Transcript

Jenna Ellis: U.S. constitution obligates government to protect God's rights

 : Jenna Ellis in the morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: I love talking about the things of God because of truth and the biblical worldview. The U.S. constitution obligates our government to preserve and protect the rights that our founders recognize come from God our creator, not our government. I believe that scripture in the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raised up each of you and God has allowed us to be brought here to this specific moment in time.

 : This is Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

President Trump is expected to focus his State of the Union address on working families

Jenna Ellis: Good morning. It is Tuesday, February 24th, and President Trump is set to address Congress at 9pm Eastern Time tonight. And according to Fox News Digital exclusive, Trump is centering his State of the Union on working families with sweeping a sweeping economic case. So he, his address will put the economy front and center, pairing working family guests with a data driven case on, on affordability while also making economic policy announcements, according to Fox News Digital. And that term affordability has been really interesting and I think, perhaps a landmine for Republicans to lean into it too much because Democrats have kind of used that as, as another term that's very vague for the economics that they prefer. like what's going on in NewSong York right now under the communist mayor, and you know, some of what Gavin Newsom and other, Democrats are projecting. Governor, Abigail Spanberger, the new governor of Virginia, is set to give the Democrat rebuttal, which of course is probably going to be more hyperbole and hysteria about, you know, how Trump is just ruining the country and. Oh no, so that'll be fun to watch and you know, get your popcorn ready for that one. But, for President Trump, I think that this will be his first opportunity to really launch into the midterms and also the upcoming, really important races, that are going on across the country, which includes in the state of Texas, the Texas Senate primary is incredibly important and early voting actually just started. And so according to the Hill, some Republicans are actually anxious, for some inexplicable reason, maybe because they're Rhinos, that incumbent Senator John Cornyn out of Texas could be ousted in this competitive Texas GOP primary for the Senate. but if he's ousted, potentially giving Democrats a rare opening in the red Lone Star State this fall. So what is potentially happening in the great state of Texas? Well, let's welcome in Tony Ortiz, who is the founder of current Revolt. And Tony, you know, if, either Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, ends up winning or Wesley Hunt, even if Cornyn is ousted as the incumbent, I don't see Texas, electing a Democrat. I mean, particularly Jasmine Crockett.

Tony Ortiz: Definitely not. And, you know, the Republicans in Texas have signaled that James Talarico is the candidate they're fearing the most. he's a lot more normal, he's a little more digestible to maybe independent or swing voters. Whereas Jasmine Crockett comes off as a little more bombastic and not related, to many voters. So Republicans, are definitely more concerned of a Paxton vs. Talarico lineup.

Jenna Ellis: That's really fascinating. I mean, Talarico certainly gained, more online fame. I mean, it's really fascinating to see some of these candidates, that have really come out of nowhere and have leveraged social media to their advantage to gain national attention. speaking of Mamdani, that was really his playbook. Of course, Vivek Ramaswamy on the Republican side, before that, he really leveraged social media and media in general very well. James Fishback here in Florida running for governor, who's pulling second? I, mean, still trailing, unfortunately, all the candidates are trailing Byron Donalds. but it's really interesting to see how a lot of the same, social media playbook is allowing for candidates to gain this kind of steam. But do you think that that actually translates into real votes for someone like Talarico?

Tony Ortiz: Well, yeah, I mean, you're 100% right, and that depends. Right. They've taken advantage of social media and Talarico recently took advantage of what seems like a, manufactured scandal. If you remember the Daily show, had. Or one of these, one of these Comedy Central shows had said that the, FCC had banned them from, airing a James Talarico interview, and that turned out to be not true. Even their own lawyers, I think it was CBS who came out and said that that wasn't true. Or they just gave advice that equal opportunity for candidates and they decided not to. They decided to run the talarico interview over YouTube. But, yeah, I don't necessarily know if online support translates to real life, but I will say that the anecdotally seeing the lines and the in person, queuing up of trying to get into a James Talarico event has been somewhat surprising as it's been well attended.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's really interesting. I mean that, does mirror, you know, a lot of, what we saw from, Ramaswamy in the primary in 2024. So, how do you see this shaping up, on the Republican side? is it likely that Cornyn will be ousted by Ken Paxton.

Tony Ortiz: I think at this point, the polling is indicating that it's true that, yes, he will be ousted. there is a slight chance that this will go into a runoff just because Wesley Hunt is trailing, now in third place. And, you know, they might end up, you know, with just a direct Ken Paxton versus John Cornyn matchup. Wesley Hunt is looking like he's going to be able to siphon enough votes from. From both candidates and especially Cornyn, enough to trigger that. That runoff. And, you know, based on the amount of money spent on attacks by. By Cornyn, it seems that Cornyn's campaign was trying to avoid that, and they did spend a substantial amount of money and time attacking Wesley Hunt for his. During his run.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, that's. That's really fascinating.

