Lefties in meltdown as Donald Trump hilariously trolls ‘crazy’ Democrats on stage

This is Power Hour with Gabriella Power.

Hello and welcome to Power Hour. I'm Gabriella Power. Thank you for joining us. President Donald Trump delivered a brilliant State of the Union address, one of his best speeches of all time, and it was the longest ever State of the Union address,

speaking for more than 100 minutes. But this is where the President outsmarts the Democrats. And the Democrats walk right into what Donald Trump is setting up for them. He knew that the Democrats just would not be able to help themselves but to protest, to yell at him, to cause a scene, to misbehave. They just have too much Trump derangement syndrome to stand up and applaud.

Just some very basic statements that any normal American would agree is a good thing. Because they have to protest anything, everything that he says. So they end up embarrassing themselves and their party. Just look at this for example. Donald Trump tells everyone to stand up who believes that the first duty of the US government is to protect American citizens, not illegals. And just look at how many got up.

If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government

is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

Basically, no one. I mean, the optics of that for the Democrat Party is just so bad. The funny thing is, though, some Democrats managed to stand up when Donald Trump called out measures to stop insider trading, including Elizabeth Warren. She got up. So Donald Trump, of course, did not miss the opportunity to troll Nancy Pelosi.

As we ensure that all Americans can profit from a rising stock market, let's also ensure that members of Congress cannot corruptly profit from using insider information.

They stood up for that.

I can't believe it.

I can't believe it.

Did Nancy Pelosi stand up if she's.

Pass the stop insider trading

act without delay.

He's brilliant. Nancy Pelosi, who's been on a salary of around $200,000 a year for most of her life, yet is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. How did that happen? I'm going to get back to the State of the Union in just a moment. But here is Nancy Pelosi being asked about that very moment on CNN.

Elizabeth Warren stood up and applauded. Elizabeth Warren stood and applauded tonight when the president talked about it.

Well, we all did. I did too. You said, did Nancy stand up? Yeah, I did too. A lot of people stood up. A lot of Democrats stood up. I think that will pass, depending on what the bill is. I mean, what we had, we thought we could pass. It was actually a tougher bill than Governor Spanberger had put forth. We thought it could pass, but it was clear that it wasn't going to make it to the House and the Senate. But in the end, he gives his shout out.

I don't pay any attention to him. What I'm concerned about is our democracy, which he is destroying.

Oh, that line, our democracy, he destroying, our democracy is under threat. I mean how many times do we have to hear that from the Democrats? It's just ridiculous. Let's go back to Trump's State of the Union address. He of course touted his economic achievements and he also honoured the late, great Charlie Kirk.

Of course, Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica Kirk was there with tears in her eyes. Donald Trump also honoured Irina Zyrutsa, the young woman who was murdered on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina, actually just a few weeks before Charlie Kirk's death and the media was very slow to cover that incident. And even at that moment when Donald Trump was honoring Irina Zerutskaya, most Democrats would not stand up for her grieving parents. It's just shocking.

The Democrats are doing themselves no favours, are behaving like that. And even though the Democrats are warned not to cause a scene, don't do anything crazy, some just couldn't help it, including Al Green, who once again had to be escorted out, this time not for shouting and waving his cane in the air, but protesting with a ridiculous poster.

And we will never go back to where we were just a very short time ago. We're not going back.

I mean, how does that poster help the Democrats? And then of course, there's Ilhan Omar. She was on camera shouting a lot at Donald Trump, just filled with rage, so angry, so triggered, especially when Donald Trump was calling out the out-of-control Somali-linked fraud.

That is why I'm also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals and enact serious penalties for public officials who block the removal of criminal aliens, in many cases, drug lords, murderers all over our country.

They're blocking the removal of these people out of our country and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Wow, she points her finger, very aggressive there and it's really not a great look for the Democrats. And other Democrats even held counter events while the State of the Union was on. And look at this.

I'm a mother. I'm a physician and I have a flag. And I am the proud representative for Oregon's third congressional district. Yes. Thank you, thank you. And tonight I defy Trump and his authoritarian project by standing in joyful, radical, peaceful resistance with the Portland

Frog Brigade. Thank you.

Joining us now is Jeff Cruair, broadcaster and commentator. Jeff, thank you so much for your time. Let's start with the State of the Union address. President Donald Trump, he gave a

robust, fiery and certainly entertaining State of the Union address from the Capitol. He, of course, entered the House of Chamber to Chance of USA,, USA before touting his achievements.

Let's just look at part of his speech.

When I last spoke in this chamber 12 months ago, I had just inherited a nation in crisis with a stagnant economy, inflation at record levels, a wide open border, horrendous recruitment for military and police, rampant crime at home, and wars and chaos all over the world. But tonight, after just one year, I can say with dignity and pride that we have achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before.

Now before I get your thoughts on how the before. Now, before I get your thoughts on how the Democrats conducted themselves, can I get your assessment of Trump's speech?

I think it was his best. I mean, I think it was the best one I've seen.

Yeah.

