Bulwark Takes - Even Putin Is Getting Sick of Witkoff and Kushner (w/ Rep. Jim Himes)

Episode Date: September 22, 2026

Rep. Jim Himes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, joins Marc Polymeropoulos and Michael Weiss for his take on the major national security risks surrounding the Trump administration.Himes explains the counterintelligence concerns surrounding the reported Russian financing of Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding and why the access to Trump’s inner circle at the event could have created an unusually soft target for Russian intelligence. They also discuss the intelligence community’s warnings about war with Iran, and the possibility of another Middle East conflict.Plus, Russia’s war in Ukraine, Trump’s negotiations with Vladimir Putin, John Ratcliffe’s role in the talks, and the ongoing investigation into Havana syndrome and anomalous health incidents.Weight Loss by Hims offers access to personalized weight loss treatment, including FDA-approved GLP-1 medications. Learn more and get started at https://www.hims.com/bulwarktakes

Hello and welcome to Bulwark Takes. I am Mark Polymeropolis, a CIA officer of 26 years. I am joined here today with my outstanding partner in crime, Michael Weiss, my favorite journalist, not only in D.C., but really globally, who's broken lots of stories. And we have a treat today. Joining us is Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, who is the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, otherwise known as Hipsy, a committee, congressman that I testified in front of many times. So I think a lot of my former colleagues and be like, wait a second, you actually have the congressman on, you're asking him questions. So the ties have turned. But thanks so much for joining us. The turns have tabled. I love it. It's a pleasure to have you on, Congressman. I wanted to first pick your brain about something that's still very much in the news cycle, which is this disclosure by pro-publica. Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding was financed by not just a Russian oligarch, by a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, who has a criminal. record. He paid over $100,000 for this Bahamas due that the president's son held. You put out a letter,

basically calling for a probe into this because, I mean, Mark and I discussed it on a previous episode. Apart from everything else, this is a screaming counterintelligence nightmare, a Russian businessman of this stature with this kind of political exposure, not only attending the wedding of the President's son, but bankrolling it. I mean, what is your view of the state of corruption in this administration? I mean, obviously, we're looking at midterm elections where your party may very well take the House, which would make you, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Are there plans to dive into this stuff and to basically, you know, uncover or try to and cover what, not just the president's son, but other members of this administration have been up to

in terms of making, you know, all kinds of side actions, using diplomacy as enterprise. I want to get into all of it. Whitkoff, Kushner, you know, the whole cast of characters here. Yeah, yeah, Michael, let me, let me give you two answers to that question. The first one, let me, let me, before we get to the corruption, which sort of, you know, sings its own song. Let's start with the counterintelligence thing, because I think it's really important for the American people to understand why. why this was such a colossal risk, right? So, I mean, think about this. If the press reports already be believed, here's this guy with a criminal record. He's very close to Putin in the intelligence services inside Russia. Don Jr.'s' wife's statement that he's a great, great,

and beloved friend, notwithstanding, it appears that that's not true, right? This guy just sort of materialized out of nowhere. If the press reports are to be to believe, there's lots of Russians hanging around with him, and think about what's happening here, right? It's the people that are closest to the President of the United States. There might have been a DACA or two, which, you know, Mark, who used to do this stuff for a living, you know, Mark could not have hoped for a softer intelligence target in his entire career because there's a little alcohol. Everybody's having a good time.

iPhones are being left in beach bags. You know, computers are being, laptops are being left in rooms with open doors and stuff. People are chatting. Oh, my God. You know, there might have even been untoward behavior at said event, you know, which literally. raises black. I mean, again, this is the gold metal blue ribbon intelligence approach ever. And you say to yourself, if this were a normal administration where, you know, you're going to show some discipline and where the president's two sons and the president's son-in-law, Jared

Kushner, aren't regularly in the Oval Office doing really sensitive things, it would be bad. But this is horrifying, right? Because all of the people, including Jared Kushner, who's apparently charged with, you know, the Middle East and Ukraine and everything else, were there. So, you know, again, the counterintelligence, it's a counterintelligence nightmare. And it should never have happened.

