Ex-CIA Agent Speaks Out: JFK, 9-11, UAPs, MLK, MKUltra & Everything Trump Is Hiding

The one federal agency no one has even tried to reform is also the most powerful: CIA. Jim Erdman just resigned after a long career as an operations officer. He says the agency is completely out of control and dangerous. (00:00) The CIA's Obstruction of Justice (30:59) Media Corruption and the Risks of Being a Whistleblower (47:17) Is the Head of the CIA Compromised? Why Hasn't He Pursued Reform? (51:56) What's Stopping the Government From Releasing the JFK and 9-11 Files? (59:55) What Really Happened With Building 7? Jim Erdman is the co-founder of Feds for Freedom (F4F), a 501c(3) dedicated to health freedom and constitutional governance. F4F is suing the CIA for treating CIA employees like spies when they refused the COVID vaccine. He has previous military experience as a non-commissioned officer at the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, as well as Echo Company 1/162, an Oregon National Guard. He worked as a Senior bioinformatics and biometrics consultant in the private sector prior to joining the Department of State and CIA. He served in the Middle East, South and East Asia, and Africa and just finished a one-year joint duty assignment at the Office of Director National Intelligence in the Director’s Initiatives Group (DIG). He was responsible for the DIG’s investigations into COVID origins, Havana Syndrome, and Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). He speaks Mandarin and Arabic and has earned the Director of National Intelligence Award and CIA’s Intelligence Medal of Merit. He retired from the CIA on 30 June 2026. Check out fedsforfreedom.org to find out more. Find Erdman on X: https://x.com/jerdman2005?s=21 Paid partnerships with: American Financing: NMLS 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 800-685-5696 for details about credit costs and terms. Visit http://www. AmericanFinancing.net/Tucker. Dose: Daily supplements for the systems that support you. Use code TUCKER for 35% at https://dosedaily.co/tucker Vulnerable People Project: Stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began, go to SaveWestBankChristians.com Ethos: Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/TUCKER Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:34Speaker 01

  Thanks a lot for doing this. How long were you at CIA?

• 0:38Speaker 02

  I joined the CIA in 2013. I was in the State Department before that, private sector. I served a 2nd Ranger Battalion before that.

• 0:45Speaker 01

  2nd Ranger Battalion, State Department, CIA. When did you leave CIA?

• 0:48Speaker 02

  I retired on 30 June, so real recently.

• 0:52Speaker 01

  Month ago.

• 0:53Speaker 02

  Yep, yep.

• 0:55Speaker 01

  Last year, you became a whistleblower.

• 0:59Speaker 02

  It was before last year, but yes. I think it started long before last year and had to do with vaccine mandates, which is a separate topic from COVID origins, but yes.

• 1:09Speaker 01

  You first came to my attention, anyway, and thank you for fighting vaccine mandates. One of the most evil things this country's ever done. But COVID origins, you just, you went very public. You testified in the Congress. Why did you decide to do that?

• 1:25Speaker 02

  Well, there's a subpoena. That helps make a decision process.

• 1:29Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:29Speaker 02

  So, no, but in all, in all honesty, I came forward and I had done a transcribed interview for six hours and 40 minutes behind closed doors with the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. When it looked like that the CIA was obstructing our investigation, when it looked like every obstacle was being put in place, when the subpoena came, I was, frankly, I was happy to go. I was happy to speak publicly.

• 2:00Speaker 01

  But then you become, I mean, you're in a different category once you do that, I think. That's a big decision, isn't it?

• 2:08Speaker 02

  It is, it is. You know, I had, I hate to say it. I had some practice with the COVID vaccine mandates. And frankly, you know, maybe we'll be touching on this earlier, but that story that came out publicly on May 13th in front of Senator Rand Paul's committee, I had passed that story to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April of 2024. I'd also given it to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, two oversight bodies, in 2023. And the first time I came and spoke to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on COVID origins was actually in November of 2021. Now, the story was a little different then,

• 2:52Speaker 02

  but I came forward multiple times trying to let them know that we're being lied to.

• 3:00Speaker 01

  So, those two committees, you pronounce their, I mean, you spelled out their formal names, but just the House and Senate Intel Committees, the Oversight Committees.

• 3:07Speaker 02

  Oversight Committees.

• 3:08Speaker 01

  This is the legislative branch's oversight of the most powerful, arguably the most powerful agencies in the government, which have very little civilian control, particularly CIA. I think there are only, what, three appointees at CIA?

• 3:19Speaker 02

  I believe three appointees, which is, in my opinion, not enough.

• 3:23Speaker 01

  Oh, it's totally crazy, because it means whoever's elected by the public doesn't have any control over this agency, which I think is proven true. But anyway, the control is supposed to come from the Congress in the form of these two committees. So, when you tell them something really rotten is happening in CIA where you work, you expect they're going to do something about it?

• 3:44Speaker 02

  I did, and I think COVID opened my eyes. I was naive. I was, I was an operations officer. So, I didn't, I, most of the time, I spent most of my time out in the field, collecting intelligence, recruiting spies. That was my job. I was not an analyst. I was not collecting other people's intelligence and turning it into finished intelligence. And I was a bit naive about the process.

• 4:08Speaker 01

  You were doing the traditional work. When people hear the term CIA, they think of what you were doing for a living.

• 4:13Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 4:14Speaker 01

  Which is not what most people there do.

• 4:15Speaker 02

  Correct, correct. You know, the Director of Operations does the, conducts the operations for the agency. We collect the intelligence. And, and this is why this whole mess...

• 4:25Speaker 01

  Like, living in foreign countries?

• 4:26Speaker 02

  Correct. You know, I, I was gifted many things from the agency. I was gifted Mandarin language training, Arabic language training. I could use some brush up on Arabic, but my Mandarin's still pretty good. You know, and they, they give us a lot of authority to live and work overseas. I love the job. I love the job. And despite everything that's happened, I actually still think if you're a motivated, critical thinker, you, you should try and get into the Director of Operations. It is a fun job. It's a good job.

• 5:00Speaker 01

  I tried to get in for that exact reason. Probably never should have admitted that, because I've been accused of being a tool of CIA ever since, which I'm not. I think this interview will make it clear I'm not. But I just, for that reason, I thought it sounded like a very interesting job.

• 5:13Speaker 02

  It's great. You don't think about the politics. There's no politics in the field. It's about, it's such a small group of people that you get to come back and talk to about what you're doing. So, if you're in the office, you come back and you're like, hey, I collected this intelligence. I recruited this spy. I did this operational act. The only people who can cheer you on is that small fraternity of people. And so, it's, it's a special, it's a, it was a blessing and a gift. Everything good in my life was touched by working at the CIA, which is why COVID woke me up to sort of the mess. I mean, we're supposed to be, and people laugh when I say...

• 5:48Speaker 01

  So, you're not living in McLean, Virginia, at headquarters, near headquarters. You're like abroad, right? For a lot of this time?

• 5:53Speaker 02

  Oh, most of my career, yeah. It was abroad, was abroad. And I loved it. I finally came back to headquarters in 2019, right before COVID hit. And being a CIA case officer, or even any intelligence officer, your job, and people are going to laugh, especially when you say CIA, our job is truth. So, we go out, we, we go into this sea of misinformation, lies, different types of motives, and we're supposed to pull out that little tiny nugget of truth, write it up, and present it to policymakers so that they can make wise decisions. In the most altruistic way, that is what we're supposed to do.

• 6:37Speaker 02

  And what COVID revealed was most of us don't, most of the agency, they lost their sense of discernment. They, they gave up on taking a hard look at what was happening all around them. And I, I, I could not believe, I mean, I was running work on financial intelligence against strategic rivals. And I had an office. I was running two big branches. And I had like seven people who'd come into my office every day and like, we're not crazy. This, we're not crazy. This, this masking, this thing where they want to test us all the time, like this shot, we're not crazy. This doesn't seem right.

• 7:20Speaker 02

  And that was, that's what started me down the road. There was a few other things before that. It was, you know, a few other things before that that opened my eyes. But I'm also a slow learner. I mean, I spent some time in the Middle East looking at dumpster fires, saying, well, you know, I know we didn't actually get this done, but thank God we're here for democracy. So, I mean, I, I own that.

• 7:41Speaker 01

  You believe that?

• 7:42Speaker 02

  I did, I did for a long time. I no longer, I think that we probably should take a good, hard look at the decisions we're making on foreign policy. And I think that whole thing about no new foreign wars was probably a good, good idea.

• 7:58Speaker 01

  Most Americans were strongly in favor of that, plank in the platform. Homeownership has always been at the center of the American dream. It is an actual asset, a place people work their entire lives to build, a place of stability and security and real value. Right now, though, too many homeowners are stuck swaping credit cards to cover groceries. There's basically a survival tax of 20% interest or more. So, why keep handing your money to the banks when you could keep it for your family? Interest is what kills you. Our friends at American Financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners use their hard-earned equity, and they're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the dream of owning a home, with mortgage rates currently in the fives. American Financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month. That's about 10 grand a year.

• 8:43Speaker 01

  It's not just a loan, it's a true financial reset. We recommend American Financing. They're called America's home for home loans for a reason. So, get out of credit card debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow money. No judgment, but it's just to make any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 800-685-5696. 800-685-5696, or visit AmericanFinancing.net.

• 9:11Speaker 03

  Imagine if every time inverse Kramer or another top investor bought a stock, you bought it too. In your own brokerage account, automatically. Well, that now exists, and it's called Autopilot. Built by the team behind the viral Pelosi Stock Tracker, Autopilot lets you browse their marketplace of strategies run by proven investors or AI-driven models. Just find one with a high return, connect your personal brokerage account, like a Schwab or Robinhood. And every trade they make, you make automatically. Your money never leaves your own account. Autopilot just mirrors the moves. So, now, no more guessing, no more staring at charts, and no more checking the market between meetings. Also, over 1.3 billion is already invested. So, if you wanted to check it out,

• 9:55Speaker 03

  search Autopilot in the App Store or go to joinautopilot.com. That's joinautopilot.com. Investing has risks, like the loss of principal.

• 10:05Speaker 04

  We all hear the radio ads about the IRS. They tell you to be afraid, to be scared, and they try to frighten you into calling. I'm not here to do that. Tax relief advocates is different. TRA is here to tell you that if you owe money to the IRS, whether it's $5,000, $50,000, or $500,000, we have a solution. It doesn't matter if you're sitting in your car, at work, or with your kids. No matter where you are, call now. 800-576-4705. Don't lose hope. TRA can eliminate or reduce what you owe to the IRS. Generous programs are now available that can give you a fresh start. Our passion is taxes and helping individuals fix their IRS problems. We have over 1,000 5-star reviews on Google and an A+ with the Better Business Bureau. You don't need to be afraid of the IRS any longer.

• 10:50Speaker 04

  End your tax nightmare today by visiting us online at TRA.com or call 800-576-4705. That's 800-576-4705. Tax Relief Advocates, real solutions for real people.

• 11:05Speaker 01

  Slash Tucker. Um, so you come out in this, let's just start with your testimony before Rand Paul's committee about COVID origins. So just point blank, where did COVID come from, do you believe?

• 11:18Speaker 02

  It was a lab incident. It was a lab incident in Wuhan and um, it spread from, it was already, the cat was already out of the bag. Um, I think if I, you know, people look at my public testimony, I, I'm convinced that the intelligence community could have made a pretty sound assessment by mid 2020, that there was a significant uh, chance that this was some variety of lab incident that occurred that caused this pandemic. And a lab incident um, changes how we view public health, uh, public health policy. So if it's a natural incident, I, I have a feeling, you know, if,

• 12:02Speaker 02

  if Americans, and I, I said this during the testimony, if Americans knew that the basis for the vaccines, for example, came from a nucleotide sequence that was given to us by the Chinese government, and we just took it, put it into a computer model and said, well, here's our, here's our vaccine. And people are like, but didn't you just say it came from some lab in China and Wuhan? They probably would be a little more hesitant to put that in their body. I, I personally think any new technology is unwise to-

• 12:34Speaker 01

  That's confirmed.

• 12:35Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. We, we got, I think it was, I forget the exact date. It was early January, the nucleotide sequence was sent from um, the Chinese CDC over to, I believe it was our CDC, but it was sent over to the health establishment here in the United States. We took that and it was, it was put into a computer modeling that, I mean, my guess is there was probably a lot of previous work done on COVID. Um, so, on, sorry, on coronavirus research, I should be precise on that. Uh, there's all sorts of coronaviruses that we've been looking at over the, over the years.

