Adam Mockler DESTROYS MAGA Pundit Jesse Lee Peterson LIVE on His Own Show!a

So at some point if everything we do IS YEAH BUT THE NAZIS OH MY PEARL HARBOR IT'S LIKE you're never going to get ahead. No because you're foolish. >> Let me ask you a question. NO NO NO BECAUSE YOU ARE you love Israel. You can't they can do whatever they want. >> I ask him for you. Why hasn't Israel been held accountable? >> You're not an anti-semite. You don't hate Jews because you're criticizing Israel. And I get it. The Muslim world the Muslim world in Europe is doing what they're doing. I get it. I get it. But with zero accountability, that means, Adam, in a 100 years from now, we're going to go, "Well, get guess what? They did it, and who cares? Because they're our allies, so they could get away with murder." I am US first. I don't give a [ __ ] about BB Netanyahu. I don't give a [ __ ] about German. I don't care about France. I don't care about anybody but the United States of America first. Once we're secure, then we can go talk to other people. >> In this video, PBD podcast co-host Vincent Oshana goes head-to-head with Patrick B. David and Adam Sausnik in one of the most intense moments ever seen on the platform. This was not a casual disagreement. Vincent did not hesitate, did not hold back, and did not seem concerned about challenging his own boss on air. The clash began when Patrick Bet David and Adam Snick defended foreign lobbying in large-scale foreign aid. While Vincent pushed back and demanded accountability for how United States tax dollars are being spent, the tension in the room was undeniable as Vincent stood firm and pressed for answers. Stay with this breakdown until the end because the way he drives his point home shifts the entire tone of the debate. Let's dive into this explosive exchange from the PBD podcast. >> So, so in this sense, man, when it comes to like, you know, Iran or Muslims and and Israel and Jewish people, I'm sorry, just Israel in general. So, and I don't want to say lesser of the two evils, but in this game that we're playing, you you're leaning towards the side because I mean, one side's doing horrible stuff, the other side's doing horrible stuff. Are you going with the side that's it's more beneficial because the other side is more evil? You know what it is, Candace? Guess what? Why don't she run in 2028 and her number one thing should be get rid of Apac and Israel lobby? See what it does. >> Good luck. >> No, no. What I'm saying is run on that. I'm actually not saying good luck. I'm not He's saying good luck. Good luck. No, what he's saying is good luck. You win. What I'm saying is go see how many more people are for that. >> And that's America. Go prove your argument. Get support and run on that. Because when you run on when you're campaigning, a president chooses a handful of things to campaign on. You want Trump's top five to be Israel? No. By the way, every single president since Nixon days had a hard time negotiating with Israel. Every single one of them. Apac. >> Do do you want them in there or do you want them out? >> I want them out. >> Yeah. So, it's like a help you. Of course >> this is such a like a >> but >> they're getting they're getting what they want and what they feel their interests are. >> But are we supposed to let them get away with murder just because the enemy is way worse at doing murder? That's my point. Now you guys can go. >> Here's what you're failing to understand. >> Please please tell me what I'm saying. >> And and you just think of this in in non-emotional reactant like I'm in love with Candace Owens and everything she says I will digest. I'm just saying. Okay. >> There's no perfect country on earth, bro. >> I know that. >> Do you though? >> Yeah. I just I criticized Bush while I was in the military. That's why I left the military. >> Continue. Yeah. >> So, you've been critical of your own government. >> Thousand%. >> Do you believe America should prioritize spending tax dollars at home first or continue sending billions overseas and foreign aid? Let me know your answer in the comments and also tell me where you are watching this video from. >> These are your NATO partners. This is Israel. This is Japan. This is South Korea. Every single one of these countries we've had issues with. We've gone to war with Germany and now they're our ally. We've gone to war with Japan. We've gone to war with Italy. So at some point if everything we do IS YEAH, BUT THE NAZIS, OH MY PEARL HARBOR, IT'S LIKE you're never going to get ahead. So you want TO DO THAT? OH MY GOD, CANDACE ONCE TOLD ME ABOUT USS LIBERTY. I GET IT. >> NO, she didn't. Me and Tom had that. >> Awesome. You found out for yourself. But none of this is new. the the JFK conspiracies, the Bolevik revolution thing. Is Israel has been dealing with this forever. You think Israel has is just this perfect country that is innocent, that has never done anything wrong. No. >> Have they been held accountable for any of that? >> Go ahead. Are you the guy? No. No. Because you're foolish. Let me ask you a question. No, no, NO. BECAUSE YOU ARE you love Israel. You can't. They