Danny Jones Podcast - #162 - CIA Spy & FBI Agent Debate: China, Ukraine & How To Disappear People | Andrew Bustamante, Jim DiOrio & Julian Dorey

Episode Date: November 21, 2022

Andrew Bustimante is a "former" covert CIA intelligence officer & clandestine operative. Jim DiOrio is a former FBI Special Agent and international FBI interrogator. Julian Dorey is a master conversationalist and host of the "Trendifier" podcast. EPISODE LINKS:  Julian: https://www.youtube.com/@JulianDorey Andy: https://everydayspy.comLearn your spy superpower: https://everydayspy.com/quiz Jim: https://j3-global.squarespace.com JOIN OUR KULT: https://bit.ly/koncretepatreon  Danny  https://www.instagram.com/jonesdanny  https://twitter.com/jonesdanny Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I ordered both colors. We smoked a hookah for like two hours after everybody left. Some dude walked by and turned like, oh, look, okay. I'm like, sir, is that the jumbo petite? One of my favorite things is smoking hookah in the U.S. If you smoke hookah in the Middle East, it'll fuck you up. Yes, it will. Really?

What's the difference in it? They've got, they put tobacco in it. Oh, yeah. What's in it here? Just vapor. Yeah, it's just flavor. Oh, really? Yeah.

That's why it doesn't feel like. No. It'll tear up your throat. It'll give you a little bit of a head high. But like you do that stuff in the Middle East. And like here you could smoke Coca all night. In the Middle East, you do like one and you're, you're like gone.

Really? Yeah. They stay up all night doing it. That's the kind of hookah. I want to smoke. I'm telling you. Just take it easy when you do it. And don't be sitting with anybody.

Don't sit with a Jordanian. Don't sit with an Emirati or a Saudi. Why? What's up with a Jordanian? It's fun. The Emirates and the Saudis are just going to like, they're just going to pull as much information out of you as possible. because they do everything very really yeah Andy I got to come clean I got to start the podcast

with this me and Julian we're having like a we had like a 30 40 minute debate last night whether or not you murdered people overseas I'm like I go I don't think he I can't see Andy slaying I don't think he's a he's a killer I mean maybe Jim said there's no doubt I'm like I'm like well this is what this is what my thought was I'm like it's got to be compartmentalized. Andy's got to be the guy that sets people up and has the meetings, tricks everybody, and there's got to be another guy that slips

in somebody's window at night and fucking slits their throat. We don't call it tricking. I don't see Andy. We don't call it murder. Andy's like, let me call it. Andy's the kind of guy slit your throat but then he helps your head down to the ground. So that you can have

an open casket. Thank you. I'm serious. You and I think I like. There's guys like that. Yeah. There's also. Me, I don't care. close the casket. So you got to you gotta put the head down. Absolutely. So you do it politely.

It's, it's intimates. Yeah. You'll never have an open casket with me. There's intimate killers and there's not intimate killers. So I always thought CIA people, they would kill you by either poisoning you

or like they had this way of inducing heart attacks, making people have heart attacks. Poison is way too high risk. Well, poison the wrong person might take it. We tried to poison, what's his name? Castro, right? I mean, I think we've tried to poison more people than we've successfully.

Oh, okay. Agreed. What are some of the best ways that they pull off nondescript kills? Non-descript. Yeah. Meaning like people don't really figure out to them. What is the preferred way of murder?

Car accident. What do you call murder? Car accidents. Car accident. Drowning. Dressanations. Okay. So, and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to say that there's really very little

value in a in a nondescript killing. Yes. The value comes from a high profile. 100%. Because now you get, you get the influence impact. So, the message. Correct.

You want to deliver a crystal clear message. You use a non-explosive missile. You use, like, if you've heard of switchblade missiles, not the drones, right? The drones are something different. But there's a missile that launches, and right before it hits its target, it has blades that come out the sides. So now you can hit one target with blades out both sides that basically turn the body into an explosive. And then everybody else in the car is now covered in the guts and the brains and the body parts. That'll do.

That'll do. That's great. You get the kill and you send a message. Yep. That's what's really, that's how we handle it. You still think he's innocent as fuck? It's not an intimate kill.

It's not an intimate kill. You're not on, you're not eye to eye. You'll see his eyes later. It'll be on the other guy. Oh my God. But you've got an eye on this guy watching. And then you see them all break and you see them kind of wiping it off the shirt and

they're freaking out. And you're like, oh, it's a win. It's a win for America today, guys. Spoken like a man with experience. That's incredible. We've just read about it. Andy and you know. Yeah, that's right. I saw it in a movie once. Yeah, exactly. I don't know why I haven't seen that in the movie. That's such a badass thing. I don't, the only thing I can think of is it's just too, it's too grotesque. Gory. Yeah. What it's probably silent too, right? Or fairly silent. It's like a thud. Like the car still runs. It goes like through the windshield or through the side windows or through the back window. It doesn't hurt the engine block. It just hits the person. Person blows up, right? I mean, it's moving 600, 700, 700 miles an hour when it hits. But it doesn't like. break the car. It just puts a giant hole in the car and everybody else can get out and walk.

What about some old school like car bombings? They're still doing a lot of that? Not we don't do that kind of stuff. No. It's not it's I told you the profile's too high risk guys. You got it when you think about what we do overseas. I mean, this guy's nodding his head like we've got you've got a Senate to account for a congressional staff, you know, you know, congressional house you got to account for you got the executive you have to account for. So everything is heavily bureaucracized. So with the stuff that we need to do, we need it to be discreet to everyone except the target audience. So like when you blow up a terrorist,

you want it to be the terrorist cell knows what happened, but pretty much nobody else does. That's how we want to operate. That's exactly right. Club bombs and motorcycle bombs. That's from a side. So what about that guy? Wow.

What was the dude like Putin's chief advisor or something? Oh, the dude who was poisoned? No, no. I know what you're thinking of. I'm talking about a recent one, though. Putin's chief advisor, the daughter's like a media member, and the guy got like blown up in his car a few months ago. They were saying, I think the word was like, oh, Ukraine had to do that. So I guess that would make sense based on what you're saying. That wouldn't have been something

we would have looked at. Right. That's MI6, CIA. Yeah, even SVR, right, they try to stay very discreet unless even when they poison people, they do it discreetly. It just hits the headlines when somebody finds a poison body. I cut you off, Jim, I'm sorry. No, no, no. I was just thinking about another method, but it doesn't make sense in this context. I'm thinking more of interrogation.

Have you seen the videos of... Killing somebody. I think it relates to killing, then it's related to the topic. Collarbone. Yeah. Okay. Have you seen the videos of some of the attempted

assassinations on Putin? Like, there's one specific. I think it's still on YouTube. where the car tries to drive across the median across the highway and tries to get hit Putin's car. So somebody was driving Putin's vehicle. I think it was his limo or something like that,

but he wasn't in it. And a car was driving down the other side of the highway in Russia going like 120, comes all the way across the median and it teabot the car and kills the driver. Do we have that on video? Yes, see if you can find that on YouTube. It's definitely on video.

I've seen it on YouTube before. Putin's like, no get me. I'm not there. Kind of like the patent. Same thing happened to patent, right? I mean, back in the day. Oh, yeah. That's way back.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. He eventually succumbed to the injuries, but didn't kill him on the spot. Oh, my God. Do we ever find out who did that? No. No. No one found out who did that today? No.

Nope, never. Well, they said he survived, right? I mean, I think they said he survived for a while. And then they said he lived longer, like that he wasn't dead. Because he's patent. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. You don't pitch invading China.

No. And then go out quietly. Exactly, exactly right. Yeah, that's exactly right. It's right. George E. Scott played a nice role there too. What's the latest in Ukraine, though? That's really, that's what we wanted to get to right away.

Because it seems like it's been a almost a stalemate. That's not the best way I describe it, but it fuels minus the blow up of the pipeline a few months ago. That seemed just to be some media political play at the end of the day. It feels like a total nothing burger for the last three, four months. I mean, he's on the run. He's got a tail between the legs. I worry. I mean, I don't know how you feel about it, Andy, but I worry about things.

You know, this guy's a nut. He's a narcissist. He's as much as a narcissist as the other orange-haired dude that's going to make an announcement on Tuesday. Oh, yeah. Really screw the country. In two days. Yeah, unbelievable. In the middle of this fight, you know, obviously Herschel Walker should take him out.

But, you know, my thought, I worry about the fact that he's got the capability to do some crazy things. And he's feeling like he needs to do some crazy things, right? So who knows? I just don't know. Yeah. So it's funny because even hearing your comment right there, Julian, like I cringe because you can see the Western narrative playing out. It's not a stalemate. It's not a stalemate when there's still thousands of people dying every week.

You know what I mean? there's 24,000 rounds a week being launched in terms of artillery from the Russian side. There's four to six thousand rounds of artillery being launched a week from the Ukrainian side. Like, it's not a stalemate. What about the progress, though? This is what protracted war looks like, right? This is right out of the Army War College. A million percent.

You've got anybody out there who's trying to say that Russia is winning right now, what you consider it or anybody who's trying to say Ukraine is winning, if somebody else owns 20% of your house, you're not winning. Are you fighting back? Yeah. Ukraine is fighting back. They have surprised the world over and over again.

They shocked the world with a resistance in the first two weeks. They shocked the world with a counterattack. They shocked the world with what's going on in Kerosen right now. This is what protracted war looks like. There's battlefield wins. There's battlefield losses. And especially when you're talking about Ukraine versus Russia, both of them were trained in the same school of combat.

the Russian Soviet School of Combat, which is all about disinformation, misinformation, and trying to attack what nobody sees. Right? So we never really know what's going to happen next in this conflict. We can try to make assessments. We can try to make predictions, but we should all expect that predictions are going to be wrong and assessments really should be weighted out with their probabilities, right? So what's coming?

The winter is coming. Russia still controls massive portions of Ukraine. Has Russia pulled back some of their advance? They've definitely pulled back. They've dug in. I mean, I've had folks who've come back from Ukraine saying it looks more like World War I out there. It's trench warfare. Artillery pieces.

Only now those are. The rounds fired, right? 24,000 a week. What most people don't understand is the shock effect, even if there's no killing with regardless of these explosions or these rounds, the shock effect is so severe that it's almost impossible. You see the old World War I and World War II videos of what's now classified as PTSD or classified as like a closed head injury, a traumatic brain injury, those kinds of things. That's from the shock effect. That's from the fact that you're continuously hearing and getting hit on top of sites and areas, right?

The other part of it is exploding rounds. These things explode like 20 yards above your head. Oh, fuck. And then just rip you. You know, so that's, even if you survive that, you don't survive that. So I think that's kind of the situation that's in. They continue to just fire these particular artillery and drone rounds. And they're making progress in that fashion.

There's no more traditional combat. There's no more hand-to-hand. There's no more of that stuff really going on. When I was saying stalemate, by the way, because that was a bad word to use because I didn't mean like, Oh, there's no fighting going on. Seems like nothing. No movement. What I meant was have the lines change?

Like, it's a good point. Russia is in 20% of the house. But like, have we seen Russia move to like 40% or seeing Ukraine pushing back five? That's more than one of the more. The strategic field of battle in Ukraine is the South. It's the land bridge to Odessa and Moldova. It has never changed. Even if you look at the counterattack that started on August 29th,

where did that counterattack make the most progress in the north? in the north, right? The counterattack was brilliantly executed. And Zelensky even said himself that the reason they launched a counterattack in the north was because they knew they were about to lose ongoing support from NATO in the West. They needed to show battlefield victories

in order to continue receiving support from the West. He knew it. He knew it and he publicly announced it. And then he said, that's why we launched a counterattack. And they launched a counterattack in the north and the south. The South barely moved. The North had massive gains. So they redirected all of their resources to the north. Why were they so successful in the north?

Because for the preceding two months, Russia had been moving all of their forces to the south because they know the strategic value of Ukraine is to close off the southern end. If they need to call and help from Belarus, they will. And guess what they've been doing, mobilizing troops in Belarus. So they weren't worried strategically about the north. They've always been focused on the south, which is why you've seen what you've seen in the south.

And it's also part of the reason why what's happening in Harrison City right now is so relevant. because that is truly a strategic battle. All stuff that happened up north was much less strategic. It wasn't worth launching a tactical nuke because they came in up north and invaded even after they annexed that location. It's not worth it strategically to piss off NATO and piss off the West with nuclear weapons. This is exactly what Jim's talking about.

