Thanks a lot for doing this. How long
were you at CIA?
>> I joined the CIA in 2013. I was in the
State Department before that. Private
sector. I served a second Ranger
Battalion before that.
>> Second Ranger Battalion, State
Department, CIA. When did you leave CIA?
>> I retired on 30 June, so real recently.
>> Month ago.
>> Yep. Yep.
Um, last year you became a
whistleblower.
>> It was before last year, but yes. Um, I
think it started long before last year
and it had to do with vaccine mandates,
which is a separate topic from co
origins, but yes.
>> Um, you you first came to my attention
anyway for and thank you for fighting
vaccine mandates, one of the most evil
things this country's ever done. Um, but
COVID origins, you just you went very
public. You testified in the Congress.
Why did you decide to do that?
>> Well, there's a subpoena that helps make
a decision process.
>> Okay.
>> So, no, but in all in all honesty, I I
came forward um and I had done a
transcribed interview for 6 hours and 40
minutes be behind closed doors with uh
the Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee when it looked like
that the CIA was obstructing our
investigation. when it looked like um
every obstacle was being put in place.
Um when the subpoena came, I was frankly
I was happy to go. I was happy to to
speak publicly.
>> But then you become I mean you're in a
different category once you do that. I
think um that's a big decision, isn't
it?
>> It is. It is. You know, I I had I hate
to say it, I had some practice with the
co COVID vaccine mandates and and
frankly, you know, maybe we'll be
touching on this earlier, but that story
that came out publicly uh on May 13th in
front of uh Senator Ran Paul's
committee, um I had passed that story to
the Senate Select Committee of on
Intelligence in April of 2024. I'd also
given it to the home uh 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 CO origins
was actually in November of 2021. Now,
the story was a little different then,
but I came forward multiple times trying
to
let them know that we're being lied to.
So those two committees you you
pronounced their for I mean you spelled
out their formal names but just the
house and senate intel committees the
oversight committ this is the
legislative branches oversight of the
most powerful arguably the most powerful
agencies in the government
>> which have very little civilian control
particularly CIA I think there only
other what three appointees at CIA
>> I believe three appointees which is in
my opinion not enough. Oh, it's totally
crazy cuz 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.
>> Mhm.
>> 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.
>> I did and I think
CO opened my eyes. Um I was naive. I was
uh I was an operations officer. So I I
didn't I most of the time I spent most
of my time out in the field uh
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
>> You were doing the traditional work.
When people hear the term CIA, they
think of what you were doing for a
living. Yes.
>> Which is not what most people there do.
>> Correct. Correct. um 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
>> living in foreign countries.
>> Correct. You know I I was gifted many
things uh from the agency. I was gifted
Mandarin language training, Arabic
language training. Um probably could use
some brush up on Arabic, but my
Mandarin's still pretty good. Um 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 uh
motivated uh critical thinker, you you
should try and get into the director of
operations. It is a fun job. It's a good
job.
>> I I tried to get in for that exact
reason. Probably never should have
admitted that cuz I've been accused of
being a tool of CIA ever since, which
I'm not. Uh I think the interview will
make it clear I'm not, but I just for
that reason I thought it sound like a
very interesting job. Interesting job.
>> 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."
>> Um the only people who can cheer you on
are 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 CO
woke me up to sort of the mess. I mean,
we're supposed to be and people laugh
when I say
>> So, you're not living in MLAN, Virginia
at headquarter near headquarter. You're
like abroad, right? For a lot of time.
>> Oh, most of my career. Yeah, it was
abroad. Was abroad
>> and um I loved it. Yeah, I I finally
came back to headquarters uh in 2019
uh right before CO 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 policy makers so that they
can make wise decisions in the most
altruistic way. That is what we're
supposed to do. And what co 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 I could not believe I mean I
was running um work on financial
intelligence against strategic rivals
and I had an office. I was running two
big branches and um 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. Um and that was
that's what started me down the road. Um
there was few other things before that.
It was you know few other things before
that that uh opened my eyes. But um 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 I own that.
>> You believe that?
>> I did. I did for a long time. I I no
longer um I think that we probably
should take a good hard look at the
decisions we're making on foreign
policy. And I think um that whole thing
about no new foreign wars was probably a
good good idea.
>> Most Americans were strongly in favor of
that plank in the platform. Home
ownership 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
swiping 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 their 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. 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 doesn't make any sense to borrow
money at that rate. If you want out,
call 800685-55696.
800685-55696
or visit americanf financing.net/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 CO come
from? Do you believe
>> 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 um 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
have a feeling, you know, if 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
>> That's confirmed.
>> 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 co um so
on sorry on corona virus research I
should be precise on that uh there's all
sorts of corona viruses that we've been
looking at over the over the years
>> there was a famous outbreak of course in
Asia
>> 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?
>> 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 it spread everywhere
inadvertently.
>> Inadvertently, I think I think there's
no direct evidence right now that says
yes, they did it deliberately.
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.
>> Possibility exists because um I mean I'd
love to give you a direct answer but the
CIA would have had to have given the
information that was requested from
director Gabard'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,
right? And well, CIA simply refused to
provide the information. 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. Yeah.
>> And um and it always seemed likely to me
>> but the US government from the very
beginning went along with this Panggalan
lie.
>> Yeah. And then subsequent to that, even
when it became obvious that it was a
lie, we were describing continued the
cover up. Why?