can do whatever they want. They can do whatever they want. >> They are a better ally than enemies. >> But you're saying they can get away with because we're supposed to forget about it. That's not what I'm saying. That's horshit. >> Who Who has done worse things to America? >> Listen for a second. Go ahead. Don't be emotional. >> No. How am I not going to be emotional? >> Who has attacked America worse in the last 100 years? Germany or Israel? >> Germany or Israel? >> Yeah. Who's had more deaths of Americans? Germany or Israel? This isn't a trick question. This isn't tough, bro. Killing Americans. Yes. killing Americans >> in war >> in a war. >> Germany. >> Okay, great. Who's killed more Americans? Japan or Israel? >> Japan. >> Okay, pause for a moment and look closely at what unfolds during this discussion. Adam Sosnik attempts to frame Vincent Ashana's position by comparing modern-day Israel to Germany and Japan during World War II. However, that comparison raises important factual and policy differences that deserve scrutiny. Germany and Japan today are long-standing allies of the United States, and they contribute financially to hosting American military bases within their borders. By contrast, the United States provides Israel with approximately $3.8 billion in annual military assistance along with additional supplemental packages approved by Congress. Adam also makes light of the USS Liberty incident, a serious historical event in which Israeli forces attacked a United States Navy ship in 1967, resulting in the deaths of 34 American sailors and injuries to 171 others. For Vincent, raising that history is about respect and accountability, especially as a military veteran and taxpayer concerned about how American funds are allocated. While Patrick and Adam approach the issue through strategic and geopolitical lenses, Vincent grounds his argument in national priorities and fiscal responsibility. The debate reflects a broader national conversation about foreign aid alliances and the expectations citizens have regarding transparency and oversight. No. Okay, but you just prove my point. So you can't Hold on, Adam. So you just prove my point. So you have a point. >> USS Liberty USS Liberty dancing Israelis cheering cheering at night. The [ __ ] towers were coming down cheering. They all were part of intelligence. >> So why aren't you yelling and bitching about Japan or >> because they're not our freaking our our >> Because because they're because their prime minister doesn't come to Congress and everybody stands up and worships him like he's Jesus Christ. Because they know who the the guy in charge is, Adam. They're not our Hold on. Are they bigger allies? Do we give them as much money as we give to Israel? And they could do whatever they want. And you're failing to go back to what I said about Candace. You're not an anti-semite. You don't hate Jews because you're criticizing Israel. And I get it. The Muslim world, the Muslim world in Europe is doing what they're doing. I get it. I get it. But with zero accountability, that means Adam, in a 100 years from now, we're going to go, "Well, get guess what? They did it. And who cares? Because they're our allies, so they can get away with murder." >> So there's there's dozens of wars going on all around the world. >> Yes. >> Why aren't you talking about the closest ally? Because Adam, my tax dollars, my tax dollars are going to what's happening over there in Gaza, Adam. And if you've been keeping toll of the death count of children and everything that sits on my mind cuz at what point is that going to stop? When is that going to end? And by the way, again, wait, let me guess. Because I said that I support Hamas and I hate Jews. Is that what it is? >> I don't want to see any deaths of anybody, man. But the numbers are staggering in the other way. When is that going to stop? Good luck in this position you're taking because all you're doing is aligning yourself with Iran. >> Oh, here we see it. See, and and that's it. Because you always have to have a take a side, Adam. How about this America? How I don't know how hard this is to understand. I am US first. I don't give a [ __ ] about BB Netanyahu. I don't give a [ __ ] about German. I don't CARE ABOUT FRANCE. I don't care about anybody but the United States of America first. Once we're secure, then we can go talk to other people. Then Vinnie, unfortunately, you're a child >> because every grownup country >> has allies. >> I never said allies. Adam, once you served in the military, then you could talk all this [ __ ] >> Vincent Oshana takes a firm stance and speaks with intensity, making it clear that he believes questioning foreign aid is not equivalent to siding with adversarial nations. At one point, Adam suggests that criticism of foreign policy decisions can unintentionally align with hostile rhetoric, a claim Vincent strongly rejects. As a veteran, he emphasizes the human cost of war and references widely reported civilian casualties in recent conflicts, including thousands of children affected, according to international organizations such as UNICEF. But Vincent, the