To the corruption, answer number two. Remember when it turned out that Hunter Biden got his father, the vice president on the phone in a board meeting? You know, it's a little unclear what was said. Pretty ugly. But oh my God, right? You know what Hunter Biden didn't do is take tens of millions of dollars for some wedding that involved Russians? So, I mean, you know, one of the things that drags me down is just the complete abandonment of any principle.

And, you know, these people spent four years, you know, excoriating Hunter Biden and Joe Biden for, you know, less than 1% of 1% of what happens every single day here. So, yes, to answer your question, in the event of a House majority, both of those things, the counterintelligence risk, and I've already been in touch with Cash Patel, who I'm sure is just jumping right on this as an investigation, you know, this will be centered because, you know, the corruption is probably up to others. You know, it's not a typical intelligence thing to do. But the counterintelligence catastrophe is very much in the oversight hairs of the Congress. Let me jump on one thing there. Congressman, because I think you're right. This is, this would be a dream for a case officer.

I mean, there could not be a better place to have in a relaxed environment access to the inner circle of the United States government. So you're 100% right there. I think that one of the things that sometimes, you know, depresses me a bit is that your colleagues across the aisle know better. You know, the other Republicans on your committee, other national security-minded Republicans, and there are good ones, and you know that. You've worked with them in the past. They, I'm sure, privately, were horrified at this because it is just so out of bounds. I would say the most junior, you know, CIA officer in the Counterintelligence Mission Center to any special agent on an FBI counterintelligence squad would look at this in horror.

So I think we do have to kind of dig deeper on this. And, you know, the problem, of course, is do the, by always worried, do the American people care? I care. You know, Michael and I were screaming about this. and you have as well, I do wonder if we're so, you know, it's just been so kind of beaten down by all the corruption, all the kind of crazy counterintelligence things. But, you know, that's why I think we're counting on a new Congress to dive deep into this. Let me just jump to another subject, though, that I think is really worth discussing, and that has to do with Iran. And particularly from the

intelligence community view, you know, the preparation before U.S. military action. And, you know, I think it's still unclear, and perhaps you know more and can tell us, you know, was the U.S. I. I.C., you know, prepared for this while it appears that others in the U.S. government were not, you know, the idea of all the Iranian reaction to U.S. actions, things that we knew from war games that they would do, still seems to have taken the president by surprise and the Secretary of Defense. You know, where is, what do you think oversight on the IC should fall on this? because I assume there'd be a lot of questions for the DIA chief, obviously for Director Ratcliffe, and whatever DNI is going to be appropriate to ask these questions.

Did the IC do the right thing here? Did they tell truth the power, or is there an intelligence failure? Yeah, great question, Mark. And, you know, I don't think the IC per se made a mistake here. And I don't need to disclose anything classified to describe what the communities, the intelligence community's assessment of Iran was because we've been doing this and focused on this since the Obama administration when they were negotiating the nuclear deal back then. And the conventional wisdom and the view of the intelligence community, if I may summarize, was, you know, a war would be a very scary proposition. Look, there have been people out there banging the drum on attacking Iran, you know, for the last 30 years. you know, the right wing, the Lindsay Graham's of the world, the more right wing pro-Israel community.

The prime minister of Israel has been working for decades to bring about this eventuality and being told by president after president, no, we're not doing that. And the reason until Donald Trump, the president said, no, we're not doing that is because the intelligence community said a few things. Number one, this is a uniquely brutal regime. And if they are existentially up against the wall and they feel like they're going down, they will do precisely what they did last January and kill tens of thousands of their own people to repress a popular uprising. So again, I wasn't in the Oval Office. I'm speaking from press reports here. But when somebody, including the Prime Minister of Israel, is saying, you know, there's a good

chance that the Iranian regime will fall, you know, that's not the consensus of the intelligence community. The intelligence community also believes that, and knows because you don't even need to be a spy to know that, you know, deeply buried uranium in steel canisters, look, you can't create a lot of mess, as we have done. You can bury that stuff under a lot of rubble, but it turns out you can move rubble with heavy mirth-moving equipment, right? So, you know, you can't obliterate the knowledge that goes into building a nuclear weapon. And of course, they continue to have the uranium. They continue to have the knowledge. They have fewer centrifuges.