Well, um, part of the reason, I mean,
Fouchy is part of that reason. And, you
know, I'm going to be very blunt about
it. And since I'm going to be blunt and
also give my opinion. Um, you know, when
I was sitting in front of uh the Senate,
I wanted to make sure I was very
accurate in everything I said. But 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
>> right
>> so um I think Anthony Fouchy 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 I see
connections to for for good good reasons
as well. Bio defense I see connections
to to to research that goes on. But um I
think they understood that a house of
cards was going to fall down if this if
this got out too quickly that that there
was a distinct possibility that American
knowhow, American expertise I mean we
really do I mean 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
they receive funding to go do research,
they're involved in health, they're
involved in biodense. All of a sudden,
you've got a virus that looks boy, it
sure there 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 Cove 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
zooonautic origin. Um, and he had to
know when he's pushing these type of
experts, a 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 like hookline and
sinker. I there was actually I read an
email where a very senior person and I 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 in somebody
who was in a position to to sort of
influence not sort of in a position to
influence how the IC looked at SARS CO2.
Why are they covering it up now? Fouch's
gone. New administration.
>> 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
>> you don't want to be caught
>> at all
>> covering up for a global pandemic that
killed hundreds of thousands of people.
>> Yeah. So there's I think um I think seen
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 the very the senior people
within um DNI's um
the part of the DNI that's responsible
for looking into WMD matters and file
weapons matters and the weapons and
counterpreration 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 analy like the the
technical analysts that were were
pushing saying, "Hey, listen guys, this
looks 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 disscent 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
>> So the entire leadership of CA swung
behind this lie that it was from an
animal.
>> Yeah. And why are they still doing it?
Well, because because I Well, 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. 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? 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
>> He'd be the He'd be the member of
Congress who oversees the House Intel
Committee.
>> 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 going to 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
>> he sort of would be a foreign intel
>> 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
going to go well. Here's how this is
going to 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,
and I love the guy. Um, years later, he
disagrees with me, by the way, on just
about everything of substance, but he's
a great officer. And, um,
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 had never really done
that kind of work. I'd dealt with
oversight before. He says, "Here's how
oversight works. Take for example um we
have to we are supposed to um 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 it'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."
Um, 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 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 3 years after a a huge failure
happened. And they're asking the people
sitting on the other side, the other
people are are talking to the the agency
officers. are like, "Has anyone been
held accountable for something that
happened 3 years prior?" And uh the
agency lawyer leans in and says, "We're
holding the system accountable."
So unless
>> how are we doing that?
>> I
uh I don't I don't
Well, if they're holding the system
accountable, they need some work cuz uh
the system keeps chugging away.
>> System's not a person. Right.
>> Right. Right.
>> Right. Right.
>> Eating right is pretty important, but
it's hard if you live here. About half
of the American diet is ultrarocessed
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 2 oz
shot. Tastes like orange juice. An easy
shot of liquid is 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 going to
love it. Um, where does Tom Cotton, who
is the senator who chairs the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, where
does he fit into all this?
>> 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
documents here. After my hearing, uh,
Senator Ran 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, uh, Director
Gabbard leaves. PY takes over. And, um,
uh, PY gets a a letter from, uh, Senator
Tom Cotton's team saying, "Hey, listen.
Here's what you need to understand. Uh,
maintains uh, oversight
responsibility."
>> Si is a Senate Intelligence Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence. We
maintain privacy on on oversight for uh
these sort of matters. And so, hey, PY,
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 6-h hour and 40minute
transcribed interview in a skiff in
March of this year for his gak.
Republicans and Democrats were both
there. Well, let me clarify that the
Democrat tried to leave, but I insisted
that he stay.
No, I finished that transcribed
interview. They won't give it back.
They won't give it back to his gak.
will not give
>> his gak is the
>> sorry, the Homeland Security Government
Affairs Committee, the one that Ran
Paul's on and Ron Johnson's on,
>> uh, I think some of the Democrats are on
or Fedman, a few others,
>> um, wouldn't know. They didn't show up
to the hearing. Um, so you know,
is saying you can't have your own
transcribed interview. is 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?
Already sort of mentioned it. I went to
in April of 2024 and I told them a
story about six of seven technical
experts saying CO origins uh you know CO
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 cuz it probably
just exposes the failure of the their
oversight.
>> Tom Cotton is so clearly a tool of CIA.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, as far as I
can tell, that guy, he's there to make
sure that he protects the CIA.
>> But that's the opposite of what the job
entails.
>> That is exactly the opposite. Yes. Now,
>> his wife worked at CIA as an analyst in
Langley.
>> I don't know, but I believe
>> I 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 um that's pretty close
relationship for someone who's going to
be in charge of oversight of that same
agency.
>> Yeah, it's sort of like Fouchy having
his wife in charge of bioeththics.
That's a that's an interesting little
relation.
>> 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
uh 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.
>> That isn't what we voted for.
>> I'm very aware of that and you have to
and of course he's a very weird guy.
>> I don't know him.
>> Let me just say again, he's a very weird
guy and almost everybody I know on those
committees, I know a bunch of members is
a I mean Dan Krenshaw 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?
>> 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.
>> Of course. 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 why would Trump So Radcliffe has
been in contact with John Brennan?
>> Mhm.
>> Right. And I've heard that. Do you
believe that's true?
>> I believe that's true.
>> Right. So Brennan is a sworn enemy of
Trump. Mhm.