You've got a loose cannon, an authoritarian leader who can make basically any call he wants to make, but then he's also working within the confines of his own system where he knows, like we talked about Julian, he may make a call and the field officers don't obey. And that's part of the calculated risk. He has to, he has to think through, right? So he changes battlefield commanders. Battlefield commanders change their strategy, but the strategic goal has not changed. And winter is coming.

40% of the Ukrainian electrical grid is broken. We just have, you haven't heard this? No. Again, straight out of American military war college, you attack the electrical. grid and you let Winter do the fighting for you. There's rolling blackouts in Ukraine right now. Is that? There's shelling in Ukraine right now.

No, it's missiles hitting electrical relay stations. Like, they can't recreate that power. Tier 1 stuff, man. That's what happens out of the box. Why, I mean, hasn't Putin come to the table and try to come up with a deal? Haven't Ukraine and Putin like been close to deals multiple times? They've never been close to landing a deal. Right. And it's because this is super important too.

After Ukraine, after the Ukrainian electrical grid started getting attacked, Zelensky came out and said they will not negotiate peace with Russia until certain criteria met. And the criteria were completely unrealistic criteria. He wanted the original boundaries redrawn from like 1997. A full withdrawal of Russian troops. Like it was an insane thing to ask for. You got to start high. Prince, yeah. So based on principle, right, Western principles, we think, oh, no, that's reasonable.

Just you invaded us. You've got to get out. The problem is when you're going to a negotiating table, you can't ever make it a full loss for the other person. Yes. Yeah. How's he going to rationalize to his own people? All the death, all the destruction, all the loss. He can't, that's not a realistic negotiating position, right? What Rush has been doing is taking territory and stopping and opening the door for communication. It's been. Zelinsky for the last three or four months that has been unrealistic. And that's why you saw last week the United States step in, tap Zelensky on the shoulder and say, you need to show a little more flexibility to negotiate. So what that means in clear terms is that the United States.

Yeah, but who said that? Wait a second. The Biden administration said that. But did you hear about the progressive caucus and the letter they sent to Biden that then got like marked? So I don't know. So they sent, they sent there's 30 members. of the Progressive Caucus in Congress. Rashida Taleb's on it. The guy Jamie Raskins on it. And they sent a letter to Biden that they allegedly had drafted like a month or something ago. This is a couple weeks ago now.

And it, I read it. You can find it online right now. It laid out very nicely that like, hey, we've been happy to send aid to Ukraine. Obviously, we support their cause, everything like that. But there is some intelligence that suggests that there could be a possibility of having peace on the table. and that is something that for not just the good of Ukraine to get them a W, maybe not like a full W, maybe not like Russia doesn't cease to exist, but to get them a little W and also create peace along the border, peace for the world, take down this whole nuclear potential and all that.

Let's take a look at this. Letter comes out. Next day, out of nowhere, oh, no, some staffer leak that we didn't really mean to send that, which is total bullshit. Somebody like you went to tap them on the shoulder and said, you're not going to fucking put this out. And now we have you saying that like Biden's approach in Ukraine and saying, oh, you need to talk about peace. It's it's it's it's not unknown right now. It's fairly well covered right now that that and not only is it encouraged, but Zelensky has come out and publicly said that he is willing to, he's open to negotiation. He is changing the foundational requirements for negotiation, right? He's made out of public statement now.

I am open to negotiation. Nobody talks like that. My wife's gone on Oprah and we'll square this up. But the other thing that I think that you have to think about too is rank and file soldier, right? So now you have Russian soldiers who are actually commiserating with and aligning themselves with Ukrainians. Yeah. Right? So we heard those stories right out of the box out, taking, you know, making sure the vehicles don't run, don't want to go in.

Why are we here? We're being called up to do things we don't believe in. You saw, you know, Putin sit at the end of one table, everybody else sitting at the end of the end. at the other end, eating alone, you know, all those things. But rank and file is important. You know, so it's hearts and minds kind of stuff. That's kind of what I did in the military, the hearts and minds piece. Let's see where they're at.

Let's see if we can bring this together and find a common cause, you know, to go forward. I mean, it's a civil war, right? So, I mean, it's the same people that were living together 25 years ago. Yep. You know, and now they have to, they're fighting each other. And they're trying to figure out a way to reduce the death, reduce the casualties, reduce the state of mind. And I think that's important.

That's something that's kind of lost in the negotiations piece. And who knows who's talking about that. I know we're not talking about it. I can guarantee with Millie's still there. What do you think about Biden just going and meeting with Putin face to face? Do you think that would happen? The reason that can't happen is because technically this isn't supposed to be a war between the United States and Russia. Yep.

What's happening is that every time the United States gets in, if you remember back in March, French President Macron came out and said, and said that Biden needs to stop commenting on the conflict. It was shortly after Biden was in Poland and said, for the love of God, nobody should let this guy rain. Take him out. Because what was happening is Biden's like very overt implications of how the United States stood to benefit from this conflict was throwing off NATO's goals.

And since then you saw the French president come in and say Biden back down. You've seen the German chancellor step up and say, we need to create a NATO without the United States military being. the biggest force, which is why Germany is doubling down on building their army. Because they're like, we need to be the largest army in Europe so that we can drive NATO. Because right now, the United States drives NATO. And if you look at NATO's charter, guess who can join NATO? European states.

Yes, it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The only North Atlantic countries that are allowed into that are not European are Canada of the United States. Yes. Right? Even the charter itself says we're open to new people if they're European. So it makes no sense that Europe is basically operating. at the behest of whatever the United States chooses to do. Yeah, we were fine in this article because you just mentioned this.

This is from two days ago in the key post. So straight out of Ukraine where the headline is, Zelensky says open to talks with Russia. And the article says exactly what you think is. So I understand. I understand the Twitter armchair analysts out there who basically want to shit on everybody all the time. I get shit on by them too, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Oh, Zelensky is changing this or changing that or whatever it's going to be. Right. Five days ago he said this and now he's saying that. That's that is that's the nature of conflict. Yeah. If you're not a professional soldier, if you're not a professional public servant, you don't understand policy changes. Priorities shift.

That's just how it works. Same thing's happening on the Russia side. So is it a W to use your terminology, right? And I talked about this with Lex when we were on when Lex and I were on the Lex Freeman podcast. While W a win doesn't look the way people think it's going to look. Right? Your typical uninformed person thinks that a win is going to look like Russia. raises their hands and gives up and leaves Ukraine alone.

A win is most likely going to look like Russia says, we'll stop here. And Ukraine says, we'll accept that. And maybe there's a ceasefire and they've still lost 20% of their territory. And what does that mean for the world if Russia now has 20% of Ukraine, new Ukraine, brother, what does it mean for the world if Russia has 100% of Ukraine? What did it mean for the world on February 23rd before Russia ever invaded Ukraine? It means nothing to the world.

Ukraine is not a strategic objective for anybody. Why do you say that? This is a Putin. This is a narcissism 101, man. Let me get what I think is mine. I'm crazy. I'm out of my mind. We've seen it on Pennsylvania Avenue two or three years ago.

It's the same shit. So why are we pumping 100, if that's the case, obviously, like there's a humanitarian crisis there. We're the leaders of the free world, right? So that's what it comes down to. Julian, ask yourself the hard question, right? You're asking the hard question right now. What's the point? What's the point? Why is the United States involved in this? It has nothing to do with Ukraine's independence or sovereignty helping the United States. Do we own them? Is that part of it? Client state over there? Even if you did, like, what do you own? You own a poverty-stricken country that's on the verge of a failing democracy. That was before it was invaded. You want to know what you get out of this conflict? The United States gets to practice logistical shipments of large-scale weapons and movements, across the world in time for a real battle.

You want to know what the United States gets out of it? They get to burn through old surplus weaponry and test experimental weaponry on an active battlefield. Why is that beneficial to the United States? Because our real threat is 7,000 miles away. And if we don't get a chance to practice a protracted war halfway across the globe, then we're going to get caught with our pants down

when China invades Taiwan. Because guess how far away China is from Taiwan? only 80 miles further than Russia was from Ukraine. Well, according to one China Danny here, Taiwan's a part of China. That's not one China Danny. That's one China Biden too. Sleepy Joe's got a big meeting on Tuesday. This will all go away.

Don't worry. Don't fret. He's got it under control. Isn't China already shooting fucking missiles towards Taiwan? Absolutely. They're showing what their capability is. What happened a few weeks ago, maybe a month ago now? I think it's been a while.

but there was the communist party meeting in China and you had, I forget the fucking guys name and all. Yeah, that dude. He was like this old dude sitting next to Xi Jinping, and then like security came in and like started yanking his ass out of the chair. And G's just sitting, that was like the ultimate like, yeah, sorry fam, like, don't know what's going on. Like what happened there? Historians and politicians, I'm sorry, historians and political scientists around the world cringe when Julian talks about World International.

This fucking old guy is sitting there. This guy gets ripped up. It's on TikTok. And he turns around. Somewhere there's a... He puts a new school spin on it. He does. I've never heard anybody who knows more about the CIA and the FBI and the U.S.

government than Julian. I swear to God. There's a Harvard professor somewhere sitting there like, I made a career out of studying political science so that this guy could call Hoogyn Town some old guy. Imagine David Satter's sitting across from me. 50 years, like financial times, like Moscow correspondent. I'm saying shit like this. He's like, oh, yeah, gotcha.

But anyway, yeah, what happened? Jim, I'm doing a bunch of talks. I'm jumping in, man. I'm listening. I'm learning. I don't want to stop. I'm listening. I'm learning.

You know me? It's just all about breaking the collar bowl. We have to figure this out. We never done for like. There's never been. Has there been a podcast with FBI and CIA at the same table? Right before 9-11. I'm only kidding.

It didn't happen. It did not happen. It did not happen. This is good. We're actually setting the mark here. We're bringing high watermark right here, boys. That's going to get clipped. One step at a time. Oh, my God.

That's going to be in documentaries 10 years. Boy, yeah, it is. But no, in all honesty, I do think this is a pretty cool pair. It's really cool. This is something that probably, honestly, it could probably never happen if we were active CIA, active DOD or active FBI. Because there would be so much bureaucracy to get through. Somebody would say no, it would be too high risk.

The editing would be outrageous. The ownership rights would be outrageous. I mean, publicly. You guys aren't active, but private. Yeah. According to the comments, you guys are both still active. Did you get a description of the old guy that get ripped out of the chair? That might have been me.

No, I'm going to kidding. No, he was, he was Asian. Who was the guy that got ripped out of the chair? So that was his name was Hu Jintal. So who, can we find that? Yeah, what you, what you saw. You speak Chinese too, so you were definitely listening to that. My Chinese is rusty.

If you can imagine like, like cobwebs in an attic kind of thing, that's what my Chinese is. You haven't been keeping up on it? How long did it take you to learn Chinese? technically it took me four years to speak at a fifth grade level so yeah the military taught me for a long time and it never got very good where were you Monterey? No I was actually the Air Force Academy

yeah all right Monterey is the best length I asked for Monterey but yeah but that's out of budget yeah no the so what you saw with it's called the party congress you saw the I think it was a 20th party Congress it's a party Congress it's a party Congress that happens maybe in the 50th but it happens every two years every 10 years Yeah, do we have the video?

You should pull up the video. There's so much video it's going to be hard to find the good one. The Jerusalem Post. Yeah. Very reliable, very reliable source right there. Is it? No. Not even close.

It might as well just be called. Israel's always right. The world is always wrong post. Wow. This is how it happened. The rest of you're stupid. See you at the club. See you at the club.

But yeah, what's what you're seeing happening between China right now and the West, right? Let's just collectively call it the West. Is Xi Jinping is correctly realizing that this is a time to demonstrate unity and power in the East because the West is struggling under democracy, right? You've got NATO arguing with each other's members. You've got, you've got Hungary, a NATO partner altogether, actively trying to propose that Russia should be left alone, right? Like, you've got internal conflict in NATO.

you have the disaster of what our of what our midterm elections just turned into right basically a how so a another gridlock a gridlock continued gridlock with with transfer of power looking like it's most likely going to go to the republicans in congress which means the purse strings of the government are going to get tied down so you know blue senate blue executive a red congress that just means money's getting tight yep it doesn't mean that we're going to start getting along if anything it means we're as divided as we've been ever been. And these elections are showing that. It's right down the middle. So it doesn't matter.

