Oct 15, 2026 · 5 min · 4 segments
President Trump says leakers should be shot, referring to reports of the attack of Iran timing. He also pointed out media outlets covering his rally. Should the President be publicly advocating…
They leaked that we were leaving at 12:07 from Missouri, and it was in The New York Times, CNN.
He went on later, by the way, to point out The New York Times and CNN reporters covering the event.
Now, leakers should be dealt with very, very strongly.
They're real...
To me, they're, they're the scum of the earth.
The leakers are the scum of the earth.
Now, it can be argued that leaking information like that could put our pilots and military in danger.
In the old days, we used to shoot leakers, you know, when, when they leak what time you're going to attack a country, and the reason you're attacking is really for defense.
In 2010, he assailed WikiLeaks Army Private Chelsea Manning saying, "I think it's disgraceful.
There should be a death penalty or something." In 2013, he assailed Edward Snowden's leaks regarding NSA programs, saying he was a spy who should be executed.
But then in 2016, before the election, he celebrated how WikiLeaks released details about private emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, saying, "Boy, I love those WikiLeaks." So what do we make of the reasoning? If it is deemed critical of him, bad, and should be shot, but if it hurts his opponents, good, and should be celebrated.
You know, somebody leaked, some sleazebag, they ought to go to jail or be shot for the rest of their life.
They should be in jail.
Journalists from The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post received subpoenas after reporting on national security issues.
So here we are, what seems to be an escalating continuous campaign against anything the president views as critical.
My opinion, leakers should be shot.
They leaked that we were leaving at 12:07 from Missouri, and it was in The New York Times, CNN.
He went on later, by the way, to point out The New York Times and CNN reporters covering the event.
Now, leakers should be dealt with very, very strongly.
They're real...
To me, they're, they're the scum of the earth.
The leakers are the scum of the earth.
Now, it can be argued that leaking information like that could put our pilots and military in danger.
In the old days, we used to shoot leakers, you know, when, when they leak what time you're going to attack a country, and the reason you're attacking is really for defense.
In 2010, he assailed WikiLeaks Army Private Chelsea Manning saying, "I think it's disgraceful.
There should be a death penalty or something." In 2013, he assailed Edward Snowden's leaks regarding NSA programs, saying he was a spy who should be executed.
But then in 2016, before the election, he celebrated how WikiLeaks released details about private emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, saying, "Boy, I love those WikiLeaks." So what do we make of the reasoning? If it is deemed critical of him, bad, and should be shot, but if it hurts his opponents, good, and should be celebrated.
You know, somebody leaked, some sleazebag, they ought to go to jail or be shot for the rest of their life.
They should be in jail.
Journalists from The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post received subpoenas after reporting on national security issues.
So here we are, what seems to be an escalating continuous campaign against anything the president views as critical.
My opinion, leakers should be shot.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
