← Human Events Daily with Jack Posobiec
Human Events Daily with Jack Posobiec
The Fight to Take Back American Cities, Trump Criminalizes Burning the Flag & The Maxwell Testimony
00:48:16
Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:02]
Jack Posobiec
I want to take a second to remind you to sign up for the POSO Daily Brief. It is completely free. It'll be one email that's sent to you every day. You can stop the endless scrolling trying to find out what's going on in your world. We will have this delivered directly to you totally for free. Go to humanevents.com poso Sign up today. It's called the Poso Daily Brief. Read what I read for show prep. You will not regret it. Human Events.com poso Totally free the POSO Daily Brief. This is what happens when the fourth turning meets fifth generation warfare.
- [00:40]
Libby Emmons
A commentator, international social media sensation and former Navy intelligence veteran.
- [00:46]
Jack Posobiec
This is Human Events with your host, Jack Posobec. Christ is king.
- [00:51]
News Reporter
President Trump today acknowledging a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine remains elusive. The president, though, still working on setting up a face to face with Putin and and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- [01:02]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
We're going to see if Putin and Zelensky will be working together. You know, that's like oil and vinegar a little bit. They don't get along too well.
- [01:11]
News Reporter
But in an exclusive interview with Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov making clear there is no meeting planned and there won't be for some time.
- [01:21]
Mike Benz
Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit.
- [01:30]
Jack Posobiec
And this agenda is not ready at all.
- [01:33]
Libby Emmons
The Justice Department has publicly released a transcript and audio of the interview between Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Glenn Maxwell Epstein's imprisoned accomplice.
- [01:43]
Jack Posobiec
Did you ever observe President Trump receive a massage?
- [01:47]
Epstein Accomplice (Interviewee)
Never.
- [01:48]
Jack Posobiec
There's photographs of Mr. Epstein and President Trump together.
- [01:54]
Epstein Accomplice (Interviewee)
Yes.
- [01:55]
Jack Posobiec
Those all appear to be social settings.
- [01:56]
Epstein Accomplice (Interviewee)
Yes, that's my memory. There were social settings. I think they were friendly, like people are in social settings. I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance. I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting.
- [02:10]
Mike Benz
The Trump administration's ongoing efforts to combat crime are showing promising results, keeping our.
- [02:15]
Jack Posobiec
Capitol and its citizens safe.
- [02:17]
Libby Emmons
Since President Trump announced his initiative, the White House has reported over 700 arrests and 91 illegal guns seized so far.
- [02:25]
Mike Benz
President Trump now says he may also send troops to Chicago, though state and local leaders are strongly pushing back on that idea.
- [02:33]
News Reporter
We don't have to live like this. My message to my fellow citizens here in D.C. or all across the country would be that allowing vagrants and armed robberies to take over your city, that's a policy choice. What President Trump is showing is that if you Just empower local law enforcement to arrest and prosecute the bad guys. We can take back American streets.
- [02:55]
Jack Posobiec
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome aboard today's edition of Human Events Daily. We are here live in Washington D.C. today is August 25, 2025. Anno Dominique. Folks, the days of lawlessness are over. It is time to bukele every American city take back our streets. And what do I mean by that? The days where you could spit in a cop's face and go viral on X, they're over. The days when kids thought it was okay to steal, assault and vandalize are over. These are our cities. They want to say, oh, you're Trump was being fascist. Trump's a proto. No, no, it's called common sense. And it's something that I like to call normal. No, I'm sorry. If you're not popping wheelies in a dirt bike, driving around people, just trying to walk down the street, families, children, you are going away. And that includes all of the ATV gangs in every major city. Look, normal is when you can walk down the street in a big city, not have to worry about getting mugged or knocked out. You remember the knockout game, Boys and girls? Or shop without having to worry about open shoplifters and pickpockets. Or walk down the street, take your kid to, I don't know, karate practice and not have to worry about fentanyl zombies chasing you down the sidewalk. Or even having to tell your son, you know, having to look him in the eye when he says, daddy, why is that person twitching on the ground? And you can say, well, son. And you don't have to say, well, son. That's the benefit of freedom. That's just one of the benefits of freedom. No, it's not. We don't have to live like this. We've never had to. In fact, this is a choice. And when there is a federal nexus in all of these crimes, President Trump should absolutely take the National Guard approach that he's taken here to Washington, D.C. and I can tell you the streets are clean, the streets are safe. Now, we're going to take. We're actually talking about going and taking the kids to the museums tomorrow for one of the first times that we've done in a long time. Might even go out this week, and we