So what Xi Jinping wants to do is he knows that the win for China and the win for Chinese influence around the world is to show that China can get stuff done where the West can't even figure out their own backyard. But why is he taking a senior citizen out of like the nursing? Because Hu Jintao is the only other person that carries

anywhere near as much influence as Xi Jinping. He doesn't look like he knows what he ate for lunch today. Yeah. Don't mistake the way that an old man looks. He He sat in she's seat or she sat there. Look at this. Look at G's face. That is the ultimate, like throw some sunglasses on him with a cigarette and say,

not in here, bitch. He's like, oh, yeah. So this is also important because if you watch. If you get to resist. So if you get, no, he's not resisting. He's just, he's just an old guy. He's asking questions. You see him keep reaching for that sheet of paper?

He's trying to ask, listen up, Julian. He's trying to ask questions about why changes were made to the panel without his approval. And now as he's being marched out, watch how nobody looks at him. nobody looks at him because they realize this is a move that she is making so they're not looking no eye contact no eye contact these are all people that have worked under hujintal wow and they're all essentially demonstrating their defer their deferral to shijing this is a clear message to the world that she Jinping is the consolidated source of power in china and that they are unified behind she Jinping so what happened to him yeah we don't know we don't know what is probably nothing i mean the dude's the dude is a

legend in China. He's probably living in some nice pagoda up in the mountains. Just being left alone. Right. He got a nice retirement package. They gave him Pebble Beach. He's too big to just be disappeared. Too important to be disappeared. But could you imagine that ever happening here? No. Imagine somebody

walking Sleepy Joe out? He'd go the wrong way. Oh my gosh. So that guy's equivalent to like what? He's equivalent to like... Is Xi Jinping before she? Yeah. He was when Bush was around and Obama's first came. Yeah. He's the guy that essentially modernized China brought China into the fold of world superpowers.

Why do you talk about, and I think some of it's obvious to people listening, but I just want to hear you express it. Like, when you're always going right to China as the main adversary here, and to quote you on the Patrick Beth David podcast, you said, you were stationed in Asia, you're not allowed to say where. But what languages do you speak again? Thai, Chinese and Japanese. Okay.

So you said you do the math, right? So obviously this is a topic you know something about like what makes them the ultimate thread and like what's your worst case scenario with our relations with China over the next 10 years. I look here's what I when I think about and this has been going on forever as long as I've been serving. It's been the same deal. And the fact of the matter is the Bureau has really not geared up on the side of foreign counterintelligence on on that side of the house. They've worried about other things that are here in our backyard. in their mind, what they can see, the drugs, you know, the murder, the organized crime. In the meantime, they're just destroying every part of what we do and how we do it.

And what I always look at is look at the focus on the face of 18 and 19 year old Chinese Communist Party soldiers. Look at that. Look at the ferocity that comes with that. Look at, then look at our kids, look at our generation. Our military recruitment crisis right now? Exactly. We actually lowered our standard by 10,000. and missed the quota by 15,000. We're not even getting new soldiers into our military. We can't do it.

We can't find. And what they say is, well, we don't really want the kid with, you know, some type of indictment or some type of misdemeanor. Because you just don't know. Listen,

we have no choice. Like I said, lowered it by 10,000, missed it by 15. This has never happened, ever, ever in the history of the military. So what do we do now?

So then you got people talking about, well, we should have, you know, a two-week service after high school and then you go, come on, you're fucking crazy. Parents will be, that'll be the most corrupt program in the history of the United States as parents are buying their kids way out of it.

So that's, it starts there. It starts with the commitment to country and cause. And so whatever's done there, and obviously we can only imagine what's done in order to keep that in place, and it's a high drive. You know, the culture is a high drive culture, want to succeed, want to do more, want to come to the state, study at our Ivy League universities, do the things that they do. And it just carries over into, I would love to know what that guy was trying to put forward.

What was he asking? Yeah. I'll never find that out. That's true. Right. The reason that you see me jump right to China is because of three main things, right? First, we spent 20 years, just like Jim was saying, we spent 20 years fighting a global war on terrorism. Guess who wasn't involved in the global war on terrorism?

Yeah. China. So that means all of our money, all of our effort, all of our attention was fighting a, a, and, transnational threat that China wasn't spending any time or any money on. And they were building. They were building and they were perfecting how they could penetrate the West because the West was distracted. And how are they doing that? Now here's, so let's move on to point number two.

And watching our mistakes by them, watching what we did wrong. Whenever you go down into a mine, right? Back in the day, miners used to take, what was it, a parrot? A parakeet. A canary. A canary. They used to take a canary down into a mine, right? And the reason, and it was because the canary,

when the canary bit the dust, that's how they would know that there wasn't enough oxygen to keep the miners alive so they could get out. Our canary is Australia. Australia knows that. They've been our canary for a long time.

So guess what happened about four years ago? Australia realized that Chinese were sending Chinese students, Chinese professors, Chinese mining experts into Australia specifically to undermine Australian politics, Australian student mindset and ideology. Mission accomplished.

And guess who? Australia's most. important exporter, export import partner is China. And they were so upset. The Australians, God love them, because they're just a fearless bunch of savages sometimes. They were like, we caught you, China. We're going to let the whole world know we caught you and we're going to penalize you. Even though they know that penalizing China means penalizing themselves, right? So Australia's been in this battle with the Chinese for like the last five years. But why were they the most totalitarian in the lens of what China was trying to do with

when the pandemic just kept going on and on. Don't you're, you're distract you distract it. Yeah, that's an offshoot that's not relevant to your first question. Okay. Right. So we have our canary. So my three points, right? First, they didn't participate in the global war on terror.

So they were just, they were mastering their future plan because they had a, they had a 50 year plan, right? Then we have our canary go off, go off in Australia. And now the third point, they're, they are poised to become the world's economic superpower by 2032.

Economics is the, is what drives everything in, in human existence, right? The more money you make, the more money you can spend developing weapons, the more military you can build, the more everybody else wants to be your friend because you have the most money. What made the United States, the superpower that we are?

Economics. Our economics are starting to fall behind Chinese economics. China knows that. So they're very focused on becoming the world's economic superpower. And once they're the economic superpower, then it's very, very hard for us to catch up after that, which is why you see the race kicking up now. Trump, Trump kind of called attention to it, but the world hated Trump.

So the world was kind of not open to his point of view. Exactly. But one of the only policies that carried on from the Trump administration into the Biden administration were the China policies. Yes. I'm seeing now. So those are my three points. Sorry to cut you off.

No, no. That's outstanding. I mean, that's outstanding. And you think about, they're all in as well. You know, we have, I know, we have offices near every major university. We at least have one person that sits, that's, you know, an experienced counterintelligence person as experiences the Bureau can be. And they sit outside these universities and they recruit assets within to find out what

the deal is, whether or not they're actually like a proactive asset, somebody that's trying to do things to harm U.S. or whether they're just gathering information. And if you go to any major financial institution and or investment bank in the city, you will find interns within that organization who are being recognized. called back to China in order to report and we're allowing it to happen. We are kind of nervous about whether or not we should hire or fire or get rid of or even do background checks on these people where they're coming from, what they're doing, what their incentive is, what their orders are, why they're going back working for six weeks at a major New York corporation that's moving

and shaking and then heading back for six weeks and then coming back to the states. So Chinese students make up the low. largest contingent of foreign students going to American law schools. Yep. One out of every three of those graduates goes back to China. Why? Is it because they want to learn how to use our laws against us? We don't know what they do when they go back to China.

But what we do know is that China knows how China's strategy, if you look at what they did in Hong Kong. If you look at how they've handled the Bahamas, if you look at how they handle the Central America, it certainly suggests. What they do in the Bahamas? The FDX? They own the Bahamas, right? Yeah.

FDX. Oh my God. Where were you guys on Monday? Where were both of you on Monday? Where is that? Where is that money? That is fucking crazy. At least he got dressed for his interview. Yo, what is the story with the kid? Are you aware of the kid?

What's the story with the kid? Sammy Bankman find? Yes. The kid who got found drowned off the coast of Puerto Rico. Whoa. No, wait a minute. Talk to me. Yeah. I got to send you the article. Julian sent me the article to it. There was a kid who posted on Twitter.

All right. He said, if you find, you tell the story. The founder of Maker Dow you're talking about. Yes, yes. The kid who says,

if I show up dead, I did not commit suicide. And then he showed up drowned. Oh, boy. Yeah, so he sent out a tweet, this guy, Nikolize something.

I'm going to text it to you. And he was one of the co-founders of Maker Dow. He sends out a tweet on October 28th that says something to the effect of, I don't have it in front of me, but it's like, I'm down in the Caribbean. My girlfriend turned out to be a spy. I am not.

not going to kill myself, but if I died, there's an Israeli U.S. Petto ring or something going on. It sounded a little crazy going on down here. And then naturally people ran right with Epstein because that was obviously something that happened. And so two weeks later, you have, it's just weird that FTX and it's SBF, but I, what's the guy's name? Sam Bankman. He's right here. Freed? Yeah, Sam Bankman Freed. I'm saying it wrong. But Sam Bankman Freed, the CEO,

FDX, that whole exchange crashes and he's in the Caribbean, in the Bahamas, and people are just like right away like, oh, it could absolutely have nothing to do with it but two crypto guys, because by the way, the dude who sent out that tweet found drowned two weeks later, or two days later. So actually died. And now this all crashes and every single cryptocurrency, like, realm of the industry was tied in some way to FDX. So Jim, Jim, they don't want to hear my comments.

No, I want to hear it. I want to hear you. We got to get back to the Bahamas. Do we need a tinfoil hat for this? On the Chinese side. I want to know that. Yeah. No,

you need to take off your tinfoil hat if you're going to listen to me. Yeah. Exactly. And frigging Julian's got a beautiful tinfoil hat. He does. I envy it. Did you get the article, Michael? Okay.

So essentially, let's start with FTX because I think this is super important, right? So if you take FTX by itself, right, what was FTCX? For anybody who isn't super into, Crypto. FTX is, uh, is, uh, is arguably, was arguably the second largest foreign exchange, uh, exchange or currency, cryptocurrency, open market exchange place available to anybody in cryptocurrency. Mm. Right. The first largest is a place called Binance. The second largest was FtX, right? Or was, was, was Sam Bankman Friede's, uh, company. Who had finance? Who was that? Let's get to that. I heard that guy. Let's get to that in a second. I heard that. I heard to that.

I heard the Binance guy really shady. Let's get to that in a second. So Binance made a play to buy FTX. Right? That was the play. Everything rallied. Everybody's happy. Now, what kind of market have we been in for the last nine months?

Down market. Six months. Down market. Right? What if cryptocurrency has done for the last six months? Crashed and decreased in value. Right? And what's FTCX looking for?

Looking for a way to subsidize the fact that they've lost a shit ton of money. Because when people, when they lose money, what that means is people are taking their cryptocurrency out and exchanging it for fiat currency. So if you remember it's a wonderful life, if you guys remember that old movie? Yeah. Great movie. Yeah. Do you remember the run on the bank? Yes. That's exactly what happened in cryptocurrency. People saw their assets were decreasing in value, so they made a run on the bank and they started taking their money out. And it wasn't there. It wasn't there. Exactly right. When when finance found out it wasn't there, then they pulled out. Do you know what they did before that, though? So now what you've got, what you've got is essentially

FTX standing by itself, over leveraged, under-resourced in a crash. Right? Now, so that's how the whole crash happened. It has nothing to do with the Bahamas, has nothing to do with anything else. Do you know about before though? What finance did it before? Go ahead. You didn't say it.

This is an important context. Binance announced, I guess, like eight or nine days ago, that they were selling their $2.1 billion or something reserves of FTT, which is the token of FTX. and they didn't say why, but they said, you know, we'd like to be responsible for the market and do it in an orly manner. And that was the main driver to cause people to withdraw it. So then they were looking to buy it

and then they're like, oh, no, your balance sheet's fucked. It's sketchy. It's very sketchy. I'm not saying it's not sketchy. Now let's go back to the question that Jim asked. Who owns Binance? Anybody care to guess? CZ?

No, I'm going to guess that's not the answer. No, it's a Chinese organization. and let me ask you this question. Is cryptocurrency legal in China? No. No. It was outlawed two months ago. I thought mining was.

Mining's still alive and well. They have no problem using Chinese servers to mine it and then sell out to the United States. But there is no cryptocurrency allowed inside China until China creates their own state controlled. That's amazing. So basically, if you want, you want, let me put on my tin hat now. You basically have a Chinese firm. knowing that they can mess with the market and have zero impact on their own people, make a large reinvestment of currency into the market.

