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

[MUSIC] Thanks a lot for doing this. How long were you at CIA? I joined the CIA in 2013. I was in State Department before that private sector. I served as Second Ranger Battalion before that. Second Ranger Battalion State Department in 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, I think it started long before last year and had to do with vaccine mandates, which is a separate topic from COVID origins, but yes. You first came to my attention anyway, and thank you for funding vaccine mandates. I'm one of the most evil things those countries have ever done. 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 honesty, I came forward and I had done a transcribed interview for six hours and 40 minutes behind closed doors with the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. When it looked like that the CIA was obstructing our investigation, when it looked like every obstacle was being put in place. When the subpoena came, I was, frankly, I was happy to go. I was happy to speak publicly. But then you become, I mean, you're in a different category once you do that, I think. That's a big decision, isn't it? It is. It is. You know, I had, I hate to say it. I had some practice with the COVID vaccine mandates and, and frankly, you know, maybe we'll be touching on this earlier, but that story that came out publicly on May 13th in front of Senator Rand Paul's committee, I had passed that story to the Senate Select Committee of an intelligence in April of 2024. I'd also given it to the home, to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to oversight bodies in 2023. And the first time I came and spoke to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on COVID Origins was actually in November of 2021. Now the story was a little different then. But I came forward multiple times trying to let them know that we're being lied to. So those two committees, you pronounce, I mean, you spelled out their formal names, but just the House and Senate Intelligence committees, the oversight committees, right? This is the legislative branch's oversight of the most powerful, arguably the most powerful agencies in the government, which have very little civilian control, particularly CIA. I think they're only what three appointees at CIA believe three appointees, which is in my opinion not enough. It's totally crazy because it means whoever's elected by the public doesn't have any control over this agency, which I think is proof and truth, but anyway, the control is supposed to come from the Congress in the form of these two committees. So when you tell them something really rotten is happening in CIA where you work, you expect they're going to do something about it. I did. I think COVID opened my eyes. I was an operations officer. So I didn't, I most of the time spent most of my time out in the field collecting intelligence, recruiting spies. That was my job. I was not an analyst. I was not collecting other people's intelligence and turning it into finished intelligence. And I was a bit naive about you are doing a traditional work. When people hear the term CIA, they think of what you are doing for a living, which is not what most people there do. Correct. Correct. You know, the director of operations does the, conducts the operations for the agency. We collect the intelligence and this is why this whole living and foreign countries. Correct. You know, I, I was gifted many things from the agency. I was gifted Mandarin language training, Arabic language training. I could use some brush up on Arabic, but my Mandarin's still pretty good. You know, and they, they give us a lot of authority to live and work overseas. I love the job. I love the job. And despite everything that's happened, I actually still think if you're a motivated, critical thinker, you, you should try and get into the director of operations. It is fun job. It's a good job. I, I tried to get in for that exact reason, probably never should have admitted that because I've been accused of being a tool of CIA ever since, which I'm not. I think this interview will make it clear I'm not, but I just, for that reason, I thought it's like a very interesting job. It's great. You don't think about the politics. There's no politics in the field. It's about, it's such a small group of people that you get to come back and talk to about what you're doing. So if you're in the office, you come back and you're like, hey, I collected this intelligence. I recruited this spy. I did this operational act. The only people who can cheer you on are this, is that small fraternity of people. So it's, it's a special, it's, it was a blessing and a gift. Everything good in my life was touched by working at the CIA, which is why COVID woke me up to sort of the mess. I mean, we're supposed to be in people laugh when I see you're not living in McLean Virginia at headquarter in your headquarter. You're like a broad, right? For a lot of stuff. Oh, most of my career. Yeah. It was a broad, and I loved it. I finally came back to headquarters in 2019, right before COVID had, and being a CIA case officer or even any intelligence officer, your job and people are going to laugh, especially when you say CIA, our job is truth. So we go out, we, we go into this sea of misinformation, lies, different types of motives, and we're supposed to pull out that little tiny nugget of truth, write it up and present it to policymakers so that they can make wise decisions. In the most altruistic way, that is what we're supposed to do. And what COVID revealed was most of us don't, most of the agency, they lost their sense of discernment, they, they gave up on taking a hard look at what was happening all around them. I, I could not believe, I mean, I was running work on and financial intelligence against strategic rivals, and I had an office, I was running two big branches, and I had like seven people who had come to my office every day and like, we're not crazy, that this, we're not crazy. This, this masking, this thing where they want to test us all the time, like the shot, we're not crazy. This doesn't seem right. And that was, that's what started me down the road. There's a few other things before that, it was a, you know, a few other things before that that opened my eyes, but I'm also a slow learner. I mean, I spent some time in the Middle East looking at dumpster fires saying, well, you know, I know we didn't actually get this done, but thank God we're here for democracy. So I mean, I, I own that. You believe that? I did. I did for a long time. I, I no longer, I think that we probably should take a good hard look at the decisions we're making on foreign policy. And I think that whole thing about no new foreign wars was probably a good, good idea. Most Americans were strongly in a favor of that. Plank in the platform. Home ownership has always been at the center of the American dream. It is an actual asset in 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 sweeping 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 can keep it for your family? Interest is what kills you. Our friends in American financing have a better way. They're helping homeowners use their hard earned equity and they're supporting Americans looking to fulfill the dream of owning a home with mortgage rates currently in the fives. American financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month. That's about 10 grand a year. It's not just alone. It's a true financial reset. We recommend American financing. They're called America's home for home loans for a reason. So get out of credit card debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow money. No judgment, but it's just making any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 800-685-5696-800-685-5696 or visit Americanfinancing.net. That's about it. Well, you probably have heard about the van man company's amazing toothpaste. By the thousands, Americans are ditching traditional toothpaste in favor of van man. The switches like pivoting your diet from candy packed with red dye #42 organic strawberries. It is always better to stick with real ingredients. Today's big news is that van man makes more than healthy toothpaste. This launched a body wash made from the finest oils available in vanilla grapefruit and no scent at all. Van man's body wash can optimize your shower experience without all the sketchy chemicals that, well, who knows what they're doing to you? Other body washes cannot say the same. Their ingredient labels would shock you if you could pronounce them. You can't. Some of this stuff is very bad for you. One of them is a carcinogen. It's appeared in tons of body washes, but it's not in van man. Make the switch. vanman.com/vanman.com slash Tucker, use the code Tucker for 15% off your first order van man, dot com slash Tucker, code Tucker, 15% off, no weird ingredients, no exceptions, great toothpaste, awesome body wash slash Tucker, um, so you come out in this, let's just start with your testimony before rent calls committee about COVID origins. So there's point point, where did COVID come from? Do you believe it was a lab incident? There's 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 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 were 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 personally think any new technology is unwise to that's confirmed. