‘THE PURGE BEGINS’ | Why Trump Is Clearing Out Tucker Carlson Loyalists | Josh Hammer

Tucker Carlson, it's Candace Owens, it's Megan Kelly, it's Matt Gates.

They're banging the drums and saying that this is a, that there's the betrayal of the

mega base and roughly 90% of self-identified macro-publicans support the current war against

rum.

That's not a divide.

Tulsi Gabbars is running, is running something of a shadow, shadow coup within the

administration.

Tucker Carlson is the leader of this.

He's been leading a shadow war against President Trump's mega for at least a year and a half

two years now.

At his meeting with Tucker in the Oval Office, the big smiling photo of the Earth

Russell of Death could easily have been a decoy to try to throw the Iranians off.

Now, is the mega movement really in a state of civil war?

As Operation Epic Fury rains down on Iran, the lightning influences are trading very public

bows.

And the cracks have reached the top of the White House administration.

The state counterterrorism director Joel Kent, quit, claim that the country was being

lied to and manufactured war based on mint misinformation.

Well, could it blast a miser cosperity theorist, people like Tucker Carlson have held him as

a hero.

Right as Tucker himself is claiming the CIA is targeting him for his own ties to Iran.

Once again, News of Weeks, Josh Hammer is here to un-pick it.

Oh, Josh, is it really his badge that, look, I'm thinking it's from CNN polling today.

This is just that, actually, for those 30% of voters that identify as a mega, they have

no problem with this war, really.

And their approval rating for Donald Trump is a hundred percent.

Isn't, is this just, you know, people online and people on TV and podcasters arguing about

micro-penises?

Harry, great to join you, perhaps not to talk about micro-penises, but perhaps talk about

the war and the, and the mega movement itself.

Look, this is the second straight time that the United States has had a conflict with Iran

when there's been this, this whole phenomenon, we had this last June during the B2 bombing

run.

There's a much smaller, shorter operations called midnight hammer, then now it's called

Operation Epic Fury.

The exact same thing, the exact same people over and over again, it's Tucker Carlson,

it's Candace Owens, it's Megan Kelly, it's Matt Gaetz, Steve Batten, et cetera.

And they, they're banging the drums and saying that this is a, that, there's the betrayal

of the mega base.

Well, back then last June, we had polling on this.

And one poll that stands out that I recall vividly was a poll from CBS news, pretty reputable

pollster.

Quite, quite frequently in our presidential elections.

At the time, last June, 94%, 94% of self-identified macro-publicans agreed with the B2 bombing

rums of, on the Iranian nuclear sites.

Very similar story here, the exact polls will differ a little bit, but I also saw some

of those CNN metrics.

What I saw was that roughly 90% according to my good buddy Harry Anthony over at CNN,

nearly 90% of self-identified macro-publicans support the current war against Iran.

That's not a divide, 90-10 is not a divide, they're actually, they're probably very few

issues, frankly, where you can get 90% agreement among self-identified macro-publicans, probably

unverturally anything.

It's probably about what, one of the most bad, and trans, and trans stuff in bathrooms,

I think it's about the only 90-10 issues I've ever seen.

Yeah, exactly.

So this is not controversial.

This is very much a bit of a gender manufactured attempt to try to sow the seeds in the ears

and the eyes of the gullible that it is some sort of civil war, but it manifestly is not,

which of course raises the question as to why some of these people, many of whom I've

just kind of named off here, why are they chasing this very small, this very small market

share?

And the posts and the podcasts and the this and that, they are from these same people.

And we're talking here about literally single digits or extremely low double-digit

individuals.

To the extent that they're getting many shares and social media, many downloads and clicks,

where are those clicks coming from?

Well, that's an interesting question as well.

I actually saw an analysis earlier this week to pick on someone who really deserves to

be picked on, and frankly, a lot more than that.

Dave Smith, the so-called comedian, a man who I unfortunately debated twice last year,

not particularly a joyous occasion, I saw an analysis and social media that showed that

a shockingly high percentage of those who are amplifying him on social media are foreigners,

are not accounts, not basically in the United States.

So a lot of this is generated by overseas algorithms or overseas bots, things like that.

And we can talk about exactly where this is coming from and it perhaps a great detail,

but at a broader level, Harry, there is no divide.

Again, 90-10 is basically the polling that I've seen on this.

There's no divide there.

And the media is doing a disservice to the public, they're reporting anything to the

public.