And I've been watching Trump since the day he came down the escalator. And it's been, you know, a lot of great speeches, but this one I really thought was excellent. He hit all the high points. He trapped the Democrats time and time again.

He mentioned heroes. I mean, there were so many wonderful moments, World War II veterans, heroes who had saved lives, USA hockey team. I mean, it was just masterful. And he was just loving it.

You could tell he was having a good time. The Republicans were having a good time. The Democrats looked like they were angry and just upset and he trapped them. And I do think this was really the high point. So I think this was something that's gonna give fuel

for the Republicans, because listen, the Republicans need help to hang on to the Congress and this will help them, I think.

I agree. And the Democrats, I mean, they just fell for Donald Trump's trap. They walked right into it, embarrassing themselves, refusing to stand up at such crucial moments. They even refused to stand up for the US hockey team.

Watch this.

That's the first time I've ever seen them get up. And actually, not all of them did get up.

Well, he points out that not all of them did get up, which says a lot about those ones. And John Fetterman, he's been filmed as being the only Democrat to shake Donald Trump's hand.

It's just interesting because the Democrats were warned not to try and pull off stunts, but they couldn't help themselves, could they?

No.

And I wrote a recent column, John Federer and the last moderate Democrat. He has really bucked the party on a lot of different issues. And he showed class last night, and at least he stood on a few of those issues. He welcomed the president. So the Democrats need to follow his lead. I mean, this Trump derangement syndrome

is not helping their party. They look radical, they look ridiculous. They were really just angry and Fetterman doesn't come off like that. So he really does, I think, belong in the Republican party. Maybe one day he'll switch parties, we'll see.

But that's the kind of look, I mean, Nancy Pelosi was looking like she was angry. Maybe one day he'll switch parties, we'll see. That's the kind of look, I mean, Nancy Pelosi was looking like she was angry, Elizabeth Schumer, we call her Pocahontas. So it was quite a display. And then you had the Democrats

who were doing that event on the mall, they were even further out there. So that's the state of the party right now, it's crazy.

It is crazy. And they're really not helping themselves with this branding issue as being seen as if they're trying to be seen as not crazy. They're certainly not helping themselves. What do you make of Virginia's new governor, Abigail Spanberger? She of course delivered the Democrat State of the Union rebuttal and accused Donald Trump

of engaging in unprecedented corruption. Let's listen.

And so you have to ask who benefits from his rhetoric, his policies, his actions, the short list of laws he's pushed through this Republican Congress. Somebody must be benefiting. He's enriching himself, his family, his friends. The scale of the corruption is unprecedented. There's the cover up of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, cozying up to foreign

princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms, putting his name and face on buildings all over our nation's capital. This is not what our founders envisioned.

Yeah, just so miserable, really, you know, you listen to Donald Trump, the energy and the entertainment that he brings and then you listen to Abigail Spanberger and you just kind of want to switch off. But just a few points to make. She claims that Donald Trump is part of this Epstein files cover up. Look, I want all of those files released as well. But the Trump administration is releasing millions of them. I mean, where were the Democrats calling for the Epstein files to be released when Joe

Biden was president? We know that Joe Biden, Kamala Harris could have released them, or Biden's staff members could have released them using Biden's auto pen. Can I get your thoughts on that rebuttal speech?

Well, Barack Obama delivered zero Epstein files. Joe Biden, zero Epstein files. Donald Trump, three million. Yeah. So I'll take three million of over zero. And Spanberger is a liar.

She ran for governor in Virginia as a moderate. She has been raising taxes like crazy ever since she took office. So this moderate is gone. She's ended the tax and spend Democrat philosophy like all the others. So it was a big ruse.

So she's the one who's engaged in deception, not Donald Trump. And all these things that she lists are the typical talking points of the Democrats. Here's the bottom line. The people are gonna vote this November

based on their pocketbook, based on the economy. I think the Republicans have a good policy that they can point to. There's one big, beautiful bill, which is tremendous tax relief. The Democrats wouldn't even stand for tax relief

in the president's State of the Union address. They wouldn't stand for American citizens. They wouldn't stand for tax relief. So they're the party of illegal aliens and tax increases. I don't think that's a winning formula.

All right, you're absolutely right and Donald Trump was just so smart to get that highlighted. I mean, the Democrats just fell for it, refusing to stand up for things like tax relief. Just an embarrassment. Good luck to the Democrats, because Kamala Harris has announced that she is considering a run for president yet again in 2028. Let's listen to her.

Will you run again?

I haven't decided.

You're still thinking about it?

I might.

Yeah.

That's what I've been saying.

That's what I, I closed the book and I'm like, oh, she wants to, she's just thinking about it, about it.

If that was my impression.

I don't know if that's what you intended, but that was my impression.

No, the book is about a specific period in time where there was no agenda beyond what we've discussed already, which is just sharing with people. You know, the reality of the experience and hope.

The reality of her election defeat. I mean, watching those two, it's like, is this serious? Is this actually happening? But Kamala Harris has also revealed why she really lost the election. And according to her, it's all because of disinformation, misinformation, disinformation.