Early voting in the Texas primary starts this week

So how, how much will this particular race, and this primary is, you know, early voting, has started this week in Texas. how may this affect, other races and other primaries in Texas? because this has really gotten, you know, national attention in May. like, you know, some of these more nationally, focused races, even though they're statewide. well, I mean, almost statewide. how may that affect some of the other races going on in Texas?

Tony Ortiz: Yeah, well, data is showing, there's a. There's a data company, Derek Ryan, out here in Texas, and they did data, on turnout and early voting, and data right now is showing that Democrats have turned out more this year than any other primary. so that is for the Republicans, it is a little concerning. but as far as how things will pan out for the down ballot, you know, Democrats are charged up. this is a big election for them or a big primary for them. And unfortunately for the Republicans, even Talarigo, even Crockett has possibly carried the rest of the down ballot, where Democrats are going in to vote for that, but they end up taking the rest of the, voting down the rest of the ballot Democrat. And so Democrats could struggle slightly, during the general election.

Jenna Ellis: And you know what? while President Trump is focusing on, economics, affordability, you know, some of these things that, certainly Republicans and Democrats have signaled will be, the emphasis and the clash heading into midterms. are those the main issues that you're seeing that Texans are concerned about?

Tony Ortiz: Yeah, definitely.

 : Right.

Tony Ortiz: you know, a lot of issues have come up with, you know, affordable homes. You know, the youth is more than ever having a hard time being able to afford their first home and, job availability and things like that. With Texas There's a real big focus on, of course, border issues and the, you know, the threat of what, Republicans perceive as Sharia law, Muslim Sharia law here in Texas. So a lot of candidates are focusing on those issues. and of course, Democrats are, as you said earlier, keying in on the word affordability and kind of molding, that word to mean whatever they think that they want it to mean. And, generally that's like a communism or socialism type take. So we'll see. We'll see where it, it carries these candidates come Election Day.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I really hate when, the. The Republicans kind of just follow the Democrats lead in, in terms of terminology, because it's really allowing for that kind of vagary rather than being focused on, more grounded principles of economics and, and forcing Democrats to actually show their hand and what they're actually saying instead of things that say, sound good, maybe to more moderate Democrats, that aren't, you know, into the, extreme leftist wing of the party. And then Republicans get surprised when, then the polling is really close and then the elections are close and there may even be some upsets. So, the kickoff for the State of the Union, as I mentioned off the top, the State of the Unions tonight, so the kickoff for the midterms, rather, really is today. And, we're gonna see that on full display. So in terms of State of the Union, what do you think is most important for Trump to communicate? besides, obviously, you know, this is. This is just a political stage really, to. To try to sell his wins and then forecast his agenda. but, you know, I think he really needs to go harder at Congress and say, and give the American people and the Republican base in particular, a reason to keep the GOP in the trifecta instead of the overall kind of feeling of disappointment.

 : Yeah.

Tony Ortiz: You know, and President Trump has gotten some great wins.

 : Right.

Tony Ortiz: Despite what the media has shown with, maybe failure on. Perceived failure in the ICE raids and of course, the recent, Supreme Court ruling on the tariffs. things that President Trump's agenda has been pretty, Pretty solid. And I think that's something that he's probably going to focus on in his State of the Union and probably something that's going to. He's going to be frustrated about. I wouldn't be surprised if he really digs in on the Supreme Court and their decision on his tariffs. I would like to see him really stump for voters to go, especially Republican voters, to turn out and vote in their primaries. As you know, primary elections are generally not as attended as general elections. And it's really important that it's time that the Republicans get to their primary elections here in Texas and vote for the most conservative candidate.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, so well said, Tony Ortiz, that the primaries are so important and a lot of people really just focus on the general unfortunately because they. That's really the focus between the clash between Republicans and Democrats. But to pick the best overall most conservative candidate in the primary will set up the general election in a much better posture. I mean here in my home state of Florida, you know there's, there's a concern honestly if Byron Donald, wins the primary, that the Democrat, currently the highest polling, David Jolly, may actually have a shot. I don't think that overall, a Democrat is going to follow Governor Ron DeSantis. But even the thought of that possibility, I mean just like we're talking about the Texas Senate race, is really frustrating. especially when, when we've seen both of these states, Texas and Florida, have you know, some really good conservative wins. They're deep red states. And it all really does depend on choosing the best candidate in the primary. So you know, for Texans to focus on this, you know, when is the actual primary date? So early voting began today, for the Senate race among, you know, others, obviously the primaries. so when when is the primary in Texas for those who may not know?