might even go out this evening. Maybe I'll take Tanya Tay out this weekend. Maybe, just maybe I will. Because you see, folks, we couldn't do that before all this. And when I say go out, look, you could go out to certain locations, but then you had to go right away, right? You had to get out and you couldn't just walk around. Who has big balls? What happens with that when you stay out too late? When you stay out, you get in trouble. Now people say, oh, you're asking for it if you stayed out. There are parts of the world that don't have to live like that. I've lived in those cities. I've lived in much bigger cities all around the world and in places where they have serious police presence and actually take crime seriously, street crime. Guess what? You don't have to worry about that. You can walk around at 3am There are parts of Europe that are like that. There are parts of. Go talk to. Go look at Singapore. All right, we did. We did a whole episode on Singapore years ago. And I would stand on business when it comes to Singapore. Go look at how clean the streets in Singapore are. Go look at how safe the streets of Singapore are. How did they take a backwater country city, really just an island, and turn it into the powerhouse, one of the four Asian tigers of the 1980s? How did they do that? A little thing called law and order. Law and order. See, people focus on the quote, unquote, scary part. What they miss is the liberation part, the liberation of families, the liberation of young people being able to go out and have a good time. We did so many videos from Warsaw recently. They went so viral. People saying, how can we do this? How can you have a city of millions and millions of people and they're just totally feeling free to walk around? It's simple. It's called violent offenders and harassers and people committing the street crime. Go away. And if you commit those. And if you commit those crimes, guess what? You're not coming back. It's really simple. Bukele the cities. Be right back. Jack Posobic, Mike Benz coming up.
- [07:27]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
Stand in our way and our golden age has just begun.
- [07:30]
Jack Posobiec
This is Human Events with Jack Posoba. Now it's time for everyone to understand what America first truly means. Welcome to the second American Revolution. All right, Jack was hope because we are back live human events daily. We're here in Washington D.C. now, a lot of people been asking me about this. I've certainly been asking about it for quite some time. Ghislaine Maxwell. This is something that we've been calling for here on this program for I think at least four years at this point. Back to the very beginning of Human Events Daily saying, why won't someone just go and sit down with Ghislaine Maxwell keeps saying, where are the files here? Where are the files there? And I say, look, you got a source of information that is something of a captive audience, if you will, right now. It's something that I certainly remember when I was down at Guantanamo Bay and able to see how those sources of information were acquired and were utilized. And I said, look, this is an opportunity to perhaps learn some more. So the Glenn Maxwell tapes and depositions and videos came out and. And I said, it's a good first start. I spoke on War Room Saturday morning, and I said, I think it's a good first start, good first meeting, and I certainly hope it's not the last. But I didn't really get a chance to dig into it too much. And so joining us to be able to do that is Mike Benz. You guys know him. He is the executive director of the foundation for Freedom Online. Benz, what's going on, man?
- [09:03]
Mike Benz
How you doing, Jack?
- [09:05]
Jack Posobiec
So that's my assessment, you know, my read off from the top line of it was good first meeting, right? It's a good start. And people will say, you know, we used to get this question at Gitmo all the time. And they would say, you know, I was. So I was an analyst in the, in the, in the human cell down there. And they would say, okay, well, how do you know they're telling you the truth? And how do you know? I said, we don't just, you know, assume they're telling the truth. You know, you conduct source validation, and source validation is a process that is constantly ongoing. And so you sit down, you ask your first set of questions, you say, oh, interesting. Then you go and check that out, and then you come back and you do so over and over and over again. So want to get your assessment at least on what we've received thus far?
- [09:47]
Mike Benz
Yeah, I certainly hope what you said is, is how it plays out. I thought it was. It was very interesting. There were. DOJ did ask the questions, for the most part, that Twitter wanted DOJ to ask. I think I feel like with. With so many other things, as with so many other things in the Trump administration, they're very responsive to the buzz of the base. And so, you know, it was sort of an around the world tour, which was the good part of it. And I'll get to what some of the key findings were from. From what Ghislaine Maxwell's responses were. But I have to caveat it by saying that I sort of wish that the interview itself was conducted by a random anonymous account on Twitter with a. With a deeper knowledge of the Epstein case because there are many of these questions that are asked and answers that are given by Ghislaine Maxwell. And there's no real follow up or, or next deep dive into what the actual meaning of the thing is or more details about it. And so it's, yeah, there's, there's, it's.
