America stands at a crossroads in global politics, and the decisions we make could alter the balance of power for generations to come. Venture into the heart of this debate with me, Rome McClain, and my esteemed guest, Senator Mitt Romney, as we dissect the complexities of U.S. assistance to Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. The stakes are high, with the echoes of our choices reaching as far as the tense shores of Taiwan and the strategic halls of NATO. We confront the critics head-on, tearing down the arguments against aid with a fusion of hard facts and unwavering conviction in the principles of democracy.
As the episode unfolds, we also navigate through the intricate maze of U.S. foreign policy, wading into the murky waters of media bias and the political influence that shapes the narratives of conflicts like Israel-Palestine. I'll guide you through the latest legal tremors that are shaking the foundations of American politics – from Trump's Supreme Court appeals to Biden's memory under scrutiny. Join us, as we unravel these threads to reveal a tapestry of power, influence, and the undying quest for democratic integrity in an era where the truth is often obscured by the fog of political agendas.
America stands at a crossroads in global politics, and the decisions we make could alter the balance of power for generations to come. Venture into the heart of this debate with me, Rome McClain, and my esteemed guest, Senator Mitt Romney, as we dissect the complexities of U.S. assistance to Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression. The stakes are high, with the echoes of our choices reaching as far as the tense shores of Taiwan and the strategic halls of NATO. We confront the critics head-on, tearing down the arguments against aid with a fusion of hard facts and unwavering conviction in the principles of democracy.
As the episode unfolds, we also navigate through the intricate maze of U.S. foreign policy, wading into the murky waters of media bias and the political influence that shapes the narratives of conflicts like Israel-Palestine. I'll guide you through the latest legal tremors that are shaking the foundations of American politics – from Trump's Supreme Court appeals to Biden's memory under scrutiny. Join us, as we unravel these threads to reveal a tapestry of power, influence, and the undying quest for democratic integrity in an era where the truth is often obscured by the fog of political agendas.
What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive and that love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love. That's a quote from dr Martin, the king junior. Welcome to the derail McClain, charming host to Rome McClain. Today is 214 of 2024, it is a Wednesday and let's get into our show.
Speaker 2:To provide military weapons for Ukraine is the most important vote we will ever take. As United States senators, we're not being asked to send American troops into war. We are asked to help the Ukrainians defend themselves. If we fail to help Ukraine, putin will invade an ATO nation. He may delay his next invasion until he rebuilds his decimated military. But we must be clear-eyed Ukraine is not the end, it is a step. If we fail to help Ukraine, china will eventually absorb Taiwan. If we fail to help Ukraine, we will abandon our word and our commitment, providing to our friends a View that America cannot be trusted. The Chinese Communist Party is already spreading propaganda using Arden Lay as a warning to Taiwan that the United States Will not be there to help in the face of China's threat. If we fail to help Ukraine, nato, the alliance has prevented great power conflict for over 75 years will falter and eventually disintegrate. If we fail to help Ukraine, america will cease to be the arsenal of democracy. It will cease to be the leader of the free world. We will be replaced by the authoritarians China, russia, iran, north Korea. If we fail to help the Ukraine, we'll be known not as our fathers and mothers were the greatest generation, but as the worst generation Now, for months I've listened to the arguments for denying help to the Ukrainian people.
Speaker 2:I've observed that the reasons have evolved over time. First, it was claimed that Europe was not paying their fair share. That was proven incorrect. Our allies have already contributed more than 96 billion dollars in aid, and the EU earlier this month agreed to provide 54 billion dollars more over the next four years. Next, it was argued that we should instead focus on the Pacific and Taiwan, but Taiwan and Japan and South Korea tell us that the single best thing we can do to dissuade China's aggression is to support Ukraine. Next, we were full told that we couldn't afford 60 billion dollars for Ukraine related funding, but somehow we can afford an 850 billion dollar annual defense budget and An annual trillion dollar deficits, which has happened under both former president Trump and President Biden. Next, it was claimed that we would have insufficient weapons to defend America in Israel if we send more weapons to Ukraine, but the Department of Defense has explained that helping Ukraine will actually strengthen our national security by helping to rebuild our depleted military industrial base.