 : Yeah.

Tony Ortiz: So early voting continues on through this week and March 3rd is going to be our election primary, Election day. And you know, like many others, you know, we're going to be sitting around watching, you know, tallies and votes coming in and really hoping for great results on that day for Republicans.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And so, you know, it's going to be fascinating to see if Republicans can generate the turnout in the primary. And last question for you is. We're almost heading into the break. so Abigail Spanberger, is set to get. Give the Democrat rebuttal to the State of the Union. what do you anticipate that she's going to focus on?

Tony Ortiz: Yeah, their usual like kind of liberal Democrat slop. Right. They'll talk about how nobody trespasses on stolen land type messaging. Probably really keying in on the. What they perceive as the ice, like arresting people that they shouldn't. What they perceive as they ice arresting people they shouldn't, quote unquote, shouldn't be arresting and maybe the tariff really focusing on the tariff failures, they'll probably really dig down on what they perceive as Trump's losses.

 : Right.

Tony Ortiz: And how, you know, Democrats really need to, you know, come together to fight Trump. It'll be the usual messaging from Democrats, most likely.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, I anticipate that as well. I saw, an article, I forget particularly which, you know, ridiculous fake news media outlet was saying it, but basically accusing Trump of, ah, governing by, you know, executive, overreach and saying, you know, look at how many executive orders he put out. And he's you know, now trying to do the tariffs which have been struck down by the Supreme Court. And how, you know, this is really going to be a, you know, a mandate against or a referendum on, you know, his executive overreach. And so hopefully Trump will set the stage, tonight to at least negate some of, that ridiculous rhetoric from the Democrats. But we'll see. So the coverage and you know, all of, the circus, the political theater begins at 9:00pm Eastern. And again, make sure, you know, when your primary is in your state, get out and vote your values. And Tony, Ortiz, we really appreciate your time this morning. We will be right back with more here on Jenna Ellis in the Morning.

Gerard Felitti: Prince Andrew's arrest highlights US Passivity on Epstein files

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And you know, there are just times that we have to cover the Epstein files. I know that everybody is frustrated about this for one reason or another, either that we keep talking about it or that there haven't been enough arrests. I'm actually in both of those categories. Like, I don't want to keep talking about it, but I'm also really frustrated about the lack of arrests, at least here in the United States, which is the headline actually from the Guardian this morning, a tale of two nations. Prince Andrew's UK arrest highlights US Passivity on the Epstein files. So in Britain, at least, the establishment has been shaken to the core by the files. In the U.S. however, the Epstein, class quote unquote, has faced little legal or political reckoning. And this comes as just yesterday, Peter. Peter Mandelson, the former British ambassador to the US has also been arrested by London police for misconduct in public office following the discovery of his involvement in the Epstein files. So what's going on really here in the United States? Well, let's welcome in Gerard Felitti, senior counsel at the Lawfare Project. And Gerard, thanks for joining us once again. And, you know, let's just break this all down.

Gerard Filitti: Well, we're seeing more action in England than we're seeing in the United States. And that's a little bit troubling. But in England, the cases seem to be more straightforward. They're breach of trust cases. They're essentially cases alleging that two people in public life, Prince Andrew and the former Prince Andrew and Lord Mandelson, were providing information to Epstein that violated the trust that was placed in their positions. And we see this from the documents, we see this pretty clearly from the emails that were released. So that gave the police enough cause, probable cause, to go forward with an investigation and make those arrests in the U.S. the question is, what investigations are we actually seeing that are similar? We've been very preoccupied about, and rightly so, about the horrific sex crimes. But there are plenty of things in the Epstein files here that could suggest investigations and prosecutions of other individuals for corruption charges too.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, I think that as Americans are looking at the difference of the UK seemingly, you know, to at least take action, and the US seemingly to not take action, do you attribute that just to more ironclad cases that there is enough, legally to, under British law to make these arrests where there may not be sufficient evidence to rise to the level of probable cause for arrests? Or is it something actually more political that as some of the theories go, that the uniparty, there are so many people that are guilty on both sides that nobody really wants to pull at that thread because then everything would unravel. And it's more of a political coverage. I mean. Yeah, and we've seen this happen, Gerard, just even recently with the censures, where there was basically an agreement between the Republicans and the Democrats that Republicans wouldn't censure, the Democrat if the Democrat didn't censure Republican, Corrie Mills. And I think both of them should have just been censured. It's like, just have accountability. It doesn't matter. So, you know, where on this, spectrum between actual evidence and more of a legal determination versus a political cover up, do you think? Where do you think the truth lies?

