You want a more balanced perspective? I want to give you a more balanced perspective. They don't show up. They don't show up though. For the love of God, anybody who is brave enough, throw your hat in the ring.

To that woman from uh The Biggest Loser, go f yourself. Go take your maha and shove it up your ass.

There are so many differences that it's staggering. We had boots on the ground in Iraq and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Here we don't have boots on on the ground and there's 60% enriched uranium and they're funding terror proxies. Night meet day.

All right guys, you've been asking me to provide more diverse perspectives on the show. And I've also wanted to provide you with that. So I put out a public call for guests with different viewpoints. Well, the guy who answered that call is Sam Cedar, host of the Majority Report. Now, I can't exactly say that we found a ton of common ground in this conversation, but we definitely brought the heat. Get ready because there are a ton of fireworks in this one. Here we go.

Keeping it real with Jillian Michaels.

Sam Cedar, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for coming first of all.

Thanks for having me.

Yeah. So this all came about because I asked for people with oppositional views, opposing views to come on and talk with me and talk with the audience. My audience actually has requested consistently to get a more diverse perspective. And I have said that it's not so easy because not a lot of people will show up for it even when I'm totally neutral on the position. So in the video I talked about wanting somebody to come on from pro-life, pro-choice. I see both sides of it. wanting a doctor who's antivax and provax. A host of different individuals have asked them to come on and been unsuccessful largely. I also did ask for for when people uh when they sling poratives and adom attacks to say it to my face and you were kind enough to step up for that. You're you are the first.

So sought number three. Guys, I wanted to litigate some of this stuff first. Oh, well, I should say I should just say that that was not uh what I was responding to was your um your uh uh video where you said that nobody would show up. I was actually interested in revisiting our exchange on Piers Morgan from a year ago.

Promise you we will. That's why I'd like I'd like some of your time.

Okay. Saut three

to that woman from The Biggest Loser. Go f yourself. Go take your maha and shove it up your ass. Go f yourself.

She now has a YouTube uh influencer channel.

Even bigger loser.

Everybody knows I like to keep it real. That's perfect show for me to go on.

Is this a meeting of the gay straight alliance?

Gay. They're both gay.

Snake oil. That's snake oil salesman talking about politics.

Totally. I read

I'm sure she read that book

two weeks ago.

Do they have pictures? Here's someone who quit her show because of criticism of Israel was happening.

Talk to me about Islam. Tell me where we're getting.

Please come on my show and justify why Muslims aren't bad.

Wrote it uh 3 hours ago.

Nothing. Have we heard back anything?

Nothing yet.

Oh my god.

She's a fool.

Her role in media is to defend Israel. I think she's a a turf, right? So she doesn't like trans people and thinks it takes away from feminism and then is also a maha person.

They want to get rid of free lunches in in in schools

both here and in Africa which I know I care about both. She cares about neither but is pretending about to care about the kids in America.

Okay. Well, so first let me address the fact that I'm sorry I did not get back to you within three hours.

Great producers.

I I Well, you gave us a lot to work with, Sam. Um, having said that, I again, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you within three hours. A man of your stature. I apologize, but your followers spammed the email I put out. Sod number two.

Not sure how to reach you, but if you're so inclined, uh, have someone from your office email our podcast line and then she puts her email there. If you guys, you know, want to send her an email, now you know what her address is. So, go wild with that [ __ ] And they did graphic number one.

You, you know, hold on for one second. You know that th those guys are on a a completely different podcast. And I

I totally get it. But it seems like they they're your followers, though. They they like you quite a bit along with like I didn't even know Hassan [ __ ] calls you Uncle

They They do a show about uh about beefs, but I think

I guess so. So then we get Okay, so graphic number one. So, we got We did in fact get those emails and it made it very difficult to find yours. Uh, lol. I think they left off the last O. You're such a fake [ __ ] excuse of a human being. I hope Cedar guts your duck ass. And how are you too poor to host this email address on your own website when you've been nothing but a grifter your entire professional career? I'll listen off air. Thanks. I don't really know what that part means.

Is that my dad?

It's one of your fans. Then there's I heard the progressive host of the majority report Sam Cedar uh Sam keeping it real Cedar would be happy to debunk all of your nonsense. Die slow [ __ ] So it does seem that the apple does not fall from the trees.

Well, I'm not sure if Oh, you're you're joking.

Thank you for being here. Uh I I think I would honestly say to you off the top given all that

are you gay?

Well, I mean I don't know. How do you feel about it? I've watched you make fun of gay people now, including Benny Johnson and Steven Crowder, which is weird because you

Benny Johnson is not gay.

Benny Johnson was uh was was uh uh slamming trans people.

Is he not gay?

He's not gay.

He's not.

He's not. Yeah.

Seriously?

Yeah. It was a little It's a little confusing. No, but you but you've insulted him utilizing that context, which is so weird. Like why

What do you mean?

Okay.

Oh, you mean like I said, he's closing.

Oh, he's gay. But like like

I don't think I have I'll clip it. He's gay. Like

you did. I'll clip it. And you did it to Crowder as well. But

I I do I do I do think well I I mean I think it's pretty well documented that Benny Johnson is uh I mean certainly not I'm not the only person to to bring that up at all. A lot of uh right-wingers have been more explicit about it than I have.

Crowder. Yes, I do think that Crowder is suppressing also

some things and his white ex-wife sort of like

hinted around it, but I'm just asking because somebody uh wrote that to you in the the thing and I wasn't aware that you were gay if you are.

I am. You are gay. You talked about it in the thing. You've talked about it numerous times actually.

You're gay.

You've talked about it numerous times on your show, Sam. I I I mean honestly and there are many things that you get

I was surprised there was that many clips that we talked about you over the past year but I think let me just say the first one the first one

where I was telling you to f off

we're going to get there

was was a response well I mean you you put you montage I promise you we are going to get there

I should just say within some proximity of that video that specifically was when the first report of the uh tens of thousands thousands now hundreds of thousands of children but also adults who have died as a result of USA

ID you want to talk about that study we can start there you're wrong

oh I'm happy to start there but we should play the clip of when you were on

I promise you we are going to I do that

I I want to litigate some of the other stuff you said first though if it's okay

is this really going to be just about like your your feelings are hurt No, it's it's proving a pattern that you either you either don't fact check your information, you mischaracterize things, you lie by omission, and I can give you so many different examples. It's staggering. Sought nine. Everybody

not. You've seen Iranian people in the streets here telling everybody, listen to what we are saying to you. Mom Donnie sounds like the Ayatollah.

Wait a second. WAIT A SECOND. WAIT A SECOND. There are Iranian people in the US in the streets of the US

saying that Manny sounds like the Ayatollah.

I'm assuming in 1979 like they're saying like leading up to the revolution,

I guess.

But no, uh the the Ayatollah was in exile in Paris, I believe, when the revolution hit. I mean the the people that have a lot of credibility right now is the uh conservative Iranian diaspora. Yeah. Let's see what they have to say.

And I would like for some specifics about what Manny has said that makes him sound like the Ayatollah.

A lot of people picked their Manni 47 years ago in Iran which was at that time. If you watch the the if you just listen to what Mandani said in New York, it's verbatim what Humeni said. 47 years ago in the Islamist lefty committee at that time and people got fooled because it was at the end of 70s and they just wanted to be hippies and free and that's how it looked like at that time for Iran. So they picked their humeni that was supposed to just come and help people

have free everything and give the oil money.

How could you say no to how could you say no to free everything

is free all of that and you watch watch what he says. You listen to Mani

find Iranian people on social media telling us over and over and over again that the way Mamani speaks in New York City is exactly the way the Ayatollah was speaking in Iran word for word verbatim.

So this is the promises Kummeni made back in 1979 pre 1979. Look at this. He has promised free water, free electricity, and free buses. Now, does that sound familiar?

That's why you see the Persians, especially the Persian Jews, being so loud in America right now, cuz we lived this. It wasn't necessarily our parents or our grandparents or our great grandparents with the Holocaust. This was us. Like, I lived that. My parents lived that. We escaped that.

So, what is the red? Who's red and who's green? So basically, it's the Islamists joining hands with the communists.

There are numerous clips like this, Sam. And it's okay if you don't agree. It's okay if you want.

What was the name of that first woman on the street?

I don't know. An Iranian protester in the street. One of many. I can give you many different sites if you like. I can pull up different posts that have names on.

What is the What is the argument that um here's the argument?

I mean, offering free buses is like the Atolla. You're you're more than welcome, by the way, to to have that argument with me. But the fact is,

let's not talk about have let's have that argument. Explain to me.

Here's their argument.

What communist what communist uh things that uh Mamani has has has uh um

graphic number three, guys. These are the parallels.

No, no, wait, wait, wait. Let's just just

But you're asking the parallels. I'm telling you what they're citing.

Commun what communist policies has Manny um proposed? This is what they are citing Sam. What they are saying is that the parallels

what Islamist policies

answer he's a he's a Muslim correct he's a is he a Muslim he is a Muslim correct

and this is you're saying I'd like to know what they're comparing. I'm telling you guys,

no, I'm asking you right now. What communist? Let's let's argue the validity of these points. Those people having you come on to talk about that. But what's not okay is you calling me an idiot saying it didn't happen. It did happen. And all you have to do is Google.

Judgement is still reserved.

Yes, you can find a random person on the screen.

Sam, I showed you numerous clips. Graphic two, graphic four, graphic three. Give me any one of these. There is. So, but you're avoiding the actual question.

I'm not avoiding the question, Sam. If we were going,

there is no doubt the Iranian diaspora. They also told us that the Iranian government would fall. They also encouraged a war uh uh attacking Iran. Not all of the diaspora, but certainly large elements of it. So, their credibility, let's talk about the actual that you're out there saying that that I'll give you an example of something that is a communist. Here's something that concerns me.

Give me one example.

