Ask Dr. Drew - Ex-FBI Asst. Director Reveals Antifa’s REAL Origin Story + Christina Bobb on James Comey Felonies & Marc Morano on CA Wildfire Arson Arrest – Ask Dr. Drew – Ep 542

Episode Date: October 12, 2025

Former FBI Executive Assistant Director Chris Piehota reveals the origin story of Antifa, whose roots can be traced to 1930s far-left organization that directly contributed to “the eventual establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.” Jonathan Rinderknecht, a man from Florida, was arrested for allegedly starting one of the worst wildfires in California history. And former FBI director James Comey pleads not guilty to felony charges regarding alleged lies told in testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. Chris Piehota is a retired FBI Executive Assistant Director with 25 years of service leading counterterrorism and intelligence operations. A recipient of the 2017 Presidential Rank Award, he now advises organizations on national security and leadership strategies. He is the author of “Wanted: The FBI I Once Knew“. Follow at https://x.com/chrispiehota Christina Bobb is a Washington, DC-based attorney specializing in national security law. She served as a Marine Corps defense counsel, held DHS leadership roles, and joined President Trump’s legal team for election integrity. Author of Stealing Your Vote and Defiant, she now works with Judicial Watch to expose government corruption. Follow at https://x.com/christina_bobb Marc Morano is publisher of ClimateDepot.com, a former Senate Environment Committee staffer, and author of The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown. He produced Climate Hustle and Climate Hustle 2. Follow at https://x.com/climatedepot 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • VSHREDMD – Formulated by Dr. Drew: The Science of Cellular Health + World-Class Training Programs, Premium Content, and 1-1 Training with Certified V Shred Coaches! More at https://drdrew.com/vshredmd • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Susan Pinsky (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/firstladyoflov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex, Plathom, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best hapice in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca.com. All right. We are going to in about an hour talk to Mark Morano. He has written the Great Reset, Global Elites and Permanent Lockdown. We got a lot to get into. He was living in the palisades and he lost his house. We now have this Uber driver who had been arrested, having set the original fire. We got some thoughts about that. Then Chris Pajota. He is going to talk to us. about Antifa's origins. He, his bio is,

he is retired FBI executive assistant director, 25 years of service, counterterrorism and intelligence operations. And right up first is our friend Christina Bob. Coming back, her book is Defiant. Follow her at Christina Bob, C-H-Christina, B-O-B-B-D-com,

and Christina underscore Bob on X and Instagram. She's served in the Marine Corps. She's a lawyer, and she's going to talk about a little bit about Comey, right up to this. Our laws, as it pertain to substances, are draconian and bizarre. The psychopaths start this right. He was an alcoholic because of social media and pornography, PTSD, love addiction.

Fentanyl and heroin. Ridiculous. I'm a doctor for a shit. Where the hell you think I learned that? I'm just saying, you go to treatment before you kill people. I am a clinician. I observe things about these chemicals. Let's just deal with what's real.

We used to get these calls on Lovelin all the time. Educate adolescents and to prevent and to treat. Do you have trouble? You can't stop and you want to help stop it. I can help. I got a lot to say. I got a lot more to say. I'm excited to bring you a new product, a new supplement, fatty. I take it.

I make Susan take. My whole family takes it. This comes out of, believe it or not, dolphin research. The Navy maintains a fleet of dolphins and a brilliant veterinarian recognize that these dolphins sometimes developed a syndrome identical to our Alzheimer's disease. Those dolphins were deficient in a particular fatty acid. She replaced the fatty acid and they didn't get the Alzheimer's. Humans have the same issue. And we are more deficient in this particular fatty acid than ever before. And a simple replacement of this fatty acid

called C-15 will help us prevent these syndromes. It's published in a recent journal called metabolites. It's a new nutritional C-15 pentadecanoic acid it's called. The deficiency that we're developing for C-15 creates something called the cellular fragility syndrome. This is the first nutritional deficiency syndrome to be discovered in 75 years and may be affecting us in many ways and as many as one in three of us. This is an important breakthrough. Take advantage of it. Go to fatty15.com slash Dr. Drew to receive 15% off a 9% off a 9% 90-day starter kit subscription or use code Dr. Drew at checkout for that 15% off or just go to our website, Dr.Drew.com slash fatty 15.

All right. Let's get right to our friend, Christina Bob, again, Washington, D.C. attorney national security law, what she specialized in. She served in the Marine Corps, held DHS leadership positions, and she joined President Trump legal team for election integrity, author of stealing your vote and defiant. Christina, welcome back. Thanks so much for having me. So explain to people what trouble you got in and your perp walk that you were forced to take.

Yeah, I mean, I was a journalist during the 2020 election, and I was very vocal and reporting on pretty much all things related to the 2020 election. And I spent a lot of time in Arizona. I covered the Arizona audit. And I also, I'm an attorney, and I had volunteered for Rudy Giuliani post-2020 to help him with, you know, he was fighting the fires. as best he could and he needed some help. So I volunteered to help him. And then I was indicted along with Rudy and Mark Meadows and Boris Epstein and Mike Roman and then all of the electors in Arizona, John Eastman, for what they call the fake electors case. They were not fake electors. They were legitimately appointed and elected electors, but that's neither here nor there. So I got I got roped up into that. I was a journalist. I had absolutely nothing to do with

the electors case. I didn't even, I never spoke with anybody. in Arizona about the electors. I never drafted anything, no emails, no phone calls, no nothing. But the indictment said I'm closely associated with Rudy Giuliani. So obviously I'm guilty of something. So yeah, so I got indicted for that. Nine felonies. I mean, several decades, potentially the rest of my life in prison. That was over a year and a half ago. I was forced to, I mean, I self-surrendered, but I went out to Arizona. I was arrested. I was fingerprinted. I was assaulted by the press while I was there. It was an incredibly stressful and really just a terrible, all around terrible experience. Very humiliating, very dehumanizing. Having

gone through this, I now have a lot more opinions about our criminal justice system and ways we can improve it. But it was really a degrading, dehumanizing experience. And I was curious to see how Jim Comey was going to handle it. And to say I was disappointed. was an understatement. Because he wasn't subjected to any of these same scrutiny as you were. Right. Well, they treated him like a witness rather than a defendant. And don't get me wrong,

I'm not wishing him to be assaulted. I think what the reporters did to me was horrible, and I don't think anybody deserves that. So I'm not wishing any of that on him. But he should have to go through the process. The fact that they didn't arrest him, that they didn't kind of force him to walk through the front door

and own up to what he did, the same way they had all of us do it. They treated him like a cooperating witness. When the government has a witness that is helpful to them and cooperating with them and giving them information, they want that witness to be comfortable, to not be stressed out before testimony or an interview or before talking to a grand jury. And so they want to create the most comfortable environment possible for that witness because that witness is giving something to the government. that's the treatment that they gave Comey.

Let me ask something. Maybe you're putting your finger on something here. I wondered at one point if he would turn and become a witness and they use him as somebody to go after everybody else with. Well, I think that's a really good strategy, and it's certainly possible. They haven't done that yet. I mean, nothing's public that we can see that that has happened yet. I do think that is a very good strategy.

I think, I mean, he's kind of the. lynch pin to all of the Russia, Russia, Russia stuff. So that could happen, but we haven't seen any of that. So I don't know what they're doing. If that's what they're doing, fantastic, I will love to be, you know, wrong in the near future, hopefully. Yeah. Until that comes out, I mean, that's the only thing, that's the only way I can understand

it as okay that they took him through the back door, that they're going to treat him like a, like a, you know, witness for the, for the prosecution. But what has happened to your case? My case is stayed at the moment. The indictment has been thrown out. So the court has already said there's no probable cause for this. If the prosecutor wants to continue, they're going to have to get a new indictment

because the old indictment was thrown out as a violation of our constitutional rights. The prosecutor conveniently forgot to tell the grand jury that all of the efforts on the part of the alternate electors was actually in order to comply with federal law. because this was a federal election in 2020. And they didn't tell them that those actions were required by federal law, which is key. And so they led the electors, or I'm sorry, they led the jury to believe, the grand jury to believe that the only reason those electors would have been doing that was in order to deceive somebody or commit fraud or forgery, which is absolutely absurd and not based in any sense of reality.