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the first thing to point out is that what's different in the UK is that they don't have the distraction of finger pointing about the files themselves. They're looking at this more objectively here. We're spending a lot of time arguing about are the documents being released quickly enough, are the documents redacted enough or not enough? Why is it taking so long? And redacting documents, as you and I both know as lawyers, takes A long time. So here we're focusing more on the mechanism of the documents, which instead of the actual contents, all the political wrangling has been, should the files be released? Which of the files should be released? Instead of looking at, well, wait a second. What's actually in the files that is actionable? I think that's the first part of it, is that when you're in the uk, you're looking at this as what's actually been released and what's actionable. Here we have that political dimension of actually releasing them.

 : But I think you're right.

Gerard Filitti: I think that there is less impetus here to prosecute because you have this distraction of, you don't. Everyone's in the aisles. There's so many people on both sides of the aisles that are in them that prosecutors don't even know where to start. And if we're speaking about a politicized justice system when it comes to, you know, targeting Donald Trump or, his actions, imagine what it will, what the claims will be when we start seeing political charged with crimes here in the United States. it'll be a mess. But ultimately, I think that there are things in these files that prosecutors can latch onto that are not quite high profile but are enough to start the process of justice. And I'll give you one concrete example. Epstein may have bribed customs, immigration officials in the Virgin Islands, based on the emails. That's a good starting point. Those are not political figures. That's a prosecution or an investigation that could take place and promptly.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And if we see even any arrests and at least kind of, you know, like you said, that process beginning, then it would hopefully signal that, the prosecutors are taking this seriously and kind of methodically going through this, because there's a difference between, you know, what's being discussed in media and, you know, are the files being released enough? And, you know, we all remember Bindergate and all that nonsense from the doj, giving influencers that, you know, these ridiculous, you know, part of one of the Epstein files drop, and it was nothing significant at all. And so all of that kind of, you know, political theater versus what prosecutors should be focused on, which is actual justice and not caring about the media. And, so.

There are always concerns about statute of limitations in sex crimes prosecutions

So are there any concerns about statute of limitations, issues at all if they start kind of, you know, low and sort of politically insignificant, and then work their way up potentially to higher profile targets?

Gerard Filitti: There are always statute of limitations concerns, but the biggest charges, the ones that everyone wants really to see prosecuted, are these sex crimes charges and Those don't have a statute of limitations. Sex trafficking, these types of cases, they are not bound by statute. They can be prosecuted years and years after the fact. So I think starting with what is more recent and what is not necessarily a sex crime to start building momentum is a good approach. But for the more heinous cases I don't think you will have those statutes implementation's problems. And the other part of it is that a lot of this seems to be categorizable as conspiracy. So many people were involved in, in the act and underlying acts and put in the COVID up of these acts that you can look at the last date of the most recent performance of an act of conspiracy and use that as running the statute of limitations. So I'm not as concerned with limitations in this case or these cases as I would be in other charges.

Jenna Ellis: That makes a lot of sense.

Felitti: Just being mentioned in Epstein files doesn't indicate criminal liability

And Jared, Felitti, you also mentioned that you so many names are contained in the Epstein files and in the latest drop and that I think it's three or four pages of just a a comprehensive list that was dropped by the DOJ to say you know, look, all of these names that, and of course others, but these are kind of the more high profile ones. it also listed you know, people like Elvis and you know in some that it's like okay, this was clearly not somebody that was directly involved with Epstein. And was that just to signal overall that maybe there may be names but just being mentioned in the Epstein files of course doesn't indicate criminal ah, liability. And how should the public differentiate between what's, what is actual criminal liability potentially versus just being mentioned, I mean on the View, the ladies of the View, I was seeing a clip the other day that at least one or more of them, the names were in the Epstein files and suddenly it was like oh my gosh, you know, just because you're named doesn't mean anything. And yet I'm old enough to remember when they were squawking and the rest of the Democrats about Trump's name merely being mentioned in the Epstein files. And they were so sure that that indicated criminal guilt.