I mean, amongst the sort of, amongst the influencer class, you named, you know, sort of Tucker

and Meghan as two examples, they clearly have, you know, they clearly have a stated position

on this.

Who do you think they are trying to reach out to and try to represent?

Obviously, at a sort of top level, it is clearly having an impact on the direction of

the war, given you've had seen the administration people quit.

Hey, podcast listeners, Gillian Michaels here.

The world is feeling unstable right now.

And the noise and the chaos is overwhelming.

If you're looking for clarity and truth, good or bad, I invite you to check out my podcast

keeping it real with Gillian Michaels.

Twice a week, I break down the biggest issues, shaping our lives and I sit down with bold

guests for fearless, honest conversations.

There are no talking points, there's no agenda, just real discussions with the challenge

assumptions and demand clarity.

Subscribe to Keeping It Real with Gillian Michaels today, anywhere you get your podcasts.

So here's how I see it, Harry.

What I see is that there is a shadow war happening against President Trump and against Maga.

To me, the shadow war is both inside and outside the administration, the outside actors

or many of whom we've just named.

Tucker Carlson is the leader of this.

He's been leading a shadow war against President Trump, Maga for at least a year and a half,

two years now.

He comes to his Epstein files, freak out his mental breakdown on this topic last summer

where he basically said that Donald Trump is a tool of global pedophiles and massage,

whether it was his comments about Nicholas Mendoor and then as well, he freaked out when

Trump got Mendoor.

He said Mendoor was was a paragon of Christian conservatism because he opposes gay marriage

as prolett, which by the way is not even true.

And then after the Iran war started, Tucker Carlson called this evil, he called this operation

evil.

So they're increasingly just in a state of agitation.

They are at loggerheads with Maga and Donald Trump to his great credit has finally started

to pull a Michael Corleone and settle all the family business for Maga.

Donald Trump essentially casting Carlson out of Maga or this month thing that he is

not Maga.

And then this past Sunday night, essentially doing a whole beat down on on Megan Kelly

as well after her outrageous assault, including the somewhat infamous micro penis below the

belt insults against against Mark Lennon.

So so Donald Trump is starting to start to settle this family business.

But there are folks both outside there and you mentioned Joe Kent.

Well, who did Joe Kent work for?

Well, Joe Kent was working ludicrously.

It would seem as the director of the National Condor Terrorism Center, a man whose wife writes

for a Russian agit prop outlet called Grey Zone.

That's run by Max Blumenthal.

It's essentially a bit of a Kremlin Russian propaganda.

So ludicrously this man was in that position.

His boss is Tulsi Gabbard in my telling of the story, Harry, what I see is that Tulsi

Gabbard is running something of a shadow, shadow coup within the administration against

the administration.

Tulsi Gabbard had on staff Joe Kent.

She still hasn't staffed a man by the name of Will Ruger, who is a Koch brothers hardcore,

a non-magga aligned, hard-line isolationist.

She actually just hired a man by the name of Dan Culldwell, Dan Culldwell, who was literally

fired by his longtime good friend Pete Heggs at last year at the Pentagon for leaking,

for leaking details pertaining if memory serves about the signal gate controversy on things

like that.

She actually has a former Tucker producer on her staff as well.

So it seems to me that there is some level of coordination and this shadow campaign against

MAGA happening both within the administration that's primarily sent around Tulsi Gabbard

on the office of the DNI.

There are probably some other people involved as well, but I think it's mostly there in

that office.

And then there's a lot of outside acts as well.

And it seems to me like, frankly, it's all orchestrated.

Where did Joe Kent run to as soon as he's tendered his highly tangentious, highly graphic

but resignation letter.

He ran the Tucker Carlson.

Well, where did he get first though?

He went into JD Vance first.

Yes.

And that is, I think, one of the more interesting speculations of this broader conversation.

A lot of people wondering exactly where the vice president fits into the story.

He is known to have, he doesn't have Tucker's views on foreign policy, but he's definitely

at times been closer to that line of thought there.

So that's a very interesting bit of speculation unto itself.

Of course, Tucker's son quite famously now does work for the vice president in a more

junior capacity as well.

Which would make this, you know, make this more than just a row amongst the influences

and trading blows and making it actually about 28, which is actually this is more about

wrestling and control of the future direction, you know, a sort of post-Trump world almost.

That's right.