Who do you regard as your biggest opponent in this election? Was it time? Was it Trump?

Was it the Biden administration? Who was the biggest foe?

That's a wonderful way to think of it.

Well, there were many.

There's more than one.

Certainly there was the obvious one on the ballot, but I'd say probably almost an equal measure, time and misinformation.

Misinformation about what?

Mis and disinformation about a number of things, whether it be anything to do with what we were challenged with as an economy and what the source of those challenges are, affordability, mis and disinformation about who actually had a plan to deal with affordability.

Jeff, many things according to Kamala Harris. She's had such a long time to come up with something convincing and that is what we get.

So the biggest obstacle for Kamala Harris was Kamala Harris. I mean, she was a terrible candidate. She didn't do media interviews. She didn't articulate why she was running. She refused to break from Joe Biden when people wanted change.

All of her accomplishments were fictitious because every job she was given, she didn't handle, like the border. She was a border czar. You could tell Biden didn't like her. A lot of Obama didn't like her. So the party leaders didn't really get behind her. They were sort of forced to accept her as the VP moving to the presidential candidates and it just was a disaster for them. So yeah, she's going to run again because

who else do the Democrats have? I mean, Gavin Newsom is turning out to be a disaster. He's making faux pas after faux pas. I just came across as racist in a speech to black voters by saying that he shares their little IQ and he can't read. So who else do they have?

I mean, they really have a weak bench, so they might have to turn to her again, and that's good news for Katie Vance or Marco Rubio or whoever the Republican candidate is gonna be.

Well, CNN is calling the Democratic Party a total mess after Newsom's performance in Munich, also AOC's disastrous performance. Let's just listen to this.

So we see Governor Newsom, he's got a book I think which actually publishes today. He's in the middle of the fray of possible Democratic interest. So what do the polls say?

They're all running and this is just a downright clown car at this point on the Democratic side. I mean just take a look here. Top choices for the 2028 DemPres nominee. You have a leader, but it's not really a clear leader. It's within the margin. You have Newsom at 19 percent. Then you have former Vice President Kamala Harris at 18 percent. Quite a weak number for her, given that, of course, she was the nominee last time around. Pete Buttigieg, who, of course, has run before 13 percent. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at 12 percent. This is just a total clown car. It is a total mess. There is no clear front runner at this particular point

on the Democratic side. Who the heck knows who the nominee is gonna be in three, two years.

It's been a long time

since we've had a Democratic race like this.

Jeff, it's really not a good sign when CNN is calling it a total mess.

Well, he's actually 100% right. It is a clown show. And if the Democrats were smart, they would ditch all of those candidates, pick someone who is a moderate, who can appeal to a broad section of voters,

get away from this extremism. But that's not going to happen, because they're now doubling down on Trump hatred, on socialism. So their next nominee is going to be another far-left candidate. I mean, they would be smart to follow the Bill Clinton playbook. He was someone who appealed to people in the middle. He went in there, he cut taxes, he worked with Republicans, but that Democrat party is gone. The Democrat party now is a

socialist party and they're only going to have socialist choices and that's going to be a problem for them. So, you know, the Republicans have their problems, believe me, but it helps them to have a Democrat Party that doesn't have leadership

and it doesn't appeal to a broad spectrum. Just finally, before I let you go, Donald Trump hosted the US men's hockey team at the Oval Office ahead of the State of the Union address. Let's just take a quick look.

Our country is winning again. In fact, we're winning so much that we really don't know what to do about it. People are asking me, please, please, please, Mr.

President, we're winning too much. We can't take it anymore. We're not used to winning in our country. Until you came along, we're just always losing. But now we're winning too much. And I say, no, no, no. You're going to win again.

You're going to win big. You're going to win bigger than ever. And to prove that point — to prove that point, here with us tonight is a group of winners who just made the entire nation proud. The men's gold medal Olympic hockey team.

Come on in. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

What a moment. Jeff, can I get your reaction?

I mean, that might have been the highlight of the speech. Those people are super popular now, the men's hockey team. You had 26 million people that got up early to watch that match against Canada. And they're now heroes. And it was such a compelling victory.

You had the pride, the patriotism again. That's what we want to see among our athletes. I thought it was interesting. The women's team also won the gold medal. They were invited, but they did not go to the state of the union, but the president did say that they're going to be going to the White House, which I was glad to hear. But this was a highlight

of the night, and it shows that Donald Trump knows how to associate with winners. He's associating with, you know, patriotism and pride in our country. The Democrats are just on the on the opposite side. A lot of the Democrats couldn't

even cheer the hockey team.

That's that's

that's a problem with when we have a party that's not patriotic and pro-American. That's really infects a lot of the Democrat Party today.

Yeah. And it's great that we have a president who is patriotic and is putting America first. He made that loud and clear yesterday. Jeff Kruger, broadcaster and commentator, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Joining us now is political analyst Professor Joe Syracuse. Joe Syracuse, thank you so much for your time. Donald Trump certainly delivered a powerful, brilliant, entertaining and patriotic State of the Union address. According to a poll by CNN, the majority of people watching say that Trump's policies will move the country in the right direction. That's 64% according to this CNN poll. But left-wing media hosts are in meltdown over Trump's address.