I'll give you an example. Here's a perfect example. Okay, there's a video and I I can drop it in. I can send it to you. Uh of Donnie at a mosque seeming perfectly lovely ringing in the new year at a mosque for the first time. He gets off stage and they swiftly call for death to the infidels. That freaks me out. Sam,

we pray daily for your success in this journey, inshallah.

Thank you. Like, I'm sorry. Who Who does

the the exact imam? He gets off stage and the guy immediately says a prayer that calls for death to the infidels by the sword. That freaks me out, Sam.

So that's your evidence that Manni is an Islam.

Sam,

this is like hearkens back to when Barack Obama was a member of the weather underground because of billys or because he's a Muslim

his reverend.

Okay. He's sworn in on the Quran. He's a self-proclaimed Muslim, which is totally fine, but he has some radical.

Are you aware of what's in the Old Testament in the Torah?

Uh Sam, I've actually had scholars on to compare both texts. And if we talk about a religious war on a jihad, it's confined in the Old Testament to the Canaanites. And that's because they were sacrificing babies. So it's not an ongoing holy war or jihad. And I'm not saying that that's what mom Donnie is recommending.

Oh, you're not.

Sam, you blatantly got caught in a lie just now. And there are so many other

lie that I got caught.

Well, you claimed I was an idiot and it wasn't happening. But it is happening.

I think we haven't resolved that yet. All right. Well, how about this one? How about this one that I There's so many of these, bud. Buckle up.

So, saw number five is Anna Casparian. We're going to pull that up in a second. And Amy claiming you stormed off her your show with her.

I am. I am because here's your claim, right? Your claim is

that I get paid to defend Israel. I'm more than happy to give you the exact same offer that PBD gave Tucker. We can h we can hire independent accountants. they can go through our finances. It's never happened. I have no problem doing that if you want to take me up on it at any point.

I don't know if we literally meant that you actually get paid from the Israeli government, but I think clearly like you have an audience where you need to uh suggest that how many people have from the other radical Islamist

um and you're really promoting the Israeli line dramatically and that's your business.

I've had Dave Smith on twice. James James Lee and I have spoken twice.

I don't know who that is, but that's great.

He's very pro Palestine. We had a full episode with Crystal Ball coming out on her take. I'm the one who got Anna Casperian that job on her take. And the issue was not about Israel versus Palestine. And in fact, I've had Jen Uger on to talk to me about it as well. And I can even drop a clip in here where we're on peers and I'm saying I've learned a lot from you on this subject matter. Having said that, the debate on her take was not me being uncomfortable debating because there was no debate because they both agreed with me.

Laterally across the board now we've got multiple accusations that all pile up to the same exact I think it's the fairies. It's the fairies. I think it's the fairies a lot of people

I don't know and I don't look for those who are zero evidence to suggest nuns. Can we stop for a second? were ridiculous. Like this whole thing is ridiculous. There are two things being conflated right now. There are conspiracy theorists who think Israel killed Charlie Kirk. They have yet to provide a shred of evidence proving that. Done. End of story. Talking about I am talking about something entirely. Hold on. Let me finish my [ __ ] thought.

Okay. The real issue here is that before most people even knew that Charlie Kirk was dead. Honestly, do I have to sit down? Here's the thing. This is honestly I honestly this is a huge waste of my time. I'm willing to talk to you about issues. If this is going to be about you crying because we have been mean to you. I'm very very sorry and I apologize and I'll go. But if we're going to talk about issues, let's talk about it. I don't care. I'm willing to stipulate.

All right. Let's do another lie that's person mean to you and all of that. All right. Let's do one in the wheelhouse. Now, let's talk about issues,

shall we? Let's Can we do the trans kids because you you have a crazy lie about that one?

Let's start with what you suggested to my producer Sam want to talk about. Let's talk about the only thing that I actually care about and discuss. I went over all this with your producer.

You're whining and crying about how you want to you and how we called you a name and this and that. I'm very sorry about that. I accept all I'm going to bust you in so many lies. Okay,

there you go.

Here we go. Let's talk issues number seven. Let's do saw number seven.

I'd also say that organicy um type of thing that she represents would be catastrophic. Um there's an article in foreign policy magazine 2022 in Sri Lanka organic farming went catastrophically wrong. Nationwide experiment is abandoned after producing only misery. Basically they tried to go pesticidefree and it caused food shortages. Uh so these people have no real solutions other than they uh have a perverse in incentive in that when people are sicker they so and aren't uh covered by public health they turn to quacks like them. Yep.

Yep. Okay. So that is that's exactly what we're talking about. That was in relation to US aid. Did you read the article?

Did I read the article?

Mhm. You said yep. So did you read it because it doesn't support

I don't even know what you're talking about. Honestly was talking there. I don't know what you're talking about.

You said yep. Are you not

okay?

I said yep just now.

It in the clip when he read it.

What?

This this a day. I don't know when that clip was from.

Well, don't you think you should be responsible?

I said yep.

Okay.

What is the I don't even know what

this ties back to this.

This play it or show. I'm here to have an adult conversation. You're not just talking about I'm going to bust you in line. believed you are after lie after lie.

That's great. So in the article what

there is no let's let's start at the beginning. That's

we were on Piers Morgan.

You said to me

that when I brought up that there were going to be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands not millions of people over the course of the next decade who are going to die because of cuts in USA ID. Your words to me were quote and I'm sure you have it sought whatever number it is.

I do.

Your words that's a red herring

and then you said to me read a book

and and if you have name you know what I was talking about.

Do you remember what book it was?

Save Three Lives by Rodeale.

Yes, I did read that book.

Did you? Then you should

I bought that book. I have it right here.

Um, it was an okay book. But it should a lot of stuff in there which I agree on going Sam that book was written. Not only do I know when it's written, it actually started in the

50s 91.

Sam, can I explain to you?

And that was 35 years ago.

And so I read the book. It mentions US ID once on page 65

where Rodell actually speaks sort of positively of the US aid uh representative at a conference who is discussing discussing the the

what does a run through? What does the run through? supplies needed to grow food in Africa was actually more expensive

than the actual food in of itself.

Um, yes. And so

you got it. everything that was in this book and everything that you complained about saying that USAD was just a front for corporations to go in and destroy uh the food supply in these countries by forcing and and and much of what has been written here. I've interviewed countless peoples on this topic

later than 1991 where this dynamic continued.

It got worse.

All those operations that you supposedly had a problem with with USAD have been moved over to the USDA. I'm well aware

all of that stuff is still happening but what is not happening that's my point

people are not getting people are not getting um uh they're not getting like uh TB fighting uh drugs Sam that waiver was on the 28th of January the PEPAR waiver and that waiver right here in my hand

that talks about the fact is even after the waiver was issued because screwed up the supply side the the the uh logistic stuff that they still having problems. PBS just wrote a piece on this actually maybe it was uh in in March

about how they are actually seeing deaths uh extensive deaths in um as a function of

send it to me because I I did a ton of homework. Uganda April 22nd sees spike in disease related deaths after elimination of US aid from PBS

that's been moved over to the state department though Sam it isn't eliminated it changed it specifically talks about the um the abrupt grinding to a halt by USD for both HIV and HIV associated illnesses like TBI

uh close to 15% of the clients dying of malaria and TB B this is uh because of the function of US

ID anything okay first of all of that was done on 128 a blanket waiver for life saving aid

it it shut everything down I'm sorry

on 128 it was a blanket waiver was given okay

that this will produce 14 million additional deaths by 2030

can we let's go through that can we do that can I address your your two studies

sure

okay so number one

well that's this is this one's not a study model is direct reporting. No, no, no. By PBS on the ground in Uganda 14 million people no that people were dying in Uganda because of the destruction of USID.

Sam,

send it to me because take it up with PBS.

So, I did take it up with PBS and here's what I learned. Since the 2025 dissolution of US aid, the US shifted global health operations to the state department under the America first global health strategy. The new model still funds the actual medicines, the HIV drugs, the TB meds, the malaria treatments, but we did stop paying directly for some of the operational infrastructure like mobile clinics, fuel, local delivery networks, and that's the core criticism. The medicine still exists, but the quote last mile delivery system broke down, rendering some patients in remote villages unable to access care. But here's the catch. When Uganda signed a 5-year memorandum of understanding with the US, they got up to $1.7 billion in direct US funding strictly earmarked to guarantee 100% of physical drug commodity costs and to build highlevel digital disease surveillance systems. They got an additional 800 million in direct US support which also flows into the country through global platforms like Gavei and the global fund bringing the total macro valuation of US commitment to roughly $2.5 billion through 2030. Now in exchange for this money the government of Uganda formally assumed full legal and operational responsibility for the last mile delivery framework. Lugganda legally agreed to fund local clinic operations, absorb distribution logistics, and permanently transition thousands of previously US funded frontline healthcare workers and nurses onto its own national public payroll system. Now, on the death toll, they give no numbers and no percentage of increase offered for the quote spike in deaths. But my honest assessment is that one would assume if people can't access care, there's credible reason to believe there were preventable deaths. But with Uganda now responsible for its own system and multiple global donors having backed out, it's difficult to say who truly bears responsibility for them. So in summation, the United States government under the America first health strategy ended its long-standing partnership with NOS's for health service delivery, reverting instead to direct engagement with the government of Uganda. The US cited persistent concerns that the NGOled delivery model fostered abuse of American funds, including theft, wastage, and limited accountability. How often have you felt like your skinincare routine isn't doing much? Well, I've been there. Too many products, not enough real results. I'm drawn to skin care that's actually grounded in real science. And that's exactly what stood out to me about One Skin. It was created by PhD researchers. This is serious science that slips seamlessly into my routine. And every time I use One Skin, I feel like I'm helping my skin repair damaged cells, boost collagen, and reinforce its barrier from within. It's backed by clinical studies and thousands of five-star reviews. One Skin proves you don't need a complicated routine, just one that actually works. Born from over a decade of longevity research, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, help you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. And for a limited time, you can try Oneskin with a 15% off usage code keeping it real at onskin.co/keeping real. That's 15% off oneskin.co with the code keeping it real. And after you purchase, you're going to ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that I sent you. Okay. Okay. Well, I'm going to I'm going to start with your first study. Okay. So, you claim numerous times that 600,000 people have died. All right. So, first of all, that's a model. It's not. Here's what it is not. Are you ready? A death registry, confirmed bodies, forensic evidence, a who mortality census, none of the above. The author,

what do you have that this is your Sam? The

No, no. I am asking you what counter evidence you have. That's correct. Modeling happens all the time in

public. There isn't any. In fact, there's none. And here's the reason. Because it is impossible to identify exact numbers. The author herself says

they're modeling numbers. And I recognize the limit. And then I'm going to show you the limitations with the study that you never site. Sam, they're modeling numbers. I recog

none. Which is why I want to get into Sam.

