[00:00:04] Broadcasting live from atop the Rocky Mountains, the crossroads of the West, you are listening to the Liberty Roundtable radio talk show.
[00:00:20] All right. Happy to have you along, my fellow Americans. Venezuela in the news. Is it good or bad? Trump's touting it as incredible. I'm not quite convinced. Tucker Carlson in the news for a very strange reason as well. We'll get to both of those stories.
[00:00:37] And you know what? I'm watching the mastermind, this Khalid Sheikh, whatever this guy's name is. And, you know, that's kind of a strange thing, too, because we're getting spanked all over the world for over 25 years regarding this guy. It's amazing. Is he really the mastermind of 9-11 and they're trying to pin it on him, but they're not having a lot of success. We'll get into that if we have time. If not, we'll save that for another broadcast.
[00:01:01] But let's start with this Tucker Carlson piece of news, man. It is something. Wow. Tucker is going against the Donald and says Donald needs to be flat out removed from office. You say, what the heck's that about? Well, you know, I mentioned this several weeks ago on the broadcast. So we're kind of, you know, always in the what do you want to call it? Forefront of the news, always breaking late stories, always talking about unique topics, always really.
[00:01:24] And I told you that Donald Trump and company have been talking about possible nuclear activity or nuclear use of nuclear. And it's really ironic because, you know, Trump and those guys are saying, hey, we can't ever let Iran get nukes because they might be irresponsible with them. And now there's a commentary saying, hey, Trump's possibly thinking about using nukes. And it's very ironic because, you know, Iran's not using nukes.
[00:01:52] Other countries who have who have nukes, who I believe are quite irresponsible and more into terror than the United States, probably, you know, possibly using nukes. But none of those people have been irresponsible enough to even really directly consider that. Even the nuclear talks, we're going to go nuke on you that China has been mentioning was more economically nuclear. We're going to, you know, go crazy on you, but not literally using nukes. But there's talk about Trump using nukes. And I don't think that the talk is real.
[00:02:21] I don't think Trump's that crazy. I don't think it's really real. But I do know that Green, so former congresswoman Green, has talked about this and when asked clearly directly, hey, do you just think this or do you know this? And she said, I have intel and I know this. Now, I'd love to get more details on exactly how she knows and drill into it. But again, you know, I'm not an elitist and I'm not an insider and I don't have an inside information. So it's difficult for me to really assess this. But I said at the time, if Green's right, you know, Trump is on very, very shaky ground.
[00:02:51] This is very dangerous indeed, to say the least. Well, Tucker goes much further in his assessment of it. And so, you know, the question becomes, if Green's talking about it, if Tucker's talking about it, if I'm talking about it, you know, where's this leak coming from? Is it really just a leak? Pardon the pun. When you talk about nuclear, you don't want any leaks, right? Anyway, the talk about this is pretty loose lips, sink ships, sad story kind of scenario where I'm going, I don't know if this is true or not. And I don't want to claim that it is because I don't have the evidence.
[00:03:20] And I don't want to be the guy that betrays Trump on a false notion and peddles fake news. I don't want to be that guy. So I don't know what the truth is. I don't have intel that he's talking about, you know, using nukes or not. But when Tucker goes this far, usually Tucker has some credible information, at least somewhere to some degree. When Green says this, does she really have evidence? And I would like other whistleblowers like Green and Tucker and others, maybe a Rand Paul, maybe a Justin. Well, I guess Justin can't help us anymore. Shoot.
[00:03:48] Anyway, maybe some of these other guys, Thomas Massey or Ron Wyden or some of these other people who we believe to be, for the most part, you know, good, possible solution oriented people. Maybe a couple of congressmen from Texas could get it done. I don't know who. But we really need to get truth on this. And if what we are hearing from Tucker, from Green, from others is true. It's hard not to agree with Tucker on this. It really, really is. And I don't want to jump to conclusions here or anything else.
[00:04:16] But here's what Tucker actually had to say about it. I was opposed to impeachment. The two impeachment attempts against Trump was strongly opposed to the whole thing was absurd. Third, I believe in stability. I think elected leaders should serve out their terms. I don't hate Trump personally. So with all of that said, the second any president actively considers first use of nuclear weapons, that person should be removed from office immediately. Immediately. Because that's got to be the red line.