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. We got, I think was, I forget the exact date. It was early January. The nucleotide sequence was sent from, um, the Chinese CDC over to, I believe it was our CDC, but it was sent over to the health establishment here in the United States. We took that. And it was, it was put into a computer modeling that I mean, my guess is there was probably a lot of previous work done on COVID. Um, so on, sorry, on coronavirus research. I should be precise on that. There's all sorts of corona viruses that we've been looking at over the over the years. It was a famous outbreak of course in Asia. Mm hmm. 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 Gavard was doing. But yes, um, I think that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan. And, um, it's, it's 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 hedge dancer. 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. Right. But the CIA would have had to have given the information that was requested from director Gavard's directors 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. 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've said it, um, and then subsequently, you know, it 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 pangolin lie. Yeah. And then subsequent to that, even when it became obvious that it was a lie, we were describing continued to cover up. Why? Well, um, part of the reason, I mean, Fauci is part of that reason. And, you know, we, you, 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 a, the Senate, I wanted to make sure I was very accurate and everything I said, I don't want to give some supposition, but I will give a little supposition here as well, um, because, you know, I have a brain, I think, you know, I've got synapses that fire off. And occasionally, when I see data, I don't, you know, if it looks, yeah, quacks like a duck. Right. So, um, I think Anthony Fauci was fully aware that, um, the funding that had gone on for various types of dangerous research, dangerous gain of function research have been going on for a very long time, okay? Different viruses, different bacteria. And, um, you know, there are IC connections to, for good, good reasons as well, bio defense, IC 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, there was a distinct possibility that American know how 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 bio defense. All the sudden, you've got a virus that looks boy, it's sure there, there's, there's a couple ties that tie the financing over to Wohanshina. He had to know, he had to know what that looks like at the end of the day. So instead, based on everything that's out there, he gets the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 written with his buddies. That paper gets waived around the IC as the end all be all as the paper to prove that yes, it's, it's a zoonotic 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 it like hook line 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 waived that, basically, waived 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-CoV-2. Why are they covering it up now? Fauci's gone, new administration. I think that, um, there's an embarrassment piece again. 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 from a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yeah. So there's, I think, um, I think, see, and hold on, let me be very clear about who doesn't want to be caught with their pants down causing a global pandemic. Um, very, the senior people within, um, DNIs, um, the part of the DNI that's responsible for looking into WMD matters and file weapons matters. And the weapons account of proliferation center over at the CIA. There's very senior people over there that had a heavy hand in what happened. And it's not the analyst, like the, the technical analyst that we're 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 really want to make sure it gets out. I want to correct the record. They were not bribed. There was, there was a number of analysts inside the CIA. And they did everything in their power to include writing a little dissent email that went all the way up to the top of WCPMC saying, Hey, listen, guys, we're technical experts. And I'm 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 if there's ever, so the entire leadership of CIA 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? But how can CIA get away with not producing those documents or documents from the Kennedy assassination 63 years ago? And they also have been produced as, you know, how, who allows that to happen? Oh, that's a, that's a pack question. There's a few pieces to that. So senior managers allow it to happen inside the CIA. And oversight, to some extent, let's say, well, oversight has failed clearly over the years. I'm not criticizing right now. I just recall, 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 in Tokyo. Yes. Yes. So, historically, they've abdicated their their role in oversight. 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 the essence would be of foreign intel service. Foreign intel service. So this is where you get declared to the foreign intel service and no longer hiding from everybody. And you're working together on goals that are you both care about. Hopefully. And 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 CI ops officers. He trained the junior officer on how to handle the meeting. I was so grateful. Years later. And I love the guy. Years later, he disagrees with me, by the way, on just about everything of substance, but he's a great officer. And he pulls me aside. I had gotten a job where I was interacting with oversight on a very regular basis. My job was to ensure that the things that were coming from the CIA that were going over to oversight were truthful, honest. We were producing things that was valuable for them to actually do their job. So when I never really done that kind of work, I dealt with oversight before. He says, here's how oversight works. Take, for example, we have to, we are supposed to report all of the organizations that have human rights abuses that we work with. I mean, the CIA works with bad people. That happens. That's my 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 explained to me, let's say somebody on the other side of the table says, hey, this service here, I don't like this. I don't want you working with this service. So he says, how do you handle that? I 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 we keep doing it, you got to get everybody else to pull the purse drinks. And that never happens. So like, you should just tell us to stop doing it then. It's become a kabuki dance. In my opinion, a kabuki dance, I sat in an oversight meeting that was three years after a huge failure happened. And they're asking the people sitting on the other side, the other people are talking to the agency officers. They're like, has anyone been held accountable for something that happened three years prior? And the agency lawyer leans in and says, we're holding the system accountable. So unless just how are we doing that? I don't, I don't, well, if they're holding the system accountable, they need some work because the system keeps chugging away. The system's not a person, right? Right. Right. Right. Right. Eating rights pretty important, but it's hard if you live here about half of the American diet is ultra processed foods. And that hurts you. Fake food harms your body, your mind, and especially your liver. So people think that feeling sluggish and foggy and bloated is just what it is to be older. But that's not true. Eating crap makes you feel that way. Well, our friends at DOS have a solution. It's called DOS for your liver. This doctor approved plant-based liver supplement is clinically proven to promote liver function and lower liver enzyme levels. That means you're less bloated, less tired. You feel more like yourself. All you need to do is take a daily two-ounce shot, tastes like orange juice, an easy shot of liquid. It's not the Vax. People we know use DOS 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 DOSDaily.co/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 35% off. That's DOSDaily.co/tucker. Code Tucker, 35% off. You're going to love it. So most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to feel horrible, exhausted, foggy, disconnected from themselves. But it does happen and it happens slowly. You're working hard. You're showing up and your energy disappears by midday. Your focus is dull. Your weight won't move. A lot of people are told that's just getting old. That's what it is. But that's not actually true. For many men and women, these are not personal fears. They are signals tied to your metabolism, your hormones and nutrient in balances that go undetected for years. You don't even know. You're deficient. And that's why we're happy to partner with Joy and Blokes, a company that was built for people who were all done guessing and ready to figure out what exactly is going on. And that starts with comprehensive lab work and a one-on-one consultation with a licensed clinician. An actual human being explains what's happening inside you and builds a personalized plan which includes hormone optimization, peptide therapy, targeted supplements. So don't settle go to joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 50% off your lab work and 20% off all supplements. That's joyandblokes.