issue is not about supporting one nation over another, but about ensuring American resources are used responsibly and with clear accountability. Atric Bet David analyzes the situation from a strategic perspective while Adam expresses strong support for existing alliances. Vincent positions himself as advocating for what he views as an America first approach rooted in fiscal caution and national interest. The exchange becomes heated, but it highlights the complexity of balancing humanitarian concerns, strategic alliances, and domestic priorities. >> For you, why hasn't Israel been held accountable? I think that well let's I think you could look around the globe in terms of diplomacy. Why is any country not held accountable? Because they skillfully prevent themselves from being held accountable and they make friends and do things in certain ways so that they'll say, "Look, look, you know, I know you uh borrowed my car and you did a lot of damage to it, >> but I really need your help at school because we're both on the same football team. I'm gonna overlook the car and we got to be teammates over here. That's how diplomacy works. >> Since uh uh uh you can even go John F. Kennedy, you can go to Carter, you can go to all these guys, >> Kennedy and Robert McFar. >> None of these guys have ever been able to negotiate favorable terms for the US. Why do you think that is? because either Israel has got things on us and we are not without sin or they have been able to lobby successfully to talk us out of it. It's one of the two. >> Okay. So, which one you think it's more? >> I think there's probably a little bit more chess game on some of the stuff we've done CIA around the world and they've got that and they're also just incredibly skillful omniresent lobbyists. >> So, they probably also have some dirt on us to say, "Hey, if you do this, guess what?" like the whole thing with uh Epstein when his brother came over and and uh by the time he walked away, I was convinced both he and his brother were part of MSAD. And uh uh if I have to put money on the fact that Epstein has a lot of dirt on God knows how many people as a MSAD agent and sending those assets back to Israel, how valuable would that be? It >> very valuable. So I'll make my answer shorter because you're asking me to and I will. It's either dirt or you've got leverage of mutual. >> The debate reaches a dramatic conclusion when Patrick Bet David discusses the broader realities of political influence, including how powerful actors may use leverage and scandal to shape decisions in Washington. He references figures such as Jeffrey Epstein in the context of political vulnerability, framing it as part of the harsh realities of power politics. For some viewers, this acknowledgement raises serious concerns about corruption and the integrity of public officials. Vincent reacts strongly to what he perceives as normalization of unethical influence, arguing that American taxpayers deserve leadership free from coercion or hidden leverage. Adam, meanwhile, criticizes Vincent's tone and at one point questions his emotional response, which only intensifies the exchange. The core disagreement centers on whether such political maneuvering should be accepted as reality or challenged outright. In the end, the conversation leaves viewers divided with some siding with Vincent's call for accountability and others aligning with Patrick and Adam's strategic outlook on global alliances. The debate underscores a deeper question about foreign policy, transparency, and the standards Americans expect from their leaders.

Liberal commentator Adam Mockler joins Jesse Lee Peterson for a heated, no-holds-barred debate covering executive power, DOJ independence, cancel culture, immigration, and the limits of presidential authority. What begins as a free speech discussion quickly escalates into a fiery clash over whether recent actions by the administration amount to political accountability — or dangerous executive overreach. Mockler challenges the idea that a president should publicly call for investigations into political opponents, arguing it crosses a constitutional line. Jesse Lee Peterson and callers push back, defending the administration and questioning Mockler’s broader political views. The debate spirals into explosive exchanges on authoritarianism, race, immigration policy, unemployment statistics, and media narratives — exposing a deep ideological divide on the future of American democracy. This is a must-watch for anyone following the battle over separation of powers and the culture war shaping U.S. politics. ⚖️ Fair Use Disclaimer: This content is used under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act for purposes of commentary, criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. All referenced media remains the property of its respective owners. 📌 Content Notice: This video discusses political claims and public reporting. It is intended for analysis and commentary and should not be interpreted as definitive factual conclusions. #AdamMockler #JesseLeePeterson #PoliticalDebate #ExecutivePower #DOJ #FreeSpeech #USPolitics