[00:04:46] Destroying all of humanity with a nuclear strike? I mean, so why isn't there an attempt to remove him from office? Like immediately. Anyone who would even tolerate that kind of talk from any of his subordinates or employees is by definition unfit. That's the total destruction of the world. Again, any leader of any country who suggests first use of nuclear weapons has forfeited his right to lead. He has to be removed immediately.
[00:05:16] I think that's just a fair standard. Any normal person, I think, if we're kind of cool the temperature a little bit and just ask objectively, is that fair? Yeah, of course that's fair. You can't risk the destruction of the world. You're not allowed. You didn't build the world. You're not allowed to do that. So I think Tucker's really on to something here. And one thing I like that he says is we need to dial back the temperature. We need to kind of lower the temperature here a little bit on this. Is it a fair question? Yes, it is a fair question, Tucker. Tucker, it's an honest, fair question.
[00:05:45] And I think your conclusion, based on the answer to those questions, are valid. What we need to do in my mind, though, is we need to slow down a little bit and say, look, let's get the evidence first before we jump to any what needs to happen. Secondly, if we are really going to remove a president from office, it's not something that we, the people, can just do. Okay. It's going to take Congress to impeach him. And, you know, Tucker was wise to say I wasn't for the first two impeachments. I think they were kind of clown shows. I agree with Tucker once again. He's right.
[00:06:14] At the same time, though, I look at it and go, we're in an unconstitutional war. Congress hasn't approved the war. Now we're talking about possibly using nukes in that war when we claim that the reason that the other guys can't have nukes is because they'll be irresponsible with them. Isn't it ironic that now we're possibly discussing irresponsible, you know, Trump basically needs an off ramp to the war. And, you know, back in World War II, we, you know, took some decisive action with some pretty new technology and some pretty big bombs and it ended the war.
[00:06:41] But it made us look like the world's bully for decades on end after that. Even now, when we look back, wow, was that, you know, too extreme and et cetera. Well, going nuke and using first, you know, nuke options is extreme to the umph degree. And so Tucker's right on the point. What we need to do is kind of slow down there a little bit, Sonny, and kind of ask ourselves some questions. You know, who else would be able to cooperate these details? Is it just Green going to say this?
[00:07:11] And then Tucker's going to say this? And what about Dan Bongino? He used to be in the administration. Does he know anything about this? What about other congressmen or senators? Do they have intel on this and can they speak out about it? I think we need more evidence and more information. First, right now, I just hear a couple of people saying, you know, like Tucker, well, hey, if this is true, then this is, well, what do you mean if this is true? Let's find out if it is true or not.
[00:07:35] And I think it's a little bit irresponsible of Green and Tucker and others to make these kind of claims but yet not produce the evidence that would substantiate those claims. So that's just kind of my take on the topic. I get it. I reported on it. But I was very clear in my reporting on it to highlight this reality is we don't have the evidence yet. I know Green said so. And I know Carlson said so. And I know, you know, but at the same time, I don't have this evidence.
[00:08:01] I don't have any proof that the Trump administration is really talking about this in serious circles. Okay. Now, if it was a joke said by somebody somewhere, it's a bad joke. Okay. You shouldn't make jokes like that. However, that's far from suggesting the administration is truly contemplating something. Bad joke or not. It should be considered a bad joke and in poor taste. And really, someone should drill in and say, how dare you never joke like that again? You know, you're fired. Don't do that kind of stuff. I get it.
[00:08:28] But that's a big difference in that versus saying, hey, the president's truly in the circles of power who could really make something like that occur of actually using nuclear weapons for these purposes. That's a whole different ball of wax, a whole different discussion. And the problem that I have leaping to that level is that we don't have the evidence that I can see. You know, we don't have the Pentagon admitting to that. We don't have the Trump administration admitting to that. We don't have. So how real is this is kind of the real question that I would have.
