Ossoff GRILLS Gabbard Over War Intel: "You Wrote It. Now Answer It."

Añadido: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

[00:00:07]>> Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president.

[00:00:12]>> False. This is the worldwide This is the worldwide threat hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

[00:00:22]You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that quote there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.

[00:00:34]>> What you are about to watch is not an ordinary political argument. March 18th, 2026. Senate Intelligence Committee.

[00:00:42]Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is testifying under oath and Senator Jon Ossoff arrives with a single weapon, Gabbard's own written statement.

[00:00:52]That statement says this, "Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. No effort to rebuild." The White House says this, "This war was launched to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime." Friends, I want to take a quick break from the video. 98% of the channel's viewers are not subscribers. I need your support. Subscribe, like, leave a comment. That is the only way I can continue independent broadcasting.

[00:01:21]Now, back to the video. Two statements, same government, same war, and both cannot be true at the same time.

[00:01:29]Ossoff will not ask Gabbard about this.

[00:01:31]He will make Gabbard prove it with her own words. Watch.

[00:01:37]Now, Director Gabbard, I'd like to reground this in your core responsibilities.

[00:01:43]Under the law, you are responsible for providing national intelligence to the president, correct?

[00:01:49]>> Yes.

[00:01:50]>> And to the heads of executive branch departments and agencies, yes?

[00:01:53]>> Yes.

[00:01:54]>> And to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and senior military commanders.

[00:01:58]>> Across the IC, yes.

[00:02:00]>> And to the Senate and the House and relevant committees, correct?

[00:02:04]>> Yes.

[00:02:04]>> And the law states that the national intelligence you provide to Congress, quote, should be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations, correct?

[00:02:12]>> Yes.

[00:02:13]>> And you noted in your opening statement you're here fulfilling a statutory responsibility and that your testimony, quote, represents the IC's assessment of threats, correct?

[00:02:23]>> And that opening statement as submitted to the committee in advance of this hearing stated that as a result of last summer's airstrikes, quote, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, end quote, correct?

[00:02:36]>> That's right.

[00:02:38]>> And is that in fact the assessment of the intelligence community?

[00:02:40]>> Yes.

[00:02:41]>> So the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated by last summer's airstrikes.

[00:02:48]>> Yes.

[00:02:49]>> And the opening statement you submitted to the committee last night also stated, quote, there has been no effort since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability, end quote, correct?

[00:02:59]>> That's right.

[00:02:59]>> And that's the assessment of the intelligence community.

[00:03:02]>> Yes.

[00:03:03]>> The White House stated on March 1st of this year that this war was launched and was, quote, a military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, end quote.

[00:03:15]That's a statement from the White House, quote, the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.

[00:03:22]Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime?

[00:03:30]>> The intelligence community assessed that Iran maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment capability.

[00:03:38]>> Was it the >> Pay close attention to what just happened. Al Sauf asked a direct yes or no question. He quoted Gabbard's own written statement back to her, word for word. He cited the White House's own public declaration, and he asked, "Do these two things contradict each other?"

[00:03:55]Gabbert did not say yes. She did not say no. She pivoted to the president's authority to make determinations. That is not an answer. That is a retreat. And here is why it matters.

[00:04:07]The Director of National Intelligence does not get to defer to the president on a question about the intelligence community's own assessment. The whole point of this hearing, the legal basis for her presence in this room, is that she represents the IC's conclusions independently of political considerations. She just said the opposite. Allsop has not moved on. He is circling back. And this time, he is not letting the pivot stand. Watch what happens when he returns to the same question four times, and Gabbert has nowhere left to go.

[00:04:40]>> Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was a {quote} imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?

[00:04:47]>> Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president, and >> False. This is the worldwide This is the worldwide threats hearing where you present to Congress national intelligence timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

[00:05:02]You've stated today that the intelligence community's assessment is that Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated, and that {quote} there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.

[00:05:14]Was it the intelligence community's assessment that nevertheless, despite the obliteration, there was a {quote} imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime, yes or no?

[00:05:25]>> It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat.

[00:05:30]>> Okay.

[00:05:30]>> That is up to the president >> the problem. No, it is It is >> precisely >> It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing where, as you noted in your opening testimony, {quote} you represent the IC's assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC's assessment of threats. That's a quote from your own opening statement. And so my question is as you're here to present the IC's assessment of threats.

[00:06:08]Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a quote imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?

[00:06:18]>> Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has uh provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment.

[00:06:27]>> answer the question.

[00:06:28]>> of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume >> You're here to be timely and objective.

[00:06:36]>> You're here You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations.

[00:06:42]>> Exactly what I'm doing.

[00:06:43]>> No, you're evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House. Let me ask you about your presence in Fulton County on January 28th of this year.

[00:07:00]You were present at the FBI's raid on the Fulton County Elections Office on January 28th, correct?

[00:07:07]>> I was present for part of the FBI exercising a warrant approved by a municipal judge.

[00:07:13]>> Yes, and the FBI was there executing the FBI was there executing that warrant to seize ballots and materials associated with the 2020 election, correct?

[00:07:22]>> Yes.