Here's MSNOW host Rachel Maddow calling Trump's address violence porn.

He was speaking quickly, even if he was ad-libbing a lot. But then he ended up slowing down a lot, and particularly slowing down markedly for long stretches of the speech that were essentially sort of violence porn.

He talked about people being covered in blood, gushing blood, blood pouring out of things. He talked about people being on the edge of death. He went into graphic detail on a number of different people's injuries of various kind. And in those moments, he slowed down, ad-libbed a lot and tried to give seemingly as much sort of gory detail as he could,

talking about very bloody scenes.

She is such a miserable woman. I think Donald Trump describing things such as Maduro's capture, it's part of storytelling, parts of bringing emotion to the events that have taken place, but Rachel Maddow's analysis of Trump's speech is that it was all just too violent.

I think she's a bit unhinged with that analysis. Joe Syracuse, I want to get your thoughts on Trump's address, but also your reaction to what Rachel Maddow had to say.

Well, Rachel Maddow, of course, is Trump's sworn enemy, and she's suffering what Ellen Dershowitz coined Trump derangement syndrome. Her comments are not very useful.

I mean, you don't have to like Trump or love Trump, but I'll tell you what, he's the most entertaining president in my lifetime. Yesterday was my 50th State of the Union address. I've been through 14 presidents. And I got to tell you that the State of the Union address, up to people like Trump, it's pretty boring.

You know, most people don't watch it. They go to sleep. It doesn't say anything. And you know, but he's the, he's not the ringmaster of the mega circus for nothing. You know, he brought a lot of glamour to it. He brought a lot of little people in there

and he handed out awards. Everyone likes awards night. And he brought in this very popular ice hockey team. I was actually moved by the victims that he highlighted. The daughters or the parents of the daughters. I mean, these are very hard things.

I mean, sure, it looked like, you know, a sort of a reality show, but that's what American politics is. Now, what the president should have been doing, what I think, is that he had to think about the midterm elections before he gave his speech. And he had to worry about three groups that have slipped away from him. That is the youth vote, the non-whites, and the independents. Those are the people who elect people.

Gabriela, there are 255 million Americans eligible to vote. Only 150 million voted the last time. So it's very important that parties are divided. But you need those independent voters to come back. So those are the people he should be pitching for. And of course, this is his last major address before the midterms. The midterms are very important. As your audience may or may not know, as soon as the House of Representatives gets 218 members from one party, they can impeach anybody in the place. And if the Democrats get back in, and they're tipped to win.

I mean, that tends to happen when they're not in the White House. They're going to impeach President Trump again for the third time. They're going to impeach his trade secretary, Lutnick, for his Epstein relationships. They're going to go after the Homeland Security lady, and they're going to go after everybody, as a matter of fact. It's going to be quite unuseful.

Now, I think it was an important speech in this sense. I think the president told everybody what he was thinking. I mean, I know there were important polls before the talk that said that 70 percent of Americans think he's concentrating on the wrong things, going in the wrong direction. Only six in ten Americans don't think much about him in terms of his popularity. But then again, you know, they felt that way about the last guy and the guy before that. So I think, but most Americans are worried about what Australians are worried about,

the inflation, the economy and the cost of living. I mean, these are things that normal everyday people have to think about. And Trump made a pitch for them. He told them that things are brighter than they look. That may or may not be true. But you know, during the, just before the Great Depression, the president said, you

know, good times are about ready to roll again. Well, that didn't happen. And so the president has to be hopeful. I think it was kind of a hopeful message. But look, with Trump, I mean, it is just show business. It's wonderful viewing. It was an hour and 47 minutes, and he didn't know what was going to come next.

And this guy is able to kill people with his entertainment value. That is, he can combine politics with television. He is the master of television. I think his audience was very disrespectful. I mean, on the one night of the year, they could at least applaud for the ice hockey team or anybody else who gets to,

this one guy got a Congressional Medal of Honor at the age of 50, 100 years old. I mean, you know, better late than never, I suppose. But you have to stand up for that one too. But you know, they were quite a surly mob. And you know, these speeches tend to exhibit the good, the bad and the ugly.

The good thing is, the president told you what was on his mind. The bad thing is, is that the audience wasn't too responsive. And the ugly thing is that some members of the audience were, you know, on the verge of treason, that is. You know, when you start shouting abuse at the head of the free world, I mean, you're really out of place, as a matter of fact. And I like the snub that Gabriele, he gave to the Supreme Court.

The body language said it all, you know, he didn't even shake a couple of their hands, he just walked right by them. But look, this is the president for the ages. I don't know who would replace him when he goes on. And he's gonna fight like hell to try to win that midterm. But the trouble is he's not on the ballot. So what he was giving everybody yesterday was the playbook.

He said, you take this to your voters and you tell them this is what Donald Trump says. Well, they may believe it or they may not, but the important thing I think in the midterms is, is for Americans to roll out of bed and vote. I mean, it's not like in Australia where you might get the day off or it's a weekend kind of thing.