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker. 50% off labs, 20% off supplements. Join Blokes. Get your edge back. 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 chair leader for everything we do. He has no role in oversight. I think he's a complete chair leader. And I'll give you a very good example. I provide you a couple documents here. After my hearing, Senator Rand Paul sent another subpoena over to the ODNI saying we need all of this information. I'm not leaving with you. We want it. Well, Director Gabbard leaves. Pultie takes over. And Pultie gets a letter from Senator Tom Cotton's team saying, Hey, listen, here's what you need to understand. Sissy maintains oversight responsibility. Sissy is a senate intelligence committee. Sorry, Senate select committee on intelligence. We maintain primacy on an oversight for these sort of matters. And so, hey, Pultie, make sure, make sure that you consult us before you decide to give anything over to them. Okay. And not only that, I said that I had done a six-hour and 40 minute transcribed interview in a skiff in March of this year for his GAC Republicans and Democrats were both there. Well, let me clarify that. The Democrat tried to leave, but I insisted that he stay. No, I finished that transcribed interview. They won't give it back. They won't give it back to his GAC. Sissy will not his GAC is the, sorry, the Homeland Security government affairs committee. The one that ran Paul's on and Ron Johnson's on. I think some of the Democrats were on our Federman, a few others. I wouldn't know. They didn't show up to the hearing. So, you know, Sissy saying you can't have your own transcribed interview. Sissy saying we are the ones who have primacy over oversight over the intel community, but they're not doing oversight. And how do I know they're not doing oversight? I already sort of mentioned it. I went to Sissy in April of 2024 and I told them a story about six of seven technical experts saying COVID origins, you know, COVID originated in a lab incident and they did nothing with it in 2024. So, of course, Tom Cotton doesn't want somebody else digging into it because it probably just exposed us the failure of their oversight. Tom Cotton is so clearly a tool of CIA. Oh, 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. His wife worked at CIA as an analyst in Langley. I don't know, but I believe you know, and that is correct. I've talked to her about it. And so, I'm not blaming him. She's very nice. I'm not attacking his wife just to be clear, but that's pretty close relationship for someone who's going to be in charge of oversight of that same agency. Yeah. It's sort of like Fauci having his wife in charge of bioethics. That's an interesting little relationship. That's just, again, I'm not accusing Mrs. Cotton of anything. She's a nice person. And I think she's left CIA. But the point is that's weird. And then Cotton's reflexive defense of CIA against everybody, including the office of the director of national intelligence, is very, very striking. And his impulse always is to hide more from the public. 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. I mean, to say against a very weird guy. And almost everybody I know on those committees, I know a bunch of members is, I mean, Dan Crenshaw was on the House intel committee. So it's like, what is going on here? It feels like the ICCI 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. to 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 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, right? And I've heard that deeply. That's true. I believe that's true. Right. So Brennan is a sworn enemy of Trump. So why would you ever, in a million years, and Trump has said a million times, I hate John Radcliffe, stripped him of his security clearance, why would you put a guy he's in contact with in charge of CIA, like, what the hell is that? I don't know. I don't know. But what I think is 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. John Radcliffe, take the Trump-Russia collusion documents that director Gabbert released in, was it late July, 2025? So those documents were damning. I mean, it's treason, what they were trying to do. It was, it was like, and I read the unredacted documents. I read the documents. If this is our story, we're sticking to it. Okay, you can't unread that and then go away thinking, boy, good thing we've got great leadership at the IC. So that's all real. The thing is director Radcliffe was director DNI. He had possession of the documents that were released by director Gabbert when he was over at the DNI. He could have released them. He could have released them when he was at DNI. Maybe he was scared. I mean, I mean, I could put Trump, that was, he was, he ran DNI in the 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 of Trump claims he cares about most. And then the first thing Trump does when he gets elected, he's a point that guy, director of central intelligence, like what the hell are we looking at? Yeah, 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 flat out dumb. Like if, if you want to be followed, like he's, he's proven, President Trump is proven that there are people within the federal government that will go to great lengths to destroy people. Yes. If you want to continue to him, 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 it's the nicest way to address 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 notice something else, tell me if you have two that of all the appointees high level of capital secretaries, big appointees in this administration, Racklevis basically received no scrutiny in the press at all. Yeah. Neither did Rubio for the most part. Sorry. Sorry. Fair. Fair. Thank you. But did you notice that? Of course. I noticed it. It's, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a giant red flag. It's a giant red flag to me. I'm sorry. Who 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 on. 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 the CIA. We don't know what their budget is with 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? We're seeing it. Where's the New York Times on this? Where's the Washington Post? Yeah. I'm glad you mentioned the media because 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, personalize it here. In May 13th, you would have thought every news outlet would want to hear what, what was happening behind the scenes during COVID. Fox news was the only one that covered it. And that happens all the time. It tells me that the media is controlled. The media is controlled by the government. There's this thing where we've got an independent media. It doesn't exist. Okay. And that's a big problem for, um, government oversight is 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 going to, 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, sorry, inspector general. Thank you. I apologize. I don't watch dog. Yeah. Yeah. For the internal watchdog. 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? 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. You know, 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. I do think that people with relevant classified information should as close to the public. They should. They should. 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 worshipped in the land Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. 