Top Trump Official Falls Apart Under Cross-Exam on War!!

From unsolved mysteries to unexplained phenomena, from comedy goal to relationship fails,

Amazon Music's got the most ad-free top podcasts, included with Prime, because the only thing

that should interrupt your listening is... well, nothing.

Download the Amazon Music app today.

One of Donald Trump's top state department officials got grilled under cross-examination

before the House of Representatives and the United States Senate while he was testifying

under oath about the disastrous war in Iran.

The individual testifying is named Thomas DiNano, and he holds the title Under Secretary

of State for arms control and international security.

He's the guy who deals with our international arms trade deals, whether that's with Israel,

or whether that's with other nations in the Middle East, or with NATO, or wherever.

And he's also the individual who's supposed to deal with like nuclear arms control treaties,

new start, which expired last February, and this guy got grilled under cross-examination.

He did not handle it well when he was asked some pretty basic questions under oath.

For example, first, in the House of Representatives, Congress member Castro

cross-examined this guy DiNano about whether or not Israel has been

hiding nuclear weapons. As Congress member Castro says,

we are four weeks into war where both sides have targeted each other's nuclear facilities.

We risk nuclear disaster, get the main Trump official on arms control,

refuse to answer my question on Israel's nuclear capabilities,

and told me to go and ask the Israeli government watch this great cross-examination

by Democratic Congress member Castro. Let's play it.

But is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?

I can't comment on that specific question.

You'd have to refer to the Israelis on that.

Does Israel have nuclear weapons?

I'm not prepared to comment on that.

You're not prepared to comment on it? It's a very basic question.

We are with an ally conducting a war against Iran.

This war continues to escalate. Tell us something as Congress or as the oversight body,

what is Israel's nuclear capability in terms of weapons?

I can't comment on that specific question.

You'd have to refer to the Israelis on that.

Does that mean you don't know?

I can't comment on that, sir.

You're the main person in charge of knowing this and understanding it.

Will you not give us an answer? I don't understand why this issue is so taboo

when it's a basic question, and we're in a war alongside Israel against Iran.

We're dealing with the potential for nuclear fallout.

And you won't answer this basic question.

Well, again, it would be outside of my purview as the arms control and nonproperation

under sanitary to discuss that specific question.

Sir, that is a dereliction of duty.

Next, I want to show you the cross-examination by Democratic Congress member Keating,

and he grills Denano about the Trump regime's support of Putin,

whether or not they view Putin as a war criminal.

Hintint, Denano basically refuses to answer the question, and he's like all over the place

with his answer. And this Congress members like, why would you be cutting support

for like Ukraine right now and bolstering support for Russia?

Like, what are you doing right now?

I want you to watch as Denano who exposes himself yet again,

and this whole Trump regime as Putin puppets right here,

watch him get crushed under cross-examination.

Let's play this clip.

You're also cutting the support we have for the general prosecutor,

Ukraine, that's prosecuting war crimes.

Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal, sir?

Sir, again, that's that's why I was talking about purview as the tea undersecretary.

Well, no, no, how about as an American?

No, as an American person and a citizen.

Yes, sir, and someone cares, is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?

I understand that I'm both.

No, yes or no.

No, sir, I'm not going to answer yes or no.

I'm going to.

No, sir, I'm not going to answer yes or no.

That's quite an answer.

Yes, that's right.

Yes, oh, yes, no, it's yes or no.

Yes, you can't even ask a simple question like that.

We have to know because we have cut under your agency, sir,

we're cutting support for the prosecutor general.

And you know what that support has been doing?

It's been preserving evidence and training.

So these war crimes, including sexual assault of young girls

in front of their parents and grandparents

by Russian soldiers, which is tens of thousands of young people

being taken from their families, maybe never to come back in

and put in Russian families, definite war crimes.

We are supporting that and you're cutting that support

in the guise of reorganizing for the prosecutor to preserve the evidence

and to move forward on these war crimes,

these horrific heinous war crimes that Russia is committing.

So what I want to ask you, sir, this is under your purview.

You should be doing more.

Oh, sir, it's not.

Yes, it is, by the way, not.

You do not understand what prosecutor general's office is.

By the way, I know everything's new to you.

No, no, it's not actually new to me, right?

You have funds to help train and move forward with the prosecution

and help the prosecutor general and Ukraine.

If there is a specific program that you feel or that you know that

funded a legal advisor in the office, I don't know about any specific.

Then you should know about it with all due respect.

I've got eight seconds.

Do your homework come back here?

