logo
CNN host shuts down Trump official in fiery clash over Ukraine peace talks

CNN host shuts down Trump official in fiery clash over Ukraine peace talks

CNN viewers were left disgruntled after host Pamela Brown had
a heated exchange
with Donald Trump's State Department spokesperson regarding the peace talks in Ukraine. Earlier this week, the Republican leader suggested that an agreement to cease Russia's aggression towards Ukraine is "very close."
Trump encouraged Volodymyr Zelensky to "get it done", despite the ongoing turmoil in Kyiv due to Russian missiles and drones. This follows the recent downgrade of London-based discussions involving representatives from the UK, France, Germany, Ukraine, and the US, which aimed to
establish a ceasefire
.
The change was prompted by the withdrawal of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff. After announcing his non-participation, the politician issued a statement about
the President's role in the peace negotiations
. He stated: "I think it's important to remind everybody that the Ukraine war is a terrible thing, but it's not our war."
Read More
Related Articles
Jenna Bush Hager announces major career move in heartfelt statement
Read More
Related Articles
Donald Trump branded 'dumbest President ever' after six-word comment about Congo
"And the reason why I make that point is the President has spent 87 days at the highest level of this government repeatedly taking efforts to bring this war to an end. We are now reaching a point where we need to decide and determine whether this is even possible or not, which is why we're engaging both sides," Rubio explained
President Donald Trump chastised Zelensky when he visited
(Image: (Image: AFP via Getty Images))
On Wednesday's episode (April 24) of their morning news show, the 41-year-old presenter invited politician Tammy Bruce to discuss the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
During the televised interview, she pressed the politician for details on the ongoing dialogue between Russia and Ukraine. Bruce responded: "That is what Rubio pointed to and that it will not go on forever, it will not go on for months."
The conversation hit a snag when the official refused to entertain more questions about the war, stating that it's "not fair to discuss on television."
Bruce noted: "It's a matter of what these individuals, what they know in their private conversations through diplomatic conversations and meetings. This is not something that is fair to discuss on television, speculate about or muse about. Their success is based on their actions, and it does not come down to a conversation like this on television."
"I'm just talking about Secretary Rubio's own comments. Secretary Rubio made the comments himself and JD Vance and they're willing to walk away, and you have Ukraine saying that it would not agree to a key part of the US proposal. So, it is very fair to ask about that and press about that," Brown said.
Bruce then reproached the media outlet, alleging that she had replied to the questions multiple times and that the interviewer was merely seeking a confrontation on live TV to "pull people in." Brown defended: "No, it's not that, we're just trying to get answers for our viewers, it's not any of that."
The politician erupted: "We are not going to have this debate, and certainly it's not going to be a negotiation between you and me. You know that and I know that, and the audience should know that this is a dynamic that is very different, this kind of an exchange is very unfortunate."
Intent on ending their squabble over details, Pamela firmly expressed: "Okay, you are the State Department spokesperson, it is very fair of me to ask you basic questions about what has been said publicly."
Bruce was visibly frustrated, insisting, "I want you to accept my answers." Meanwhile, the host justified her stance by saying, "But you didn't answer some of my questions, which is why I followed up, which is my job." The politician retorted: "Of course I did, I just didn't answer it the way you wanted me to answer it."
As the heated conversation unfolded on screen, viewers quickly took to the comments section on X, previously known as Twitter, to voice their dismay at the fiery interaction. One viewer criticized: "This is not transparency. This is how dictators work."
Another shared in the sentiment adding: "All the finger pointing and tapping of the pen on the table. MAGA 101. Feign fake outrage, raise your voice and talk non-stop, so that the interviewer can't get a word in edgewise." A third remarked: "She should recognisze that she is a 'guest' on the show. She doesn't get to set the agenda."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump sets conditions before possible Iran strike
Trump sets conditions before possible Iran strike

Libyan Express

time6 days ago

  • Libyan Express

Trump sets conditions before possible Iran strike

BY Libyan Express Jun 20, 2025 - 06:30 Trump weighs Iran strike amid talks of diplomacy. Photo via AFP Axios reported on Thursday that US President Donald Trump is carefully weighing whether to authorise military strikes against Iran, with three main conditions guiding his decision: the necessity of the action, avoiding prolonged US involvement in the Middle East, and ensuring the operation would effectively neutralise Iran's nuclear programme. White House spokesperson Caroline Leavitt stated that Trump's position on Iran 'should not come as a surprise' and highlighted the possibility of negotiations with Tehran in the near future. She added that the president intends to make a final decision on military intervention within two weeks, depending on how diplomatic talks progress. US officials also revealed that Trump held a third meeting in three days with his national security team to discuss possible responses to the situation involving Iran. The president is reportedly considering supporting Israel's actions against Iran but emphasises the need to meet the outlined conditions before proceeding. Israeli sources indicated they expect a decision from Washington regarding US participation in military operations against Iran within the next 24 to 48 hours. However, the White House has signalled that the final decision could take up to two weeks. The situation remains fluid as diplomatic efforts continue alongside military preparations. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Libyan Express. How to submit an Op-Ed: Libyan Express accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. Submissions may be sent to oped@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line.