>> 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? I don't know. I don't know. But
what I
>> You think that's weird?
>> I think it's very weird.
>> It's very weird.
>> It's very weird. And there's other data
points that I think speak to this. Um,
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 it was it was like and I read the
unredacted documents. I read the
documents. 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 Gabard when he
was over at the DNI,
>> right?
>> He could have released them. He could
have released them when he was at DNI.
Maybe he was scared. I mean, the I mean,
I could
>> But Trump, that was he was he ran DNI
in the in the first term first 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? Yeah, I I I can't get into
President Trump's head on that one, but
what I can do is
>> Can you just affirm again my suspicion?
This is like the weirdest thing that's
ever happened.
>> Yeah, this is dumb. It's flatout 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. Yes. If you
want to continue, especially him, if you
want to continue to be destroyed, this
is exactly what you do.
>> Exactly. So, it's dumb. I Well, dumb at
best. It sounds like made under duress
to me. I don't know why any person would
do that, and 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 cabinet
secretaries, big appointees in this
administration, Rackcliffe has basically
received no scrutiny in the press at
all.
>> Yeah, neither did Rubio for the most
part. Sorry. Sorry. I wanted to add
>> Fair. Thank Thank you.
>> Um,
>> but did you notice that?
>> Of course I noticed it. It's
>> a CI director. You're one of the most
powerful people in the world.
>> Giant red flag. It's a giant red flag to
me. I'm sorry. You got to 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.
>> But to this day, most people have no
idea who the director of national
intelligence is, right?
>> 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?
>> Yeah. I'm glad you mentioned the media
cuz uh 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 co
Fox News was the only one that covered
it. Um and that happens all the time. It
tells me that the media is controlled.
The media is controlled by the
government. This this thing where we've
got an independent media, it doesn't
exist. Okay. And that's a big problem
for um government oversight. It's a big
problem because
whistleblowers who go through the
system, sorry, I'm going to pivot just a
little here, but whistleblowers are
essential to
holding the system accountable, but
>> to honest government
>> 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? Because you're not gonna you're
not going to get a gold star when you're
done. Okay? It's not going to make it
good for you personally. It's not going
to 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
>> intelligence inspector general.
>> Thank you. I apologize.
>> No, no, it's all right. The internal
watchdog.
>> Yeah, the internal watchdog. The the And
Chris Fox, by the way, I think is
another one I should mention
specifically. I think he's got the the
spine to try and get something done to
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 want to you're
like, you know what? I this is wrong. I
have to do something. And you say, I'm
going to 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 just start spouting their
mouth off. That is not what I'm saying.
>> No, they should just dump it on the
internet.
That's what I think.
>> Put it on the blockchain.
>> Just want to be clear.
>> Okay.
>> I am advocating for that and I do think
that people with relevant classified
information should disclose it to the
public.
>> They should. They should. Um, but I
don't blame any of them for not. The
system is broken.
>> 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 worshiped 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. 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
worshiped 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. Who's looking out for them?
Nobody. Well, they are. A monthly gift
of $83 helps sustain that protection
throughout the month. So visit save
westbankchristians.com
and stand with Christians in the land
where Christianity began. That's save
westbankchristians.com.
We are proud to partner with them. Thank
you. And if you go to the media,
>> so if you go to Jake Tapper, maybe
you're not he's not gonna
>> Yeah. No, he might
>> criticize CA too much.
>> Yeah. Yeah. you're you're playing
playing with fire cuz 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 rush occlusion
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 a
real feel of what was happening at the
time from a real person. And so
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,
etc. my limited window because I like I
said I I'm a ops officer. Up until
recently all I cared about was stealing
secrets,
>> right, in some foreign country.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. To be clear, not
American secrets.
>> I want to ask you about that in a
minute, but
>> Okay. Um
my limited window is there's clearly
some preferred outlets that they will go
to. Um I mean I I see some of these
things and these are puff pieces. These
are these are cheerleading pieces uh 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
>> the the problem with CI 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
>> right
>> if only if only they could you know they
had full funding um
>> right what
>> right which I mean which is a great
point you know not only did they not get
enough fun no um the funding piece is
actually interesting that you mentioned
it because it's also
sorry this might be a nonsequittor but I
think it's important part of the the
reason we failed is um the Patriot Act
and 9/11
um you know I was part of the whole
system post 911 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 got this great
operation going on you need more money
they always found money for me and I
think I think I think we started
confusing good managers for good
leaders. So after 9/11 Patriot Act
opened up a bunch of authorities um 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 blah blah blah
blah? Uh they got confused as good
leaders. So they got they metriculated
upwards and they were never really and
this is a generalization they were never
really tested in terms of uh 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."
>> Well, one did.
>> One did and he was destroyed, right?
>> He went to prison
>> under the subsequent administration,
which was the amazing part.
>> That's crazy.
>> 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. So
all these managers who have continued to
be moved up, they've never had to make
hard moral decision, co 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 disscent and real
moral decisions. It it for me that was
that was it. They they failed a test of
their humanity and um
that opened my eyes. Do um there's a
open qu no one asks this question very
often but uh where does CIA's funding
come from? Well 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.
>> Mhm.
>> 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 civilian
control of an agency if no one really
knows how much money there is or even
where it's coming from? It's not, you
know, and there's,
you know, there there are reasons why
they want to hide budget. They don't
want people and like
>> I really believe in sources and methods.