You know, you got to make an effort. And then college kids have to roll out of their dorms and go vote for somebody too, if they want to. So, and some Americans, you know, they might say, the hell with it. You know, my interest rates have gone up no matter what I do. Having trouble with the first home. Life is a mess. I can't get promoted. You know, business is stalled,

et cetera, et cetera. And so, you know, what's what's the point? So a number of Americans over 110 million, as a matter of fact, have decided just to stand on

the sidelines and let things play

out.

I just want to pick up on something you said a little earlier about being moved in Donald Trump's speech and I agree I was deeply moved listening to Donald Trump honoring Charlie Kirk we of course saw Erica Kirk his widow there Donald Trump was calling out political violence He also honored Irina Zavrutskaya the young woman who was murdered on a train in Charlotte. Let's just take a look

so last year Charlie was violently murdered by an assassin and martyred, really martyred for his beliefs. His wonderful wife, Erica, is with us tonight. Erica, please stand. On that train, no one will ever forget the expression of terror on Irina's face as she looked up at her attacker in the last seconds of her life.

She died instantly. She had escaped a brutal war only to be slain by a hardened criminal, set free to kill in America, came in through open borders. Mrs. Zaretska, tonight I promise you we will ensure justice for your magnificent daughter, Irina.

That was just such a powerful moment. It's really hard not to be moved by something like that. It gives me goosebumps. Yet some Democrats refuse to stand for Irina Zyrutska's grieving parents there, which says so much. Also, Donald Trump gave a special mention to Secretary of State Marco

Rubio. Let's just watch this.

And I also want to thank the mandate report to Secretary of State

Marco Rubio. Thank you, Marco. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. percent. And some of the Democrats are now saying I can't believe we approved that guy. And he said it's an honor that they feel that way. Right. Marco you have done a great job. Great Secretary of State. I think he'll go down as the best.

I mean the entertainment value that Donald Trump brings it's extraordinary. People like you Marco Rubio. But look, Marco Rubio is certainly emerging as the real star of the administration. Would you agree with that?

Yeah, he looks presidential. Let me say something about those other guests. I'm not talking about Charlie Kirk's wife who could fill a stadium by herself. It's the mother of the woman who was murdered. He also had another mother whose child was murdered by an illegal alien. Donald Trump has an ability to do something that I haven't seen in my lifetime, and that is he makes people feel like they're being seen, little people. And you know, the idea that Americans can actually see these people and identify with

their problems, and they all can, you know, who hasn't been on an elevator or an elevated train or subway or bus late at night and wondering if they're going to make it to the hotel. But you know, he makes people believe they're being seen. And that's a great skill. Joe Biden couldn't do that. He just, and George W. Bush couldn't do that, and other people, etc. But look, I think he does a great job of that.

He's a great communicator in that sense. And he might be a little bit over the top, but American politics is a little bit over the top. And in terms of his patriotism, I mean, it's undiminished. He likes the military, and he likes tariffs for the same reasons, Gabriele, and that is they don't talk back.

They do what he wants them to do. He wants them to raise money, and he wants military solutions to diplomatic problems that are slipping away. Now the big problem here, of course, is Iran. You pick a fight with a nation twice the size of Texas, the size of Europe as a matter of fact.

This isn't Maduro in Venezuela, or this isn't Cuba or Mexico. This is 92 million people, many of whom would fight if you had foreign troops in Israel. And he's got a large, what he calls armada, and that's what it is, offshore in two different directions, which I understand over the weekend has cost $2.3 billion to keep in place for the last 30 days. That's a lot of money to scare the hell out of your enemy. Now if I were the Iranians, I would have a real hard think about what to do next.

Now one of the famous fellows who was kidnapped in 1979, who was working with the State Department, said over the weekend that he thought that the Ayatollah and the leadership there would rather go down fighting than lose ignominiously. What he meant was, you know, sometimes people just roll the dice. Well, Donald Trump's prepared to do that.

The trouble is, is that the American forces could do this, could pummel Iran for about, oh, I say two weeks before they run out of Tomahawk cruise missiles. They have 800 nearby. And you can't beat a out of Tomahawk cruise missiles, they have 800 nearby. And you can't beat a nation with Tomahawk cruise missiles. If you're actually going to go to war with somebody, you have to put in foot soldiers. You can't defeat anybody unless you put soldiers on the ground.

And America's not prepared to do that. But you know, Israel will be terribly affected if this happens, as well as America's friends and allies in the Middle East, if the Iranians can cause enough trouble. So the president has to think very carefully about what to do next. The trouble is, is he's on a roll. You know, he was successful with Venezuela.

He's done what he wanted to do in Mexico. He's got them to pay attention. And he beat the Iranians up pretty badly last year, but he was lucky they did not respond in kind. They took their beating and sort of shut up and went away. But this time he wants them to cough up all the uranium enriched material.

He says he never wants them to get a nuclear weapon. Well, you know, forever and never in diplomacy, Gabriela, is really a stretch. These treaties only last for about a lifetime.