- [11:03]
Jack Posobiec
An, it's so funny you say that because I had the exact same takeaway reading the transcript that you know, and I remember I. This was even back when I was working the human cell. That's what it would be like. You have, you have somebody on, you know, someone's in the booth and you're sitting there listening even in real time and you're like, what was nice back then is you could, you could pause and say, oh, you have a phone call. And then that person could leave the booth and you could say, hey abcdef, you know, you need to follow up on this, follow up on this, follow up on this. And then you could go back in real time. Now I'm guessing they probably had a little bit of that because you can, you can see a few breaks here in the transcript. But at the same time. Yeah, it's exactly right. There's so much you need to follow up with on here. But at the same time, if this was just a first meeting, hopefully the first in a series of meetings, then it's actually not that bad.
- [11:51]
Mike Benz
Right, But I guess what you're saying is. So Todd Blanch, who did the, the invest. The interrogation here, should have had a lurker Twitter account open. Should have had a live thread on, on the lurker.
- [12:02]
Jack Posobiec
I'm not saying, but I say that.
- [12:06]
Mike Benz
Okay, so what did the Clinton do?
- [12:09]
Jack Posobiec
Imagine how the legality of such a thing. But, but, but, but yes, basically it's.
- [12:14]
Mike Benz
Like phone a friend.
- [12:15]
Jack Posobiec
You just grab somebody, you just, you just grab somebody, you pull them in.
- [12:18]
Mike Benz
Right? Yeah. No, it's just true. It's just, it's just the, the, I think part of the, the issue here is, and this is, I think for all the heat that Pam Bondi has taken, it's really not all that appropriate in my view for her to kind of be the face of it because she's not the subject. This is not an ordinary crime or an ordinary criminal cinematic universe. The Epstein cinematic universe is something that you need. It's almost like Star Trek or something or like Marvel. Like it's, everyone knows the, the common crimes and I. But there are people who are really, really deep autistic nerds about it. Who like eat, sleep and breathe the, the entire cinematic universe, they can recount every story and substory and branch of it. And I don't know who at DOJ is like the in house Trekkie, so to speak, who just knows who has all the Epstein action figures so that when they have a, the real life character in the room, they can actually get to the bottom of what happened. And I.
- [13:32]
Jack Posobiec
And you could tell by the way, just, just to piggyback on that, you could tell by the way that some of the questions that were asked were very detailed. So whoever came up with this question plan obviously knew exactly chapter and verse, right, in terms of the Epstein lore and just knew every little nook and cranny of it. But at the same time it was just sort of this rapid fire, okay, we're going to go down the list of each question, you know, almost like yes or no questions, you know, did you ever do this? Did you ever do that? Do you ever do this? Do you ever see that? And it's just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Without this broader discussion or, or an example of, you know, basically you don't really see any basic elicitation approaches here or different angles being run. It's just this direct questioning over and over and over.
- [14:22]
Mike Benz
Right, right. Well, I'll, I'll read off some of the, some of the, the transcripts, parts of it that I thought were very interesting. So, so Todd Blanch from DOJ asked, did you or did Mr. Epstein ever do any business transactions with the Clintons? And Glenn Maxwell says, I was part of the beginning process of the Clinton Global Initiative. And that was something I helped with. And that was me and Jeffrey may have helped me and helped them. Todd Blanche then said, did you give money or did, did Jeffrey give money to the Clinton Global Initiative? And Ghislaine says, well, so there's that. I think he did do that and I believe that money may have also been independent of me. And he. She goes on to basically describe how they came up with the idea on a, on a trip at Davos with, with, with Clinton. And this is also around the same time that Epstein was flying Bill Clinton around Africa while they were setting up the Clinton Foundation. So that's now a direct confession from Ghislaine Maxwell, which adds to the Epstein lawyers who claimed in court that, that Epstein co founded the Clinton Foundation. This was actually while negotiating a plea deal with federal prosecutors. Epstein's lawyers wrote, Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative. And this is also an Interesting bit of confirmation given that the Clinton foundation is back in the crosshairs this week, as there have been. There's been reporting from John Solomon and just the news that three different FBI investigations into the Clinton foundation were shut down by Loretta lynch during the Obama DOJ during the 2016 campaign. And that the IRS also had a sprawling investigation into the Clinton foundation, but that too was shut down because the IRS claimed that they did not have enough resources to investigate the Clinton foundation fraud. So I mean, I can only imagine how massive the fraud must be that it's too big for even the IRS to investigate. Now, obviously this is their get out of political cronyism free card. This is their way of saying, oh no, we didn't do favors for them. It was just anybody who commits that much tax fraud we wouldn't investigate because it would take too much IRS resources. Right. Like, like we're led to believe that if, if we had kept the 80,000 IRS agents that, that the IRS asked for under the Biden admin, like they would go straight after the Clinton Foundation. Yeah, it beggars believe.