We 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 you work. That's
sources and methods of course. 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. Where's the money
going? Yeah. How why does it need that
much money? And you also have to ask
like, is CIA doing anything that's so
critical to the interest 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?
The answer is there that shouldn't
occur.
>> Period. I mean morally, ethically, no.
Is it occurring? I worry it is.
>> Oh, I It's definitely occurring. There's
no question about I mean I mean Yeah. I
mean, from my experience, it sure looks
like it.
>> Yeah, it sure does. And again, if we
don't even really know, there's a big
debate,
uh, which I've listened to carefully
about where this money is coming from.
And again, is not all coming from the
Congress. So what
um
>> follow the money
>> 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 if if I were
king for a day if I were in charge and I
wanted to start the process I I totally
get this it's it's become such a
gargantuan problem where do you even
start
>> right
>> 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 o opices.
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 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 me mechanisms
that are in play for various type types
of u intelligence work. I would
definitely I would definitely audit
Incel
100%. Inutel needs to have a full audit.
>> Can you explain for people who don't
know what Inkel is?
>> Inutel is uh you know it's it's the
venture capital arm that funds all sorts
of stuff that um
>> venture capital arm of what?
>> Of the CIA.
>> 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. Yeah. So, we
thought that's something that happened
on like Sand Hill Road in, you know,
Northern California, but no, CI has its
own venture firm.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, there
there's there's real reason to have uh
insight into things that are tech and
things that are of value. 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. Well,
and you have to have control over it by
the public through its representatives.
So, what happened in Pakistan is 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.
>> Mhm.
>> And no matter who you vote for, the
military still runs Pakistan. So, you
don't want that cuz that's the opposite
of democracy, right?
>> I spent two years in Pakistan.
>> Okay. Then, I didn't even know that. But
is that a fair assessment?
>> Yeah. Yeah, it's a fair assessment.
>> I mean, how many businesses does the
Pakistani military own? A lot
>> lot a lot a lot right and they're the
best fun institution in the country is
really obvious when you drive around
Pakistan
>> it's like all the mowed lawns are the
military bases.
>> Yep.
>> Yeah.
>> 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? 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 cuz
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. 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 ethos.com/tucker.
Rates and obviously application times
may vary, but it's great. So, um, you
don't want that here, right? No. No, I
do not. And I, 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 Gabard. She did exactly what
President Trump said. I want you to
downsize the DNI. I want you to pursue
deweaponization 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. 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 runs CIA. Uh
why hasn't he pursued reform of CIA?
That's a very tough question cuz I'm I'm
not in his inner circle, but as far as I
can tell, it's because he doesn't want
to. He he's perfectly happy to let uh
the people that are running the agency
who are those people those managers who
metriculated upwards who were confused
for good leaders. Yeah. They're running
the place. I don't know why he's letting
that happen.
>> Um everybody I know in that world says
that he's just a pure mouthpiece for
Assad. Everybody says that about John
Radcliffe.
>> 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
were called, and I'm not even sure I'm
allowed to say what they were, but um
you know, right before the
administration changed, 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.
>> Explain what a product is. You're not
you're not talking about a new kind of
toothpaste,
>> 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 uh
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?
>> Right. I mean, you're describing the
ability to create dossas on people.
>> Dossas on all sorts of stuff.
>> So, here's the reform that I would uh
institute if I had the power to do it.
The president of the United States asks
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 CA does not produce
that information. And then that's the
point in which you call John Radcliffe
and you say, "Listen, You've got
24 hours to do this or I'm having Cash
Patel have you arrested."
>> Mhm.
>> 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."
>> Yeah. when everyone knows that's a lie.
Well, election security. Here's a good
one. Kurt Olsen is the guy,
>> but like would that work? Why couldn't
you do that?
>> You could in theory.
>> What do you mean in theory? He the
president this is the president's
agency. He was elected by the public to
run CIA. Like I'm I'm missing something.
>> Sorry. No, you are treat CIA like it's a
foreign power that he has to negotiate
with. I don't I can't understand why.
>> It's the craziest thing I've ever seen.
It should work like that, but it's it's
not. It's not working like that. Um
there are negotiate like frankly
director Gabbard shouldn't have to
negotiate with um with uh uh director
Radcliffe over some of this stuff. She
had people in her team that that um uh
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 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.
>> He does not. And you know I
>> So why doesn't Trump say where okay it's
been a month I want it by this
afternoon.
>> Where is it?
>> Or you're under arrest. I I just don't I
don't What is going on? I wish I knew. I
wish I knew because we we expected we
we and I, you know, when I say we, I
mean the American public voted for the
greatest disruptor in American history.
>> It's not hard, is it? But he's not, for
some reason, he's not being the greatest
finisher in my opinion. He's a colluder
with the system. I don't I don't get it.
I don't I don't understand because um we
we really want to see him successful.
So, how hard is it to get and I'll just
going 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. They have not. Why
why is it would be hard for Trump just
to say time's up, I want them now.
>> There is a sea of lawyers who cavettes
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
>> he does correct.
>> He he could just do it immediately
but for some reason the bureaucrats
they all sit around cavetting over all
the legal ramifications I think. And Tom
Cotton too is
>> Tom Cotton too does not want disclosure
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 MK Ultra
documents. Okay, I they they're about,
you know, this high in the office. I And
again, I was hired labor that day. I
just needed to move the documents for
somebody into another office. But those
were the MK Ultra. I thumb through them.
And um um there's no reason 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.