That's good. But, you know, you can build. Anyway, you get my point here, right? We've known the deal forever. And it was just this president who was persuaded by some combination of people, By the way, which I don't think includes the leaders of the intelligence community. Operating from press reports, I think the director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, was probably at best ambivalent about this war. And I'll tell you, I told the director of the CIA right before they did this, 48 hours, you know, we were on a secure video conference. And I said, guys, I know where we're going here, but I'm just telling you, this is the end of the Trump presidency, right? And sure enough, gasoline is now approaching $5 a gallon. Anyway, Mark, to answer your question more succinctly than I just have, the intelligence community has had this right for a long time, but this was the one president that, lo and behold, we've never seen this before, was willing to completely ignore the experts in the intelligence community to do something, which has gotten us to the point where his party is going to get its clock cleaned in November. And by the way, that's the least of it, right? We've got 18 casualties killed in action. We've got

billions and billions of dollars are wasted. And where are we? You know, the Iranians are going to come out of this stronger than they were before it started. On that point, Congressman, I mean, this war has now spread well beyond Iran and, I mean, even some of the early combatants of it. I mean, you now have a situation in which the Houthis have gained ground in Yemen are threatening Babel Mandeb to take that straight, which would further increase oil pluck prices and give the Iranians or at least one of their proxies more control over global commerce. Saudi Arabia seems to be MBS in particular, begging Donald Trump to come to their rescue and start bombing Yemen again. And I mean, people I talk to think that it's only a matter of time before he's persuaded to do so. The New York Times

had a piece just the other day saying he was this close and he was talked out of it, possibly by J.D. Vance or, I mean, it seems that there's almost consensus now in the administration. Let's pack it up and go home, this thing is a busted flush, right? Do you see the United States now getting involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East going back to war against the Houthis in Yemen on behalf of Saudi Arabia? I mean, the Saudis will at least have a point in that you guys brought us to this point. You started a war with Iran. You didn't protect us. We had our bases bond by drones and missiles by the IRGC. And now we got to, you know, try to contain the Houthis all over again, which they're not particularly good at without U.S. assistance, even with U.S. assistance. What are we, what

What are we looking at here, even before the midterms happen? I mean, could the United States find itself in yet another war in the Middle East? Yeah, you know, I mean, the answer is obvious in the real world, right? You know, I mean, my God, we've seen this movie in our lifetimes, three or four times, right? Expanding a war in the Middle East, first of all, getting into a war in the Middle East is a really bad idea. And then expanding it is even worse. So, you know, again, we shouldn't have to argue about that. We've seen that movie many, many, many times.

Of course, this is a president who is uniquely persuaded by the last compelling person in the Oval Office. And this president is dismissive of experts. He's dismissive of the intelligence community. Now, my guess is he's not dismissive of political results other than the fact that when he gets his clock clean in November, he's going to say that it was all corrupt. You know, when he gets his clock clean in November, I think he's going to step back and say, whoa. Turns out when you promise, when you get the presidency because you promise not to get into another Middle Eastern war, And then you do? There's political repercussions.

And so I, if I had to put a $1,000 bet on this right now, I would say this guy's not expanding. I mean, I think he sort of feels the pain, even though he's not buying a lot of gasoline or diesel, feels the political pain that he has brought upon. Look, when you've got Mike Rogers of Michigan out there saying, we got to end this war soon, you know, national security hawk. It's sort of hard to, sort of hard to miss that message. But by the way, in terms of cost, yeah. I mean, you know, we can't use our bases in the Middle East anymore because it turns out the Iranians know where they are. So we're running around with special operations trying to refuel aircraft in, you know, in deserts and stuff. And, you know, according to press reporting.

