← Truth in the Barrel
Truth in the Barrel
Cask Us Anything | Truth In The Barrel Live! 06.24.25
01:03:45
TRUTH IN THE BARREL LIVE! On Tuesday 06.24.25 Amy and Denver took questions live on their YouTube feed and the evening did not disappoint! They fielded topics ranging from Iran, Trump’s mental state, Conspiracy theories, Ukraine and even...
Loading summary
Transcript104 lines
- [00:01]
Instacart Advertiser
This summer, Instacart is bringing back your favorites from 1999 with prices from 1999. That means 90s prices on juice pouches that ought to be respected, 90s prices on boxed Mac and cheese, and 90s prices on ham, cheese and cracker lunches. Enjoy all those throwbacks and more at throwback prices only through Instacart. $4.72. Maximum discount per. Per $10 of eligible items. Limit 3 offers per order expiration September 5th while supplies last discount based on CPI comparison.
- [00:41]
Denver Riggleman
I think we're live.
- [00:43]
Amy McGrath
We are live. Welcome, everyone, to Truth in the Barrel Live. We are so excited to have you all here with us. And hey, if you know anyone.
- [00:55]
Unknown
That.
- [00:55]
Amy McGrath
Should be here, now is the time to go get them. This is Truth in the Barrel live. Send them the link. Make sure they know that the live show is not to be missed. All right, tonight we have a lot to talk about. We're going to be talking about what's happening with the war in Israel and Iran. What exactly did we bomb and why and whether there will be more retaliation. Will Congress get involved? How is the mega world feeling about all this? And, of course, Denver, you will be drinking whiskey. I am on travel, but we'll be answering your questions tonight.
- [01:36]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah. And, Amy, I know that I know you're in San Fran right down the road, and I know you just escaped from Alcatraz, and I can tell by the beige walls that you went from one jail to another. So it looks like nice hotel there. I love it. I love it. No, it. And also, I just want everybody to know that we're doing our own new clothing line. I don't know if you'd notice my shirt. You know how it's lovely. Isn't that lovely? Isn't that lovely? So I know that people are probably running out to buy this shirt now, Amy. It's just. I don't know if there's anything more. I would say. I don't want to say the word sexy because obviously that's just too far. But, you know, just very mild from that.
- [02:17]
Amy McGrath
But I would say everybody should grab your pepper beverage of choice.
- [02:20]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah.
- [02:21]
Amy McGrath
Get some popcorn. Get ready for a whole lot of fun because this is going to be a good hour. We have a lot to get through.
- [02:26]
Denver Riggleman
Well, you know, I got my bourbon here, and I'm doing the Christine Reserve tonight. I do feel a little sorry for you because I know you're such a bourbon aficionado and whiskey aficionado. Amazing, right? But it's really nice to have my wife's reserve tonight because I think we're going to need it again. I'm just sad you don't have it because you're right, it's been enough. It's the Christine Riggleman reserve. It's her single barrel Virginia bourbon whiskey. This is the award winner at the New Orleans Bourbon Festival. I go to it when I know I'm going to have a particularly scintillating conversation. Amy and so this is batch number six. This is bottle three. So this is a special bottle. We keep one and two for the family. And I know I'm drinking it neat, but it's 116 proof. So I'm just doing a little bit of rocking them and socking them, you know, as we go forward today. But I hopefully, you know, people are coming on. Oh my Air Force here. Nice.
- [03:18]
Amy McGrath
Yeah, yeah. You know when you come, when you come in to the show and you're on YouTube, go ahead and put, you know, who you are and where you're from.
- [03:26]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, we'll put it up there.
- [03:27]
Amy McGrath
We'd love to see that someone Vietnam era veteran on. That's awesome.
- [03:33]
Denver Riggleman
So I know, Amy, you're doing important things in your board meetings. You know, me and you travel around the world. It seems like we're always somewhere, me or you or both. It's pretty nuts. But what are you up to today? You know what, yeah. What's going on this week?
- [03:48]
Amy McGrath
Before we start, before we start, I, I will give a shout out to what it is I'm doing because I think it's really important right now, like even more important now than just a few weeks ago. I'm on the, I'm a member of the board of the Plowshares Fund. This is an organization that is, brings people in the nuclear weapon, our nuclear field together to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Right. It's to show the world the dangers of using these weapons. And this, it's a really great organization. They do a lot of work in the United States and around the world and they're located in D.C. but also in San Francisco. And so that's why I'm here. And boy, we have a lot to talk about with regards to that issue.
- [04:39]
Denver Riggleman
Is that even pertinent to what's going on today, this nuclear weapon thing you're doing, Amy, I mean, come on. I mean, you know, just going to San Francisco for fun because obviously there's nothing nuclear going on in the world today. Right?
- [04:51]
Amy McGrath
Well, you know, you might think Denver, well, she was a fighter pilot and the F18 doesn't have, doesn't employ nuclear weapons. Although the original F18 could be classified. Yeah, the original F18s did have a switch for that, but eventually they didn't do that. Later on in my career I went through a program at the National Defense University for the center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was a three year program for emerging leaders and I learned a lot during that time on nuclear weapons. I ended up teaching a course at the Naval Academy and then of course down at University of Kentucky now. So this is a very important thing to me. It's something that I spend a lot of time try to make people understand. I'm not a scientist, nuclear scientist, but I'm somebody that, that does a lot of research and, and reading on this stuff.
- [05:45]
Denver Riggleman
What's weird, you know, is that with the B1s, you know, they also had a nuclear program when I was with the B1 bombers. So I think if people want to look up something tonight, you know, after we're done, is to look up the nuclear program and where it's gone, especially from, you know, from scram jets, right. And toggle switches with specific types of ordinance to, to where we are today in the nuclear triad. I think people would really get a kick out of that. I know that was just the nerdiest thing I think I've ever said on this show, Amy, but I can't help it. You know, it's just AI expert.
- [06:13]
Amy McGrath
There's a lot of nerdy stuff that comes out.
- [06:16]
Denver Riggleman
I wish I was an expert. I got people that are expert. I got people, Amy. I got people. But I know that it's been a hell of a week. I think that you probably, I mean, I know this is, we love talking about this, but you know, we have had shows before specifically about nuclear capability. What we look at deterrence and things like that. So what do you think, Amy, about what's happened this week? Did you want to summarize a little bit of what's happened, give people background and let's get into this and we.