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 agendas 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 worshipped Jesus. There should be a lot of groups doing this and trust us. We have looked for over a year now and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing exactly that. And there 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 savewestbankchristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began that savewestbankchristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. And if you go to the media, if you go to Jake Tapper, maybe you're not, he's not going to. Yeah. No, he might criticize CIA too much. Yeah. Yeah. You're, you're playing, playing with fire because you could be putting yourself in a lot of trouble. And that, that's, that is an oversight mechanism. The whistleblower system is an oversight mechanism. And that's what, sorry. And that's what I love about Gabbard's release of information, for example, take the Trump Russia collusion documents. She included whistleblower testimony. It's not just straight documents. It also provides a contextual sort of real feel of, not sort of, a real feel of what was happening at the time from a real person. And so. Do you have any idea why this is the case, which is to say, do you have any clue how CIA influences the behavior of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News, the Associated Press, et cetera? My limited window, because I, like I said, I'm an ops officer up until recently. All I cared about was stealing secrets. Right. And some foreign country. Yeah. Yes, to be clear, not American secrets. I want to ask you about that. minute, but okay. My limited window is there's clearly some preferred outlets that they will go to. I mean, I see some of these things and these are puff pieces, these are, these are chair leading pieces, you know, talking about how great things are, you know, talking about all the things, all the reform that's, I've seen a few recent. The problem with C.I. I have long thought this is it doesn't get enough money. And so Congress needs to appropriate more money to say that's every piece is like that. No, right. If only if only they can, you know, they had full funding. Um, right. What? Right. Right. Which, I mean, which is a great point, you know, not only do they not get enough fund, no. Um, the funding piece is actually interesting that you mentioned it because it's also, sorry, this might be a non-sequitur, but I think it's important. Part of the reason we failed is, um, the Patriot Act and 9/11. Um, you know, I, I was part of the whole system post 9/11. I can tell you, I never had a time even during continuing resolutions where like if I went to the boss and said, hey, boss, I got this great operation going on and 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 were 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. 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, blah? Uh, they got confused as good leaders. So they got, they matriculated upwards. And they were never really, and this is a generalization, they were never really tested in terms of moral decisions or decisions that were waiting 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 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. He went 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, COVID heads. And you got people saying, Hey, I've got religious rights. Hey, I've got bodily rights. Hey, this is executive overreach. And no one knew how to handle that. And it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. The management, they're not leaders. The managers in the CIA are not trained to handle conscientious dissent and real moral decisions. For me, that was, that was it. They, they failed a test of their humanity. And that opened my eyes. There's an open, no one asks this question very often, but 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. 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 simply in 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 are reasons why they want to hide budget. And like, I really believe in sources and methods, don't want to see sources dead. We don't want to see sensitive methods destroyed. But, you know, if, if the naming conventions for the various offices that the CIA are made so indistinct that outsiders can't understand what they do in that office, well, that's meant to protect the type of operations where this sources and methods. 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. Well, why doesn't 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 that shouldn't occur. Period. I mean, morally, ethically no. Is it occurring? I worry it is. Oh, I feel it's definitely occurring. There's no question about. I mean, just, 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, which I've listened to carefully about where this money is coming from. And again, it's not all coming from the Congress. So what? Follow the money on 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 all can all be justified. If I were king for a day, if I were in charge and I wanted to start the process, I totally get this. It's, it's become such a gargantuan problem. Where do you even start? 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 that changed names. They have special authorities to grant no bid contracts under national security auspices. I would come in and I would start auditing every single one of those contracts that were given up 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 mechanisms that are in play for various types of intelligence work. I would definitely, I would definitely audit in Qtell 100%. InQtell needs to have a full audit. Can you explain for people who don't know what in Qtell is? InQtell is a, you know, it's the venture capital arm that funds all sorts of stuff that venture capital arm of what? Of the CIA. Okay. I mean, I know the, I just want to make sure that everyone listing understands that CIA has its own and I'm quoting you venture capital arm. Yeah. So we thought that something had happened like Sandhill wrote in, you know, Northern California, but no, CIA has its own venture firm. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, there, there's, there's real reason to have an insight into things that are tech and things that are about it. There are. There's good reason to have it. But if you're going to do it, if you're going to do it, 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, as you know, I don't know if you've been posted in Pakistan, but like Pakistan did this with its military and the next thing you know, the military runs Pakistan. And no matter who you vote for, the military still runs Pakistan. So you don't want that because that's the opposite of democracy, right? I spent two years in Pakistan. Okay. Then I didn't even know that. Yeah. Is that a fair assessment? Yeah. Yeah. It's a fair assessment. I mean, how many businesses does the Pakistani military own? A lot, a lot, a lot. Right. And they're the best fund institution in the country. It's really obvious when you drive around Pakistan. It's like all the mode lawns or the military bases. Yep. Yeah. Well, having life insurance is one of those things that helps you sleep better at night. Something where to happen to you. What exactly would happen to your loved ones? Your children. We've heard so many stories of families losing a parent and having their life insurance policy save their financial lives. That's the whole point of it. It makes all the difference in the world. The next question becomes, well, how do I get life insurance? And that's where ethos comes in. A company we're proud to partner with. Ethos makes securing a life insurance plan fast and easy and 100% online. People don't get it because it's a hassle. It's expensive to solve that problem. You get a quote in seconds, apply in minutes and get same day coverage. There is no medical example. You just answer a few simple health questions that you can get up to $3 million in coverage. Some policies is 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/chuckert ethos ETSOS.com/chuckert rates and obviously application times may vary, but it's great. So you don't want that here, right? No, no, I do not. And the American people don't want that. What they want, in my opinion, is we were told that we were going to get some icy reform. And we haven't seen one lick of it, except, sorry, that's not true, except with director gathered. She did exactly what President Trump said. I want you to downsize the DNI. I want you to pursue dewebinization of intelligence. I want you to pursue COVID origins. I want you to pursue Havana syndrome in 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 some detail, just a second, but first, I just want to go back to John Rackliffe, former Congressman, who were on CIA. Why hasn't he pursued reform of CIA? That's a very tough question because I'm not in his inner circle, but as far as I can tell, it's because he doesn't want to. He's perfectly happy to let the people that are running the agency, who are those