But that's what they led the grand jury to believe. And the judge says, well, you should have told them what the rest of the law says and that this was actually an attempt to follow the law, not break it. So the judge threw that out, but he has stayed the dismissal. So it's hanging by a thread. She's already lost her appeal. The Arizona Attorney General has lost her appeal. But I'm just sitting there, like, you know, kind of waiting for it to blow over. Like, somebody just blow on it so it will close, but it hasn't closed yet.

So if it were to close, can you go back? and sue some of those reporters for their malicious reporting? Oh, for the reporters? The reporters are harder because they, I mean, they're basically reporting what the government's doing, right? So, but yes, I have every intention of going after the state of Arizona, for sure. So working through that. But, yes, I'm already putting that together.

I assume all of my co-defendants are doing the same thing. But, yes, there will be lawsuits. That's good news. That is good news. That is wonderful news. I mean, when all this craziness started, my son, who's an attorney, said to me very quietly, he goes, these things, the court is good for something. It can work these things out. And I, and as things started getting weird, I'm like, really? I see it going, I only see it going one direction. But what you're saying is it is kind of working its way through, and then you can

push things the other direction, which begs the question, what are we going to, to uncover here. It just feels like between Cash Patel and Dan Bongino and maybe Gapar, I don't know who else all looking at these things, that there's going to be some crazy story that's almost going to be difficult to be able to be told in the press because it's going to be so complicated. I think that's a good assumption. It is a complicated story.

You have many narratives, like you've got the government narrative, you've got the nonprofit narrative, of what these nonprofits are. doing as far as the funding and, you know, everything that took place just around the 2020 election or around Russiagate, the Comey situation is all Russiagate stuff. But there were, there's a lot of moving pieces. There's the financial aspect of who's funding this and, you know, who's creating these fake dossiers that people are relying on. There's a lot of different elements. I don't expect them to try to tackle the whole thing, at least not immediately. It's, it's pretty big. So I think, you know, like you said, this is the beginning.

Right? You get the low-hanging fruit and try to grow your case that way. So I assume and hope that the case is actually growing. I don't know how big they're going to want to make it. In my opinion, I would like to see the people responsible at the top prosecuted. I don't know, maybe some punishment lower down. But personally, I don't want a million people prosecuted because there's a lot of people involved in this. And I think our nation is tired of the lawfare. But people have to be held accountable in order for it to stop. They've proven to us that they're not going to stop until they are stopped. So I would like to see enough prosecutions to make it stop and then go no further. So I'll be curious where they gauge that line is at. I sometimes think to myself, part of the reason they may be pulling punches a little bit, is, so to speak, is that if you really go to the mat, again, I'm using all these weird metaphors. You're going to find treason. And then what are we going to do?

Right. You know what I mean? Well, you just nailed it. I mean, I think that's what Republicans historically, or not even that long ago, but that's kind of the Republican fear, I think. I mean, just kind of looking at the situation is, I think, and this certainly was true for the 2020 election, I think Republicans look at this and go, well, if I try to solve this problem,

then I have to solve the problem, so I'd rather just ignore. it. And that's what they've done for a long time. No, I don't think we can do that. I don't think anybody can do that anymore. I don't think, no, I don't think anybody can do that anymore. I think that has, I agree with you. That that time has passed. And, you know, and people, there was a lot of, oh, people are hysterical. Oh, they thought they knew it. They were doing. Oh, there was, you know, they didn't know. I'm thinking of COVID in particular. Guess what? Turns out they knew. Turns out they knew. and they were using illegal and unconstitutional means to silence people like myself

and to put people like you, try to put you in jail. And this is not okay. This is not okay. And there's, I always, my preference would be, this is my preference. I guess I'm a lightweight. My preference would be apologies from all these assholes and then some legislation that really put some teeth in these things so it couldn't happen again. Yeah, well, that's actually the better approach.

And I discussed this and defined, actually, that is the preferred method, is the people that have been abusing the system to go, okay, okay, we get it. You caught us. We're sorry. You know, we did it. We shouldn't have done it. You're right. That is the better approach. The problem is they're not doing that. And until they do that, we have to put the pressure on them through prosecutions. I don't know of another way to do it to get them to the point where they agree to stop. But you're right. I would prefer that as well. I don't. I'm sick of all the lawfare. I'm sick of all of it. And I think America agrees with me on that. But I also don't want to continue to be prosecuted. And I don't want to be sued. And all of the stuff that came at me, I don't want it anymore. And so they're leaving us no choice but to fight back.

But you're 100% right. The better approach to this is the people who are abusing the system just agree to stop. But they're not doing that. And I'm going to tell you something else that I've been sort of, I forget who the guest was I spoke to about this. Maybe Caleb, you can remember, remind me it was Tom Rents. Samarans, which was that some of this is your profession. Some of this is your profession. But I mean, you're doing it, but you don't police yourself.

And I've always said, you know, my friends of attorneys, they seem to have lost their way. Like their moral compass just gets dissolved by the relativism of who's, my dad used to always say, I'm getting full of metaphors today, whose ox is being gourd. You know, it's like, oh, it's everything. It's just what your position is. And there becomes no right and wrong for some attorneys.

And if that becomes your mindset, there better be some profound ethical guidelines in place by the bar associations or the law to make lawyers not go sideways. My fear is that some of these people who are engaged in law, lawfare over Trump and then are being accused of literally the same thing they're accusing him of. We're like, what's wrong with this? It's no big deal. It's just whether somebody finds it or not or something, some crazy thinking. 100%. It is a double standard. I've had to defend my bar license. Rudy got disbarred. John Eastman got disbarred. A bunch of conservatives have been disbarred. Jeff Clark, everybody, for nothing, for actually doing their job appropriately. Jeff Clark got disbarred. He was the professional at DOJ in the first Trump administration who was working with the president post-election. The Supreme Court ruled that all of that is privileged, and that's immune from prosecution. And they didn't care. They did it. They used it all anyway, despite the Supreme Court ruling. So they're just ignoring the law. They're holding conservatives to a fake standard,

and then they themselves are not held to any standard. It's actually a really scary place to be because the more attorneys, the more conservative attorneys that are getting disbarred and the left seems to have complete impunity, they can do whatever they want. Eventually, there's no more conservatives to fight. So I don't know if it's intentional or unintentional,

just a consequence of their actions, but they're getting to the point where they have no political opposition, because the attorneys who know this is wrong and want to fight are not as willing to do it because they have a family, they have a business. They're like, I'm going to get disbarred if I, you know, go against what I'm supposed to go or, you know, what the narrative is or whatever the left wants. And so they're actually pushing out, I don't even want to call it conservative.

Yes, it's conservative, but it really is just the opposition to the woke left. And not everybody's conservative, but they're running out of lawyers because they're either getting disbarred or scared into not actually taking those cases. And so it actually really is a very dire situation. And you know, you look at the American Bar Association and the state bars of these places that are doing this. And it is, it is woke. It is absolutely woke. You see it with medical boards. How many people got, you know, their licenses revoked for the way they treated COVID. When they were actually ethically treating COVID or, you know, the psych boards, you know, psychiatrists boards, these professional licensing associations are actually creating a significant

threat in our country by silencing opposition. It becomes similar to academia in terms of how they're operating. And I don't know if they're funded by the federal government or what, but maybe their funds can be cut off or threatened or something. Well, it's funny, Doge did release. Did they? I'm sorry. Well, Doge did release the American Bar Association was receiving funds from USAID for human trafficking.

I don't know what the heck the bar. The American Bar Association is running a human trafficking. I don't know, but they were getting millions of dollars from USAID for it. Did it stop or is it still going? I don't know. I mean, I believe it's cut off. I know Doge exposed it and I believe they're cutting it off or did cut it off. but why the heck were they taking it in the first place?

It's a Bar Association. The Bar Association is not a nonprofit running anti-human trafficking, but apparently they do. It was clearly a bonanza. If you knew the bonanza was there, you could find a reason to go get money and you would get it. And it was all on the back of the American taxpayer, which is just so shocking.

So what do you imagine is going to happen with the Comey case? Do you have any opinion about that? Well, I think DOJ has a good case. I mean, it's pretty clear cut. Even the judge in the arraignment said, I don't think you need a lot of time for this. You have the statement that he said. You have the facts of, you know,

what was actually what happened, the leak, the classified documents. So the judge set the trial for January. That's really fast. Usually trial dates get pushed back. So I do expect it to get pushed back. But I also, I kind of agree with the judge. I know DOJ wanted more, a little more time.