- [17:06]
Jack Posobiec
No, it's very simple. And we see things about how the Clinton foundation of course was used to set up their own ability for pay, pay for play schemes. By the way, it also goes back to Ukraine, which was. Ukraine was of course the number one source of funds for the Clinton Foundation. I love, by the way, every time I say that, they try to fact check me and say, no, no, no, it wasn't Ukraine, it was people in Ukraine who were. Thank you, I appreciate that. Appreciate the clarity there. Right. They make this weird semantic argument to say, no, no, it was just oligarchs from the country of Ukraine. You can't say that the money came from Ukraine. It's totally different. Totally different. Because that's exactly how we talk about, oh, I don't know, Russia. They're country next door.
- [17:51]
Mike Benz
Right? No, it's just, it's just the, you know, the former Ministry of Energy and, and, and the people who control all of Ukraine's media and natural gas and agricultural assets. Like what? It's, it's just ordinary civilians. These are the same kind of oligarchs that, that they, I mean the FBI took careful notes, Stefan Halper's notes, which came out. He was part of the original CIA crew during Iran Contra and then was an FBI informant during Russiagate. Kind of kicked off Russiagate in the summer of 2016. And you know, they were charting all of Trump and Mike Flynn's relationships with quote, Russian oligarchs and meanwhile they're doing the same thing on the Ukraine oligarch side. But there were other exchanges that I felt were very frustrating, particularly intelligence.
- [18:43]
Jack Posobiec
We are coming up on a quick break here. So let's, let's, let's put a pause there. That was the first exchange, the Clinton foundation, huge. We've outlined that. Coming up after the break we are going to get into the other exchanges. Folks were parsing through this documentary evidence and now direct testimony from Ghislaine Maxwell to Todd Blanch, the doj. What was going on with Epstein and his operations? Jack Posobic, Human Events Daily on Real America's Voice. Park it here right back.
- [19:23]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
They talk about influencers. These are influencers and they're friends of mine. Jack, where's Jack? He's got a great job.
- [19:37]
Jack Posobiec
All right, Jack Posobic, here we are back live, Human events daily, Washington, D.C. we're going through the Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts and the audio that's been released. In the last segment here, we just talked about how Ghislaine Maxwell admits, and this has been something that's already come up in court, that it was her money and Epstein money and Epstein contacts that went into the very founding of, of the Clinton foundation itself. Our guest is Mike Benz. He wanted to get to a couple other exchanges. Mike Benz, what were you looking at?
- [20:11]
Mike Benz
So there were several other, you know, funny moments in it. One is when the DOJ asked Maxwell for examples of Epstein's kind of money laundering machine, his asset recovery business. This is something that I've covered very extensively. Epstein's start in the business in the 1980s. So after being hired by Bill Barr's dad at the Dalton School and then going on to Bear Stearns after a personal friendship with its CEO, which they ask about. Yes, yes. But then, then Epstein goes out on his own in 1981 to form International Assets Group, which was basically this as he builded a one man asset tracing and asset recovery business, but also an asset shielding business where he would shield assets for oligarchs and governments and hide them away in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman islands or the U.S. virgin Islands or Swiss bank accounts. And then he would, he would help claim to help other groups find. He'd basically play both sides of the chessboard in the, in the greasy business of tax evasion effectively, which is when he was, you know, when he was handling the family accounts of the Bronfin family at Bear Stearns and he was still a client of Bear Stearns even after he left. So My presumption is that Epstein, throughout the 1980s, because this is before he turned 30 years old, he went out on his own. So, you know, you're not nearly an expert enough only four years into a subject matter to be able to handle billionaire clients. So what I, what I assume happened is that he flew a little close to the sun at Bear Stearns, but they still found him useful. So he served as the front end and Bear Stearns still did the business on the back. But there's a great part where the DOJ asked Maxwell to give an example of what this kind of asset tracing, asset recovery business look like in practice. And the first thing she starts out with is an example with like the Sinaloa Cartel. So she says, so, so let's say you have El Chapo. Oh God, I don't know where that, where that name comes from. But anyway, we've got El Chapo and El Chapo is laundering money or he's working with the Sinaloa Cartel and he steals money from the Sinaloa Cartel and he moves it to wherever. So he's got stolen money from the Sinaloa's. And then she goes, this didn't happen. I'm just giving an example of something in my head. And the Sinaloa Cartel says to Jeffrey Epstein, can you track down my billion dollars that the other cartel stole from me? And so Epstein would go and find the billion dollars and would take a portion of the money that was stolen at a fee and give back the remainder and that would be on a percentage basis. So she's talking with the DOJ and the first thing that comes to mind is doing, doing business with the most CIA linked Mexican drug cartel in Mexico and having them as a personal client and having them get money from other, track down money from other cartels and then taking a percentage of the cartel business, I mean that's the first example you can think of helping one drug cartel get money from another drug cartel. And especially with everything I'm talking about.