- [06:43]
Amy McGrath
Can, we can talk about some of these things. So 12 June, Israel attacked Iran and with primarily airstrikes in order to. Their state objective was to, to sort of get rid of their nuclear program. Okay. Saturday night, last Saturday night, the United States got involved. President Trump ordered B2s to attack the nuclear sites in Iran that the Israelis were, did not have the ordinance to be able to do to the level that they wanted. So they asked the United States to get involved and President Trump did. And so we've been involved in this since Saturday night. Trump, about 24 hours ago, brokered, at least. He said he brokered or mediated a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Less than 24 hours later, that has been broken. You have President Trump, Vice President Vance, many people in the administration, our administration have come out and said, well, this was a big win. This, this bombing. We have totally obliterated. Quotes obliterated, totally destroyed the nuke, Iran's nuclear program. So, okay, now, just a few hours ago, reporting in, I think it's the New York Times, Denver, correct me if.
- [08:11]
Denver Riggleman
I'm wrong now, that's where it started, I think, and spread like they got.
- [08:15]
Amy McGrath
A classified intelligence report from the US Intelligence community was leaked that basically said that the United States bombing only set back Iran's capabilities for nuclear capabilities for maybe, maybe only a few months. What the bombs did do was seal off the entrances to some of these underground facilities. But that doesn't mean that they destroyed the nuclear material. It doesn't mean that we destroyed the parts that can make centrifuges that highly enrich the uranium. So if they, if those parts were gone and they put those parts together and say another facility, a clandestine facility that we don't know about, they can go back to getting a nuclear bomb. So that's kind of where we're at right now.
- [09:09]
Denver Riggleman
Well, if we've only set them back a few months, I guess those bombs weren't necessary. I mean, so if. So here's, here's the thing, you know, and I listen, the great thing about us is we're blunt and we're truthful. So there was no small amount of satisfaction to see a big orange glow above certain facilities in Iran. I make no bones about it, right? I. I am not a fan of the irgc. I am not a fan of Iranian intelligence. I'm not a fan of the regime, not a fan of the nuclear program. We both have a lot of history here. And a lot of military people I talked to were like, hey, you know, not quite sure why we bombed them, but, you know, it's Iran. Who gives a. I mean, that's the kind of stuff that I'm talking to people and, and I almost have to say, you know, listen, you sort of have to, because even though it's an enemy and there's been years that we have really wanted to retaliate, we wanted to do stuff to. Ron. Amy, I think we have to do things in the right way. I think there's a. If you're going to use weapons Such as that there has to be a moral and intellectual reason to do it, because a cascading effect always results from the initial decision that you make to employ that type of ordinance. And I. And I'm. I'm. So. It is so interesting to get a call from my military buddies, Amy, and they're like, yeah, F them. I'm like, yeah. But, you know, here's the issue, right? Is that if we're being pushed into a conflict by another country or we just have ego that's having us bomb an enemy country, and it's something that doesn't fulfill the objective, and our intelligence doesn't really validate it at all. And it looks like we didn't do anything anyway because we don't have people making good decisions. What it does is. Creates this morass, this. This inability to have a moral compass that puts you in the right direction. And what scares me as the United States is that we have this massive capability. But, Amy, if we misuse that capability, we lose the trust of our allies, but we lose our ability to shape the battle space, to have that moral voice at the same time. So, yeah, there's this personal part of me that loves an orange glow above Tehran at night. There's another part of me that just absolutely is horrified at that orange glow and what it signifies and why we did it. And I think that's the thing. It's. It is so easy. It is so easy for me to fall into, you know, what. I know what they did to our GIs, and. And I know what they did. Like I was there. And I think that's the thing that I've been fighting over, right? Is this. This anger at what I know they've done, and an anger at a. At an administration that's. That's misutilizing the very thing that makes us great, and it's this. I don't know. I mean, it's been difficult, right, as I'm. As I try to square all this.
- [12:05]
Amy McGrath
Well, anger is an interesting word. I. I've also felt very angry lately. One, because I. It's. It's very frustrating for me, as somebody who fought in two wars in the Middle east, to see a president just unilaterally attack another nation without any debate in Congress, any authorization used, and it's not to use military force. And it's not like we didn't know this was on the table, right? And so it's. I'm angry that it happened. I'm angry that Congress did nothing. But that. That aside, my worry And I want to be wrong here. Let me just, let me just restate. Yes, I want to be wrong in assessment. Okay, I want to be wrong. But the worry that I had when Donald Trump decided to bomb Fordo and the other Nantons and these other nuclear facilities was that everybody seemed to say, yeah, bomb them. It's going to destroy it. I'm telling you, I wasn't attack. I was in the F18. In the attack world. There's a lot of things that you can do with bombs, a lot. You can't do everything. And I was worried with my knowledge of how a nuclear weapon is made, with how nuclear programs evolve, that it wouldn't work, that we might get this chest thumping initially, but that it's not going to set back the program because it is not going to stop their capability to enrich uranium. It might halt it for a little while. Okay, but it's not going to stop it. And I'll go into why that is. But before I do, and I'll kick it back to you here, I would like to point out though that. Do you know. Because everybody's talking about, well, we want to set back Iran's nuclear centrifuge capabilities. So that's why we bombed. We want to destroy it. If you're JD Vance, completely obliterated. Okay, well now the US Assessment, the intelligence assessment is that we did set it back maybe two to three months H. Okay, do you know, Denver, what actually set back Iran's nuclear centrifuge capability for 10 years?
- [14:41]
Denver Riggleman
Verifiably.
- [14:43]
Amy McGrath
Verifiably. It's called the Iran deal. From 2015, it was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That whether you like them or not, Barack Obama, along with all of the members of the, the UN Security Council, to include China and Russia and Germany, all agreed to with Iran, that actually made them dismantle their program. And you might say, wall, how could, how could we trust them? Well, we didn't. We had what, an agency called the iaea, right. International Atomic Energy Agency come in and do inspections and that's how we could know how much, how high they enriched their uranium. That's how we could make sure that their centrifuge capability was dismantled. Okay. Because they took the parts away and all of that. Guess who threw all that away? Donald Trump.
- [15:46]
Denver Riggleman
Well, Trump did.
- [15:47]
Amy McGrath
Yeah.