Gerard Filitti: I think that we all understand that in your lifetime you meet many people and some of those people that you meet may be very unsavory and you don't even know about it. And while you're dealing with people like Epstein who are very high profile, it's not, you know, I don't think it's safe to assume that everyone he met was aware of what he was doing. I don't think it's a reasonable leap of judgment that everyone who shook his hand was aware that he was this master criminal. and this. Well, let's use the right word.

 : Creep.

Gerard Filitti: so I think we need to be careful and not jump to conclusions about every name contained in these files. But I do think that when you have patterns, when you have people, who he met with frequently, who he exchanged correspondences with frequently, who were pictured at his properties, I think then it's, you know, it's not a big leap of the imagination to think that maybe they were more involved or more aware of what Epstein was doing than someone whose name merely comes up as meeting him once.

Jenna Ellis: Right, right. And so how much confidence do you have in Pam Bondi and this doj, that they're not just kind of wasting time or running out the clock. And then the next DOJ, if that is a Democrat in 2028, certainly would likely shelve the issue that, this DOJ is actually focused on justice for the victims. I mean, Pam Bondi has come under a lot of, criticism, especially recently, for her testimony, in front of Congress, talking more about, you know, the Dow and the economy over, seemingly to express genuine concern over some of the Epstein victims.

Gerard Filitti: Well, I think the Justice Department, I would say, is wasting time, but it's not waste. I don't think that it's wasting time because it wants to bury the case. I think that it has a conflicting obligation between the disclosures that are being expected, that are required by law, all these documents that need to be reviewed and redacted, and we still have millions of pages to go, which takes a lot of man hours, which takes a lot of Justice Department lawyers going through these documents just to redact and release them, never mind actually having a chance to investigate them. So I think the waste of time is that, you know, this. This law that required a disclosure. While we all want to see these documents, it's putting the Justice Department in a position where it's hard to do two things at the same time. It's just not staffed to do everything at once. So I think that there is. I think there's this idea of releasing all these documents immediately. That's the problem. It should have been done in a different way. There should not have been an artificial deadline. And, that would have freed up Justice Department resources, that would have freed up Pam Bondi to actually investigate the more meaningful crimes that can be prosecuted and take action on them.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, hopefully as we see more of the accountability actually happening in the uk, maybe that will put some pressure on the United States as well, to. To at least be forthcoming with where they're at in the process and not have you know, some of these questions in media about whether the Union Party, really doesn't care, ah, about justice. And so, so I appreciate kind of the the more robust explanation.

There have been questions about whether King Charles may be forced to abdicate

And going back to the uk, just for a few minutes, there have been questions in light of particularly former Prince Andrew, and his arrest and what King Charles may or may not have known or facilitated at the time. There have been questions about whether he may be forced, to abdicate. where do you see that in terms of UK law and their framework?

Gerard Filitti: I think that that's much ado about nothing. I think that Charles, EDM and William have been very, adamant about distancing themselves from Andrew for years. and they want to see accountability and they want to see justice is carried out. And the last thing that you're seeing from the royal household is any type of obstruction. they're looking at this from the position of if Andrew did wrong, and he seemingly did, then he's going to go to jail. And I don't think that carries through with the distance of the monarchy because Andrew is well known within England as being the black sheep of the family. I think that the views of the majority of the public don't describe his conduct to the royal family overall. And I don't see an issue there with Charles being pushed to abdicate. although of course there's no provision in British law that would force him to. so really it is a choice at the end of the day.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, well, and that's going to be really fascinating, especially you know, in light of his health concerns and you know, whether some of the timing of this is going to be suspicious in media or, you know, how exactly, that goes. But you know, as people online would say, you know, well, we want a War and 1776 so that we didn't have to care about what the Brits do. So, you know, this is ultimately, you know, at least across the pond for us. But But it really does actually go into the broader, accountability overall, the questions around this for the Epstein files, which we should care about regardless of whether it's an American or it's someone else that's ultimately being held responsible, for their actions under, the, the whole Epstein banner. but before I let you go, Jared Felitti, I want to get your take on this.

Justice Department sues New Jersey over executive order limiting ICE cooperation

Ah, headline that just dropped. This is breaking news. The DOJ sues a NewSong Jersey over executive order limiting ICE cooperation and expanding sanctuary status. So the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against NewSong Jersey and its governor, accusing the state of expanding its sanctuary policies and obstructing federal immigration enforcement through a new executive order. The complaint challenges the executive order number 12, which prohibits U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement and ICE and other federal immigration officials from conducting secure arrests of criminal illegal aliens inside non public areas of state property, including state correctional facilities. So, I know this is just breaking news, but your initial, thoughts on that?