[00:08:57] I want to know how real it is. Is it a joke said somewhere and now it's, you know, someone's given it life and legs. Is it a third party claim by the communists? You know, China and Russia and everybody else has been hacking us and tampering with our social media and everything else. Is it war hawks in Congress that are really thinking this or war hawks that were serving the administration thinking this. But Donald Trump's never really been part of those discussions. See, that's what I don't really know. I just don't really know. You know, back in the day, we used to say the buck stops with Janet Reno. Right.
[00:09:26] But in this case, I don't think the buck stops with Janet Reno anymore. I think the buck stops with Donald J. Trump. And I don't think that you can say the administration is seriously contemplating this or that. If the president wasn't in on it, then you might have some treasonous underlings that Donald should deal with for sure. But at the same time, what levels did this go to and who really was in on what discussions? How serious were the discussions? Was it a bad joke? And if so, you know, accountability should be there. But you shouldn't remove the president over a bad joke made by somebody else.
[00:09:56] So how real is this contemplation? And when Tucker talks about it and when Green talks about it, those are two decently influential people that I personally believe, you know, they might want to have a say in it. Right. And if they don't get their say or if we don't take what they have to say, somebody needs to ask Donald Trump directly about this. Who in the news has the guts? The only person that I might know is Tucker Carlson or Green.
[00:10:23] Everybody else seems to be kind of backing off Trump. They don't want to take on Trump anymore. They've already lost on the Republican side of things. Right. On the Democratic side, they'll swipe at Trump. But will they over these issues? I don't know. But I know this. I want more evidence before we start, you know, taking these claims seriously. Do I think it's a serious issue? Absolutely. But right now, a man's proven innocent. Fine. Or guilty. Fine. But let's not jump to conclusions.
[00:10:53] He's innocent until proven guilty. Even Donald Trump, right? The President of the United States. In the medical field, IT security is crucial. Our highly skilled consultants are HIPAA certified and have 20 plus years of experience servicing medical clinics, billing and supply companies. We offer comprehensive endpoint protection, guarding your computers and servers against all stages of threats. And with our 24-7 monitoring services, you'll never worry about extensive downtime again. Ready to level up your IT support?
[00:11:20] Call 801-706-6980 today and discover how great IT services can be with Managed IT Services. Every day, Americans are told to hate each other while the people in power keep winning. But what if there's another path? What if Americans could come together and take this country back peacefully before it's too late?
[00:11:39] The Democrat Murder of America, Demagoguery in the First Degree, exposes the corruption, manipulation, government failures and political games pushing Americans further apart while our country slips deeper into crisis. Inside, you'll discover powerful insights into political hypocrisy, media bias, government overreach, the national debt crisis and the growing culture of division destroying trust in America.
[00:12:03] More importantly, this book offers a call for peaceful action, accountability, unity and restoring the values that once made this nation strong. If you're frustrated with the direction of this country and looking for answers outside the mainstream narrative, this book was written for you. Join fellow Americans who still believe this nation is worth fighting for. Available now at MurderOfAmerica.com
[00:12:38] All right, back with you live, ladies and gentlemen, Sam Bushman on your radio. Spread the word, share the love, hard-hitting news the network's refused to use. No doubt continues now. So I want to move to this topic here. Headline says, U.S. achieves groundbreaking 65 billion barrel oil deal with Venezuela. Historic surge in national reserves.
[00:13:05] And it's set to drastically cut gas prices. Now, this is something that I have big concern about for a bunch of reasons. Number one, you know, we had that kind of, I don't know what you want to call it, coup in Venezuela where we took out the president. Said he was a bad guy and a drug dealer and a big problem and got to get rid of him. Again, Donald Trump doesn't explain himself very well. He talks big, but he doesn't double down with the explanations. And so I don't know if that was warranted or not. Okay.
[00:13:35] I just think the toppling of a country's leader, removing a country's leader is some tough stuff that you don't really, you know, you better not do lightly. Well, it seems like America does a lot of that. We've toppled regime after regime after regime over the last, I don't know, 75 years or so to where it's just out of control. And I don't support that in general. However, I am open to listening and learning about what, you know, intel we really have and et cetera.
