🚨BREAKING: 9 Former Biden Officials: Experts Told Him Israel Was Committing War Crimes, But He Wanted the Weapons Flowing Anyway

Reuters: U.S. intel flagged Israeli JAG war-crimes evidence; the White House chose not to suspend arms transfers.

Before we dive in: This is the kind of piece you won’t get from the mainstream: law + receipts + moral clarity, kept free for the world. If you want that to grow into a daily video show with documents on screen, help me hire an editor and a producer. Please become a member—or, if you’re able, join monthly, annually, or as a founding member. Your membership is how truth outlasts the spin. We can’t do it without you.

Credit where it’s due: Reuters broke this story today—read it here.

Their reporting is stunning in its simplicity: U.S. intelligence last year captured that Israeli military lawyers warned there was evidence that could support war-crimes charges over Israel’s Gaza campaign—carried out with U.S.-supplied weapons. President Biden was personally briefed, his national security team argued about it, and arms transfers continued. When Trump took office, his team showed little interest in the matter and drew even tighter to Israel.

Let me be as clear as English allows: that is evil, unethical, immoral, and illegal.

Illegal? Yes. We have laws for this. The Leahy Laws prohibit assistance to foreign security units credibly implicated in gross human-rights violations. The Arms Export Control Act and Foreign Assistance Act require that U.S. weapons be used in accordance with international law. Section 620I bars assistance to governments that restrict U.S. humanitarian aid. NSM-20 (2024) required credible, written assurances of international-law compliance and humanitarian access—and a review when evidence says otherwise.

Reuters reports U.S. officials fell back on an “intent” standard: unless the U.S. itself could prove the Israelis intentionally targeted civilians or aid workers, support could continue. That is not law; that is a loophole. Leahy requires credible information, not a courtroom confession. 620I cares about obstruction, not a state’s declarations. NSM-20 requires assurances you can defend, not slogans.

When even Israeli military lawyers were signaling war-crimes exposure, the pipeline should have stopped. Instead, Washington chose plausible deniability over binding statutes. That’s complicity—morally and, in any serious reading, legally.

I’ve been told to be patient; to remember there was “fog of war.” No. At some point, calling this fog becomes a form of fraud. You cannot claim uncertainty after your own briefings include warnings that the supplier’s lawyers see evidence for war-crimes charges—and then keep shipping the bombs that make the evidence.

Facts No One Can Spin

• Reuters: U.S. intel obtained that Israeli military lawyers warned of evidence for war-crimes charges over Gaza.

• Biden was personally briefed; an interagency debate followed; arms and intel support continued.

• State Department lawyers repeatedly raised concerns as early as December 2023 that Israel’s conduct likely violated international humanitarian law.

• A formal U.S. finding would have triggered legal cutoffs (arms/intel) under U.S. law—so the administration leaned on an intent escape hatch.

• Trump’s team was briefed and showed little interest afterward; policy tilted further toward Israel.

Let’s talk ethics. If internal Israeli lawyers see war-crimes exposure and internal U.S. lawyers see war-crimes exposure, and both governments keep the machinery rolling, the dead are not accidents—they’re policy outcomes. Gaza is not a geography problem; it’s a governance problem. And this is what it looks like when governance chooses death over law.

Let’s also talk politics. The same Washington class that calls itself “rules-based” decided the rules don’t apply when the client is Israel and the weapons are American. That is why people don’t trust your process, your memos, or your press conferences. You told them democracy means accountability. Then you bulldozed the statutes the moment they mattered.

If you want to know what a real response looks like, it’s not a statement. It’s actions:

• Immediate suspension of relevant arms transfers and intel support pending an independent legal review under Leahy, AECA, 620I, and NSM-20.

• Declassification for Congress of the intelligence that captured the Israeli JAG warnings, and the NSM-20 assurance letters received from Israel.

• Leahy vetting of units implicated in Gaza operations tied to civilian mass-casualty incidents—publish the referral log to the extent permitted by law.

• End-use monitoring reports for the U.S. munitions associated with high-casualty strikes—release summaries.

• Subpoenas for the interagency legal memoranda that sold “intent” as a get-out-of-the-law card.

Anything less is a rerun of what Sen. Chris Van Hollen called today a “pattern of deliberate blindness.” He’s right.

I’m not interested in euphemisms. At least Sixty-eight thousand Palestinians have been slaughtered (Gaza health officials). Reuters says U.S. lawyers debated whether continued support would make America complicit if Israeli officials faced charges. That’s not a hard question. If you know there’s evidence, and you keep arming, you are complicit.

We will keep telling this truth here, unwatered and free to the world. And we will keep putting the law next to the bodies, because anything else is a lie.

If you want that every day—with video, documents, and plain English—help me hire the two teammates who make that possible. Please become a member—or, if you can, join monthly, annually, or as a founding member. The New York Times has 12 million subscribers and still won’t name this. We have 3,100, and we do—every single time.

Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun

Here are 3 FREE articles for you with NO PAYWALL…

---

---

---