Speaker 2:The latest excuse for denying aid to Ukraine is that this bill is a clever disguise To set up an impeachment of Donald Trump at some point in the future. Under this so-called logic, trump has to be elected, democrats have to win the house and those Democrats have to be unable to find any other discretion of Donald Trump's upon which to base an impeachment. Now I know that the shock jocks and online instigators have effectively riled up many in the far reaches of my party, but if your position is being cheered by Vladimir Putin, it's time to reconsider your position. I can't see into the future, but there are no guarantees that Ukraine will defeat Russia. But that does not mean that we should stand back and let Putin have his way with Europe.
Speaker 2:What sending weapons to Ukraine does do is help discourage further Russian and Chinese invasions which could draw us in. It perhaps preserved NATO, it allows America to remain the leader of the free world, and it shows that we honor our word to our friends and allies. Lekwileca, the first democratically elected president of Poland since 1926, and someone I've been fortunate enough to meet with recently, wrote to all the United States senators. He said this quote you're obliged to assure a peaceful future for your children. Our grandchildren will never forgive us if we fail to stop Russia now. If the US does not lead, nobody will end up quote. Couldn't agree more. Helping a free people defend their freedom is simply the right thing to do.
Speaker 1:Now. So who you just heard, just in case you don't recognize some of these voices, you're not a political, you don't pay attention to politicians like that. That was the Senator, mitt Romney, who I like to say just to remind people sometimes about how this thing works. Mitt Romney one time was the nominee to be the head of the Republican Party. They put him up to actually be the president of the United States. He lost against Barack Obama, ensuring Barack Obama had a second term, and so he was at one time, for all intent and purposes, the standard bearer for what it means to be a Republican. Now he is someone out of touch which you heard him voice in that clip with a lot of the base of his party, because of this funding of Ukraine that has actually passed in the Senate and is going to head to the house, where you actually don't know if it's going to be passed and there are. I think I said this on a previous episode there is a debate, a vigorous debate, that is going to be happening in the Republican Party with the neoconservatives and the paleoconservatives. So Mitt Romney on one side and Tucker Carlson maybe Donald Trump as well, on the other side, the Mitch McConnell on one side and the new speaker of the House, john Johnson or I think that's his name, jim Johnson On the other side. Your Bill Crystals and your David Frums of the world, your George W Bush Republicans, your Dick Cheney Republicans versus the Ron Paul Rand Paul type of Republicans, your isolationist versus your interventionist. And this is a conversation that needs to be had, and it is going to be complicated, because one thing that I think is being left out in this, and I've been looking at a lot of analysis on this. I even heard Charlie Kirk say something about how Mitt Romney started off his career wishing that men go fight and die in Vietnam and he's going to end his career wishing that men go off to die in Ukraine. Now, with that logic, I'm going to take it to this logical conclusion and I'm going to say what I have not heard anybody else say men and women are going to die, no matter what position the United States takes in this conflict.
Speaker 1:The invasion by Vladimir Putin of Ukraine has already happened. When Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea when Barack Obama was president, he already said what he was going to do, and he invaded Georgia when you're in the Bush administration. He already said that he was going to do, and now he has invaded Ukraine, and that is saying what is going to do? In all those conflicts, in all that expansionism, men have Died and men will continue to die. The only question is is the US the appropriate vehicle to do something about it? And if so, what should the US do about? As you heard me Robby say, we don't have boots on the grounds as of yet. Obviously, the CIA is more than likely involved there. The CIA is involved with anything that has to do with Russia and so. But the question is, if we don't give Ukraine money, if it's going to bring peace, I think it's a silly proposition. Is gonna bring something. Peace won't be that and well, yeah. So Even if tomorrow we tell South America Zelensky to step down, what's gonna come to Ukraine is not gonna be peace. Now there's still choices to be made.
Speaker 1:It was Said by a lot of people, including me, that this does not happen in a vacuum. Putin is not a madman. What he sees is NATO on his border. He sees US expansionism. He was told in the 90s that dead NATO would not move one inch to the east. And we, if we've Ukraine tries to join NATO, we are not only way past that. We are literally at his doorstep Because when he thinks of NATO, he thinks of the United States of America.