And, you know, it's going to take us years to rebuild the weapons inventories that we've expended, protecting ourselves and protecting Israel. And, of course, you didn't mention this, Michael, but this is worth thinking about, you know, the Gulf states, right? Until this war, Georgetown University and, you know, the Lube and the Guggenheim were opening branches in Qatar and in the UAE and Dubai, these, they were the debutantes, right? They were, the Gulf was ready to sort of be world-class players in culture and university and museums in the economy. And, you know, now, you know, now they're back to where they were 20 years ago, you know, smoking ruins and insecurity and lack. of safety and so my god the damage done here is just shocking this message is sponsored by hymns i think one of the most frustrating things about trying to lose weight is how much work it can feel like just to make progress you're trying to eat better exercise stay consistent somehow it can still feel like you're

fighting an uphill battle skip the guesswork and try weight loss by hymns access an affordable range of fdae approved glp1 medications including the wagovi pill and the wagovi pen plus the support to actually stick with it with wagovi at Hymns lose up to 20% of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps you regulate your appetite, eat less, and keep weight off. Plus, Wagovi is the first ever GLP 1 pill for weight loss, so there are no needles needed. Everything happens online. You connect with a licensed provider, and if prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door.

Plus, you get 24-7 messaging with your care team and lifestyle and nutrition support in the app. Ready to reach your goals, visit Hymns.com slash bulwark takes to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you. That's h-im-s.com slash bulwark takes. Hems.com slash bulwark takes. Weight loss by Hems is not available in all 50 states. Wagovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS to get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wagovi, clinical study information and restrictions, visit hymns.com. You said that the Iranians know where our bases are. One of the reasons they know so well where our bases are is that the Russians and the Chinese have been sharing satellite footage with them and giving them essentially targeting packages. Now, as I speak, I'm sitting here in New York,

she is landing to come to Unga. He's getting a red carpet treatment by Donald Trump. I think there's like a flyover ceremony. I mean, we're doing everything we can to flatter the Chinese when they are helping a hostile adversary of ours in the region kill target and kill American soldiers. And of course, the Russians are doing the same. And yet we still play, you know, patty cake with Lidimir Putin. I mean, coming back to our earlier discussion of Steve Whitkoff and Jared Kushner, going to Moscow, what, eight or nine times, and still no deal to end the war. What are, you know, what is the Democratic Party prepared to do if it does take the House or if it takes both chambers of Congress to put pressure on these adversaries? Because it seems like, you know, there's been some

progress. We passed the Lindsey Graham bill, which is, I know was controversial among Democrats because it gives the president more power to impose tariffs, not a very popularly, policy, but at least it could be seen as symbolically, quote-unquote, anti-Russia. But it seems, I mean, I talk to the Ukrainians all the time. There's so much more the United States could be doing to contain and deter Russia and to put pressure on them to really end the war. And yet we're nowhere near that point. I mean, what are you guys prepared to do in Congress?

Yeah, yeah, no, it's a great question. And the China question especially has a really interesting answer. But, yeah, let's just pause 10 seconds to think about the politics. of this, right? We're like six weeks from an election. And all the Republicans have in this election is that the Democrats are Bolshevik communists who want to turn us into, you know, the Cambodian, you know, death fields or whatever. I mean, it's insane, right? It's all they've got. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is up there like buddy, buddy, slapping backs with Mom Donnie, you know, the boogeyman of the right. Like, oh, this guy's a great mayor. And as you point out, he's fetting, you know,

the number one betton noir of the Republican Party. Like, yeah, let's not just Greek G on a red carpet. Let's do a fighter jet flyover. I mean, you just can't make this stuff up politically. But on Russia and China, I'm very worried about these sanctions. I'm just really worried that three weeks from now, President Trump is going to waive the mandatory sanctions on Russia. And he's going to impose them on the European Union, right? And is there any fact out there which suggests that all of a sudden he's going to decide just because Congress passed a bill to get tough on Russia? Of course not. He's just got a always. weird fascination love affair with Russia.

Okay, Russia to Russia. China's more interesting because you are, I think, rightly critical of the mixed messages that are being sent by the Republican Party. But here's the thing. Here's why I hope it is a little mixed because, damn it, do not send China H-200 chips or advanced chips what the president is desperate to do in the category of let's have fighter jet flyovers. Do not do that, right?