I don't think they need a lot of time, unless, to your point, they are expanding this case. So I think we'll find out relatively soon whether they're expanding this case or they're taking it as like, you know, a rifle shot, this one issue with Comey. We should find that out in the next couple months, I would think. I can't imagine that it's not expanded. Just because there's just so much going on. There's so much going on. But I still think Comey's going to be in some trouble also.

Who knows? Who knows what the bargain will be? but he certainly seems like someone would be easy to manipulate, not manipulate, to get to turn. Let's put it that way. Yeah, I mean, he looks like a squishy coward. Somebody told me a story.

Somebody's, it's not that. It's somebody told me that when, who told me? Someone was in the room with him and Trump, during Trump's original, the first president, the Trump won, and he was setting up his secretary positions and whatnot. And he's, I forget who told me this. I wish I heard so many great stories.

I remember what my sources are. I'll think of it at some point. But it was a woman and she said that she was there listening carefully to what was going on because she really didn't trust Comey. And it was just she and Comey and Trump. And Comey pulled him aside. And she said she leaned into it. Who was this?

Somebody was in the government now again. And she said, Comey went, hey, Mr. President, but, you know, we're hearing there's this Russia dossier running around here. And, you know, listen, I'm on to it. But I want you to know, I plan to stay in my position at the FBI. You see what he was doing? Like, I'm going to manipulate you by threatening you with this dossier, this false dossier that I created to make sure that I stay in my position as director of the FBI. And this woman, I wish I could remember who it was. told me as subsequent he called me left and Trump goes,

what's wrong with that guy? He's weird. What's up with that dude? What's he mean? Yeah. Something like that to me. Isn't that a story? And so when you hear that story, you think, oh yeah, this is a guy yet to say anything probably. Yeah, I think so. And I think they grossly misjudge Trump because he doesn't, he doesn't respond to stuff like that, obviously. He, or at the very least, he's going to respond differently than you expect. He's not a coward. He's incredibly confident. He also didn't do anything wrong. He didn't

actually commit crimes. And so it's easier to push on people and scare them when they in the back of their minds know, like, oh, they actually do have something on me. But President Trump doesn't have that. In his mind, he's like, I didn't do anything. Like, what are you going to do? You know? And I think they forget that.

And this is just kind of, this is a gross generalization. But it does appear that there's so much like dirt on everybody that everybody's using, you know, these fake dossiers or you know, whatever, using on each other that everybody is a little bit beholden to everybody. And Trump's not that. That's part of why they hate him because he's just like, you don't have anything on me, you know?

And so it doesn't work as well. And that same strength you're pointing at is also what freaks people out and makes people upset. He's heedless. His heedlessness. Heedlessness is kind of scary to be around. It's like, whoa, dude, stop it. Which is why America's love him. And why people get Trump derangement.

It's both. It's kind of a weird thing he's got. So lastly, the NGO thing is just such a shocking story to me. Speaking of needing legislation to straighten that out, how do you think, is that going to just mill through the courts too and be the source of all the corruption? Is this the story that has to get told or is there going to be laws put in place to undo it and we don't have to know every dirty detail? I hope it's all fleshed out. I have a motion pending in my case, which both the terms of,

trial court and the Court of Appeals have refused to hear about the NGOs involved in my prosecution and Michigan and Wisconsin and Nevada, all the electors cases. It's a pretty good motion. Motion to disqualify the Attorney General relating to their involvement with these NGOs. I think it's incredibly important. I am doing everything I can to raise awareness on it, so I hope that it doesn't fade into the background and people just kind of gloss over it. Because, I mean, and you know, and this happens on the medical side as well, if you don't cut off the funding, it's just going to change shape and continue. So there has to be a way, whether it's through legislation or court exposure or just, you know, generally exposure. Maybe the administration can expose it all. I don't know.

But I think that's a key something that's incredibly necessary, a key component to ending all of this weird, not just lawfare, but just, all the weirdness that Americans are looking at going, what the heck is going on? I think a lot of it's coming from these NGOs. So I'm really hopeful that the Trump administration will actually take that on. I am pushing it with everybody that I know and the court and legislation because I think it's that important. So I don't know. Well, keeping my fingers crossed on that one. I mean, you're talking about corruption.

You're talking about corruption. And, you know, like everything else, what really solves what cleanses the system is the invisible hand of the market. You know, could make them. compete, cut off the artificial supplies, and stop this. Because those artificial supplies are guaranteed to create corruption. And then again, the bonanza that's been underwears since God knows when, it's just shocking. It's just so, I sometimes listen to, I interview to French journalists here. I listen to it frequently.

They listen to how they think about us, you know, what they see. And they call it hallucinating. Hallucinol. I can't even believe it. Like, it's unbelievable what's being uncovered. It's like you can't imagine. this. And I thought, yeah, that's, and people, that's the problem. It is so incomprehensibly, like, ineffable. Like, like, you just can't be real. It can't be true that people dismiss it as not true.

Yeah. And I think it's so shocking that a lot of Americans get concerned, like, they either feel like there's nothing they can do, or it's so overwhelming that they kind of shut it down in their minds because it is so big. So we have to overcome that hurdle as well because it's so important that Americans actually understand. No, it actually is this bad. It really is this bad, and it's got to get fixed. I do think the Trump administration is doing everything that they can. I'm less confident that Congress is doing that, although I'm hoping that pressure will make that come about. But, I mean, it's essential. Otherwise, our nation is for sale. Our freedoms are for sale. Our medical industry is for sale. Like, everything's just bought out by people who are siphoning money from the government.

Yeah, that's right. So, Christina, we anoint you, please, please, please don't give up. Please sharpen all your swords and start swinging and gather your armies and this can't go on. But it's, as you're, unfortunately, I didn't know this, but you pointed out the numbers are small. But it's going to have to be a David and Goliath situation. Yeah. Well, the good news is, we're David and I'd rather be David. Exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. Rather, might makes right. Right makes might in this case. Well, listen, it's always inspiring to talk to you. And I always walk away both inspired and overwhelmed at the same time. Oh, my God. I, you know, it is a little bit of a sort of an NGO derangement syndrome. I think you can get pretty easily, which is that, oh, no, I don't want to look at it. I don't want to know. It's too much. It's like, oh, my God, you got to be kidding. Really? but we got to do it. We'll get there. Every thread, every root has to be undone. I guess it's underway, but it's going to be a small group like yourself that tells us about it.

And I love that you were a journalist, so you can go out and do that, you know, really not take the BS that God knows what the journalist will try to turn on you to sort of discredit what you're doing or saying. And who knows? But you can count on us here. You'd be helpful. So I hope you'll turn to us if there's anything we can do here. And you're right. The medical system has all the same distortions. And COVID, they have Donald Trump brought the forward to define it.

And the COVID exposed so much problems, but we're sort of kind of working a way through it. And we have Maha after all this kind of help. But it's a similar kind of a project. It's big. Okay, Christina, thank you very much. Thank you so much. You got it. I follow her, Christina underscore Bob,

and Christina's with H-C-H, B-O-B-B-C-B-Rastinabob.com, and get the book Defiant. You hear her whole story and what she, as she was telling you there, she has some ideas about how to correct this. All right, Chris Ayhota is next. Wanted, the FBI, I once knew. He's going to talk to you.

He's, of course, the retired FBI executive assistant director, 25 years of experience, counterterrorism, intelligence. And we're going to talk about what has happened to national security and to the FBI and what hopefully can happen or is happening. Make things better. Be right back after this. I've spent most of my career dealing with illnesses that shorten life. And now we have ways to extend it and extend wellness. I've been working with the team over at V Shred to develop a product that has everything I want in a longevity supplement. NR boost has nicotinamide ribicide. You know a metal

can rust. Well, your body behaves in a similar way. It's mediated through something called NAD. NAD falls as we age, so we're less able to fight off that oxidative process. We oxidize much like that metal. And NAD fights it, but nicotinamide riboside elevates NAD so we can push back on those oxidative stressors. Improving health, improving longevity. The other product is Senosink, has phyotin, one of the key molecules to fight off zombie cells. And we've added resveratrol to that, which is a well-known anti-aging antioxidant again. I don't like supplements that have a ton of ingredients. To me, it suggests that none of it's working. When I prescribe a medication, I prescribe that medicine because I expect that to work. That is exactly what I've done with these products.