Um 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 double speak 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
bullpy. Um, it's too old. It's too long
ago. It It has to be released.
>> There's an executive order with the
force of law requiring the release of
these documents with no caveats in it.
>> Yeah.
>> So, they're breaking the law by holding
these.
>> You could say the same thing with the CO
act of 2023 that was unanimously passed.
Said we want all of it disclosed.
>> Was it?
>> No. No. There's thousands of documents
that are still sitting there. And I pray
that PY or whoever else comes after him
or even Ratcliffe, I don't care who does
it, declassify him. There's thousands of
documents.
>> Well, that's of course not going to
happen. And I'm sure Tom Co Tom Cotton
would jump up and prevent it.
>> Yeah. And it's too bad because um
they're the people who put this
administration
in office is going to look at that and
they're going to they're going to
they're not going to be happy. And um
>> well, it's not a democracy if you don't
know what your government's doing.
>> Yeah. And what about 9/11? Was there
ever an effort to cuz 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 after 25 years. I you know I
I can't
there was no push for 9/11 during my
time at the dig to declassify anything
as far as
>> I'm very aware of that. I wonder why.
>> Um I have my theories. I mean
>> what are your theories? 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 cook. 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? Um, 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 wakeup call. And
>> that's where the CIA office was.
>> 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. I
>> That's such a great sentence. I used to
be a normal CIO.
>> It's true.
>> Assuming that's a category,
>> you know, it is a category. Um
>> I'm just joking. I know it's a category.
>> It I 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
>> something off? Yeah. Like how did it
fall down?
Uh
>> why why was it announced on television
before it fell down?
>> Yeah, those are real questions that need
real answers.
>> So because the CIA there was a CI office
in that building. They admitted it. Um I
didn't misremember that.
>> No, you didn't.
>> Did anyone ever talk about this?
>> Well, you mean
>> at CIA over the course of my career?
What happened?
>> Yeah. Like what happened to our office
in building 7?
>> There no plane hit but somehow it fell
down. So when I say I used to be a
normal CIA officer for most my career no
one I knew talked about that
>> right
>> and it wasn't until co that I started
running into people um
whatever this means it wasn't until co
that I started running into people that
started asking those questions and I was
listening to them going first it I had a
>> CIA employees
>> yeah CIA employees I had a visceral
reaction when I first heard that I was
like what are you talking I did exactly
that what are you talking about they
can't like that that didn't happen and
as time has gone I had the same reaction
by the way.
>> I 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
>> 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?
>> H well uh put me on the spot here. But
>> doesn't mean it's true and you're not
endorsing it. And I'm not I'm interested
to know what actual CIA employees think
about the destruction of the CIA office
in building 7.
>> A lot of people had questions about, you
know, the folks that were dancing on top
of the top of the building and
>> Israelis, the MSAD officers. Yeah.
>> 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.
>> Yeah, we did. Yeah. Uh there's um
there's an insurance policy that was
taken out right beforehand which is
pretty pretty uh fortuitous, pretty
precient. Um
>> they've brought up a whole bunch of
things and um from my perspective from
my perspective, these are good questions
that deserve answers.
>> So was the feeling that that building
was by someone brought down?
>> Yeah, I mean some have said that
explicitly that I've spoken to. Yeah,
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.
I mean, it's pretty obvious if 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. It
>> it sure
>> 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 if you're a former normal
person and your colleagues at CIA,
presumably also these normal CIA
officers you describe,
>> who I love, they're great officers. Of
course, they work hard.
>> Totally kidding.
>> Wellchested freedom fighters.
>> Yeah. I and I've known a lot of people
like that in various federal agencies
who are 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.
>> I would have liked to have taken a look
at it. I would have liked to have taken
a look at it.
>> It seems obvious to me that because
unlike the MLK assassination, which is
I'd love to know more about it. Clearly,
it was a conspiracy, I think.
>> But like in the end, it didn't
change the world in the way that 911
did. Maybe it's just too big to
investigate.
>> Maybe. Maybe.
>> Have you ever heard anybody say, "Hey,
we should look we should just declassify
the 911 documents."
>> Well, yeah. Some of the people in the
dig um said a couple couple times, but I
mean, we have to be direct. We were
doing only what we were directed to do.
>> What the EO told you to
>> EO told us to do. We're trying to We're
trying to be
>> trying to follow the law.
>> Well, yeah. Yeah. Trying to follow the
law. trying to make sure that we we
accomplish 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 um well, the deep state
exists. I I mean, I don't know what you
want to call it. I I love Mike Benz's
description of it, the blob. It I think
it's the most accurate description.
>> Um
>> cuz it's amorphous.
>> Yeah.
>> There's no meaning.
>> It's everywhere and it just rolls in. It
fills space. It fills the cracks. It
pops up everywhere. It's It's miserable.
So what um so the dig was the director's
initiatives group
>> initiatives group and that's the group
within the office of the director of
national intelligence oi
>> 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?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, what were the
uh if you'll just jog my memory, the
cases the the events that you were
looking into?
>> Well, um a lot of them are listed in
that Rand Paul subpoena. So, if it's
okay.
>> So, Oh, of course. But so, it was the
JFK assassination.
>> Oh, the declassification effort and they
sort of lumped MLK, JFK, um uh
>> Bobby Kennedy.
>> 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. So there's some things that I
was
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> I was shocked to know that the CIA was
was running Oswald.
>> Yeah.
