survivors trying to take care of them…And I was taking care of the people who lost 3,000 lives… and now you're being defiant and indignant today…You asked me about Howard Lutnick… I have met with Epstein survivors. I'm a survivor myself. You have emails. You've denied that Jeffrey Epstein tried to give money to you…I did not!” (2:30:41-2:31:37)
“Howard Lutnick emailed to Epstein's people and Epstein to get him to come to your intimate event at Caner Fitzgerald, a very small event. And so I'm not going to, you want to yell at me, that's fine. I’ll yell right back.” (2:32:00-2:32:11)
“I am very sympathetic to your personal situation.” (2:32:23-2:32:28)
“I very much sympathize with not only what you went through but appreciate your effort to stand up for survivors. I was a senator representing the people who were murdered on 911. Nobody lost more people than Howard Lutnik.” (2:32:35-2:32:52)
So that was certainly a tense interaction, though you will have to decide for yourself whether it was the unhinged screaming match Mace described.
But as you can imagine, online, the responses are falling along partisan lines, with people on the right thinking Hillary totally lost it and was caught lying.[][]
And people on the left thinking Mace embarrassed herself by focusing on one email about an event and interrupting Hillary as she spoke about 9/11.[][]
Hillary also got frustrated with the committee after Rep. Lauren Boebert violated rules of the deposition by sharing images of it with Benny Johnson, who then posted a photo online.[]
“Excuse me. Can I interrupt? We have photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying from inside this room. Can you please advise me as to whether or not that's permissible and consistent with the rules, particularly given that we have asked for a public hearing, if there are photos that are being released of the secretary as she is testifying. Can you please explain how…I'm done with this. If you guys are doing that, I am done. You can hold me in contempt from now until the cows come home. This is just typical behavior… We will go off the record…I did post one image… Oh, for heaven sake.” (1:19:44-1:20:16)
“It was before the hearing was... It doesn't matter. We all are abiding by the same rules… I will take that down. Yeah. Well, I would like to take a break at this moment…Yeah, I’m done.” (1:20-18-1:20:29)
Right, and that is Lauren Boebert you can hear in the back confessing to taking the photo and trying to justify it before immediately caving to say she will take it down.
And even though Hillary said she was done, the deposition did eventually pick back up.
And for the most part, Hillary spent her time saying she did not know Epstein, and questioning why the committee even deposed her at all considering there are people with more well-known ties to him.
“How can I answer questions about a person that I don’t believe I ever even met? Although maybe I was in the same room once, who gave money to a joint funding committee that I did not have knowledge of?” (3:57:56-3:08:09)
“He was not on my radar. He was not somebody that I had any connection to.” (40:05-40:08)
And then Bill, who had more documented ties to Epstein, likewise denied knowing about any wrongdoing, and said he really only had a cordial, business relationship with him.
“We were friendly, but I didn’t know him well enough to say we were friends.” (58:48-58:52)
“I don't I don't believe we ever talked about anything, but the work we were doing.” (1:0050-1:00:56)
Apparently the two met via Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and Epstein wanted to talk about economics with Clinton, so in exchange for that he lent Clinton his plane for travel related to his foundation.[]
With Clinton saying to his knowledge, he never saw underage girls on the plane or saw any crimes being committed. []
Clinton was also asked about that photo showing him in a hot tub with a redacted individual, claiming.
“I don’t know who that is.” (2:18:44-2:18:46)
He said the image was taken at a hotel in Brunei during a trip for his foundation, noting Epstein was also there, and everyone in the pool area was likely part of his traveling party, including secret service.
But he denied that the photo depicted anything nefarious:
“I sat in the hot tub for maybe five minutes or whatever it was, then I got up and went to bed…and then I have to ask this, did you engage in any sexual activities with this person?...No…thank you.” (2:19:36-2:19:48)
And overall, both hearings were hours and hours long, so these are really just the highlights.
So any thoughts you have on them, I would love to know.
If you think this gets us closer to accountability, and what you think actually needs to happen for there to be any justice here.
![[]](https://azmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ice-agent-immigrant-arrest-1536x1024.jpg){kind=link}