And I want you to go to Dr. Drew.com slash v. shredmdmd for 10% off. Again, that is Dr. Drew.com slash v. shred MD. The wellness company knows that taking charge of your family's health care is a top priority and being rationally ready and who knows what the future will hold for us. Now TWC has a service to cover your family's medical needs, including and especially prevention. For just $100 a month, the one wellness elite membership includes two free medical grade nutraceuticals per month, free prescriptions for over 800 of the most common medications, access to concierge telemedicine, available at a moment's notice, and a 15% discount on all

supplements and the emergency kits. 15% up the emergency kits. That's quite a saving. So if you're spending $100 or more on supplements and meds every month, this plan will already save you money. If you sign up for a year, you'll save $200. And when you use the link, Dr.Drew.com slash QC, you'll get 10% off the first payment to the one wellness elite membership. Check out one wellness at Dr.du.com slash TWC and get 10% off your first payment,

Dr. Drew.com slash TWC. It's all there. And that's just trouble in a relationship. Sean, who are you? Like Dr. Drew all of a sudden? And our friends at Pahlia Valley, one of their beef sticks, my favorites. They're all in for fall.

Constantly updating their amazing line of products. Grass fed a finished bone, broth, protein, powder, savory flavor, turmeric, ginger. There are hundreds of demonstrated health benefits, of course, of turmeric. and Paleo Valley uses only a certified organic whole food turmeric. As you know, Paleo Valley's bone broth is made with bones,

not hides, as some are. And each group has 78 grams of collagen protein, one of the more important proteins in the human body, and we tend not to get enough. And that's why I put it in my, the chocolate variety is what I love, and I put it in my coffee every morning. And it's like, it's like 70 or 80 calories, a great

wind-managed appetite. And they have new pumpkins by superfood bars, which I also love, made with the same impeccably source bone broth powder. There's the spice bars. It's pumpkin for the holidays. Go to Dr. Drew.com slash paleo valley to get 20% off when you subscribe or 15% up with your first order, Dr. Drew.com slash paleo valley. We love those guys. All right. Next up. As I said, Chris Pahauta is coming in. You can follow him. Oh, there we are on X. Chris, C-H-R-I-S, is spell his last name, P-I-E-H-O-T-A on X. Chris, welcome and thank you for being here.

Hello, Dr. Drew, and thanks for the visit with you and your audience. I told you not to look so scary. You came back looking kind of scary now, so we look very FBI compared to how I saw you know. It is the FBI uniform. So what is it that you knew and what you're seeing now? With regard to the FBI? Yeah, I mean, at the FBI, you wanted to the FBI, you want. once knew is the title of the book, right? I once knew. Right. I'm wondering what that was as compared

to what we are seeing now. And then, or what you had seen recently, I'm assuming it's going back towards the FBI you once knew. Yeah, well, when I came up in the FBI, it was a completely different organization. I joined in the mid-90s, and it was still run by the old G-Men. You know, the folks, some, a lot of the folks still worked for Hoover. And we had a lot of older guys who still wore fedoras and the FBI uniform to the office. And they brought us up in a way that everything we did had to be, again, skilled, objective, apolitical, and professional. They would accept no less from the new people.

And we were taught that things had to be done in a certain fashion and that there was no room for our personal ideological beliefs or political beliefs. It was about investigative work. It was about facts. Remember the old Joe Friday? Just the facts, ma'am? That's the FBI that I grew up in. And over time, the FBI kind of lost its ability to navigate the political landscape as well as it once had.

And some of the leaders started substituting their own beliefs and ideas for FBI mission parameters. That's kind of where the FBI went off track. And we saw it take a really hard turn over the past. past several years under the Biden administration? So people I know that were in the FBI and pretty much in your era, one of the, one of the criticisms that I've heard is that the people in the administrative structure did not spend time as field officers, or if they did, it was not sufficient amount of time. Is that some of the source? I'm wondering what adulterated this. What got underway that got it so far off the rail? Well, the FBI, toward the end,

of Director Mueller's tenure, the FBI was a very fatigued organization in the post-9-11 years, very hard years for the FBI. And when Director Mueller left, Director Comey came in. And while he was, he was 180-degree different person from Director Mueller, who was intimidated, very, very scowl on his face all the time. And Director Comey was very affable and, you know, always had a smile on his face. So, Director Comey came in and started changing the FBI from the older, more G-man-related organization to a more corporatized FBI. They brought in some people who were more liberal in their thought processes, and they also started trying to pattern or benchmark FBI leadership and administrative practices after the private sector,

basically tried to run the FBI as if it was Google or Netflix, And that's where the FBI really started to kind of take a bad turn. And as that started getting underway, at least in your, I guess I would say in your time in the FBI, you were able to look at amongst other things the origins of not just what had happened with the FBI, but things like Antifa. Tell us about that. Yeah, absolutely. I worked in the counterterrorism arena as well as the intelligence arena. and we looked at Antifa and groups like Antifa who were bent on anarchy disorder. They looked to undermine the rule of law.

They look to undermine our societal systems and governmental processes. So we studied those types of groups. When you say our system, were you looking at them over in Europe too or in other countries as well? Because it feels to me like some of these started over there. Absolutely. And what we do is we look at the origins and we look at how those ideas and practices are imported into the United States. As far as Antifa goes, Antifa is a European product that started out in the circa 1930s time frame in the Weimar Republic area of Germany. And it was a communist organization.

And that organization fought against what they consider to be nationalist movements, the Adolf Hitler and the Nazi movements and some of the more liberal, I wouldn't say liberal, but mid-left movements, they would fight against them because they wanted to have that more far-left ideological position on things and a social structure.

So that, I guess you could say, Antifa movement started there and fascism became a buzzword across World War II. and then it kind of went dormant for a little while because the communists pretty much picked up the whole anti-fascist thing you saw after World War II, East Germany

considered itself an anti-fascist country and then it moved to the United States gradually and a lot of people won't realize this but Antifa as an ideology moved to the United States largely through the punk scene That kind of, it originated in the 70s and 80s, early 80s, punk rock music, punk rock culture is where Antifa moved into the United States. That's really interesting. I did not know that. But I did notice that, and I've never heard anybody articulate this, and you tell me if this is correct, because I've spent a lot of time out in the streets with homeless populations, always amongst the homeless, you will find these. tents with a bunch of political slogans on them or Antifa symbols of various types.

And always what comes out of that tent is a 35 to 45-year-old male with a backpack and a skateboard and typically white. And I thought that that's a sociopath, first of all. That is somebody who is aggressive and violent. It doesn't give a damn about anybody. But those seem to be the guys that show up at all these demonstrations. Largely, you'll find that is the those fringes of society is where Antifa and other, I would say, Marxist movements, that's where they tend to recruit from most. Because these people are already disaffected. They're already separated from main society.

They feel left out. And these are the people who have a lot of already anger with the system, so to speak. So they're ready targets for this. And that's where you find a lot of those folks, they kind of percolate in those environments. Where's the money coming from? to organize all this. Well, what we find is as we look at the Antifa growth over time, right? We talked about how it was imported, and then it kind of resurged in the 90s, right?

With the advent of the kind of skinhead movements and the other white supremacist movements of that time, the militia movements, the anti-fascist movements also gained a resurgence to fight those movements that they were against, and what you really saw was during the, what was it, the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, where we had the riots in Seattle, that's where you really saw this Antifa approach start to coalesce. And you can see that's where the black block approach of the clothing, the common dress, the common tactics all started kind of forming and becoming visible. What that tells me is that they became more of an organized movement. And what people say about them is that they're not a group, they're a movement. And what I like to say is

that they are a decentralized movement that operates under a unified set of ideologies and tactics. They're a leaderless resistance. And probably sources of income and money, right? There's clearly a lot of money supporting these projects. Absolutely. And what you're finding now is Go ahead. I'm sorry. Finding. No, what I'm thinking is, is that the FBI and its investigative work always looks for money in logistics. Somebody has to be funding, organizing, and supporting these efforts.

Like you said, a lot of these people don't come from the higher ends of society when it comes to logistical support and resources. So we start looking at who is funding these people. And where it's coming from mostly is leftist organizations. the extreme liberal left and globalist organizations from overseas, they fund these activities to foment, disarray, distraction, civil unrest, and it undermines the ability of the governmental structures in the U.S. to protect citizens and maintain security and communities, especially when they start moving more toward that political bent,

which they did in 2016. There's a lot of opposition to the first Trump administration, and that's where Antifa really kind of made its bones. And so what needs to be done other than cutting off the funding, if that's possible? What would you recommend? Well, we have to make an environment where the Antifa movement is denied access or denied accommodation. Right now, they demand access and they demand accommodation, and then they start moving into an area where they make demands and then they seek to dominate.