I mean, there's speculation Tucker himself is considering a tilt at the White House.

Do you think this is about wrestling control of the party post-28?

Well, then anything else.

Yes.

That is a thousand percent what's happening here.

Now, J.E. Vance, by the way, is in a very fast, same position there because he hasn't

very close to Tucker Carlson in the past.

And as I just mentioned, Tucker some does, does work for J.E. Vance.

But if I'm correct here, what, when we go back to Tucker Carlson and his videos past

weekend where he, where he alleged that the CIA is, is spying on him, but first of all,

he's probably lying because the CIA does not actually do that.

That's actually really the NSA, but regardless of which agency it is, that means that

someone leaked to him.

He hasn't just come across his information.

Someone is leaking to him.

Was it Joe Kent?

Quite possibly.

If it wasn't Joe Kent, it was probably someone else in Tulsi Gabbard's office.

Why?

Because Tulsi Gabbard, Harry, I haven't, I'm pretty good authority, herself, Harper's

outside Longshot, 2028 Ambition.

So, yes, she essentially wants to run for president on a hardcore, hard-line isolationist

platform.

Essentially, ARC, either Donald Trump sold out MAGA or at least didn't do a good enough

job of fulfilling these promises there, kind of not a, not a grouper platform, but let's

call it a grouper-friendly platform.

And to do so, she has to knife JD Vance.

JD Vance, she views actually as one of her threats for 2020.

And so, in my reading of what we're seeing here and all these latest twists and turns

of this unfolding story, is I think that Tulsi Gabbard is actually now engaged in operation

to knife JD Vance via Tucker Carlson.

She is trying to use Tucker as a wedge, a cudgel against JD because they've actually been

friends in the past.

Now, the extent to which JD actually harbors views that are very sympathetic to Tulsi's

and or Joe Kans, again, as a matter of, I think, of much speculation, and this kind of

fees as broader speculation as to who Trump will endorse the 2020.

There's a lot of chatter that it actually might be Mark Rubio, not JD Vance.

It's really fascinating, but yes, I absolutely do think that a lot of this wrestling is trying

to lay the seeds to rest control of the American right, more generally, in a post-Trump post-2028

era.

The polls currently are what they are.

The mega base, the Republican party voter base, the conservative movement, conservatives

in general, seem to like killing bad guys.

This is a thing that goes back a very long time when it comes to conservative Americans

there.

We tend to like it when bad people pay a price for doing very bad things to Americans and

to American interests there.

And there's a fundamental thing that I think a lot of isolations I've struggled with.

But I ultimately do think, here, you mentioned Tucker in 28, I've been saying for at least

a year now that Tucker's running.

I think Tucker is absolutely running.

I think he is playing to run on a platform, essentially saying that Donald Trump said he

would be America first.

He said he would be a populist.

He sold out.

He sold out to the elites, to the Veneocans, Beltway, to whoever, the Jews, I guess he would

probably say.

And he will run on essentially a Charles Lindbergh-esque platform.

That is absolutely my ring of tail and making Kelly, but I think it's happening here, Harry.

I think is that she is now in so deep that she cannot possibly recover there.

So her best bet moving forward is to tether herself so close to Tucker in hopes of writing

the Tucker Carlson in 2028 co-tails.

Wow.

I mean, that would really make this sort of influence, that would take it up a notch.

I mean, what would you mean your prediction of how that looks when the rubber hits the

road?

You talked about the fact that a lot of the, you believe a lot of this sort of promotion,

a lot of these clicks and all of these eyeballs are not in America.

How do you think that will survive with the reality on the streets of New Hampshire and

the streets of Iowa?

I don't think it'll go very far to be honest.

I really don't.

That's what I said about Trump there, right?

It is, but this would be a very different platform.

Look, I mean, Tucker was a man who speaks very well.

He had the number one shown cable news for a reason.

He's very eloquent.

He's also not the Tucker to say that he wasn't who was hosting this Fox News monologue.

He's a very, very different person there, not even the substance of what he's saying,

but his demeanor, his affectations, all of it is actually this, this kind of a demonic

laugh.

I mean, like, none of that was really there back during the Fox News monologue day.

So I don't think he would go particularly far.

I'm also not really entirely sure that he would actually run within the Republican party

full.

He might be outside of the party, whether it's Elon Musk's America party or some other

third party vehicle there.

I do think that his next move is to essentially argue that Donald Trump sold out.