They're modeling numbers. And I recognize the limitations that this comes with. We don't have routine data sets that we can measure as such as those killed by a lack of US funding. Having said that, okay, what she doesn't take into account for in her modeling, she doesn't take into account any of the waiverss. There was a blanket waiver for life-saving aid given 8 days after Trump's executive order.

I just read to you a piece from PBS that said that waiver was irrelevant in terms of of actually getting the aid to people because of all the other mechanisms that were destroyed. The waiver was okay. Send it to me. Send it to me and I'll I'll have the team fact check it right now.

Google Sam to see spike in disease related deaths after elimination of US

AI. Check that. How many deaths? I did find some through Washington Post. I found a handful. Hardly 600 to 750,000. I found a handful. And

a handful. How many is a handful? Uh kids.

Honestly, I found about eight cases that are documented. And the issue also has to do with war. It's very very difficult to lock it down. Having said that, you're throwing out numbers that are not true. So, first

models by the Lancet. I said this is the Lancet study you neglected to mention. The problem with this model, a the author of the study has significant conflicts of interest because she gets grants from US A.

All right. There's flawed math because she's saying that every dollar spent equates to an amount of people saved. That's not true at all. She's got opaque, not rigorous layered modeling. She layers six different historical studies on top of each other and mashes them together. She ignored pre-existing duplication, which I'm going to give you an example of with the NIH, the USAD, E, the Eco Health Alliance is a perfect example, which I'm going to give you. USDA, local governments, private philanthropies, she just forgets completely exist. She ignored reassignments because PEPFAR, as you know, went to the State Department. USDA got food. These things were reassigned. There is no

No, first off, they were not all reassigned, and secondly, they weren't.

It's one thing to get a waiver, but if you have undermined the entire um logistical side, if all the contracts are cancelled,

if all the Let's go to Let's go to USDA because I I think you'll like this one. Let's go to that one. So, you read the book and I think you get it. You referenced that it's from 1991. It actually started in the 50s and it was started by Eisenhower and it was a public law. I think 480. Then Kennedy turned it into food for peace when he created US aid. Trump grabbed this. You'll like this. This is this is anti-Trump. He grabbed this on the 3rd of February of 2025, right? and he moved it all under USDA and then he called it America first food aid and what he did was he made sure it's called tide aid which existed but it got expanded over the years so you referenced 1991 it got worse over the years so tide aid essentially means that all aid has to come from our big a companies and go through our shippers we lose 30 cents on every dollar as American taxpayers because of this now what it does in the developing world is horrible, but there's no universe. And this is what I mean when I tell you it's a red herring. There's no universe. They're giving up those contracts. It's billions of dollars to big a billions of dollars. It moved over in less than two weeks to USDA. And the reason I'm telling you it's a red herring is because it's covering up for so much filthy dirty stuff that has

You're saying that the the any of the life-saving stuff that USID is it your is it your contention

okay

that USID never saved a life never provided malaria stuff. Okay. What is your contention?

Okay. I'll give you an example. All right. Can I Can I give you an examp

you said that's a red herring.

Yes. It's a red herring because we're still feeding them. to you that it's a red herring because feeding them they're distracting.

On the contrary, the idea of the corporations that is your that is a red herring because if Donald Trump wanted to go in there and reform

the that big a is getting all the contracts and creating monocultures and uh growing crops that are not um appropriate for uh those countries etc etc. This is all just sort of like imperialism and

it is it's neoc colonialism is right up your alley which is why I don't see why you don't

Donald Trump wanted to fix that.

No,

he could have easily fixed want to fix that.

That's correct. All that ended up happening is all of those bad things continue.

Yes.

The only thing that is no longer

I'm saying that's my point. That's what I was trying to tell you.

Anti-TB stuff. No. Well, let's play the clip and let people decide if that's what you were trying to

Okay, no problem guys. Is it saw number eight?

Jillian Jillian big fan.

The feeding starving children thing is such a freaking red herring. So, first of all, the vast majority of this US ID bloat and corruption does not go to that. Second of all, we have children starving here in America. But third of all, and what you don't know and what you have not looked into, okay, is that read a book. It's called Save Three Lives and it's by the Rodeale family and it has to do with the fact that our big egg companies went into the developed world to addict their soil to our GMO crops. It's a money laundering game. They can grow their crops in their soil far more efficiently and did for thousands of years before Konagra and Cargill and Monsanto and ADM went in. You just don't know that because you haven't done your homework. So you're like, "Oh, there's children starving in Africa." When really it is about billions of dollars going to Big A. That's what that's really about. And I've seen it firsthand when I went to South Sudan and stayed at a refugee camp.

So don't don't play your starving children card. I can't. So, I'm telling you that bloat and corruption is not about the US aid program. But if you're truly concerned about it, it's it's way worse than not sending puffy nutty or whatever the paste is, it is because

it is actually because Okay.

the budget uh the spending by sector from uh 2024, you said the majority of this stuff

bloat and corruption. And I said the majority of the bloat,

maternal corruption, health, basic education, governance, disaster readiness,

Sam, that's not what I said. I said the majority of bloat and corruption is not going to that. Can I give you an example?

Well, the majority of of stuff that's not going to them is not going to them. But is your suggestion the majority I'm just trying to understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the the the majority of the USID budget was just bloat and and corruption that Elon Musk is referencing. He was very clear, by the way, that he didn't want to cut.

Wait, are you going to try and argue to me that Doge was somehow successful? It is universally considered an absolute failure.

Let's talk.

We didn't save any money. The budget.

We did save money. Not nearly as much. You're absolutely right.

They didn't save a dime.

Can we get into a dime? The way they went about this was just the most hamfisted way. They used AI just to look at contracts and and and and willy-nilly. We just had a judge ruling the other day. Half the stuff is being reversed to the extent that it can be because it was done. So,

why don't we talk about what he was talking about? You see if you don't agree with it. Okay. So, can I point out something I think that you you got wrong? I'll give you an example of what we're talking about. Since the the COVID pandemic, I think we all know that um in infectious diseases abroad do not necessarily stay overseas and we prevented uh we help countries prevent um and detect infectious diseases before they could come to our borders. And we built partnerships that um you know helped the United States and built goodwill and um on the foundation of American generosity over the course of about six decades um that that created an international framework that supported the United States success over that time.

I mean it it was uh it was created under the Kennedy administration uh along with things like the Peace Corps. This was a way to project or in many respects like American influence if not power

but soft power and to do so by making friends. I mean like we you know we like like essentially to help people and it was I mean aside from like you say a lot of this had implications for American health too because particularly at you know less so maybe in 1960 but certainly by the time you get to 2020 um we saw quite quickly how um something that starts all the way around the world uh can impact this country.

Okay. Can I give you some examples about where that's flawed? All right. So, US

which part what I said or the guy who worked at USID for 10 years?

Sam both.

Which which Okay. Both of us were flood. Okay.

Both. All right. So, US A gave Eco Health Alliance, which is the organization that funded the Wuhan lab. Okay. They gave them millions of dollars. Part of it quite literally went to Batorn Corona Virus Research. 1.1 million. They've given them tens of millions. Simultaneously, these guys are taking money from the NIH for the same thing. They're double billing both agencies. That's bloat. That's corruption. Not only that, okay, just to show you, I'm trying to show you that there is bloat and there is corruption. And this is the kind of stuff that people are upset about. So now, if you look at right, how corrupt these people are. We have

What does that have to do with the US ID? is that funded them tens of millions of Sam

to study pathogens.

Sam, the point that Elon Musk was trying to make and he said so numerous times. He did not say, "I want to cut food. I want to cut life-saving aid." He said the opposite. So you

you said it was a joke. You laughed at it. You literally said it's a red herring and it's a joke. That play the kids dying cart. Sam, what I was saying very

if you're so worried about bloat and corruption, do you understand that you're that that Donald Trump right now Donald Trump right now has been selling pardons? He is literally about to get a $1.7 billion slush fund by suing the government and is his attorney who's the head of the DOJ. And you're talking about like

Well, you wanted to debate this though, didn't you? Isn't this what you wanted to debate?

It's a red herring. No, I just don't think this is this is all disingenuous. Really, the idea of like that somehow um that the USID was targeted to deal with a lab in Wuhan is absurd,

Sam. It's not absurd. It's absolutely true. all of the resources that were cut in the first Trump administration from pandemic um uh a whole p pandemic alarm system with people who were stationed in Wuhan uh from the United States with a uh cabinet level uh secretary who was in charge of of uh keeping the country aware of pathogens that were coming all of that stuff. Wait, waste and bloat until uh we end up having to shut down. Have you actually listened to anything else I've said about this? Cuz I could actually

I've listened to everything you've said. So then you would know that I said

you were crying about what we had said about you on the show.

Sam, if you'd actually done that, you know that I said that this should be like removing a brain tumor. In other words, if US A is the brain, you need to be slow and strategic about removing. I think that's exactly what I was saying on the uh with Piers Morgan and your response was that's a red herring. Don't throw that around.

The reason it is a red herring is because they are using you. And when I say they, I'm talking about Big A. I'm talking about places like Eco Health Alliance.