• 13:10Speaker 01

  There was a famous outbreak, of course, in Asia.

• 13:13Speaker 02

  Mm-hmm.

• 13:14Speaker 01

  Um, so do you believe, so you believe that the virus just escaped from the, the lab, the famous lab in Wuhan? Do you think it was an accident?

• 13:25Speaker 02

  I think that we need more data from the CIA to actually fill out what Director Gabbard was doing. But yes, um, I think that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan and um, it's, it's spread everywhere.

• 13:40Speaker 01

  Inadvertently.

• 13:41Speaker 02

  Inadvertently, I think, I think. There's no direct evidence right now that says, yes, they did it deliberately.

• 13:50Speaker 01

  Um, that, well, that's quite a hedged answer. There's no direct evidence right now that they did it deliberately. So the possibility exists.

• 13:57Speaker 02

  Possibility exists because, um, I mean, I'd love to give you a direct answer.

• 14:01Speaker 01

  Right.

• 14:01Speaker 02

  But the CIA would have had to have given the information that was requested from Director Gabbard's Director's Initiatives Group, that probably could have cleared everything up. We, we, when I conduct an investigation, actually, an intelligence operation, if I'm going after a target, I, first thing I do is put together a timeline. Okay, a timeline of events, known things about the target that we're, we're investigating. If I don't have everything that goes in that timeline, I can't, I can't give you a full answer.

• 14:31Speaker 01

  Right.

• 14:31Speaker 02

  And well, CIA simply refused to provide the information.

• 14:35Speaker 01

  And it's, uh, it was obvious early in um, the outbreak that this was from the lab. I mean, there were Chinese researchers who said it. Um, and then subsequently, as you know, disappeared. But people were saying this from February of 2020.

• 14:51Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 14:51Speaker 01

  And um, and it always seemed likely to me. But the US government, from the very beginning, went along with this pangolin lie.

• 15:00Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 15:01Speaker 01

  And then subsequent to that, even when it became obvious that it was a lie, we were describing, continued the cover up. Why?

• 15:10Speaker 02

  Well, um, part of the reason, I mean, Fauci is part of that reason. And, you know, we, I'm gonna be very blunt about it. And since, I'm gonna be blunt and also give my opinion. Um, you know, when I was sitting in front of the Senate, I wanted to make sure I was very accurate in everything I said. I don't want to give some supposition, but I will give a little supposition here as well. Um, because, you know, I have a brain, I think, you know, I've got synapses that fire off. And occasionally, when I see data, I don't, you know, if it looked, yeah, quacks like a duck.

• 15:43Speaker 01

  Right.

• 15:44Speaker 02

  So, um, I think Anthony Fauci was fully aware that um, the funding that had gone on for various types of dangerous research, dangerous gain of function research, had been going on for a very long time. Okay? Different viruses, different bacteria. And um, you know, there are IC connections to, for, for good, good reasons as well, biodefense. I see connections to, to, to research that goes on. But um, I think they understood that a house of cards was gonna fall down if this, if this got out too quickly, that, that there is a distinct possibility that American know-how, American expertise, I mean, we really do, I mean,

• 16:29Speaker 02

  I take a look at some of the scientists that the, the IC relies on for, for expert advice. These people are really, really impressive people. Okay? Um, you know, they, they uh,

• 16:44Speaker 02

  they receive funding to go do research. They're involved in health, they're involved in biodefense. All of a sudden, you've got a virus that looks, boy, it sure, there's, there's a couple ties that tie the financing over to Wuhan, China. He had to know. He had to know what that looks like at the end of the day. So instead, based on everything that's out there, he gets the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 written with his buddies. That paper gets waved around the IC as the end-all, be-all, as the paper to prove that, yes, it's, it's of zoonotic origin. Um, and he had to know when he's pushing these type of experts, a

• 17:28Speaker 02

  variety of experts that he pushed towards the IC, once in February of 2020 and again in June of 2021. He pushes those experts in. Um, he, he wants to ensure that narrative is pushed at the IC level. And um, unfortunately, I'm going back to the comment I made before, you know, some people just appeared to swallow it like hook, line and sinker. I, there was actually, I read an email where a very senior person, and I, I wish I could name names, but a very senior person waved that, basically waved that paper around and said, well, we've got our answer. That was somebody who was in a position to, to sort of influence, not

• 18:10Speaker 02

  sort of, in a position to influence how the IC looked at SARS-CoV-2.

• 18:16Speaker 01

  Why are they covering it up now? Fauci's gone, new administration.

• 18:21Speaker 02

  I think that um, there's an embarrassment piece. Again, I, I think, you know, you don't want to be caught with your pants down. I think that um-

• 18:29Speaker 01

  You don't want to be caught-

• 18:30Speaker 02

  At all.

• 18:31Speaker 01

  Covering up for a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people.

• 18:35Speaker 02

  Yeah. So there's, I think, um, I think, see, and hold on, let me be very clear about who doesn't want to be caught with their, their pants down, causing a global pandemic. Um, it very, the senior people within um, DNI's, um, the part of the DNI that's responsible for looking into WMD matters and bioweapons matters, and the Weapons and Counterproliferation Center over at the CIA, there's very senior people over there that had a heavy hand in what happened. And it's not the analyst, like the, the technical analysts that were, were pushing, saying, hey, listen, guys, this looks

• 19:15Speaker 02

  like this is a lab leak. Their careers were destroyed for pushing it. This is the story that I, I really want to make sure gets out. I want to correct the record. They were not bribed. There was this, there was a number of analysts inside the CIA, and they did everything in their power to include writing a, a little dissent email that went all the way up to the top of WCPMC, saying, hey, listen, guys, we're technical experts, and I'm, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. We have this much expertise and it's, it looks like a lab leak. Their careers were destroyed after that. They weren't no longer part of that establishment. And um, if there's ever a-

• 19:57Speaker 01

  So the entire leadership of CIA swung behind this lie that it was from an animal?

• 20:02Speaker 02

  Yeah. And why are they still doing it? Well, because, because I, well, I'll tell you what, when the CIA produces the documents that were requested to help finish the investigation, I think we'll have a better answer on why.

• 20:17Speaker 01

  How can CIA get away with not producing those documents or documents from the Kennedy assassination 63 years ago, which they also haven't produced, as you know? How, who allows that to happen?

• 20:28Speaker 02

  Oh, that's a, that's a packed question. There's a few pieces to that. So senior managers allow it to happen inside the CIA. Um, and oversight, to some extent, lets it, well, oversight has failed clearly over the years. I'm not criticizing, right now, I just want to be clear, I'm not, I think actually Rick Crawford is on it right now. I'm definitely-

• 20:49Speaker 01

  He'd be the, he'd be the member of Congress who oversees the House intel.

• 20:52Speaker 02

  Yes, yes. So historically, they've abdicated their, their role in oversight. And I, let me give you an example. I want to give you a very clear example. When I was a young officer, you know, not a young officer, but, you know, I had earned my stripes, done my work, and I was gonna do my first meeting with a liaison service. Now, most of the time, it's, it's like, good luck, buddy. Yeah, have fun. I actually had a senior officer pull me aside. He said, listen, here's how-

• 21:21Speaker 01

  Liaison service would be a foreign intel.

• 21:23Speaker 02

  Foreign intel service. So this is where you get declared to the foreign intel service. You're no longer hiding from everybody. Uh, and you're working together on goals that are, you both care about, hopefully. And um, he said, listen, this isn't gonna go well. Here's how this is gonna happen. Here's what I need you to do. He did what rarely happens for CIA ops officers. He trained the junior officer on how to handle the meeting. I was so grateful. Years later-

• 21:49Speaker 02

  And I love the guy. Years later, he disagrees with me, by the way, on just about everything of substance, but he's a great officer. And he pulls me aside. I had gotten a job where I was interacting with oversight on a very regular basis. My job was to ensure that the things that were coming from the CIA that were going over to oversight were truthful, honest. We were, we were producing things that was valuable for them to actually do their job. So, and I'd never really done that kind of work. I'd dealt with oversight before. He says, here's how oversight works. Take, for example, we have to, we are supposed

• 22:28Speaker 02

  to report all of the organizations that have human rights abuses that we work with. I mean, the CIA works with bad people. That happens. That's by statute, we're allowed to do that. But we have to report it. We have to make sure that they know. So we give them a list. And I don't know if it's quarterly or every other year or whatever it is, but there's a report that comes out. And he said, if, he was explaining to me, let's say, somebody on the other side of the table says, hey, this service here, I don't like this. I don't want you working with this service. So he says, how do you handle that? I'm like, I don't know. You tell me. He goes, you say, well, just tell us to stop. And the meaning

• 23:11Speaker 02

  is, we know that you can tell us to stop, but you got to get everybody else to tell you to stop. And if, if we keep doing it, you got to get everybody else to pull the purse strings. And that never happens. So, like, you should just tell us to stop doing it, then. It's become a kabuki dance. In my opinion, a kabuki dance. I sat in an oversight meeting that was three years after a huge failure happened. And they're asking the people sitting on the other side, the other people are talking to the, the agency officers. They're like, has anyone been held accountable for something that happened three years prior? And the agency lawyer leans in and says, we're holding the system accountable. So, unless, just-

• 23:56Speaker 01

  How are we doing that?

• 23:58Speaker 02

  I, I don't, I don't, well, if they're holding the system accountable, they need some work because the system keeps chugging away.

• 24:09Speaker 01

  System's not a person, right?

• 24:11Speaker 02

  Right, right, right.

• 24:12Speaker 01

  Eating right is pretty important, but it's hard if you live here. About half of the American diet is ultra-processed foods, and that hurts you. Fake food harms your body, your mind, and especially your liver. So people think that feeling sluggish and foggy and bloated is just what it is to be older. But that's not true. Eating crap makes you feel that way. Well, our friends at Dose have a solution. It's called Dose for Your Liver. This doctor-approved, plant-based liver supplement is clinically proven to promote liver function and lower liver enzyme levels. That means you're less bloated, less tired, you feel more like yourself. All you need to do is take a daily two-ounce shot. Tastes like

• 24:53Speaker 01

  orange juice, an easy shot of liquid. It's not the vax. People we know use Dose for Your Liver, and they have seen rapid results in their blood work, and they feel much, much better. The difference is very obvious. Lots of brands claim to support liver health, but do so before their products have gone through testing. This has been tested. Everything checks all the boxes. Visit dosedaily.co/tucker. Use the code TUCKER for 35% off. That's dosedaily.co/tucker, code TUCKER, 35% off. You're gonna love it.

• 25:27Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' healthcare to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the House Majority PAC dot com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 25:57Speaker 01

  Where does Tom Cotton, who is the senator who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where does he fit into all this?

• 26:06Speaker 02

  Well, I think he's a cheerleader for everything we do. He has no role in oversight. I think he's a complete cheerleader. And I'll give you a very good example. I provide you a couple of documents here. After my hearing, Senator Rand Paul sent another subpoena over to the ODNI, saying, we need all of this information. I'll leave it with you. We want it. Well, Director Gabbard leaves, Polty takes over. And Polty gets a, a letter from Senator Tom Cotton's team, saying, hey, listen, here's what you need to understand. SISI maintains oversight responsibility-

• 26:49Speaker 01

  SISI's a Senate Intelligence Committee-

• 26:50Speaker 02

  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We maintain primacy on, on oversight for these sort of matters. And so, hey, Polty, make sure, make sure that you consult us before you decide to give anything over to them. Okay. And not only that, I said that I had done a six-hour and 40-minute transcribed interview in a SCIF in March of this year for his GAC. Republicans and Democrats were both there. Well, let me clarify that. The Democrat tried to leave, but I insisted that he stay. Now, I finished that transcribed interview. They won't give it back. They won't give it back to his GAC. SISI will not-

• 27:30Speaker 01

  His GAC is the-

• 27:31Speaker 02

  Sorry, the Homeland Security Government Affairs Committee, the one that Rand Paul's on and Ron Johnson's on. I think some of the Democrats were on there, Fetterman, a few others. Wouldn't know, they didn't show up to the hearing. So, you know, SISI's saying, you can't have your own transcribed interview. SISI's saying, we are the ones who have primacy over oversight over the intel community. But they're not doing oversight. And how do I know they're not doing oversight? I already sort of mentioned it. I went to SISI in April of 2024, and I told them a story about six of seven technical experts saying

• 28:11Speaker 02

  COVID origins, you know, COVID originated in a lab incident, and they did nothing with it in 2024. So of course, Tom Cotton doesn't want somebody else digging into it because it probably just exposes the failure of their oversight.