[00:14:03] But, you know, when you start to attack Cuba and Venezuela and everything else, I don't know. I think we could kill them with kindness and move them like Greenland at the start of the broadcast with Lola Nelson last episode or last segment. I was talking about that and saying, hey, it's really important for us to kind of consider how we want to move forward with this. We can get a lot more with honey than we can with vinegar, right?
[00:14:23] As they say, well, they say in an unprecedented global transaction, the United States under the directive of Marco Rubio, 65 billion barrels, doubling more than doubling our reserves. They say this monumental agreement was coordinated by Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth alongside Venezuela's interim president.
[00:14:53] And they say, hey, it's going to decrease gas prices. It's going to not burden the U.S. taxpayers. It's going to be a great way to increase diplomatic relations. Anyway, Trump is super excited about this. The mainstream press highlighting this is kind of the biggest oil deal in the world. They want you to know and stuff. And I guess my problem with all this is, you know, are we just removing a president that we don't like?
[00:15:23] Calling him the boogeyman. And then plundering the oil reserves because now we're caught in a scandal. Now, Trump, on the other hand, says, hey, we have the Strait of Hormuz completely open. So I guess I'm not really positive that I understand if the Strait of Hormos is open and if we can get oil. Well, why do we need to get a ton of oil from Venezuela?
[00:15:48] And Donald Trump says we're one of the biggest oil, you know, rich countries in the world. And why are we exporting oil elsewhere? Well, Sam, because we don't have the refineries internally to deal with our kind of oil. We deal with the dependent oil from foreign terrorist nations. And so, you know, we don't deal with our own oil. We just deal with that oil. And so, you know, it'd take too long for us to retool to deal with our own oil. You know what?
[00:16:14] Why don't we get that underway yesterday and create this independent America first view in reality rather than depend on foreign entanglements with terrorist nations? Right. I mean, you know, so there's so many problems with this. I don't really understand it. Somebody could say, Sam, you're just ignorant. You don't get it, buddy. You just don't understand politics and you don't understand the world stage. And therefore, that's why you're so ignorant, stupid, and you don't understand. Fine. But somebody help me. You can book me a guest.
[00:16:41] You can do whatever you want to do to talk me through this in a meaningful, productive way. But look, if we have a lot of oil in America, why don't we use our own oil and we don't need to depend on anybody? We're like America first independent. And if you say it would take a long time to ramp up our ability to deal with that oil, you know, it's one thing putting it in your gas tank. You can't just do that. Right. Pull it out of the earth and put it in your gas tank. You've got to do a lot of refining and a lot of things along the way.
[00:17:06] If we don't have the ability, why don't we start really seriously working on that ability so that we can truly become independent? I mean, that's what the America first initiative was about. And Donald's already had five and a half plus years to work on it. Right. Four years, first term, year and a half, second term. Come on now. How close are we? If we're not ready for it, how close are we? And the next question would be, hey, if the Strait of Hormosa is open and we control it, they don't.
[00:17:33] And we've literally bombed them back to the, you know, yesteryear. Then why can't we just bring oil through the Strait of Hormosa like we've done for decades? See? And so I want some of these questions answered. And it doesn't seem like we're getting answers. But this does put Marco Rubio and company in a real good position, right? Doesn't it put them in a really good deal, Marco Rubio?
[00:18:01] Hey, I was driving economic energy and independence of driving that forward with my oil. That's the big feather in the cap for Marco Rubio president, right? They say this strategic move is done without burdening the taxpayer. And see how they're pitching it is just incredible. But here's my question. Did we really just kind of take over Venezuela? And now we're kind of plundering their oil? If there's no cost to the taxpayer, think about that for a minute.
[00:18:30] Because I don't really understand that. I don't know how you say this interim president for Venezuela. Delcy Rodriguez. Okay. They say poised to significantly increase America or decrease America's gas prices and enhance the supply of domestic oil, driving both economic and energy independence forward.
[00:18:59] They say the strategic move not only is achieved without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. How is that? But also promises substantial prosperity and stability for Venezuela, marking a significant milestone in, quote, international trade and diplomatic relations. Now, I just don't understand how that's diplomatic.