You're literally distract Sam. 4 billion Sam the percentage of what you're talking about. Donald Trump has made more money in the past.

That's a separate conversation. Stay on point. You wanted to talk about this. This is all part of one conversation because when you decide to prioritize

shifting big a uh neoc colonialism to the state department from terrible US aid to USDA at the expense of providing things like malaria care.

They did provide malaria maternal and child

going to say they did good governance. Oh, I'm looking at the cuts on the cuts right here.

So, tell me, here's my question.

I will tell you that what was the blanket waiver on 24 that specifically is for you child mortality and maternal care. I will give you the actual dollar amounts that were cut from each of these programs

from malaria 25% cut

but Sam

from uh basic education

35% cut

from uh disaster readiness 24% cut

from pandemic influ influenza and other emerging um uh threats 33% cut I mean I could just keep going on and on and on the difficulties They are cutting bureaucracy, corruption, fraud, and duplication. Was it perfect? No, it wasn't. That's why I'm trying to show you just with one example on

Have you not heard how the guys from Doge did this? They used AI and they just used keywords to cut all these contracts, cutting any bloat or waste or whatever you're talking about. There's not a single piece of evidence that there was any bloat or corruption or whatever it is.

I'll give you a ton of evidence. I'll give Okay, can I give you more? Can I give you more? Can I give you more?

I agree with you that we should not allow big corporations.

Do you want to talk about Afghanistan? Do you want to talk about I I listen I have talked about both those places significantly, but Doge did nothing to address those issues whatsoever.

They have flourished under this administration. Sam,

they did nothing.

I don't disagree with you about that. If you want to say they flourished under this administration, then this what I would say to you is maybe this is an area where you and I could find some common ground because I still stand for what I stand for. But when people are hoping that that stuff dies, there are reasons that they hope it dies. That's what I'm trying to show you. There are, for example,

you're telling me that the reasons why uh Doge did this was because they were concerned about neoc colonialism?

No. That's why I told you that's a red herring.

That's not what it

feel is a red herring. No, Sam. The children dying is a red herring.

No, Sam. What I was telling you is they weren't cutting that ever. It was just moving over to the USDA. That's what I was trying.

Okay. That is not what Let's watch that clip again because you specifically said the children dying is a red herring. Not

I said in the very beginning and we can play it again. I said the corruption and the bloat is not going towards the food. meaning that is not what he is talking about. Do I can play it again? That's what I'm talking

I'm looking at. I'm I'm just simply looking at uh all the cuts across the board here.

The cuts a dollar cut of duplication of bloat of bureaucracy of corruption does not equate to aid.

Tell me the play sought whatever number where you have the proof that this is bloat and corruption.

Okay. Can I give you examples? I don't have uh clips of what happened with CO. can put the articles up. So that's

bloat and corruption.

So okay, when Eco Health Alliance is given tens of millions of dollars from US aid and they're double billing two different government agencies for the same thing, do you think that's bloat and corruption?

Eco Alliance had this contract in 2024.

Okay, let me give you the exact

or they or that contract ended before then?

They got the contract. So here we go. Okay. So, they got it before that. Obviously, I can get you the exact date if you want. So, USA's predict program.

All right. Team, can you get me the exact year uh that USA predict gave 1.1 million to Eco Health Alliance specifically for a sub-agreement with the Wuhan Institute of Urology?

1.1 million.

They also got, listen, I'm not done. They got $83 million in total. Okay. This is just to identify the connection. Yes.

Yes, yes, we got 83 million from USA.

Yes, Sam. Okay, ready. In October, I got it. I got it. Okay, so we have. Hold on. So, in October of 2021, US awarded a 4.67 million grant with total funding obligations that reached 13.1. So, some of this has to do with farming in Liberia. Okay. Eco Health also operated as a sub-recipient in other multi-million dollar US aid projects, including, here we go, one health workforce grant, uh, and the READY initiative, total 85 million just for those programs. The READY initiative was 8 million, uh, the Liberia money was 13.1 million. And simultaneously, these guys are billing the NIH, and they're double billing. That's what I'm trying to show you. Not only are they double billing, if I could just show you this, this is not. I gotcha. Graphic number six. This is the.

No, it's not.

This is a son of a [ __ ] from Eco Health Alliance. Okay, so ready. This is David Moren from the NIH. They got him more money after they were trying to hide the FOIA requests. I'm sorry, hide the emails, uh, and from the FOIA requests that were coming in to show that there was a connection with the coronavirus and the NIH funding and the USAID funding. Now, we know, ahem, this is David Moren. Okay, this is Fouch's guy. Do I get a kickback? Too much [ __ ] money. Do you deserve it all? Let's discuss. And then Peter Dazzic goes, "Thanks for your kind words." Of course there's a kickback. So, do you not think that's shitty? That's gross.

Um, I think that the uh that Doge, that Donald Trump, that Russell Vote, uh, that Elon Musk had the ability to cancel that contract. Instead, what they did is they cut.

They did. They did cancel it.

$5 billion from protection assistance and solutions. They cut, um, $2 billion from HIV/AIDS. They cut $672 million, um, or I should say $300 million from malaria. They cut, um, $200 million from basic education. They cut $200 million, approximately, it's a little bit more, uh, from maternal and child health.

They cut money from good government. They cut money from disaster resist, uh, readiness, private sector competitiveness, family planning and reproductive health. I could go on and on. Pandemic influenza and other emerging threats. So if they're cutting.

If they're cutting corrupt organizations like Eco.

Did the Alliance? Did they do all of those with it? With.

Can I give you a bunch of other examples then? Speaking of, right. Okay. So why don't we look at things like, how about Afghanistan?

That was botched. Yeah. Are we on the same? Do you think that was botched?

Yes. I don't think we should have been there for 20 years. And George Wade rebuilding it was a disaster and it's trillions of dollars. So.

We, we, we.

I, I, I was very much against our, uh, occupation of Afghanistan. In fact, I thought that our, uh, invasion of them, we should have just used it. It should have been just a police action to get Osama bin Laden.

That's totally fine. Separate issue though. We're talking about bloat and corruption. All right. So you have two trillion went into rebuilding the country for 20 years. So you have Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, and they found trillions of money wasted. Projects were abandoned. Infrastructure was unusable. There was corruption vulnerabilities, obviously, from the government. Ghost employees, like police officers that didn't exist. Massive inability to verify spending. Facilities that were built that collapsed into the ground that were never used. Schools and clinics that existed only on paper. Same thing with Haiti. And the list goes on and on. So the point is that you can say, "Oh, they, they cut these trillions of dollars that were going to schools, schools that never existed."

We were out of Afghanistan when, um, uh, when.

We're still giving money to the Taliban.

Elon Musk, when Elon Musk implemented Doge. I don't understand. Well, you're just bringing up examples that corruption and bloat exists in certain areas, and therefore it justified cutting off the aid that I'm telling you to, uh, for USAID. Again, you think there's only eight people.

Who have suffered because of the end of these USAID.

It's very difficult to get a quantifiable number.

Well, what's your estimate? Honestly, considering if we're looking at this honestly, given the fact that you have other governments giving, that never was interrupted.

They have cut back as well, actually, in the wake of our cutting back on USAID, because, um, all a lot of these programs had to get back on January 20th of 2025 or later down the road. Okay. No. All right. So, no. So, they were giving it the time. So, you have a three-week interruption.

For some of this stuff. Some of it one week, some of it two weeks, some of it several weeks. But you have blanket waivers where this was, as you very appropriately show me.

This is from somebody who worked in in Uganda. The numbers began to trend downward closer to 10% in terms of deaths after an exemption was issued for certain life-sustaining programs. Uh, it's still high, but it's lower than during that time. So it did drop after the.

I searched and searched. I could not find one quantifiable number. I did find a really good piece in the Washington Post that listed specific cases and one guy who went to South Sudan. I found that. But I.

There's a guy here in in Uganda.

Sam. Okay. And and you know what they all say? Well, it's hard to know because there's also starvation and there's also war and there's conflating factors. I couldn't find any concrete numbers.

I know there's comorbidities. So when I say to you, we're looking at a matter of weeks that there was an interruption, simultaneously you have duplication from other government agencies like the State Department, like the USDA, like the CDC, like the NIH. So now you have, you have our government agencies that are simultaneously doing it. You have blanket waivers that came into effect within a matter of.

What was the date of us being on that, um, on that show? I know that you had a post about Nutty Putty that was March 3rd, and Elon Musk said this contract was reinstated two weeks ago, which would have been, which would have coincided with the waivers. I know that on the 28th of January, we'd already given a blanket waiver, or Rubio did. I already know there's duplication with government agencies. I know other countries are giving. I know that for a fact. I know that there's local charities. I know that these companies that are getting this money are getting tens of millions of dollars. So, I would think that they could probably float it for a couple.

You think it's all just sort of, uh, people are faking it now? A year?

Well, $600 to $750,000, sorry, 750,000 people. Yes. I think that's inaccurate. And I'm giving you all the reasons why I think it's inaccurate.

You think the models are inaccurate? You think the Lancet is making this up?

Etc., etc.

I just told you all of the. I'll tell you one thing for sure. It's absolutely partisan. I was able to see like different information coming from both sides. One side says nobody, and the other side says millions. I can't find anything concrete online. It's not to say that I think, oh, this is amazing. What I was trying to tell you is that food aid is not stopping. That is a narrative that they were leaning on to distract from other things that are really nefarious, like corruption in Haiti, in Afghanistan. I, I am, I am, I am fully on board with. But nothing, nothing Doge did in any way.

Dealt with all of those things that you're talking about.

No, of course not. It, it helped a little. And, and I think, and if you listen to.

You have evidence of that, or is that your projection?

I'll give you two examples. So, um, guys, which saw is it? Saw 13, where Elon Musk talks about what he was able to accomplish. I think.

Oh, wait a second. So, so we're going to trust Elon Musk? You're we're concerned about the partisanship of somebody who's, uh.