• 28:25Speaker 01

  Tom Cotton is so clearly a tool of CIA.

• 28:28Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, as far as I can tell, that guy, he's there to make sure that he protects the CIA.

• 28:33Speaker 01

  But that's the opposite of what the job entails.

• 28:37Speaker 02

  That is exactly the opposite, yes.

• 28:39Speaker 01

  And his wife worked at CIA as an analyst in Langley.

• 28:42Speaker 02

  I don't know, but I believe you-

• 28:44Speaker 01

  I do know. And that is correct. I've talked to her about it. And so, I'm not blaming him. She's very nice. I'm not attacking his wife, just to be clear. But that's a pretty close relationship for someone who's going to be in charge of oversight of that same agency.

• 29:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, it's sort of like Fauci having his wife in charge of bioethics. That's, that's an interesting little-

• 29:05Speaker 01

  Right. So that's just, again, I'm not accusing Mrs. Cotton of anything. She's a nice person, and I think she's left CIA. But the point is, that's weird. And then Cotton's reflexive defense of CIA against everybody, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is very, very striking. And his impulse always is to hide more from the public.

• 29:28Speaker 02

  That isn't what we voted for.

• 29:30Speaker 01

  I'm very aware of that. And you have to, and of course, he's a very weird guy.

• 29:34Speaker 02

  I don't know him.

• 29:36Speaker 01

  He's a very, let me say again, he's a very weird guy. And almost everybody I know on those committees, I know a bunch of members, is, I mean, Dan Crenshaw was on the House Intel Committee. So it's like, what is going on here? It feels like the IC CIA probably taking the lead on this controls these people. How do they do that?

• 29:59Speaker 02

  You know, I'm, I hate to say this, but we've squandered a historic opportunity. And Director Radcliffe and Deputy Director Michael Ellis, I think, when history looks back, they're going to say that they were the worst leadership team the CIA could have gotten.

• 30:17Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 30:18Speaker 02

  And it's, and it's not because they're, it's because of what they're not doing. They have an opportunity for reform, but they've kept all the same people that were involved in covering up COVID, covering up Havana Syndrome. They're all sitting in senior positions. And-

• 30:32Speaker 01

  Why would Trump, so Radcliffe has been in contact with John Brennan, right? And I've heard that. Do you believe that's true?

• 30:40Speaker 02

  I believe that's true.

• 30:41Speaker 01

  Right. So Brennan is a sworn enemy of Trump. So why would you ever, in a million years, and Trump has said a million times, I hate John Radcliffe, stripped him of his security clearance, why would you put a guy he's in contact with in charge of CIA? Like, what the hell is that?

• 30:57Speaker 02

  I don't know. I don't know. But what I-

• 31:00Speaker 01

  You think that's weird?

• 31:01Speaker 02

  I think it's very weird.

• 31:02Speaker 01

  It's very weird.

• 31:03Speaker 02

  It's very weird. And there's other data points that I think speak to this. John Radcliffe, take the Trump-Russia collusion documents that Director Gabbard released in, was it late July 2025? So those documents were damning. I mean, it's treason, what they were trying to do. It was, it was like, and I read the unredacted documents. I read the documents. If this is our story, we're sticking to it. Okay? You can't unread that and then go away thinking, boy, good thing we've got great leadership at the IC. So, that's all real. The thing is- Director Radcliffe was Director DNI. He had possession of the documents that were released by Director Gabbard when he was over at the DNI.

• 31:47Speaker 01

  Right.

• 31:48Speaker 02

  He could have released them. He could have released them when he was at DNI. Maybe he was scared. I mean, I could-

• 31:54Speaker 01

  But Trump, that was, he was, he ran DNI in the, in the first term, first Trump term. So Trump knew this, everyone knew that. That John Radcliffe is also, by the way, loyal to a foreign power, I would say. And he's in touch with Trump's enemies. And he's doing nothing to help Trump on the issues that Trump claims he cares about most. And then the first thing Trump does when he gets elected is appoint that guy Director of Central Intelligence? Like, what the hell are we looking at?

• 32:28Speaker 02

  Yeah, I, I can't get into President Trump's head on that one. But what I can do is-

• 32:33Speaker 01

  Can you just affirm again, my suspicion, this is like the weirdest thing that's ever happened?

• 32:37Speaker 02

  Yeah, this is dumb. It's flat out dumb. Like, if, if you want to be followed, like, he's, he's proven, President Trump has proven that there are people within the federal government that will go to great lengths to destroy people.

• 32:51Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 32:51Speaker 02

  If you want to continue to-

• 32:52Speaker 01

  Including him.

• 32:53Speaker 02

  Especially him. If you want to continue to be destroyed, this is exactly what you do.

• 32:57Speaker 01

  Exactly.

• 32:58Speaker 02

  So it's dumb.

• 32:59Speaker 01

  Well, dumb at best. It sounds like-

• 33:02Speaker 02

  That's the nicest way to say it.

• 33:03Speaker 01

  -a decision made under duress to me. I don't know why any person would do that, especially with someone with finely honed self-preservation instincts, which Trump has. Why would you do that? And I also noticed something else. Tell me if you have too, that of all the appointees, high level of cabinet secretaries, big appointees in this administration, Radcliffe has basically received no scrutiny in the press at all.

• 33:24Speaker 02

  Yeah, neither did Rubio, for the most part. Sorry. Sorry, I wanted to add-

• 33:27Speaker 01

  Fair, fair. Thank, thank you. But did you notice that?

• 33:32Speaker 02

  Of course I noticed it. It's-

• 33:33Speaker 01

  You're a CIA director, you're one of the most powerful people in the world.

• 33:36Speaker 02

  It's a giant red flag. It's a giant red flag to me. I'm sorry. You gotta have, if you're coming into one of those positions, I want, it doesn't matter who's in charge, I expect controversy. I want an argument over it. I want to see people get mad about the person that's going-

• 33:52Speaker 01

  But to this day, most people have no idea who the Director of National Intelligence is.

• 33:55Speaker 02

  Right.

• 33:56Speaker 01

  And he's treated like a head of state when he travels abroad. He runs CIA. We don't know what their budget is, what the, I mean, it's incredibly powerful agency, as you know better than I. So, and this guy, no one says a word about him? So that tells me that the American media are at the very least beholden to, if not controlled by CIA. Like, where are they? Where's CNN? Where's the New York Times on this? Where's the Washington Post?

• 34:19Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned the media. Cause the media plays a huge role at this point in, in American freedom, our future. And like, take a look at the media blackout, even on, like, I'll personalize it here. On May 13th, you would have thought every news outlet would want to hear what, what was happening behind the scenes during COVID. Fox News was the only one that covered it. And that happens all the time. It tells me that the media is controlled. The media is controlled by the government. There's this thing where we've got an independent media, it doesn't exist. Okay? And that's a big problem for government oversight.

• 34:59Speaker 02

  It's a big problem because whistleblowers who go through the system, sorry, I'm gonna pivot just a little here, but whistleblowers are essential to holding the system accountable, but-

• 35:13Speaker 01

  To honest government.

• 35:14Speaker 02

  To honest government. So I can tell you, I've, I've, I've personally walked through the system and it's so broken that now when people come to me and say, should I be a whistleblower? I tell them, no. And that's the honest, I say, the only reason you should be a whistleblower is if you're prepared to lose everything. Okay? Cause you're not gonna, you're not gonna get a gold star when you're done. Okay? It's not gonna make it good for you personally, it's not gonna be, make it good for you professionally. And if you say, go through the IC system, they continue to investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing. If you go to the ICIG, I went to the ICIG and I tried to get them to-

• 35:56Speaker 01

  Intelligence-

• 35:57Speaker 02

  I'm sorry.

• 35:57Speaker 01

  Inspector General.

• 35:58Speaker 02

  Thank you, I apologize.

• 35:59Speaker 01

  No, it's all right. The internal watchdog.

• 36:01Speaker 02

  Yeah, the internal watchdog. And Chris Fox, by the way, I think is another one I should mention specifically. I think he's got the spine to try and get something done, to clean things up. And I said that in my testimony. But let's say you go through the whole system and you realize, oh my gosh, the system is broken. What do I do now? Well, that last line of defense, the last line of defense for a free society is a free media. And let's say you wanna, you're like, you know what? This is wrong. I have to do something. And you say, I'm gonna go to the media. Well, that is, that's Russian roulette. Okay? And by the way, let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating that people with classified information go immediately to the media and

• 36:45Speaker 02

  just start spouting their mouth off. That is not what I'm saying.

• 36:48Speaker 01

  No, they should just dump it on the internet. That's what I think.

• 36:51Speaker 02

  Put it on the blockchain?

• 36:52Speaker 01

  Just want to be clear.

• 36:53Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 36:54Speaker 01

  I am advocating for that. And I do think that people with relevant classified information should disclose it to the public.

• 36:59Speaker 02

  They should, they should. But I don't blame any of them for not. The system is broken.

• 37:05Speaker 01

  Christians ought to be safe in the Holy Land of all places, but they are not. Keep in mind, these are the descendants of the first converts, the first people who followed Jesus, people whose families have worshipped in the land Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fleeing their homes amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocents are lost and without hope, fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them, whose real agenda is to move them out of their actual homeland. We think that's wrong, we think that's evil, in fact. And so we've looked far and wide to find a group that is actually supporting Christians in the Middle East.

• 37:50Speaker 01

  And we found one. It's called the Vulnerable People Project, VPP. It's one of the very few groups consistently helping vulnerable Christians throughout the Holy Land. They deliver food and water to Christian communities trapped in Gaza, for example. They help rescue civilians, they provide emergency aid to families who have nowhere else to turn. Today, they are helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities where their ancestors worshipped Jesus. There should be a lot of groups doing this, and trust us, we have looked for over a year now, and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing exactly that. And their work makes an amazing difference in people's lives. A gift of just $33 helps provide a day of protection and support for the vulnerable Christians in the West Bank.

• 38:35Speaker 01

  Who's looking out for them? Nobody. Well, they are. A monthly gift of $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit savewestbankchristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That's savewestbankchristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you.

• 38:57Speaker 02

  And if you go to the media-

• 38:58Speaker 01

  So if you go to Jake Tapper, maybe you're not, he's not gonna-

• 39:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, no, he might-

• 39:01Speaker 01

  Criticize CIA too much?

• 39:02Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah, you're, you're playing, playing with fire. Cause you could be putting yourself in a lot of trouble. And that, that's, that is an oversight mechanism. The whistleblower system is an oversight mechanism. And that's what, sorry, and that's what I love about Gabbard's release of information, for example. Take the Trump-Russia collusion documents. She included whistleblower testimony. It's not just straight documents. It also provides a contextual sort of real feel of, not sort of, a real feel of what was happening at the time, from a real person. And so-

• 39:36Speaker 01

  Do you have any idea why this is the case? Which is to say, do you have any clue how CIA influences the behavior of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News, the Associated Press, et cetera?

• 39:53Speaker 02

  My limited window, cause I, like I said, I'm a ops officer. Up until recently, all I cared about was stealing secrets.

• 40:01Speaker 01

  Right, in some foreign country.

• 40:02Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah. Nothing, yes, to be clear, not American secrets.

• 40:06Speaker 01

  I want to ask you about that in a minute, but-

• 40:08Speaker 02

  Okay. My limited window is, there's clearly some preferred outlets that they will go to. I mean, I see some of these things, and these are puff pieces, these are, these are cheerleading pieces, you know, talking about how great things are, you know, talking about all the things, all the reform that's, I've seen a few recently.

• 40:29Speaker 01

  The problem with CIA, I've long thought this, is it doesn't get enough money. And so Congress needs to appropriate more money to, that's, every piece is like that.

• 40:36Speaker 02

  No, right.

• 40:37Speaker 01

  If only, if only they could, you know, they had full funding.

• 40:42Speaker 02

  Right.

• 40:43Speaker 01

  What?