[00:07:23]>> And are you aware of it members of this committee have already opened inquiries into your election-related activities?

[00:07:29]>> Yes.

[00:07:30]>> And are you aware that your general counsel and deputy general counsel have already provided testimony to this committee regarding those activities?

[00:07:37]>> Yes.

[00:07:38]>> On February 2nd, you sent a letter to Senator Warner regarding your presence at the raid. Was that letter accurate?

[00:07:45]>> I don't recall the exact date, but if I sent a letter that had my signature, it was accurate.

[00:07:50]>> You stated in the letter that your presence at the raid was, quote, requested by the president, correct?

[00:07:54]>> Yes.

[00:07:54]>> When did the president request your presence at the raid?

[00:07:57]>> Uh the day of the raid, uh the warrant execution commencing.

[00:08:03]>> The day of the raid?

[00:08:04]>> Yes.

[00:08:05]>> He called you on the phone?

[00:08:06]>> I'm not going to disclose how the message was delivered, but it was a request from the president and his administration to go and help oversee this warrant being executed along with the deputy director of the FBI >> Is it your role to oversee Is it your role to oversee the execution of criminal warrants?

[00:08:23]>> It is my role, uh based on statute that Congress has passed, to have oversight over election security, to include counterintelligence >> said you you you oversaw the raid, correct? You just testified you oversaw the raid.

[00:08:37]>> Portions of it.

[00:08:38]>> Okay. Did you handle any ballots or election-related materials?

[00:08:41]>> No.

[00:08:41]>> You were inside an FBI evidence truck, correct?

[00:08:45]You were photographed inside an FBI evidence truck.

[00:08:47]>> empty truck, yes.

[00:08:50]>> The president stated, quote, you looked at the votes that wanted to be checked out >> The senator's time is expired.

[00:08:56]>> look at votes as the president stated?

[00:08:57]>> Senator Ossoff, your time is expired.

[00:08:59]>> You can have her >> No, she cannot respond because >> the record, will will the will the director please respond for the record to that question, is my >> I'm happy to respond to questions for the record.

[00:09:09]>> Thank you, Director Gabbert.

[00:09:11]>> Thank you.

[00:09:12]>> Gabbert said this at the hearing. It is not the intelligence community's responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat. Take a moment to consider what that sentence actually means.

[00:09:24]The Director of National Intelligence sits at the top of the entire United States intelligence apparatus. The CIA reports to her. The NSA reports to her.

[00:09:34]The FBI's intelligence division reports to her.

[00:09:38]From a murder in an American city to an unidentified vessel approaching American shores to a CIA officer under threat anywhere in the world, all of it falls within her chain of responsibility. If an American citizen anywhere on Earth gets so much as a bloody nose, that information moves up through her office first. And Tulsi Gabbard stood at that podium today and said, "Determining what is and is not an imminent threat is not my job. This is not humility. This is the abandonment of the office. This is the denial of the very reason the position exists. The second issue is even more direct. Gabbard's own opening statement said this, "In the June 2025 operations, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was already destroyed.

[00:10:26]No effort to rebuild since then. The entrances to underground facilities sealed with concrete." So, if that is true, if by the intelligence community's own assessment, Iran's nuclear capacity was already finished as of June 2025, then the following question becomes unavoidable. This war costing billions of dollars, sending American forces back into the region, what exactly was it launched to eliminate? The White House said an imminent nuclear threat.

[00:10:56]Gabbard's own written assessment said the program was already gone.

[00:11:01]Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. And at no point in this hearing did anyone place that contradiction on the record because Gabbard never answered the question.

[00:11:12]>> Welcome back to Live Now from Fox. We wanted to share this breaking news here with you as top counterterrorism official Joe Kent has resigned. We're learning this within the past hour here.

[00:11:22]Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation today saying he cannot in good conscience back the Trump administration's war in Iran. Kent shared in a social media post saying Iran "quote pose no imminent threat to our nation and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."

[00:11:43]He goes on to say, "Early in this administration high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America first platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.

[00:11:57]This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to swift victory." As a veteran who deployed to combat 11 times and as a Gold Star husband who lost my beloved wife Sharon Shannon, excuse me, in a war manufactured by Israel, "I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people nor justifies the cost of American lives. I pray that you will reflect upon what we are doing in Iran and who we are doing it for. The time for bold action is now. You can reverse course and chart a new path for our nation or you can allow us to slip further toward decline and chaos. You hold the cards. It was an honor to serve in your administration and to serve our great nation." So, that was that post there shared to social media. And I just also wanted to share with you here that Kente is a former political candidate and he was confirmed to his post last July.

[00:12:52]>> Tulsi Gabbard's question was never answered. The follow-up question was never answered. And throughout this entire hearing, no one ever placed on the record whether the intelligence community had actually assessed the imminent threat cited as the justification for this war. Gabbard said, "That is the president's call."

[00:13:12]But that call is supposed to rest on the intelligence community's assessment. And delivering that assessment timely, objective, and independent of political considerations to Congress was Gabbard's responsibility. Whether she fulfilled that responsibility was not resolved by this hearing. It was opened by it.