On the other hand, and here's my point, on the other hand, We can do all we want on AI, right, on guardrails and, you know, alignment and all that good stuff. By the way, we're not. That's a whole other conversation. But we can do all we want. We need to work with the rest of the world. And in particular, China, to make sure that whatever guardrails and regulation gets imposed is not just inside the United States, but that it's global. And I think there's an opening there, Michael, because, you know, though we are antagonistic and they are an adversary, China actually fears.

something they can't control more than we do. So I think there's the glimmer of the possibility of working with China there. And again, I'm not going to be naive about this. But that's why, that's why sort of, you know, keeping, you know, what do they say, mailed fist and a, you know, in a handshake, whatever they're saying is with China is not the worst idea. Congressman, let me switch to something that I think is actually potentially a good thing. And that's CI Director Ratcliffe getting involved in the Ukraine talks. just to kind of put that in perspective, this is the idea of the CIA director engaging in what we call intelligence diplomacy. Bill Burns did this quite often. He was called on by President Biden. I think he

did it successfully. And it goes back to, you know, one of my favorite former directors, my, you know, fellow Greek mafia member, George Tenet, who was integral in the kind of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. So there's history of CIA directors, you know, kind of go doing that, going a step forward. And we do see reports. I think it was in various Ukrainian outlets, that maybe the Financial Times as well, that maybe Trump or the administration is soured a bit on Whitkoff and Kushner and that Rackcliffe may get involved. And then there was a press report that, I guess, during a refueling stop, that Rackcliffe just met Zelensky as they kind of cross pass. And I would think that, you know, as we have seen Whitkoff and Kushner, I think probably two of the worst diplomatic envoys in the history. of our country, you know, muddle things up globally. Maybe Rackcliffe getting involved in the Ukraine conflict is a good thing. You know, the bar might be low. But I think I think a lot of us who follow, and I know Michael does very closely follow the Ukraine conflict, probably see the Rackcliffe's inclusion in the talks as a positive. What are your thoughts on that? Yeah, yeah. I mean, look,

let's start at first principles here, right? When you strip all away the talk and the characters and the personalities, you know, since Trump took office, he has wanted to impose the deal that was written by Vladimir Putin on the Ukrainian. So let's dispense with this notion that there's a negotiation. There's not, right? And, I mean, we saw what the deal was some months ago. And Putin said, I want all of this territory in the Donbos that I haven't even been able

to take militarily. And I want you to guarantee that Ukraine will never be a member of member of Mbos. NATO and we want the Ukraine. I mean, this was the dictated deal of Vladimir Putin. Now, if you have no understanding of foreign affairs or the history of the region and no sense of ethics, looking at you, Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkoff, what you do is you say, okay, that's a deal. That's a deal. And all we need to do is convince the Ukrainians to take it. Problem is the Ukrainians do have a sense of history. They do have a sense of ethics. And by the way, we're talking about their country, right, you know, in which there people have been, you know, murdered and thrown into ditches and

Bucca. This was never a deal that Zelensky either as a political matter or as an ethical matter could accept. And lo and behold, the deal hasn't gotten done, right? So there was no negotiation. So you're right, Mark, you know, John Radcliffe is a very different kettle of fish. He hasn't appreciated, I served with John. I know him very well. You know, John does stuff that piss me off from time to time, but he's an old Reagan hawk, right? And so he hasn't understood. of the threat of Russia. He, you know, he sort of gets this stuff in a way that these transactional real estate guys don't. Now, does that mean he's going to get a deal done? No, he's not. Because, you know, Vladimir Putin is a canny guy, you know, and he has had whatever the number is,

you know, 750,000 deaths and twice that number of casualties. Think about that, right? We've had 18 killed in action in the Middle East and we're in an uproar about it. He's had three quarters of a million or so dead in his own country. So he knows. knows that if when this thing ends, there's a reckoning, right? And reckonings in Russia are not pretty things because they usually involve the current leader getting a bullet. And so, you know, Putin is not stopping this thing until he believes that Moscow and St. Petersburg in particular are so up in arms that he's at risk. And the oligarchs are going to start abandoning him and the security services loyalty becomes uncertain. Until that happens, sorry to be cynical here, but there's not a deal

on the table because this is existential for Vladimir Putin. But counterpoint to this. I mean, it is the case. And I mean, Mark and I've discussed it. I've reported on it. I've confirmed it both from the American side and the Ukrainian side. CIA not only shares intelligence with Ukraine for targeting inside Russia, all the energy infrastructure, the oil refineries and so on to bypass air defense systems. But now the intelligence partnership has expanded since the last administration. Now, we can credit John Rackcliffe for this. And from what I understand, he has a this sort of mystical ability to persuade Donald Trump on the golf links at the weekend, that killing Russians is actually in the American interest and is the fastest way to get some