What happens when you flood a market with currency? You decrease the value of that currency. So they cause a flood. They decrease the value. And then they make two public announcements that basically bring into question FTX. They're only competitor and the second largest crypto company out there. Were they looking to crash it? Probably not.

They were probably just looking to cause pain. the same week as a midterm, you know, on the verge of whether or not we were going to be going into a recession. They're probably just looking to cause pain at all. But this was in excess of the pain they were looking to create. And now what we essentially have is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world is controlled by the Chinese, which is the only country in the world that doesn't use crypto. What's your average age of the crypto investor? This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new Elixir Collection, featuring three perfume, intense sense, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct

attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic edictive, magnetic, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. If you love diving into culture and comedy, like on Danny Jones podcast, playoff hockey is right up your alley. NHL on T&T has the best coverage, making every game feel intense and unpredictable. Playoff hockey is a different level, overtime, big hits, and no one coasts. The studio crew with Paul Bissonette cracking jokes and Wayne Gretzky breaking things down makes it even more fun to watch. Every shift matters and the personalities

keep things lively. Watch the Stanley Cup playoffs on T&T, TBS, TBS, True, TV and HBO Max. What generation is that? Your generation? 21 maybe. Right? I was 20s. So who are the folks

that controlled these midterms? What voter? What group? 20 to 29s? Well, these midterms, we saw no idea. Nice job. Chinese. Yeah, this is, it's I see what you're saying.

It's a big economic word. Now, am I, do I see every ghost as the Chinese? No, I don't see every ghost as the Chinese. But when it comes to economics... I think we should look at it, though. When it comes to economics... If they're the folks.

Yeah. When it comes to economics, they're savvy. They're super savvy. And it's really interesting that they're so savvy because in their system, economics works completely differently. But when you have one out of every three lawyers studying U.S. law going back to China, they've all got gainful employment when they get there. How effective is China's intelligence apparatus?

I mean, I assume it's very effective, but like relative to the CIA, relative to the FSB, Mossad, like where, how do you view what China's capable of and how they go about doing the job? Cutthroat. That's the difference. Hmm. What we do is really good. What they do is cutthroat. They have no problem.

They have war casualties. They're assassins. Yeah. War casualties is not an issue. It's a different MO. It's a different where they think. Yeah. Like we're trying to be clandestine.

Yes. We try to get in, get out. Nobody knows that we're there. Yep. It's important. The Chinese are bulls in a China shop. They want to come in, break everything, and leave a calling card. Because then guess what?

Then we talk about it, right? They left the calling card when they hacked into the Office of Personal Management System with the DOD. They stole like 60% of the records in OPM. By the way, my ex is trying to get a settlement. I mean, I'm like, whatever. And then they told the whole world. And then they told the whole world we did it. Right?

And then the whole world was like, oh, shit, the Chinese can have. into the American like military personnel system, that's how they do it. It's the exact opposite of what Russia does. It's a totally different MO. They don't need to be clandestine because they basically have a culture where every Chinese person who affiliates with the mainland in any way, no matter where they are in the world, aligns as a mainlander first, right? They're a Chinese something. Chinese American, Chinese French, Chinese whatever, but they're Chinese first. What is their ultimate goal? Economic superiority. Yeah, I think just. It's like nine. 19 to 12 right now, so you think by 2032.

That's not me. That's economics. They pass that. Yeah. Yeah. If you just look at, if you just look at the numbers that are out there posted by Harvard Business Review by, you know, Brookings Institute, they're predicted to be the economic superpower by by. Well, Apple's trying to take their slave trade out of China and put it in Vietnam now. Trying.

They're trying. Are more companies going to do that? Because obviously that's the one thing about COVID. I don't understand. because they've basically with China, I'm talking about going so hard on COVID, they shocked the system and forced multinationals around the world, not just in the U.S.,

to have to evaluate their supply chains within China and adjust to other places, which is literally the opposite of what China should want. No? China knows that they're always going to have, we're calculating time like Americans. Americans look at time as like two years is a long time. Now you're right.

Right. Even in our government, the longest, I think in our government, the longest approved budget is five years. That's right. Is that right? Is there a longer budget than that? That's exactly right. And then you have the contingency, the holdover that goes on for maybe six months before

it's renewed. In China? Like one man can basically write a line item that last 35 years. That's probably what happened. Isn't that a big problem that we can't shut down? The president's only last four years here. Technically, presidents only last two years here. because then they spent two years right.

Exactly. Right. Exactly. Either running or in second term, lame double. Yeah. You know, they're not paying attention. Yeah. Not paying attention.

How much power do you think the president has these days? I think the president in large part has mixed power, right? There's the executive order power because what's happened for like 20 years is Congress has been letting the president make whatever decisions they want to make. We saw Obama create the most executive orders in history until Trump came around until Biden. came around. Like we, we are now to a place where we are basically policing through executive orders because, you know, nobody else, unless you own the Senate and the House, it's impossible to get anything through. Right. So the president has been getting a lot of power, but their power has

always lied with the Congress. It's just when Congress outsources their power to the executive branch, then they get to, they get to claim that it's not their fault when they run for reelection, which they have to do every two years. So what is this? story. This is the guy, this is the kid who drowned, right? What exactly did he say? This is... Nicolai Machigian Balancer Labs. Okay, has drowned in Puerto Rico, local media say.

He developed, he's the developer of Maker Dow. So yeah, go to his tweet. There's his tweet. CIA and Mossad and PettoEleet are running some kind of sex trafficking entrapment, blackmail ring out of Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Islands. They are going to frame me with a

laptop planted by my ex-girlfriend who was a spy. They will torture me to death. I mean, I think this is pretty, I mean, this is pretty tied up nice and a little bow. Jim, this is, there's no way to question this. Except it happened on Twitter. He's probably verified. He was not. No, this is before. He drowned before, unfortunately. Before he could get Twitter blue. Elon hadn't released it yet. Just don't see how that could possibly happen, you know, without him actually doing it. But drowning is a hell of a way to go. You know what the Bahamas is, right? What is the Bahamas triangle? It's a serious, it's a series. It's a series.

of islands. What do you think the most common way of dying in the Bahamas probably is? It's not going to be like getting shot by a gang member. Do you think a guy who's inventing, do you think a guy who's inventing crypto on the computer every day is out there going for a fucking swim? No, this guy's not going in the water. Come on. I'm thinking a guy who's inventing crypto every day probably got drunk one day, got caught in a riptide,

and didn't have what it took to swim back to shore. How perfectly. Two weeks after he posted this tweet? Two days. Two days? I think two weeks. Two days. So you guys are two weeks and two days.

No, October 28th is the tweet. He was dead by Halloween. You sure he wasn't dressed as somebody else? It's Halloween. Or was it like a, like a, was he trying to get attention to commit suicide or something? I mean, you're the same, Andy, you're the same guy who said, this is back in the day. You're the same guy who said on a Reddit feed when you were doing an AMA. One of the questions was, what does the CIA and they may have said and other intelligence organizations do that crosses the line of morals?

Like, are they into whether it be like sex trafficking? or having to do things that are that are totally insane to be able to get intelligence. And you answered it very, very honestly. Incredibly honestly, you said something to the effect of. There are things that make me lose sleep at night that we do that I'd rather not talk about in a Reddit forum here, which is not no. Right. It's not no. If you look at this, this has so many red flags in it that make me just.

It does. So we've got to take that for what it is. Like, did the guy die two days later? Yes. Is that correlation? or is that causation? We don't really know, right? Right.

You tell me that a potentially unfit guy drowns in the Bahamas? Okay, that's unfortunate. And then you show me a tweet that says CIA and Mossad and Petto Elite. Yeah, it's a lot. Some kind of is. But wait, but then it gets even better.

It's a blackmail entrapment ring out of Puerto Rico. So unprudicated. And oh, by the way, I will be framed by my ex-girlfriend using my laptop because she's a spy. Okay, but... You know how many perfect things have to line up

for this to be true? Where's the laptop? Has anybody interviewed the girlfriend? Well, scroll down. That question. Scroll down. It's actually with Hunter... It's with Hunter Biden's. Exactly. Scroll down.

So yeah, this has got me not suspicious of CIA, but this has got like, was the dude knocked off by some like some organized criminal for some other reason? Who knows this one here? okay this is just dark dark theme they will torture me to death

yep what day was this the same day 28th yeah 28th's the same tweet I missed the torture me to death keep going yeah yeah admittedly when I hear the words like CIA Mossad and pedo elite it seems like a lot three possible futures for me one suicided by the CIA

two CIA brain damage slave asset three worst nightmare of people who fucked with me up until now I am sure these are That's it. I mean, that's a tough three. You guys, I could see, I could see you guys taking a trip down memory lane reading this one. You're like, oh, yeah, I remember that. Suicited by CIA.

That's one. I don't like that. CIA brain damage slave asset. Okay, so I really don't know what happened. I mean, a brain damage slave asset is super useful. It's really good. What have we done? All right.

In a serious manner, and I don't, like, see, my issue with people online who complain about everything just to do it, like the Twitter Rottie. I can tell you exactly why CIA wouldn't kill this guy. Because of this conversation. That is exactly why they wouldn't touch this guy. And then this reverse psychology person would say, and that's exactly why they would. Yeah. And the reverse psychology.

And the reverse psychology person would never have actual insight into what happens at CIA because they specialize in reverse psychology. But the people who are online who just complain about the CIA all day and say like defund the CIA, defund the FBI and shit. Like I don't, I think that's insane because you have to have this stuff. You are, you're a powerful country. people out there want this country dead, right? Like there's enemies in the world, whether you like it or not, that's what it is. But it doesn't mean that like a guy like me who knows that also wouldn't know or not no, also wouldn't be able to speculate that perhaps things in this realm happen.

And by the way, if given the context, not that I would ever deserve it because I'm some private guy in a fucking armchair, but if given the context, I'd say, wow, that really sucks, but I get it. Life without CIA or FBI is like life without food and water. Yeah. Right? I would assign CIA is going without CIA is like going without food. You're going to last a while. It's just not going to be pretty.

Going without FBI, that's like going without water. You know what this country would turn into in about three days without the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing what it does? I mean, you correct me if I'm wrong, man. I think you're absolutely right. My issue is just the leadership at the top at this point I think needs to be. We don't have the meticulous. Well, let me not say that. That's not true. We have a good portion of the Bureau who is meticulous about their investigations. We have a good portion of the agency who is meticulous about their asset collection and how they utilize that information and report it. I think the biggest problem that I see is those folks that are leading the charge that have become politicized, especially in my organization, you know, have become politicized to getting the huge headline. You know, looking at, looking at, these elections and what the Bureau has done and basically saying, just why not just realize

American votes are not for the person who's running against the red. It's because they just hate the person who is going to run for the red. That's what it comes down to. So how do we not meticulously go through this and figure out where it's coming from? We know where it's coming from. It's out there. It's coming from China, period. That's where it's coming from. It's where it's been coming from since 2013. That's what it is. And I don't understand all these other things are based on the fact that this is someone who was brilliant in certain ways with regards to what he did on the crypto side, but really

has no understanding of how things work, even on a basic level. Yeah. He only saw three futures and these were his three futures. And he said, I am sure these are the only options. Yeah. I am sure of it. Okay. Okay.

There's plenty of other options. Like, shit, you should have swam before you went and not had. 15 drinks and two blows of Coke. And maybe this would not have happened. But I get it. You know, I get it. But I think that's kind of where we're at. I totally agree.

Without us, it's impossible to move forward. But we need to do a much better job at what we're doing. It's funny because you landed on something that's a distinct difference between the two agencies. FBI wants to get into the headlines. They want to show their impact. They want to show their victories. They want to be able to secure future funding. CIA wants to stay out of headlines.

Absolutely. We actually have a quote-unquote. Washington Post test. Like that is something that every manager and CIA is familiar with. A Washington Post test? When you propose an operation or when you propose five operations

to solve a problem, the first sniff test that we all have after we lay the five options on the table and they're like, okay guys, Washington Post test, which of these five options is going to land on the front page of the Washington Post if we fuck this up. I love that. And then if there's two or three of them, boom, they're gone.

And you have the editor right there, says? And we most likely have the exact opposite How do we get this in the Washington Post? Seriously. Nope, that's not going to do it. Oh, that is. There it is. Let's go raid the house when we can just use a forthwith subpoena.