• 40:43Speaker 02

  Right. Which, I mean, which is a great point, you know, not only do they not get enough fund, no, um, the funding piece is actually interesting that you mentioned it because it's also, sorry, this might be a non sequitur, but I think it's important. Part of the, the reason we failed is, um, the Patriot Act and nine 11. Um, you know, I, I was part of the whole system post nine 11. I can tell you, I never had a time, even during continuing resolutions where like, if I went to the boss and said, hey, boss, I've got this great operation going on, you need more money. They always found money for me. And I think,

• 41:22Speaker 02

  I think, I think we started confusing good managers for good leaders. So after nine 11, Patriot Act opened up a bunch of authorities, a bunch of operations were opened up. And, you know, the good managers are the ones who could juggle a gazillion different things at once. I, you know, I wish I was one of those people. I was never good at juggling a gazillion things at once. I, you know, I stuck to sort of a handful of things I knew I could accomplish. But the good managers, they could. And they were working in a time where there was a ton of money. We've always had money. We've always had money. And so those good managers who didn't really have to get tested about, hey, should we do this? Should we save this money for something else? Should we make this moral decision on blah,

• 42:07Speaker 02

  blah, blah, blah, blah. Uh, they got confused as good leaders. So they got, they matriculated upwards. And they were never really, and this is a generalization, they were never really tested in terms of moral decisions or decisions that were weighty in terms of like, should we continue doing this operation or not? So, you know, and we had chances to be tested. How many people spoke up during, um, the whole enhanced interrogation piece? How many people came forward and said, hey, last I checked, that's torture?

• 42:41Speaker 01

  Well, one did.

• 42:42Speaker 02

  One did, and he was destroyed, right?

• 42:43Speaker 01

  Went to prison.

• 42:44Speaker 02

  He was.

• 42:45Speaker 01

  Under the subsequent administration, which was the amazing part.

• 42:48Speaker 02

  That's crazy.

• 42:49Speaker 01

  So he came forward during Bush, but Obama got there and John Brennan immediately saw that he was indicted and sent to prison and wrecked his life.

• 42:56Speaker 02

  So all these managers who have continued to be moved up, they've never had to make hard moral decision. COVID heads, and you got people saying, hey, I've got religious rights. Hey, I've got bodily rights. Hey, this is executive overreach. And no one knew how to handle that. And it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, the management, they're not leaders, the managers in the CIA are not trained to handle conscientious dissent and real moral decisions. It, it, for me, that was, that was it. They've, they failed a test of their humanity. And, um, that opened my eyes.

• 43:38Speaker 01

  There's a open, no one asks this question very often, but where does CIA's funding come from? Well, it comes from the Congress in part, but that's not the entirety of its funding. Period. And, but the part that is appropriated is classified. So we don't know exactly what the budget is. How can you, and I'm pretty sure the president doesn't know. In fact, I'm pretty certain the president doesn't know. So like, how, how is that civil in control of an agency if no one really knows how much money there is or even where it's coming from?

• 44:11Speaker 02

  It's not, you know, and there's, I, you know, there are reasons why they want to hide budget.

• 44:18Speaker 01

  Oh, I understand.

• 44:18Speaker 02

  And like, I really believe in sources and methods. Don't want to see sources dead. We don't want to see sensitive methods destroyed. But, um, you know, if, if the naming conventions for, um, the various offices at the CIA are made so indistinct that outsiders can't understand what they do in that office. Well, um, that, that's meant to protect the type of operations where there's sources and methods.

• 44:49Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 44:49Speaker 02

  But there's a real question on the oversight piece. Like, how does oversight happen if you can't go, what exactly does that office do right there? What does it do? It's got a weird name.

• 45:00Speaker 01

  Where's the money going?

• 45:01Speaker 02

  Yeah. How, why does it need that much money?

• 45:04Speaker 01

  And you also have to ask, like, is CIA doing anything that's so critical to the interests of the United States that you would give up any hope of managing it or having oversight over it? That you would allow it to be its own country in the middle of your country?

• 45:18Speaker 02

  The answer is that that shouldn't occur. Period. I mean, morally, ethically, no. Is it occurring? I worry it is.

• 45:25Speaker 01

  Oh, I feel it's definitely occurring. There's no question about, I mean, just, I mean, yeah.

• 45:30Speaker 02

  I mean, from my experience, it sure looks like it.

• 45:32Speaker 01

  Yeah, it sure does. And again, if we don't even really know, there's a big debate, which I've listened to carefully about where this money is coming from. And again, is not all coming from the Congress. So, what?

• 45:47Speaker 02

  Um, follow the money.

• 45:49Speaker 01

  But how can you? If CIA is running businesses or engaged in business practices as an agency, which it is. It's like, I get that this can all be justified.

• 45:59Speaker 02

  If I were king for a day, if I were in charge and I wanted to start the process, I totally get this. It's, it's become such a gargantuan problem. Where do you even start?

• 46:10Speaker 01

  Right.

• 46:10Speaker 02

  But if I wanted to like, make immediate gains on that question, how do we, I would. So the Director of CIA, the Deputy Director of CIA, and it used to be the Chief Operating Officer, they've changed names. They have special authorities, um, to grant no bid contracts, um, the, under national security auspices. I would come in and I would start auditing every single one of those contracts that were given out by the Director and Deputy Director, particularly in that little window between administrations. Okay. Once you catch a little bit of wrongdoing, it makes it a lot easier to justify. Okay, now we're going to start doing the deep dive. Why don't we take a look at, you know, the other funding

• 46:53Speaker 02

  mechanisms that are in play for various type, types of, uh, intelligence work. I would definitely, I would definitely audit Incutel. 100%. Incutel needs to have a full audit.

• 47:05Speaker 01

  Can you explain for people who don't know what Incutel is?

• 47:08Speaker 02

  Incutel is a, you know, it's, it's the venture capital arm that funds all sorts of stuff that, um,

• 47:14Speaker 01

  Venture capital arm of what?

• 47:16Speaker 02

  Of the CIA.

• 47:17Speaker 01

  Okay. I mean, I know the answer. I just want to make sure that everyone listening understands that CIA has its own, and I'm quoting you, venture capital arm.

• 47:25Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 47:26Speaker 01

  So we thought that's something that happened on like Sand Hill Road in, you know, Northern California, but no, CIA has its own venture firm.

• 47:33Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, there, there's, there's real reason to have insight into things that are tech and things that are about it.

• 47:43Speaker 01

  I get it.

• 47:44Speaker 02

  There are. There's good reason to have it. But, um, if you're going to do it, if you're going to do it, um, you better, you better be able to justify every penny.

• 47:53Speaker 01

  Well, and you have to have control over it by the public through its representatives. So what happened in Pakistan, as you know, I don't know if you've been posted in Pakistan, but like Pakistan did this with its military and the next thing you know, the military runs Pakistan.

• 48:07Speaker 02

  Mm hmm.

• 48:08Speaker 01

  And no matter who you vote for, the military still runs Pakistan. So you don't want that because that's the opposite of democracy, right?

• 48:14Speaker 02

  I spent two years in Pakistan.

• 48:15Speaker 01

  Okay, then, yeah, I didn't even know that. But is that a fair assessment?

• 48:18Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yeah, it's a fair assessment.

• 48:20Speaker 01

  I mean, how many businesses does the Pakistani military own?

• 48:23Speaker 02

  Lot.

• 48:24Speaker 01

  Lot, a lot.

• 48:24Speaker 02

  A lot.

• 48:25Speaker 01

  Right. And they're the best funded institution in the country. It's really obvious when you drive around Pakistan. It's like all the mowed lawns are the military bases.

• 48:32Speaker 02

  Yep. Yeah.

• 48:33Speaker 01

  Well, having life insurance is one of those things that helps you sleep better at night. If something were to happen to you, what exactly would happen to your loved ones? Your children? We've heard so many stories of families losing a parent and having their life insurance policy save their financial lives. That's the whole point of it. It makes all the difference in the world. The next question becomes, well, how do I get life insurance? And that's where Ethos comes in, a company we're proud to partner with. Ethos makes securing a life insurance plan fast and easy and 100% online. People don't get it because it's a hassle and it's expensive. This solves that problem. You get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes and get same day coverage. There is no medical exam. You just answer a few simple health questions, then you can get up to $3 million in coverage.

• 49:14Speaker 01

  Some policies as low as 30 bucks a month. Takes about 10 minutes to get covered. Life insurance through Ethos. Free quotes are available now at ethos.com/tucker. Ethos, E T H O S, dot com slash Tucker. Rates and obviously application times may vary, but it's great. So, um, you don't want that here, right?

• 49:33Speaker 02

  No, no, I do not. And the American people don't want that. What they want, in my opinion, is, um, we were told that we were going to get some IC reform. And, um, we haven't seen one lick of it, except, sorry, that's not true. Except with Director Gabbard. She did exactly what President Trump said. I want you to downsize the DNI. I want you to pursue de-weaponization of intelligence. I want you to pursue COVID origins. I want you to pursue, pursue Havana syndrome and election security. She did all those things. She tried to pursue those things and she got beat up for it.

• 50:10Speaker 01

  I want to get to that in, in some detail in just a second. But first, I just want to go back to, um, John Ratcliffe, former Congressman who's, who run CIA. Uh, why hasn't he pursued reform of CIA?

• 50:28Speaker 02

  That's a very tough question because I'm, I'm not in his inner circle, but as far as I can tell is because he doesn't want to. He's perfectly happy to let the people that are running the agency who are, those people, those managers who matriculated upwards, who were confused for good leaders, yeah, they're running the place. I don't know why he's letting that happen.

• 50:49Speaker 01

  Um, everybody I know in that world says that he's just a pure mouthpiece from Mossad. Everybody says that about John Ratcliffe.

• 50:56Speaker 02

  I don't know about that. Um, I can't speak to that, but what I will say is, um, he's not getting it done. He's not reforming anything. I mean, there's still, and I don't remember what they're called, and I'm not even sure I'm allowed to say what they were, but, you know, right before the administration change, the DA came up with three new ways to write products that only stay inside the CIA. They don't get propagated out. So what good is that? And so the CIA continues to create products that, um, have no oversight and, um, can be held on to, especially if they're writing things up that they want to wait.

• 51:31Speaker 01

  Explain what a product is. You're not, you're not talking about a new kind of toothpaste.

• 51:34Speaker 02

  Right, right. No. So, you know, analysts will write a paper, finished intelligence on some topic. And there's different types of papers you can, they've got different names. Um, but there's, there's a, there's a new type of, of analytical product that they can write up now, which that is supposed to be shared with the community. That's the whole point. You write something up, you share it with the community. No, they decided they're going to keep it inside the CIA and not propagate it outwards. If Oversight wants to look at something, look at those papers that are being written, uh, that are meant to stay inside the CIA and not go anywhere. My gut tells me they're just going to hang on to them until they can make them go somewhere, uh, maybe the next administration. Who knows?

• 52:17Speaker 01

  I mean, you're describing the ability to create dossiers on people.

• 52:22Speaker 02

  Dossiers on all sorts of stuff.

• 52:24Speaker 01

  So here's the reform that I would, uh, institute if I had the power to do it. The President of the United States asked for information that is held by one of his agencies that he oversees, because he's one of only two elected officials in the entire executive branch of government. And the CIA does not produce that information. And then that's the point at which you call John Ratcliffe and you say, listen bitch, you've got 24 hours to do this, or I'm having Cash Patel have you arrested. But there's none of that. It's like, the President's proxies ask for information from CIA and they're like, we can't find it.

• 52:57Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 52:57Speaker 01

  When everyone knows that's a lie.

• 52:59Speaker 02

  Election security. Here's a good one. Kurt Olson is the guy.

• 53:02Speaker 01

  But like, would that work? Why couldn't you do that?

• 53:04Speaker 02

  You could, in theory.

• 53:06Speaker 01

  What do you mean in theory? The President, this is the President's agency. He was elected by the public.

• 53:10Speaker 02

  No, no, I agree.

• 53:11Speaker 01

  To run CIA. Like, I'm, I'm missing something.

• 53:13Speaker 02

  Sorry, no, you are 100% right.

• 53:15Speaker 01

  Trump treats CIA like it's a foreign power that he has to negotiate with.

• 53:19Speaker 02

  I don't, I can't understand why.

• 53:21Speaker 01

  It's the craziest thing I've ever seen.

