‘Starmer Ain't No Churchill’ | Trump LASHES OUT At UK In FIERY CLASH | Trump Insider Jack Posobiec

He's looking around for allies and I think he thought he was going to find one in Kierstahmer and he did not and that, of course, is going to permanently, I think, color his relationship with the PM.

The Basin said, none of this will overshadow my relationship with Britain, but it's Stahmer that I've got a problem with.

When you see Islamist gaining more power, gaining more population size in terms of their percentage through mass migration in countries like the UK, this is clearly and could potentially be something

that causes the United States to rethink those relationships.

He's playing with fire, isn't he?

Yes, very much so.

There's a level of skepticism for the United States embarking in any Middle Eastern conflict again because of the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, my interview with President Trump has caused quite a stir both in Britain and today in the Oval Office,

where the President doubled down on his astonishing attacks on the Kierstahmer.

It's safe to say the leader of the free world is pretty pissed with Britain.

Last week, Sir Kierstahmer, the lefty labour lawyer that leads Britain, blocked American BT bombers from refueling in the crucial Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia,

that military base has been so contentious this year as Britain looks at how they can secure its future,

potentially giving it away only to rent it back from Mauritius.

The Chagall Steel has been running along for months now, but it's pretty clear from Donald Trump's words to me last night,

and in the Oval Office today that he considers the deal dead.

He told me he calls it Woke Island.

He has no idea where Britain's giving it away.

He just says ignore a non-binding international ruling, perhaps means that one day Mauritius could claim ownership for the island.

No fire in our person to speak to.

Manu knows Donald Trump very well.

Manu knows Naval Intelligence very well.

Manu knows the MAGA movement very well.

Jack Prasovic, welcome back to Harry Colt saves the West.

Thanks for joining us today.

A pretty remarkable moment.

You know better than most people, the depth of the special relationship in terms of military might,

naval might, satellites, security, cyber, spying.

It's bigger than two politicians,

but I can't remember a time when it's being quite this rough.

And is Donald Trump just annoyed about Diego Garcia?

Or is there something slightly wider in the relationship between Britain and America, do you think?

Well, I think that remains to be seen clearly.

We know President Trump, and I was there with him at the board of peace just a couple of weeks ago.

I really just last week, I should say, when he spoke about Diego Garcia.

He talked about the importance of this.

He put a truth social post up about it just after then talking about the importance

of the U.K. maintaining that, allowing the United States to continue their basing rights there,

and in terms of aircraft to provide those options for these critical refueling flights,

as it is almost directly south of the Persian Gulf, and just allows for more optionality for

long-range bombers. As many of the United States' holdings and territories and other territories

in the Pacific do the way that Puerto Rico kind of serves the similar purpose in the Caribbean,

at least not so much for Arab or for naval vessels and naval capabilities there for the United

States in the Caribbean. And so this is something that has long standing been a key element of U.S.

and British partnership there in the Indian. And for this refusal, I believe that President

Trump very clearly took it personally, and I think that's why he responded the way that he did.

Yeah, I mean, we've seen President Trump live. He's gone off at one at the Canadians.

He's gone off at one at the Mexicans. He's gone off at one at NATO. And at the end of the day,

he sort of always comes back to the fold, but he's been quite definitive in this one.

I mean, this is a man that kind of ate quite a lot of flack, I suppose.

He, you know, Keir Starmer is not Donald Trump. They couldn't be more opposite.

They had this sort of unusual bromance. It's, you know, in Mr. International Law, Mr.

do everything by the book. He's nicknamed Britain as Mr. Rules.

And then you have a president on the other side who says that the only guardrails that he actually

has are his own morality, regardless of constitutions or legal or international legal obligations there.

But they did sort of forge a sort of 18 months slightly uneasy bromance, you might think.

But is there, do you think there's anything, you know, how do you come back from the president

basically giving you the most insulting put down you possibly can of you're basically saying,

I love Winston Churchill so much. I've got a great big bust of him in the Oval Office.

And you sir, I know Winston Churchill. I mean, that's up there with, you know, I knew,

I knew, I knew John Kennedy. John Kennedy was a friend of mine. I served John Kennedy.

You are no John Kennedy. I mean, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those sound bites.

It's going to really hang around Starmer's neck probably for the rest of his political career.