That's their procedure. That's how they work and you can watch it and everything. Two books I'd like to recommend to folks if you really want to see how they do it. You'll see it in everything. First one is by Saul Olinsky, the Rules for Radicals. The second one is by a gentleman named Cleon Klausen. He wrote a book in 1958 called The Naked Communist. And there's a list of objectives in that book that it was written in 1958.

And if you read them, you'll be frightened to see that they've accomplished them all. And that's why we're in the state we're in. You can see that their tactics are of a certain method. We have to make it to where they can no longer do these things. I know that the president has designated them as a domestic terrorist group, but we have to be careful because a lot of their activities straddle the line between violence, behavior, criminal behavior, and First Amendment protected speech in this country. So I think we have to get a little bit sharper on how we define certain things and how we

actually bring consequence to some of their actions, whether it's violent or unlawful. It's going to take some time. It's odd to me how some of these cities seem to like support them, you know, that they like won't do, take any action, even when they're engaged in illegal activity. And what is that all about? Well, if you see where the city's at, this mostly happens in, they're far-left, extreme liberally managed or governed cities. And they need the disarray.

What would, they want the disarray? I mean, I understand the strategy, whether you're right or left. And by the way, the whole Antifa thing before I forget to say it, that, you know, if you're not with me, you're a fascist, that was invented by Stalin. He invented that paradigm. Yes. And if everybody wants to be a Stalinist, congratulations, you're doing it. But back to the city mayors and whatnot that aren't doing anything.

What are they thinking? What is in their mind? Well, it keeps the society divided. It keeps everybody distracted. They look for the rights and the so-called liberties of people who are enemies of the societal model that we currently operate under. So all of our structures, whether it's legal, social, economic, these leftist people want to tear those systems down. So they want to overwhelm the systems. They want to undermine the systems. And they want to be able to have that

constant friction in the communities. If the communities were successful and prosperous and safe and secure, these leftists would have no ability to conduct their business. People wouldn't want them there. But with the society, if you look at what's going on in Chicago and other places, it's violent, it's crime-ridden. So the people will ask for solutions, and that's when the leftists will step in and say, we will give you these solutions, which never work, of course. Wow. So you, to your right, by your left ear here is a headline that says Antifa's origin. and traced to communist, Stalinist group that aided Nazi rise to power.

I thought they were an anti-Nazi group. They were, but they were fighting among themselves with the other leftists, and the Nazis were allowed to rise to power. They were against the Nazis. And if you remember in history, Hitler hated the communists. Hated them. Oh, yeah.

So the infighting among the extreme left and the moderate left created a vacuum where the Nazi party was able to rise into power. So aiding, they facilitated an environment where they created a vacuum where the Nazis were able to move into power. How about this idea that there's sort of an insurrection component to all this? I mean, when I hear those sorts of theories,

I always try to think how Abraham Lincoln would look at it because, you know, he just thinks he sort of, thought like a lawyer, that things need to be in their proper alignment. And he would call them, you know, the Confederate states, so-called. Are there insurrectionist elements in here, too? I believe there are, and I believe the more, I hate to say the extreme part of the extreme last, they want to see our system of government changed. They want to see our capitalist system changed.

We have open support now in the United States for socialist movements and globalist movements. So these are things that we went to war to fight against when it came to communism and extreme Marxism and things of that sort. And now we're ready to vote some people into office. And we have voted people into office who are avowed socialists. And as I think it was, I don't know, I think it was Ronald Reagan or it was in that time period. But somebody said, socialism is the on ramp to communism. Right? If you can go down that road of socialism, you could leave you.

to communism and that's when you know the united states was a staunch opponent of communism where now we have people marching in our streets waving communist flags the hammer and sickle so we've had an ideological shift in this country which i i hope we can recover from at some point and do you have specific sort of ideas about how to how to get things back on track i mean is And we opened up by talking about the adulteration of the FBI. Is getting the FBI sort of in healthy shape again? Is that part of the process? Or what do you think we need to do?

It's got to be one of the primary steps of the FBI is one of the bulwarks that was working against the subversive movements in the United States. Now, I'm not saying they did everything right. They misstepped a few times, which, you know, it's historically noted. But I think if we can get the FBI healthy again and get the FBI back to the FBI back. to a position of a beneficial culture, a strong and effective leadership environment, and going back to what I consider to be the tried and true operational practices that made the FBI legendary, it's got to be a great first step. I mentioned earlier in that book, The Naked Communists, one of the 45 goals of the

communists was to defeat the FBI. It was one of their written goals because they knew the FBI. was one of their roadblocks or oppositions. And one of the things I say to people is the FBI operates in a sense of duality. On one side of a coin, the FBI should be the most fearsome, snarling guard dog to our adversaries, to our enemies, and to criminal elements. On the other side of that coin, that same fearsome guard dog should be the same dog that you would have no problem watching that dog lay on the floor and play with your children knowing full well that that same dog would give its life if anything was to threaten those children that's the duality that the

FBI has to return to and the FBI has squandered goodwill with the American people for several years now and it's going to be a long road back and I think they can do it if they put their minds to it but they have to focus on it that's got to be a great first step and I also think that we have to regain some national pride and we've we've spent so many years just downplaying our own American pride and culture that now everybody else is proud of who they are and we're self-loathing and i think that's again a part of the demoralization that kind of brought us to this point so those are the first two areas that i would i would start with a word that describes a tendency for countries to turn on itself. It's called like an

oiko something. I'll look it up during the break maybe. Apparently this is a pretty common thing for things to happen in cultures that are doing well. They sort of turn on themselves. So we do need to fight it. And then finally you mentioned Comey a few minutes ago. What do you imagine is going to happen there? We were speculating with my last guest that he might sort of become an informant perhaps or something of that sort. What do you think? I would be highly doubtful of him

becoming any kind of a cooperating person with the government at this point, not under the Trump administration. And I also feel as though his time in court I hope that the court does not allow it to become a circus.

And if he has seen to have committed certain offenses, fine treat them like you would any other citizen you know prosecute and then provide penalty but for me uh i see it as a lot of the things that he did were of poor judgment uh maybe unethical but maybe standing on the line of maybe not illegal and i think if you start prosecuting people for being not wholly honest up on the hill, you'll develop quickly like a 100-year-long backlog in prosecutions.

So I think we just have to be thoughtful of how that progresses. I do think that he made some serious errors in judgment, and we'll have to see what the evidence comes up with during the court trial as far as his charges. Are there anything specific you can share with us that you could point at? as far as his judgment? Yeah. Well, I remember the day that he gave his press conference

and said that no reasonable court would convict Hillary Clinton. We all did a collective head snap because none of us knew that was going to happen. He didn't share that with us. We were all part of the most senior leadership in the FBI. He did that on his own volition, didn't even tell the Department of Justice that he was going to hold that conference.

So I think decisions like that and making those types of unilateral movements, it just didn't show great judgment. It was more about him than it was the actual situation at hand and the process to which the Justice Department should have moved. Do you feel, speaking of the Justice Department moving, the DHS and the Justice Department, the FBI are getting better alignment in terms of their priorities? I think when you have great alignment is when you have the senior leadership of both organizations with the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS, when they're working together in an integrated fashion, it flows down through the organizations. When you have common operating perspectives and common operating outcomes that you're looking for in support of the White House's objectives, it makes everything work better. And I think that's where we are right now. It probably could use fine-tuning in some areas. but I think previously you'd have never seen FBI agents helping DHS ICE with immigration and migrant problems.

You'd have never seen that. And I think the alignment between the organizations is probably better now than it has in many years. It has been in many years. Chris, thank you for spending some time with us and sharing your insights. Other than X, Chris Pihota, you can go there, wanted the FBI once new. You get the book. Elsewhere you'd like people to find you? No, that's about it.

I come from the world of social media was frowned upon. So I only have very little of it. You know, back when I was still with the government, we were, it was severely frowned upon because it was a great. How long ago was that? I retired in 2020. I retired in 2020. And LinkedIn was seen as a great spotting and assessing tool for recruiting people and for our foreign adversaries and intelligence services. I wish we would have had something like that

when I was working cases but it's only you know five years ago right 2020 and you know you're talking about as though it's ancient history when back when dinosaurs walked the earth our institutions were totally different like that was a couple years ago we sort of

that's a rapid decay well it shows you kind of the cultural change too in the FBI where back when I before I retired that was frowned upon that you didn't have social media, you weren't bearing your soul out on, you know, whatever, Instagram and LinkedIn and Facebook. It was still frowned up. And then all of a sudden, it became very, very acceptable, almost overly done, and people are suffering the consequences for it now.