• 53:23Speaker 02

  It should work like that, but it's, it's not. It's not working like that. There are negotiate, like frankly, Director Gabbard shouldn't have to negotiate with, um, with, uh, Director Ratcliffe over some of this stuff. She had people in her team that, um, uh,

• 53:41Speaker 02

  have all the intelligence background to handle the type of products that were coming out of CIA. Operational traffic, those sort of things and had to negotiate. Everybody's got to negotiate. Why do we have to negotiate? Why would President Trump?

• 53:54Speaker 01

  Where's the President in this? The President issues an executive order, January 23rd, saying, I want all available documentation on these number of historical incidents, including the assassinations of the 60s, but not, not limited to those. He doesn't get it.

• 54:09Speaker 02

  He does not. And, you know, I.

• 54:11Speaker 01

  So why doesn't Trump say, where? Okay, it's been a month. I want it by this afternoon.

• 54:17Speaker 02

  Where is it?

• 54:18Speaker 01

  Or you're under arrest. I, I just don't, I don't, what is going on?

• 54:21Speaker 02

  I wish I knew. I wish I knew because we, we expected, we,

• 54:28Speaker 02

  we and I, you know, when I say we, I mean, the American public voted for the greatest disruptor in American history.

• 54:35Speaker 01

  It's not hard, is it?

• 54:36Speaker 02

  But he's not, for some reason, he's not being the greatest finisher, in my opinion.

• 54:41Speaker 01

  He's a colluder with the system. I don't, I don't get it.

• 54:44Speaker 02

  I don't, I don't understand because, um, we, we really want to see him successful.

• 54:49Speaker 01

  So how hard is it to get, and I'll just get to pick the most benign of them all, and that was Kennedy's murders because it's so old, right? But there's, it's not possible you're revealing sources and methods. Everyone's dead. Like, I don't really see the legitimate impediment to producing these documents after all these years and all these votes by the Congress to do the, to do it. Multiple executive orders, including this one, so they don't produce those documents, which they have not.

• 55:14Speaker 02

  They have not.

• 55:15Speaker 01

  Why, why is, would it be hard for Trump just to say, time's up, I want them now?

• 55:20Speaker 02

  There is a sea of lawyers who covets and say, here's, here's all the things that are, um, here's all the reasons you could be sideways with the law. Here's all, Trump has full power to do all this, but.

• 55:31Speaker 01

  He does, correct.

• 55:32Speaker 02

  He, he could just do it immediately. But for some reason, the bureaucrats, they all sit around coveting over all the legal ramifications, I think.

• 55:43Speaker 01

  And Tom Cotton too is.

• 55:44Speaker 02

  Tom Cotton too.

• 55:45Speaker 01

  Does not want disclosure.

• 55:47Speaker 02

  Does not want disclosure. At this point, like, if we're serious about reform, we just got to lay it all out and let it, let it, like, if, if the documents are, that come out, these operational records come out, uh, you know, and they show all sorts of wrongdoing that happened decades ago, maybe we can finally start correcting those mistakes that happened and, and improve the institutions. Um, I physically handled the MKUltra documents, okay? They were about, you know, this high in the office. And again, I was hired labor that day. I just needed to move the documents for somebody into another office. But those were the MKUltra. I thumb through them and, um, um, there's no reason,

• 56:29Speaker 02

  there is absolutely no reason to, to not just put that out. Okay? I think those documents that are JFK, which, um, there was no daring daylight raid or anything like that. That, that is, that was incorrect.

• 56:44Speaker 02

  DNI was locked out of a, of getting those access to those documents. And some of those documents, um, they're going to use bureaucratic doublespeak to talk about why, you know, DNI doesn't need certain documents, why some of these documents probably need to stay, you know, behind closed doors. It's all bullpucky.

• 57:04Speaker 02

  It's too old, it's too long ago. It, it has to be released.

• 57:08Speaker 01

  There's an executive order with the force of law requiring the release of these documents with no caveats in it.

• 57:14Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 57:15Speaker 01

  So they're breaking the law by holding these.

• 57:18Speaker 02

  You could say the same thing with the COVID Act of 2023. That was unanimously passed. Said, we want all of it disclosed.

• 57:25Speaker 01

  Was it?

• 57:26Speaker 02

  No. No, there's thousands of documents that are still sitting there. And I pray that Pulte or whoever else comes after them, or even Ratcliffe, I don't care who does it, declassify them. There's thousands of documents.

• 57:38Speaker 01

  That's of course not going to happen. And I'm sure Tom, Tom Cotton would jump up and prevent it.

• 57:43Speaker 02

  Yeah. And it's too bad because, um, there, the people who put this administration in office is going to look at that and they're gonna, they're gonna, they're not going to be happy. And, um.

• 57:57Speaker 01

  Well, it's not a democracy if you don't know what your government's doing.

• 58:00Speaker 02

  Yeah. And.

• 58:01Speaker 01

  What about 9/11? Was there ever an effort to, says, because as you just said yourself, it was the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 that changed the whole structure, changed the country forever. There's never been a meaningful push to declassify it after 25 years.

• 58:16Speaker 02

  I, you know, I, I can't.

• 58:21Speaker 02

  There was no push for 9/11 during my time at the dig to declassify anything as far as.

• 58:27Speaker 01

  I'm very aware of that. I wonder why.

• 58:30Speaker 02

  I have my theories. I mean.

• 58:32Speaker 01

  What are your theories?

• 58:33Speaker 02

  That there's something that's, you know, all these people who are out there that say, um, you know, the government can't keep a secret and, you know, you're, you're, you're a kook if you think that, you know, there's a possibility there was something, some underhanded thing happening behind the, behind the curtain. I can tell you, we can keep a secret. I know. I've kept secrets. I am keeping secrets. Okay?

• 59:01Speaker 02

  Morally, ethically, I'm keeping secrets. Um, and if somebody says that a group of people can't keep a secret about 9/11, that's not true. Okay? I have questions about Building 7. That for me was a wake-up call.

• 59:14Speaker 01

  And that's where the CIA office was.

• 59:16Speaker 02

  That, yeah. And so I have a real, real question about Building 7. It does not make sense. And this is, and again, I used to be a normal CIA officer, you know.

• 59:30Speaker 01

  That's such a great sentence. I used to be a normal CIA officer.

• 59:34Speaker 02

  It's true.

• 59:34Speaker 01

  Assuming that's a category.

• 59:35Speaker 02

  You know, it is a category.

• 59:37Speaker 01

  I'm just joking. I know it's a category.

• 59:40Speaker 02

  You know, I, I, and I, I still, I still love the agency. But there's something, uh, there's something off with, with Building 7 and.

• 59:51Speaker 01

  Something off? Yeah. Like, how did it fall down?

• 59:56Speaker 01

  Why, why was it announced on television before it fell down?

• 59:59Speaker 02

  Yeah, those are real questions that need real answers.

• 1:00:02Speaker 01

  So because the CIA, there was a CIA office in that building. They admitted it. Um, I didn't misremember that.

• 1:00:10Speaker 02

  No, you didn't.

• 1:00:11Speaker 01

  Did anyone ever talk about this?

• 1:00:13Speaker 02

  What, you mean?

• 1:00:13Speaker 01

  At CIA.

• 1:00:14Speaker 02

  At CIA, over the course of my career, what happened?

• 1:00:16Speaker 01

  Like, what happened to our office in Building 7? The building that no plane hit, but somehow it fell down.

• 1:00:21Speaker 02

  So when I say I used to be a normal CIA officer, for most of my career, no one I knew talked about that.

• 1:00:27Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:00:28Speaker 02

  And it wasn't until COVID that I started running into people, um, whatever this means, it wasn't until COVID that I started running into people that started asking those questions. And I was listening to them going, first it, I had a.

• 1:00:41Speaker 01

  CIA employees?

• 1:00:42Speaker 02

  Yeah, CIA employees. I had a visceral reaction when I first heard that. I was like, what are you talking about? I did exactly that. What are you talking about? They can't, like, that, that didn't happen. And as time has gone on.

• 1:00:51Speaker 01

  I had the same reaction, by the way.

• 1:00:53Speaker 02

  You know, I'm a slow learner. I'm a slow learner. And, um, I'm a slow learner, but, um, there's a lot of questions that need.

• 1:01:02Speaker 01

  So what were, what were other CIA employees who had thought about this before you did or I did? What was their theory about how that building came down?

• 1:01:10Speaker 02

  Uh, well, uh, put me on the spot here, but.

• 1:01:13Speaker 01

  Doesn't mean it's true and you're not endorsing it.

• 1:01:15Speaker 02

  I'm not endorsing.

• 1:01:15Speaker 01

  I'm interested to know what actual CIA employees think about the destruction of the CIA office in Building 7.

• 1:01:21Speaker 02

  A lot of people had questions about, you know, the folks that were dancing on top of the, top of the building and.

• 1:01:27Speaker 01

  Israelis, the Mossad officers, yeah.

• 1:01:30Speaker 02

  So a lot of people had questions about that. A lot of people had questions about, um, why, um, was it insurance policy? I believe. You did a whole segment. That's right. You did a whole segment on this.

• 1:01:40Speaker 01

  Yeah, we did a documentary.

• 1:01:41Speaker 02

  Yeah. Uh, there's, um, there's an insurance policy that was taken out right beforehand, which is pretty, pretty, uh, fortuitous, pretty prescient.

• 1:01:52Speaker 02

  They've brought up a whole bunch of things and um from my perspective, from my perspective, these are good questions that deserve answers.

• 1:02:01Speaker 01

  So was the feeling that that building was by someone brought down?

• 1:02:05Speaker 02

  Yeah, I mean, some have said that explicitly that I've spoken to. They said explicitly, yes, it sure looks like that thing was controlled explosion and you know, fell in on itself. Um, and these are, yeah, these are active CIA officers.

• 1:02:19Speaker 01

  I mean, it's pretty obvious.

• 1:02:21Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:02:21Speaker 01

  If you, if you take, you know, if you filter out the propaganda, the screaming in your ears from Jake Tapper, like, shut up, conspiracy nut, and just ask like, well, how did that happen? You can't get an answer because obviously it was brought down with explosives.

• 1:02:34Speaker 02

  It sure looks like it.

• 1:02:35Speaker 01

  Of some kind. Right. So, but who did that and why? And by the way, that building collapsed in exactly the same way that the first two towers collapsed. So it does raise like a bigger question. If that was fake, well, what else is fake? If anything, I mean, we don't know. But anyway, so all of these questions, if you, if you're a former normal person and your colleagues at CIA presumably also these normal CIA officers you described.

• 1:03:01Speaker 02

  Who I love, they're great officers.

• 1:03:03Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 1:03:03Speaker 02

  They work hard.

• 1:03:04Speaker 01

  Totally kidding.

• 1:03:05Speaker 02

  Barrel chested freedom fighters.

• 1:03:06Speaker 01

  Yeah. And I've known a lot of people like that in various federal agencies who were like, good people. Not everyone's bad, right? It's true. However, if they're coming to the same conclusion, then seems like 9/11 would be the number one thing you looked at in the dig.

• 1:03:21Speaker 02

  I would have liked to have taken a look at it. I would have liked to have taken a look at it.

• 1:03:25Speaker 01

  It seems obvious to me that because unlike the MLK assassination, which is, I'd love to know more about it.

• 1:03:31Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:03:31Speaker 01

  Clearly it was a conspiracy, I think. But like, in the end, it didn't change the world in the way that 9/11 did. Maybe it's just too big to investigate.

• 1:03:42Speaker 02

  Maybe, maybe.

• 1:03:43Speaker 01

  Have you ever heard anybody say, hey, we should look, we should just declassify the 9/11 documents?

• 1:03:48Speaker 02

  Well, yeah, some of the people in the dig said a couple, couple times. But I mean, we have to be direct. We were doing only what we were directed to do.

• 1:03:57Speaker 01

  What the EO told you to?

• 1:03:58Speaker 02

  EO told us to do. We're trying to, we're trying to be.

• 1:04:01Speaker 01

  Trying to follow the law?

• 1:04:02Speaker 02

  Well, yeah, yeah, trying to follow the law, trying to make sure that we, we accomplished the mission that was put in front of us and get that done as quickly and as effectively as we could. And we found that, well, the deep state exists. I mean, I don't know what you want to call it. I love Mike Benz's description of it, the blob. I think it's the most accurate description.

• 1:04:22Speaker 01

  I agree with that.

• 1:04:24Speaker 01

  Because it's amorphous.