Gerard Filitti: Well, my initial thought is that we need to see the federal government step in more frequently like this to assert its primacy in the immigration, control over states which don't really have the right to, decide their own policies. And going, you know, you're not allowed by federal law, you are not allowed to obstruct federal immigration enforcement. sanctuary cities are, have been found to be legal in the sense that you cannot be compelled to help the federal government, but you can also not obstruct them. So when you have law laws that are passed, or executive orders in this case that do their best to limit federal authority, that's problematic. That's not what the law allows. So I think that we, more likely than not will see this challenge successfully, albeit this will go through many, many hoops that might end up at the Supreme Court before we get an ultimate ruling. But it's good to see that the, Trump administration is taking a proactive approach to states that are blocking federal immigration, because this is where we have the nexus of the problem. We have states that refuse to enforce the. And because of that, we've, we've had this immigration crisis and we're having this agitation and violence on city streets in America simply because some, liberal states don't want to enforce laws.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah, and I fully agree with you, Gerard Felitti, that we need more of this. hopefully, this will not be bound up in litigation for so long that the Democrats love to run out the clock on some of these things. And unfortunately, it seems like some of the good judges that are actually, looking at these things from a constitutional lens, not a political one, are slower to act than the rogue judges that just want to stop, Trump and stop, you know, valid enforcement of particularly federal immigration law. So, this is A good stop by the doj, shows that they are focused on at least some good priorities. We'll see what, unfolds with the Epstein files. But you can follow Gerard Felitti and also, the Lawfare project on X. And we will be right back with more.

The State of the Union is tonight with President Trump addressing congress

 : welcome back to Jenna Ellis in the Morning on American Family Radio.

Jenna Ellis: Welcome back. And as we've been discussing, the State of the Union is tonight with President Trump addressing congress at 9pm Eastern. And so what, if any, discussion may he have on foreign policy and particularly Israel? This has been a really hot topic, of course, more among the right, than the left. It almost seems like kind of an intramural, ah, debate to an extent. And there's a Politico headline, yesterday morning that claims that the Trump team is on damage control after Huckabee's comments on Israel. Senior administration officials, according to Politico, have called Arab officials to explain that Huckabees, that a Huckabee comment on Israel, can control much of the Middle east did not signal a policy shift necessarily. So will this be a topic potentially of the State of the Union tonight? Let's welcome in Joel Rosenberg, who is the editor in chief of All Israel News. You can find that at All Israel. And, Joel, you know, I think this is, really a fascinating topic. And do you expect that we will hear anything on Israel from President Trump tonight?

Joel Rosenberg: Well, it's great to be with you, Jenna. And I'm, here in Washington, in fact, one of our, colleagues at All Israel News is a featured guest tonight of Speaker Mike Johnson. Hanan Leschinsky is the brother of Jeroen Leshinsky, who was, you may recall a young Israeli diplomat with his girlfriend Sarah Milgram, who were assassinated brutally, last year, going to a Jewish event in Washington. And they were killed. And, Speaker Johnson has invited Hanan to honor his brother and be his guest at the State of the Union tonight. So I'll be taking Hanan, to the Capitol tonight and it should be a very interesting evening. I think Israel will be a focus tonight, but I don't think it'll be a prime focus. Jenna. I think the president doesn't want to position his policy in the Middle east as being somehow driven by Bibi Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, or being driven by Israel. there's so many allegations to that extent, but it's not true what's happening. Israel will definitely benefit if President Trump destroys, the last of the Iranian, regime's military offensive capability. There's no question about that. But who else benefits? The United States benefits. Iran's regime has killed and wounded more Americans than any other country in the world over the last 47 years, and they've never paid a price. So I think Iran will be a major focus, tonight. I think, the president's policies, are strong and decisive. But we're at a moment where we're waiting to hear what is his next move. Right. You know, is he going to make a deal with the Iranian regime? I don't think so, but he certainly has been trying. so I don't think Israel will be the focus. I think Iran will be the focus when it comes to the Middle east, obviously, Communist China, Venezuela, you know, there'll be a number of other issues and of course most of the topic tonight I think will be domestic and the economy roaring and jobs being created and so forth. But, Israel's a great ally, but it's not a driver of American foreign policy.