Chris, you just weren't cool. That's all. And thank you for your, you know what, you're right. You are right about that. But you're cool now. So thank you for sharing some talk with us. And I hope to talk to you again soon. Thank you, sir. Have a great. great day. You too. All right. We don't need to take a break before my next guest. I believe I can go roll right into this, right? Caleb, is that true? Or do we have something else? We got to drop in here. Okay. Because I think in the future we will start taking two breaks and we have multiple guests like this. Mark Morano, you can follow him on Climate Depot on X. Also, climate depot.com. The book is The Great Reyes.

Global Elites and the permanent lockdown. Mark, welcome. Dr. Drew, happy to be here. So I'm not seeing Mark yet. Caleb, is he still with? There we are. Yes. So, let's start with. I've got a lot I want to talk about. Well, gosh.

I heard today Scott Adams was talking about the residual of, I think he said, 65 climate models that there had been hundreds, but none of them were accurate, so they sort of cast out the inaccurate ones and settled on these 65 that also, lo and behold, missed the mark by quite a bit. Is any of this persuading anybody as the coral reefs tend to come back and the Arctic ice is getting thicker and deeper and deeper? And my friends at the beach front are not underwater, as was guaranteed by what, 2009 or 2014? I mean, isn't somebody going to go, maybe it's not quite as bad as we thought. You don't hear anything like that.

You just hear, I'm going on to the next thing, and Greta Thumburg goes on to Palestine. You just hit it on the head. What's remarkable, and I'll talk about climate models in one second, but what's remarkable about 2025 is a complete lack of pushback on the global collapse of the United Nations climate agenda and even countries.

Canada, first act of Mark Carney as primary. minister. One of them was to zero out the carbon tax. Throughout Europe, you had farmers lead the rebellion, which halted the Green Deal, Germany electing a somewhat skeptical prime minister. Macron might be on his way out. EU elections brought in a lot of skeptics, the rise of it in UK now, even the conservative parties abandoning net zero. You have all these countries that aren't even attempting to meet the UN Paris. It's just, it's almost like Trump came in, I call it the Trump effect, but it also collided with decades of lies about the climate, which never, the bad which never happened, plus all the renewable energy solar and wind, which never actually

bore the fruit. I mean, we're still getting 75 to 80 percent of our energy for fossil fuels, despite all the trillions and mandates and subsidies and banning of the competition of solar and wind. So what they've done is when current reality fails to scare, they make scarier and scarier predictions of the future. And that's what I think Scott Adams was referring to. They will predict more hurricanes, less hurricanes. They will predict more storms, less storms.

They will predict more fog, less fog. they will predict more tornadoes, less tornadoes, they will predict more hail, less hail. No matter what happens, they can always say, we predicted it. And that's the way climate models have worked, and the attribution studies are worse. Even the mainstream or UN-affiliated climate scientists are now criticizing those. It's kind of like they're even trying to attribute certain storms or tornadoes in Tornado Alley to a fossil fuel company for lawsuit purposes. I mean, it's gotten to the point where science left the big.

building a long time ago when it comes to these claims. Well, yes. And that was going to be my next point, is why aren't these conversations exclusively held within the scientific community and to the extent that they're advising government, advising industry, why does the public, why is the press involved with this in any way? As soon as something gets out into the press, I know immediately, same thing happened with medical issues. I'm just saying, you shouldn't know this. You shouldn't know this. You shouldn't know how to renounce Ivermectin. You shouldn't have any opinion about it. Why do you have an opinion? Exactly. It's so ridiculous. And I was guilty of being part of the original ecology movement back

in the 70s. And we were predicting acid rain was going to destroy us. Massive famine. Ice age, for sure. Ice age, for sure. And we had predicted all this. And we were upset about it. And we were trying to get attention, you know, for various industries and things, trying to get people to, you know, plan for that. We didn't go out on nightly news and talk about it. It's already you should know immediately when people are doing that, there's something wrong. There's a money grab is what it is. There's money. There's corruption and money. It has to be. It's ideology, corruption, money, power. Now, you ask the question, why did we care? Why do we know Ivermactin? Why is all this basically politicized? There was a statistician, and in my book, The Great Rees that I go through the whole COVID and

compare it to climate. Everything I learned about, everything I learned about, everything I saw in COVID, I'd learned about decades earlier in the climate movement. But a statistician was Dr. Matt Briggs had the best explanation to answer your question. It's easy, when science is looking for an answer, you can trust the answer when nobody cares about the result, meaning if it's actually a paper, for instance, I'll give you a concrete example, masking. We knew that masks didn't work during a virus outbreak or flu outbreaks or any kind of pandemic because there were peer-reviewed studies, the New England Journal of Medicine, it went back even the Washington, but whenever there was no political consequence, they were honest about all the science, because it's just like,

oh, here's data, it doesn't work, we shouldn't do this. The second, they wanted you to do it, then it became you were a heretic, you were banned, you were anti-science, you didn't trust the science, if you came out and said mass didn't work. So to simplify, when nobody cares about the answer, you can trust the science. That's, to me, really explains climate, it explains COVID lockdowns, everything. It's when they care about the answer and the answer has to be tortured. They come up, it's a predetermined conclusion and the science then supports it. And that's what climate has been for decades. How do we know it? Because the UN top leaders have actually admitted it. They say it's not about the science. It's not about saving the environment.

It's actually about wealth redistribution and essentially reordering the entire global economic order. They've actually stated that publicly. And so that's how we know that. And if you look at what they're doing, you know, even with wildfires, I mean, the UN, when they do their reports that are big and dense, if you look at it, they'll tell you global wildfires are not increasing. There's no trend. Actually, the UN will tell you on hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, no trend or declining trends. Yet, whenever there's an event like that, like the California wildfires or tornado or a hurricane hitting Florida, suddenly it's another example of climate change and the weather's unprecedented. So we are really in a bad state. And obviously Trump can't fix all of that or even the

collapse of this because it's supported by billionaires, by corporations, by all these global institutions like the WHO world economic form, the UN, corporations, academia. And it's even, you know, when Trump's term is over, this is coming back. And they're trying to merge climate into a public health threat. We just saw this week. They're going after asthma inhalers. Not making this up. Peer-reviewed studies talking about the carbon footprint of asthma inhalers.

They're going after anesthesia. They're saying unchecked climate change leads to more COVID-like viruses. So their goal is not, they're laying low right now to answer my own question of why there's been no pushback because they know there's no popularity. Even CNN, pollster saying concern about climate change is at levels we haven't seen since like the, I think the late 1980s at this point. That is so disturbing to see some of those headlines flying around that we put up next to you, including the issue of the inhalers.

And again, it's become so cool and axiomatic to go in whatever you're talking about, to go, well, of course, that's due to climate change. And anyway, it just rolls off the tongue in every topic at all times as though it's just axiomatic. but in fact, it's just false. It's just not the case. Includes mentioned wildfires. I don't know how long I've heard that the Palisades fires were something to do with climate change when, of course, they were arson. And now they've caught the guy that was the arsonist.

And I'm not even sure there was just one arsonist. There may have been more than one in reality, but do you tell me? Yeah, well, you know, over 80 percent, it's been estimated 80, 85 percent of these wildfires are started by humans. Now, that's not to say they're all arson. lot of campfires, a lot of inadvertent. It could be, you know, a vehicle causing it. And the other natural causes include, of course, you know, lightning strikes is a big one. And then you can have, of course, utility lines and everything else. The California one, it's still kind of a strange story, this 29-year-old Uber driver now in Florida arrested. He, you know, was looking at

chat GPT and, you know, if he claims he threw a cigarette or was asking chat GPT if he was responsible. He did call multiple times or at least attempt, but didn't have his self- service. And then, of course, there's reports now that he threatened to burn his sister's house down, so he may have some kind of, you know, pyrotechnic fascination with fires. The federal and local authorities are convinced he did it intentionally and it wasn't accidental, so they're charging them that way. And it just goes to show you that this, this is typical of all these wildfires. It is not human cause. Now, that is just how the spark started. The next thing that happened is they actually put the fire out after he got through to 911.

But what happened? Seven days go by, the fire smolders under the ground. Now, that is a failure right there. If you know anything about wildfires, especially in overgrowth and brush areas like California, the Palisades area is, they should have had multiple returnbacks to the same location nearby, dowsing it, checking it.