Let's go raid the house with boats and choppers and everything else. Public deterrent, private deterrent. That's really. I mean, it's two different worlds. The American people want to see the FBI doing their job. They want to see the FBI raiding a house with like jackets and helicopters and big guns. What they don't want to see is. the way that China gets a North Korea in general to give us the placements on a missile.

They don't want to see the bill for how much booze we send him. They don't want to know that we sent the guy on a paid vacation to Thailand to sex tourism self. Silly. Like they don't want to see that. I thought he's going somewhere else with that. How'd you look to have that job? A lot of grenades out there, if you know what I mean. Playing volleyball on a minefield.

Yeah, something like that. But it's, I mean, at the end of the day, too, when you look at the two organizations and their history, it does all come back to like pre-9-11. That's where the conversation goes because, and you were there obviously after, but you know about this because we talked about it. You were there before. Pre-9-11, see, like not a lot of FBI agents are like you, Jim, like with your background. For people that don't know, like you went, you were West Point, Army Ranger,

you did undercover missions around the world on behalf of the Army. Well, still an active Army officer, but right, right. It's almost over four years. You were recruited by both, right? FBI and CIA. So you always had a network across agencies, so you got along with people. Well, I think that's what it is. It's relationships first, and we forgot that along the way.

So it became competition. So became who the asshole was here versus who the asshole was there, and we both have assholes. And in the buildup to that, 9-11 gets caught in the middle because you had like, I mean, we've seen the looming tower. You read the book. Yeah, very good. That was real. Very good. There was basically.

John O'Neill had a huge personality. So did some of the others. Right. And so you had like this budding heads. And then after 9-11, it seems like there's still, when you talk to certain guys, like you had Kyriaku in here, he was talking about it with like the FBI, like joke and like, oh, God, the fucking FBI. Like there's still some of that. But there was a lot more work integrated together around the world. Started to connect the dots together as opposed to separately comparing after we looked at him and said, well, we don't understand. So how does that work, though? That's the question. Relationship. one-one relationships 101 and actually having the ability to meticulously and systematically going through the problem yeah but pre-9-11 there was not a large impetus for for collaboration right FBI was focused on what FBI was C-I was focused on what CIA was keep in mind too CIA was small before 9-11 I don't know how much the 9-11 I don't know how much the 9-11 commission impacted hiring

it FBI it did it pumped it up pretty good and it also moved us into that world where I think I said it before, the broken toys went to counterterrorism, an organization. Oh, my God, the dude's not coming to work. He's not doing it. You know what? Send him over to CT. In the meantime, we got, basically memo saying, hey, there's dudes down in Arizona that just want to learn out of, they don't care about taking off or flying or landing. I can see the comments. Yeah, 63 pages, you know, so anyway. So that was pre-9-11. So then 9-11. So then 9-11, everybody sees what happens at 9-11, right? And then when the 9-11 commission report investigation starts, and 9-11 commission starts, now they start picking up the scrapings on the scraps on the floor. And they start saying,

hey, FBI said this. CIA said this. They sent it to each other. Neither side actually read it. If you, if the average person understood how like incredibly administrative and mundane the life is of a CIA or FBI officer, they would immediately reject it and turn on Netflix and watch the next spy movie, right? It is an incredibly dull, boring, detail oriented life, which is why. you keep hearing Jim refer back to systematic meticulous because you have to be meticulous you have to be systematic 300 Intel reports could come in from each side and then there's one nugget one thread that ties five of them together the only way you see that is if you meticulously come through each one and they're

written in completely different formats with completely different acronyms completely different languages not to mention the fact that when CIA sends FBI a memo the FBI analyst has to compare that against all the other new FBI memos that came in the same day and justify why he's reading one memo over another to his boss. It's like it's it's not an excuse. It's a reality of what existed before 9-11. And then on top of that, you had multiple different times. You have Cold War culture permeating. Our big enemy was a Soviet Union still because don't forget the Soviet Union fell in what, 91. Yeah. So and then the Soviet states fell apart and we were like, oh, what are we going to do now?

It was the beginning of the global war on terror. So the world was a very, very different place in 2001 when this happened. What do you mean it was the beginning of the global war on terror? 2001 was the 2001 was the beginning of the, oh, I thought you said 91. Well, no, talking about the fall of Soviet Union and really how many agents and operate, you know. You had 10 years there where we were basically enemy and target lists. Yep. What are we going to focus on?

We're going to focus on crime. We're going to focus on, I guess, collecting. Got it. Yeah. So, I mean, that all went away. Like, at one point in time, New York office, 1,200 agents in the New York office, 1,000 of them were working, you know, spy stuff,

wandering around the streets following, and that was a good way to kind of, you know, Russian spies. I mean, we had the Soviet, you know, we had the Soviet bloc. We needed to do that. We thought, let everything else go. And that's happened through the course of the Bureau. That's happened over time, too. We've had directors, you know, Bob Mueller came in,

Comey came in with their different, hey, we don't work organized crime. We think we really did a great job on that. It's over. It's over. Okay. Yeah, that's not going on anymore. Mission accomplished.

Yeah. But it's just kind of the mission accomplished. But that's kind of, I think the other thing is our solution to the failure to connect dots together was to change our reporting system. So, okay, we need to put in a new system that allows people to search. That's not what it is. Yeah. It's basically putting analysts side by side with both the agency and us and trying to get down to the, the, the, the fact. facts, get a system down, get your operations down, get your system down so you understand

when something comes in, how it flows, and how to be efficient, how to be effective, to get the information out to people who are doing the interrogations, doing the interviews, you know, doing the search warrants, convincing U.S. Attorney's Office that this is important, and here's the reasons why, because we've got, we've corroborated with the agency. They've corroborated with us, certain facts. We got it asked backwards. Oh, no, we just need a new $270 million computer system. No, you don't, because if no one knows what to do with it, it doesn't really matter. And we're going to pay Deloitte to tell us that we need that.

Exactly. And then we're going to pay, we're going to pay Microsoft to build it custom for us. Exactly. And by the way, Deloitte has the guys that left the bureau because they saw it coming and said, you know what? I'll just be a consultant for Deloitte on this project. Yeah. And I'll make a million dollars as opposed to 171, 268, 39.

And a good year if the budget was continuing. But seriously. You say that number in your sleep, I can tell. Yeah. Like sometimes or something. I, I cruised past that. I was at 172 something. Mm-hmm.

You were up there. Oh, crank. Mm-hmm. But, like, what did you guys have? Obviously, that's good color commentary on, I guess, like, the way that the approaches need to mesh. But when you guys did suddenly start entering all kinds of missions with each other, internationally, right?

Like, I'm focused on the war on terrorism right now after 2001. Like, it always. seems to me when I'm reading these stories or here or reading a book as someone recounting it that like the the overlap is you guys are all kind of doing the same thing even though you're coming from technical different expertise in a way like cop spies supposed to be it seems like for example like the aorta thing when when you had it in here talking about it like they're all the FBI and CIA like if you were just someone looking on the street and like trying to evaluate who's wearing what uniform you wouldn't even know without the letters on

on their back. So yeah, I mean, there's significant differences to somebody who knows what to look for. But you're right. To the average bobblehead out there. To me. Yeah. They're not going to know the difference between us. Right. If you saw me and Jim, if we're doing our job right, you're going to underestimate both of us and just walk by us both, right? You're going to be like, ah, handsome old guy, ah, handsome hairy guy. And you're going to move on with your life in an ideal world. They don't think they give us handsome, though. No, no, definitely not. But that's very true. But that's how we want to look. That's how we want to look to the average bobblehead like we're nothing. It's what we want. The thing is once you're actually, once you actually know how the two sides work, once you can

identify the culture or the personality differences or the unique aspects of each of us in that way, it becomes more clear. Right. There's there's a certain edge to FBI officers because they, they deal with the scum of the universe in their own country. Right. Every time they go head to head against an American criminal, like that's, it's a personal affronts because this is an American citizen who they're sworn to protect who's now like threatening them and threatening the country they stand for. For us, we never go head to head with an American scumbag. Our scumbags are all foreign scumbags who really we want to use to gain an edge for the American people. So we kind of want to enable them to continue being scumbags. Completely different

mentality. So we are much more conniving and manipulative. They are much more, like, direct and in your face. They're law enforcement. They have a badge and a gun, and they're not afraid to use either one. For us, we intentionally want to hide everything we have until the last possible moment. So when you get to know us, you'll see the difference fast. The FBI did move more, a little bit more towards intelligence gathering. That was smaller. I mean, that was 9-11 driven. We had to, but if you, I will still say, I don't know what's happened in the last five years, but I would still say that our intel collection and the analysis process still has a long way to go.

You know, we rely on, we still rely too much on flipping checks, looking at accounts and, you know, looking at things to say, oh, yeah, we're going to be able to take this information and then turn it into questions, where the agency is amazing at taking as much as they can out of the person

who can, who they can turn and manipulate and do what they need. to do in order to gain and garner the information. That benefits us too. Now, some agents are really good at source development. So they, some people don't even, they never look at a checking account. They never look at the money. They just grind the guy out until they get what they need. But it's not across the, I wouldn't say it's across the board that were really good

at asset development. Where these guys, they're masters. Right. So like FBI has a lot of duties of which one is counterintelligence. CIA, we are an intelligence organization, of which no part of our organization is law enforcement. Right. Again, getting into the administrative minutia that nobody cares about, we're given the executive branch gives us different authorities to operate in different ways. Intentionally, so that if we want to maximize our operations, we have to work with FBI.

And if FBI wants to maximize their operational utility, they have to work with us because we are granted different authorities to do different types of things. And both of us really want to work with Department of Homeland Security. And both of us really want to work with NSA because they have different authorities that we don't have. It's like when you give your kids all one cookie to make sure that nobody gets to eat all dozen cookies kind of thing. How come nobody talks about Mexico and what China's involvement is in Mexico as far as trafficking fentanyl into Mexico and buying up all the lithium? mines and hiring the cartel to be their security while they are fucking extracting all the lithium out of the mines and buying up all this shit in Mexico. There are people talking about that.

It's just not the headlines that are talking about that. It's really hard to sell an ad spot on a blog or on a news post when you're talking about criminal activity against Mexicans in Mexico. That's not going to make somebody click on a link next to the current midterm results or next to Ukrainians raising flags in Harrison City. But what if you finish the headline with the people trafficking fentanyl across the border that's killing Americans every single day? Now they're clicking.

Yeah, sometimes. But is it still going to be what drives the click compared to some other headline at the time? Right. You're exactly right when it comes to Chinese involvement in third world countries around the world and developing nations around the world. That's their MO. Just like we were talking about MO. That's what they're doing in the Bahamas.

They're basically, they're positioning. positioning themselves in every third world country that has a port that handles the transfer, extraction, or delivery of rare earth minerals, weapons, and heavy infrastructure, dual-use technology. Because if they have a partnership with, and they always seek partnerships, they don't ever seek, like, dominance. That's the American way, is to go in and basically say, we own this port and you have no access to it.

The Chinese go in and say, we're going to build the port for you. We're going to bring in Chinese people to run the port. We'll teach you how to run the port yourselves. We'll even pay taxes on the port so that you have more money in your pocket. But you're going to grant us a hundred year lease to use the port. So isn't Mexico in a sense like Ukraine to us? Like we're Russia and Mexico is our Ukraine and China is the United States. Like China is doing all this stuff to infiltrate Mexico and get and fuck up the United States.

Is there any chance we would ever invade Mexico? Except for the fact that we don't have an economic, we don't. have an economic reliance on Mexico like like Russia has on Ukraine. If you, if you pull up a map, we have tons of factories and shit in Mexico. Are you talking about the supply chain to the black city? Correct. Correct. Correct. Yeah. No. So, I mean, are there commercial companies that have a where a factory in Mexico? Yes. And they also have a factory in Tennessee and in Vietnam and in whoever. They're diversified. They have five of them in China. Okay. So this, I wouldn't say that there's, I don't think it's realistic in any way to think that America's going to.

to invade Mexico. No? For the American... Trump wanted to... For the American military to invade a neighboring country, it's not our strategy. It's not how we operate,

especially not when we can just write a big check and have something happen much faster than if we were to mobilize M1 Abrams. Do the cartels benefit us at all? Here's the issue that we're having now with legitimate United States businesses that are trying to move product to or get product from Mexico

because there's some, there's some military hardware, there's different computer systems that need to get in and out. The problem they're having is the cartels control those paths, those supply chains. So really, no, you know, not only they move in drugs that are killing our kids and killing a lot of people, but they're also not allowing without huge, you know, huge markups in order for us legitimate logistics companies

to get in there with product or come out with it. that's the big issue. Everything from cars, I mean, I think Mercedes has a huge plant in Mexico City. So, but they can't move the product

without paying an upcharge and it's a significant upcharge or it's, what I worry about is it's, you know what, just look the other way with coming in with these, you know,

50 S classes. Oh. You know what I mean? So that's, I think that's going a little bit far, stretching a little bit far, but it's possible. You know,

so I think that's kind of the issues that we're having there on the side of crime and on the side of how the car Control every single thing. And then moving people through is, is, I mean, that's, that's an organized scheme, what you're seeing at the borders. What was your voice, Danny, what was the, I forget the guy's name.