He says though, from the Har, from Harvard, is in the, or I should say Boston University.

From Lancet, and you're going to go to Elon Musk.

I'm going to go to Marco Rubio. I'm going to go to the State Department. What he talks about is he killed like 200. He created a code to kill zombie payments. He talks about how he was able to be nominally effective, but when he references why he wasn't capable of being super effective, he talks about the bureaucracy and the corruption and the bloat, and how it was more entrenched than he ever imagined. It doesn't mean it wasn't.

I don't need to hear Elon Musk try and justify why he failed so miserably.

What we found with USAID cuts, and by the way, they haven't all been cut. The, the parts of USAID that we found to be, uh, even slightly useful were transferred to the State Department. They haven't, they haven't been deleted. They've slyly been transferred to the State Department. Um, but many, many times over with USAID and other organizations, when we've, when they said, "Oh, well, this is going to help, you know, uh, children or it's going to help some, um, uh, disease eradication or something like that." Um, and then when we ask for any evidence whatsoever, um, I say, "Well, please connect us with this group of children so we can talk to them and understand more about their issue." We get nothing. We, we don't, we don't even try to prevent. Show come up with a with a with a show orphan, meaning like it's sort of like, well, can we at least see a few kids? Like, where, where are they? If they're in trouble, we'd like to talk to them and talk to their caregivers. And then we get something as a response because it's what we find is an enormous amount of of fraud and graft. Let me put this example.

Very little of it actually gets to the kids, if anything at all. Oh, you heard me say it, but I'll say it again. I'm a huge fan of Skims. Intimates. They make the stretchiest underwear fabric, and then they created the cutest push-up bra, and now they've done it again with a new cotton fabric that is a total game changer for me. I'm all about natural materials, but it's pretty hard to find great bras in cotton fabric. Well, my favorite Skims t-shirt bra is now available in their new everyday cotton fabric. From the moment I tried it on, I knew I'd found my everyday go-to bra. Soft, supportive, and it's perfect under just about every kind of outfit I've paired it with. And their everyday cotton boy short. It's soft, it's stretchy, it's breathable, and they don't pull underneath clothing. I've been wearing my new Everyday Cotton pieces at work, running errands, doing physical activities, and just lounging around the house because they're comfortable, and they're versatile, and they're simply on another level. So, shop everyday cotton and all my favorite bras and underwear at skims.com. And after you place your order, please be sure to let them know that we sent you. Select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show in the drop-down menu that follows.

It's saw 10.

As some type of proof.

It also.

That, uh, he cut corruption because he said he did.

So, okay. So, so he did nothing got changed. What about the duplication of moving things like malaria aid from multiple different agencies just to the State Department? You don't think that could be helpful? No benefit there. Or drawing some attention. I think actually when you, um, when you, uh, get rid of institutional knowledge about, uh, the way that systems work and logistics, and you do this, uh, in the, in the particularly in the method in which they did it, um, I, I think it's actually incredibly damaging. Yeah. So when all of this moves over to the State Department or the USDA, you, you think.

In fact, I think the USDA. Look, we already know.

There's, there's. We already know.

Philanthropies that are engaged and involved. NGOs that are engaged and involved. You don't think that there's.

If you worked for USAID and you were involved in.

If you worked for USDA, your number one agenda would be trying like, uh, boost big A, essentially the same. And so with Food for Peace, Sam, it was the same. That's why I told you it's a red herring. It's the same.

You know what red herring means?

It's a distraction away from a key issue.

I'll give you the. I knew you were going to say that. Actually, a kill definition. The, the, the, the deaths of children and of other people looking for.

The deaths of children. A red herring is a piece of information, clue, or line of argument that misleads or distracts from the original relevant topic or issue, which was bloat, corruption, goose receipts, middlemen skipping money, bureaucracy. None of the bloat corruption was dealt with. You just agreed through some of it. Sam is very clear. You've just agreed that it's that that all the nefarious, uh, colonial things have just moved to other agencies.

Is it possible that we're saying the same thing? You were worried about food aid.

And I'm telling you not to worry. It's still happening. That's what I was worried about about.

You were worried about food aid, and I said, "Don't worry."

That is still going to happen. That is a red herring, and it is still happening 100%. The argument even that Rhodell, uh, made in his book.

Was not that the food aid wasn't real, is that it was delivered in a way that whose agenda was to primarily benefit.

Um, uh, big A in this instance.

Okay. So let's address.

And that he said.

It's actually not the case.

That, um, uh, that direct aid is a. He thinks there should be more of it.

That's disaster aid. So, this is ongoing aid. And just the fact that you.

There was, I specifically in that, I think in that, uh, Piers Morgan thing, talked about, uh, I can't remember the amount now, but it was in, uh.

Do you know that the USDA purchased 21 million, I'm sorry, 211,000 metric tons of food on February 3rd for disaster food relief? There were tons of, like, food for for malnutrition, uh, malnourished kids who couldn't digest actual food, like.

Predigested stuff, and that all just rotted.

No, it didn't. It did not.

It did not, Sam. So, that tweet was put out on March 3rd. Uh, I think John Favreau put it out. Elon Musk responded immediately and said the contract was reinstated two weeks back, and it was put through the USDA. And on February 3rd, the USDA said, "We are buying 211,000 metric tons of emergency food aid." That is disaster relief. We're not talking about disaster relief. That's not actually what that book is about. It is about. I, I can.

Well, he does mention disaster relief in there, actually. No one is. There's not one person.

Disaster readiness.

25% cut.

Sam, a dollar of aid does not equate to food or medication. So when you're cutting things, I'm going to say it one more time. They're cutting duplication. They're cutting, cutting bloat. They're cutting corruption.

According to.

So you think, okay, so real quick, you think I'm just curious. You think that Big A was gonna let anything be cut from that contract? Do you?

I, I, not that contract. I mean, they're right now.

Do you think that they were gonna allow that? Because they didn't. I think do you think that.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk could have cut any contract they wanted to.

And they specifically did not cut the contracts you're talking about.

Which was exactly what.

But they did cut a bunch of other stuff that helped people.

Which is exactly what I told you on Piers Morgan, which is why I told you.

The way I interpreted. I must have misunderstood.

All right. Well, well, then forgive me. Uh, I would hope actually that you and I may see eye to eye on this, because ongoing aid does create dependency, and it creates it by design. And if I, and this is not, listen, I'm not trying to say, "Oh, you got it wrong." I'm trying to just show you something so that maybe, maybe you'll agree with me, and we'll have some common ground. So the way that these guys do this, right? It, it comes in phases, and this is, I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm literally just trying to educate the audience should they be confused at all. This has gone on since the '50s, and it was started by Eisenhower and Kennedy. Rebranded it as Food for Peace, and it moved through USAID, US Aid. Trump in 200, and I'm sorry, Trump in 2025 on February 3rd, moved it to the USDA and made it all tied aid. So tied aid means that it has to come from our, uh, companies and ship through our shipping companies. This is, in fact, terrible, and other countries give cash.

You did the opposite of what you are advocating.

100%. That's what I would advocate with food policy. Absolutely. I'd like to see 24 million that was given to the Children of God orphanage in Kenya that was trafficking kids. I'd like to see that go away. Yes. And, and the thing is, you also don't, in all fairness, you don't really know anything about me, Sam. I have been doing this a long time.

I, I don't. I get it. But when you say I don't.

Don't care. I know. But then don't make accusations if you don't know.

Uh, I was responding to what you said on that program, and you said that the kids were a red herring.

Because they were going to get the food anyway.

No.

No. I've just.

When I said the bloat to corruption is not about that.

The cut. I've just read from an article from April 22nd.

And tell me, what did they cut though? So when you say, when you say.

Malarial relief. Could it be a cut in duplication? Is that possible? Could it be.

Could it be a cut in bureaucracy? Could it be a cut in ghost payments? Is it possible, Sam?

Do you think you were successful?

We're a little, a little bit successful. We were some, somewhat successful. Um, I mean, we, we, we stopped a lot of funding for, um, that, that, that really just made no sense. That was just entirely wasteful. Where were, like, for example, there was like probably 100, maybe $200 billion worth of zombie payments per year, uh, which, uh, simply by, um, enforcing that there be a payment code and an explanation for the payment, uh, that the payment would not go out. Do you Doge again, knowing what you know now?

I mean, the thing is, like, I think instead of doing Doge, I, I would have basically built, you know, worked on my companies essentially. So, and not, and the cars, they wouldn't have been burning the cars.

Um.

You gave up a lot to do.

Uh, yeah, like if you, if you, if you stop money going, uh, to, uh, going, going for political corruption, they will, they will lash out big time.

Um.

So they really want the money to keep flowing. Um, so if you stop it from flowing, there's like a very strong reaction to, to stopping the money flowing.

I spoke to USAID for 10 years, and the guy literally didn't even know that we funded CO partly through USAID. He like, there's so.

You're, you're suggesting that we created CO.

I do believe so. Yes. I think that we funded. I do think the Eco Health Alliance funded it through money that came from the NIH and the USAID. And I do think that that string of emails from Moren and Dazzic is fairly good evidence of that fact. I do believe that. Yeah. And so does the FBI. I think the CIA does now. Like, that's that's a generally well-recognized, not going to say fact, but thought, belief. If you don't think so, that's totally fine. We could litigate it a different time. I do think we did. Yeah.

You don't think we did it on purpose, do you?

I have no idea why we would do it. I do know the theories about gain-of-function research. I can't necessarily tell you. I think they're entirely altruistic. You know, I mean, the argument is like, well, we're just studying what would happen. So, do you support like things like, um, uh, patent reform and, uh, antitrust that would prevent, um, uh, these, uh, agents? And so how is it like, do you see yourself supporting a, um, an administration that has had total control of our government, that has broached, uh, laws and constitutional authority to do whatever they want, and they haven't done any of this stuff that would actually in any way.

They have in health. They haven't. They haven't held. I'll give you a few.