>> And Yeah, that's true. I that did come
up.
>> He defected, but that was all a scam.
The Russians were very paranoid about
>> uh Lee Oswald. He was a Marine 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?
>> I wasn't following it. Sorry.
>> Yeah.
>> January 6th. 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. Can
>> you tell us what Baker did just so we
have context?
>> 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 in
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 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.
>> Yeah.
>> He's actually a musician. um fine.
Great. Um
and so he provided that information and
um a memo was typed up. The memo uh went
to the PDDNI uh 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
>> number two at CIA.
>> Number two at CIA. Shot all over the
CIA. And next thing you know, um people
were losing their minds. Uh when I see
people
>> they were so excited to get to the
bottom of this.
>> 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
>> defamation in what way?
>> Well, you know, they're saying, "Listen,
this this person who was named in this
investigation, you know, she's not that
that individual was not the the person
who did it. And you know, you could get
yourself in a lot of trouble. You could
get sued." How do they know that person
didn't do it?
>> They don't. Uh they don't know that. And
we know
>> they're a bunch of liars is what you're
saying.
>> 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. Exactly.
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.
Take it seriously.
>> But you're saying that CIA did not
respond
cool or analytically to this information
from Steve Baker as provided by ODNI.
They did instead what? Uh they decided
they were going to investigate the dig.
Okay. And I I've like for what purpose?
>> The people who provided the information.
>> Yeah. Gave it to them. And you know it
to me it's it's insanity. Um
>> were they upset about this information?
>> 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 is 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 uh 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. I I I the reaction we got
from them was a visceral reaction. And
>> so if you I mean you were practicing
tradecraftraft your your career at CIA.
So you know that that kind of reaction
suggests
>> Oh yeah.
>> not good.
>> Not good. I immediately assume 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 are you protecting? Why are
you
>> of course
>> and so and everybody I'm like I'm not a
genius here. You don't need to be a co
to to have the exact same question. So
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 it
was 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 Ran Paul's committee. That's
there was there was questions and
follow-ups that sat with that that group
for months. And
>> wait, but on the specific uh in in the
specific case of of January 6, so
>> there are a couple things that jump out.
One, that of all people in the world to
be identified by a distinctive gate.
>> Mhm.
>> Which apparently is a product of a
sports injury Baker says,
>> but it's a this whoever was in the the
figure in the picture had a weird a
weird gate. The woman Steve Baker says
he thinks is that person has a sports
injury. She's a capital police officer,
but of all places to wind up working,
it's CIA. How did she wind up? Right.
>> According to the court documents, she
had applied for a job prior to uh
6 months prior to January 6th. I can't
remember.
>> Okay.
>> Uh but but I mean, it's possible to get
a job over there. It's not easy to get
hired by the CIA.
>> What does she do there? Do you know?
>> She works in security. I don't know the
specifics of of her exact job.
>> Is it possible that she provided
security to the director?
>> 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 coup's
changed names, but like the director and
deputy director over
>> the coup the chief operating officer is
now
>> the coup against Mosedc. Oh.
I'm sorry. No,
>> just kidding. It was a little CIA joke.
>> Yeah. Yeah,
>> you guys know coups.
>> We know this is a different coup. Okay.
>> Um,
>> so yeah, I suppose it's possible. Um, 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 was an Homeland
Security investigator that was given the
information and asked to pursue this.
>> What was his name? uh that the that
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. Uh
>> what is Well, I think I think what they
they don't want Why don't they want to
talk about it? They don't want to talk
about it.
>> There's no obituary, I noticed.
>> 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
>> He was killed by a gunshot.
>> He was killed by a gunshot. Okay. And um
it's worrisome because if 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 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. you 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 hidden behind a
wall of secrecy cuz 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, cuz
that's where the investigation is going
on, I hope they're getting to the bottom
of it. I really do because um
>> it's just interesting that as someone
who spent his adult life working for CIA
and you said you've you loved it um and
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.
>> 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.
>> 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 5 years uh of not finding a
suspect arrested some autistic black kid
and charged him with the crime.
>> It's crazy. I I don't believe that for
one minute
>> that the autistic black kid did this.
No, I don't. Not for one minute. And the
other issue I I don't know.
>> Do you think the Department of Justice
is capable of framing someone like that?
Apparently, uh I don't
I can't speak to motives. I so evil
though. If this is what happened, it's
pure evil. And there's other data out
there. People should go take a look at
Kyle Sarapin's um podcast and what what
he was on the surveillance team
surveilling person of interest 3.
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 they 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,
>> 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 5 years ago during the George
Floyd insanity and said, "I love black
people." What about this black guy?
>> This autistic black kid. Well, who's
defending him? Anybody?
>> Nobody.
>> Nobody. Nobody. Oh, all the I love black
people are absent on this.
>> Apparently. Yeah. Okay.
>> Apparently. I mean,
>> not surprised.
>> It's It's sickening to me.
>> It is sickening.
>> You know, I
>> I never said I love black people. I
never treated black people like gods.
They're people like you and me.
>> But I'm offended by this.
>> Well, I'm offended because human being.
if this poor kid, you know, he's sounds
like he's got some spectrum issues on a
spectrum. You know, I, you know, I've
got people very close to me with mental
health issues. And to think that you'd
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 it's not the first time. When
Mary Pinchon Meyer was murdered in the
on the toe path right near my house,
childhood home in Georgetown, Cord
Meyer's widow, 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.