The reason they couldn't is, first of all, the firefighter budget was cut. Second of all, Los Angeles didn't take this whole fire threat seriously. Third of all, Gavin Newsom, there was a water shortage. going around for environmental protection and this ideology in California of returning it to essentially a pre-human state. They wanted to go back to this Garden of Eden style. So Gavin Newsom's on record a year or two before bragging about blowing up dams because the dams were affecting the, you know, the pristine environment of California. Well, when you blow up dams, you don't have

water supply. And this is one of the reasons they run short. They, of course, had emptied a lot of reservoirs right before this fire hit. Couple that with the land use mismanagement. couple that with lack of response, couple that with lack of water, couple it with just a complete public policy disaster. And you get wildfires. You know what's not on that list? CO2, carbon dioxide or climate change. It's one of the hardest things to ever say, well, climate change is causing wildfires. There's so many factors. We know the global satellite data shows, the U.S. Forest Service shows, like 90% reductions in the last 100 years with wildfires. We know how to manage land. We know how to manage wildfires. But there's an air.

areas where people just don't prioritize it. In Japan, they have instant sprinklers that pop up and put out wildfires in wealthier areas. California being the most, this was the most wealthy, one of the most wealthiest areas on the planet, the center of power, center of entertainment, center of billionaires as Gavin Newsom likes the brag. California has more billionaires than any other state. They didn't use that money to actually do proper public planning and response. But let's blame climate change. It used to be the center of entertainment. They, He just, Newsom destroyed the entertainment. There's no Hollywood in Hollywood anymore.

That's gone. It's just absent. But, yeah, I also heard this guy was sort of a climate guy. I'm hearing rumors of that, the kid that lit this fire. I haven't been able to pin that down in terms of like anything concrete, but he would fit a profile of someone, you know, who potentially is like that. And we saw this, you see this happen in Europe. I think the Greek fires were started.

This is a lot of sabotage. I mean, you'll see it with people torching Teslas. There's a whole eco-terrorist aspect that can be a part with fires and also with, you know, whether there's spray painting, orange stuff on the Constitution or going after paintings. And that, by the way, is funded by Hollywood. That, by the way, is funded by organizations like the Getty Foundation, that, you know, these radical groups.

I've seen a lot less of that because the billionaire class, which funded them, realized that's not good PR. And they were radicalizing these young people, essentially like just you know just stop oil and all that they were radicalizing them to believe that they had to do acts of vandalism or they were the planet was going to die and that's you know it's essentially a terror organization when you have that kind of ideology well it's so bizarre to me that these billionaires don't fund innovation like let's that's the reason we didn't have acid rain is we innovated we had but but need research and be careful there we've always we've figured out our way to

Yeah, I know. We figured out our way to solve these problems. Of course, nothing comes without some side effect or whatever, but we innovate our way through things. And suddenly it becomes, oh, no, no, no more innovation. We can't do it. We have to, and as you said, go back to the Garden of Eden. They actually have a name for that policy, at least as it pertains the ocean. Reclamation. Your home, if it's near the ocean and the ocean comes in on it, too bad. The ocean is just going to reclaim it. And if it sits there as a pile of shit for 10 years. Oh, well, no one can use that beach because your home is there being reclaimed. Ocean is doing its thing. So it is just all so nonsensical and bizarre. It's just bizarre.

I wish I was going to say also you. Go ahead. Well, you mentioned technology. That can be used. You have Bill Gates pushing lab-grown butter. Bill Gates pushing lab-grown meat now because he thinks cows are the danger. Thousands of years of agriculture suddenly now we can't have cows. He wants to move all farming, He said all the Western world should move to the laboratory. Stem cells from a cow, sheep pig, mixed with fetal blood, put into a petri dish. And then a steel vat, grown, looks like a pink slime, like chicken nuggets. And then it's printed on a 3D printer in the end.

Now, it's genetically meat, but that's what he's pushing. You also have Bill Gates, other billionaires funding, blocking the sun and this insane geoengineering scheme. So technology can be a double-edged sword. But technology, you mentioned the ecology movement in the 70s. The first Earth Day brought out Middle America. They were concerned about particularly the filth of the air and water in major cities. Since that first Earth Day, we've radically improved air, water quality. The World Health Organization now says the U.S. has among the cleanest air in the world.

We did it with even though we had huge population growth, massive economic growth. We did it through technology and innovation. And you're exactly right. That's the way to do it. Not Marxist-style Green New Deal's or UN-style net zero with U. UN bureaucrats and bean counters, looking over every aspect of human civilization down to, you know, what kind of car you drive, CNN calling for carbon passports for travel to keep, so the government can keep track of your passport, how much travel you do. So it's a, you know, this is a reprieve

at the moment under Trump this first year and Trump 2.0, but it's not going away. It will come back in new, more virulent forms to use the language of virology. And so, you know, people forget there was these, there was a comedic sort of ballad piano singer and he was actually a scientist by training, but he ended up making these comedy albums. And he had one that was called Don't Drink the Water and Don't Breathe the Air. And about the United States back in the 60s for, it was advice for other travelers to the United States. Well, what do you recommend we do with this return of this stuff? It does tend to come and go.

But the return of the globalism, the centralization, the hysteria around climate, or whatever they choose to put their emphasis on. What needs to be done? What needs to be done is, first of all, for the U.S., and Trump 2.0 understands it. Trump 1.0 was great, but they didn't do anything permanent, meaning within three or four months of Biden's administration, he was able to undo all the Trump's, get us back into Paris, start up all the EPA regulations go full bore with inflation reduction what we need in trump 2.0

understands this there's two things they're going after this endangerment finding which the obama administration started which regulates carbon dioxide remember we inhale oxygen as humans we exhale carbon dioxide our breath what we exhale from our breath carbon dioxide has been regulated as a pollutant under the clean air act the trump administration is going after the legal underpinning of that endangerment finding saying CO2 needs to be regulated. If they can overturn that, that gets rid of the basis for so much of this net zero, for all of our equal, all of these climate regulations. And that's very hard to bring back.

Number two is they need to not just get us out of the Paris, UN Paris Agreement, but we need to go back to 1992 where the first Bush, George H.W. Bush, got us into the Rio Earth Summit Treaty back in May of 1992. That led to the creation of the UN Climate Summit, the UN Agenda, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Net Zero, et cetera. If Trump pulls us out of that, then you need a new treaty and a new ratification, because that was ratified back in 1992. You need a new ratification, and all of the media and that climate activists are freaked over that.

Because if Trump can successfully do that, we have the U.S. now almost very difficult for a future president, AOC, or Gavin Newsom, to jump us right back into this climate agenda like Biden did. there's some of our viewers comments are showing up under your screen there and yes i do believe there's a lot this is an answer to a psychologist asked a question uh under your chin mark sorry yeah but uh yes there's a lot of dark triad out there now i don't know if it's overt psychopathy but a dark triad narcissistic traits just incredible and you know i keep thinking what we need to do in southern California start doing the forestry management that we did for a hundred years.

We'd put our fire breaks back in. People forget how it devolved. The fire breaks went away because there was some field mouse that wasn't able to migrate properly with the firebreaks. And that was the end of fire breaks. I used to look up the San Gabriel Mountains and they looked like TikTok toads, you know, boards. They were just slas, sliced up with firebreaks that were being, there were bulldozes up there doing it 365 days a year.

And they had teams working year-round to deal with the underbrush and deal with the whatever, you know, was building up, the fuel that was building up. So the fires would be manageable when they occur as they inevitably will, not just let them reclaim the palisades and reclaim the poor people of Al-Tadena. It's it is anything but governing. It's the opposite of governing. That's what I don't understand. It's like you're the governor. The governor is supposed to govern. Yes.

But all of our leaders seem to be. some people that like to cut ribbons but don't like to govern. Absolutely. You're exactly right. If you look at federal lands, fires versus the privately owned lands, privately owned lands do much better because federal owned lands have been sort of subject to this ideology, like you say, just leave it pristine to nature. Well, pristine to nature means wild fires that run out of control. Big fires. Also, the decline of logging has led potentially to more to more fires because you don't have all the clear-cut areas and you don't have that direct on-site management.

I talked to an ecologist one time who basically said, if you want to save the trees, use more wood because using more wood sends a signal that the trees are valuable and they'll be protected. And this is the same arguments that have been used, you know, with a lot of the endangered animal trade and other things in Africa. The more you ban it, the more expensive it is, the more you have poachers. They've got to try a different approach because just wishing we could go to a pre-heaval. human civilization doesn't actually work when it comes to public policy. Oh, my goodness.