people, those managers who matriculated upwards, who were confused for good leaders. Yeah, they're running the place. I don't know why he's letting that happen. Everybody I know in that world says that he's just a pure mouthpiece from Assad. Everybody says that about John Rackliffe. I don't know about that. I can't speak to that, but what I will say is he's not getting it done, he's not reforming anything. And I don't remember what they're called, and I'm not even sure I'm allowed to say what they were, but 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 could is that? The CIA continues to create products that have no oversight and can be held onto, especially if they're writing things up that they want to wait. Something that a product is you're talking about a new kind of type of pace, right? No. Analysts will write a paper, finished intelligence on some topic, and there's different types of papers you can read. They've got different names, but there's a new type 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 propagated outwards. If oversight wants to look at something, look at those papers that are being written 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, maybe the next administration. Who knows? Right. I mean, you're describing the ability to create dossiers on people. dossiers and all sorts of stuff. So here's the reform that I would 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 CIA does not produce that information, and then that's the point in which you call John Rackliffe and you say, "Listen, bitch, you've got 24 hours to do this, or I'm having cash, but tell you, have you arrested?" But there's none of that. It's like the president's proxies ask for information from CIA and they're like, "We can't find it." Yeah. Because that's a lie. Election security. Here's a good one. Kurt Olson is the guy. But like, would that work? Why couldn't you do that? You could. In theory. What do you mean in theory? The president, this is the president's agency. He was elected by the public. No, no, no. I agree. No, no, no, no. I agree. I agree. Like, I'm missing something. Sorry. Sorry, no. You are a hundred percent right. I'm missing something. Sorry, no. Like, frankly, Director Gabbard shouldn't have to negotiate with Director Ratcliffe over some of the stuff. She had people in her team that have all the intelligence background to handle the type of products that were coming out of CIA, operational traffic, those sort of things and had to negotiate. Everybody's got to negotiate. Why do we have to negotiate? Why would President Trump-- Where's the president on 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 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? Where you're under arrest. I just don't-- I don't-- What is going on? I wish I knew. I wish I knew. What I expected, we-- we, and I, you know, when I say we, I mean, the American public voted for the greatest disruptor in American history. He'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 we really want to see him successful. So, how hard is it to get-- and I'll just get to pick the most benign of them all, and that was Kennedy's murder, because it's so old, right? But there's not possibly revealing sources and methods. Everyone's dead. 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 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, times up, I want him now? There's a sea of lawyers who, covets and say, "Here's all the things that are-- 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 could just do it immediately. But for some reason, the bureaucrats, they all sit around covetsing over all the legal ramifications, I think. And Tom Cotton, too, is-- Tom Cotton, too. He doesn't want disclosure. At this point, if we're serious about reform, we just got to lay it all out and let it-- let it-- if the documents that come out, these operational records come out, and they show all sorts of wrongdoing that happened decades ago, maybe we can finally start correcting those mistakes that happened and improve the institutions. I physically handled the MKUltra documents, okay? They were about, you know, decide in the office-- and, again, I was hired labor that day. I just needed to move the documents for somebody into another office. But those were the MKUltra. I thumbed through them. And there's no reason. There is absolutely no reason to not just put that out, okay? I think those documents that are JFK, which-- there was no Daring Daylight Raid or anything like that. That was incorrect. But DNI was locked out of getting those access to those documents. And some of those documents-- 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 bullpucky. It's too long ago. It has to be released. There's an executive order with the force of law requiring the release of these documents. But no caveats in it. Yeah. So, they're breaking the law by holding these. You could say the same thing with the COVID 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 PULTI or whoever else comes after them, or even Ratcliffe, I don't care who does it, declassify them. There's thousands of documents. Of course, not going to happen, and I'm sure Tom Cotton would jump up and prevent it. Yeah. And it's too bad because the people who put this administration in office is going to look at that, and they're going to, they're not going to be happy. And well, it's not a democracy, if you don't know what your government's doing. And what about 9/11? Was there ever an effort to, because as you just said yourself, it was the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 that changed the whole structure, changed the country forever. There's never been a meaningful push to declassify it after 25 years. You know, I can't. There was no push for 9/11 during my time at the dig to declassify anything. It's fine. I wonder why. 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, 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, uh, behind the curtain, I can tell you, we can keep a secret. I know. I've kept secrets. I am keeping secrets, okay? Morally, ethically, I'm keeping secrets. 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 seven. That for me was wake up call. And that's what the C.R. office was. That, yeah. And so I have a real, real question about building seven. 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 CIA officer. It's true. I'm assuming that's a category, you know, you're just a category. I'm just joking. I know it's a category. I, you know, I, and I still, I still love the agency. But there's something, there's something off with, with building seven and something off. Yeah, like how did it fall down? 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 C.R. office in that building. They admitted it. I didn't misremember that. - No, you didn't. - Did anyone ever talk about this? - Well, you mean. - At CIA. - At CIA. - Whatever the course of my career went out. - Yeah, like what happened to our office in Building 7? - The building that no plane hit, but somehow it fell down. - So when I say I used to be a normal CIA officer, for most of my career, no one I knew talked about that. - Right. - And it wasn't till COVID that I started running into people, whatever this means. It wasn't till COVID that I started running into people and started asking those questions. And I was listening to them going, first it. - I had a CIA employees. - Yes, CIA employees. I had a visceral reaction when I first heard that. I was like, what are you talking about? I did exactly that. What are you talking about? I think that didn't happen. And as time has gone on. - I had the same reaction, by the way. - You know, I'm a slow learner. - Me too. - A slow learner. - I'm a slow learner, but there's a lot of questions that need. - So 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? - Well, I've put me on the spot here, but. - It doesn't mean it's true and you're not endorsing it. - I'm not endorsing it. - I'm interested to know what actual CIA employees think about the destruction of the CIA office in building seven. - A lot of people had questions about, you know, the folks that were dancing on top of the building and some of the-- - The Israelis, the sod officers. - Yeah. - So a lot of people had questions about that. A lot of people had questions about why was it insurance policy, I believe? You did a whole segment. That's why you did a whole segment on this. - Yeah, we did. - There's an insurance policy that was taken out right beforehand, which is pretty fortuitous, pretty prescient. They've brought up a whole bunch of things. And from my perspective, from my perspective, these are good questions that deserve answers. - So was the feeling of 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. And these are, yeah, these are active CIA officers. - I mean, it's pretty obvious. - Yeah. - If you take, you know, if you filter out the propaganda, the screaming in your ears from Jake Tapp or like, shut up, conspiracy nut. And just ask like, well, how did that happen? You can't get an answer 'cause obviously it was brought down with explosives of some kind. - Right, so but who did that and why? And by the way, that building collapsed in exactly the same way that the first two towers collapsed. So it does raise like a bigger question. If that was fake, well, what else is fake if anything? I mean, we don't know. But anyway, so all of these questions, if you're a former normal person and your colleagues at CIA, presumably also these normal CIA officers, you just cry. - Who I love, the great officers. - No, of course they work hard. - Totally kidding. - They're all trusted freedom fighters. - Yeah. 