- [15:47]
Denver Riggleman
And I was, you know, I was part of that. You know, if, you know, if you think, you know, the interesting thing, and that's why I said, you know, these are sometimes hard conversations, is I was absolutely against the jcpoa, especially with some of the clauses in there. And to this day, you know, I, I still think that I made the right move, you know, when it comes to jcpo. So it's, it's interesting, and I think that's what's so, so interesting about these discussions, Amy, is that we had two ways of how we thought we should engage Iran. And it comes from wanting to do what's right for the United States. It also comes from me knowing, right. And we had our own intelligence sources. And what I did, because Iran was such a big part of my life when I was doing the Counter IED cell, right, The Counter IED Operations Integration center, which, which is going after roadside bomb makers and looking at the resupply and sort of the way that they, you know, they misdirected on that, right. How difficult it was to track their intelligence. The fact that they wouldn't negotiate, they just wouldn't do anything like that, and nothing they said we could trust. And you start to make those decisions at a policy level, sometimes from a personal level, based on your own intelligence gathering or your own interactions in that space. And, you know, for the jcpoa, I believe firmly, and, you know, I got to see my own stuff, right? And classified stuff that they did and were still utilizing things that we didn't know about, which we're starting to see now. We don't know where all their facilities are based on, I would say, subterfuge, even during the jcpoa. It's, it's just so. It's just so incredible. And I think that's the great thing about if we had a working government is that if me and you were on the floor of Congress having this debate, it would be based on validated intel and then coming up with a solution that we thought was best for the American people based on policy, both from a disposition of care of service. And people can scream and yell and they can say, I'm a Republican or Democrat, but when you have real servants and people who care about this country, you could have a real debate on the JCPOA based on intelligence, based on policy, based on experts. Right. Amy, I would guess if, if you weren't in Congress, you would be an expert we would be talking to. If they were talking about Iran and Iraq and IEDs, I'd be the guy they'd bring in. If you were the one who was in Congress questioning me, yeah, I just think that's gone. And yeah, you know, in heist, I'm like, man, you know, if anybody says they ever regret something or they don't regret something, if they've served, they're full of shit. Right? Because you go back and you're like, man, I know there were some shady dealings going on on the backside, the JCPOA with Iran, but would we be here today? And then you start to second and then you're saying, well, yeah, we probably would because we know how they act. And then, so this is the, this is sort of the balance for me. And anyway, I was just validating, you know, what you're saying, you know, and, and I'm listening.
- [19:07]
Amy McGrath
The criticisms were real, you know, of the, of that deal, that it was time limited, all that stuff. The fact of the matter is, when Trump pulled out of it, okay, Iran, then all of the gloves were off, all of the restrictions were gone, no more inspectors. We had no idea what they were doing. We have no idea to this day how much, how highly enriched their uranium, what they've been doing for the last seven years. We don't know where it's stored, we know nothing. With the, the, with the Iran deal, we knew something. And so that was, that was my big thing. But I feel like what people may not fully understand is that you cannot bomb knowledge. The Iranians have this nuclear program. They've had it for a couple of decades now. They, they have the knowledge, they've wanted to get. They've, they've clearly not wanted to get a weapon itself because they haven't. They could have and they don't. What they wanted to do for the last 20 years was be on the verge of having a weapon. And in order to do that, they have to have a number of scientists and nuclear engineers and they have that. The other thing you need to do, so you have to have the knowledge, they've got that, you have to have material, you have to have the nuclear material. And that's where we care about centrifuges. That's where we care about, you know, uranium that is highly enriched, not only highly enriched, but enriched to a level called weapons grade. Once you have that material and you have the knowledge, it's not that hard to put together a rudimentary type of nuclear weapon. I mean, the nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima was a gun type weapon that had never been tested. It's not that difficult. And so my concern is that the third thing you need to have is intent and resolve. And I fear, as I've said before, that U.S. bombing Iran isn't really going to do much to, it might destroy their production facilities. But Denver, if they already have the highly enriched uranium, then the knowledge they're gonna, they're gonna build it and now they have the more intent to do so.
- [21:34]
Denver Riggleman
I think. Yes. And even now with our intelligence, I would highly. How much veracity, Amy, do I put into intelligence that says they didn't have a viable nuclear program anyway? If we're looking at, listen, nobody should trust Tulsi Gabbard, right? I mean, people know what I feel there. But if DNI professionals or people in the three letters or somebody, maybe somebody connected to the original nuclear program says they weren't down that road, do we believe it? And it's the same thing we had in the JCPA POA is that Iran's saying the same thing. But if I go back, I think it's that cascading effect of financial means that Iran had at that time for the Shia militia groups. And this is something I think that I think is almost a whole nother show for us, right, the SMGs and, and some of the decision making that goes into very complex and nuanced situations. But that being said, I think it validates, right, that we have to have a working intelligence community and that you saying you can't bomb knowledge is exactly correct. And if we look what's happening in Iran right now, who is there, Amy? The Russians helping with their nuclear program. You also can't bomb alliances. At some level. Sometimes you can, you can bomb the, out of somebody and they're like, I'm not going to play with that person anymore because this hurts, right? And we, and we can, we can exact that type of hurt. But Russia is not going to just let Iran go. That's, that's not just something that's going to happen. So I think when we're looking at this, I think Iran was always going to try to have a program. And I also think that as we, as we push forward and look at intelligence, Amy, my biggest fear, and I'd love to get your opinion on this, who do we trust? Because me and you know, we could trust us. I know if you're like, Dan, this is what I saw and classified. Here's what the summary is, here's the courses of action. I'll be like, amy, got it. This is your first, second, third course of action. You know what I'm talking about? And I know if you're like den. And if I said, amy, this is what I got. Here's my first, second and third koa, you'd be like, damn, Demer, that's on. Let's see what we can do to actually get through and see where we're at. Actually. What other, you know, what other gaps do we have in our requirements? What do we need to actually fulfill? Right. Our intelligence needs. Right. Our ins. Right. Do we have any joint ins? Do I need to go to my partner in the other service to see if he has an intelligence need or an RFI or an request for information or request for support that leads us down the way that we need to go in order to get that information to fulfill our courses of action? I don't know if that kind of thing, if that kind of process is happening in a great way because we have so many conflicting intelligence reports. And now we're hearing. Amy, now we're hearing that this has been maybe. And I got to go back all the way to the beginning to say that is the fear. Me, I love us talking about the jcpoa. I love that we have this knowledge. I love that me and you can go back and forth on this. What scares me is no matter how much me and you go back and forth on this, we. The reason we're here for people and you called me for this is how do we get to that point where we have somebody now in this current administration that we trust to give us the truth or the people the truth or the facts on the situation without crossing the barrier in the classified and going on to signal. Right. I mean, that's the thing that I'm fighting with every fiber of my being of what's happening right now.
- [25:12]
Amy McGrath
Well, there's a lot there. I think one of the questions that I've been thinking about more deeply recently is how does the world even trust the United States anymore?
- [25:24]
Denver Riggleman
I don't know.