[00:19:28] And I don't understand if we're not burdening the American taxpayers. What does that mean? Does it mean we're paying for the oil or not? Well, yeah, Sam, but we're paying the Venezuelans way less than we're paying the other guys. And it shortens the pipeline for America to get oil. Why haven't we done that years ago? Why didn't we do that before the bad guy became president of Venezuela in the first place? Why haven't we worked on that forever ago?
[00:19:54] Well, Sam, because Trump wasn't president then and no one had the foresight that the good Donald has. And so we didn't really. OK, fine. But this puts Marco Rubio in a real sweet position for 2028, doesn't it? And no word of J.D. Vance in the mix. Right. Pretty interesting indeed. But I look at this and I just go, man, I'm not I'm just not comfortable with this. I'd like to know more of the details, not just, oh, this is really bad or this is that whatever.
[00:20:23] This is really good. This is the answer. This other stuff's bad. I want to know what's going on more with the Strait of Hormuz. I want to know how we're going to get out of the war, because even if we get a ton of oil, you know, we're going to just crank down our reserves. A big, massive replacement. Does that help? I don't know. Seems like we've got a weapons problem as well. All right. Now there's this guy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They captured this guy in what, 2003?
[00:20:54] They accused him of masterminding 9-11. Right. Yet more than two decades later, we still have not obtained a trial verdict for this guy establishing his guilt. His trial, they say, is now scheduled temporarily for 2028. So this guy, I mean, so much for a speedy trial for this guy. He's already been there for 23 years plus. And now, you know, we're going to wait a couple more years to even work on the trial here.
[00:21:21] Whatever the ultimate verdict about this is, ladies and gentlemen, the extraordinary delay deserves scrutiny to say the least. Right? They routinely describe him as the mastermind and as guilty and guilty. And they've been hammering that home for 23 years. But yet he hasn't even really been tried. Believe it or not, recently, and this is the reason that I bring it up, is 9-11 is coming up in a few days. Right? The 25th anniversary.
[00:21:47] But it gets worse because on August 28th, just a couple of days ago, a judge threw out his confession. They say, oh, this guy confessed. Well, now they threw out the confession. Why, you may ask? Well, they say his 2007 confession to FBI agents cannot be used at trial. Why? Because they had a coercive interrogation program over at the CA where they tortured everybody.
[00:22:17] They pressured this guy into it. They manipulated and withheld evidence. So there are really three separate kind of propositions on this thing. Okay? Don't collapse it all into one. Number one, there is substantial evidence against this guy. That's why the United States charged him and alleged that he's part of the 9-11 deal. But then my question is, if that's all true and we have solid evidence, why are we tampering with that evidence and doing things that poison the case? Why are we poisoning the well on this thing? Can I ask you that?
[00:22:45] Number two, that evidence, by the way, has not produced a conviction. He remains an accused defendant. Not someone convicted of masterminding 9-11 at all. Three, some important evidence now is legally inadmissible. That doesn't prove the allegations false, but it does kind of make you go, hmm. Wait a minute. There's evidence, but it hasn't been proven in court.
[00:23:14] And the extraordinary passage of time plus the tampering of evidence of the withholding of evidence, you kind of go, why? Even if they do try this thing in 2028, June, it's going to be 27 years. We're not saying that KSM didn't do this stuff. He might have. But the evidence doesn't justify that conclusion at this point.
[00:23:39] The evidence all tainted and manipulated, and we basically blew it on this case big time if there's real evidence. Or maybe we don't have the real evidence. And the way we pretend that it's real evidence is we make it murky as all get out. 25 years after 9-11, the United States still has not completed a trial convicting him. This guy, the accused defendant, and we're saying we can't find out what really happened?
[00:24:09] Folks, that is a serious problem indeed. What on earth is going on? Why, if we have solid evidence, and we call this guy the mastermind on the 9-11, can't we prosecute him and get it done? We've been at it for literally, it's going to be more than 25 years coming up. If he's really the mastermind, and if we have as much evidence as we claim, what on earth is the issue? Answer, your government is tampered with the evidence so bad, the judge threw it out, and now we're at a stumbling block once again.
[00:24:39] 25 plus years later. Whatever happened to a speedy trial, huh? Wow. All right, God save our constitutional republic.