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 911 would be the number one thing you looked at in the dig. I would have liked to have taken a look at it. That seems obvious to me that because unlike the MLK assassination, which is, I'd love to know more about it. - Yeah. - 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 it. - Maybe, maybe. - Have you ever heard anybody say, hey, we should look, we should just declassify the 911 document. - Well, yeah. Some of the people in the dig said a couple times, but I mean, we have to be right. We were doing only what we were directed to. - What the EO told you to. - EO told us to do. We're trying to be-- - I want to follow the law. - Well, yeah, yeah, trying to follow the law, trying to make sure that we accomplished the mission that was put in front of us and get that done as quickly and as effectively as we could. And we found that, well, the deep state exists. I mean, I don't know what you want to call it. I love Mike Benz's description of it, the blob. I think it's the most accurate description. Because 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. - Yeah, it's miserable. - So the dig was the director's initiative group. - Initiatives group. And that's the group within the office of the director of national intelligence, O.D. and I run until recently by Tulsi Gabbard that was charged with producing these documents that Trump had called for in his executive orders. Is that all true? - Yeah. - So what were the, if you'll just judge by memory, the cases, the events that you were looking into? - Well, a lot of them are listed in that Rand Paul Sapina. - So if it's okay. - So, of course. - Yes. - So was the JFK assassination? - The declassification effort. And they sort of lumped MLK JFK. - Bobby Kennedy. - Bobby Kennedy. - In that category, there was election security issues. There was January 6th. There was COVID, Havana syndrome, UAPs. 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 wasn't doing. - Those are all super interesting topics. So let's just go through them really quick. And I'm going to ask you, do 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 those conclusions for me. So I don't have any revelations that I was following. Very closely. - I was shocked to know that the CIA was running Oswald. - Yeah. - Yeah, that's true. - He defected. - He defected, but that was all a scam. And the Russians were very paranoid about Leo 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. Am okay, anything? - Come to mind. - I wasn't wrong, sorry. January 6th. - I think your interview with Steve Baker covered quite a bit with that. And I think the only thing I want to add to that is 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 I've never seen a reaction quite like what I saw from the agency. - Tell us what Baker did, just so we have context for that. - Yeah, sure, sure, sure. So Steve Baker provided information based off gate analysis that indicated that a current CIA officer, former capital police officer, may have been the person who placed the bombs around side the RNC and DNC on the evening of January 5th, early morning, whatever it was. And provided it to the DNI. Now, he provided it to the DNI because, and I didn't realize this too much later, you know, as we're doing these investigations, sometimes you just need to bring in 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 asked him, "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. - Yeah. - Find great. And so he provided that information and a memo was typed up. The memo went to the PDDNI, the principal deputy director of National Intelligence and 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 to you know, people were losing their minds. When I say people were losing-- - They were so excited to get to the bottom of the space. - Right, right, right, we finally figured it out. 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 defamation in what way? - Well, you know, they're saying, listen, this person who was named in this investigation, you know, that individual was not 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. - Right. - They don't know that. And we know-- - There are a bunch of liars is what you're saying. - 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 was to take in information. - Exactly. - And are, 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 involved in this. Take it seriously. - But you're saying that the CIA did not respond poorly or analytically to this information from Steve Baker as provided by OD and I. They didn't say what. They decided they were gonna investigate the dig, okay? And I, like, for what purpose? - For people who provided the information. - Yeah. - Gave it to them. And, you know, to me, it's insanity. - 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's for polygraphs, by the way, which is basically an interrogation tool. And say, hey, listen, come on by. I mean, there was a fellow sitting next to me. me. He asked me, you know, how do I deal with this? And I said, well, you tell them that you work for the DNI and that you would like them to send a full list of the questions they'd like to talk about. Maybe send it to your lawyer. And you make sure you CC everybody in the DNI front office on that email chain because you want them involved in fixing this. That was insane. The reaction we got from them was a visceral reaction. And so if you, I mean, you were practicing trade craft 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 everybody on that, like, I'm not a genius here, you don't need to be a CO to have the exact same question. So what I'll say about this was 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 it was simply refusing things, slow rolling things, you know, even within the DNI's Office of General Counsel, there are, there are things that we want to push through there to make sure that we're street legal. Somehow they managed to slow roll even the stuff we were trying to get over to, for example, Senator Rand Paul's committee. That's, there was, there was questions and follow-ups that sat with that, that group for months. And we put on the specific, the specifics are in case of January 6. So there are a couple of things that jump out. One, that of all people in the world to be identified by a distinctive gate, apparently it's a product of a sports injury. That sounds like it. Sounds like it. But it's, whoever was in the figure in the picture at a weird gate, the woman Steve Baker says he thinks is that person has a sports injury. She's a capital police officer. But if all places do wind up working at CIA, how did she wind up, right? According to the court documents, she had applied for a job prior to six months prior to January 6th. I can't remember. Okay. 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? The worst in security, I don't know the specifics of her exact job. Is it possible that she provided security to the director? I don't know. It is possible, I suppose. They pull people in if they're short. So they'll pull people in to like, there's a special group of people that handle security for the director, deputy director, the coup, maybe not the coup. Well, the coups change names, but like the director and deputy director over at the coup, the chief operating officer is coup against Mosodeck. Oh, I'm sorry. No, just a little CIA joke. Yeah. Yeah. You guys know coups. We know that there's a different coup. Okay. So, yeah, I suppose it's possible. It doesn't matter whether she did or didn't. What really matters to me was that reaction. And it's worse because the information, there was a Homeland Security investigator that was given the information asked to pursue this. What was his name? That was the Osborne. And so he was found dead weeks later in his apartment in his condo. And 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 Mr. Osborne and his death. 