• 1:04:25Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:04:25Speaker 01

  There's no meaning.

• 1:04:26Speaker 02

  It's everywhere.

• 1:04:27Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:04:27Speaker 02

  And it just rolls in and fills space and fills the cracks. It pops up everywhere. It's miserable.

• 1:04:33Speaker 01

  So what, um, so the dig was the director's.

• 1:04:37Speaker 02

  Initiatives group.

• 1:04:38Speaker 01

  Initiatives group. And that's the group within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, run until recently by Tulsi Gabbard, that was charged with producing these documents that Trump had called for in his executive order. Is that all true?

• 1:04:53Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:04:54Speaker 01

  So what were the, uh, if you'll just jog my memory, the cases, the, the events that you were looking into?

• 1:05:03Speaker 02

  Well, um, a lot of them are listed in that Rand Paul subpoena. So if it's okay.

• 1:05:08Speaker 01

  Oh, of course.

• 1:05:09Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:05:09Speaker 01

  So he's saying, so it was the JFK assassination?

• 1:05:12Speaker 02

  Oh, their declassification effort. And they sort of lumped MLK, JFK, um.

• 1:05:16Speaker 01

  Bobby Kennedy.

• 1:05:17Speaker 02

  Bobby Kennedy. Uh, in that category, there was election security issues. There was, uh, January 6th. Um, there was, uh, COVID, Havana syndrome, UAPs, um, and a couple other issues. They tried to compartment out things. So like, everybody wasn't working on the same things. And so there's some things that I wasn't.

• 1:05:38Speaker 01

  Those are all super interesting topics. So let's just go through them really quick. And I'm going to ask you, did you learn anything new about the JFK assassination?

• 1:05:44Speaker 02

  So I have to admit, I'd never really followed it. So I was just hoping we'd just release it all. And I assumed there was a lot of people who were into it and they would pull the documents and make, make those conclusions for me. So, um, I don't have any revelations that I was following very closely.

• 1:06:01Speaker 01

  I was shocked to know that the CIA was, was running Oswald.

• 1:06:07Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:06:08Speaker 01

  And.

• 1:06:08Speaker 02

  That's true.

• 1:06:09Speaker 01

  He defected, but that was all a scam.

• 1:06:12Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:06:12Speaker 01

  The Russians were very paranoid about, uh, Lee Oswald. He was a Marine Corps Corporal, I think. And he shows up in Russia and they're like, you're a secret agent. But he actually was. So I didn't know that. Um, MLK, anything come to mind?

• 1:06:28Speaker 02

  I wasn't following it. Sorry.

• 1:06:30Speaker 01

  January 6th.

• 1:06:32Speaker 02

  Uh, I think your interview with Steve Baker covered quite a bit with that. And I think the only thing I'll, I want to add to that is, um, Steve Baker's provision of information to the dig, I think that was sort of the first step to the dig being shut down. And, um, I've never seen a reaction quite like what I saw from the agency.

• 1:06:58Speaker 01

  Tell us what Baker did, just so we have context.

• 1:07:00Speaker 02

  Yeah, sure, sure, sure. Um, so Steve Baker, uh, provided information based off gate analysis that indicated that a current CIA officer, former Capitol Police officer, um, may have been the person who placed the, the, the bombs that were outside the RNC and DNC on the evening of January 5th, early morning, whatever it was, and, um, provided it to the DNI. Now, he provided it to the DNI because, and I didn't realize this till much later, you know, as we're doing these investigations, sometimes you just need to bring in a, an expert. And he had been following it for so long, somebody, and I'm not sure which part of the team did it, they, they asked him to, hey, would you like to help

• 1:07:44Speaker 02

  us with this? He deferred. He said, listen, I'll be glad to give you anything you need, but I don't actually formally want to be part of the investigatory work because he wants to be a journalist.

• 1:07:54Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:07:55Speaker 02

  He's actually a musician. Um, which I find great. Um, and so he provided that information and, um, a memo was typed up. The memo went to the PD DNI, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Aaron Lucas, and it got scanned in and sent over to Michael Ellis. And that thing got shot.

• 1:08:17Speaker 01

  Number two at CIA.

• 1:08:18Speaker 02

  Number two at CIA. Shot all over the CIA. And next thing you know, um, people were losing their minds. Uh, when I say people.

• 1:08:25Speaker 01

  Because they were so excited to get to the bottom of this case?

• 1:08:27Speaker 02

  Right, right, right. We finally figured it out. Um, no, they were pretty upset. They're like, what are you doing? This is defamation. And, you know, people were pulled in front of other people and, and, uh.

• 1:08:39Speaker 01

  Defamation in what way?

• 1:08:40Speaker 02

  Well, you know, they're saying, listen, this, this person who was named in this investigation, you know, she's not, that, that individual is not the, the person who did it. And, you know, you could get yourself in a lot of trouble. You could get sued.

• 1:08:52Speaker 01

  How did they know that person didn't do it?

• 1:08:54Speaker 02

  They don't, uh, they don't know that. And we know.

• 1:08:57Speaker 01

  They're a bunch of liars, is what you're saying.

• 1:08:59Speaker 02

  Uh, that is definitely one way to say it. But yeah, I mean, they don't know that. And it's weird to me because the CIA's job is to take in information.

• 1:09:09Speaker 01

  Exactly.

• 1:09:09Speaker 02

  And, and our, by law, if there's a chance that there is some illegal activity that occurred, we have to inform the CIA that, hey, listen, there's an employee that might be, might be involved in this.

• 1:09:21Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:09:22Speaker 02

  Take it seriously.

• 1:09:23Speaker 01

  But you're saying that CIA did not respond coolly or analytically to this information from Steve Baker as provided by ODNI. They did instead what?

• 1:09:34Speaker 02

  Um, they decided they were going to investigate the dig. Okay. And I, I like, for what purpose?

• 1:09:41Speaker 01

  The people who provided the information.

• 1:09:42Speaker 02

  Yeah. Gave it to them. And, you know, it, to me, it's, it's insanity.

• 1:09:48Speaker 01

  Were they upset about this information?

• 1:09:50Speaker 02

  Sure seemed like it because you don't send somebody for, you don't call somebody up and say, we'd like you to show up at this facility for an interview. And that facility's for polygraphs, by the way, which is basically an interrogation tool. And, um, and say, hey, listen, come on by. I mean, there was a fellow sitting next to me. He asked me, you know, how do I deal with this? And I said, well, you tell them that you work for the DNI and that you would like them to send a full list of the questions they'd like to talk about. Maybe send it to your lawyer and you make sure you CC everybody in the DNI front office on that email chain because you want them involved in fixing this. It was insane. Uh, I, the reaction we got from them was a visceral reaction. And.

• 1:10:36Speaker 01

  So if you, I mean, you were practicing tradecraft your, your career at CIA. So you know that that kind of reaction suggests.

• 1:10:46Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah.

• 1:10:46Speaker 01

  Not good.

• 1:10:47Speaker 02

  Not good. I immediately assumed that there's wrongdoing. And like, right or wrong, that's what I assume. If you're going to react like that, well, hold on a second. What, what are you protecting? Why are you?

• 1:10:58Speaker 01

  Of course.

• 1:11:00Speaker 02

  And so, and everybody, I'm thinking, like, I'm not a genius here. You don't need to be a CO to, to have the exact same question. So.

• 1:11:09Speaker 02

  What I'll say about this was, um, the CIA decided that that was the end of it. And so they put up, they made every obstacle they could to try and prevent us from conducting our investigations. And, um, is simply refusing things, slow rolling things, um, you know, even, even within the DNI's Office of General Counsel, there are, there are things that we want to push through there to make sure that we're street legal. Somehow they managed to slow roll even the stuff we were trying to get over to, for example, Senator Rand Paul's committee. That's, there was, there was questions and follow-ups that sat with that, that group for months. And-

• 1:11:49Speaker 01

  We've been on the specific, uh, in, in the specific case of, of January 6th. So there are a couple of things that jump out. One, that of all people in the world to be identified by a distinctive gait.

• 1:12:03Speaker 02

  Mm-hmm.

• 1:12:04Speaker 01

  Apparently it's a product of a sports injury.

• 1:12:06Speaker 02

  Sounds like it.

• 1:12:07Speaker 01

  Baker says, but it's a, this, whoever was in the, the figure in the picture had a weird, a weird gait. The woman Steve Baker says he thinks is that person has a sports injury. She's a Capitol Police officer, but of all places to wind up working at CIA, how did she wind up, right?

• 1:12:24Speaker 02

  According to the court documents, she had applied for a job prior to, uh, six months prior to January 6th. I can't remember.

• 1:12:34Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:12:35Speaker 02

  Uh, but, but, I mean, it's possible to get a job over there. It's not easy to get hired by the CIA.

• 1:12:43Speaker 01

  What does she do there, do you know?

• 1:12:44Speaker 02

  She works in security. I don't know the specifics of, of her exact job.

• 1:12:48Speaker 01

  Is it possible that she provided security to the director?

• 1:12:51Speaker 02

  I don't know. Um, it is possible, I suppose. Um, they pull people in if they're short. Um, so they'll pull people in to like, there's a special group of people that handle security for the director, deputy director, the coup, maybe not the coup. Well, the coups changed names, but like the director and deputy director over at-

• 1:13:11Speaker 01

  The coup.

• 1:13:12Speaker 02

  The chief operating officer is now-

• 1:13:13Speaker 01

  The coup against Mossadegh? Oh, I'm sorry.

• 1:13:16Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:13:17Speaker 01

  Just kidding, it was a little CIA joke.

• 1:13:18Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:13:19Speaker 01

  You guys know coups.

• 1:13:20Speaker 02

  We, we know that.

• 1:13:21Speaker 01

  This is a different coup.

• 1:13:22Speaker 02

  Yeah, yeah.

• 1:13:23Speaker 01

  Okay.

• 1:13:24Speaker 02

  So, yeah, I suppose it's possible. Um, it, it doesn't matter whether she did or didn't. What really matters to me was that reaction and it's worse because, um, the information, there, there was an Homeland Security investigator that was given the information and asked to pursue this.

• 1:13:41Speaker 01

  What was his name?

• 1:13:42Speaker 02

  Uh, that, the Osborne, Osborne. And so, uh, he was found dead weeks later in his apartment, in his condo. And, um, that's worrisome. It's worrisome because there's questions about how he died. And, you know, I, people, there's a lot of people who don't want to talk about, um, Mr. Osborne and his death.

• 1:14:09Speaker 01

  What is-

• 1:14:11Speaker 02

  Well, I think, I think what they, they, they don't want, why don't they want to talk about it? They don't want to talk about it.

• 1:14:18Speaker 01

  There's no obituary, I noticed.

• 1:14:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. Well, there's no, it's still an open question about how he died. Okay? We don't know. Did he commit suicide? Did he?

• 1:14:28Speaker 01

  He was killed by a gunshot.

• 1:14:29Speaker 02

  He was killed by a gunshot. Okay? And, um, it's worrisome because if he, he was pushing to pursue this investigation and people don't want to talk about it because they say, well, listen, we got to let the system work, work, work the investigation. We got to let the system figure out whether or not there's something to this. My issue with that is if there is nefarious intent, which I, I hope to God, this is just some horrible thing that happened to this poor man. Or if it's suicide, I hope his family isn't suffering and all those things, you know, I pray for him, pray for his family. But if there was nefarious action that occurred with that, this is not something you want

• 1:15:09Speaker 02

  hidden behind a wall of secrecy because it's not safe for anybody else who, who was aware of what was happening with that. It has to be talked about publicly and I hope that Fairfax County Police, because that's where the investigation is going on, I hope they're getting to the bottom of it. I really do because, um-

• 1:15:31Speaker 01

  It's just interesting that as someone who's spent his adult life working for CIA and you said you, you loved it, um, got so much out of it, but you seem to believe by what you're saying that the CIA would at least be capable of killing this guy.

• 1:15:45Speaker 02

  Well, I don't know who did that. I'm not saying the CIA did it, but something happened, something happened, he was killed. And, um, it, it, you could make that supposition that, well, it might be the CIA, could be, could be other people with interests.

• 1:15:59Speaker 01

  And I also find it fascinating that within a very short period of that Steve Baker piece coming out saying, we found the woman who placed these pipe bombs, um, the Department of Justice, after, well, I guess five years, uh, of not finding a suspect, arrested some autistic black kid and charged him with the crime.