boardroom, you know, skullduggery achieved with Moscow. So we are doing the thing, but we're not really advertising it. We don't want to take credit for it. Donald Trump certainly would like to stop it. And, you know, every so often he comes out like he put up a tweet or truth social post, oh, Russia's lost control of its diesel, you know, I'd really like for the Ukrainian to stop hitting these refineries. They just waged the largest salvo of drones and missiles on Moscow, what two days ago, after he had suggested, meaning the president, that there was some kind of mutual ceasefire agreed to.

So none of this is happening. I agree with you. There's not going to be a deal because Putin hasn't changed his core objectives, which is the total conquest of Ukraine. But isn't there an area of nuance here? I mean, there's been some reporting to suggest that, forget about the Ukrainians who I think have held Whitkoff and Kushner under deep suspicion because they only just went to Kiev recently. But the Russians now are feeling exasperated that, you know, Jared and Steve's excellent adventures

to Moscow have yielded nothing, right? These guys have overpromised. They've underdelivered. Putin has literally written the script for them, as you pointed out, given them the deal, but they haven't managed to make it so. So when the Russians start to say, okay, even our useful idiots are now becoming useless, it provides an opportunity for people who want to get a little more aggressive to push the Russians in a certain direction to swoop in. And the FTA has reported that John Rackcliffe is indeed, his portfolio in this regard is increasing. I mean, he just met with Zelensky in Ireland, apparently. Do you see maybe some area? I mean, you're an Intel guy, right? This is your committee. Maybe this is the job for the U.S. intelligence community now, take it away from these sort of,

you know, dipshit, plenty potentiary envoy. who are either related to the president or have worked with him in Outer Borough Slumlord development for a hundred years. Maybe CIA should be running this file. Yeah, I mean, to get back to the question that we opened the conversation with, yeah, you know, useful idiots who now may very well have all kinds of bugs on their bathing suits and iPhones and iPads because they were hanging around with Russian intelligence officers in the Bahamas. But anyway, okay, we don't need to go back there. Look, I totally agree that, you know, having John Radcliffe,

as point is better than having Steve Wittkoff and Jared Kushner, who have, you know, a precisely zero batting average. I just don't know how much better because, look, do I think Putin takes a deal that is less than his, yeah, you said he wants all of Ukraine. Look, I think he understands now that that that's not on the table. And by the way, he probably doesn't want it on the table, because it turns out that the Ukrainians are badgers, right? You know, like, does, does, you know, Putin really want to try to lock down, you know, Kyiv and, and Leviv with, you know, the way they had to lock down Afghanistan. No, he doesn't want that.

What he needs is something that the Ukrainians can't give, which is to be able to say, I won this thing. And to say that he's got to really get the whole Donbos. And right now, you know, he loses a thousand men to get 100 yards of the Donbos, right? And so I just don't think that there's a deal in the offing. And, you know, we were talking about Iran. before, you know, Putin's in the same situation as the Supreme Leader and the head of Iran, which is, okay, I may be pissing off my people. And he is, right? But, you know, at the end of

the day, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter because I've got a security service that will do whatever it takes to keep the people from whacking me. And again, you know, I'm sort of fascinated by the Russian soul. I've got to go back and read my Dostoyevsky or whatever. But, you know, it's not apparently the half a million to three quarter of a million dead Russians that is pissing off, you know, the upper middle class in Moscow. It's the fact that they're now hanging out in gas lines for 20 minutes and don't have internet service. So you do start to see in these places that matter like Moscow. I shouldn't put it that way. Moscow and St. Petersburg are where the elites are, you know, that Putin has drawn his people and has visited misery on the provinces.

But you do start to see Muscovites and people in St. Petersburg starting to get a little pissed off. And again, you know, Russian history is pretty fascinating, right? You've got a dictator who who is unbeatable until he's in a shallow grave, right? I just want to ask you an issue that is close to both Mark and myself, Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidents, as they're known. Look, Hipsy has been seen as sort of the last great hope to get clarity and justice on this issue. There's a report that has been highly classified.