Speaker 1:The problem is just recently, the former foxhose Provocateur, paleo conservative, tucker Carlson, did an interview with Vladimir Putin. We're glad I'm a hooten as well as he masculating. Tucker Carlson, for several hours Took us on a bit of a history lesson. Let's just say that a why he thinks, a why he did what he did in Ukraine, and it actually was Not the excuse that I was making, which is that it was NATO expansion. Putin pulls out these documents in the very beginning, and what he actually says when you get to the nitty gritty of his belief system is that the Ukraine is not a legitimate country. It's a part of Russia, it always been a part of a part of Russia, and he also thinks about that as a lot of the Baltic States, including Poland.
Speaker 1:So, according to Putin's own assessment, this has nothing to do with NATO. It has everything to do with the fact that he sees these territories as Solely belonging to Russia, and there is going to be a constant answer for that, especially if he tries to attack Poland, you know, and then a NATO allied country. Because we have to respond. It's a. It's an old-school notion of saying sometimes when terror happens you, it goes to the feet of the terrorist and not everybody else who is going to have a response. It is very normal for the United States not saying that it is correct. I'm just saying from a historical viewpoint. It is very normal for the United States To try to prop up countries that look somewhat like them. So you see, I has gone around. The world is known. Now we have top of leaders, we, we, we will, we will immediately if there is a left-wing type of country that is coming to fruition.
Speaker 1:The US is going to topple it, and we were going to install some type of right-wing country, and it does not even matter if the white right-wing country is Fascistic. That is not something that we actually care about. And when you look at a lot of the problems that are going on in Latin America, you can look right at the foot of the United States of America. And so, of course, when Putin goes into Afghanistan and has that 19 you know years war or whatever, you had the United States merging these units and forming the Mujahideen which is how we got some of it Latin, with, you know, the then secretary of State Bershinsky going over there and and and providing creating this group. We all know the Mujahideen and we know that that became al-Qaeda, and what we were doing to try to attack Russia's years later came to attack us.
Speaker 1:But the question is, why would the US be so involved in the demise of Russia? And it is because Russia, even back then, we saw them as our geopolitical adversary, and so even now, russia invades a few countries that are not over here. They're closer to Russia than they are to us. The US has to get involved because we see Russia as a it's so empire who is expanding. And you have these people like Mitt Romney and Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, and these people see Russia through the eyes of the Cold War, so they see Ukraine as a front to just to stop Putin and to stop Russia as being a official socialist country and official communist country, etc. From going in a successful manner and that's what this is about.
Speaker 1:So the conversation that met Romney and everybody's gonna have to happen the Republican Party is Do we go back to being isolationist or do we go back to being, you know, interventionist? Paleo conservatism will say something like Look, we got people starving here, we have homeless veterans, we have kids who don't have enough food to eat, etc. Etc. The roads that elapidated, the bridges are collapsing, and that's the type of arguments they will make. I would respond to that by simply saying what policy do you want to put in place to fix those things? And that's when we get into the nitty-gritty of this conversation, because a lot of times the that is a reply, and the reply is you have a lot of money to send over there, but you have no money to spend back home.
Speaker 1:I Could accept that critique, but also understanding that a lot of the programs that would fix the problems back home, a lot of these people Don't agree with them. The first place, so it is. It comes down to where it's just a very popular Talking point that has no real weight behind it. So they did the a package passed is gonna go to the house and we will see what with the fate. With the fate lies the next subject I'm going to talk about is gonna be very brief, because I'm very passionate about the topic, and that is the Not just a conflict of what's going on in Gaza and when it comes to what, what is going on with Israel and Palestine, and but the media bias towards the conflict. So, even after 28,000 deaths in Gaza, what I'm worried about is Palestinians continue to be silenced and dehumanized by mainstream journalists like the New York Times columnist, thomas Friedman, who recently set off a firestorm by comparing the Arabs and Muslims to to insects and spiders. Meanwhile, the New York Times has repeatedly Heeded complaints from a far-right pro-Israel pressure organization by publishing corrections and Changes to publish stories. Now, by complying With Israel's sanitized narrative, the corporate news media is giving Joe Biden and and Benjamin Daniel who the cover they need to continue this brutal war. And so I have been going to sources, even though I pay for the New York Times, I pay for the Rolling Stones, I pay for the Daily Beast, I pay for Breaking points, I pay for the nation, I pay for a lot of these things.