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, there's no obituary. I notice. Yeah. But 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 gunshot? He was killed by gunshot. Okay. And it's worrisome because he was pushing to pursue this investigation. And people don't want to talk about it because they say, well, listen, we got to let the system work, work, work the investigation. We got to let the system figure out whether or not there's something to this. My issue with that is if there is nefarious intent, which I, I hope to God, this is just some horrible thing that happened to this poor man. Or if it's suicide, I hope his family isn't suffering, all those things, you know, 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 because it's not safe for anybody else who, who was aware of what was happening with that. It has to be talked about publicly. And I hope that Fairfax County police, because that's where the investigation is going on. I hope they're getting to the bottom of it. I really do. Because it's just interesting that it's someone who's spent his adult life working for CIA. And you said you, you loved it. 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 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, the Department of Justice after, well, I guess five years of not finding a suspect arrested some autistic black kid and charged him with the crime. It's crazy. I don't believe that from one minute that the autistic black kid does this. No, I don't not for one minute. And the other issue, I don't know. Do you think that Department of Justice is capable of framing someone like that? Apparently, I don't, I can't speak to motives. I don't want to 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 Serifin's podcast and what what he was on the surveillance team, surveilling person of interest three. There's other data out there that seems to indicate that there is, this is not the full story. I don't believe that that kid in my, this is just my opinion. But I don't believe that that kid is the one, the guy they got arrested, the autistic kid that, you know, has feet that are six sizes too big to be the same person. It doesn't, doesn't add up, but I will say is the NAACP involved this or the professional defenders of black people out there who are like out in force five years ago. I love black people. Okay. Now is the time for everyone who stood up five years ago during the George Floyd insanity. He even said, I love black people. What about this black guy? Yeah, autistic black kid. 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. Yeah. But I'm offended by this. Well, I'm offended because if this poor kid, you know, he, sounds like he's got some spectrum issues. Yes, spectrum. You know, I, you know, I've got people very close to me with mental health issues. Yeah. And to think that, you know, like, you know, what? 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 pinch on Meyer was murdered in the, on the towpath right near my house, sheltered at home in Georgetown. Court 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 him. Put him on trial. Yeah. Well, what I'd say about all of this. Sorry, it makes me mad. It makes me mad too. I mean, it's so mean. Well, 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. Yeah. And, and make us, make us feel like there's nothing we can do against this giant blob that does whatever they want. 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 knell 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 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 Serfen'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 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 start getting some brass tax of what's going down, go through the old files, figure out what is happening, I mean, this person who, you know, I don't know anything, I mean, I was not involved in investigating this, I just talked to Steve Baker and knew that's it. So I'm not alleging anything. But, I mean, Dan Bungino at FBI was defending this person and attacking steep, that's correct. Yeah. Is it, can you verify that? Attack, wait attacking Steve Baker? Yeah, Steve Baker. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to help fund a libel suit against you and all this stuff. I supposedly, he said, but he was certainly attacking Steve Baker. What does Steve Baker do? He used date recognition software, which the federal government uses, by the way. Yeah. It's not a crack pot technology. No, no, does it prove anything? But it moves you closer like anything else facial recognition, right? Yeah. I mean, it breaks things open so that you can start conducting more investigations. Okay. So you're an expert in human behavior, of course, because you're like recruiting spies. If this were happening in Pakistan, not your country, you'd be like this agency must be involved. Yes. Yes. The event in question, J6. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and that's, that's the problem. 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 an end. We explained to people who don't know what that, what does that mean? Well, 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 to happen in some foreign locale, it's kind of weird if you take three steps back. I'm not alleging anything at all. I just happened to notice the pattern that this happens in 2020. It's clearly no one's proved that the election was stolen. So far as I can tell, but the evidence that this was like, not how you run an election. It's this so a fraudulent election is overwhelming. And then Trump gets shot in Butler and then decides to hire Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, Steve Walsh's National Security Advisor, and critically John Ratcliffe is director of Central Intelligence. And then he wins the election with the majority of the popular vote and you don't have any of these problems. I mean, if this were happening in a foreign country, what would you say? I have some questions. I will say part of the reason President Trump won was because he managed to capture the maha vote. And he should be probably a little more cognizant of what maha should be endorsing mRNA technology and stuff like that. But that's separate from your point. 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 and the US dollar and the Petro dollar. And that was your plan, clearly. That's the plan that's happening. And no American President will go along with that because 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 changing plan. Yeah. You would, you know, you do whatever you could to make it clear to that guy. Like there's a carrot and a stick here. Like maybe you get elected. Maybe you don't get killed if you go along with it. Yeah. Is that ever hurt you? Yeah. I mean, if I'm being honest with myself, yes. I don't know that that happened. I don't know. Nobody has ever bothered to explain what did happen. If that's not what happened. Like, oh, it's just totally normal that we invaded Iran after, you know, six months after saying we ended their nuclear program to like restart again, without trying to convince the public, and then just do this thing that we know is going to wreck our country, which it now is. Yeah. What I, what I, what I mostly, not mostly what I very much dislike is the alternative voices that came together to form this coalition because that whatever maga is, whatever maha is like all these people came under a very big tent and they offered their voices their support for President Trump because it was great coalition it was. Yeah. 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. Just laughing. I was one of them. Yeah. No, that is definitely true. And like Joe Kent, for example, the best. He's a wonderful human being. Who agree? I look at the reaction to him residing the way he resigned. And I have friends who I deeply respect. I love them. And they're like, oh, you shouldn't have done it that way because of criticized President Trump. I'm like, you know, many, many, for many years, when people resigned 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 the 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 know. 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 gnashing of teeth that came from this people associated with this administration. You know, they treated him worse than if he was like some kind of leaker. Well, actually, they claimed he was. Well, they claimed he was a criminal. A criminal. He was under criminal investigation. His security clearance was unimpeded until the day he left. So we know that that'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 is sacrificed for this country. And, you know, he did an honorable thing. He spoke with respect to the president. He couldn't get through. So he decided to leave. 