Well, I think that's exactly right. And look, we know the president Trump has this affinity for

the UK because of his Scottish ancestry, because of his mother being born there, because,

of course, of his property up in Turnberry, because of his relationship with the late Queen,

someone who he held in the highest of esteem. And in fact, he also talked very favorably about

King Charles. And he said that he was hoping to see the king very soon here. So I think that,

again, he thinks that it really feels that he's shown the utmost of respect to the UK,

to the British system, to the relationship, and doesn't feel like that's been reciprocated at

a time. By the way, when, of course, he's facing headwinds from the Democrats, he's facing headwinds

from the United States Senate, even Republicans there to pass his, his agenda and put it into

legislation, different acts like the SAVAC that he's pushing for allowing, or I should say,

blocking illegal aliens to vote. So this comes at a time where the president, of course,

has gone in for quite a big gamble, obviously, going to war is never an easy task, as Churchill

himself, of course, famously found out in certain operations of World War I. And this is a time

where he's looking around for allies. And I think he thought he was going to find one in

Kierstormer, and he did not. And that, of course, is going to permanently, I think, color his

relationship with the PM. But that being said, President Trump also has a remarkable

capability for forgiveness and for redemption. We've seen him do this time and time again

to people that he's been crosswise with, to people that he's called out in the media,

depending on how they respond. If they respond and, of course, correct, if the PM does that,

there is a possibility that President Trump could say all is forgiven. We've seen him do this time

and time again. So I wouldn't surprise me if that happens as well. Well, yeah, the King is

Julian Washington, D.C. in New York at the end of the end of next month. So that's certainly going

to be a lily moment. He actually was actually pains to say to me last night that actually

why he still loves the UK. He still loves, as you said, that relationship he has with Britain,

he loves King Charles. And he said, I'm looking forward to seeing this. He basically said,

none of this will overshadow my relationship with Britain, but it's Stormer that I've got a problem

with. The other thing we discussed was, and we see it, I think, a lot here in the United States as

a big crossover is the idea of left-leaning politicians and now realizing that in light of

what's happened in the Middle East in the last couple of years, they are essentially bleeding

out voters to the hard left and a hard left combination of traditional left wingers and Muslim

block voting and Islamist elements, sectarian elements within infiltrating mainstream politics.

And I suspect he'd probably take quite a dim view of that shaping foreign policy. And

Kirstama's open to the exaggeration is not just me making it. It's the leader of the opposition

in the United Kingdom. It's multiple commentators in the UK who are saying, look,

there's clearly party politics involved in this. I mean, the special relationship is surely

meant to be more than helping the party that's in power and keep its grip on power by essentially

sucking up to Islamist. This episode is brought to by Kolegaard. Do you know what's really

scary? Not screening for colon cancer when you turn 45. The Kolegaard test is not invasive,

requires no special prep or time off work and shifts right to your door. In just three simple steps,

Kolegaard takes the scare out of colon cancer screening. If you're 45 or older and at average risk,

ask your healthcare provider about the Kolegaard test. Kolegaard is available by prescription only,

learn more or request a prescription today at Kolegaard.com slash screen.

Well, and in fact, JD Vance as well, when he spoke in Munich last year at the Munich Security

Conference, this is something that he pointed out as well that when you see Islamist gaining more

power, gaining more population size in terms of their percentage through mass migration in countries

like the UK. He also called out France and Germany and others and particularly in Western Europe

that he said this is clearly and could potentially be something that causes the United States

to rethink those relationships. When we talk about the special relationship, we're not just talking,

of course, as you say about these formalities. We're talking about military basing rights. We're

talking about the five I's intelligence sharing treaty, which I certainly used every single day

when I was in the intelligence community and have a very clear understanding of how much

intelligence the US shares with the UK and the other five I's partners and vice versa as well.

And so that is something that has only traditionally been shared with countries that are in the

Anglo sphere. So this is not something that's shared with other NATO members. It's not something

that's shared with other partners, not like Israel, for example, that we embark in military

operations with five I's is always the highest level of intelligence sharing. So for JD Vance to

call that into question that seriously calls into question whether or not the US is going to allow

direct access to the array of spy satellites, the communications, infrastructure, the NSA databases,

all of these things that the US and the UK traditionally have shared in terms of national security

that he is really looking at that saying, look, there's a serious issue here that if these,

I don't even know how to put it really, these new demographics taking over in various parts of

the country having influence in various parts of these countries could call into question whether

or not those security agreements continue. So he's playing with fire, isn't he? Any really? Yes,

very much so. I mean, I'm fair to say it's just the the sort of Middle Eastern linked communities

we put it. I mean, imagine, imagine, imagine if you put out right now that the location of US

submarines or the strike packages for targets that were coming up in Iran before it took place,

let the Ayatollah know where, you know, when the strike was coming this sort of thing or given,

given the locations of US special forces. Again, these are the types of material I'm generally

speaking, right? I'm not, I'm not revealing anything, but in generally speaking, these are the types of

things you've revealed too much. That's the CIA. That's actually the New York Times, believe it or not.