- [25:24]
Amy McGrath
I mean, we have. We have a president that's tweeting out things that, I mean, are patently untrue. Tweeting out their entire program is obliterated. What anybody that knows anything about nuclear programs knows that that's just not true and gibberish. And I just. I worry about that. I also worry about the fact that, you know, when we talk about regime change, which has been, you know, I guess our president's for it and then he's against it, and then, you know, so who the heck knows where. Where the United States stands, but clearly Israel appears to want regime shames in Iran. I'm not sure that the United States should want that. Maybe we should, but I don't think that our objectives in this strike were for regime change. And so our objectives here are not Necessarily the same as the Israeli objectives. And I feel like we also have to have a conversation about that. I mean, regime change. Everybody thinks that if the Iranian regime collapses, that's a good thing. Okay, well, I was trained in the military and in the second half of my career to really think about some of the bad things that could happen, some of the things that you don't want to think about. Okay. And I also think about, you know, the fact that you could always have a regime that's worse.
- [26:57]
Denver Riggleman
You know, you never know. Right. And you know, you think about it, Amy, with 90 million plus people, what does the refugee status look like? What does that instability look like? You talk about a bomb that's an instability bomb, right, that we're planning there. And is it based on solid intel? Is it based on real solid practices and process practices to make sure we're doing the right things? It's based on the whim of a president who's tweeting out some of the most ridiculous things and says he wants the Nobel Peace Prize and has some bizarre staggered ceasefire that seems like it was written by a 9 year old from Dr. Seuss. Right. I get 12 hours every day. You get 12 hours, then you don't have to pay, you know, what the. What is that? Right? So, you know, that's the. By the way, I think I just pulled a Dr. Seuss and made a rhyme live. So I just want people to acknowledge that brilliance right now. But I mean, I think that's the thing again, Amy, is that, that's where we're going down. We're going down this sort of, of hell hole of those who don't make decisions based on fact, reality, they make their decisions based on fantasy, conspiracy theories.
- [27:59]
Amy McGrath
And anybody, anybody that says the Iran nuclear program has been obliterated, anybody, like when Pete Hagseth gets up there and says that, it just, it's just like people know that that's just not true. First of all, we don't have any idea where their highly enriched uranium is. We don't know. They could have been evacuated from those facilities that may not have even been in those facilities. Thanks to Donald Trump, no one's been in there for seven years. So we have no idea where any of this stuff is. We don't know how highly enriched it is. We don't know how much they have. And so if you don't know where the nuclear material is or even if it's destroyed, and it's probably not, then how, how can you say that the program is obliterated there's just no fact in that. And that, that's the concern is that we, we're throwing. Our government is throwing around a bunch of stuff right now that just isn't true. And, and it's scary when it comes to. I mean, I know that we, they do that all the time, but this, this stuff is really something we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be messing around with in terms of messaging.
- [29:21]
Denver Riggleman
It's like the chicken hawk from Foghorn Leghorn, you know, I'm gonna kick their ass. You know, he's like, come on, boy. You know, calm down, boy. You know, the little chicken hawk, you know, that would puff up the chest and thought he was, you know. It sort of reminds me of General Kellogg in the White House, who walked around like, there's a new feeling in the White House today because we have a president that's a badass. And it's like somebody to bar fight, right? Is like, oh, man, I just got beat up. Or, you know what, I just ran that guy out and the guy was already on his way out the door, right? He's like, I just beat that guy. I'm a badass. But literally nothing happened. I mean, you dropped bombs ordinance, put pilots in harm's way, put material at risk because you wanted to drop bombs to make you feel better. If that's what we're doing, we're going down a very slippery slope and a very bad path.
- [30:10]
Amy McGrath
Yeah, well, two things. One, it was interesting to me to listen to the actual military leaders, like, in uniform, and listen to their words, because they were different than the words of the political leadership in our country. Their words, like, if you listen to the military, it's more like, yeah, the bombs hit the target. You know, they did some real damage. I'm sure they did real damage. I was a fighter pilot. I can't imagine dropping a third. What is a 30,000 pound bomb. Holy shit. That's going to be.
- [30:42]
Denver Riggleman
I remember, I remember the first night of bombing. Oh, yeah, I was going to say, Amy.
- [30:48]
Amy McGrath
It destroyed what it was supposed to destroy because we didn't even know what was there.
- [30:53]
Denver Riggleman
Remember the first night of bombing in Afghanistan? We pretty much started off with a Daisy cutter, right? Was it a £10,000 of MOAB? But the daisy cutter was a £10,000 bomb, right, that was pushed off a C130. And I remember we had B1 footage, right? And that thing like a mushroom cloud, I mean, that's a conventional monster, right? It's incredible. Bombs do a lot of damage. I Mean, yeah, bombs do a lot of damage. And you know, and you know, with the B1s, I know F18 incredible aircraft. The B1s, you know, held 242000 pounders, right? JDAMs, joint direct attack Munitions. And I tell you what, you put a salvo of those off on a road with a proximity fuse that detonates feet above the ground, it's chaos, right? And you have penetrators, you have instantaneously fused B1, you know, JDAMs. And you know, I just remember seeing that on F16, you know, gun footage, or we would get some footage maybe, you know, from the, you know, Ford observers, as you know, and it was just incredible to see. And also a little bit like, I do not want to be those guys.
- [31:55]
Amy McGrath
You know, there's no question about the tactical success of this mission. The, our military is the best in the world. There's no question about this bravery, the courage, the professionalism, all of that stuff. Amazing kudos. Amazing. Tactical su. Success doesn't always mean strategic success. And, and the concern that I have is that I'm not sure that we, I worry about the longer term implications of Iran's retaliation against the United States in asymmetrical ways. Now you might say, well, they've always gone against the United States, they've always targeted us. Okay, I got that. Yes. In places like Iran, Iraq and in the region. I worry about them ramping it up because of this, of course, and soft targets around the world, embassies, tourists, those types of things. You know, I think back to 9 11, the 911 men who rammed the planes into the World Trade center. They were radicalized 10 years prior. They were radicalized during the Gulf War when they saw, when Osama bin Laden saw American troops in Saudi Arabia, in the Middle east, that's when he was radicalized. And it took them 10 years. And they were a non state actor. Now think of Iran now. Yes, they're, they're humbled, they're, they're not in a good place right now, no doubt, but they are a nation that is twice the size of Iraq. They are not going anywhere anytime soon. And I do worry about the repercussions for this, for a mission that in my belief, wasn't in the strategic interests of the United States and wasn't in the interest of the United States in terms of protecting our country. We were not at threat, we were not threatened that way.