- [23:56]
Jack Posobiec
With this really, I'll put it this way, I'll put it this way. It seems like. So, okay, what you're, what you're talking about here is when we would do a first source meeting actually it at in the bullets just say in the military context and because I want to get into specifics. But what you would actually be doing is you, you'd be, you'd be basically setting up a baseline assessment, so a knowledgeability brief or a knowledgeability base, a kb. So when you're looking at things like that you ask a lot. You ask these like, really wide, probing questions. Like that one, did you ever know anything about any money laundering? And then she mentions, well, about this and that. It's like, oh, hold on, she just mentioned five different. That you could go off into in any one of those directions. So you want to build that in and then off of any then further questioning plan, you would want to go. And people can, you know, look this up in the field manual. It's all out there on how interrogations work. That these. No, I'm not talking about the waterboarding. You know, gosh, this, you know, or the CIA enhanced stuff. No, I mean the real stuff that it's, it's all based on. Okay. We think that the, the subject might, or the source might know about these things, but oh my gosh, they're mentioning this, they're mentioning this, they're mentioning this, they're mentioning this. So then you build your plan off of that. And so you'd want to tailor. So what you want to try to do is you'd have your next session to say, okay, he tell me about those cartels again. Right. And so maybe you have one session on cartels, then you have another session on accounts, you have another session maybe just, I don't know, planes or something like that. And, and so that's why I keep saying this needs to be a series because there's just too much here.
- [25:41]
Mike Benz
Right, right. And especially when it comes to the intelligence links. And this was, this is one of the most frustrating parts of the transcript for me. You know, the first thing I did when I popped it open is I ran a control F for intelligence. And in all the different.
- [25:56]
Jack Posobiec
The first thing I did was run a control F for Mike Ben's.
- [26:02]
Mike Benz
Yeah. Does she have Twitter access there? She. Does she know. Did she get my love letters, Jack? Is that. No, there's.
- [26:08]
Jack Posobiec
She did, actually. Strange. Every, every third word was a code.
- [26:13]
Mike Benz
Well, so this, this is a very frustrating part of it for me because, you know, it's. It's one of those things where we still don't have any official word from either the DOJ or the CIA about the internal intelligence links that Epstein had or may have had. This is obviously a long running saga because the plea deal, the sweetheart plea deal that gave immunity to all co conspirators known or unknown back in 2008 was cut by Alex Acosta, who then went on to be the Secretary of Labor for the Trump administration after being the dean of Florida International University Law School, which is a Very CIA connected school, I should note. Florida International University is now where Juan Guaido is and Maria Karina Machado. It's like a very big South America, Central America.
- [27:09]
Jack Posobiec
Mike, apologies. Quick break. We'll finish this right after here. Don't you dare click away from Real America's world. Human Events Daily. Right back.
- [27:23]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
Where's Jack? Where's Jack? Where is he? Jack, I want to see you. Great job, Jack. Thank you. What a job you do. You know, we have an incredible thing. We're always talking about the fake news and the bad, but we have guys, and these are the guys who've been getting bullishers.
- [27:45]
Jack Posobiec
All right, Jack, Pacific back here because you didn't click away. You wouldn't dare. Never would. From Real America's Voice. And this is Human Events daily in Washington D.C. we're on with Mike Benz. We're talking about these, you know, these questions and these tantalizing questions a lot. See, it seems left on the field with this Ghislaine Maxwell interview. But, you know, as someone who's, you know, done this kind of thing, I would just say, you know, this, this is only a, this is a small aperitif to the main course which would. And potentially a banquet that is yet to come in terms of this. And so Mike Benz was telling us, though, about how these connections, you know, these intel connections that they're talking about, actually do come directly with military connections. And it's very interesting how just looking at this, I keep saying, wait a minute, why are all these arrows pointing at Ukraine?