Let's deal with recognized.

I yield back shifting gears for a moment from the House of Representatives

to the United States Senate.

Let me show you Democratic Senator Van Hollen's cross-examination

of Undersecretary of State Dino.

Watch Dino squirm, as Aaron Rupert puts it,

in response to a series of questions about his involvement in the transfer

of U.S. bombs to the Netanyahu government.

Let's play this clip.

The administration's emergency declaration,

if there's ever a circumstance, that's an emergency.

This would be it.

Mr. Dino, let me just not answer.

No, sir, ask you whether it was him.

I'd like to, I ask it whether you, come on.

I'll finish my answer.

If you let me finish, I'm happy to answer your question, sir.

That being said, I sat before the committee during my confirmation process

and committed to working with the committee to follow the law.

The law does allow for the emergency exemption.

That's why we used it.

I'm not asking you about...

I understand that, but I think the context is important, sir.

I know because I submitted a question for the record

and you said you would comply with cat policy.

So now I'm asking you whether you were involved in reviewing the transfer

of 20,000 bombs to the Netanyahu government

with respect to compliance with the cat policy.

Any foreign military sale that we do would fall underneath the conventional arms transfer.

Did you personally review that assessment?

Again, Senator, the emergency declaration.

No, not the emergency declaration.

Did you review the assessment regarding whether or not that transfer of 20,000 bombs complied

with the cat policy?

Everything that we do complies with the law.

Did you personally, were you personally involved in that review?

I was involved with the transfer and anything that we would do

would be consistent with our cat policy, which is compliant with the law.

So I'm going to take it as a no that you did not personally review

whether or not that transfer complied with cat policy.

I just, did you personally review that?

You can take it anywhere you want.

Well, did you?

I've already told you I was involved with the policy.

I oversee the political military bureau.

Did you personally review?

I review hundreds of arms sales.

I signed hundreds of them.

The emergency declaration, again, it was consistent with the law.

And most importantly, I think it's important for the committee that we lay out who are not

trying to establish a new norm that will continue on a case by case basis.

Look at emergencies.

If they exist, just like the Biden administration did in 2023.

I'll finish the same authority about that.

Let me finish my comment.

I'm asking you about this.

I know, but I'm trying to address your concern.

No, you're actually.

Yes, sir, I am.

Were you, are you concerned that Israeli defense minister cats

said with respect to Lebanon that they were going to use the quote,

Rafa model in Gaza?

Does that concern you?

I have not, I'm not familiar with that comment.

Right.

It's a matter of public record.

Could you take a look at it and get back?

I would happily let me know if that concerns you.

Yes, sir.

I'm happy to know now.

This was a particularly shocking, dystopian,

scary moment during the Senate hearing where they were grilling

Dino.

You have democratic senator Rosen, cross-examining Dino on Donald Trump's

desire to start back up nuclear testing in the United States.

These big nuclear craters, whether it's in Nevada or New Mexico or Idaho,

or throughout the country, that Trump wants to drop bombs or do

underground nuclear testing in the United States.

How utterly deranged, but I want you to watch because this guy,

Dino, doesn't deny that we're going to be doing nuclear tests

in the United States.

Think about the environmental impact on that.

Think about all of the efforts that we've been through as a country

to try to stop that.

You're playing this clip.

Thank you, Chairman Rich, ranking member Shaheen for today's hearing,

and thank you, Mr. Dino, for joining us today.

I want to go and talk about Nevada a little bit because in Nevada National

Security Site, the NSS, was ground zero for the vast majority of the

United States' explosive nuclear testing from 1951 to 1992,

during which there were 100 atmospheric tests and 828 underground tests

conducted.

Many Nevadans and Downwind communities

suffered from these exposures.

They're still waiting for justice and compensation.

Today, the NSS plays a critical role in certifying the

liability, safety, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile.

But without, without, I'm going to emphasize that,

I could say, at a hundred times, without the need

for explosive testing.

So you can imagine my surprise when President Trump and others,

such as Assistant Secretary Yaw, suggested that the U.S.

should resume explosive nuclear testing.

So Mr. Dino, what is the state's department's position on explosive

nuclear testing?

And if President Trump were to order a nuclear test,

how do you expect Russia to respond?

What about other countries with nuclear weapons?

And how would we manage the inevitable damage that this is going to

cause to your efforts to pursue multilateral arms control and risk

reduction measures?

Sorry, thank you, Senator.