- [33:59]
Denver Riggleman
Well, plus, we don't, plus we don't have the most competent Department of Homeland.
- [34:04]
Amy McGrath
Security right now, shall I say imminent Threat.
- [34:07]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah. Imminent. Yeah. But the incompetence that we have at Homeland Security should scare everybody. And with that, with that statement, let's do it. Let's get into questions to see if we got any questions to pop up for us tonight. I'm sure there's some on this conflict from people around the country. Let's see, Matula Mikos, which specifically made Trump pull out of the Iran treaty. Well, that's a great question, Amy. Do we know why Trump pulled out of the Iran treaty? Would you like to give me, give. Sure.
- [34:37]
Amy McGrath
I mean, look, I can, look, nobody knows what's in Trump's head, right? But no, it's difficult and we can, we can look at what they said officially. But my belief is that, you know, anything that was done by Obama, Trump wanted to undo. I don't think that this president really fully understands non proliferation agreements. I don't think he understands that stuff at all. This is a man who went into the White House not knowing what the nuclear triad was. Okay. This is a man who in his first term tweeted, my bomb's bigger than your bomb to Kim Jong Un. So he's not, you know, there's that. But why did he, what, what did the critics say about the JCPOA or the Iran deal is that a lot of critics said it, it's time limited. So at the end of 10 years, Iran's just going to start up their capability again. So you're easing the sanctions off of them, you're giving them their money back. Okay. Because that's, that's what got them to, that's what brought Iran to the table. It was sanctions. It wasn't just American sanctions. How much, how much trade do we do with Iran? Not much. You ain't going to Walmart and getting a whole lot of Iranian stuff. Okay, the what, the reason Iran came to the table, it was because it was a multinational sanction regime that the Obama administration put together. They brought China in on it, they brought Russia in on it, they brought all the other members of the, of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany to squeeze Iran economically enough to get them to come to the table. And Iran made some real concessions. And what were those concessions? They said for 10, 10 years, I think it was 10 to 15 years. They were going to, verifiably, the IAEA could come in and check that. They were going to dismantle their centrifuge. Centrifuges. So in order to, to, I know I'm talking a lot, but in order to highly enrich uranium to the point of weapons grade, you need lots and lots of centrifuges that allows you to do it quicker. So what Iran did was they took their centrifuges. I don't, I don't remember the exact percentage, but they took it down quite a bit. So instead of having, you know, a thousand, they went down to like 200 or something like that.
- [36:49]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah.
- [36:50]
Amy McGrath
So and then that, and what that does is it's, it's verifiable, it stops, it slows your ability to create the weapons grade uranium. Plus they allowed inspectors back in to be able to check. And that's really important. Was it perfect? Could they have had some clandestine operations somewhere? Possibly, but we have pretty good intelligence, you know.
- [37:17]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah. I mean at the time though, I mean, you know, I know people heard of Soleimani, we've been tracking them for so long, but we had seen such an increased movement of financial resources going to the Shia militia groups, especially through Iraq, based on the fact that with the jcpoa, they, they literally got richer and we saw much more state sponsored terrorism. They also had this little bit of a weird thing, it was time limited, which always irritated me, but it was also this, you know, this. We had to notify them for a spontaneous inspection. I mean that's takes away the whole word spontaneous. So when we started looking at the jcpoa, I'm like, well my goodness, if they can wiggle out of every single one of these. And we're looking at increased activity in Iraq with the SMGs, you know, especially under Suleimani. And I don't think people remember when we killed them. The guy with him was actually just as dangerous. He was the one who coordinated all the Iraqi SMGs for Soleimani. So there, that, that, I think that was, that was the stated policy reason. Some of the things why I would have done that. But you know, in hindsight I think Trump didn't think about any of that. I think you're right. I, it's almost like we're back to doing things based on the wrong reasons and how that ripple effect can be very damaging and it might look like the right reason to some people, like bombing Iran or getting rid of the jcpoa. But that ripple effect can really affect people. If it's not done for the right reasons, there's not right follow up with that. So we did see much increased activity with the SMGs and the things that were going on worldwide in global terrorism. We had a fear that that funding line would continue to increase And I think, you know, for me, right. Looking at that, that's why I was against the JCPOA or to get rid of it. But anyhow, I don't. Why did Trump do it though, Amy? I mean me and you probably formulated a million different things that did not go through Trump's mind when he made that decision. So I don't know exactly why he would have made that decision.
- [39:07]
Amy McGrath
Two things and then we can move on. It was never a perfect deal. You cannot get a perfect, you cannot get a perfect deal. This like you, anytime you're, you're working with another country, there's going to be like, they have to, they have a say in it too. So I think that's really important. The funding line piece is a very important criticism of the jcpoa. However, again, it's not a perfect deal. And you know, the goal was to stem their nuclear program. It was not to stem the funding line going to radical Islamists. And, and, and if you wanted that, maybe, maybe we should have, we should have a different deal. But guess what? The community, the world community didn't put the squeeze on Iran to get them to the table to stop the funding line going to Hezbollah. They said to stop them getting from a nuclear weapon. And so that was, that was really important. And then, you know, the second piece of this is what are, what were the consequences when Trump pulled out of that deal? This was a deal that the United States led, brokered, put together with our adversaries who also care about nuclear proliferation like Russia and China. And Donald Trump comes in, rips it all apart and then Iran is able to restart their nuclear program, kick out the inspectors, start up their centrifuges again, and we have no idea what they've been doing for the last seven years. And I, and that in my mind has led to these attacks recently.
- [40:55]
Denver Riggleman
I think when you talk about non perfect deals, I, as you know, I don't agree with all of that. Well stated. But I think it's when you're, when you're taking votes, if you're taking votes honestly, not when the whip tells you to vote. And trust me, we can have a discussion on that, right. Whip specific votes that you feel like you're going to get your head chopped off if you don't vote that way. Right. Are you going to get primaried when you're looking at the, the vote? It is both countries. It's if it's 5149 the other way or 5149 the other way. Right. That's the. You get to a point that you got to pull the lever and you got to put in and push the button. And, you know, it's depending on where you. What you think that country is going to do. And if you trust the agreement, I think that's what it comes down to when it gets to votes.
- [41:38]
Amy McGrath
Yeah. And who's going to trust the United States of America anymore? Now, we pull out of agreements. All right. You're pandering to our enemies, Rob says, making unrealistic excuses for them.
- [41:48]
Denver Riggleman
I don't know what that means. I mean, that's. Okay. So let's.
- [41:54]
Amy McGrath
I'm just living in the real world. I don't know.