Let's listen to what he had to say about Iran. He certainly laid out his case for a possible attack on Iran during his State of the Union speech to Congress saying that he would not allow the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon.

Can't let that happen.

Also in news today, the Australian government is urging the families of diplomats to leave Israel and Lebanon amid rising fears of military conflict, rather, between the US and Iran. So that certainly gives, potentially, an indication

that a strike could be soon. But I want to get your thoughts on this decision and the how it's being kind of thought out within the Trump administration because this prospect of an attack on Iran is generating concern and division at the top levels of the Trump administration reportedly about the best way forward because sensitive discussions about the risks of military action is being leaked to the American media. There are reports that Vice President J.D. Vance has concerns about a military operation and it potentially going wrong. Is that causing Donald Trump a headache?

Not really. I mean, Trump's trying to put a positive spin on this. Gabrielle, I'll tell you that the world's kept secret Washington, and that as America has been at war with Iran since 1979, since the Ayatollah's followers kidnapped those American citizens at the embassy in Tehran, then we had, I think, a failed rescue attempt. We should have gone to war with them and crushed them, but we've allowed them to go on for 47 years. They are, he's right, the president's right, they are the world's number one exporter of terrorism.

They have funded Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, and they have killed Americans, but I'm sure Australians indirectly, as a matter of fact. These are people, these are the bad guys. Now, you know, the Iranian people, the Persians who've been there for thousands of years, they're putting up with the mullahs because they seem to be the only people who can direct trafficking and deliver the mail.

Sometimes nations get stuck with governments they just do not want. And of course, we have, if the president's right, that the Iranians, the Iranian government, he said they have killed 38,000 protesters. I think he mentioned that phrase, he had that phrase in his speech. That's an enormous amount of people who protested.

And I thought the president was going to use some of these forces a couple of weeks ago, at least in January, when we had the first uprisings that we saw on television. Right now it's going to be a little harder because the mullahs have cleaned up the streets and of course you've got the Revolutionary Guard who cut on the mullahs for their paychecks. So you don't know which way that's going to go. But look, I think if he goes in, he's going to hit them very hard.

He's not going to try to decapitate them. What he's going to try to do is break the place up. I mean, if you can't get the leadership, you break the place up, because there's always a new leader to take over in a place like that. But the thing is, is that the president realizes that if he's able to deliver a victory here, it might help everybody in mid-November. Now, keep in mind, you can win a war and lose the election. Don't ask me, ask Winston Churchill.

He got turfed out before the Second World War was over, but after he'd won the war in Europe. George H.W. Bush got turfed out after he won the first Gulf War. Sometimes nations, they just don't put that much stock in foreign victories because they're worried about those other things we talked about, inflation, cost of living, and affordability. But the president, if he gets in, he's going to get in all the way. And this idea that you can get in and not expect to be hit back, I think, is sort of

a fantasy. That's what the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of War is worried about, is what happens when they hit back. And I'm sure the Israelis are very worried about this. I'm sure the so-called Iron Dome, is that what they call it? It has to be replenished from time to time.

They may not have enough to do that. And the Iranians have plenty of ballistic missiles. And then, of course, they don't have to have ICBMs. They just need short-range ballistic missiles to get where they want to go. So they can do a great deal of damage to America's allies in the area. And of course, there are 30,000 to 40,000 Americans and their allies in the Middle East

anyway. So, you know, they might want to hit pipelines in Saudi Arabia. So the price of gasoline and petrol goes up, and they might want to close the Strait of Hormuz, and you got all hell to pay for it. So Trump has to be very careful here between the reality of what he's dealing with and the headiness of the success he's had. He's had enormous success so far.

You know, he- He certainly has.

And he's got that military on side. You know, we hear a lot of jumping up and down in the military. But you know, those guys, they are four square behind this president, because this president is four square behind them. He's got unfinished business.

Jo Siracusa, political analyst, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate all your insights and analysis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joining us now from the UK is writer and broadcaster Esther Krakow. Esther, thank you so much for joining us. Let's start with this news revealed today. Shocking emails showed that Jeffrey Epstein allegedly blamed King Charles when Andrew Mountbatten-Windindsor lost his job as UK trade envoy.

So Andrew of course became the UK special representative for international trade and investment in 2001, but resigned in 2011 over his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. So on July 21, 2011, which was the day that Andrew's resignation was made public, Epstein allegedly sent an email to one of his associates saying, I assume he knows this is Charles' doing. Esther, I mean, that's pretty extraordinary. What more can you tell us?

Well, from that email exchange, it's clear that Jeffrey Epstein was so confident that Prince Andrew was in his pocket. And actually, at the time, it was alleged that he resigned because of his links to Jeffrey Epstein and because of that infamous picture of Prince Andrew or the former Prince Andrew coming out of Jeffrey Epstein's flat in New York.