You had a man and was like, oh, Louise, Shapiro. Yeah, Louise, he, what was he saying about the CIA with the cartels? He was saying that the CIA, he's saying that with unequivocally the CIA works with the cartels. I don't know one way or the other. There was one guy, and in particular, there was a documentary made about him. he was CIA and DEA, I believe, and he was actually murdered by a CIA agent in a cartel drug house, like in one of the cartel-owned houses.

And this has been verified, and there's like documentaries about it and stuff like this. And I wish I could remember the name of the guy right now. Fuck. Anyways, it was a, in the DEA office in Mexico City, I believe, the DEA agent was tortured. Kiki Van. Kiki. Yeah. Yes.

Yes. Kiki Rodriguez. I was going to say Van de Way. That was the fucking gym of the Nuggets. Kiki Rodriguez. Yeah. Kiki was the DEA guy who got murdered. And eventually they captured some of the cartel guys and the cartel guys basically unveiled the who the guy was who actually murdered Kiki.

And it wasn't a CIA agent who lives in Florida right now. I can't remember his name. You going to have him in? No, I don't think he'll answer my emails. Do you have a name? Did you do it? It's on the internet if you could find it. If you can find who's the C.E.A.

Who is the C.E.A. agent who murdered Kiki Rodriguez? And he gets drowned in Puerto Rico. We'll know a fucking a minute. Yeah. Look for his tweets. That's it. It's not intimate. So who, I mean, why wouldn't the United States invade Mexico if China has its claws so deep in Mexico and it's hurting the United States so much? Like if they're so invested in Mexico and working alongside the cartels, why wouldn't we just overtly? go in there? Because there's two types of wars. One is a profitable war. One is a not profitable war.

Right. And those two types of war are called interstate war and intrastate war. Interstate war is sovereign nation against sovereign nation. It's extremely expensive. It is not economically sustainable. It's when one country invades another country. It's what Russia doing. It's what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now. That is not a profitable war for either side. In truss state war, is a civil war. In a civil war, it's extremely profitable for anybody participating in the civil war from outside of the country. Why did we get involved in Syria? Why do we get involved in Yemen? Why do we get involved in Libya? Why are we involved in Ukraine? It's extremely profitable to be the person who's sending humanitarian aid, building influence, soft power, hard power, sending weapons systems,

you know, whatever it might be. It's extremely probably part of an intrastate war, right? So when the United States watches what China's doing around the world and third world countries, through the Belt and Road initiative, through, through whatever policies China's executing to build infrastructure and everything else, that's, that is something that the United States would prefer to continue to combat economically. Because once they commit troops on the ground, you're not only paying the cost in terms of dollars and cents, but the cost in terms of lives, the cost in terms of public response. It's nasty. 9-11, if anybody alive during 9-11, America was hard up and ready to rock and roll

and send boots on the ground for about five years. And then after that, the death toll and the lack of results, even though it wasn't anywhere close to what it was in Vietnam, it turned the appetite of the American people against the... Yeah, because they started a bad war we didn't need. Like Afghanistan, you had to go to. Listen, what you are spouting right now is what you have seen since 9-11. The day the day the 9-11 happened, people wanted blood immediately.

Oh, no, no, no. So just to be clear, I always say this, absolutely had to go to Afghanistan. Afghanistan was 1,000 percent, should have been there all the way. All the way. That was a mission. I'm talking about when they took their eye off the ball and they went to Iraq where he's got WMD's. No, he didn't. Dick Cheney walked in there and said, Mr. President, what if there was a 1% chance?

Saddam had W&D blew someone up and it was on your ass. And he's like, Goddam a dick, we're going in. And he wanted to go in to finish his dad's fucking job. And so then we get caught up in this whole war, and that's where the tide turned. And that's why also then, and this is a separate conversation, but 20 years later, we have the fuck up with Afghanistan because the resources were pulled out of there. Like, I see the difference between the two. And I look at this and I go, how can you not say that Iraq is a product of a profitable war, as you say,

which I understand exactly why you're saying that. There's people out there who will just hear that word and immediately go to like, military industrial complex. When they're thinking about Iraq, though, they're right about that. Okay. So this is Kiki. This is Kiki. I can't read that.

Can you read that, Julian? Kiki Salazar was an American intelligence officer for the United States D.EA in February 1985. Kamehara, Kamaena. Oh, yeah, Kiki Kamerana Salazar. Kamerana was kidnapped by drug traffickers hired by Mexican politicians in Guadalajara. Whoa, whoa. Oh, you're zooming out.

There we go. Three leaders of the Guadalajara drug car. We're eventually convicted in Mexico for Camarena's murder. The U.S. investigation into Camerese murder led to 10 more trials in Los Angeles for other Mexican nationals above than the crime. One of them, I forget his fucking name, but we got the guy. They caught him in like the hills of Mexico last year. Yeah, and he's free again. Is he free again?

Yeah, I believe he's free again captured in July of 22. Yeah, Carol Cantaro. Yep. And then he was again capture. Okay, so we got him again. Yeah, and he was being, they had, they did like a press event with him. And he was just kind of like laughing and like mocking everybody. like how fuck you I'll be out of here in three months

yeah so where's the CIA connection is there control F that we can find find the CIA guy you got to you got to Google who is the CIA officer excepting Google Chrome actually I think it is still control up in Google what were we just talking about I think we were just talking about conspiracies

and how hard it is to prove a conspiracy right so essentially essentially it would CIA has an entire division focused on countering narcotics but we counter narcotics that affect American national security priorities. There's all sorts of narcotics out there that don't have any impact on U.S. national security.

If they have some other intelligence value, then it basically goes to a panel of people who decide, according to the Washington Post test, whether or not we should get involved in this other type of operation. Collecting intelligence is not the same thing as stopping criminal activity. Oftentimes, collecting intelligence means accepting or even enabling. criminal activity. Right. Two different things. Now, in a post-9-11 world, would we run that by FBI?

Yeah, we'd be like, hey, we're thinking about doing something with or against or in conjunction with or that may potentially enable this cartel to operate in a certain way. FBI, do we have your blessing, right? NSA can we collect and make sure this is going to work, right? Maybe they even go and they ask the intelligence committee at the house. What about private intelligence? Private intelligence is completely different. Right?

It's totally, private intelligence does whatever it takes to make the paycheck at the end of the day. And that's what makes it so useful. It can move faster. It can move more nimbly. It can absorb risk without ever needing to have, like,

the president have plausible deniability. It's not plausible. He actually has full on deniability. Well, this one definitely does. So, yeah, but every time I hear anybody out there be like,

oh yeah, a verified, like CIA officer did this. It's really hard to verify a CIA officer. And there are so many people out there who claim to be CIA when they're not. They were pulled onto a mission that CIA was part of. Maybe they participated in some private intel effort that was that was unknowingly or knowingly funded by some third party that may have been affiliated with CIA. Like people throw that term around a lot.

Yeah, people throw it at you all the time. They try to say like, oh, that boostamante guy, not a spy at all. Yeah. Or they, yeah, they, this, it's amazing. Or that you've got the people throwing that I mean, the people throwing and that I'm still actively a spy. Yes. Well, we know you are. And I'm on podcasts, trying to recruit more spies.

It's not recruiting. You're putting a narrative out. You know, if the true, you're a great PR man. The truth is a narrative. Yeah. The true. Oh, boy. Now we're playing with the word truth.

Oh my God. Anyways, I don't, I don't want to spend a whole fucking hour trying to find this guy's name, but there's a documentary about this called the last narc. And towards the end of the last narc, they actually reveal who, the CIA agent was. I think his last name was Rodriguez and he lives in Miami right now. Okay. And he's retired CIA. Wait, Jose Rodriguez? Yeah. Fuck out of here. Yeah, Jose. You know Jose. Uncle Jose. He was the director. He was the chief of, I don't know why. He was the head of the torture. That's how he talks. He's like,

we didn't torture anyone. We just made them feel pain. It's like, okay. Dorture. All right. Cool. Like every conspiracy theory is just intrinsically tied to the CIA. Correct. It is insane. And you did find a source, one source successfully that talked about this, and it's Fox News. Yeah. Let's go. Where's the Jerusalem Post? Oh, yeah. Great with you there, brother.

I mean, but I actually like what you say about that a lot. And people will give you shit for it. But it's a really important point you've made on multiple podcasts where I think he made it on yours originally at first. I could be wrong about that because you've been on so many fucking podcasts now. But thanks to you guys. I see a new podcast. guy over here. Every single week.

I was telling Julian the other day. It's wild, man. I've got some recording two in London next week. Really? Oh. Oh. Yeah. Tally ho.

Anyway. But you were, you said, like, with a conspiracy, it's like people, they start with a level of truth, like a kernel of truth, and then they carry it all the way, and they want it to be true. Correct. And I agree completely, because all the time, you know, we can joke about a guy getting drowned in the Puerto Rican pools or whatever. But all the time, I'm constantly trying to say, pull things back and be like, well, what's really the evidence for this kind of thing?

And people are like, oh, you're a fucking CIA podcast, man. Fuck off. I understand where they could be coming from, though, when someone like you, like in the CIA or you in the FBI, sits there and says, oh, you need to consider this. Just a kernel of truth at the top and eventually gets dragged out because that means, therefore, that, yes, there are real conspiracies, but it's a very small percentage of them.

So then every time a new conspiracy is faced at the table and you're saying, could this be true, you can play the, oh, well, this is part of the big percentage where it's not. And so every time in the law of populations large numbers, you're essentially getting to deny it by, the same way Dick Cheney did the 1% doctrine. Because it's like, don't focus on the fact that it's only 1%, focus on the fact that it could be 1%.

You're doing the opposite end and saying, no, no, no, it's always the 99. You know what I mean? So professionals in our field, we play probabilities. Right? And then sometimes probabilities are high enough that they dictate action. Sometimes probabilities are low enough that they dictate patience, right? The anatomy of a conspiracy, exactly what you're talking about, right?

Every conspiracy starts with a fact. Something happens. Then immediately following that fact, we're faced with something that's not known, right? Whether it's what happened with FTX, or whether that's what happened with this dude in the Bahamas. We're faced with something that's not known. Once you're faced with something that's not known, the natural human tendency, not among dumbasses, but among smart people, right?

Conspiracy theorists are, for the most part, pretty smart people, right? The next natural reaction when you're facing unknown information is skepticism. Skepticism. You're asking yourself, why don't I know this? Why doesn't somebody know this? Shouldn't somebody know this? Right? There's the first three steps in the birth of a conspiracy.

And then it's human nature that when you become skeptical, then you start to write a story in your head that erases the skepticism. You connect the dots on your own with a piece missing in between. There you go, a missing link. And then it just starts to cycle. That's perfect. And because you're coming up with a logical sound explanation at the end, all the other smart people and all the dumbasses out there,

they can connect your story very quickly. So that's how conspiracies, boom, take off like wildflower. And the agency is a nice missing link for a lot of stories. Well, we can never really know about it, but you know those guys know exactly what happened. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. But it still provides that missing link. It provides that bridge for skepticism to bridge yourself of that and write your story. What about when something so obviously backed by something unknown, right?