Some of this stuff overwhelms me, and this is another one of those topics. When you say that it's coming back with ferocity, it makes my skin crawl. Well, it's going to be a couple years late low, and it'll be back because it's been, they decided to go all in on environmental issues when it came to climate. We used to deal with more overpopulation, the Amazon rainforest scare. Back in the 90s, that was Sting, had his annual conferences on that. in New York City. I'd go covered as a journalist. And then you had, you know, the National Geographic, Hollywood movies. And then they went all in on climate change. And this is where

they've been. Now, the only thing that's going to shake that, as I said, they want to merge it into public health. That's why you have 230 medical journals calling, you know, a crisis with climate change. That's why you have the doctors groups getting involved. You have toolkits for doctors that talk to their patients about their climate change and carbon footprints. It's evil stuff on that level. I'm attending COP 30, this UN climate summit in Brazil next month. And it might be the first time in my life. This will be like my 24th of these UN climate summits that I attend in person all over the world. The biggest carbon footprint you can imagine, but we may have no U.S. delegation for the first time since George H.W. Bush got us into this mess back in the 90s.

And this is a good sign because if Trump has led us at the last one, he convinced Argentina to pull pull out of their UN climate summit. The French delegation didn't show up. They had a speaker say oil was a gift to God. So if we can collapse this UN annual climate confab that they have, that would be a good thing. And so I'll be there on the ground in Brazil. By the way, they clear cut tens of thousands of rainforest to put in a highway so they could handle all the transportation and traffic from this UN's climate summit. So UN climate, we're calling it clear cut 30, clear cut 30 instead of cop 30 because of all the trees they got rid of to and the environmental minister actually said we clear cut the trees for the highway so we could get more people and to showcase to the world how

we've saved the Amazon. That's the logic of the United Nations. It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. Well, you know, another little comment that scrolled by when you were talking was somebody, and you mentioned the physician and public health involvement and all this. Somebody said the carbon they want to get rid of is you. Yeah. Oh, it's a good one. Well, actually, in December 2020, peer-reviewed study, human breath contributes to warming. And they actually broke it down. It was like, you know, a woke study because they went into identity politics.

I think it was Africans that have more warming agents than Asians. Women have more warming agents than men. It's racist. Fuller racist. Racist and sexist. Here we go. Perfect. Perfect.

And there was a UK study, 2019, that said human, that CO2 should be regulated the same way asbestos is as a toxic pollutant. And again, we exhale carbon dioxide. Think of where that could quickly lead if that mindset were to take over. That's pollution, that's toxic, and that's where they want to do. They don't want you to have a safe. It looks to me like going back to population control, then quickly, oh, too many people. It just goes right there.

That's your backup plan for this. Well, Mark, thank you for sharing all this with us. Other than Climate Depot, where would you like people to go? Twitter at, well, X at Climate Depot as well. And I have a book, as you mentioned, The Great Reset, Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown, where I've laid all this out. But thank you so much, Dr. Drew. Mark, really appreciate it. Very interesting stuff.

Thank you. Okay. Wow. I don't know if you guys are, if you stayed with me through all these interviews, but I come out of today overwhelmed and inspired and stirred and bothered. And having learned a bit, too. Oh, Dexter's lab is saying that Jane Goodall wanted to reduce the human population by half. Yeah, she came out of that era that I was in where

overpopulation was a big concern and because we were convinced her was going to be famines and we had a whole logic to it that turned out to be wrong, sorry. And we never ever left room for the population to get to where it is now. That's why I keep putting these covers

up. That was the ones that we were into the that we were into the freeze. We were into the acid rain. Arctic Meltdown though I think is the that's the heating. So it just goes back and forth. And by the way, if you read those articles, they were absolute guaranteed catastrophic results, got to do something now. So let the science community solve these, you know, figure these things out, innovate around it and figure out what to do

about it. Because with innovation, if it really is a crisis, if there's innovation, they'll make a bunch of money. And so they're motivated to look at these things. They will. Their business will figure it out, to have it be a political thing, unless there's something, I can't even, I don't know, I can't even think of a movement that has a scientific, medical, biological basis to it, where you really need the government involved with it. Maybe your local, local, local government, but the federal government, that's insane. Founding Fathers never intended on any of that. Okay, so let's see what's coming up. Caleb, what do you got for me?

upcoming guests. Beaver Frye in here on Tuesday. We've got Adele Bigtree on Wednesday, I believe. There it is. Peter Gloo. We're named Gary Brecker and the WTWC guys on the 16th, we hope. Ryan Sickler coming back the following week. Salty Cracker making a return. And we've been talking about a lot of really interesting guests.

And, of course, we were supposed to have Blanky on Peter's last name. Peter. What? Navarro. Peter Navarro. There we are. screaming out from the bathroom. Peter Navarro, we moved on him a couple of times,

so we owed him this one. He had to move on us. He's written a book called, I went to jail so you don't have to, and I wanted to thank him for that. I'm guessing now, again, Christina is part of that army, too, of people that had to be indicted so we don't have to be.

But, oh, what a mess. So many things to be... Really turned into a badge of honor. That's the amazing thing. It's like, well, now everybody wants to get their mugshot for some lawfare. thing because they know it's going to eventually get thrown out and now they get a mug shot

like the president. For the record, no thank you. No thank you. I'd like to stand in trouble. She literally if they saw the wide shot, she got, she has a framed portrait of this mug shot. It's like, that's where we are now. It's really shows like just the lack of trust and respect

that the whole country has in institutions now where it's, I see stuff and they say studies show this and I don't listen anymore. Like that doesn't mean anything anymore. You could slant studies. You could slant lawfare. You could do all this stuff and it doesn't mean anything. It's got to take so many sources.

Unless you have read, unless you yourself are familiar with the literature, the landscape of the literature that is being commented upon, you can't have any opinion about whatever is being said by a journalist. With studies show, okay, why would I listen to you?

I used to have to really come down on medical students for this because they would come in with some couple of studies and, oh my God, Look at what's happening from this. I go, those are two studies out of 10,000. And there's many, many other studies showing something very different. Now, you can file that away, keep an eye on it. But look what the preponderance of evidence shows.

Any of them, it's all, you seem very activated by all this. Is this upsetting to you today, or do you already know all this? No, I knew this stuff, but it's just like my growing up, it's that you just, I didn't question that. even though my parents were very much into conspiracy theories, my brain kind of went the other way of, okay, my parents are crazy. I can trust the quote unquote studies and experts. But then COVID hit and that really just like,

it was like a, I slammed me in the head and I'm like, wait, I can't trust any of this stuff. Now I can't just read an article and trust what it says. I doubt it all. And I really don't think that the people in control understand that by pulling that giant lie on us, that millions of people are now also doubting all of their narratives.

Like, they've just lost us. They've lost the entire trust. That's right. Everything. We question everything now. Absolutely correct. And they had us before this. Which is a healthy thing.

A healthy thing. Yeah, I agree. And I have a similar experience. But in terms of being smacked in the head, it sounds like your kids are smacking each other in the head. Maybe we've been to wrap this up and gets them. Yeah. I'm hearing a little action of the background there. So appreciate everybody being here today.

Let's see. So tomorrow is, or are we here? Are we Thursday? Yeah. So the next show is going to be on Tuesday at 2 o'clock Pacific time. And is that the one with Viva? I'm sorry. I'm looking.

My schedule doesn't, uh, or is Navarro going to come in on the 20th? Yes, it's Viva Frye on the 14th is currently on the schedule. Yeah. Yes. And we're, yes.

Okay, perfect. I will see you all then, two o'clock Pacific time. Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Caleb Nation and Susan Pinsky. As a reminder, the discussions here are not a substitute for medical care, diagnosis, or treatment. This show is intended for educational and informational purposes only. I am a licensed physician, but I am not a replacement for your personal doctor and I am not practicing medicine here. Always remember that our understanding of medicine and science is constantly evolving.

Though my opinion is based on the information that is available to me today, some of the contents of this show could be outdated in the future. Be sure to check with trusted resources in case any of the information has been updated. since this was published. If you or someone you know is in an immediate danger, don't call me. Call 911. If you're feeling hopeless or suicidal, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline

at 800-273-8255. You can find more of my recommended organizations and helpful resources at doctor-drew.com slash help.