Speaker 1:I've been having to go to other places, like the intercept, because they refuse to give into pro-war status quo and and have been pointing out the medias pro you know war, pro-israel stance in this conflict and the commitment to accuracy in the Middle East reporting and analysis has obtained hundreds of corrections across the media, including dozens at the New York Times, since 2000 Overcoverage. The group deemed to be insufficiently pro-Israel, including during the ongoing war in Gaza. So cameras targeting of the times has been particularly aggressive with tactics like buying billboards outside of the New York Times headquarters. Since Israel's war on Gaza began, the times has removed the use of the term occupation from its description of Israeli military forces and alternate language describing Pelletalian deaths in Gaza at what this organization called Cameras requests. So camera is a lobbying organization called to the Committee for the Accuracy in Middle East and reporting and so Over. At the intercept, journalists have been investigating media bias towards Israel, and this is just the latest. The reporting also exposed how CNN routines the almost all Israeli Pelletalian covers through the Jerusalem Bureau where it could be subject to the Israeli Defense Forces official censoring mechanism. Now they analyze over a thousand articles from the New York Times and Washington Post. In the Los Angeles Times, where they found a Consistent bias, words like slaughter, massacre and horrific were used almost exclusively when his relics were killed rather than Palestinians. And this is just something that we.
Speaker 1:I, just as I was looking at this conflict and everything that's going on, I said they are pushing me into a position where I Don't even want to talk about it because I am noticing this type of bias. That's it, dad, and I told you know, a while ago I said on the only episode you know, I said Disney doesn't Israeli baby has the same Worth, have the same value of a Palestinian baby. And I think about that when I think about the conversation that we had to have in the United States of America About what lives matter, where the black lives matter, where the white lives mattered, whether all lives mattered. And I find it a very perplexing that the Israeli narrative matters crowd is coming from the all lives matter crowd. And I don't think you can have the two. You cannot have a bias Towards a country and still say we all matter, we all are humans who deserve decency and dignity. You cannot have this and constantly equate Palestinians with a mass. They are very two different things. And so it is made me somewhat even to have to regret oftentimes Giving money to the official paper of record where I was.
Speaker 1:When I'm reading these articles. All I see is outright cheerleading for war, propaganda, obfuscation, are Lying by omission, which is not telling the entire truth. So I've had to add the intercept to my my media organizations that I give to, and also went back to this company Called fair fairorg where they have been cataloging Every single time that they have to do this, where these, these, these people are writing these articles as if they are on the ground. And they're not on the ground. There's some somebody sitting in the United States, safely from the Irish retowers, delivering propaganda, and I'm very sad that I keep singing in the New York Times and that's kind of all I'm gonna say about this subject that you need to dig a little bit deeper when you, when you pick up these media stories and you have to understand I'm very sorry to say it that the mainstream media oftentimes is lying to you. The Drama claims show obviously has a voicemail for comments Anything you'd like to say on the show, the phone number 757-3107-303.
Speaker 1:And I do have the pleasure of being able to collect a lot of thoughts and concerns on this thing and in that spirit I did get a question R2 on this show as well. So Without reading the question in his entirety. I would just say the question was about Jack Smith, some of the stuff going on in the Trump trial and asking Did the judge had given Jack Smith a week to Respond? And they were asking me what exactly is going on on that front. And so that is what I'm going to answer right now.