There's people who could define and say, oh, I know this thing is this. And they really have no evidence for that. but you look at something like the Epstein story, we know there's a massive conspiracy there, who's behind it is a whole other question. But I feel like intelligence organizations, perhaps around the world, not focus on the CIA right now,

who could have some sort of exposure to that in some way, have every reason to be able to say, oh, no, this guy was just a scumbag doing his thing or whatever. You guys are all conspiracy theorists talking about this. And then they don't report about it in the mainstream media, because they're all tied to it, by the way, but still.

right and and to be fair before before the whole epstein thing came out it was like something like we were just looking at and everyone was going you guys are fucking crazy thinking that you know this could be some sort of bigger scheme and then it all comes out he gets arrested and then the fucking book come or not the book we didn't get the book but we see we get evidence that you know clinton went down there and all this stuff and it's like oh wow this did happen and now we're like okay but this happens all the time that's why i always make the joke i love the joke what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and it's the truth six months. Yeah, the thing to understand is that all covert influence, all covert influence, the United States covert influence, Russian covert influence, Guatemalan covert influence starts with a stigma. Nobody creates a new story out of nowhere. You know how hard it is to get people motivated behind a brand new narrative that's never been said before? It's almost impossible. So you start by targeting an existing issue. You start by targeting an existing stigma. You start by targeting an existing stigma. And then you just add fire to that stigma. You want to change an election anywhere in South America. You basically just fund one side or the other because they're both

underfunding people. Right. True. Take, you know, all laughing aside, look what happened in 2016, 2020. Look what happened in 2022, right? You saw all this funding come in for messages on one side or the other, right? Funding for Facebook, funding for Instagram. All these ads. ads, all these groups, you had FBI and NSA and CIA and the director of counterintelligence for the United States openly telling everybody, be warned, you will see Russian meddling, you will see Chinese meddling, you had the Russian head of propaganda formally announced two days before the election this year. We are Russian, we are taking part in meddling in election. They publicly announcing it. We're meddling in the election this year. We're doing it right

Now, right, that's, you pick a stigma and that's what you fund. That's exactly how COVID influence works. Now, does that mean that there are programs in the United States funded by CIA intentionally misdirecting the American people? That goes against all the authorities, all echoes against everything we were taught. Now, does that mean that the CIA is going to step in and tell CNBC or CNN when they're saying something that's wrong? No, they're not going to do that. Perfect example. If you remember back in like June or July, the death toll for Russian soldiers was something ridiculous, like 80,000, 80,000 dead Russians, 4,500 dead Ukrainians as reported

by a Ukrainian general. That stuff goes out there, gets approved in the news, goes out, that's all part of a giant information war that's happening between NATO countries and Russian countries. That doesn't mean it's coming from the United States. It means that's somebody somewhere is providing that information somehow. When the United States, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, finally comes out in comments on the death toll, he did it, what, two days ago? Yeah. What did he say?

100,000 dead on both sides. All that misinformation, eight months of misinformation, corrected with one formal statement from the joint chief of staff, right? That's it. 100,000 dead on both sides. That's a crazy number of people. but it sets a completely new point of view on that conflict. No longer are these Ukrainian soldiers hyper proficient in the Russians idiots.

Instead, you see pretty much a war of attrition between two sides that even with all that Western funding, all that Western intel, all that Western military might, it's still essentially a very close and intimate fight. Many civilians. Yeah. It's terrible, right? So that is how information warfare happens. That's how influence campaigns happens.

So yes, stigma is everything. And we garner a ton of great information based on it. We really do. But you don't think they correct the record? Who? Agencies. I'm not talking about CIA. I'm talking CIA, FBI, NSA.

You don't think that when these ex-CIA guys go on both Fox News and CNN, right? Or they have their guys on each. channel, MSNBC, pick them all out. You don't think that there's some correcting the record. Like, when I see John Brennan show up on TV, I don't think that guy's doing it because he enjoys being

a fucking commentator. He's doing it because he's making more money now than he did when he was director CEO. And that absolutely could be part of it, but you don't think that he was a careerist there. Like, he was there for a long, long time. You don't think that there's a part of it that could be, you know, tinfoil hat, the guy never leaves?

you should I don't I don't think people have any idea what happens when you leave government service That's the other thing We don't We don't

Remember men in black It goes away You're at Your most valuable time When you leave service Is the first year After that Nobody has time for you

It's so hard to remember The stuff that you cover there And like clearances And everything else aside You're just inundated In secrets And then your brain just doesn't retain them very long.

And the directors, if you keep in mind this, and Andy's talked about this before, their job is to take what that president wants to gather information, have their analysts figure out what they need to put into the report in order to deliver it to the executive branch. So there's much of that

that they have absolutely no idea about. And then let's also keep in mind that what is a senior ranking like government employee make, 180K a year, when they're apt to As soon as they retire, 60% of their base pay, right? So they go from $180,000 a year lifestyle to 90. Taxed at the regular rate of a $90,000 a year person.

So that means all the sacrifices they made in their entire career so that they can make at the end of the day about $65,000 a year and take home pay to maintain a lifestyle that they built when they were making $180,000 a year. It's a fundamental flaw in the American system. That's why former people go into media. That's why Mike Morel has a podcast with CBS. That's why I started a business, right?

That's why Jim started a business. Because once you get out of there, you're like, what the hell? I built a $200,000 lifestyle. And now the government's got me on a pension paying me, you know, the amount that a starting college graduate makes. I think you guys talked about this on your podcast. But what did Trump do specifically with people that were hired by the, by the agencies versus hired by school? contractors like Honeywell and Raytheon. So this is, we might not see eye to eye on this. I was actually really happy when Trump went on the hunt to take clearances away from people who were former

government officers who just flipped around a rotating door to then go work in Raytheon or Booz Allen or whatever else. They were basically being paid to network their way back into the main building to do business development for those mainstream contractors. So Trump saw that and he was like, you have no need to know at a top secret level. So we're just going to take that away. We're just going to take that away. We're going to take that away. We're going to end this because it's essentially.

They're using that to leverage high paying careers from those companies. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Because it's a safe way of going from making $180,000 a year to making $380,000 a year. And just like Jim was saying, that first year is so critical. You actually retain state secrets that are relevant and current for that first year. And then it goes away.

It's right. They're buying. they're buying your badge. They're buying your SEI or whatever you have so that you still maintain access for them, for their benefit. So many, many former feds in our area go back, rotate back in to the same desk they were sitting at,

but working in conjunction with other companies. So basically doing financial analysis to provide the Bureau with what they consider Intel, but at the same time to make sure the company that they're working for gets access to the SAC to, you know, the unit chief, the section chief. Because you know why? Because the unit chief and section chief, control the budget. He's like, yeah, and you know what? I'll be there in four years. So save that seat. So it currently, it currently, the way it currently exists is one year and then it's, and then you lose all that? One for one for one for that and five for being able to, to share specific experiences. So not at our discretion.

So the Bureau has no issue after four years, you know, five years goes by. Totally. Now, in order to write a book, forget it. I mean, it's a 10-year process. And it's redacted. Jack Carr is the perfect example of that. Right. If you listen to his books, they're wonderful.

But then at the end of the day, it's like in redacted, in redact it. And then they went and redacted. You know, it's constant throughout the audible book. Yeah, so basically the way it works to answer your question, again, in the In the boring administrative way that it works, the day that you leave service, you're going to leave with most likely you're going to leave with a TSSCI, right? I'm guessing FI is TSSCI, top secret, special compartment information. You're going to leave with a TSCI.

A year later, that TS drops down to a secret if you're not actively using it in a need to no capacity. A year after that, the secret disappears and you no longer have a clearance. What Raytheon, Booz Allen, Mantec, you name them. What they want is the day you. you leave, they pick you up. They put you in a role where you have need to know. And now that secret or top secret, that top secret clearance stays active. And even though there's rules at FBI and CIA about you not going back immediately when you separate, that rule doesn't exist when you retire. So then when these senior officials retire, they can go right back into the building. And just like Jim was

saying, the contractor is buying the badge. There's no way that individual is going to create $380,000 worth in value based on their skill set. They're going to create that value because they can go right into any director's office and they can pitch Mantec systems. They can pitch Raytheon resources. They can pitch new projects. And when one of those projects funded for five years becomes a $19 million contract, now all of a sudden they'll pay that retired guy, $38,000 for next five years.

Easy day. Does this exist in other countries the same way? exists here where we have all these military contractors that make all this fucking money doing all this stuff working for the agencies it's mixed it's mixed here depends yeah here we're a bull market so you know it exists here because essentially we we encourage business to happen russia and china you're you're an intelligence person for life it doesn't matter if you get in or get out like you're always going to get paid on the government salary israel's different definitely um i want to say columbia is different yep i think some south america

countries. Australia. Definitely. Canada. Canada to an extent. Yeah, it's you'll see folks that still need the safety net and you know, God bless them. They're good people, but what we do is

you don't have to deal with you just have to deal with all the bullshit. Even if you keep the badge, when you go back into the building, it's still requirements polygraphs. Everything else that comes along with that. And guys love it because like Andy said, they're They've never had a chance to pay for kids college until they get that job.

A lot of incentives you'll hear, all right, base salary is this, but we'll take care of your kids to wish. That kind of stuff. So that's important. Government doesn't take care of its lifetime public servants. Nope. I mean, just if anybody listening right now who's been medically retired, who's retired from the military, who's retired from public service in any way, they'll tell you straight. They're nodding their head as they listen to this. Yep.

Government does not take care. You've got to rebuild your entire life on a budget the day you retire from government service. It is so true. And you spend a lot of your time in government service, not a lot, but there's segments during the year, every year, where you sit and you go, all right, you know what, if I stay an extra five years. And I know there's buddies of mine that are listening. If I stay an extra five, that's two percent. But then, guys, think about it. You know, think about it.

Two percent of 170, you know, is it worth the next five years of your life? I don't think so. We can jump out now. $30,000. That's it. You know, for me. I mean, I came out with a decent pension payment, but it's certainly not something I could live on.

If I couldn't sustain the life that I want to live and give to my kids and give to my marriage, and I couldn't do that without going back to work. You know, it's impossible. I mean, we always spend what, like, I think it was $10 billion was spent on advertising for midterm elections. Yep, yep, yeah. It's fucking insane.

With all the other shit, we could spend $10 billion on it. 34 years of my life for what I got. Now, I don't regret a single thing that I did. It's because you're a servant. Yep. I want to do it. I'm a servant leader, and that's how I consider myself. But really, you know.

Well, that's the problem. Governments have to compete against private markets that have, I mean, this is where capitalism incentivizes. So when you use the example of Russia and China, we all know. They're authority. One's right, one's left. But they're authoritarian governments, and they get to say what goes. And that's that.

It's not like, you know, there's a free market system. So and there's skills, Julian, you make great sense because there's there's skills that we hire for. And people know, people that know what those skills are tend to make a serious amount of money, but their shelf life is so short. Because, you know, why would you stay in a government where you're getting polygraphed, government job, when you can go off to the next private company and do your thing, probably at 3X, and never get questioned about what you're doing in your personal or private life, right? So still, still like, you know, there's,

are still lifestyle questions on the fucking polygraph. Yeah. In the FBI, in the, in the agency, there's still lifestyle questions. It's amazing that they're fucking kidding me. Yeah. And it's tough. And those, and they're trained, they're trained guys like us, but, but they're not as experienced as most in the, in private sector are.

So, you know, I can, I can pass today and fail tomorrow on the same question. Right. And you'd look at the person and say, didn't we, didn't we border this? Didn't we parameterize this? Yeah, I did. But you came up, you know, deceptive. But two weeks ago, I didn't.

So, so has, have I changed? Have I killed somebody in the last two weeks? Yes. From a distance. Yeah. I thought about it. Jim went to a country and he's not allowed to come back now. That's what happened.

Yeah. But I mean, like that's, that's terrible. That's terrible though. To have to not be able to, why would you stay? Yeah. Why would your shelf light be any longer than, you know, learn the skill, make the contacts, get the badge. I don't know.

I don't know if FBI is going through this, but CIA has been going through a massive attrition for the last five or seven years. It can't hire people fast enough. It's got massive gaps in critical hiring capacities because people are waking up. Younger generations are waking up to exactly what Jim's saying. So all the normal retirement is happening. All the mid-career people are asking themselves, do I really want to? to stay for another 15 years or do I want to bail now as a mid-careerist? And then all of the junior officers have been through a tour or two and they're like, you know what? This government

thing isn't all that great and I'm still 32 years old. I could make a 30-year career in the commercial sector. Not to mention all the contractors out there who serve the government are still thinking hungry for those clearances. Yeah. Right. And you said that's where all the leaks come from too. It's not where all the leaks come from. The place where the leaks come from is exactly what we're talking about. Government hasn't right-sized the initiatives or the incentives for people who have secrets. Yep. So, I mean, CIA had three, three arrests of former CIA officers in 2021. Think about that. Wait, who were working on the private side now? No. So some were, contractors. Some were actively involved in at CIA. We just had an arrest this week of a, of a couple

that was selling secrets about Navy military vessels to the Chinese. That was just sentenced this week. In the Intel game, on the counter intel game specifically, where we're trying to catch people who were spies against our country,

like we're getting taken to lunch. We're 20 years behind. Global War on Terror, right? How, like in your head, when you're looking at our government and powerful positions could be bureaucratically or an official elected capacity in the government, do you think at all times,

well, it's definitely at all times, but do you think there is much more than past the puk button of people who are working in government who are on the take for other governments and working in an intelligence manner? So my personal opinion is grown largely from what we were taught at the agency. And at the agency, we were taught, just assume there's moles. Assume you're penetrated.