That, you know, that the United States would would currently, you know, perhaps be sharing and

not want to for after that. It'd be unfair to say it's just the changing demographics that have

some skepticism towards this operation, this war, I think we call it, in Iran. The long shadow of

Afghanistan and Iraq linger over Britain just as they do across America. There is sort of skepticism

about the end game of this of this operation in the UK, just as I think there is growing skepticism

here. I mean, the initial ra ra of the Ayatollah's wax on the first day, I mean, it's a bit like

Maduro. No one's going to get sick of seeing a bad evil tyrant in chains and no one's going to

weep for the butcher of Tehran. But what's the mood like in, you know, you have your finger on

the pulse of the movement that elected Donald Trump. It feels very divided, especially online,

but it does feel slightly divided around the wider America as well. In the fact that I'll be really

going to do this again. Is this going to be another forever war? It starts with bombs and then it

sputes. There's only been six American casualties. The escalation around the wider Gulf. I don't

think anyone really expected. How's the mood in Trump says we're winning, this is great, we're

dominant. But JD Vance certainly has been coy on it. What's the temperature? Well, I'd say the

temperature is, of course, as you say, there's a level of skepticism for the United States in

barking in any Middle Eastern conflict again because of the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan. This

is something absolutely colors all of our actions over there. And at the same time for folks who are

veterans like myself, who served in these time frames that, you know, we understand that you'd

start small and then it becomes bigger and then eventually a configuration that becomes very,

it's easy to get in hard to get out. And so this is something that worries a lot of people.

This is this possibility of mission creep. But at the same time, I would also offer that President

Trump has won himself credibility, not just in his second term, but really in just the last 12

months since Operation Midnight Hammer, which was an in and out exercise, since the Maduro raid,

which you bring up, was also an in and out one night exercise was seen as largely successful.

And he he bandied that at the state of the Union to raucous applause, people cheering when

that was brought up. So again, that is seen as a success in terms of his foreign policy. And,

you know, something I've said in a few other spots as well is that at the end of the day, Donald

Trump is not George W. Bush. JD Vance is not Dick Cheney. They are not part of that group that

led those wars. It led to the beginning of those wars. There's certainly not Barack Obama either

who was sending the the pallets of cash for American hostages when my Navy shipmates were picked up

there at in Keshe, Mile and those small boats that were picked up in 2016. So it's just it is

a new day. It certainly is. And I believe there is a level of credibility that the president had

and trust that the president has. But at the same time, there are still a lot of people. And I would

say there's a generational divide. And Charlie Kirk, my late friend talked about this quite a bit

about this generational divide when it comes to action and not specifically military action

in the Middle East, where Gen Z college voters, which Charlie understood very well because he spoke

to them four hours a day, a clip when he would go to these campus, these ubiquitous campus stops,

that they don't want to see action in the Middle East. They want to see action when it comes to

the clients and friends of Jeffrey Epstein. They want to see mass deportations and they want to see

economic relief specifically coming into a midterm election year like the United States

is in this year. That's what they want. So and when I go and I talk to my audience,

you know, we ask people to sort of share in their age. I've been asking that on this and we see

that split as well. It's not always 100 percent. But typically the age, it's around 45, 50, where people

are either if you're over that number, you're very much in support of these operations. If you're

under that number, this gamut ranges from skeptical to being totally against. And so that's something

that I think the president, the White House, the administration clearly understand very well

going into this. And we also know that President Trump has come out and said he thinks that this

is necessary. And so he's banking on that credibility that he's built up with the past operations

to see this one through. Spank signal was out of the, probably shouldn't you smoke signals,

given what's down down to run and so right now. But the the mood music outside of out of the

Pentagon feels like this is a sort of four week campaign. I think the sort of goals have already

been achieved before quicker than they expected to be. This isn't going to be forever war.