- [28:41]
Mike Benz
Right? And as you mentioned, the Clinton Global Initiative, the, I think the largest individual donor was Victor Pinchuk. And then, and then obviously, you know, as we covered, Epstein and Maxwell go on to help co found the Clinton Global Initiative and you know, wrapping up the Epstein part of it, they did ask about the intelligence links. And while we don't have anything on the US side, and again, the CIA and DOJ are still mum, even though Alex Acosta reportedly said that he cut the sweetheart deal because Epstein quote belongs to intelligence. And we still don't have the results of a CIA name trace. We still don't have any feedback. Pam Bondi said she'd get back to us about looking into Epstein's intelligence links. No word back yet from Pam Bondi on that, unfortunately. But they did ask about foreign intelligence and, you know, so they asked about British intelligence and, and Saudi, and then they asked about Israeli intelligence and they asked specifically about Mossad, though. And the real story here, Epstein got his start in this really during this highly militarized period in American history in the Middle east around even though his clients were Saudi Arabia, you know, Adnan Khashoggi, military contractors, that's who he claimed was his client in the 1980s, the most profitable, highest paid weapons dealer in the world, who was a Saudi guy. The whole Iran Contra in Iran, Iraq.
- [30:16]
Jack Posobiec
War.
- [30:19]
Mike Benz
US involvement was through military sales, through with involving Adnan Khashoggi, Jeffrey Epstein's client. And that was facilitated between the US and Israel. But this was really a military intelligence story more than a kind of political maneuvering Mossad story. So Todd Blanche asks about the Epstein's links with Mossad. And it's unfortunate that he singled out Mossad there rather than Israeli intelligence in general because she said not deliberate. I'll read the transcript. He said, did you ever have contact with anyone from Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency? And she says not deliberately. And then Todd Blanche says did you ever think Epstein was getting money from Mossad? And Ghislaine said I wouldn't know. But then in the very next question he tries to move on and say are there any other foreign nationals or high society folks or international businessmen or politicians that have very close relationship with Mr. Epstein that we haven't already talked about? And Glenn Maxwell says off the top of my head I can think of a who Barak? And then Todd Blanche goes on, he doesn't follow that up with anything. He just then asks about Epstein's testosterone replacement therapy. Now, Ehud Barak was the head of Israeli military intelligence from 1983 to 1985, exactly when Jeffrey Epstein was starting off his entire career. Ehud Barak met with Jeffrey Epstein 45 times. They went into business together. They started Carbine, this big military surveillance company. They co invested in it together. Ahud Barak is probably the most prolific Epstein figure in the story. Ahud Barak was also the Prime Minister of Israel while Bill Clinton was the was the President of the United States. We know that Jeffrey Epstein made 17 White House visits to Bill Clinton's White House and then helped Bill Clinton found the Clinton Global Initiative at the same time Hud Barak was president, coming from running Aman Israeli's military intelligence. But it's almost like the DOJ didn't know who Ahud Barak was or and Abu Barak by the way, is very much an enemy of both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations. Who Barak was part of that West Exec group worked closely with Avril Haines and Tony Blinken and that whole crew. They've been trying to revive the Israeli Labor Party as a buffer against the Likud. So there's this kind of international alliance between the Democrats in the United States and Hud Barak and the fact that doj, she volunteered it, Max Maxwell volunteered it. And no questions about probably the single most prolific figure in the foreign intelligence side of this. And so I found that to be very frustrating. But obviously, you know, this, this whole military intelligence side, it's always unclear whether the DOJ is avoiding those questions because they're simply not versed enough in the subject matter expert or they don't want national security secrets or they don't want necessarily things on the record that they don't want to get too close to. So that's also, I think, the kind of protective shield that has been over much of Russiagate and in the Ukraine affair coming into these past couple months of disclosure out of ODNI and FBI.
- [33:59]
Jack Posobiec
Well, I think that's right. And President Trump clearly using this and Tulsi Gabbard with these disclosures on Russiagate to kind of reset the context of all of these conversations to say, look, there never was anything between us. That's all now been litigated. Let's sit down and have this conversation. Look, I was there in Anchorage. People had conceived with their own two eyes. I saw with my own two eyes that there was this direct relationship certainly between the president and Putin when they came off the tarmac together or they met at the tarmac, I should say. But at the same time when it seemed as though, I'll put it this way, it seemed like the two of them could probably work out a deal together. The problem came with, when it came to the deal of all the Europeans when they got Back to Washington D.C. on Monday for that multilateral meeting.