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 blast doors were going up around a whole lot of people. And, I don't know how we got on that. But, but I mean, it's just because it's sad in the coalition that brought Trump back to the White House in 2024. It was like a beautiful thing. 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 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 not 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 that's really, it has worked. And truth and out now that I am not a government employee, I can speak about my personal political beliefs. I am a lifelong conservative. I voted for Ross Perot. I, you know, I'm a Ross, 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 I was going to go that like I am a lifelong conservative that was going to go the distance for a president Kennedy. And in my opinion, he did one of the most presidential things that I've seen in my lifetime. He chose 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. 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, someday, are you going to vote for, for a Democrat? I would have been like, oh, that's, that's crazy talk. You know, I might vote for a occasional libertarian or Ross Perot, but probably not a Democrat. And I was going to go the distance, uh, with him. That coalition that he brought in, 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, no more war, make America healthy again, we're losing, the promises are being broken. The promises are being broken, mocked, mocked, openly mocked. And like, you know, I'll still go the distance with anybody who wants to protect religious rights, bodily autonomy, all those things. Nobody needs to wake up this administration and say, hey, listen, if the person who owns the, the maha agenda at the polls, they're probably going to get those, those little bits of oats that are going to put them over the edge. 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. She's a deep level. Not that that happened. I hope it never does. But, but you know what I mean? That's what it is. You, you caught Trump in bed with someone that's like, he cheated on you and then to lecture you about your lack of loyalty is too much. Your 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 if he was right, by the way, and 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, we got remarried off a quick really because it was under your administration that his first wife was killed because you didn't have the balls to get American troops out of Syria because you're controlled by Israel. That's a fact. So then to lecture Joe Kent about getting married again after you ever saw the death that was first wife. I was like, oh, oh, can't deal with this anymore. Yeah. You know, it's, there's been a lot of disappointment. So I know that's the understatement of the year, but a lot of disappointment is like, I have disappointment like to bring it back around to the conversation about the agency and everything else. I have a 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 never happened. In fact, this administration is just letting it move on. I'm like, I've left government service now, you know, I co-founded an organization. If it's okay, I'm going to talk a little bit about that because I think it's important. You know, I, at some point, I'm going to go into the private sector, but the thing about being a government employee, if you're in military or ford 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. That's the hardest part of leaving government service. You realize that there's a lot of people in the private sector who are incredibly impressive and you have to compete against them. Some of these government slubs are afraid to leave. Of course. I co-founded an organization that sued the federal government over vaccine mandates. We got together. We didn't know what we were doing. We built the cars. We rolled it out of the garage. 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. Successful. We filed 17-class action eos. You know, towards the end of my time at the dig, the last year in the dig, turns out that the CIA decided that every single person who was non-compliant with those vaccine mandates, yes, they weren't just in subordinate. They were spies. They had all of them investigated by the counterintelligence mission centers, counter espionage department. Not really. Not really. All of them said, "Yep, we've got to check." I personally filed an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties complaint. And I blinded CSEED every single unvaccinated officer in the CIA. And then when nothing happened after 40 days, I sent it up to the intelligence community inspector general. I said, "You need to investigate this. My problem is they're purposely waiting longer than a 45-day period because as soon as I CSEED all these unvaccinated officers, as soon as I CSEED them, they have a 45-day window to file an EEO complaint. I know a lot about the complaint process now. Never used to. They had a complaint until COVID, and I wanted to give them a chance if they were upset about it to actually file those complaints. A bunch of people filed the EEO complaints. But all we really wanted was, and again, this is under Director Ratcliffe. All we wanted to do was to expunge the records. See, you have a counter espionage. We John Ratcliffe, okay, counter espionage investigations. The investigation occurred in 2021, okay. It was discovered. After it was discovered, we said, "Hey, listen, new administration, this is an easy fix. Here's what we want. Just expunge the records. Just get that off your permanent security file because that's. " You were investigating as a foreign spy because you didn't want to take the death shot, okay? Yeah, because you didn't want to take the death shot. That was a simple request. Hey, please, just, we asked. Did Ratcliffe do it? No. Now we have to sue. I found pro bono legal support. Why is Ratcliffe so vested in. I have no idea against people who didn't take the vac. I have no idea. I don't know. Maybe he's incompetent, too. He should have. His staff were aware. I made sure that both Deputy Director and the Director's staff were aware that this was occurring. I wanted them to just fix it. And they didn't. So, we're going to sue them. So I'm. I got out of government service, but I'm still working the. It feds for freedom, where feds for freedom is suing the CIA over this. And we are still actually litigating class action eos. And this is a half decade later. So we've got an FBI class action eo. We've got a. There's a couple others, DOD, NASA. We're still litigating this stuff a half decade later, which is absolutely idiotic. It's this administration. They said they said flat out. We shouldn't have to have. Well, it's just an attack on Christians. That's what it was. Here's a shot with the boarded baby parts in it. Can you take it? The people who said they can't. They get invested. Investigative spice. Get all the Christians out. Yeah. So, at some point, I'm going to go find a normal job. But for right now, I'm going to. Let me ask you one final question, one final category of questions. So, back to January 6th, 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 is uncovering for DOJ or something. The government is clearly based on their reaction. It's actually the worst possible conclusion. If I'm just going off reaction, I have no data. I can't prove anything. But it means that the Capitol Police, the FBI and CIA were all in bed. And they perpetrated a hoax of such colossal proportion. January 6th, you had people rotting in these jails for a very long time. And if CIA was involved in that, maybe that four wins thing, maybe that's where we should be going. We certainly, a church committee, 2.0. Just shut it down at that point. Of course, 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 Mosodeck. 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 yet, I know for a fact that there are CIA domestic influence operations. I've never seen one. But all the indications are when you take a look at the media, media blackouts, what media covers, it starts looking like something's happening, and, you know, they're pretty obviously involved in the Monica Lewinsky thing, not that I'm pro-Clinton, never have been, but you think it's fair to say? I think it is. Yeah. So, that's like pretty shocking that they would be involved in our politics, don't you think? It is shocking. And like I said, I used to be different, and the variety of things that I entertain as possibilities are much, much wider than they used to be. You can't read an email that says, "This is our story and we're sticking to it," and not, you can't go back to that. So, yeah, it's disturbing, we're not getting reform, and I have a feeling we've got more pain ahead for us if we don't make some changes. 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 the CIA lesson a month, and you're already doing a good work. Thank you. Thank you.