Let me start by saying the President has laid out a view

that I elaborated on in Assistant Secretary Yaw elaborated

upon where the President instructed the war

department and the Energy Department to test on an equal basis

to that with our adversaries.

The backdrop of that is important to understand that both the Russians

and the Chinese are testing at yield.

And I can tell you that in our U1A tunnel and the

of the radiographic things that we have there and the new kinds of technology we have,

we have adequately, without explosive testing,

insured the capabilities of our nuclear stockpile.

So thank you, Senator, look at a couple of points to make.

Number one, we're still assessing, we've made no decision specifically on

how or what that any testing program would look like.

So that's pre-decisional.

If the administration comes to that decision, I'm sure it would have

people come back and talk to you at the same time.

You better come back and talk to me because the people of Nevada and the people of Utah

and the people all around you think what happens in Nevada with an explosive test stays in Nevada?

Yes, ma'am.

Because it sure doesn't.

I think you're referring to any potential atmospheric testing.

I'm just talking about the rate.

I have been, if they created the ground in Nevada.

And let me tell you, there's ground water.

It doesn't go away.

Let me answer your concern if I could.

I have not been in any discussions that have

where atmospheric, open atmospheric testing has been under consideration.

The testing, any testing is under consideration.

Again, it is currently pre-decisional,

but the president has laid out and I think it's important to understand

that the United States is in Nevada.

It's important to understand that he better come talk to us in Nevada if he's planning to do that.

Yes, ma'am.

Because the people of Nevada have a stake in that.

I am.

The people of Utah have a stake in that.

And I will look at everybody, Idaho, right above us, Texas, the wind,

everything goes around this country.

Trust me.

I understand that, ma'am.

And I appreciate it.

I'll move on to something else.

Hold on, I want to address that.

I think it's important.

You're talking about the wind that there is no discussion that I've been a part of.

That any atmospheric testing would take place.

Again, the Chinese and Russian programs are underground.

They are at

yields that I can't talk too much about in this open hearing.

But for example, the Chinese underground testing program

would be in the hundreds of tons.

No discussions.

Again, I've been part of would in any way talk about

winds or downrange.

That is, I've heard nothing to that effect.

Well, you would understand, ma'am.

Of course I would.

My concern.

Yes, ma'am.

About the need for a visual besides the ground cratering in.

And we have made millions of billions of dollars of investments

in radiographic and other technology using math,

using physics, using science to be sure that we ensure the integrity of our nuclear arsenal.

We have been very specific in that.

And we can, I'm glad to take you down there if you haven't been

to see what they're doing and how they're doing it before you enter into more of these decisions.

Yes, ma'am.

I'd happily go there.

I know what they do there.

And again, I think it's extremely important to understand

that the Russian and Chinese systems, the Russians and Chinese are testing at yield.

That creates an intolerable disadvantage for the United States by not testing.

And again, I've heard no discussion of any sort of atmospheric testing whatsoever.

Well, I tend to disagree with you, but I yield.

Thank you.

Hey, quick question.

Have you ever looked at your bank statement and thought,

what am I even paying for right now?

I had that moment not too long ago.

Random subscriptions, duplicate charges, stuff I completely forgot about.

It adds up fast.

That's when I started using rocket money.

And honestly, it's been a huge game changer.

Rocket money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions.

Monitors you're spending and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings.

What I love is how easy it makes everything.

It tracks all your subscriptions in one place.

And if you see something you don't want,

you can cancel it right in the app with just a few taps.

No more hunting through websites or dealing with customer service.

It also automatically categorizes your spending.

So you could actually see where your money is going each month.

That's been huge for me.

Just having that visibility helped me cut back in areas.

I did not even realize I was overspending.

And you could set budgets, get alerts for big transactions,

and basically stay on top of your finance

without constantly stressing about it.

Let rocket money help you reach your financial goals faster.

Join at rocketmoney.com slash might as touch.

That's rocketmoney.com slash might as touch.

Rocket money.com slash might as touch.

MEI D-A-S-T-O-U-C-H.

One thing hovering over this hearing that I think is important.

And I've reported on it here.

It's not getting enough attention.

Is the expiration of what was called new start,

the new strategic arms reduction treaty,

which was a bilateral nuclear arms control agreement

between the United States and Russia,

signed in 2010 under, yes, who, former president Obama,

had entered full force and effect in 2011,

which limited each side to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads,

700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, ICBMs,

submarine launch ballistic missiles and heavy bombers,

along with verification methods like data exchange

and on-site expansion and inspections rather.

So the treaty had a built in 10-year duration

with one possible five-year extension.

