MSNBC, CNN, CNN, because you, and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically you, the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard. It’s like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because of the hatred of this press corp. Do you have a top secret clearance, sir? eventually the American Jennifer, you’ve been about the worst, the the one who misrepresents the most intentionally.
So, why not um acknowledge the female pilots that also participated in this mission? The early messages that you sent out. I want to go to Daniel Dale um who was our fact checker as you all know. Fact checker. An employee for CNN is the fact checker. Clinton Jaws, please like this video. It’s honestly the only thing I care about your likes.
I thought Marco Rubio was the king of debate, but Hegathth, what I just watched today, this morning, the guy was completely on fire. You guys are probably wondering why why is the administration why is the Trump administration going so hard against the woke media because they have to they have to fight them. What really grossed me out when I was a police officer, the news were not our friends.
They were our enemies. every chance they got, they would report inaccurately on purpose. And my bosses always said, “Hey, we need to have a good relationship. We need to have a good relationship with the news.” No, we don’t. Not when they sit there and lie about us. And Trump is the same way. And I love it.
We should have fought back. We didn’t. And they won. Hey, Seth in a minute. We’re going to start with Carolyn Levit. Just a second of Caroline Levit on Fox News last night. Lip gloss. Levit. Love it. No other president in history could have ever dreamed of such a success. And that’s exactly why the fake news media is now trying to demean and undermine the president.
And we’ve seen this playbook be run before. You have hostile actors within the intelligence community who lick illegally leak bits and pieces of an intelligence assessment to push a fake news narrative. And that’s what the CNN story was yesterday. And it’s not a coincidence that it was written by the exact same CNN reporter who wrote the original story falsely alleging that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.
I watch CNN because of my job. And let me tell you, if they’re not saying it, they have people come on that they interview that put a negative spin on everything that Trump does. Because it was under President Trump’s leadership because it was because because Americans are responding to him as commander-in-chief. The press corps doesn’t want to write about it.
Sounds bring us to the to the topic of the moment, the highly successful strikes in Iran. Let let me read the the bottom line here. President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history and it was a resounding success resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war. decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
I want to read some of the assessments that have been provided because whether it’s fake news, CNN, MSNBC, or the New York Times, there’s been faing coverage of a preliminary assessment. I’ve had a chance to read it. All every every outlet has breathlessly reported on a preliminary assessment from DIA. I’m looking at it right now.
It points out that it’s not been coordinated with the intelligence community at all. Uh there’s low confidence in this particular report. There’s it says in the report there are gaps in the information. It says in the report multiple lynchpin assumptions are what this assessment a lynchpin assumption. You know what that is? That means your entire premise is predicated on a lynch pin.
If you’re wrong, everything else is wrong. And yet, and still this report acknowledges it’s likely severe damage. Again, this is preliminary, but leaked because someone had an agenda to try to muddy the waters and make it look like this historic strike wasn’t successful. But here’s what other folks are saying. The DIA that put that report out says this is a preliminary low confidence report and will continue to be refined as additional intelligence becomes available.
The devastating US strikes on Foraux destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. Have any of these quotes made their way into the New York Times or the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, CNN, because you, and I mean specifically you, the press, specifically you, the press corps, because you cheer against Trump so hard.
It’s like in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump because you want him not to be successful so bad. Yeah. You have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes. You have to hope maybe they weren’t effective. Yeah. Maybe the way the Trump administration has represented them isn’t true. So let’s take half-truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it.
spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind, the public mind over whether or not our brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don’t know, fly a plane for 36 hours? Has MSNBC done that story? Did you know that 18 hours there, 18 hours back? Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox.
Have we done the story how hard that is? Have we done it two or three times so that American people understand how about how difficult it is to shoot a drone from an F15 or 16 or F22 or F-35 or what it’s like to man a Patriot battery or how hard it is to refuel midair? Giving the American people an understanding of how complex and sophisticated this mission really was.
Uh there are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that by because of the hatred of this press corps are undermined because you’re people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn’t successful. It’s irresponsible. And time and time again classified information is leaked or pedled for political purposes to try to make the president look bad.
And what’s really happening is you’re undermining the success of incredible B2 pilots. How about we celebrate that? How about we talk about how special America is that only we have these capabilities? I think it’s too much to ask unfortunately for the fake news. So, we’re used to that. So, true. But we also have an opportunity to stand at the podium and read the truth of what’s really happening.
And the reality is you want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated, choose your word. Question period. This is where it gets good. This is so good. He’s on fire. I don’t like being manipulated. That’s why there’s only one platform that informs me, and that’s Ground News.
Ground News is an app and a website that pulls together news from over 50,000 sources around the world. For every story, it shows you political bias, factual reliability, and even who owns the outlet reporting it. It’s everything the corporate press doesn’t want you to see. Take this recent story. The US Treasury Secretary just revealed that bluecollar wage growth under Trump saw the largest increase in nearly 60 years.
Huge news, but you wouldn’t know it if you only follow left-leaning or even centrist outlets. Every single one is on the political right. That makes this a blind spot for the left and center. And this isn’t some echo chamber. The outlets reporting this range from independent newsrooms to privatelyowned and corporate media.
Ground News lets you dig into every angle all in one place. That’s why I use it. I don’t want filtered narratives. I want facts. My favorite feature, the blind spot feed. It shows you stories your site might be missing. Like this one. This is the stuff you’re not supposed to see. It’s how you break free from the algorithmic bubbles and media agendas.