Speaker 1:So look, without getting into deep analysis on this, because it's somewhat silly, just in my personal observation what this is all about is the US Supreme Court on Tuesday gave special counsel Jack Smith exactly one week so it's basically a deadline to respond from a request for former president Trump to delay his 22 election interference trial. So Trump's attorney on Monday actually found an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court Contesting a decision by the DC Court of Appeals. I found the former president and the 2024 GOP frontrunner is not immune from prosecution in the Smith case. Now the request is for a temporary Relief or a stay or block the appeals court mandate from taking effect. If granted, trump's legal team will have more time to an appeal the Supreme Court On the merits of whether the former president deserves immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while in office. So Chief Justice John Robert actually instructed Smith to reply to Trump's request and no later than 4 pm Tuesday, february 20th, though a File and, could you know, actually come sooner. So Smith Is prosecuting Trump for his alleged efforts to incite the January 6th, 21, 2021 right at the US Capitol and overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Speaker 1:Federal judge Tanya Chuck in, who is presiding over the case in Washington DC, delayed the Morris trial earlier this month impending resolution of Trump's immunity claim. Now Trump asked the Supreme Court to extend Delay of the election clays claiming presidential immunity. The Justice Department may ask for an expedited Dited consideration of Trump's Initial emergency appeal in response to the Supreme Court's court order. The High Court could also Then issue an order on whether to grant this the state Until Trump files an appeal on the merit now. Alternatively, the court could grant Trump the stay and agree to hear the case on the merits without waiting for Trump to appeal. So where that to happen? The court is likely to expedite the matter with oral arguments and the ruling come within months. So if they, if the court doesn't, the other way, it's gonna happen in weeks. So should the court reject Trump's request for a stay, the case would be thrown back to Judge Chuck in and would restart the pre-trial process and Then set a new trial date. So Smith has previously asked the court to take up the immunity question in late 2023.
Speaker 1:Argue that the justices were the only ones who were fully settled the immunity question. So this is what was said from a Fox attributor by the name of Sorry. It says it is in imperative public importance that the report respondents claim of immunity be resolved by the court and that the respondents trial proceeds as properly as possible. If his claim of immunity is rejected, respondents claims are profoundly mistaken as addresses court held, but only this court can definitively resolve them. The court should grant a writ of serratoria before the judgment to ensure that it can provide the expeditious resolution that this case warrants, just as it did in the United States versus Nixon. I hope I answered your question and thank you for said question.
Speaker 1:In the context of President Biden's clear evidence, the report raises concerns about his memory. The inquiry found that the president had willfully retained material at the finishers' term as vice president and shared information with a ghost writer. The special counsel investigation said President Biden willfully retain disclosed classified material after leaving the vice presidency in 2017, but concluded that no criminal charges were warranted. So Robert K Her, a Trump supporter and a special counsel said in an unflattering 300-plus page report that Biden had left the White House after the vice president had classified documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with handwritten entries implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods taken from White House briefings. Her criticized Biden for sharing the content of the notebook with a ghost writer who helped his 2017 memoir promise me dad, even though he knew some of it was classified. He also said that the evidence does not establish Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and said a former Trump Justice Department official appointed by Attorney General Mary B Garland in 2023 to leave the inquiry at the classified file. After found in the garage and living areas of Biden's home in Delaware.
Speaker 1:At his former office in Washington, robert Her decided not to prosecute Biden, who is 81 years old. The reason he cited for his decision immediately created a new political crisis for the White House. In recounting his interview with the president, mr Her portrayed him as unable to remember key dates of his time in the Obama White House, or even precisely when his son, boe Biden, had died. He willing to say Mr Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. He cited Biden's age by the time he would leave office, either 2025 or 29 as an additional factor. It would be difficult to convince a jury that the former president, who would then be well to his 80s, was guilty of a felony. That requires a mental state of wilfulness, mr Her added in the statement at the report was made public. Biden said he took national security seriously, cooperated completely, threw up no roadblocks, sought no delays in responding to his request for information.
Speaker 1:In five remarks later from the White House, biden assailed the report, saying his memory was fine, that he had not willfully retained classified material. He also expressed outrage that Her has suggested he could not remember the day his own son died. How dare he raise that question? Biden said Now look, I'm not going to go into this whole thing. I think that if you look into the history of special counsels, this is kind of what they do.
Speaker 1:It happened with Hillary Clinton, with James Comey coming out saying this thing and then that thing, this armchair psychoanalysis, and then saying, well, I'm not going to charge her after he had already somewhat inviscidated her and her character. That was exactly what needed to be heard. This is the same thing. He came out with this report, saying he's not going to charge Biden. Then he came out to say what everybody already knows that Biden is old and that his memory is not where it used to be. Of course, the Biden administration is not happy about this, but at the end of the day, it is something that is going to stick because it is something that cannot be changed. You have a president in his 80s. He is only going to get older and there's nothing you can do about it. That is just the juice that they're going to have to start picking up and drinking. At any rate. Thank you for tuning in and see you in the next episode.