The five-year extension was invoked.

But this last February, February 5th, 2026,

it just expired.

And Donald Trump professed that he would be engaging

in more nuclear testing here,

and that we would resume a nuclear arms race.

So that's what's been hovering in the background.

And this guy, Dino,

is the guy implementing Donald Trump's policy.

So next person I'll show you is Senator Shaheen.

And Senator Shaheen, cross-examines Dino,

on are we actually getting our European allies,

the weapons that we're promising them?

Like, are they actually receiving the weapons?

And you'll see Dino does not answer the question.

He's like, well, this is why we're so nimble

under the Trump department.

You know, the State Department in record time

is able to have, it's like, dude, just answer the question.

Are our European allies,

who I don't even know if they're allies anymore?

I don't think they are.

After all of the crap Donald Trump put them through.

I don't know how they, they don't see the United States

as a friend, you know, they see the United States

as a bigger threat than China or Russia.

Many European countries do.

It's one of the reasons we here at the Midas Touch Network

are trying to build the international pro-democracy community.

I think it's one of the most important things

that we can be doing.

But in Europe, they're out there to continuously

basically saying, you know, we're not getting the weapons

that we were promised at all.

Like, we're just not getting them.

So here's what Senator Shaheen said, play this clip.

We really pushed our European allies to step up

on their own defense and on Ukraine.

And they have right now they spend more than we do

supporting Ukraine.

And they're spending that money on American weapons.

Are we in a position where we can actually

deliver the weapons that they're buying from us?

Thanks to the question, Senator.

I think it's an important one.

And I think really shows why the reorganization

of the State Department inputting all of the bureaus

that do international security together make sense.

Because I think in relation to our political military bureau

and the work that we're doing to modernize our defense industrial

base, we have released two executive orders.

We work very closely with the war department.

As part of the most recent executive order had announced

that it wanted executive counsel to stand up

between the communist department, the State Department

and the war department.

And that council, that meeting took place within a month

that's unheard of bureaucratic speed.

I can tell you.

So that doesn't make me feel better.

They're not a very high bar.

No.

The commitment to modernizing

a defense industrial base

is couldn't be stronger.

I heard it loud and clear during my confirmation process,

the State Department role here is to make sure

that our regulatory approach doesn't constrain

our allies and partners that the demand signal

from every part of the government, from this committee

for my leadership was to move faster

and to provide more capability.

I think our recent America first arms transfer strategy

is a really good iteration on that

that for our partners and allies around the world,

it might not always require our most exquisite platform.

It might not require an F-35.

It might not require our Patriot system.

But there are other systems that are certainly good enough

that complement existing U.S. posture in the region

and that can send a demand signal to industry

to stand up other capabilities.

So again, the State Department piece of this

is to open up the aperture, take on a little more risk

and move faster that really is dwarfed

by the reforms they're making in the war department

and under Secretary Duffy and his team

are making drastic reforms.

We work very closely with them.

I'm on a call with them weekly driving change,

driving integration.

So it is a priority for us

and again, I think it's not going to happen overnight

and it's not going to be easy or painless.

I think we need to work together

with the administration and the Congress

to maybe some legislative relief we may need

along the way here.

But it's absolute national security imperative,

not only for the security of the United States

but as well as our partners and allies.

And I think this is what you're seeing play out.

And here you have, I think it's Republicans

that are in a McCormick.

McCormick, he grills Denano

on the Russian space weapons that are out there

and what we're doing to combat it.

Let's play this clip.

According to, also according to Director of National Intelligence,

2026 Annual Threat Assessment,

Russia is developing anti-satellite nuclear weapons

which the intelligence community describes

as the greatest single threat to the world's space architecture.

So under Secretary, how should the United States

respond to the expanding threat of outer space weapons

challenges by peer and near-peer adversaries

and which arms control approaches,

along with risk reduction measures

off of the most promise given the expiration

of the new start treaty?

Thanks to the question, Senator.

Again, very important question.

Specifically to the Russian outer space system,

I don't want to come into too much detail here in an open forum.

But what I can say is that any deployment of that system

would be a violation of the outer space treaty.

So sort of, you know, directly focused

on sort of the arms control piece of it.

The Russian exotic systems are getting crazy even for the Russians.

So I think this

the president's approach, again,

to the American members earlier question

about other bilateral as well as, you know,

other multilateral ways to get out the problem.

The answer is yes.

That's not that's obviously a system

that diplomatically we would pressure aggressively

pressure the Russians, and I'm sure it'll come up in our

P5 engagement, which is imminent.