But presumably this is shone and done up and and the deck is cleared by, you know, before the midterms

are even on the, you know, even on the cusp of the campaigning really beginning proper. How long would

you, how long would you be comfortable seeing this action take place? Well, look, we reported that

as well over human events that four weeks was about the time frame that the administration was

looking at the White House, probably where I read it could be, could be. And, you know, one of

the things though that the president has said and one of the signals that we're also getting out

of the administration is that they are looking at the Venezuela model that this would think about

what we're not hearing, right? We're not hearing these stories of nation building. We're not hearing

democracy spreading capacity building. Everyone's a liberal democracy now. Let's drop a key

Jeffersonian and liberal democracy is going to flourish in the streets of town. We're just

not hearing that. And obviously, President Trump and JD Vance have said, look, we would obviously

support that if it happened. But that's a question that they're willing to leave with the Iranian

people themselves and JD Vance coming out last night. And the word that he used on Fox News,

I thought it was interesting. He said, incidental. It is incidental to this operation who the new

leadership of Iran becomes. And I think that's very telling that the vice president using his

first public address since the start of this operation to use the word incidental rather than

say we're looking for regime change, we're looking for partners, we're looking for, you know,

backing a militia, this sort of thing. He said incidental. And so that to me says that they're

looking at that Venezuela model. You take out whoever the current senior leader is and then whichever

group rises to the top, whether that be from the IRGC, whether it be, I believe, largely,

the civilian leadership of Iran seems to still be intact, the foreign minister, the civilian

president, and also the son of the Ayatollah. We, you know, again, fog of war, but with all the

caveats we believe he's still alive. So the son of Hamini is still alive. And so you could see a

group coalition come together that wants to spark a more pragmatic relationship with the United

States rather than an aggressive take. As far as I can see, it's no bomb, no efforts at a bomb,

stop the bomb and stop with the death to America crap. And, you know, we'll leave your oil

production alone and, you know, be more amiable to the west and you won't get your head blown off.

Is that fair? Yeah, I mean, that really seems to be what they're looking for. And again,

the Venezuela model proves that. Obviously, there was a recalibration when it came to the oil

sales there. They're now sending oil supplies to the United States, the US allies. But by and

large, the machinery of government has still been left in place. And even Steven Miller had this

incredible moment on CNN, where Jake Tapper was asking him, are you going to push for democratic

elections? And Steven said, we're going to work with the government in place. We're not interested

in going down that road. Just take out the ultra baddies and hold your nose and what were places in

President Trump has said before. And in times where I've spoken with them that, you know,

specifically about the Middle East, that, you know, you need, you need tough people in that region.

And so this is something where you look at his policy in Syria, where Al Jolani, a guy who has a

rough background, I believe is the president called it himself being a prior member of working

with Al Qaeda in Iraq. Supposedly, a reform terrorist is now the leader, but he has the backing of

the US and many of our partners. And the president's saying, look, we need people who are rough to take

care of a rough area. I think no one's ever attended the Emirates, the Saudis, the Ammanis, the

Baranis, particularly nice guys. The Jordanians put a nice spin on it. At the end of the day, you know,

they've held their grip on power for a reason without the flag waving democracy and the other

nations have tried. Jack, the other split I can pick up, obviously it's pretty hard to miss, is

this growing movement within the right, the alt-right you might call it, the, you know, the

work right of this kind of obsession, growing obsession with Israel and, you know, Netanyah who's

calling the shots, you know, there's a sort of slight confusion over Rubio's comments in the

Congress the other day where he seemed to him suggest that Israel were going to strike first,

so the Americas had to do it anyway. I think it was a bit more nuanced than that if you actually

look at the whole transcript, but obviously those comments were lept on by the kind of, you know,

I'd say you're probably still a member of Team Sensible, right? The same crazies have

absolutely run with, run with that in terms of, in terms of whipping up sort of, and resistance to

this, to this, to this action. You've got Nick Fuentes saying, you know, you still, you still think

it would have been worse with Kamala, you know, advanced as dead, Rubio's dead, Trump is dead,

we've got to, you know, we've got to take back the, we've got to take back the movement and

strip Israel out of it. This is given the sort of that very vocal, very online sect of the movement,

quite a lot of ammunition, isn't it? Well, I think it certainly has, and there's no question

about that, and certainly, by the way, I'm not one of these people who says that, you know, it's

impossible to have a discussion about whether America's interests and Israel's interests are

aligned on any topic of foreign policy. I think that's perfectly fair, and in fact, I think it's

probably something that should be discussed more when it comes to questions of whether or not we're

going to war, whether American, by, we've already had six Americans killed in this, so, you know,

this is not bloodless, this has come at a cost, and certainly, it deserves to be understood. Now,

that being said, wouldn't want anything to color that bias, and I do think there are times where

the United States and Israel's interests do align. President Trump has said they align

when it comes to Iran, and it comes to these ballistic missiles when it comes, obviously,

to the nuclear facility, and the nuclear-raining enrichment as President, or excuse me,

