Sen. Ron Johnson on potential deal with Iran

Got it. What is your take currently, Senator, as you know it, and we're all trying to figure out what the bottom line is of a possible emerging deal between the president and Iran. I've always felt Iran was an existential threat to America if they became a nuclear power. That is the bottom line, from my standpoint. In terms of President Trump, he's been saying this for literally decades. As every American president since Clinton has said, you can't allow Iran to become a nuclear power. President Trump is just the first president to do something about it. And it's not without risk. It's not easy. They've got their mosaic defense. There's about a million of their brutal regime that are armed. The rest of the 90 million Iranians are not, which is why they're being held hostage by this brutal regime. So the sooner that regime is on the dustbin of history, the better, but it's not an easy task. Are you comfortable with the deal that just reopens the Strait of Hormuz and leaves other matters-- nuclear ambitions, support of terrorist proxies, its existing stockpile, though diminished, of drones and missiles intact? I have the same concerns as others, as I'm quite sure that President Trump has the same concerns. But again, let's see how this all develops. We cannot allow Iran to become a nuclear power. That's the bottom line. We can't allow them to be able to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage, which is what they're doing right now. It looks like all the other regional powers are certainly lined up against Iran. So this war has certainly realigned the politics there, hopefully realigned to the positive going forward. There was a lot of conversation, as you well know, Senator, last week in the Republican conference about the proposed weaponization fund. Are you net net a supporter of that fund, and how do you regard the answers that you and your Senate Republican colleagues got from the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche? Well, as I understand it, this would just be an extension of the judgment fund, part of Treasury that's been around for literally decades. Obama used it. Biden used it. Now Trump will use it. I'm fully supportive of it. I know that the Biden administration weaponized government against good people, like Judge Troupis here in Wisconsin. Lawfare has destroyed that man-- a couple million dollars worth of legal fees because of that weaponization. So I think the government in all administrations abuses American citizens, and they ought to have some fund that they can be compensated out of. So I'm basically supportive of that. The timing was awful. Hopefully we can get back in next week and do the reconciliation bill to fund CBP and ICE, because Democrats refuse to do so. And have an overriding amendment that will put guardrails on that so nobody will have a problem with it.

What kind of guardrails do you want, Senator? Well, obviously, we don't want people who committed acts of violence against anybody, against police, people who are now convicted rapists or whatever. We don't want those people accessing the fund. There needs to be a process that can be vetted properly. Just the way the judgment fund has been used in prior administrations, oftentimes on a partisan basis, but sometimes people are abused on a partisan basis. Senator, you recently sent a letter to Health Secretary Kennedy claiming that the Food and Drug Administration under President Biden, quote, "deliberately used a system incapable of truly identifying safety signals." This is in COVID vaccines, and if I understand it correctly, specifically those delivered to children. What are you driving at? First of all, Major, I appreciate you having me on, because you're the first major network that's actually covered this report that's been out now for four weeks. What our report uncovered because of Bobby Kennedy's commitment to radical transparency on March 1 of 2021, Peter Marks, the head of CBER-- that's the division within FDA that approves and then monitors safety of vaccines-- was briefed that the algorithm they were using to monitor and analyze the system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, was going to hide and mask safety signals of the COVID injections. 26 days later, using a new algorithm, the data mining actions presented that finding 49 cases of extreme masking under the old system. With the new system, 25 safety signals on very serious adverse events like sudden cardiac death, pulmonary infarction, a Bell's palsy, different types of strokes. Three consecutive months after that, they continued to do other data mining, showing more safety signals. And yet, Peter Marks decided to stick with the old algorithm, lied to the American public, saying we're not seeing safety signals. Oh, he was presented a long list of safety signals. This the first data run, 25 very serious safety signals. So from my standpoint, this is the largest, the biggest government scandal in my lifetime, because the American people had a right to know. They should have had informed consent before they lined up, and certainly before they subjected their children-- who had virtually zero chance of serious side effects from actual COVID-- to line them up for an experimental injection. And children died. That's a separate little cover up underneath this. When the FDA analyzed 96 child deaths, some with autopsies-- again, we're digging into that-- but it's looking like that's a pretty corrupt process, as well. Another case of cover up. I've read, Senator, like your appraisal of this, that when you look at the totality of doses of the vaccine administered, even at the higher end of your suggested childhood death rate, it would be a per dose death rate of 1 in 19.7 million-- or 1 in 69,000,000, depending on the metrics. And people who are advocates of the vaccine and the administration process therein say that's a smaller percentage of childhood deaths than you might find if they got a dose of ibuprofen. How do you evaluate that? So I know the numbers. So we did this analysis in 2023 when people said the same thing. There's so many doses out there. So for the COVID vaccine when we did this in 2023, is 25.5 deaths per million doses given for the COVID injection, versus 0.46 for the flu vaccine. That's a 55-fold increase. Today, on Bayers worldwide, there's 39,000 deaths reported on Bayers worldwide, associated with the COVID injection. 24% of those occur either on the day of vaccination, or within one or two days. There's about 1.7 million adverse events reported, and a CDC commissioned study at Harvard, the Pilgrim Study, showed that only about 1% of all adverse events are actually reported to Bayers. So again, we can go round and round on numbers. But I've been looking at this for years. I didn't need a sophisticated algorithm as we went from an average of about 290 deaths per year reported to Bayers associated with the vaccine, up to 2021, there was 21,000. They had to hire additional people just to process the backlog of Bayers reports. And yet, now we know Peter Marks, he was shown that their analysis was going to hide safety signals. He was shown the safety signals, and he didn't alert the American people. The American people had a right to know to make an informed decision whether or not they want to subject themselves or their children to that experimental gene therapy-- that's what it is, it's not a true vaccine-- and they were not given that information. They have the right to know. They were denied that right. Let us have a longer conversation about this, because I'm genuinely curious about what you found, what you believe happened. And if you say it's the biggest scandal in your lifetime, I want to have a longer conversation about it. But I appreciate teeing it up. Senator Ron Johnson, Republican from Wisconsin. I appreciate it. I also want that longer conversation. Our investigation's just begun. Very good. We'll come back to you on it, I promise you. Senator Johnson, I appreciate it. Thank you.