There was a redacted version that Chairman Crawford released, where he basically came out and said that it certainly looks like, some of these cases are the work of a hostile adversary, wink, wink, as which one, right? I mean, we all know that it's Russia that's behind this. That's the most likely culprit. If you become chairman, I mean, we've just seen the OD&I with Tulsi Gabbard on the way out the door, rescinded the ICA finding that there is no there there that we can't attribute that this to a foreign actor, much less certify that AHI is a real phenomenon, right?

If you become chairman, what do you commit to do with respect to AHA, if only to, you know, release whatever intelligence that can be released on this issue? Because I know that the intelligence community's assessment of this has changed agency by agency, right? Some have, you know, basically their skepticism has been diminished. So what would you say that your goal is with respect to this issue? Yeah, I mean, that's an easy question to answer. And then I'll give you a little bit of color where I need to be. really careful because a lot of the sort of cutting edge on this stuff is really highly classified. But let me give you the headline and answer your question, which is, look, we owe it to the men

and women, not just of the intelligence community, but the State Department and the government as a whole to continue to try to get to the bottom of this until we do get to the bottom of this, right? And the reality is, and here's where I've got to be a little careful, the reality is, and the reason that the old ICAs have been rescinded is because we've learned new stuff, right? We've learned more about how one might induce these symptoms, right? We've started to think about technology that might allow you to induce these symptoms. And I'm sorry to be arch about this stuff, but I do need to be careful because it is on the cutting edge of what we know and have. What I would tell you, though, is that we're making progress in terms of understanding that stuff.

I would also tell you, and again, back to your original question, I want this behind us and I want to understand it. It has roiled the intelligence community. It tore the CIA up, right? We've got to get to the bottom of this. We're not yet at a point where we have any evidence to say it was this country that did that. And, you know, the chairman, I think, somewhat overstepped it. Is it possible? Yes.

Is there circumstantial evidence? Circumstantial? Yes. But we're still not at a point. And the reason I'm careful about this is the last thing we need to do is start asserting with great authority things that we don't know for sure. That is a guaranteed way to make this problem even more painful for the people who suffered from this thing.

So the answer to your question is, if I am lucky enough to be chairman, we're going to keep pushing this. and we're going to try to get to the bottom of it. But we're going to be careful about it, right? There is a tendency in House Republicans now to jump to the good guy, bad guy thing. So in other words, oh, it's a massive cover-up in conspiracy. And it was, you know, Bill Burns's fault or it was, you know, so-and-so's fault or, you know, just start naming. And there's a massive cover-up.

And it was really this country when we don't actually have the evidence to support those claims. And so, anyway, I'm repeating myself here, but we're going to stay on it until we get to the bottom of what this was all about. And so, Congressman, I would just say, you know, I certainly appreciate that as a victim of this, of course, and I've testified in front of the committee and known a lot of your staff and staff on both sides of the aisle. And so there are, you know, for the men and women of the intelligence community, as you said, for the State Department, U.S. military, I think it's absolutely critical to kind of keep this alive. I know there's going to be a lot of things on your plate. But I think, you know, that, you know, we or you, and Congress owes

it to those of us who kind of, you know, we're on the ramparts helping protect this country. So that's certainly appreciated. And you know what? This is a subject we can come back and do a whole episode on, if you wouldn't mind one day on the bulwark as well. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I hope that in time what we know at the classified level can be made public. And I don't see any reason why that can't be true. But yeah, that's absolutely right, Mark. We've got to get to the bottom of this. You know, nothing is quite. so ugly and nothing spurs, I don't want to use the word conspiracy thinking, because I don't want to accuse anybody of manufacturing conspiracy. But uncertainty and not having the facts

always makes a situation worse. And so we just need to keep pushing on this. All right. Well, I think we're out of time here. Thanks everyone for watching, Bullwark Pakes. Make sure to subscribe to the feed and follow us whenever you get your podcasts. Michael, good to see you. Congressman, that was a delight. We could have gone for several hours, but I know we know you have a busy schedule. Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks so much, guys. Really appreciate it.