So again, I don't want to talk too much more about the Russian capability in open forum.

But certainly the exotic systems, the underwater system, the Poseidon,

the Burvestnik, which is their nuclear power cruise missile.

These are all systems that fall outside of new start to your point.

That we need to have a direct conversation

with the Russians, and I'm sure we will.

And finally, back in the House of Representative,

this was Congressmember Meeks' cross examination.

We'll play it for you right here.

It is a truly amazing fact that the advances made in the science

of nuclear weapons over the last 25 years allow the NSA labs to now know and understand more

about the function and performance of nuclear weapons than they did in the days of testing.

The NSA complex is old, much of it dates back to the Manhattan project

and the early days of the Cold War, and it needs to be replaced or refurbished.

Fourth, we should never forget that ultimately it is people who sustain our deterrent.

Military and civilians at DOD and NSA work to maintain the continuum of deterrence.

Beginning with threat prevention and non-proliferation,

they need support, and we need to ensure that the entire nuclear enterprise

always has the best and the brightest.

And fifth, our allies and partners also rely on the U.S. nuclear deterrent

as the ultimate guarantor of their security against nuclear attack,

however remote the possibility.

As much as they want the U.S. deterrent to be safe, secure, and reliable,

they do not want a new arms race and a return to the days of mutual assured destruction.

As of September 2017, the U.S. has 3,822 warheads in its stockpile, more than enough,

with another 2,000-plus warheads awaiting dismantlement.

This is down from the mid-60s peak of 31,255 warheads.

We surely don't want a return to those days and increase the risk of nuclear war, rather than reduce it.

In conclusion, in my prepared testimony, I referenced a 2010 op-ed by former National Security

Advisor Brent Scocroft and Jake Garn, a former Republican senator from Utah, supporting new start.

In that piece, they cautioned against seeking a silver bullet that solves all problems.

New start was under consideration at the time that they wrote the op-ed and was being criticized

for not covering the full range of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

In many respects, that is what the Trump administration is doing again, with respect to

extending new start, criticizing it for what it isn't and was never intended to be a silver bullet

treaty. The treaty should be extended and time provided to take the next step towards stability.

Thank you for holding this hearing on a very important topic that isn't discussed enough

and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Ms. Creedon. Mr. McEwan.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kisnaker, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss

the importance of arms control agreements with Russia. I agree with much of what was said,

if not all of it, by my two colleagues. I'll try very hard not to duplicate what they said.

I will focus primarily on new start. An extension of new start, which we've discussed already,

would bring significant benefits to American security. For the same reasons,

the treaty was a good idea in the first place, the transparency and predictability that it provides.

New start contains an inspection and verification regime that includes regular exchanges of data,

regular notifications, including advance notification of launches, and intrusive

onsite inspections of the military bases on the territory of the other party where nuclear

forces are based. General Highton, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified last winter

that the insight provided by the verification measures are unbelievably important,

quote unquote, to his understanding of Russian force posture. Without a treaty, our confidence

levels about the size, location, and nature of Russian forces would decrease, and the intelligence

resources required to monitor such forces would increase, but they would not yield information

equivalent to that, which can be obtained through the onsite inspections.

The treaty limits the number of strategic launchers and warheads at each party may deploy,

as well as a combined limit on deployed and non-deployed launchers. This structure provides several

advantages to the Department of Defense and Department of Energy. First, the Commander of Strategic

Command can devise the war plans, secure in the knowledge about the size and location of Russian

nuclear forces. Without the treaty, he would be required to engage in worst-case planning assumptions,

which eventually could result in decisions to increase the size of deployed forces.

There you have it, folks. I know that like hearings like this, you're probably not seeing in

many other places, right? It's why at the Midas Touch Network, it is so important that we cover

things like this, because you're not getting this on corporate news. You're not seeing these things,

nuclear testing in the United States. It was a dangerous, critical hearing, and it got very

little fanfare and attention, so it's important that we cover it here and show you what's really

going on. If we hit subscribe, let's get to 7 million subscribers. Thanks for watching.

Have you subscribed to Scott McFarlane's channel on YouTube? It's already over 100,000

subscribers. Not bad, Scott. Not bad. Hit subscribe, thanks for watching.

I filed my return, but I haven't. One in four tax-paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

What do I do? My refund, though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

LifeLock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

I'm so relieved. No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

One in four was a fraud-paying American, not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year.

Visit lifelock.com slash podcast, Terms Apply.