Trump faces internal Republican rift over possible Iran intervention
Trump faces internal Republican rift over possible Iran intervention

Libyan Express

time6 days ago

  • Libyan Express

Trump faces internal Republican rift over possible Iran intervention

Steve Bannon says let Israel 'finish what they started' The prospect of United States military involvement in Iran has exposed growing divisions within the Republican coalition, particularly among members of former President Donald Trump's political base, some of whom are urging caution against further entanglement in the Middle East. Several prominent figures associated with the so-called 'America First' movement — a key component of Trump's electoral support in 2016 and 2024 — have voiced concern over reports that the US could join Israeli efforts to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure in the absence of a diplomatic solution. Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief strategist and a longstanding advocate of non-interventionist policies, said the US should not repeat past military engagements without broad national support. 'We can't do this again,' Bannon said at a press briefing in Washington on Wednesday. 'We can't have another Iraq.' Bannon reiterated his position on his War Room podcast, where he was joined by Jack Posobiec, another prominent conservative commentator. Posobiec argued that involving the US in regime change efforts could lead to unintended consequences. Bannon responded that such political change, if it occurs, 'has to come from the people, not from a foreign power.' The comments reflect wider concerns among certain Republican factions that military action could mark a departure from Trump's traditionally cautious approach to foreign conflicts. Critics have pointed to the potential deployment of advanced US munitions, including bunker-busting bombs, as a sign of possible escalation. Iran has issued warnings about any direct American involvement, suggesting it would have significant consequences, though it has not specified what form those might take. Trump downplays internal dissent Asked about opposition within his support base, Trump appeared dismissive of the idea that the issue could cause lasting political damage. 'My supporters are more in love with me today than they were even at election time,' he said at the White House on Wednesday. 'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' While acknowledging that 'some are a little bit unhappy now,' Trump insisted that others agree with his assessment that preventing Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal is a priority. 'I'm not looking to fight,' he said. 'But if it's a choice between them fighting or having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.' Trump has not formally announced any military plans, stating only that he has 'some ideas' on the path forward. Intraparty tensions The debate has highlighted a divide within the Republican Party over how the US should respond to Iran's nuclear ambitions. Marc Short, a former senior adviser to Trump and an ally of ex-Vice President Mike Pence, described the disagreement as 'a pretty large rift.' However, he suggested that Trump's political base was likely to remain loyal. 'Most of the president's followers are loyal to him more so than to any worldview,' Short said. Others argue that supporting Israel could strengthen Trump's standing among more traditional conservative voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in March found that 48% of Republicans supported using US military force to defend Israel, compared with 28% who disagreed. Among Democrats, only 25% agreed, while 52% expressed opposition. Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons, but US and Israeli officials believe Tehran's programme could lead to regional instability. Analysts have warned that an Iranian nuclear capability could trigger a wider arms race in the Middle East. MAGA figures call for restraint Bannon urged the administration to provide greater clarity on its intentions. 'This is one of the oldest civilisations in the world, with over 90 million people,' he said. 'This is not something you play around with. You have to think this through, and the American people have to be on board.' Other high-profile Republicans have echoed those concerns. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on social media: 'Anyone calling for the US to become fully involved in the Israel–Iran war is not America First. We are tired of foreign wars.' Former Fox News presenter Tucker Carlson has also criticised interventionist rhetoric, including in a recent exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, in which Carlson challenged Cruz's stance on regime change in Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time Republican figure on foreign affairs, took a different view, telling Fox News he hoped Trump would support Israel's campaign. 'Iran is an existential threat to our friends in Israel,' Graham said. Vice President JD Vance attempted to address the debate by expressing confidence in the president's judgment. 'People are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,' he wrote online. As of Wednesday evening, no decision had been announced. Trump said discussions were ongoing and that a final determination had yet to be made.

Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California
Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California

New Indian Express

time13-06-2025

  • New Indian Express

Appeals court temporarily blocks judge's ruling to return control of National Guard to California

SAN FRANCISCO: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that directed President Donald Trump to return control of National Guard troops to California after he deployed them there following protests in Los Angeles over immigration raids. The court said it would hold a hearing on the matter on Tuesday. The ruling came only hours after a federal judge's order was to take effect at noon Friday. Earlier Thursday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. The order applied only to the National Guard troops and not Marines who were also deployed to the LA protests. The judge said he would not rule on the Marines because they were not out on the streets yet. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who had asked the judge for an emergency stop to troops helping carry out immigration raids, had praised the earlier ruling. 'Today was really about a test of democracy, and today we passed the test,' Newsom said in a news conference before the appeals court decision. The White House had called Breyer's order 'unprecedented' and said it 'puts our brave federal officials in danger.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store