If you actually care about the full picture, check out Ground News. Use my link ground.news/jaws or scan the QR code that you see on the screen and receive 40% off the Vantage plan. That gives you full access to all the features I just showed you and it helps support my channel. That’s ground.new/jaws. The link is in the description.
Just three or four days later. What I see this is this is a point. This is how difficult it is to actually manage. You just watched a video of what this weapon is capable of. Uh we that’s where we find our confidence is in the they showed a video. Maybe I’ll show a short clip of it right here. Unlike a normal surface bomb, you won’t see an impact crater.
This guy here asks a stupid question and then shakes his head at the end. And that’s what he’s basing it on. You think we need to see that? Do you have a top secret clearance, sir? Eventually, the American public wants to see it. Yes. Um, yeah. I wanted to I wanted to ask briefly just No, not not you. Checker shirt. Oh, so Mike Glenn with the Washington Times.
Yes, sir. want to hear a stupid question. This is what’s wrong with the media. Just listen to this. Mr. uh chairman, a question for you. Have you been pressured um to change your assessment or give a more rosy intelligence uh assessment to us by any political factors, whether it’s the president or the secretary? And if you were, would you do that? Yeah, that one’s easy. No. Um no, I have not.
And no, I would not. I’ve never been pressured by the president or the secretary to do anything other than tell him exactly what I’m thinking and that’s exactly what I’ve done. Uh there’s nothing that I’ve seen that suggest uh that what we didn’t hit exactly what we wanted to hit uh in those locations.
That’s not the question though. It’s about highlyenriched uranium. Do you have Here comes Karen uh in those locations. That’s not the question though. It’s about highlyenriched uranium. Do you have certainty that all the highlyenriched uranium was inside the fordo mountain or some of it? Because there were satellite photos that showed more than a dozen trucks there two days in advance.
Are you certain none of that highlyenriched uranium was moved? Of course, we’re watching every single aspect. But Jennifer, you’ve been about the worst. She’s the worst. I wouldn’t have thought that given her haircut. A lady who has completely given up on life. Jennifer, you’ve been about the worst. the more the the one who misrepresents the most intentionally uh what what the president says I’m familiar about the ventilation shafts on Saturday night and in fact I was the first to describe the B2 bombers the refueling the entire mission with
great accuracy. So I I take issue with that. I appreciate you acknowledging that this was the first operate the most successful uh mission based on operational security that this department has done since you’ve be here and I appreciate that. So we’re looking at all aspects of intelligence and making sure we have a sense of what was where.
So why not um acknowledge the female pilots that also participated in this mission. The early messages that you sent out only congratulated the boys. So when I say something like our boys and bombers, see this is the kind of thing the press does, right? Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. That’s fantastic. I just got to say something.
The principal at my daughter’s school told them that they don’t call it tug-of-war anymore. It’s called tug of peace. They were supposed to do tug of peace yesterday, but on the way to school, the principal was listening to the radio and somebody on the radio recommended, “Don’t do tug of peace because the kids might break their legs.
” And this man is supposed to be a man. It just makes me sick how woke the world still is. And my daughter told me it because she wanted to see my crazy reaction because she knows it’s insane and she was looking forward to tug of peace. See, this is the kind of thing the press does, right? Of course, the chairman mentioned a female bomber pilot. That’s fantastic.
She’s fantastic. She’s a hero. I want more female bomber pilots. I hope the men and women of our country sign up to do such brave and audacious things. But when you spin it as because I say our boys and bombers is a common phrase, I’ll I’ll keep saying things like that whether they’re men or women.
very proud of that female pilot just like I’m very proud of those male pilots and I don’t care if it’s a male or a female in that cockpit and the American people don’t care but it’s the obsession with race and gender uh in this department that’s changed priorities we don’t do that anymore we don’t play your little games for certain that the uranium was removed from the facility before the B2 struck so I’m not aware of any intelligence that I’ve reviewed that says things were not where they were supposed to be and I love this part I kept on watching in CNN and
immediately they go to they go to a fact checker, a CNN employee fact checker. I want to go to Daniel Dale um who was our fact checker as you all know. Um what did you hear in this press conference that rang true or that rang false? Well, a few things here. The secretary referred to fake news CNN and then immediately proceeded to effectively confirm CNN’s reporting.
again emphasized that this intelligence assessment was preliminary, made with low confidence. That’s exactly again what CNN reported. He also tried to uh back up President Trump’s assertion that these nuclear facilities were completely and totally obliterated by forcefully reading out quotes from others who did not say the same thing.
Uh he read quotes uh asserting that the nuclear sites had been badly damaged, severely damaged, that the strikes had done enormous damage. None of that is synonymous with complete obliteration. The secretary also asked rhetorically if the media had been reporting about the enormous challenge on pilots of conducting a a bombing mission this long.
Well, guess what? CNN did a couple days ago. Our Michael Williams uh wrote a story talking to pilots who’ve been involved in somewhat similar missions that began that this mission was quote massive undertaking that required its beach and bomber islands to test the limits of human endurance during a 37-hour mission. So, yes, CNN reported this.
And then fourth, just in passing, the secretary asserted that this was the most complex military operation in history. I guess that’s something I can’t definitively fact check, but I I’m sure that some military historians would take issue with that point to things like say D-Day for example. Oh, where people died. Okay, Daniel, thanks so much.
We are now Nobody died in the mission, idiot stick. That’s why it was successful. Anyway, I have a feeling I’m going to be making a bunch of these today. Thanks for watching. Subscribe. Fact checker.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