>> Yeah. Well, what I'd say about all of
this?
>> Sorry. It just makes me mad. It makes me
mad, too. I mean, it's so mean. Well,
it's it's and it's
every single one of these acts
that that they're in our face. 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.
Um
>> by Yeah. John Radcliffe.
And so, you know, I
as far as the dig is concerned, as far
as Steve Baker's story is concerned, I
that was the death nail for the dig. And
I think but it's got to make you think
if CIA is this involved in it, clearly
they were this involved in January 6th.
I 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 gate recognition
software as the person who planted the
pipe bombs on J6. I would say at least
we got to look at this.
>> Yeah. So I wouldn't say let's shut down
the investigation that produces
information. Right. Right. And if I were
I'll take Kyle Sarapin'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 going to let's go
over the old files and we're going to
I'm an intelligence officer. I'm not a
law enforcement." But I, as an
intelligence officer, if I were doing
something overseas and it 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 some brass tax of
what's what's going down. Go through the
old files, figure out what is happening.
None of that's happening. I mean, this
person who you 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
Bonino at FBI was defending this person
and attacking Steve. That's correct.
>> Yeah. Is that Can you verify that?
attacking. Wait, attacking Steve Baker?
>> Yeah, Steve Baker. Yeah,
>> I'm gonna help fund a liel 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 gate
recognition software, which the federal
government uses, by the way.
>> It's not a crackpot technology.
>> No. No.
>> Doesn't prove anything, but it gets it
moves you closer like a like anything
else. Facial recognition, right?
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, it it breaks things open so that
you can start conducting more
investigations.
>> Okay. So you're an expert in human
behavior. Of course, cuz you're like
recruiting spies. If this were happening
in Pakistan, not your country, you'd be
like, "This agency must be involved."
>> Yes.
>> In the event in question, J6.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and 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 demarsh. So
there's
>> And will you explain to people who don't
know what that what what does that mean?
>> 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 local,
um it's kind of weird if you take three
steps back. I'm not alleging anything at
all. I just happen to notice the pattern
that this happens in 2020. It's clearly
no one's proved that the election was
stolen as far as I can tell, but the
evidence that this was like not how you
run an election. It's this how a
fraudulent election is run, it's
overwhelming.
>> Mhm.
>> And then Trump gets shot in Butler and
then decides to hire Marco Rubio as
Secretary of State, Steve Walls's
national security adviser, and
critically John Ratcliffe as director of
central intelligence.
And then he he wins the election with
the majority of the popular vote. you
don't have any of these problems.
What I mean, if this were happening in a
foreign country, what would you say?
>> I'd have some questions. I I will say
part of the reason President Trump won
was because he managed to capture the MA
vote and he should be probably uh a
little more cognizant of uh what MA
>> should be endorsing mRNA technology,
>> stuff like that. But that's separate
from your point. Um yeah,
>> 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,
>> right?
>> Get the US out of the Middle East, end
the US dollar and the petro dollar.
Um, and that was your plan. Clearly,
that that's the plan that's happening.
And no American president would go along
with that cuz that would like destroy
your legacy and your nation,
>> right? Especially for someone who
campaigned on No,
>> 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
plan. Yeah.
>> 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.
>> Mhm.
>> Like maybe you get elected, maybe you
don't get killed if you go along with
it.
>> Yeah.
>> Has that ever occurred to you?
>> Yeah. I mean, if I'm being honest with
myself, yes.
>> Um
>> I don't know that that happened. 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, 6
months after saying we ended their
nuclear program to like restart again
without trying to convince the public
and then to do this thing that we know
is going to wreck our country, which it
now is.
>> Yeah. I what I what I
mostly uh not mostly what I very much
dislike is the alternative voices that
came together to form this coalition cuz
the the whatever MAGA is, whatever MA
is, like all these people came under a
very big tent and they offered their
voices, their support for President
Trump because it was a great coalition.
It was too it was awesome.
>> 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.
>> Is that true?
>> I think so.
>> Sorry, I'm just laughing. I was one of
them. Um yeah, no, that is definitely
true.
>> And and like Joe Kent, for example,
>> Oh, the best.
>> I He's a wonderful human being who
>> I agree.
>> 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 resign 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 at all.
>> At all. And
if you can't get through to a president,
you can't get your message across say,
"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
>> what's the option? Leaking to the media,
subverting the president's program.
Those are clearly less honorable
responses.
>> Completely. If you can't carry out a job
consistent with your own values, don't.
>> Yeah. I isn't I mean I don't know what
how is that bad? Isn't that what we ask
our children to be?
>> 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
nashing of teeth that came from
this people associated with this
administration. You know that they
treated him worse than if he was like
some kind of leaker. Well, actually they
claimed he was. Um,
>> well, they claimed he was a criminal,
that 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.
>> 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 was, you know, maybe one or
two layers below that, it sure looked
like blastos were going up around a
whole lot of people. And um I
Yeah, I don't know how we got on that,
but but I think
>> for just because it's sad and the
coalition that brought Trump back to the
White House in 2024 was like a beautiful
thing.
>> Mhm.
>> 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. Well, now that I am
>> It wasn't a hate based thing at all. No.
>> 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 it's
really it has worked and
truth now that I am not a government
employee, I can speak about my personal
political beliefs. Um I am a lifelong
conservative. I I voted for Ross Perau.
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. Yeah.