They've hurt. I mean, I'll give you like, just even most recently, um, uh, the, they, they have rolled back, uh, meat processing for that matter. There was a huge, uh, antitrust case against the meat packers, and, um, Trump is definitely, defense attorney who's now the head of the DOJ, um, basically just let them walk away from, uh, what was clearly a case that was going to, uh, be found to they have violated antitrust. Um, you see the consolidation of big A across the country. Do you think this is unique to his administration? It's not.

I think it's.

You do? I don't, I don't think so at all. And I, I would tell you. Okay. I don't.

Because all of these.

I've worked for numerous administrations, Sam. I worked with the Clintons. I worked with the Obama administration on this. I don't actually.

Worked with Obama on antitrust without a doubt. But under the Biden administration, all these antitrust cases were, uh, lined up. And the, uh, Trump administration has basically just, uh, ejected them. I mean, that's it.

But I'm not arguing with you about that. If you're asking me what I see, I see evil, and I see the need to pick a lesser one. If there's a different option, that would be wonderful. I'm not actually part.

So, you consider Trump the lesser evil? Who's the lesser evil in this?

I do.

I actually do.

And in what, in what respect? Okay, I'll give you an example in the area that I am in is my wheelhouse. So when it comes to health, let's say insurance, pharma, food policy. With Trump, you get one and you lose one. You get one and you lose one.

What's the one you get?

Okay. So when Kennedy redesigned, we'll call it the food guidelines, it's not just an infographic. So it guides hundreds of millions in subsidy flows. Now, by doing that, by redesigning it, what he's forcing is he's forcing more of our tax dollars to go towards healthier food and he's forcing areas, food deserts. Okay. So what, what's going to fund what, what does the food pyramid fund, right? It's going to fund lunch for our kids in school, military, it's prisons, all that stuff. That's what guides what gets fed to your kids in public school, for example, or our soldiers in the military. By changing that, we're forcing the funding of healthier options and we're forcing their availability into 250, I think Brook Rollins said 250,000 locations where you have food deserts. That's a win going.

So how are the food deserts being? I mean, uh, because they take, they take SNAP, because they take, um, first of all, this administration has kicked, uh, tons of people, I mean, three to four million people off of SNAP.

Okay. Let's go through. So, what do you agree with about that, and what don't you? I'll tell you what I don't agree with about.

Uh, Mom Donnie is actually literally addressing food deserts with the city-owned supermarket. Mom. Okay, Sam. We could definitely look at the economics of Mob Donnie. They've done it before in New York in the '70s, and it didn't work.

And that, that food, that that supermarket is $30 million for one market. It happens in four years when his term is.

Up. What we should go more aggressively on it. I'm with you on that. But, um, so I don't think it works. But I would definitely get RFK in doing in changing the food pyramid has is going to deal with food deserts. How's that happening? Okay, here's how it happens. If a place that takes SNAP benefits, right, if they take SNAP benefits, they are forced to offer what the guidelines recommend. I could even find you if someone could find me a clip like Brook Rollins says she is going to demand now that 250,000 locations carry healthier options. Can I guarantee.

How is she going to do demand that?

Because if they take, you can't take SNAP if you don't offer the food on the.

Market solution here is we've subsidized food purchases.

Yes. And if we don't allow.

I'd like to subsidize healthier food. The, the food pyramid directs those subsidy flows. So by.

You would have to argue that there is enough of a margin, uh, for those people to acquire the, um, the foods that you're talking about without any other subsidies, just that the market forces there are going to do it so that these, um, small bodegas that may exist in these food deserts, for instance, they're going to, they're going to buy the fresh, uh, fruit and produce without any other.

Incentive. They have to offer.

The food that the pyramid recommends.

This, the SNAP, uh, that their only eligibility is associated with having to offer those. And you think that there is any type of enforcement mechanism that's going to come in and do that?

I do. I do. The enforcement mechanisms. How do you think, how do you think that flows? What, what directs that? What directs food in schools?

What directs the food that we feed to the military?

What, what.

What directs it? Yeah. Like, what informs what your, if your kid went to a public school, what would inform what's on their plate?

Well, in New York City, I mean, it's programs that are, are city-based. Now, certainly there's, uh, federal, uh, money available for specific schools. Um.

Public schools are, are the food in front of your kid, if they go to a public school, is directed by the food pyramid. That's why it's more than just a food, an infographic. I can, I can, I can, I get that. I can tell you though that the food, uh, varies from public school to public school. Having sent, uh, two kids to public school in New York City, it is a function of, of a lot of things. It is not just one set of foods.

Um, and yes, I get that the, uh, food pyramid does that. But I.

I'll give you two other examples. Influences. I'll give you two other examples. How about this?

But the FDA has not issued a single new food regulation. The FDA has not, uh, banned a single chemical in any food.

That's not true. They b, they banned one, and they're re-evaluating the GRAS rule. That's not true. So now, so the way the GRAS rule works.

They have asked the, the industry to remove, uh, certain dyes and stuff.

They have three years, I believe, to do that, and that, that is not enough. There are thousands of.

It's not a ban. It's a, it's a, it's an ask. Okay.

I don't believe so. Red number, I think it's 40, that's that's has to be removed within several years.

I'm in favor of it, but I just, I think that like when you see what's going on with Monsanto, when you see what's going up with Roundup, when you see all these different things.

Uh, I'm very skeptical. But I definitely, as you should be, but it does not mean. I'll give you two other examples. Okay. So the GRAS rule, which is the Generally Recognized As Safe rule, is a food loophole that allows big food to just vouch for the safety of the chemicals on their product. So Kennedy is closing that door. He's closing the GRAS loophole. That to me is a good thing. I'll take it. I haven't gotten anything like it out of any administration I've ever worked with. I'll give you another one. Pharmacy Benefit Managers. So I'm not, I'm not sure if you're familiar with this at all, and it's confusing. So I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just trying to explain and I'm just trying to explain to the.

Very much about PBMs.

Okay. Okay. So now they're forcing the clawback to go back to the patient instead of the insurance company. That's a good thing. Dr. Oz is going after the pre-authorizations, which people end up dying waiting for things to be authorized through their insurance. Like these are things I haven't seen anything like it. And I.

A lot of the work on the PBMs was started under the Biden administration. The negotiating with Medicare that, uh, the Trump administration is one of the few things.

Work with PBM. Show me, show me that. Show me the work that the Biden administration did on PBMs.

Oh, I'll show you.

Show me. That that's actually completely news to me. I haven't seen any laws they passed blocking that that kind of vertical integration. If they did, amazing.

Uh, the FTC released two major interim reports investigating PBM.

That's an investigation. And what did they change?

Listen, this is the way that the government works. This is what government done. I'm not done.

Okay. They filed an administrative complaint against three of the largest PBMs, CVS, Express, and Optimus. Medicare Part D rules, uh, implemented new rules in 2024 to regulate how PBMs operate within Medicare Part D.

The ACA discrimination, nothing. They didn't take away. So, okay.

The, um, uh, the Inflation Reduction Act in the whole negotiating directly from Medicare to negotiate drug prices sidestep PBMs. I mean, you say what changed? I just told you they were the first ones to act upon this.

But it, the government right now is operating on, in terms of their knowledge of PBMs, came from the Biden administration.

That actually didn't come from the Biden administration.

So let's take a moment to evaluate the policy differences between the Biden and Trump administrations regarding pharmacy benefit managers. The Inflation Reduction Act gave the federal government the right to negotiate lower prices on select drugs, but it never touched the PBMs themselves. They still controlled the formularies, which is the list of drugs that your insurance actually covers. So, when a drug's price got forced down and the PBMs lost their rebates on it, they retaliated by just burying those cheaper drugs in higher cost tiers. And then they added prior authorization hurdles. And when junk fees got banned at the pharmacy counter, they just raised monthly premiums to recoup the loss. And the result was a marginal change at best. So when the first round of negotiated prices finally took effect in '26, they covered only 10 drugs and saved roughly three cents on every dollar. And by law, that one cent of savings actually reached anyone on a commercial insurance plan. The Trump administration looked at that track record and they went after the mechanism itself. And this is what I mean when I say I sat in the rooms where it was discussed. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed February 2026 under the Trump administration, does three things the Inflation Reduction Act never attempted. It legally ties PBM compensation from drug prices and rebates, forcing flat fees, destroying their core incentive to favor expensive drugs over cheaper generics. Mandates 100% of manufacturer rebates pass directly to health plans and consumers, eliminating the hidden spread pricing that's been skimming billions out of the system for decades. And it extends those protections into the commercial market, covering the employer-sponsored plans that Biden's model by law explicitly left behind. And on top of that, TrumpRx.gov launched in February 2026 as a federal price transparency portal, gave patients direct access to comparable cash prices across major platforms and manufacturer discounts on high-cost drugs, including GLP-1s, visible comparable pricing that the PBM model was specifically designed to prevent. The reforms fully kick in in 2028 to 2029, but the incentive structure that made the system corrupt has been legally dismantled through legislation that can't be undone by a regulatory pen. If you haven't heard of Beam's Dream Powder, let me tell you, this one is different. Not just because it changed how I sleep, but because of the people behind it. Beam is American-made by real people focused on creating something that actually helps. For a long time, my nights were rough. I was tossing and turning, then dragging myself through the next day on caffeine. And when you're running on empty, it's hard to show up for what matters. Now, with Dream, I sleep through the night, and I wake up clear-headed and present. It's made with all-natural ingredients like rishi, magnesium, L-theanine, apigenin, and melatonin without the drugstore fog. It tastes great. The chocolate peanut butter flavor is my absolute go-to. Guys, spring is here. Summer's right around the corner. This is the season to show up strong. So, do it with something made by Americans for Americans. Do it with Dream. Go to shopbeam.com/real. Use the code REAL and get my exclusive offer for up to 40% off Beam's Dream Powder. So, with my discount code REAL, you get their bestselling Dream Powder for just $39. If you've been meaning to fix your sleep, this is the time. I was in the room when this was being.