Now, we've also heard from the UK's current Secretary of Trade that he actually lobbied for Prince Andrew to have that role removed because he showed utter disrespect and disinterest in his role, particularly one kind of striking moment where he was engaging with some schoolboys as part of his role as trade envoy and he was allegedly very disinterested and kind of showed a level of disdain that was

not acceptable for working royal. And you have to understand how big a deal that is because all the royals do is PR, all they do is engage with the public, they're basically professional ambassadors. For it to be said that Prince Andrew showed a level of disdain and disinterest in the people that he was engaging with in his capacity on behalf of the royal family and as a public servant is quite damning. And so it shows one that he was

ill suited to the role, but two, he was more interested in serving himself than actually serving the country and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has kind of laid that bare.

Now that all these sort of allegations have come up and Prince Andrew or the former Prince Andrew has now formally been arrested. You also hear people, individuals that were actually part of his personal protection.

So security officers and all of that, coming out and saying that, members of his protection team didn't have a high opinion of him and that his nickname amongst his security personnel, I will leave you to guess,

but it rhymed with punt. So he wasn't thought of very highly. And this just shows that, you know, his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein clearly was more important to him than actually doing his role in serving the country.

Well, King Charles's brother, Prince Edward, was supposed to be joining King Charles for a major event, but he was forced to pull out at the last minute. This comes just days after Andrew Mountbatten wins his arrest. So Prince Edward was expected to join his family at an award ceremony at St. James's Palace in London, but

was unexpectedly absent after being struck down with a health issue. But Esther, what are your thoughts around this? Because royal experts say that this really would have been

comforting, particularly for King Charles to have more of his family around him during this hugely challenging time.

Yes, and I think what this laid bare is how, just how thin there are in terms of working royals on the ground. There are very few of them. You know, this goes to show

again how much of a blow Harry and Meghan leaving the royal family were because it wasn't just a PR crisis. It was who's actually going to do the work that we need to. We know that Prince Edward's wife has been in Somalia with her charity causes there, drawing attention to the rights of women and girls, and particularly women and girls who have faced sexual violence. So she's busy all

over the world and they've been doing tours to Canada and all over the world. So really, it's not surprising that with an alleged cold, something as simple as a cold, he had to be taken out. I think it's probably more to do with the exhaustion and just the fact that the few members of the royal family that are working are kind of pushed to the limit.

We know that Princess Anne is the hardest working royal and she engages in the most engagements of all royals. But you know, this is someone who does quite a glamorous job. She goes to a chip factory in the Midlands, she opens schools on a rainy day in Wales. It's not the kind of glamorous work that most people associate with the royal family, but that is the overwhelming majority of what they do. And unfortunately, coupled with the former Prince Andrew's arrest this week, a lot of attention has been diverted from their usual duties to this disgraced former prince with who has no

judgment and was just basically fulfilling his role in public duties in

a way to just line his own pockets really. Let's talk about the disgraced former Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. He's now reportedly been banned from horse riding following his arrest. Royal aides fear that the former Duke of York being photographed on horseback would be a bad look while he remains under police investigation. Look, I tend to agree with that. But Priority's arrest was common to see Andrew riding around Windsor Estate, but not anymore,

Esther.

Yes, the former prince is basically in royal prison. I mean, the last step is really to lock him up in the Tower of London. And you know, to put it bluntly, the public sees the Yorksers, so the former Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, as a pair of sucking leeches that were in any sort of capacity of royal family roles just to basically make money for themselves. And it's not a surprise that Prince Philip, after the former Prince Andrew's divorce from Sarah Ferguson described her as odd and pointless

and banned her from being seen with the royal family on public engagements. And the royal family has basically decided to say to Prince Andrew, well, the former Prince Andrew, without all but banishing him to the Middle East, that you have put this family in such disrepute

that you will take everything that we're giving you. You are lucky we're providing your home. You will collaborate and cooperate with the police. And so much so that you have police basically storm the King's private property in Norfolk to arrest the former Prince Andrew,

which he obviously would have known about. You don't just go onto the King's private property without his knowledge. So, you know, and the last thing that the royal family wants is pictures of the former Prince Andrew looking pleased with himself and happy

and riding horses and living in La Villa Loca when there are real questions about, not just his association with Jeffrey Epstein, but how far this really goes. Because we know that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has lied to the public before in his

disastrous Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. And so no one can take his word for it. So it is now the royal family's duty to manage this as far as possible to be

completely transparent, not just with the authorities, but with the public and try and sort of cauterise this wound that is the Yorks'.

And they absolutely must. I mean, if they want to win back any kind of support or move forward as a modern monarchy, they absolutely need to be transparent and handle this the right way. The Speaker of the UK's House of Commons has revealed that he told police he believed that Peter Mandelson was a possible flight risk ahead of his arrest. So we know that, of course, Peter Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office,

and he's facing accusations himself of leaking information to Jeffrey Epstein. He was released on bail on Tuesday morning after more than nine hours of questioning. Esther, can you bring us up to speed? What are the details here?