- [34:52]
Mike Benz
Yeah, that's exactly right. And this is one of the frustrations from my side of this here is I think Trump has a kind of Reaganite peace through strength philosophy. And I think that Trump's favors for the military industrial complex by giving so much in Pentagon funding, it's not just the trillion dollar Pentagon budget this year. But remember, even during Trump won, Trump gave the military its highest budget of all time, even in the first term. This is all while telling the military not to get involved in Syria, not to get involved in nation building to, you know, they accused him of being an isolationist while giving the, the, the, the most money to the military ever of any president twice now. And also, Hillary Clinton was on TV last week. She was on live broadcast TV news saying the first thing positive I think she's ever said about Donald Trump in the past 10 years, commending him for getting countries to fulfill their NATO commitments. But NATO is the big blocking point in the Ukraine negotiation. And not only that, NATO is doing a lot of the civilian censorship work that both President Trump and Vice President J.D. vance are campaigning against. And so I, I understand that the strategy that. That the admin is pursuing is keeping the coalition together. You know, it keeps the Lindsey Grahams and it keeps the internationalist wing of the Republican Party somewhat loyal because they're getting their cut of the corpse, so to speak. They're getting their cut of the pie. But what you're running into here is that we're beefing up an organization that is on the other side of the negotiating table with us in terms of our own foreign policy. So, you know the analogy I've been giving, it's like, it's like giving a dog steroids and then telling it to stay in the house. Or like giving a dog amphetamines and telling it to, you know, to sit still. It's. It's giving more money than ever.
- [36:59]
Jack Posobiec
Or when. When we give our kids cupcakes and we tell them they're not allowed to run around or that if they have to go straight to bed.
- [37:05]
Mike Benz
No, no, it's like, yeah, exactly.
- [37:09]
Jack Posobiec
Yeah, the marshmallow. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. They're not. Mike Benz. Hey, man, I got about a minute left. I know you got to run. Tell people what your coordinates are because there's so much more to come of this. And look, if President Trump wants to drop the hammer, we all know he will.
- [37:27]
Mike Benz
Yes. Okay. Find me on X at Mike Ben Cyber. My foundations work is at foundation for freedom online.com. you can also find my video archives on rumble and YouTube.
- [37:40]
Jack Posobiec
That's right. And in fact, there was. And just by the way, there was a piece in the Washington Post this last weekend saying that one of Valinsky's advisors saying, look, we're getting. We are getting a lot more pressure from the White House talking about financial and perhaps even intelligence cessation if they do not agree to this deal. So we will see. Brook that down on War Room. Park it here, folks. We ain't going anywhere. And neither are you real. Marcus Voice Human Events Daily continues.
- [38:20]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
Jack is a great guy. He's written a fantastic book. Everybody's talking about it. Go get it. And he's been my friend right from the beginning of this whole beautiful event. And we're going to turn it around and make our country great again.
- [38:33]
Jack Posobiec
Amen.
- [38:35]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
And what the penalty is going to be. If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing. You get one year in jail. If you burn a flag, you're good. And what it does is incite to riot. I hope they use that language, by the way.
- [38:52]
Mike Benz
Did they?
- [38:52]
Guest Supporter/Commentator
Your incitement is incite to riot. And you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don't get 10 years, you don't get one month. You get one year in jail and it goes on your record. And you will see flag burning stopping immediately.
- [39:07]
Jack Posobiec
All right, Jack Posobic, back live, impromptu. Interesting cultural debate that President Trump has reignited here regarding the burning of an American flag. Now, this is an interesting one because it goes all the way back to the late 1800s, early 1900s, because during the Spanish American War, this is really when many states began and World War I, this is when many states around the country began passing laws banning desecration of the US flag. By the 1930s, 48 states had statutes criminalizing burning, mutilating, or defacing the flag of our great nation. However, it was in the 1930s and then even a little bit after in the 1980s that the Supreme Court began striking these down. And this is, you know, it's talking about flag burning. And then really the Vietnam War is when it came up. And the incitement statute that they're bringing up, that decision was only made in 1989. So states have had these on the books for quite some time now. Personally, I'm all for it. A nation is important, and the nation's symbol is the American flag. In Poland, it is a criminal act to desecrate the Polish flag. If you do not enshrine these things in law, if they do not get special protection, then people will not believe they have any special protection. Libby Emmons, the editor in chief of the Human of Human Events in the Post Millennial is joining us now. Libby, what do you think about the new executive order?
- [40:50]
Libby Emmons
Yeah, I was watching this along with you and along with a lot of people here in America about the flag burning. And I was of two minds about it. On the one hand, I am not in favor of burning the flag. I don't think that that's an appropriate action. I love this country. I think we should all love this country and we should honor the country by honoring some of the symbols of the country like our flag. But on the other hand, looking back at the Texas v. Johnson decision from 1989 and the reasons behind burning the flag and the statute there about incitement I do think that it is a form of political speech to burn the flag. We saw that in all of the instances that you mentioned. It was a big deal in the Vietnam era and civil rights. I wonder if it's appropriate to legally ban it or if this is yet another thing that we Americans should not be told legally that we cannot do is just something that we should not do, and we should know better than that. Ideally, if someone's going to burn the flag as a form of protest, it has to be the ultimate severe thing that they are actually protesting and not just, you know, your garden variety random foreign wars.