Okay.

At where? Which one? The FTC or the DOJ?

I've sat in the room.

What room?

All right. A room with Kennedy and people like Dr. Oz when they were discussing how this exact flow with a middleman works. But you, you didn't sit in any rooms. Okay, you're right. I didn't have those conversations with Kennedy or Dr. Oz or any of that who then.

Went and joined the administration. None of that happened. I have video of it, but none of it happened when I, when I testify. Like none of that happened. I, I have video of those conversations, but none of it happened.

Not what I was talking about.

Okay. Uh, okay. So, again, I, I, I don't know what else to tell you. This stuff does matter to me. What, what else would you, would you like to litigate about it? I, I'm not quite sure. Tell me what else you want to discuss. I, I'll discuss it with you. These are the things that matter to me. I, I.

Not the wars.

Not the, uh.

But if you want to talk about war, Biden is the one who. We got into Ukraine under Biden. And.

What do you mean? We, we, we got into Ukraine. There was an invasion of Ukraine.

And but Sam, there were potential offramps for that. One would argue like the Minsk Accords, they were potential offramps.

I think, uh, Ukraine didn't want to give up, uh, the territory.

They didn't have to give up the territory in '22.

I don't see why, why they didn't have to give up the territory.

No other had any more opportunity to end this than Trump does.

I, I don't agree with you. I think that there were opportunities at the Minsk Accords that provided offramps, and we didn't take them. Why we didn't take them? I could pause it, I guess.

So, wait, it's we now. So, under Biden, we controlled Ukraine, but under Trump, we don't control Ukraine.

Well, let's look at that one and, and I, I, this is the way I perceive it. We pushed and we pushed and we pushed with regard to expanding NATO, and we promised we wouldn't, right? There was a hard red line. You've got the, uh, memo, I think it was from, was it Burns to Condoleezza Rice that was like, "Under no circumstance should you add Ukraine to NATO. It is a hard red line." Like, I can't remember yet, means yet. It was something like that. Like, do not do it. We've known for a long time that this would trigger somewhat of a disaster. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um, cut to, we've had numerous opportunities to take an offramp prior to this Russian.

We never, Ukraine never admitted into, uh, NATO.

But they wanted to be admitted to NATO, which is what.

Ukraine did want to be. We also had an obligation from '93, uh, to, uh, provide defense for Ukraine in exchange for them to give up their nukes.

Sam, that, what does that have to do with Putin saying I don't want them to go to NATO?

Well, they didn't go to NATO.

But they. Okay, so what.

They're not in NATO now?

What triggered? So, what triggered? So, so in the Minsk Accords, what triggered Putin's invasion? Tell me what triggered it. Uh, what, what triggered his, triggered the invasion in the Minsk?

Uh, so we blew the Minsk Accords. We had an opportunity to to reinvigorate that in '22.

To fix that whole situation.

And we, it didn't. Fell apart. There was an opportunity.

So you're justifying the invasion of Ukraine because.

I'm not justifying it. I've been on the record saying I think Putin is a monster. I think there were opportunities to negotiate this before it got this far. I don't know how, how would you get Putin out of Ukraine at this point? He's arguably winning. What, what's the leverage?

I don't know if he is winning. I don't know. I have, I mean, it seems like it. So what's, what's the leverage now? We had more leverage in '22. We don't seem to have any.

With. We had more leverage in '22 with whom? With Ukraine or, uh.

With Russia before they were, what appears to be winning.

What was our leverage with Russia?

What did Putin want? What did he want? He said, "Do not add." What? Let's look it up.

He wants Ukraine.

Let's look it up. Let's look it up. What happened? What was his ultimatum in 2022?

I think he wants Ukraine.

That's not what caused his invasion, though. We had an opportunity to negotiate that situation in 2022. So.

I think he wanted, uh, Ukraine, and I think that's what it is. I mean, I think that's why.

You have countries like, uh.

Invading Ukraine. And let's say, see if I, okay, historical grievances, deep-seated fears of Western democratic influence, okay, fear of Western expansion. Putin perceived Ukraine's pivot towards Western institutions, particularly the EU and NATO, as an existential threat to Russia's, this geopolitical sphere of influence and security. That's what I just said.

I, I, I understand.

That's what I just said.

I, I understand eventually.

The, um, uh, that, uh, Putin says that it was because there was, there's, it's an existential threat to have an independent Ukraine to them. Um, but I mean.

Let's see.

I don't think that justifies an invasion. I'm not telling you it justifies an invasion. I'm telling you there was an opportunity in 201. What would America should have done at that point? We had a pact with them to provide defense against.

I wouldn't have continued expanding NATO. It seems like that was kind of a big deal.

What was the NATO expansion in that direction? As far as I know, we have most of what public officials in the US were saying to expand to Ukraine.

When we promised, right? When was this Reagan administration? We promised we wouldn't expand NATO. Would we add like 15 countries and put it all the way on their border?

Uh, I, I.

Yeah.

Okay. So, hold on. What did the US promise, uh, Russia about NATO expansion? Wasn't this, uh, Reagan? Uh, what Gorbachev heard? All right, hang on. 1990 assurances. Is that it? Uh, okay. James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that there would not be one an expansion, one inch eastward. Okay. So since then, we've added like 15 countries and we're about to move it all the way to their border. Like, probably just shouldn't have done that. Since then.

Um, as far as I know.

Country. Okay. Say.

Um.

We did move.

We added 16 countries after we promised. Not necessarily. Since 1990, NATO has expanded to include 16 new member countries through six waves of enlargement, increasing its total membership from 16 to 32. The expansion incorporated nations from Eastern Europe and the Northern region, and we put it right on the border there, which was a no-no. And we have, what was it, WikiLeaks, or was it Julian Assange? What was it that leaked the memo from Burns to Condoleezza Rice saying, "No"? I'm just saying, so if if you're going to say Trump is a president of war, I, I don't actually agree with you. I don't think so.

I'm talking about Iran.

Okay, let's talk about Iran.

You, we attacked Iran. We did. We did not attack Russia.

True.

You understand? You're comparing providing defensive weaponry to Ukraine.

Is this a literally bombing another country?

My, my feeling on Iran right now is that.

We don't really know how it's going to turn out. So far.

What do you mean we don't know how it's going to turn out? We already know right now. I don't agree with you that we have killed, um, thousands of civilians.

We have expended.

With thousands of civilians. We've killed thousands of Iranian civilians on the street.

We've killed thousands of Iranians. Yes.

Civilians, or or the IRGC?

Civilians? I don't think that's controversial at all.

Really? All right, team. Have we killed thousands of Iranian civilians? I know there was, uh, some skepticism over a school.

There's skepticism over the school.

Yes, because.

I don't even think the US government has denied it. They just said that it actually.

Um.

They've said that they think that it was probably an IRGC missile potentially hitting the school.

And there's no defined answer because I tried to find it. How many.

My god, I mean, the level of delusion to argue that somehow we're not engaged in a war and that it could work out okay.

I do think it could work out okay. Like, you're, you're to the right of, of.

The US killed.

Significant portion of the Republican party. I mean, I don't know what to tell you. Um.

Let's see. How many civilians have we killed?

Okay.

So, how many do you think it is?

How many do I think it is?

Yeah.

I think we've killed probably thousands.

Okay. The Manbij school strike is the first thing that comes up. The primary incident under US military investigation is a strike on an all-girls school near Manbij, which killed at least 156 to 175. Okay. Urban strikes. Uh, independent documentation from news outlets like the Mayor News Agency notes specific incidents, like an attack on Theron's Nilofar Square. I don't know if this is us that killed 20 civilians.

Human Rights says 1,700 civilian deaths. Um, uh, civilians, tens of thousands have been, uh, wounded, supposedly. I mean, I, I don't think we can.

Tens of thousands of civilians or IRGC?

Which I, I don't really, to be honest, I don't really.

I don't really, I don't really feel bad if, if.

The IRGC who's hanging teenagers. I don't really feel bad if, if they're being killed. I would rather, I'd rather see the IRGC not beat women to death for their hair sticking out of their hijab or engage in sexual torture. Like, I don't really feel bad about the.

That's exactly why we were sold to go into Afghanistan too.

We don't have boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

We've lost 14 million soldiers. We're in the process of a negotiation. Are we not?

How many?

14 soldiers. Our soldiers.

I thought you said 14 million.

14. We've lost, um, uh, you know, we're spending billions upon billions of dollars.

If, first of all, you were so concerned about, we're going to end up fraud in California, just a fraction, just a fraction of the fraud in California.