Yes. So it was quite surprising that the former Prince Andrew was arrested, but Peter Mandelson wasn't. Because from the details of the email exchanges that were released to the public between him and Jeffrey Epstein, particularly during his time as Deputy Prime Minister and during the peak of the 2008 financial crisis, where the British government in particular was bending over backwards to try and reassure the public amidst sort of financial crisis and mass unemployment in the country,

you had Peter Mandelson, from what it looks like from these emails, allegedly passing on sensitive markets information to Jeffrey Epstein and his acolytes, which is such a huge breach of office and judgment. So it was actually expected

that he would be arrested before Prince Andrew because that's far worse from what we can see than anything that Prince Andrew has, the former Prince Andrew has, seemed to have been done with or engaged in with Jeffrey Epstein. But they've now just got round to it because he actually agreed to give the police an interview next month but according to the Speaker of the House of Commons, he felt like after an overheard conversation of some kind or through sort of more private information sources, that he thought Peter Mandelson was a flight risk and that he was

going to leave the country. And so he tipped off the police who then seized Peter Mandelson's passport to make sure that he can't actually leave the country pending investigation. So this whole thing is quite tortory. I find it quite incredible that Peter Mandelson's only defense is that he doesn't recall anything of this kind. He doesn't recall any sort of inappropriate communications,

even though there are actual emails. It's quite incredible. From a lot of these revealed documents, his own husband was on Peter Mandelson's payroll and receiving a stipend of $4,000 a month. I find it incredible that Peter Mandelson doesn't remember any of that. But again, this is a live investigation and the authorities do their job.

It's just to the public, it just looks very, very unsavoury.

Let's talk about Kiastama. So, Kiastama is facing pressure to halt funding for French Channel patrols after new data revealed that around two thirds of small boat migrants successfully reach Britain. So just to repeat that, two-thirds of small boat migrants successfully reach Britain. Wow. Prime Minister is expected to approve fresh payments to France when the current agreement expires, but Conservative and Reform UK figures are demanding that no further payments be handed

over without evidence of tougher action from France. And again, Esther, just to look at how many people have crossed the channel in small boats, last year it was more than 41,000. That's an increase of 13%.

Yes, I mean, so far the UK has handed the French authorities over 700 million pounds, which we are still wondering what has been done with that. Because again, their success rate is so low. There have been allegations that police, French police have actually been busing these migrants to sort of the points on the beaches where they're

actually getting onto these dinghies to cross the channel. And I think what I find quite spectacular is how naive this government is in not assuming or not even deducing the inherently political role that this whole crisis has taken on. The French don't want a lot of these migrants

and they're happy to wring their hands of them and send them to Britain as Britain's problem. This whole issue of migrant crossings didn't just start in the Channel, it started in the Mediterranean. And many Mediterranean or European countries

bordering the Mediterranean have had to deal with this. Italy, for example, has had to deal with a lot of influx of migrants. Spain, France, many of them are considering, you know, offshoring migrants to third world processing countries. So it's a significant problem for France as well. And it's really had a huge impact on their own domestic policy situation. You've seen the rise of the Front National in France, mainly because of this not only unprecedented wave of legal immigration but also illegal immigration. The only saving grace I think for the French

is it's more difficult for illegal migrants to work in France because it's a more document heavy country. In the UK there's no such thing. We don't have national ID cards, for example, even though they've been tried to implement it twice, first under Blair and more recently under Kirstahmer, even though that failed and it was another of the government's incessant U-turns. So the French are quite happy to wash their hands of this. And I think for Kirstahmer to not notice that and for his government to look poised to approve more payments without demanding even more rigorous

policing is quite incredible and just shows his lack of judgment on this matter as well as many other matters across the country.

Just finally, the Gorton and Denton by-election is shaping up to be potentially a turning point in Starmer's tenure. Of course, the Gorton and Denton areas have been a Labor stronghold for decades, yet it's a three-way race. What can you tell us about this? What are you expecting?

Well, the mathematical formula is quite an interesting one. This particular constituency, you have on the one hand, sort of urban settlers alongside a very large, significant ethnic minority, mainly made up of Muslim voters. And then on the other hand, you have sort of white, working class

individuals that reform is targeting quite heavily, arguing that they've been left behind by the government and by successive governments. So that is the interesting split. What reform is banking on is that the Green Party will actually split the Labour vote, which will allow reform to run to victory. But this by-election has descended into something uglier that people weren't expecting. You know, you're seeing this unholy alliance between traditional, like blue-haired green supporters

and actually traditionalist Muslim voters that are basically voting on sectarian lines, voting on a pro-Gaza platform. Would you believe that the Green Party has been releasing ads in Urdu and Bengali in order to woo these voters?

And what does it say about the state of Britain when a national party is campaigning, not just on such tribal and sectarian lines, but is literally putting out campaign adverts in foreign languages to secure the vote. I mean, Britain is becoming like an airport lounge

where you have people from all sorts of different walks of life just sharing a geographical location. And unfortunately, this by-election says something much deeper about the state of Britain, not just the

fact that the country is overwhelmingly unimpressed with the Labour Party at the moment.

You're spot on writer and broadcaster Esther Kraku. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And that is Power Hour. Thank you for your company. We'll see you again next week. Make sure you subscribe to Sky Make sure you subscribe to Sky News Australia on YouTube.