And that's why he's been, he's been waging this shadow war for a year and a half, two

years almost now against Trump administration and against the priorities.

And I think the most dangerous part is not that a few people with a very large microphone

say, say some terrible things.

The problem is that they have allies inside the administration, you know, after Joe

Kent had his resignation letter, Donald Trump said very clearly that, look, he said this

guy didn't view a rons of threat.

He said, if you don't view a rons of threat, we don't want any work in here on the administration.

So I, you know, my message to President Trump is, that's correct.

You are the president.

You hold the executive power.

The buck stops with you.

You're the commander in chief.

So enforce that, you know, work with Susie Wiles to make sure that every notable senior

and mid-level staffer or the political appointees actually do share your vision on the, because

I actually know Joe, I know it's been first-hand experience, Harry, not Joe, sorry.

I know Harry from first-hand experience that in the first three to six months, let's

call it of the second Trump administration, where you had Sergio Gore, who was the head

of PPO, the personal office of the White House there.

I know for a fact that a lot of people who have, let's call them MAGA aligned, if you

use informed policy, you know, tough on Iran, tough on China, a lot of them are getting

nixed, a lot of them are getting axed, a lot of people with, shall we say, Jewish sounding

names are kind of Jew-y pro-Israel looking for some of the rest of them.

Why?

I'm not saying it was that black and white, but I know there's from first-hand, I mean,

I didn't personally apply.

I didn't, but.

Well, yeah.

Then how did Joe, so how did Joe Kent end up, it took us for people that were kind of

baffled that this guy was even in the building?

How did it, how did it work?

Well, it's kind of the opposite of what I'm saying, right?

I mean, I think a lot of people with, with, with some of these, you know, tough on Iran,

tough on China views were, were nixed from a lot of these sensitive, nassack positions.

And on, on, on the correlator for that is a lot of people with, with Joe Kent, like the

use actually were, were shepherded in, you know, that, that's how Dan Cullswell got in.

The Pentagon before PTAFs fired him.

That's how Will Ruger got in.

He's, Will Ruger is still in there today working at the office of the DNI, dropped the undertold

St. Gabbard.

So PPO, under Sergio Gore, especially in his first few months, Sergio Gore is a former

Rand Paul staffer, holds a lot of these same isolationist views.

A lot of these folks were, were promoted to the Pentagon and, and to the State Department

at the, and to the office of the, of the DNI.

So to take it, to take it back to the present, if Donald Trump is serious now about settling

the Maca family business, which he's definitely doing on the outside now by casting to our

Carlson out of Maca with his harsh words about Megan Kelly, that's great.

Keep that up.

If you actually now want to get this ship operating in sync, if you want all the legs to

be moving in the same direction there, you got to clean up the ship on the inside too,

not just the podcasters with the big microphones on the outside there.

And that means actually trying to actually exercise your authority as the article to commander

and chief, actually use that executive power and fire people who frankly should be fired.

Well, on that point, he's fired, Chris, you know, now, I mean, there was, there was

a lot of talk earlier, even a matter of weeks ago that they, you know, anyone that was

Senate nominated was, you know, it's secure in their job for a long time.

You didn't want to have the same issues of Trump, 45, with constant cabinet reshuffles

and personnel changes.

But once one person's gone, it's very easy to fire another one.

Do you think Tulsi Gabbard's looking over a shoulder a little bit?

I do.

And I think she probably should be to be honest with you.

I think Tulsi Gabbard has a lot of questions to answer.

I'm not necessarily at this stage calling for her to be fired or anything, but I think

that she has a lot of questions to answer.

I think that she should answer for the fact that how did, how did Joe Kent work on

to you for so long while he was apparently leaking, while he was apparently not a part

of the security agreements because he was leaking.

What did you know about those leaves?

What did Tulsi Gabbard know?

When did she know it?

Two, why did she just hire Dan Caldwell?

Again, a guy who was fired by his longtime former friend and colleague, Pete Hegseth,

for leaking.

Tulsi Gabbard just hired him literally within the past week.

Why is a former Tucker Carlson producer or a staff writer on Tulsi Gabbard's app?

There's a lot of smoke here.

It's not necessarily fired, directly going on Tulsi Gabbard.

But Tulsi yourself was a longtime vociferous opponent of any kind of conflict with Iran.

There's a long, if you just go to Tulsi's Twitter feed, you search Iran

at no war.