- [41:57]
Denver Riggleman
Oh, no, no. I like these. I. Because I. I can translate this, so. I can translate this. So. Yeah. What it's talking about is that, you know, there's certain people who believe exactly what they're told based on whatever media channel they're in. And when you're talking about pandering to your enemies, what you're trying to do actually, especially if you're in the intelligence world, is you have to try to see through that lens or something called mirror imaging, which is one of the worst things you can do when you're doing intelligence analysis. When you're doing mirror imaging, you're actually applying your actual belief, values, processes, the way you raise your traditions to that other specific party. If you're doing that, if you're mirror imaging and you're not looking at what the enemy could do, what they're thinking, how they're actually reacting to you, it's very difficult to make smart, informed decisions on what your next move can make. Now, that could be a strategic move, it could be a business move, but we're going to be talking military here, because I think. I don't know, was that Rob or whatever his name was. I think he's talking about, you know, are we pandering to our enemies by saying, hey, we should be doing things for the right things based on a moral basis? It's funny when people actually say this, because they're talking to two people who serve their country in such a way as to be unassailable, not only with honorable discharges, but with the medals that are on my chest and the medals that are on Amy's chest also. We have the people who served with us who know that we would never pander to our enemies. We killed them, a lot of them. So that's one of the issues that you have sometimes, is you have people who want to scream into a popcorn box. Right? They, their medulla oblongata has been triggered by the MAGA whip that smacked them on the back of their head, and they want to spurt something out very quickly to try to say, hey, you're pandering to our enemies. How dare you do that? When they don't understand that the only way to make good, informed decisions is to actually identify what the target is. That's the only way you can do things. You know, two years ago, I would have tried to extend an olive branch, but I'm getting to the point, if people are still saying that after listening to what me and you said, after going back and forth about the jcpoa, about our belief systems, about how we don't like Iran, but we have to do things for the right reason, people who've actually been to war, that's when I start to get a little bit frustrated, because the question should have been, are you giving too much credit to Iran? The question should have been, are you saying you're against bombing Iran completely? There's other questions you can ask where you're actually doing it in a respectful manner instead of, you know, screaming into the void to try to prove some kind of point that actually doesn't hit anything. And it's the same way if I were talking to him right now, one to one, man to man, sitting there over a bourbon, which I can simply do, and I would say, what did I say that thought I was pandering to my enemies? Or are you just listening to somebody saying, we must be two Democrats, regardless of where we've come from, because we're not 100% aligned with Trump? That's where the question comes from. It comes from tribalism when it's asked in that way. Nobody's pandering to enemies here. You have people that, you know, that's, that's really. I hope that was a pretty good translation for everybody.
- [44:55]
Amy McGrath
No, and I, I think there's probably a lot of people that, that, that are out there. They're like, oh, you know, Amigrath or Denver Rigaman. They're just against what Trump wants. They're just, you know, and that's. That's actually not true. I want to have an informed discussion about our national security and whether we need to get into another war in the Middle east, which we've both been a part of. Iraq, where. I fought in Iraq. Right. In Afghanistan twice. And we went to war in Iraq under a lie. Under a lie. Okay? And. And I don't even think that's even Debated anymore. We, we're like, nope, we just did it. We, we know that the intelligence was, was that the intelligence was, was cherry picked by our government. And in order to convince the American public. And if you weren't for that war, you saw the same types of rhetoric. You're pandering towards Saddam Hussein, you're pandering to our enemies. I mean, it's the same thing. So let's just take a step back and recognize that people are going to have differences of opinion. But we're not traitors. We're not, you know, lovers of, you know, I don't know, Vladimir Putin or any of these, or the sheiks, you know, or the Ayatollah. Because we think that what the decision that was made by Donald Trump to bomb Iran was a not so good one. It doesn't mean that we love the Ayatollah or we're pandering to them. That's all.
- [46:39]
Denver Riggleman
Well, I could flip it, right? I could say, well, President Trump's asking for a ceasefire right now. We didn't destroy their nuclear facilities. Why is he pandering to our enemies? Why is he pandering to Russia? Why isn't he arming Ukraine? My first question that people ask me, why are you paying the enemy? Is why are you pandering to the enemy? So do you support Ukraine or not? Do you want to get completely rid of the Iranian nuclear weapons or not? Why do we need a ceasefire now? Now the intelligence says that is he going to bomb again? If he's not, isn't he pandering to our enemies? So the thing is, is we can do the, I can do the exact same thing in a way that's actually really awful, right? It is the million pound shithammer. Because now you're talking to an expert, now you're talking to somebody who's been in Congress, somebody who did military planning, somebody's been in six major operations. That's when shit happens, right? So anyhow, I think we should get to the next question and I'm wondering.
- [47:26]
Amy McGrath
Before I have another, if there's anybody out there that, that wants to focus on what's the possible, you know, what's possible right now? What, what, what gives people hope right now, too. But I'm, I'm the, I shouldn't be the one asking.
- [47:39]
Denver Riggleman
Thanks for the question. Thanks for the question.
- [47:41]
Amy McGrath
That's, that's Amy from California.
- [47:43]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah. Yes.
- [47:45]
Amy McGrath
All right, here we got Chris says question, will Iran be willing to agree again to an agreement similar to the JCPOA after Our attack. Good question. I think best case scenario that the Iranians are so decimated militarily, they're really on their heels, that there could be an opening for them to agree to a deal with some verifiable concessions. And that's the most important word in there, Chris, is that verifiable? We got to be able to get people in the IAEA in to see and verify or else it just doesn't make sense. No agreement matters. I think that's best case. I also don't think that's the most likely case.
- [48:46]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, also I think there's another. Sorry, I think there's another. What is it? Another fly in the ointment. I don't even know what a cliche that is, but Russia just signed a 20 year strategic agreement, you know, with Iran in January 25th. So only five short months ago, six short months ago. And I think that's the fly in the ointment is any agreement we do with Iran, Russia would be involved. And I think that's what's so interesting about that question to me, Amy, is that we have a different dynamic with alliances in the region in a way that we didn't really have in 2015. So I just think it'd be interesting what Russia would say after their strategic agreement that they have with Iran with Russians there now helping with their nuclear capabilities.
- [49:30]
Amy McGrath
Yeah. All right. Crafty Carry in Virginia says that's awesome. Crafty Carry, what is your opinion of Iranian sleeper cells in the U.S. denver, over to you.