• 1:16:20Speaker 02

  It's crazy. I, I don't believe that for one minute.

• 1:16:24Speaker 01

  That the autistic black kid did this.

• 1:16:25Speaker 02

  No, I don't, not for one minute. And the other issue, I, I don't know-

• 1:16:29Speaker 01

  Do you think the Department of Justice is capable of framing someone like that?

• 1:16:32Speaker 02

  Apparently, uh, I, I don't, I can't speak to motives.

• 1:16:38Speaker 01

  That's so evil though.

• 1:16:40Speaker 02

  If this is what happened, it's pure evil. And there's other data out there. People should go take a look at Kyle Seraphin's, um, podcast and what, what, he was on the surveillance team, surveilling person of interest three. There's other data out there that seems to indicate that there is, this is not the full story. I don't believe that that kid, in my, this is just my opinion, but I don't believe that that kid is the one, the guy that got arrested, the, the autistic kid that, that, you know, has feet that are six sizes too big to be the same person. Uh-uh. It doesn't, doesn't add up. But I will say-

• 1:17:16Speaker 01

  Is the NAACP involved in this? All the professional defenders of black people out there who were like out in force five years ago, I love black people. Okay. Now is the time for everyone who stood up five years ago during the George Floyd insanity and said, I love black people. What about this black guy?

• 1:17:29Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:17:30Speaker 01

  This autistic black kid, who's defending him? Anybody?

• 1:17:32Speaker 02

  Nobody.

• 1:17:33Speaker 01

  Nobody. Oh, all the I love black people are absent on this?

• 1:17:36Speaker 02

  Apparently.

• 1:17:37Speaker 01

  Yeah, okay.

• 1:17:38Speaker 02

  Apparently, I mean-

• 1:17:39Speaker 01

  Not surprised.

• 1:17:40Speaker 02

  It's, it's sickening to me.

• 1:17:41Speaker 01

  It is sickening.

• 1:17:42Speaker 02

  It, you know, I-

• 1:17:43Speaker 01

  I never said, I love black people. I never treated black people like gods or they're people like you and me.

• 1:17:47Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:17:48Speaker 01

  But I'm offended by this.

• 1:17:49Speaker 02

  Well, I'm offended partly because-

• 1:17:50Speaker 01

  Because he's a human being.

• 1:17:51Speaker 02

  If this poor kid, you know, he's, it sounds like he's got some spectrum issues.

• 1:17:55Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 1:17:56Speaker 02

  Spectrum, you know, I, you know, I've got people very close to me with mental health issues.

• 1:18:01Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:18:02Speaker 02

  And to think that, you know, like, you know what? This is a throwaway person. This is a throwaway person. That's what they're saying. If this is, really is as bad as it looks to me, uh, they're basically saying-

• 1:18:12Speaker 01

  It's not the first time. When Mary Pinchon Meyer was murdered in the, on the tow path, right near my house, childhood home in Georgetown, Cord Meyer's widow, uh, wife, she was not, they grabbed some black guy and put him on trial for her murder when they knew, when CIA was perfectly aware that he didn't do it. And they allowed the DC police to arrest this guy and put him on trial.

• 1:18:32Speaker 02

  Yeah. Well, what I'd say about all of this.

• 1:18:37Speaker 01

  Sorry, it just makes me mad.

• 1:18:39Speaker 02

  It makes me mad too. I mean-

• 1:18:41Speaker 01

  It's so mean.

• 1:18:42Speaker 02

  It, well, it's, it's, and it's, every single one of these acts that, that, they're in our face. It, it's so obvious and they're throwing in our face, they're, it's meant to demoralize us and, and make us, make us feel like there's nothing we can do against this giant blob that does whatever they want.

• 1:19:03Speaker 01

  Run by, yeah, John Radcliffe.

• 1:19:06Speaker 02

  And so, you know, I, for, as far as the dig is concerned, as far as Steve Baker's story is concerned, I, that was the death knell for the dig. And I think-

• 1:19:18Speaker 01

  But it's got to make you think if CIA is this involved in it, clearly they were this involved in January 6th.

• 1:19:24Speaker 02

  I-

• 1:19:25Speaker 01

  I mean, why else? If I'm running, if I'm John Radcliffe, okay, and I find out that someone on our security team has been identified by gait recognition software as the person playing to the pipe bombs on J6, I would say at least we got to look at this.

• 1:19:40Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:19:41Speaker 01

  It, it, so- I wouldn't say, let's shut down the investigation that produces this information.

• 1:19:46Speaker 02

  Right, right. And if I were, I'll take Kyle Seraphin's surveillance team. If I were on the surveillance team that was surveilling all these people that were in the vicinity, as soon as that new information came out from Steve Baker, I'd be, I'd be calling up my surveillance team and I'd be saying, hey, boys, we've got some new information. We're gonna, let's go over the old files and we're gonna, I'm an intelligence officer. I'm not a law enforcement, but I, as an intelligence officer, if I were doing something overseas and had some shades of what this is, I would immediately call my surveillance team together and say, let's get on the target again. Let's, let's start, let's start getting some, um, some brass tacks of what's, what's going down. Go through the old files, figure out what is happening. None of that's happening.

• 1:20:30Speaker 01

  I mean, this person who, like, I don't know anything, I mean, I was not involved in investigating this. I just talked to Steve Baker and you, that's it. So I'm not alleging anything, but, I mean, Dan Bongino at FBI was defending this person and attacking Steve, that's correct.

• 1:20:46Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:20:47Speaker 01

  Did, can you verify that?

• 1:20:48Speaker 02

  Attack, wait, attacking Steve Baker?

• 1:20:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, Steve Baker.

• 1:20:51Speaker 02

  Oh, yeah, yeah.

• 1:20:52Speaker 01

  I'm going to help fund a libel suit against you and all this stuff. I supposedly, he said, but he was certainly attacking Steve Baker. What does Steve Baker do? He used gait recognition software, which the federal government uses, by the way.

• 1:21:04Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:21:05Speaker 01

  It's not a crackpot technology.

• 1:21:06Speaker 02

  No, no.

• 1:21:07Speaker 01

  Doesn't prove anything, but it gets, it moves you closer like a, like anything else, facial recognition, right?

• 1:21:12Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, it, it breaks things open so that you can start conducting more investigations.

• 1:21:17Speaker 01

  Okay, so you're an expert in human behavior, of course, because you're like recruiting spies. If this were happening in Pakistan, not your country, you'd be like, this agency must be involved-

• 1:21:27Speaker 02

  Yes.

• 1:21:28Speaker 01

  In the event in question, J6.

• 1:21:30Speaker 02

  Yeah. Yeah. I mean, in, that's, that's the problem. I, I keep seeing parallels to third world countries of things like this happening where I'm like, if this were happening in another country, I'd run an intelligence operation. You know, I've monitored elections in foreign countries and, you know, as part of that process. And if, you know, here's another example. If, if I had seen the anomalies that had occurred during our, our election that caused January 6th in some foreign country, State Department would be probably sending out a demarche. So there's an-

• 1:22:04Speaker 01

  And will you explain to people who don't know what that, what, what does that mean?

• 1:22:06Speaker 02

  Oh, it means we'd be criticizing that country for their election practices. We'd give them a formal statement saying, you have done wrong and we think that you need to stop doing X, Y, and Z because your elections are fraudulent. That's what I'm saying. So that's another example. You, I keep seeing these parallels. If this had happened in some foreign locale.

• 1:22:28Speaker 01

  Um, it's kind of weird if you take three steps back. I'm not alleging anything at all. I just happened to notice the pattern that this happens in 2020. It's clearly, no one's proved that the election was stolen, so far as I can tell. But the evidence that this was like, not how you run an election. It's this, a fraudulent election is run. It's overwhelming.

• 1:22:48Speaker 01

  And then Trump gets shot in Butler and then decides to hire Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Steve Walz as National Security Advisor, and critically, John Ratcliffe as Director of Central Intelligence.

• 1:23:01Speaker 01

  And then he, he wins the election with the majority of the popular vote and you don't have any of these problems.

• 1:23:07Speaker 01

  What, I mean, if this were happening in a foreign country, what would you say?

• 1:23:10Speaker 02

  I have some questions. I, I will say, part of the reason President Trump won was because he managed to capture the Maha vote and he should be probably a a little more cognizant of what Maha wants.

• 1:23:24Speaker 01

  Shouldn't be endorsing mRNA technology.

• 1:23:26Speaker 02

  Yes, stuff like that. But that's a, separate from your point. Um, yeah.

• 1:23:29Speaker 01

  It's just kind of weird. Like if you wanted above all to have a war with Iran, not just to get rid of their nuclear program, but to reset the world order.

• 1:23:38Speaker 02

  Right.

• 1:23:38Speaker 01

  Get the US out of the Middle East and the US dollar and the petrodollar.

• 1:23:43Speaker 01

  Um, and that was your plan. Clearly, that, that's the plan. It's happening. And no American president would go along with that because that would like destroy your legacy and your nation.

• 1:23:52Speaker 02

  Right. Especially for someone who campaigned on no.

• 1:23:55Speaker 01

  Of course. And clearly didn't want to do it. But let's say that was your plan. And that's a big plan. That's a history changing plan.

• 1:24:02Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:24:03Speaker 01

  You would, um, you know, you'd do whatever you could to, to make it clear to that guy. Like, there's a carrot and a stick here. Like, maybe you get elected, maybe you don't get killed if you go along with it.

• 1:24:17Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:24:18Speaker 01

  Has that ever occurred to you?

• 1:24:20Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, if I'm being honest with myself, yes.

• 1:24:25Speaker 01

  I don't know that that happened. But nobody has ever bothered to explain what did happen, if that's not what happened. Like, oh, it's just totally normal that, that we invaded Iran after, you know, six months after saying we ended their nuclear program to like restart again without trying to convince the public. And then just do this thing that we know is going to wreck our country, which it now is.

• 1:24:42Speaker 02

  Yeah. I, what I, what I mostly, not mostly, what I very much dislike is the alternative voices that came together to form this coalition. Cause the, whatever MAGA is, whatever Maha is, like, all these people came under a very big tent and they offered their voices, their support for President Trump because he was.

• 1:25:03Speaker 01

  What a great coalition it was too. It was awesome.

• 1:25:06Speaker 02

  It was awesome. You, you had these people came forward and then the alternative voices have been systematically removed from the pool of people that are supposed to be advising.

• 1:25:18Speaker 01

  Is that true?

• 1:25:19Speaker 02

  I think so.

• 1:25:21Speaker 01

  Sorry, I'm just laughing. I was one of them. Um, yeah, no, that is definitely true.

• 1:25:24Speaker 02

  And, and like Joe Kent, for example.

• 1:25:26Speaker 01

  Oh, the best.

• 1:25:27Speaker 02

  Uh, he's a wonderful human being who.

• 1:25:29Speaker 01

  I agree.

• 1:25:30Speaker 02

  I look at the reaction to him resigning the way he resigned. And I, I have friends who I deeply respect. I love them. And they're like, oh, you shouldn't have done it that way because it criticized President Trump. I'm like, you know, many, many, for many years, when people resigned from, from office, a lot of times they'd resign on principle and they'd write a letter just like that. Joe Kent was not disrespectful to President Trump.

• 1:25:55Speaker 01

  At all.

• 1:25:55Speaker 02

  At all. And if you can't get through to a president, you can't get your message across, hey, listen, I need you to listen to me. At some point, doing the right thing is writing a respectful letter that says, hey, I disagree with this policy. I'm leaving for this reason. This happened all the time before. The thing that bothers me is.

• 1:26:19Speaker 01

  What's the option? Leaking to the media, subverting the president's program? Those are clearly less honorable responses.

• 1:26:27Speaker 02

  Completely.

• 1:26:28Speaker 01

  If you can't carry out a job consistent with your own values, don't.

• 1:26:33Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:26:33Speaker 01

  I, isn't, I mean, I don't know what, how is that bad? Isn't that what we ask our children to be?

• 1:26:38Speaker 02

  It's exactly what we ask. And Joe Kent did exactly what many, many other people have done in many other administrations. My problem is the screeching and the gnashing of teeth that came from this, people associated with this administration. You know, they, they treated him worse than if he was like some kind of leaker. Well, actually they claimed he was.