>> I was going to vote for Kennedy and um I
was going to go the 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 had never if someone had asked young
Jim, "Hey, Sunday, are you going to vote
for for a Democrat?" Um, I would have
been like, "That's that's crazy talk.
You know, I might vote for occasional
libertarian or Rosaro, but probably not
a Democrat." And I was going to go the
distance uh with him.
That coalition that he brought in,
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 promises are being broken. The
promises are being broken.
>> Mocked. 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. Um, somebody needs to wake
up this administration and say, "Hey,
listen. If the person who owns the the
MA agenda at the polls, they're probably
going to get those those little bits of
votes that are going to put them over
the edge." Um, it's it's a 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.
>> No.
>> 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. Yep. 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, he got remarried awful
quick." Really? Cuz 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 cuz
you're controlled by Israel. That's a
fact. So then to lecture Joe Kent about
getting married again after you oversaw
the death of his first wife, I was like
h can't deal with this anymore.
>> Yeah. You know, it's it's there's been a
lot of disappointment.
I know that's the understatement of the
year, but um a lot of disappointment and
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 never happened. Never happened.
In fact, this administration is is
just letting it move on. Like I've left
government service now. Um you know, I
co-founded an organization. If it's
okay, I'm going to talk a little bit
about that cuz I 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. 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, 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.
>> Yeah, of course. But, uh, you know, I I
co-founded an organization that sued the
federal government over vaccine
mandates. Um, we got together. We didn't
know what we were doing. We built a car
as we rolled it out of the, uh, rolled
it out of the garage. But, we were 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.
uh you know towards the end of my time
at the dig, the last year in the dig,
turns out that the uh CIA decided that
every single person who was
non-compliant with those vaccine
mandates, yeah, they weren't, you know,
just insubordinate.
They were spies. So they had all of them
investigated by the counter intelligence
mission cent's counter espionage uh
department.
>> Not really. Oh, really? All of them
said, "Yep, we got a check." So, um, I I
personally, uh, filed an OP, an Office
of Privacy and Civil Liberties
complaint, and I blind CCD every single
unvaccinated officer in the CIA.
And then when nothing happened after 40
days, uh, I sent it up to the, uh,
intelligence community inspector
general. I said, "You need to
investigate this. My problem is they're
purposely waiting longer than a 45day
period. Because as soon as I CCed all
these unvaccinated officers, as soon as
I CCed them, they have a 45day window to
file an EEO complaint. I know a lot
about the complaint process now. Never
used to, never made a complaint until co
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 Radcliffe. All we wanted
him to do was to expune the records. See
when you have a counter
>> John Radcliffe okayed counter espionage
investigations.
>> The investigation occurred in 2021
>> right?
>> Okay. It was discovered. So after it was
discovered we said hey listen um 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
>> you were investigated as a foreign spy
because you didn't want to take the
death shot.
>> Yeah. Because you didn't want to take
the death shot. And that was a simple
request. Hey, please just we asked.
>> Did Ratcliffe do it?
>> No. So now we have to sue. And so you
know I found proono legal support.
>> Why is Ratcliffe so vested in
>> I have no idea.
>> Slander against people who didn't take
the vax.
>> I have no idea. We And I don't know
maybe he's incompetent too. I 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, so I'm I'm I got out
of government service, but I'm still
working the Feds for Freedom. We're 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 EEO. We've got a there's a a
couple others, uh, 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
>> Well, it's just an attack on Christians.
That's what it was.
>> Here's a shot with aborted baby parts in
it. Can you take it? The people who said
they can't, they get invested as
investigated as spies. Get all the
Christians out.
>> Yeah. So,
at some point I'm going to go find a
normal job, but uh for right now I'm I'm
going to
>> Let me ask you one final question, one
final category of questions. So, back to
January 6th.
>> Sure.
>> 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 based on their reaction. It's
actually the worst possible um
conclusion if if I'm just going off
reaction. I have no data. I can't prove
anything. But it means that the capital
police, the FBI, and CIA were all in
bed.
>> Yeah.
>> And um they perpetrated a hoax of such
colossal proportion. And they, you know,
January 6, you had people rotting in
these jails.
>> Oh, I know.
>> For a very long time. If CIA was
involved in that, um maybe that four
wins thing,
maybe that's maybe that's where we
should be going. We should certainly
church committee 2.0
>> just shut it down. Shut it down.
>> Yeah. So, but that raises the question.
I mean, like the firewall always was
involvement in domestic politics. Yes,
we did overthrow Mosedc. 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.
>> Right. Right. And and yet I know for a
fact that there are CIA domestic
influence operations.
I've never seen one. But uh all the
indications are when you take a look at
the media um media blackouts, what media
covers,
it starts looking like something's
happening and you know
Yeah. They're pretty obviously involved
in the Monica Lewinsky thing. Not that
I'm pro Clinton, never have been.
>> Yeah.
>> But you think that's fair to say?
>> I think it is. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, um, that's like pretty
shocking that they would be involved in
our politics, don't you think? I It is
shocking. And like I said, I used to be
different and um
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 you can't
go back to that. So,
uh yeah, it's uh it's disturbing. We're
not getting reform and I have a feeling
um we've got more pain ahead for us if
if we don't make some changes.
>> I agree with that. Thanks so much for
taking all this time, Jim, to talk to
us.
>> My pleasure.
>> Congrats. You've been out of CA less
than a month and you're already doing
good work in Thank you.
>> Thank you.