Vice President, advanced, talked about last night. But I would caution, though, that one piece of

this that I could see where it getting away is this mission creep, because when you look at it

from President Trump, he's looking at this from a grand strategy standpoint. He's thinking about

China. He's thinking about Russia. He's thinking about the pressure that it puts on the BRICS

alliance, this, this not alliance, sort of geopolitical third world, third party movement,

and so the multi-polarity world, as they call it. And so he's looking at putting them in check,

that's why he goes to Venezuela first, then he goes to Iran, understanding the closure of the

Strait of Hormuz, and the effect that would have on the world, oil markets, that is more of an

effect on China and more of an effect on Europe than it does the United States. And of course,

that means, though, that the United States, it'd be a writ large, still would favor a stable Iran,

be that a free Iran or a Iran with a more pro-Western government in place, the Shah,

someone who had the U.S. had backed before, certainly was not democratically elected. And Israel,

on the other hand, would probably prefer seeing an Iran that's fighting itself, seeing a

Iran that's more at a civil war, seeing more instability, various opposition groups fighting each

other. They would rather see that. So that might be an area, perhaps, where we see this mission

diverge in terms of the United States wanting to end this quickly, whereas Israel could probably

want for their interests to drag this on much further, so that their regional threat is then

diminished in the long term. Well, you've got figures like Megan Kelly that. I mean,

it's been on an incredible journey from sort of semi-moderate Fox News presenter through to,

you know, Pogcasta, but she's saying, you know, six lives would land down for Israel.

It's quite a remarkable place to, you know, the traditional sort of relationship between the

American right and Israel is pretty bruised right now, isn't it? Right now, new

fan duel customers can get up to $300 back in bonus bets every day for 10 days. Place

a tournament bet using the token, and if it doesn't win, you'll get up to $300 back in bonus bets

every single day for 10 days straight. You can even mix things up with same-game parlays for a

shot at a bigger payout. Fan duel. It's time to dance. 21 plus in present and select states.

Bonus bets are non-withdrawable and expire seven days after receipt. Tokens are received

in increments of one per day. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fandal.com.

Gambling problem called 1-800-Gambling. Well, I think it has been bruised and I think that the

Warren Gaza has played a huge role in terms of that. I think that the continued warfare has

played a huge role in that. And look, there are a lot of people that came on board with President

Trump and JD Vance in 2024 who are hoping for an end to not just new wars but all military action

in the Middle East. That didn't work out. The world is the way the world is. President Trump

taking a leadership the way that he is. And look, they're using Israel as this, you know,

this using Israel as this casual to point to it saying, look, Gaza, look what they did in Gaza.

Now they just want more war here. But they're sort of overlooking the fact that President Trump

actually led to the ceasefire in Gaza and even slapped down Israel when they were working or,

you know, making moves to break that peace fire. And he slapped down BB Netanyahu very quickly

when he did so. So I think the president is his own man. I think he's in the driver's

seat when it comes to this. Foreign alliances absolutely open for debate. There's no question

about that. I'm not the kind of person that's going to shut that down. But I would say just

make sure you're telling the whole story. Yeah, I think the exact quote from Donald Trump was

they didn't know what the fuck they're doing. Wasn't it? As he walked across the south

corner. Yes, he was like, it was like 9 a.m. on a Saturday morning and it was just like,

I was watching TV slightly hung over and I was like, what the hell is it going on?

When you see the leader of the free world, basically, yeah, as you say, knock it down very quickly.