• 1:27:02Speaker 01

  Well, they claimed he was a criminal, a criminal. He was under criminal investigation. His security clearance was unimpeded till the day he left. So we know that that's not, it's not true. It's a lie. They admitted it was a lie. But they trashed the guy's reputation. They trashed his wife.

• 1:27:15Speaker 02

  Yeah. I mean, just, this, I mean, I'm sorry, he, he has sacrificed for this country. And, um, you know, he did an honorable thing. Uh, he, he, he spoke with respect to the president. He couldn't get through, so he decided to leave. Um, I, I keep seeing these indications that there are blast doors up around the White House, around key figures that you can't get through. You can't talk to them. And again, I wish I was part of the inner circle so I could see what was happening. But as somebody who is, you know, maybe one or two layers below that, it sure looked like blast doors were going up around a whole lot of people. And, um, I, yeah, I don't know how we got on that, but, but.

• 1:27:59Speaker 01

  Well, I mean, it's just because it's sad and the coalition that brought Trump back to the White House in 2024 was like a beautiful thing.

• 1:28:08Speaker 01

  It wasn't organized around a race or even a political party. It was organized around a kind of idealistic hope that the country could be better and that some measure of power would be returned to the citizens who own it. It's like, these are not radical ideas. They're foundational ideas.

• 1:28:21Speaker 02

  Well, now that I am.

• 1:28:23Speaker 01

  It wasn't a hate based thing at all.

• 1:28:25Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:28:25Speaker 01

  And now it's totally blown up because a small group of true haters, the genocide defenders have all been like basically committed to destroying this coalition and it worked. And that's really.

• 1:28:35Speaker 02

  It has worked. And

• 1:28:38Speaker 02

  truth, now, now that I am not a government employee, I can speak about my personal political beliefs. I am a lifelong conservative. Like, I voted for Ross Perot. I, you know, I'm a Ross. I, I gave you Bill Clinton at one point. I'm a lifelong conservative. And I was going to vote for Kennedy.

• 1:28:56Speaker 01

  Yep.

• 1:28:57Speaker 02

  I was going to vote for Kennedy. And, um, I was going to go that, like, I am a lifelong conservative that was going to go the distance for a President Kennedy. And in my opinion, he did one of the most presidential things that, um, I've seen in my lifetime. He chose, um, the American people over, over power. He said, listen, I've got an opportunity. If I, if I work with this administration, I've got an opportunity to make America healthy again. Um, it, it was the most noble thing I'd ever seen. I was really pissed off that he, uh, he pulled out. I really was going to go the distance and I'd never, if someone had asked young Jim, hey, someday, are you going to vote for, for a Democrat?

• 1:29:42Speaker 02

  I would have been like, that's, that's crazy talk. Uh, you know, I might vote for an occasional libertarian or Ross Perot, but probably not a Democrat. And I was going to go the distance, uh, with him. That coalition that he brought in,

• 1:29:58Speaker 02

  he, I don't think President Trump would be president if he had not brought that in. And so for me, if we're talking about the coalition that said, no more war, um, make America healthy again, we're losing, the, the promises are being broken. The promises are being broken.

• 1:30:16Speaker 01

  Mocked.

• 1:30:17Speaker 02

  Mocked, openly mocked. And like, I, you know, I'll still go the distance with anybody who wants to protect religious rights, bodily autonomy, all those things.

• 1:30:32Speaker 02

  Somebody needs to wake up this administration and say, hey, listen, if the person who owns the, the Maha agenda at the polls, they're probably going to get those, those little bits of oats that are going to put them over the edge. Um, it's, it's a.

• 1:30:48Speaker 01

  It's too late. I mean, betrayal is hard to recover from. You know, you get in an argument with your wife and you can get past it. You catch her in bed with the pool boy and you're never going to see her the same way because she betrayed you.

• 1:31:00Speaker 02

  No.

• 1:31:01Speaker 01

  On a very deep level. Not that that happened. I hope it never does, but, but you know what I mean? That's what this is. You, you caught Trump in bed with someone. It's like he cheated on you. And then to lecture you about your lack of loyalty is too much. You're disloyal. Joe Kent was disloyal. Really? Joe Kent's wife got killed in Syria because of the neocons.

• 1:31:22Speaker 02

  Yep.

• 1:31:23Speaker 01

  And rather than whine about it, he kept going and tried to serve his nation and did. And he was right, by the way, on the merits. And then he calls Trump, tries to see Trump on his way out because he likes Trump. Actually, he's a respectful guy. And Trump trashes his wife? And says, oh, we got remarried awful quick. Really? Cause it was under your administration that his first wife was killed because you didn't have the balls to get American troops out of Syria because you're controlled by Israel. That's a fact. So then to lecture Joe Kent about getting married again after you ever saw the death of his first wife? I was like, oh, oh, can't deal with this anymore.

• 1:32:00Speaker 02

  Yeah. You know, it's, it's, there's been a lot of disappointment.

• 1:32:06Speaker 02

  I know, that's the understatement of the year, but, um, a lot of disappointment. Like I have disappointment, like to bring it back around to the conversation about the agency and everything else. I have disappointment with the agency. I wanted reform. I wanted real reform. I'm okay with getting rid of some of the chaff. I'm okay with making some big changes and, and it never happened. Never happened. In fact, this administration is, is just letting it move on. Like, I've left government service now. You know, I co-founded an organization. If it's okay, I'm going to talk a little bit about that because I think it's important. You know, I, at some point, I'm going to go into the private sector. But the thing about being a government employee, if you're in military or forward facing, you want to have a mission.

• 1:32:50Speaker 02

  You want to have something that you're like, no, no, no, I want to be part of something bigger. And that's the hardest part of leaving government service. You know, that and you realize that, that, you know, you know, there's a lot of people in the private sector who are incredibly impressive and you have to compete against them. So some of these government schlubs are afraid to leave.

• 1:33:08Speaker 01

  Yeah, of course.

• 1:33:09Speaker 02

  But, uh, you know, I, I co-founded an organization that sued the federal government over vaccine mandates.

• 1:33:16Speaker 02

  We got together, we didn't know what we were doing. We built the cars. We rolled it out of the, uh, rolled it out of the garage. But we, we were successful. We got a nationwide injunction that shut down the vaccine mandate for all staff federal government employees throughout the entirety of the Biden administration. Done. Succeeded. We filed 17 class action EEOs.

• 1:33:38Speaker 02

  You know, towards the end of my time at the dig, the last year in the dig, turns out that the CIA decided that every single person who is noncompliant with those vaccine mandates, yeah, they weren't, you know, just insubordinate. They were spies. So they had all of them investigated by the Counterintelligence Mission Center's counter espionage department.

• 1:34:05Speaker 01

  Not really.

• 1:34:06Speaker 02

  Oh, really? All of them? Said, yep, we got a check. So I, I personally filed an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties complaint. And I blind CC'd every single unvaccinated officer in the CIA. And then when nothing happened after 40 days, I sent it up to the Intelligence Community Inspector General. I said, you need to investigate this. My problem is they're purposely waiting longer than a 45 day period. Because as soon as I CC'd all these unvaccinated officers, as soon as I CC'd them, they have a 45 day window to file an EEO complaint. I know a lot about the complaint process now, never used to, never made a complaint until COVID.

• 1:34:51Speaker 02

  And I wanted to give them the chance, if they were upset about it, to actually file those complaints. A bunch of people filed the EEO complaints. But all we really wanted was, and again, this is under Director Ratcliffe. All we wanted to do was to expunge the records. See, when you have a counter espionage-

• 1:35:05Speaker 01

  Wait, John Ratcliffe okayed counter espionage investigations?

• 1:35:10Speaker 02

  The investigation occurred in 2021.

• 1:35:13Speaker 01

  Right.

• 1:35:13Speaker 02

  Okay. It was discovered. So after it was discovered, we said, hey, listen, new administration, this is an easy fix. Here's what we want. Just expunge the records. Just get, get that off your permanent security file, because that, that's-

• 1:35:27Speaker 01

  You were investigated as a foreign spy because you didn't want to take the death shot?

• 1:35:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, because you didn't want to take the death shot. And that was a simple request. Hey, please, just, we asked.

• 1:35:36Speaker 01

  Did Ratcliffe do it?

• 1:35:38Speaker 02

  No. So now we have to sue. And so, you know, I found pro bono legal support.

• 1:35:42Speaker 01

  Why is Ratcliffe so vested in-

• 1:35:46Speaker 02

  I have no idea.

• 1:35:46Speaker 01

  -slander against people who didn't take the vax?

• 1:35:48Speaker 02

  I have no idea. We, and I don't know, maybe he's incompetent too. He should have, his staff were aware. I made sure that both Deputy Director and the Director's staff were aware that this was occurring. I wanted them to just fix it. And they didn't. So we're going to sue them. And so I'm, I'm, I got out of government service, but I'm still working the-

• 1:36:10Speaker 01

  Good for you.

• 1:36:11Speaker 02

  Feds for Freedom, where Feds for Freedom is suing the CIA over this. And we are still actually litigating class action EOs, and this is a half decade later. So we've got an FBI class action EO, we've got a, there's a couple others, DOD, NASA. We're still litigating this stuff a half decade later, which is absolutely idiotic. It's this administration. They said, they said flat out, we shouldn't have to have-

• 1:36:38Speaker 01

  Well, it's just an attack on Christians, that's what it was.

• 1:36:40Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:36:41Speaker 01

  Here's a shot with aborted baby parts in it, can you take it? The people who said they can't, they get investigated as spies. Get all the Christians out.

• 1:36:48Speaker 02

  Yeah. So at some point, I'm going to go find a normal job, but for right now, I'm going to-

• 1:36:54Speaker 01

  Let me ask you one final question, one final category of questions. So back to January 6th.

• 1:37:00Speaker 02

  Sure.

• 1:37:00Speaker 01

  Based on everything you've said without any other evidence, I would find it very likely that the CIA was involved in January 6th, just by their reaction to it? Or is aware that DOJ isn't covering for DOJ or something? The government is clearly-

• 1:37:14Speaker 02

  Based on their reaction, it's actually the worst possible conclusion. If, if I'm just going off reaction, I have no data, I can't prove anything. But it means that the Capitol Police, the FBI and CIA were all in bed.

• 1:37:27Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:37:28Speaker 02

  And they perpetrated a hoax of such colossal proportion. And they, you know, January 6th, you had people rotting in these jails-

• 1:37:38Speaker 01

  Oh, I know.

• 1:37:38Speaker 02

  -for a very long time. If CIA was involved in that, maybe that four wins thing, maybe that's, maybe that's where we should be going. We certainly, Church Committee 2.0?

• 1:37:50Speaker 01

  Just shut it down at that point. Yeah. So, but that raises the question, I mean, like, the firewall always was involvement in domestic politics. Yes, we did overthrow Mossadegh, yes, we did this, that, and the other thing abroad, but it was in the service of American foreign policy goals, and so it's okay. But what we'll never do is start tampering in our domestic politics, our democracy.

• 1:38:12Speaker 02

  Right, right. And-

• 1:38:14Speaker 01

  And yet, I know for a fact that there are CIA domestic influence operations.

• 1:38:24Speaker 02

  I've never seen one, but all the indications are, when you take a look at the media, media blackouts, what media covers, it starts looking like something's happening, and, you know.

• 1:38:43Speaker 01

  Yeah. They're pretty obviously involved in the Monica Lewinsky thing, not that I'm pro-Clinton, never have been.

• 1:38:47Speaker 02

  Yeah.

• 1:38:48Speaker 01

  But you think that's fair to say?

• 1:38:49Speaker 02

  I think it is, yeah.

• 1:38:50Speaker 01

  Yeah. So that's like, pretty shocking that they would be involved in our politics, don't you think?

• 1:38:57Speaker 02

  It is shocking. And like I said, I used to be different. And the variety of things that I entertain as possibilities are much, much wider than they used to be. You can't, you can't read an email that says, this is our story and we're sticking to it. And, and not, not, you can't go back. Can't go back to that. So, yeah. It's, it's disturbing. We're not getting reform, and I have a feeling we've got more pain ahead for us if we don't make some changes.

• 1:39:36Speaker 01

  I agree with that. Thanks so much for taking all this time, Jim, to talk to us.

• 1:39:40Speaker 02

  My pleasure.

• 1:39:41Speaker 01

  Congrats. You've been at the CIA less than a month, and you're already doing a good work.

• 1:39:44Speaker 02

  Thank you. Thank you.