Jenna Ellis: And I think, that position is a little safer. Right, for President Trump, at least right now, especially among the base that, you know, he really needs to incentivize a turnout in Republican primaries and then of course, for the general this November. And so, you know, taking more shots, of course hyperbolically at Iran and China and you know, some of these, these easier targets that are, you know, known, foreign enemies are a little safer for him. And then, going to the economy and obviously boosting, that it kind of really steers clear of, potentially some of the topics that might upset even his base. but this is, you know, in the midst of this interview that Ambassador Mike Huckabee, did this sit down with Tucker Carlsen. we talked about it at length yesterday on the program. but yesterday, Tucker Carlsen was actually seen, by you know, some, Some who reported that he was seen at the White House. And our good friend David, Brody from CNN or cnn, cbn, not to be confused. Wow. two very different networks. So apologies to cbn. That's funny. So David Brody said on, just this morning on X that Ambassador, Huckabee says Tucker Carlsen has undermined President Trump on Israel and said, quote, I hope they quit letting him into the White House.

Joel Rosenberg: Yeah, first of all, big fan of David Brody. just a tremendously, impressive journalist. And not only is he CBN's chief political correspondent in Washington, but he just came on as A writer now a correspondent for All Israel News. So we're really grateful. And so that article that he posted. Yeah, we're so glad to have him on board. and David is right. David talked to, Mike Huckabee, and I also separately spoke to Ambassador Mike Huckabee in recent days. And Huckabee is pretty clear that what's happening is that Tucker is not just attacking Israel. He's actively trying to undermine President Trump, Trump's foreign policy, Trump's character, Trump's decisiveness, and Trump's team and Trump. President Trump has a policy in the Middle east, and it's strong and it's decisive, and Tucker is attacking it in every possible way. So the question is, why is the White House letting Tucker Carlsen into the building? Now, I know we all know that President Trump has a long standing friendship with Tucker Carlsen, and there had been some reporting that, that the President told Tucker in a meeting several weeks ago, hey, knock it off. You've got to dial this thing down. This is because you're attacking me and you're attacking my base. That's what we think happened in that meeting. But what Tucker Carlsen did when he went and sat down for 2 hours and 45 minutes with Ambassador Mike Huckabee in Israel, was accelerate and intensify Tucker's attacks against the President, against his policies and, and against his leadership. So, and against his base. By attacking Christians who love Israel and stand with Israel, and are still, loyal Americans, Tucker is going right after the MAGA base to blow it up. So all of this is bad. And I think it's fascinating that Ambassador Huckabee has said publicly now something I've never heard an ambassador say, which is that a friend of the President is now really become an enemy of the President and shouldn't be allowed in the White House. I think he's right about that. but I think David Brody's reporting, is excellent, and I think it's going to get a lot more attention. I appreciate that you picked up on it already.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, absolutely. And that's such a great get.

Having trustworthy reporters strengthens all Israel news brand which is credibility

so for listeners who may not know, I mean, I've known David Brody as well for, probably, wow, over a decade. I mean, just phenomenal, reporter and, you know, really solid Christian. So that's it. That's a huge get for, your outlet. So definitely, go to all Israel.com and, you know, that's, that's where, when I want to know what's going on in Israel. I don't go to the mainstream media and you know, some of these other outlets because I trust your reporting and you from especially a biblical worldview as well. I mean you report the facts but I always know that it's not going to have you know, kind of that spin of course that the main mainstream media has become so famous for and well deserved the the fake news kind of label. but you know, thank you Jenna.

Joel Rosenberg: That means a lot to me and that's why someone like David Brody, who's such a strong and great journalist for CBN News and has a little bit of extra bandwidth, I was like, absolutely. Would you be our Washington correspondent? these are critical times and having trustworthy reporters who were experienced, were seasoned, who have the contacts and know how to evaluate you know, what they're hearing is what's true and what isn't, it really is strengthening the all Israel news brand which is credibility.

 : Credibility.

Joel Rosenberg: Credibility.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah. And you know, and this is exactly why American Family Radio Network exists because you know, we know that our audience wants to know what's going on in the news, but doesn't want to have to kind of try to filter out the leftist view and, and wants to be able to connect those dots of how should I think about this from a biblical worldview perspective. And I can trust that. I know that I'm getting this from people who aren't you know, out talking about the news for other reasons, you know, that may not even just be on mainstream media but you know, having some of these pitfalls that you see some of the other even so called conservative influencers, and all of that. So it is really important that. And we love the work we're doing here. We appreciate the work that you're doing as well. Joe Rosenberg. And this is why the collaboration, especially on air, is great.