- [42:04]
Jack Posobiec
So it does seem, though, that he's. He's constructed the language and that the White House office that puts this through, they've used language that directly relates to that 1989 case because they want this to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It seems very much as though they're trying to incite a Supreme Court review of this, which they know they'll obviously get.
- [42:25]
Libby Emmons
Yeah, I think that you're exactly right. And one thing I do love about this administration is how many things they have brought to the Supreme Court, how many instances they say this needs review again. This needs review again. And that's great. And yeah, in the Texas v. Johnson case, what we have situation where the man was burning a flag as part of a protest, there was no rioting. It was essentially a peaceful protest other than the flag burning. And so the Supreme Court said there was no incitement to violence, there was no incitement to rioting. So because of that, we're going to say that this is protected First Amendment speech. And yeah, including the language about incitement, I think is really, really important. I think you're exactly right about that, because what the administration is saying is if you are burning a flag as part of, you know, a violent action, as part of an incitement to further mayhem, then that's something that's going to be punishable with a year in jail. Another thing that they did in this EO that I found interesting was they put this flag burning under more scrutiny by local law. So they're saying if you're local law enforcement and someone is burning a flag as part of a protest or anything else in a place that is not legally allowed for open burning, or in a place where this can be considered property destruction, like it's somebody else's flag, which is something that we've seen in some of the protests and riots in Seattle and Portland where they take somebody else's flag and then desecrate it, then that is something that local law enforcement really needs to pay attention to. So those are a few areas that are different, that make it different from the Texas v. Johnson case. And I would love to see this back before the Supreme Court. I think it's definitely time, especially given the situation where so many localities and municipalities have put into place hate crime type of laws against burning pride flags.
- [44:24]
Jack Posobiec
Well, before, before we go there, and you're right, of course, the left would totally be for this if it was about pride flags or trans flags or anything else. But here's, here's the exact line that they have. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the court has never held that the Amer. That American flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, or that is an action amounting to, quote, fighting words is constitutionally protected. And they specifically cite the Texas v. Johnson case of 1989. And so this is exactly what they're talking about. They're saying that in, in these, basically, I guess it's like if you're going to perhaps, you know, burn a flag on your own property in private, that this is based on my, and I'm not a lawyer, my reading of it, but it seems as though that would not necessarily be covered by this. But what they are talking about, and I think we just had it up there, some one of the crazy Union Station riots that was going on. One of more of those situations.
- [45:29]
Libby Emmons
Yeah, I think that, I think that that's right. And if you look at this, this footage and we've seen a lot of footage or not. Yeah, well, there's been so many. Right. But if you look at this kind of footage and what they're doing, this is intentionally designed to be inciting. Right. I mean, a lot of these kinds of protests are the ones that in 2020 then would see the destruction of statues, which also Trump has signed an executive order saying that that's absolutely not allowed. And I think that a lot of times what protesters are doing what.
- [46:02]
Jack Posobiec
Oh, I was just gonna add, there's an, there is a line here specifically pointing out that this isn't, this is also being used by foreign nationals now, and we saw this in the LA riots to act to intimidate and threaten violence against Americans because of their nationality and place of birth. They're talking about Americans whose nationality is American and that their place of birth is America. So why would a foreign national be given First Amendment protections to burn our flag in our country? When they're not even from here. I mean, to me, that's ludicrous. I mean, I would even if we had longer time and maybe, who knows, maybe we'll see each other in Tim cast this week at some point, that hint, hint that, you know, the phrase freedom of expression is found nowhere in the Bill of Rights. This is something that was added on by courts in, later in the 20th century. I don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the First Amendment to include freedom of expression. Any and all expressions. Clearly there were lots of expressions. I mean, they used to tar and feather people back in those days, but they didn't write that that was protected by the First Amendment at all. And they clearly could have. I mean, this was a time of great public political intersection where you saw things like that, but they didn't protect that. They specifically protected speech. And I think that is the spoken word and the written word. I don't think that it extends to this crazy broad, broad place where we brought it now.
- [47:33]
Libby Emmons
Yeah, I think those are really good questions. It also brings up the question of campaign contributions. Is that freedom of speech? Is our political contributions freedom of speech? And then you also have questions. We saw last year in New York City pro Palestinian protests where people were taking down American flags, not burning them or desecrating them, but taking them down and putting up Palestinian flags instead. Is that something that is protected speech or is that a violation against the flag and against symbols of America?
- [48:04]
Jack Posobiec
There are so many different questions. Go give her a follow at Libby Emmons. And of course, always be reading human events.com and the post millennial dot com. Ladies and gentlemen, as always, you have my permission to lay ashore.