That division does seem to sort of play out a little bit within the administration,

though, as well. Rubio obviously is much more forthright on his support of Israel. Obviously,

he's in a state department facing, you know, foreign facing role and they are a crucial

regional ally, not least now. But JD Vance is keeping his power quite dry on this one. I think,

obviously, he was silent for a few days after the strikes happened. He appeared on Fox last

night. He didn't not, he didn't completely deny stories that were circulating that he had been

very anti the strike on Iran, but then come round to it and if you could do it, do it quickly,

which is kind of, I think, quite a neat way of sort of side-stepping the issue. We're sort of,

we're heading into a campaign now, really, aren't we? Where Israel and geopolitics can be

confronted center of the future of the Republican Party that's looking to me like it's, you know,

whereas I'd say six, seven months ago it was going to be JD's for the taking. Rubio is looking

like he could be a contender and it's going to be a high stakes, you know, high stakes high-minded

primary if those two go head to head, isn't it? Well, look, I think it's no one's, no one's

surprise. It's too no one's surprised that when you have a team full of alpha males when you've

got all the guys together and, you know, they're all knowing that President Trump is at least

constitutionally term limited. We'll see whether or not he takes another bite at that apple as

he likes to tell us. But no, it's very clear. Look, the jockeying for 2028 and the primary has

already begun. It's clearly in full swing and that is what's adding, I think, to the tension of

all of these statements. Marco Rubio comes out and suddenly, I think these, you know, prediction

markets have already begun, you know, sort of scanning for, you know, Rubio's chances going

up or down, JD's chances going up or down. And so they're already clearly looking at it. Of course,

the vice president has seen all of this. He's an avid reader of Twitter as we all know, which

avid reader of X. And so I think that all of that colors a lot of these decisions and a lot of

these moves as they are made. But I would also caution that if this thing does turn out to be

successful, then it could be to their, both of their benefit, really, for kidding out in front of

it early on and saying that, look, we did this. It was successful. We have a new relationship with

whoever is able to come to power in Iran. I'm not saying that's going to happen. I am just saying

that if you compare it to Venezuela where there was a net good outcome, that that is something

that will be quite popular back home. Yeah, success has, has many fathers, I suppose, if it's

a show in six years. They'll be running. In the military, we used to say that there are only

operational successes and intelligence failures. So whenever the intel is right, we never get credit.

What is an operational success look like to you? So say where are we now? We're in early March.

So let's fast forward to the end of the summer, August as the midterms loom. What does Iran look

like then? Well, look, I mean, you would hope that there's stability in Iran by then. You'd

hope that in the middle of the summer driving season in the U.S. that gas is not going up to those

kind of shocks that we saw back in 2008. The last time there was this level of instability in

the Middle East, you would hope that President Trump is working to fight inflation and fight a lot

of the regional inflation that we have in the U.S. There's different parts of the U.S. that have

higher inflation than others and are working to get those wages up. And quite frankly, hoping that by

August, we're not talking about the Middle East, and we're not talking about the straight-of-horn

moves and trying to measure how many nautical miles across it is, and whether or not a cruise missile

can achieve a- Could I be monitoring the situation? Across the, yeah, no more monitoring of the

situation, especially for U.M. myself and our benefit. Though, of course, my-I have been able to

give my kids a little bit of a lesson in naval power projection, because they keep asking,

Daddy, how is the United States can do this? Well, son, let me tell you something about what your

dad used to do in the Navy. And so, you know, politically speaking, I would say it is to the benefit

of the administration, to the benefit of the Republicans, to take the win, get out swiftly,

get out quickly, find that stability, and then refocus big on domestic policy, focus on economic

policy, so that, look, we're in February. February is a long, or excuse me, March, we just begun March,

March is a long time away from the midterms, a long time away from November, where this thing could

honestly be completely forgotten when people go to the votes. I wonder, I wonder, as you say,

big risk, big strategy, bold, big bold play for a-for a president who is in a legacy to finding

here, lose the house, and I think it gets very, very tricky, very quickly for the administration.

Jack Posabick, always a-a pleasure, fascinating as ever, and always, always welcome here

for more monitoring the situation. In fact, we could do an entire spin-off show. Jack and Harry

monitor the situation. I'm up for it, I'll bring the coffee you bring the tea. All right,

did take care. Thanks for having me. Good to see you.

Rinse knows that greatness takes time, but soda's laundry. So rinse will take your laundry and

hand-deliver it to your door, expertly cleaned, and you can take the time pursuing your passions.

Time one spent sorting and waiting, folding and queuing, now spent challenging and

innovating and pushing your way to greatness. So pick up the Irish flute or those calligraphy

pens, or that daunting beef Wellington recipe card, and leave the laundry to us. Rinse, it's time to be

great.