You will get a lot of tweets in the advanced search.

So if Trump actually means what he said while singing at the Oval Office at the Brezel

of the desk, he said, if you don't view Iran as a threat, you shouldn't work here.

He really, I think, should frankly ask of his office director of the National Intelligence,

you should ask her point blank, do you view Iran as a threat?

And if you just answer that question directly and in line with Donald Trump's own views

the matter, then at that point, he actually probably should go.

I mean, there was our remarkable picture during the opening hours of epic theory

where Rubio and Suzy Walsh, Dance Gravino and Trump put everyone down at Mar-a-Lago

or down at one of the golf courses down in the south.

And then back home, he had, back in Washington, he had Tulsi and JD Vance sitting in an empty

situation room.

I mean, it kind of tells our story there, didn't it?

Yeah, I mean, as one with put it on X, it looked a lot like the kitty table, like the

adult table and the kids table.

And look, I'm not saying it's that bad, but that definitely is the optics that it gave

off there.

I do think it's telling a lot of people say, don't make much the fact that Rubio and

not Vance have been with Trump when it came to the Maduro operation or with the Iran

operation.

Well, I mean, it's hard not to look at that and to draw your own conclusions.

I mean, I think it's very easy to say, oh, there's an excuse for this and an excuse

for that there.

And maybe there is.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but look, apparently Trump has been privately pulling a lot

of his friends, a lot of his top donors, a lot of folks.

He's apparently been saying, who should I endorse Rubio or Vance?

And based on what I can tell, most of them are telling him to endorse Rubio, which maybe

it's not a shop because the donor class, my gratitude for that a little more than JD's

message.

That's probably not shocking enough itself.

But it's just one data point, even the online betting markets, a polymarket, I checked

this about a week ago or so.

I remember looking at this Harry, maybe last July or August, around that time, JD Vance

had an overwhelming advantage over Marco Rubio in terms of who would be the 2020 Republican

nominee for president.

It's a lot closer today.

I'm not sure if Rubio has.

There was a point last week.

There was a point I was running about this last week.

There was a point where there's a, it did cross over.

I'm not sure.

It's kind of bumping around at the same level now, but you're spot on about the sort of

president treating it as a parlor game and saying, you know, he said, publicly, I thought

I was sure.

I thought I knew which way around it would be.

They'll both be the ticket, but I thought I knew which way around it would be, but now

I'm not so sure.

And you're right.

They can make excuses and say, oh, the vice president, the president, you know, rarely

don't travel together.

They're rarely in the same place for obvious reasons.

But he did go completely quiet for four days after Epic Fury began, JD Vance, and he

is basically said publicly that he had his disagreements with it.

Whereas, you know, right, though, will we sort of expect to see now a sort of a similar

display of loyalty from the cabinet one by one?

You say that Trump is settling the, settling the family business, is he, is he really going

to clear out the tables?

Well, not the proof.

But the proof always being the pudding, look, what's worth on JD Vance just for a second?

I don't think that JD Vance has the exact same foreign policy views as Tucker Carlson

or frankly, for that matter, even Tulsi Gabbard.

I think that JD Vance is closer to being an actual realist.

Now, he's probably an isolationist leaning realist, but I don't think that he is a hard

line Charles Lindbergh style isolationist, which is essentially what Tucker Carlson is.

I could be wrong.

And this is a guy, this is a guy that's seen a forever war up close, right?

He served him one.

Yeah, exactly.

That, that's exactly right.

And look, there was the political article, political, how the support that JD Vance was

the skeptic in the room when it came to these internal debates over over the Iran war.

One can speculate as to where that leak is coming from.

It's probably coming from JD Vance's office.

If we're, if we're being honest with you, why he would do that, probably to preserve some

sort of credibility when it comes to trying to run for president 2020 would be my reading

of the tea leaves on that one there.

But the vice president obviously is here.

He's not going as far as trying to clean out the Audrey and Staples one by one.

Look, mostly, most of these people who are in top level national security or defense

positions there are not particularly troublesome or worrisome from my perspective.

Mark Rubio is doing an absolute bang up job.

Pete Hexat, I think, has been simply extraordinary, frankly, over the course of this war.

He communicates with such precision and such and such a fervor of that.

I think he's, I'm actually a huge fan of Pete Hexat, I think he's been nothing short

of excellence really thus far in this role.

So it really does kind of come back to Tulsi Gabbard, honestly.