Tucker Carlson says President Trump is not listening to him on Iran policy

but before we run out of time here, you know when you mentioned Tucker Carlsen kind of being you know a weight on Trump and not really giving great advice and all that, I kind of see him as the Steve Bannon of the second term, you know, where he was just Steve Bannon was around Trump so much and was an advisor and really close to the president in the first term and really just gave a lot of bad advice, and brought in a lot of bad people that without that kind of influence, I think the first term, for a lot of reasons could have gone better. I mean it went really well, on A lot of different fronts, but then could have gone better. And the Trump 2.0, what everyone expected from this second term. there have been a lot of accomplishments, deservedly, but then some pitfalls. And one of those, I really do agree, I think, is Tucker. And you gotta wonder what, Trump is thinking, that he hasn't really learned that lesson of maybe who he can trust and who he really shouldn't be listening to.

Joel Rosenberg: Well, I want to give the President, some space here, because first of all, Tucker's a longtime friend and an ally, and President Trump, to his credit, doesn't, chuck friends overboard quickly. Right? I mean, you know, so he, so that's one thing. Secondly, it's clear that the President is not listening to Tucker on Iran policy. Tucker, excoriated the President and said, absolutely, under no circumstances should you attack Iran last summer. This will cause 20,000 deaths of Americans. It will lead to a forever war. None of that was true. And the President didn't listen to Tucker, and Tucker was proven wrong. Tucker has been pleading, or in a sense, excoriating the president to not have anything to do with Israel, to cut Israel loose. They're not a good ally. Right.

Joel Rosenberg: And the President isn't listening to that. Tucker sees himself as, as, as the voice of, of MAGA foreign policy. But President Trump isn't listening to him, but he hasn't cut him loose as a friend. But there is. We're at a turning point. I don't mean that as an allusion to Charlie Kirk, although it's not a bad, you know, Charlie Kirk was President, Trump's true friend and ally on these issues. Tucker has become an enemy. And I think it's hard. I mean, the president has a lot on his plate, so he doesn't have every moment of every day to think about Tucker Carlsen. And tucker Carlsen has 17.1 million followers on X. That is not something that you dismiss lightly, but the evidence here is clear. Tucker Carlsen is attacking the President. He's attacking the president's policies. He's attacking the President's personnel, like Huckabee. And he said, and maybe most importantly and badly, Tucker Carlsen is attacking President Trump's political base, which are 60 million evangelical Christians, most of whom love the president. And even though we don't agree with every single thing he says or the way he says it, believes he is moving forward on pro life, pro growth, and pro American foreign policy and domestic policy. And Tucker has, for some reason, some sad reason, we have to pray for Tucker Carlsen. Because this is not a man who's healthy. Something is going on inside of him and he's decided to make himself an enemy of the President of the United States and all of his policies. And, I think we're going to watch the President turn against Tucker. maybe it won't be verbal, maybe it'll be icing him out, but I think at some point he has to be verbal. He has to explain, why is Tucker wrong. The good news is that President Trump does see Tucker as wrong and isn't listening to him. M. But I think there's a point at which you have to publicly, have a conversation with the American people and particularly your own political base. Why has Tucker gone off the rails? this. Because Tucker is a major influencer and, the president needs to deal with him. I think he's tried to help Tucker change, but Tucker is dead set. And, that is really a sad thing. Tucker's a smart guy, but he is going down a very unhealthy and worrisome path. And I don't know if he's, you know, humanly speaking, I don't know if that's redeemable at this point. Doesn't look that way.

Jenna Ellis: Yeah, yeah. And, you know, I think, saying that there needs to be a conversation with the American public, you know, that's so important when there's the perception, at least of more influence than perhaps, is being given or more advice than is being taken. And you know, actually, having some of these conversations and at least, you know, he doesn't have to slam him with one of these nicknames or something like that, but at least saying, you know, here's where I stand, on Israel. And while, you know, my friend Tucker may have a different approach, you know, our administration is going to continue on, to be a friend of Israel. And I'm asking, you know, the base to support that position as well. I mean, some of those things, that's the dissent and that's the way.

Joel Rosenberg: That's the way you would do it, Jenna. And that's the way I would do it. But remember last summer, the President did get so frustrated with Tucker that he started calling him Kooky Tucker on this idea that Iran, that the President's approach of dealing with Iran in a 24 hour attack, and ending the Iran nuclear threat, like with one attack, was going to somehow lead to a forever war. And the President just started chuckling and he literally started calling him Kooky Tucker.

Jenna Ellis: So we'll see we'll see. And we gotta end it here. Joel Rosenberg, dear friend, thanks so much for coming on this, morning. We're going to see what, if anything, the president, signals about Israel and, you know, some of his foreign policy tonight, so. State of the Union tonight, 9pm Eastern. And as always, you can reach me and my team, JennaAFR.net.