- [49:46]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, there's. There's the possible and the probable. Right, the one thing. And listen, just, we just had the question about, you know, pandering to enemies and here's, you know, I think he forgot that me and you were arguing on the jcpoa, which is interesting, isn't it, Amy? Here's the other thing, too. The one thing. You know, I'm a big legal immigration guy. As people know in rural districts, if you have a real representative, they're going to be pushing for immigration, especially H2, as H2 to be's. I know that's a whole. Another thing. I don't even want to. That's an hour of explanation and all the different immigration laws, especially for different types of workers and things like that. I've always worried about a porous border. I've always worried that there's going to be people streaming over it at some point or a few that could do us harm. However, you know, we, I think we've arrested 11 Iranian nationals already. I don't think there's a massive Iranian sleeper cell threat. I think it's possible, not probable. And it's something that I use a lot of times in the intelligence world. It is always possible you're going to have something like this, an Iranian sleeper cell that's ready to actually activate. Most of the time, somebody goes, oh, it's an Iranian sleeper cell. You know, it's one crazy guy in a basement who's been, you know, preparing, being a prepper and thinking that the end is coming or some kind of crazy nut or somebody who's mentally unhinged or unstable that's going to do it. You always want to look at that radicalization path, sleeper cells. You know, we can go back to 9, 11. We can say were those sleeper cells? Technically, yeah, we can call them sleeper cells. There's the last time we really had to deal with it. I think right now, I think we're not at a huge percentage. Something to look at, but I just don't think it's our. It's our primary threat.
- [51:25]
Amy McGrath
Yeah, I mean, I think it's much more likely the threat is going to be to Americans overseas, American interests in the region.
- [51:34]
Denver Riggleman
That is the threat. That is the threat. Yes, ma' am.
- [51:39]
Amy McGrath
All right, well, Denver, I gotta put my glasses on. Can you read that?
- [51:44]
Denver Riggleman
No, I got it. Yeah. Now that Trump dropped bombs. Thank you, Diana. Now that Trump dropped bombs and Iran is being backed, allegedly by Russia, China, North Korea, and we are losing allies with the US Being in NATO be the only deterrent to attacks in country. That's good. No, I think. I think right now, when we're looking at NATO specifically NATO and Article 5 would have to respond to something that happened to us. So it's going to be. NATO is really not a huge deterrent right now. I think when it comes to the US specifically, if that's what you're talking about, and I'm trying to. To parse the second portion of this, by the way, where we are not really losing allies. They just don't trust us as much. I think. I think right now with China and North Korea, we still have the same threat set. I think you still have the countries that surround us still look at China, North Korea and Russia as our enemies. Right. And if you look at it, it's rank, right? It's Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. And that's how you want to remember it. RINC rank. So when you're looking at the ranked countries right now, I don't really think we're losing allies. If Russia or to attack a NATO country. I think we would invoke Article 5. I don't see us losing allies in a way right now based on what we did to Iran. Even the EU came out and said this wasn't a really bad deal. Some people are against it, some are for it. I think there's enough people in the EU and NATO who are like, good, we finally bombed Iran, and if it was the wrong reason, you know. And so I think, and I hate to say it that way, but that's sort of what it looks like. I don't think we have to worry too much about allies turning on us during this, I would say, brouhaha with Iran.
- [53:27]
Amy McGrath
I agree. I think the bigger concern longer term is do our allies trust us? And I think that, you know, Denver and I, we did a whole show on the proliferation of nuclear weapons because essentially, because our allies and partners really trust our leader anymore, can't really trust our leader to have their back. So that's why you see the majority of population of South Korea believing that they need a nuclear weapon. Countries like Poland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany, all looking for ways to potentially get a weapon or some kind of security guarantee because they cannot trust the United States. I think that's a. That's what I would.
- [54:19]
Denver Riggleman
It's a real issue. It's a can of worms.
- [54:22]
Amy McGrath
Hey, Amy and Chuck from Sue.
- [54:26]
Denver Riggleman
Am I Chuck?
- [54:27]
Amy McGrath
You are Chuck.
- [54:28]
Denver Riggleman
Am I Chuck now?
- [54:29]
Amy McGrath
You're Chucky.
- [54:30]
Denver Riggleman
I'm like, Chuck Denver. I'm like, not even prime.
- [54:33]
Amy McGrath
I've been called worse. I. I've been listening to you guys and trying to figure out how Trump's brain works. Well, good luck with that. He is not capable.
- [54:42]
Denver Riggleman
I bet she meant to say chunk. I'm sorry. I bet it's chunky. It's Amy and Sean. Sue. I got it.
- [54:46]
Amy McGrath
Not capable of coming up with all the stuff he does. A lot of this is in Project 2025. I think people should read David Graham's book, the project that talks about in detail what Project 2025 actually says is a true insight into the Republican mindset and what individuals in his administration actually believe or have been told to believe. Quite frankly, Project 2025 wants to take the. And then I can't go on because it. It doesn't go on.
- [55:15]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, it wants to take the stuffing out of freedom. I was just going to finish that sentence. I have no idea. I just made that up. But I just made up the end of that sentence. Amy, do you want to give it a shot? Because I can.
- [55:28]
Amy McGrath
I I don't know if I don't think Donald Trump has read Project 2025, just like I don't think Donald Trump has read the Bible. I mean, I don't think he. He. He doesn't do that. And that this is the concern, I think, with, broadly speaking, with foreign policy, is that I don't think there's a guiding strategic path for our country. It's all a bunch of bullshit slogans like peace through strength and all. Like, I actually like that slogan. But it's bullshit when you, when you, you say that and then you appease Vladimir Putin, you know, and you don't help our partners in Ukraine. I don't think Donald Trump has that. He's kind of like the dog that keeps sniffing things and going from one to the other and not really able to focus on. I know it's probably going to get me in trouble, but not able to.
- [56:22]
Denver Riggleman
No, no, no. Putin loves it.
- [56:25]
Amy McGrath
On what the task is. And so Project 2025 is, I think, a way for his enablers to enact their agenda. And without him really caring that much.
- [56:38]
Denver Riggleman
That's just my. No. Project 2025 is a religious document made by religious zealots. And by the way, I know, because I spent some quality time in the Freedom Caucus, I don't even need Project 2025 to know the conspiratorial thinking and the weirdness that sort of blooms from that. And obviously, I have Project 2025. I know, I'm a nerd. Reddit. Yeah. You know, so what you have is the same policy, I would say, prescriptions that they've had for a long time. Right. And it's cutting massive spending. Right. It's making this into more of a Christian nationalist state. I mean, that's it. Cut as much spending as possible. Be a little bit isolationist. Don't go to war. Undermine the government. Yep. Make sure homeschooling is number one. Right. Yeah. Destroy public institutions. Right. It's almost like libertarian, you know, for the, you know, Christian side. But everybody else, you're going to do what we want you to do. And it's sort of sad, right, because I don't think a majority of Christians are like that at all. But there's definitely a Christian nationalist waving banner in Project 2025. But the reason I could translate that first question is because of my extensive experience dealing with the far right, ma' am. So that's really what it comes down to. And I think. Did we have any more questions or. You know, I always wait for our incredible oh, we do. Oh, gosh.