She's kind of the one that I'm thinking of the most.

John Rackliffe, a CIA, I do not think is a problem on the contrary.

I think that John Rackliffe is actually doing quite a, quite a good job.

So if I were the president, I really would try to ascertain if, I mean, it's a little

still suffering, Harry.

Because it's my theory.

I've seen others float.

I've seen Laura Lumer float it.

I've seen others float the idea that there was a big problem happening inside the

office of the DNI.

And again, it adds up.

The math adds up.

Joe Kent resigns from that office, Dan Caldwell, Leaker hired to the office, former Tucker

Carlson producer or staff writer hired to that office, Will Ruger, hardcore co-pro this

guy in that office.

They're told to gather herself longstanding, you know, ties to Bashar al-Assad, a lot

of Kremlin style pro-Russia talking points there, deeply, deeply opposed to further

engagement in Middle East.

There seems to be a pretty glaring problem there.

And if I were Donald Trump trying to clean up the tables, that's where I would focus.

Perhaps she will be spending more time on her alien conspiracy theories in the in the

coming.

We've seen the president.

We've seen the president, as you said, come out and it was a true social, but it was

a sort of notable, a true social in calling out Megan Kelly and calling out Tucker.

But he still had Tucker in the in the in the oval, just a matter of weeks ago, just

finally, it's my of all my conspiracy theories, it's my absolute favorite.

Do you think there was any truth to the idea that the president was stringing Tucker

along a little bit on, on, on Iran, knowing clearly that perhaps he is, he does have a back

channel communications with high members of the regime?

Yes.

So there's, there's two possibilities as to what was happening with Tucker's video this

past weekend, where he may have said that the CIA, which again, as we've said is probably

actually the NSA, he's embellishing, but there's two possibilities as to what's happening.

One possibility is that he's just totally making it up.

And he's just making it up because he has his own 2028 ambitions.

And this is part of his own shadow war against Trump administration.

Again, he can say they ran on this populist platform America first.

They were again spying on citizens, but I'm a citizen I've been spied on.

He sold you out.

So it serves his self serving 20 and visions.

That's one possibility that he just, he's a total egomaniac, total psychopath made the

whole darn thing up, the same one that he made up this whole story that he got detained

in his passport seized at Ben Gurion airport.

He clearly made that up as the record has now shown.

So the guy has a habit of making things up.

That's possibility one.

The other possibility.

And this is also quite plausible is that the NSA did pick up some of his chatter, some

of his chatter with various Iranians.

They've not been picked up at the other end.

They were spying on the Iranians and he, rather than spying on him, he got caught in,

he got caught up in something else.

And that's exactly what it would have been.

That's literally what it would have been as they were spying on the Iranians and Tucker's

correspondence was what was caught there.

They got a warrant from a Pfizer judge to, to spy on, on, on, on, on certain, someone.

And Tucker's correspondence got, got, got brought up there.

And I don't know who in Iran he was talking to.

I have no idea what level of official we're talking to there.

But if that is true, and if they, they flag this for the president, then yes, the timeline

is such that his meeting with Tucker in the Oval Office, the, the big smiling photo

of the earth, the rest of the desk, could easily have been a decoy to try to throw the Iranians

off if they knew that they were in communication with this guy.

And I think back to last June, well, who did President Trump get lunch with at the White

House?

I think it was literally two or three days prior to the B2 bombing run.

He got lunch with Steve Baton at, at, at, at the time, who, and Steve was an outspoken

opponent of the B2 bombing run of any kind of military operation there.

So at the time, Trump did that very much as something of a red herring to throw off the

Iranians.

And I said for a while, Harry, since the protests in Iran started in December, since Donald

Trump drew this red line that the moles proceeded to utterly eviscerate, I said, I would not

be at all surprised if he does something very similar where he has a big public photo

up there to try to throw the Iranians off just as he did with Steve Baton and the Iranians

last June.

And it seems to me that it's entirely possible that Tucker Carlson did indeed serve

that useful idiot function this summer at running his own intelligence operations

from the, from the West wing without us here.

Josh, I'll need to see you as ever.

Fascinating.

Come back and see us soon.

This is obviously a rolling, a rolling tale and, uh, yeah, Tucker 28's.

Um, I'll see you.

I'll see you on the stump for that one.

Harry, I look forward to it.

I'll be in the camp.

I'm in there.

Thanks for joining us.

You bet.