I do think. Tell me something. I have a question for you. Why, why would Iran enrich uranium to up to 60%? Why? We have that. We.

have that independently verified. >> Why would they? Why would they store it? >> Why would they enrich it? Why would they enrich it to up to 60%? Why? >> Because it's leverage. >> Well, you want them to have >> because they had, they didn't want them to do this. They didn't start to do this until uh Trump, uh, unilaterally got out of the JPC. >> That is not true. >> It is true. >> No, it isn't. >> Um, and they built up their stockpiles. They um >> so Iran has never been a threat. They haven't chanted death to America. They haven't had a nuclear program. It hasn't been a problem for years. >> They haven't had a nuclear program outside of uh starting. >> So they enriched it because of Trump. Okay. So that's the reason. >> No, no, no. They didn't enrich it in because of Trump. Trump was the one who took us out of the deal that if we're lucky, we will get >> Why did he take us out of the deal, Sam? >> Because he resented that Obama signed it. I have no idea. Because there were also people in his administration who wanted to have more of a conflict with Iran, and it wasn't until his second term where he had more to that he was able to. And so, uh, Iran had, they a nuclear weapon, I think we probably would not be bombing them. >> That's true. We probably would not be. >> It is the most rational thing in the world for them to pursue that. >> Well, I personally do not want >> unless they get the benefits and they have put on the table on multiple occasions already, uh, uh, deals. In fact, the PM of Oman, who was doing the negotiation, said that Iran had made a deal to get rid of all of their enriched uranium, that they would not stockpile. They would only, they, excuse me, let me finish. They would only enrich uranium at a level that was necessary for a civilian nuclear, uh, um, power program. >> They just said they wouldn't do that. Witoff and Kushner for whatever reasons, some speculate because Whit they didn't come with any experts on on on nukes, some speculate because Jared Kushner has a lot of interest outside of uh that room that he is um working for. I don't know what the answer is to either one of those. >> But we do know that this offer was put on the table. >> While the deal, United States attacked. >> Okay. So, you're saying Iran never violated the JCPOA? >> Never. I don't know if they never violated, but they certainly didn't increase their uranium productions. I'm sure on some level there were there were probably specific, uh, technology metric tons in 2016 of heavy water stockpile that I I guess you used to enrich uranium. Uh, advanced centrifuge development in 2016, 2017. Systemic deliberate breaches of the deal in 2019 and 2021 following the deal was >> exceeding enrichment purity caps. JCPOA strictly limited uranium enrichment to 3.67 67 and they had enriched to 20% in 2019. No, 2018. What do you mean it's happened under Trump? This has been happening. It's been happening. I don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. I don't. So I It's one thing to say they don't have one. Okay. But then just tell me why then are they violating the JCPOA before >> JP? It was Trump unilaterally left it. >> Unilaterally left it. What do you mean? >> He quit. He quit the. He quit it. >> Why did he quit it though, Sam? Do you know Obama gave them pallets of cash, right? >> Oh, do you know how much cash they made? Twice that in selling their oil in the wake of of our bombing. >> Well, this is one of the reasons that if Trump can get China to buy oil from us, that's a nice little checkmate without us having boots on the ground. I would actually like to see. I think I think the Iranian regime is a cancer. I think they're the number one funders of terror. I think they're evil in the atrocities that they commit. >> What? Um >> they don't fund Hamas. They don't fund Hezbollah. They don't that really they're not the number one funders of terror in the world. >> I I meant uh international terror that would uh um implicate us. >> They fund terrorist organizations. I'm not I'm not for it. They fund uh they fund >> uh I mean I know Hezbollah uh is more of a militia and a parl military. >> Okay. Do they fund those groups though? Yes. They're the number one. Okay. They're the top disrupting force in the Middle East. Why would the >> in in what manner? >> Well, you tell me. Why does the Saudi crown prince say >> I think a lot of people would suggest that Israel is the top disruptive force. Why does the Saudi crown prince say that the Ayatollah was like Hitler? Why >> if he said >> because he um has a rival country and is in uh is in competition for the Abraham region? >> If this regime ended up falling and you could expand the Abraham Accords, do you think that's a bad thing? If they were incapable of funding terrorist organizations, do you think that's a bad thing? If the Iran never was able to get a nuclear weapon, you think it's a bad thing? I just don't think it's a bad dictator in Iran. Would that be better? Is that what you're suggesting? >> Like the >> I think it probably be the same. Oh, the Shaw. Who are you talking about? Resp. >> I don't I don't think that he's as nearly as bad as the >> I'm not saying you should install a new Shaw. I'm talking about the old Shaw, his father. >> I don't think his father was as bad as the Ayatollah. No, I do know that he had like secret police and all of that, but I don't think he was as bad as the Ayatollah. No. >> And you do know that it was the United States that put him into power. >> Can let's actually relitigate that for just a moment. So when did that happen? We went in >> 195 >> 20 years, right? And when did the I when did it happen? 1950, right? >> I think it was 53. Maybe it was 51. >> Okay. So there's actually I actually watched a whole thing on this and I would have prepared better for you, but 20some years later, we weren't we weren't involved in that 20some years later after we got involved >> a um a >> 79. That's 20some years later. >> Yes. >> By the way, the guy that the Shaw replaced was a horrible person. I remember I had a whole interview about this. Hold on. I didn't know we were going to talk about this. So >> all right. It's all right. Let's not I mean >> I mean hold on. Who did? He was like a horrible person that the Iranians hated. >> I know that we thought that he was like this really good guy, but he actually wasn't >> in getting rid of their democratic elected league leader. >> Sam, that happened in the 50s though. They the I told >> 30 years later, nothing matters. >> I I get it honestly. Uh, there's no point in us uh talking about >> here. I'll tell you, it's actually really interesting. >> Admittedly, this is a totally irrelevant sidebar, but it is kind of an interesting story. So, if you want to know the history behind what really happened to Mosedc, I have a link to it uh in the show notes. >> I mean, I >> remember Okay, Mosed. That's right. Okay, hang on. >> I've run out of time. It's 4:30. >> All right. Well, >> you have any more uh thoughts to uh where I've or anybody on my show has offended you? I'm happy to. >> Most of today's signature achievement. Okay. He created severe economic collapse, retreat from democratic principles and power grabs. Like Mosed actually wasn't this tremendous guy. I actually did I forgot this because it was about six months ago, so forgive me if I don't remember the details, but he turned out not to be a tremendous guy. >> So um what other tremendous guys do you think the United States should be overthrowing? >> What I'm saying is that people did not actually love Musade. So yes, I do know that it was mostly MI6, not necessarily the CIA, but we were involved that did get involved in that coup. It was like 20some years later though that the Ayatollah came to power. We weren't involved in that. >> We weren't involved in the Ayatollah coming to power. No, it was because uh the the Iranians overthrew their government. >> Right. That we're in agreement on that fact. I I I'm not quite sure exactly. Your argument is that Iran's enriching uranium because of Trump. That the JCPOA was perfect. >> I'm saying that the facts don't show that though. >> Okay. Well, you're the only person I just read them to you. >> But I know you just you just read about it, so you must know. >> Okay. So So what's online is wrong. All right. I I'll draw I'll draw I'll draw there's no this is not a controversial state that Trump jumped out. The real issue, the real issue that the neocons uh and your buddies uh uh, you know, who are in favor of this attacking Iran and doing it because they're proceeding. We've lost 14 soldiers, which is terrible, but they've killed hundreds of Americans over the last 47 years. >> Obama's deal did not go far enough in their estimation in terms of curbing uh Iran's uh, you know, proxies, whether that was the Houthis or whether it was Hezbollah, uh, uh, or um, whomever. And uh, the the >> If if Trump is successful and there is striking a deal with Iran >> 47. I think it would be a great thing. Will that happen? I don't know. >> To get rid of Iran, and they finally found an American president who's willing to do it. >> And that's what this >> so so what about what about the fact that the Saudis want to get rid of Iran? Do you just blame just blame? No, I I'm quite I'm quite >> for every single president that has said I'm going to deal with Iran. Don't every single one. What about them? Just >> listen. >> If the Iranians came to George W. Bush and tried to make a deal in the wake of 9/11 that was completely comprehensive and uh, in fact, not only did they do this, they brought the deal to the Swiss. >> The Swiss went to the United States and said, "Here is a big deal." is fun that they adhere to the JCPOA and Trump ruined it. >> And the Bush administration was so upset that there was a chance for peace with Iran that they sanctioned Switzerland for even delivering the message. >> What does that have to do with Trump? I didn't vote for Bush. What does that have to do with any of this? >> It is the same agenda that has been operating this hostility towards Iran and Biden, uh >> hostility towards Iran. So when they when they chant death to America, they've criticism hundreds of Americans over the last 47 years. >> back into the JO is the uh the JPCOA. And I in retrospect, I realize you think Iran because of this great regime, no threat, no worry, don't care if they have a nuclear >> weapon. Exactly what they said. Uh, this is exactly verbatim what you're saying to me right now is exactly what they said to people who said we should not be invading Iraq. >> Let's go. There's so many differences that it's staggering. We had boots on the ground in Iraq and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Here we don't have boots on on the ground. And there's 60% enriched uranium and they're funding terror proxies. Night meet day. Totally different. >> I see. It's a completely different set of reasons why we're uh invading this country. >> There were no weapons of mass destruction. There's 60% enriched uranium and a failure to comply with the IA. uranium and funding mass destruction. >> Do you know how long how long I'm going to ask you one question. How long to get from 60% >> to weapons grade? >> My understanding according to Donald Trump is that we were two weeks away. >> That does seem to be that does seem to be the number that the lift from 60% to weapons grade >> is only a matter of weeks. I'm not Okay. All right. I I'll look it up. >> You should talk to the CIA. We have >> I actually did speak to somebody from the CIA. That's where I got it from. There is no reason to have 60% uh enriched uranium if you, you know, are claiming that you have a civilian peaceful nuclear program. Nothing over 5% makes sense. You don't need it. And yet they've been stockpiling it. Getting from 60% to weapons grade is is the easy lift. >> I spoke. Okay. How long is the time frame to get from >> Okay, honestly, I gotta go. This has been great. Very edifying, uh, and I appreciate it. Thank you for having me on. >> To weapons grade. I'm just curious. >> The short answer is a matter of days to roughly one to two weeks. Sam, that's the answer. >> Days and weeks away from uh from a nuclear weapon. It's amazing how how many years decades I've been hearing that. >> Sam, they had 60% enriched uranium. It takes literally the short answer is a matter of days to roughly one to two weeks. And I did speak to somebody from the C. No. Okay. All right. How long is the time frame to get from 60% enriched uranium to weapons grade? The short answer is a matter of days to roughly one to two weeks because the law of physics and nuclear engineering because of the laws of physics and nuclear engineering, uranium enrichment is not a linear process. Moving from natural uranium to 0.07 period to 20% enrichment takes about 90% of the total effort. Once uranium has already been enriched to 60%, nearly all of the heavy lifting is done. The final dash to weapons grade 90% purity requires only removing one microscopic fraction of unwanted isotopes. I guess that's the end of the show. Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please like, comment, subscribe, and share.

Get Our Mobile App

The Ultimate Clash: Jillian Michaels vs. Sam Seder | No Holds Barred

Transcription