- [57:59]
Amy McGrath
Let's see how much way over Iran this is from Tim. How much sway over Iran do you think Russia and China have? That's a good question. I, I think there's clearly. There's clearly a connection. They, they, as you mentioned, Denver, they've, you know, at least with Russia, they've signed a, an agreement. I think there's definitely a connection. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, they're all giving each other weapons and ammunition and things like that are going back and forth. Drones, for example. But I don't, I don't think there's. I think Iran still is. Is sort of in control. I don't think there's anybody that's controlling their government other than themselves.
- [58:47]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, I, Yeah, I think, you know, the thing with Russia specifically, I was. And the reason that I like this question, Tim, is because now I can actually pontificate a little bit, Amy and Tim, on the Ukraine, China, Russia connection, and drone wars. So how much sway, if you look at the shahed drones, that Iran not only helped Russia supplied Russia when Russia was short, but also it's their design, the shahed drones really put the fear of God into the Ukrainians. Right. I was at a shahed drone strike in Odessa while I was there. If, Amy, if you remember that, right. I had just. When we did live from Ukraine, I was there, and I got to go talk to the incredible people, took pictures with them, interviewed them. They had piled the shahed drone parts into a hole next to three or four destroyed vehicles, scorched earth. And by the way, if it had hit 10 yards left or right, it would have hit apartment buildings and killed people. Right. And so it was just an incredible thing to see, just a surreal moment for me to be part of the drone attack and to be able to go around the city of Odessa and look at where this happened. So when you're talking about Russia and Iran, they're very close, based on resupply and learning about drone warfare. Ukraine is very dynamic in drone warfare. So part of that strategic cooperation for Russia and Iran is just not nuclear, but it's armed its weapons. You're like, well done. Great. You mentioned Russia and Iran. They're very close. Strategic cooperation, strategic treaty. Russia wants to be a real big part of Iran. You have oil issues and refineries. Russia and Iran want to be very close. But who wins in all this? It's China. Because when you're looking at the amount of drones outside of shaheds, there's mostly Chinese drone and drone parts that are being utilized in this Russia, Ukraine, drone war. So you have these three countries sort of doing this dance. There's one country I've left out who's not in this drone war dance. And using this Dynamically, it's the U.S. my biggest fear right as we go into this new way of warfare, is that Russia and Iran's relationship with China could really bloom into something that's pretty incredible as far as alliances, but also in learning how to apply drone warfare on a battlefield the likes that we've never seen before. So I know we talked a little bit about this strategically, but the Russia, Iran, China connection, especially with technology transfer, I think is going to be, is absolutely something we need to worry about. But the one who wins on all this is China. So, you know, that's true.
- [61:10]
Amy McGrath
And I'm not sure that any of them have a super amount of sway over each other. But I will ask you this based off of Tim's question before we conclude here, Denver, how much sway do you think Israel has over the United States? Or actually the other way around, how much sway do you think the United States and Donald Trump has over Israel right now?
- [61:31]
Denver Riggleman
I think right now Israel is dictating more of our foreign policy position than we're dictating to them. And I would say that Israel has more sway over us than Russia has over Iran at this point. And I'm not saying that is a bad or a good thing. Not even.
- [61:44]
Amy McGrath
It just is what it is.
- [61:45]
Denver Riggleman
It just is what it is. That's just, this is how it is. I mean, Iran also does have a very close relationship with China. So there's, there, there are some competing things there, you know, that are going on, but not, I'm not saying that in a bad way, a good way. I'm just saying it's, it's, it seems that way based on how our foreign policy is going and, you know, one way or the other, to me, that.
- [62:04]
Amy McGrath
Donald Trump in the United States don't have a whole lot of sway over Israel at all. I mean, Donald Trump said to Israel, please don't, please don't attack. And what did, what did Israel do? It attacked. Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire and says, please don't, don't retaliate, you know, go along with my ceasefire. And what does Israel do? They don't. So, I mean, I, I feel like there's a pattern here. And I, I don't know. It's just, it's not where I thought we were with Israel a year ago. I don't think that we have a whole lot of sway anymore, but again.
- [62:39]
Denver Riggleman
Yeah, I mean, disagree on that. Yeah, I think it's just, you know, when you lack talent, sometimes you make decisions out of your rear parts. But that being said, I want to thank everybody for their questions. It's been an incredible evening. And Amy, thank you for, I know travel's rough and for you to do that there. You know, everything that you have going on with your board meetings, you're amazing. To just be able to, bam, you're ready and rocking and rolling. By the way, you got to subscribe. We have other shows. Guys, our podcast is amazing. We got so much good stuff, don't we?
- [63:12]
Amy McGrath
We just had an amazing show that came out, I think today or this morning where we talked about presidential corruption with a historian and putting that all in context. That was amazing. This week, Denver, you're gonna have. You're gonna do unfiltered, I think, with a guest host today because I'm. Or this week because I'm on travel. That's gonna be amazing.
- [63:35]
Denver Riggleman
So, you know, it's great. And guys, again, if you're not downloading our pod subscribing, listen, what's great about this show and I want to tell everybody is we're leaving. Amy and I don't always agree what you guys saw today. We don't always have to agree to be great Americans. Right. And to respect each other's opinions. And I think that's where we need to be and I think that's why this show is important. And Amy, thanks for doing it with me.
- [64:02]
Amy McGrath
Cheers, Denver.
- [64:03]
Denver Riggleman
Cheers.
- [64:04]
Amy McGrath
Cheers to everybody out there. I've got my bottle of water. You've got to get stuff.
- [64:08]
Denver Riggleman
Christine, reserve and.
- [64:12]
Unknown
All right.
- [64:13]
Denver Riggleman
Good water. Thanks, everybody. See you next time.
- [64:21]
Unknown
Today we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible, overcoming high interest credit card debt. It requires merely one thing. A SOFI personal loan. With it, you could save big on interest charges by consulting, consolidating into one low fixed rate monthly payment. Defy high interest debt with a SOFI personal loan. Visit sofi.com stuck to learn more. Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA member FDIC terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891 Marketing is hard, but I'll.
- [64:53]
Tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to Libsyn ads.com that's L I B S Y N ads.com today.