Assume that there's information being leaked out that you can't control. Leaked out to foreign governments, leaked out through anonymous sources to the press. Just assume that there's a big leaky bucket and operate anyways. That's how I was taught. So that's kind of how I assume of it. I think that's past the puke button personally. But that's what professionals were trained to do. Yeah.

And from my standpoint, just looking at, the Bureau's public corruption program and the amount of money and attention that has gone into that over the entire course of my career, I look and say, yeah, I mean, it doesn't matter. Appointed, elected, you know, they are going to benefit. Some of them walk right on the line. Some of them jump over the line and some of them live their life in the gray area. But they're all fucking benefiting. And then ASACS trader knocks on their door.

Right. Right. You don't, you know, listen, you don't, you don't live that lifestyle that we see most of our elected officials that are in the public space on that 172. That's the same money. That's it. That's the money. Yeah. It's just, it's just, you know, source and application work, man. It's what we do. Here's what you make. Here's what you're spending. All right. Where's the difference? You know, I don't, I don't have any difference in mine. When he's talking about checks, when he's talking about money, what he means is you follow the money and where you're, there's a gap in the money, that's where you know to focus your resources. Somebody's living a $100,000 a year, there's a gap. Somebody's, somebody else is living a $60,000 a year lifestyle. They make $80,000 a year. There's no gap there. So how do you prioritize your investigative resources? You dig into the guy that somehow is coming up with $40K extra a year. It's a little girl in the red coat in that way. Correct. That's exactly right. You know,

and you look at like, even from my experience, it's, it's so egregious when you, when you get to the to most of these people that you know are living that lifestyle it's it's 10x it's 20x so they don't even give a shit yep you know they don't give a shit they'll they'll bargain out they'll plea bargain out spend their four years in jail in a federal camp and come back and have shit hidden somewhere else still have the same relationships going on not gonna you know now what scares the shit out of them is the IRS yeah that's true because guess what the IRS does right it just sniffs out money. They just take it all. Everything you do. I mean, IRS agents are going to, especially on the 1811 side, which is the actual criminal investigators, they're going to follow your ass in.

If you're, if you're a politician that's, we said, that's a 10xer, they're following your ass everywhere you go. Did he pay cat? I mean, they'll walk right up. I've seen, I think I've talked about cases where I've seen IRS agents walk up to cash registers at restaurants and say, how do you just pay? And the guy's right there. Yeah. You said you did that a couple times. Yeah, I did it. One guy, yeah. That was fun. The IRS agent was fun.

MOs. MOs. Completely different MOs. Didn't something recently change with the IRS? Didn't they just get some sort of new? Yeah, they hired 87,000 folks who won't be trained until 2046. Well, there's more. It's just ridiculous.

Stoop. I didn't hear about this. This is an unknown fact, though. That was crazy. Did you see some of the hirings, though? Some of the people, some of the demographics of the hiring? No. I mean, nothing against educated, you know, educated on you, it doesn't matter.

But these are not the best on the bright. These are the people that couldn't get in the military. They didn't want to go in the military. Seriously. That's what it is. Think about it. I mean, we just talk. How do you not work through, you are 25,000 short nationally on your, this is just one branch,

is the Army's recruiting, 25,000 short. But yet those people that you said, no, we can't really deal with what you did here or whatever. IRS is picking them up. Because who the fuck wants to be an IRS agent? Right. Like you walk into a bar, you tell a chick, I'm an IRS agent. These are auditors. These aren't even agents.

They can't even agents. They can't. The 1811s can't. So the criminal investigators can't. But the OIG side, they're doing audits. But, you know, listen, if you jumped on a call with legal Zoom right now and said, hey, I'm an S corporation. You know what they're going to tell you?

Oh, that never gets audited it. So I said I had a guess corporation. I'm an S corporation too. Never gets audited it. So the guy goes, well, now we're going to get audited. But sorry. You're the first phone call. I'm making Jim.

All right. It's done. But honestly, like that legal Zoom is telling you, giving you, providing you that information. And the fact that you have to hire 87,000 people means you are so far behind that I'll be dead and buried before somebody comes and, you know, knocks on my door and says, hey, what was that? Hey, you went down to concrete, you know, and you wrote that off. You know, I'm like, yeah, that was Danny. He told me to do it. Yeah.

When we're smoking a hookah. No, I'm a kid. No, but there's, like, in all seriousness, with the IRS, though, there are some guys there who are legit. And they're not, they're not, they're not just, like, falling for your taxes and stuff. Andy Greenberg, whom I have it back in, who we've talked about before, his whole last book that is now coming out,

I guess it'll be out, like, when this episode comes out in a couple days. But, like, his whole last book is basically on, the biggest dark web stories of the past 10 years that he was a part of the reporting on. Like Andy was an early guy on the Silk Road story. He interviewed Ross Holbrook when he was still DPR behind a keyboard before anyone else did. And he works his way through like Alpha Bay,

up to even like some of the crazy like child porn cases that they were able to trace. And the stars of the book are IRS agents. And these are dudes going around the world with guns on their fucking hips, getting some of the biggest organizations and taking them down. Now, Suk Road's like kind of a different one for people, but if you look at some of these other like straight up evil ones that they took down,

there's other agencies involved. But like there's some badass guys who figured this shit out. I got to give them. Greatest leverage in the world is having an IRS agent, you know, criminal investigator on your team when you're doing a search warrant. You know, just they don't want to talk to. Remember we were talking about authorities? Yeah.

IRS can look into something. Nobody else can look at. That's exactly it. Sometimes they just, oh. How do you explain Scientology? Oh, yeah. Is that an open-ended question? Because I don't have an answer to any of that.

The story of Scientology? Are you familiar with how Scientology became a religion, like, officially? I just know Tom Cruise is nuts. I mean, that's all saying. They wanted to become a religion. Where is she? El Ron. They wanted to become a religion so bad.

They, basically, the leader of Scientology, whose name is... El Ron Hubbard? Is that the guy? David Miscavage. El Ron Hubbard started it. He was a science fiction writer. He founded it. And then David Miscavage took over.

And El Ron Hubbard's dying wish was for Scientology to become a religion so they wouldn't be able to pay taxes. Oh, man. So what they did was they had literally, I think it was tens of thousands of their members all file lawsuits against the IRS. And eventually they won. The IRS fucking waved the white flag and said, okay, you guys can become a religion. You guys are tax-free. That's all it takes. That's awesome.

Wow. I'm going to plug that one back in the memory of back for later on. Fucking wild. What do we want to call on? There's a documentary about it. It's fascinating. The documentary is called going clear

the prison of belief. And basically how they just brainwash all these people into Scientology and they convince them to do whatever they want. Basically, they start out by feeding you in science. I'm just, I don't know if you're familiar with Scientology, how it works,

They feed you all these life hacks in the beginning on how to better your life, how to push out all the negative influences in your, negative influences in your life, and how to become the best version of yourself, like Tony Robbins type shit. And then once you get into it and you start paying the money, then they start letting you into some of the fucking Z-New alien galactic overlord shit. And you have to graduate.

It's wild. My one friend went and tried out for Scientology. Tried out. Did he really? Yeah, I really need to. some help. They're like, oh, Michael, you're really fucked up. He failed like the whole test they give you. And he's like, oh, this is

this is some crazy shit. I'm out of here. Did he really? He wasn't serious. Like, he just, he wanted to go there just to see, like, if he could see into the cult. Well, the fucking, the headquarters of where it all started is less than 15 miles from where we are. It's a beautiful headquarters. It's insanely. Where, what town? Clearwater.

Clearwater. Who was the guy you had on Mike, Mike Rittler? If you see the brick buildings in Clearwater, Yeah. All that old historic Refurbished Districts. Tom Cruise is called the flag. It's called the flag building. And the inside of it is literally plated in marble and gold.

It looks like the inside of Trump's fucking penthouse. Oh, yo, yo, yoy. It's insane. And all those guys, Tom Cruise on John Travolta, they both have condos in downtown Clearwater somewhere. And there's like, it's so many fucking, some of the wealthiest people in Clearwater are a part of Scientology. Wow.

If you look at all the waterfront homes and clear water. Of course they are. It's, it's, it's kind of creepy, man. Economics, man,

just like we've been saying. That's our next, that's our next mission. They're either. What our, what our religion is going to look like? My accountant. Well,

what about like, that's actually a really good topic. I don't know if I've talked with either. What are origin is? No, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, I'm saying like when you look at the world and conflicts and, and playing into cultures, every war, not,

let me correct that, a lot of war, tie back to like certain people at the top of a structure bastardizing like the religious beliefs or and that could even by the way I'm including like the religious belief of the state here like you look at the Soviet Union what was their religion you worship the fucking hammer and sickle and everything and so when when when you're working in the symbol of democracy like America where it's supposed to be freedom of religion freedom of speech freedom of all that and you're evaluating other countries where you're where that doesn't exist. Do you find that the people who are on our end evaluating that who literally haven't been to those places have no ability to actually add something to the conversation? Yes and no, I would say.

So part of what you're talking about is cultural sensitivity. Yes. Or cultural acuity. But another part of what you're saying is also understanding the foundational ideology of a culture. It goes way deeper than religion. It goes, I mean, you've got to look at how, they're raised, you've got to look at what their life experience was like from their core years

from one to five and then their core adolescents from 13 to 21. These are when all people are shaped. It's when your brain is conditioned. So for sure, people who are culturally acute are can offer some amazing insights. But that doesn't necessarily mean the people who aren't culturally acute are worthless. What actually ends up happening is sometimes the best idea is come because a culturally ignorant person proposes something that is so outlandish to the culturally acute person that they would have never even considered it. And then all of a sudden you've got this innovative idea. That's what I've seen.

That's how I've seen play out. I like that. Yeah, I like that. I mean, in my, in my world, military world was basically that, you know, looking at a culture, looking at all parts of that culture to include, you know, like Andy said, their upbringing, their particular methods of doing things that are different than any place else for the most part and then trying to kind of find ways to incentivize that. But you're under, like for example, though, your undercover work in the FBI when you did that

was very different, as you've told me, correct me if I'm wrong, than your undercover work in the Army, because as you put it, I think, in the Army, the end goal was they're gone, right? whereas in the FBI you're trying to get information to make a case and whatever. So what are you, like, when you're going undercover with like. It's less about under, like, yes, you're absolutely right on that side. But what I'm saying is in my actual military position and job as a civil affairs officer, you're trying to understand and how to incentivize that person or that culture, or those people to in fact help for a particular,

and have them believe that they're helping for their particular good. because if they don't help you, they become hostile to you. 100%. And it's much easier to have 15 people fighting for you than coming up with 15 people who have to neutralize 15 people before the battle can even start. That's right. And a lot of it, incentive, you know, think about incentive sometimes is just this, just cash. Problem with that is you start seeing those people picked off slowly over time. Because they can be bought out by someone else.

And that's it. So they go away. So we had to be really careful. and then there was a whole deal with, you know, corruption within our military of realizing getting down and out about the fact that, you know, we're paying these people, they're providing information, then they're gone. What are you guys doing about it? So, you know what? Fuck you. I'm taking the money.

And that happened. That was a mindset that happened. So we had go forward a few years. And I had cases that actually came from that people. And you would talk to these people and they would say, yeah, there's no way I'm going to participate in their death. So you stole money? is that what it is? No, I didn't. I just, I diverted it so people wouldn't get killed. And they believed that. Well, they convinced them. You're saying they convinced themselves to believe that

more than anything. Of course. We all do that. We all rationalize. Yes. Yes. Yes. But yeah, to your point, there's when it comes to the benefit of, it's all a cost benefit analysis. How much time and energy should go into understanding someone's ideological background and what's the benefit you get out of it. Jim and I come from a world where benefit to the United States is everything. If it doesn't benefit us, then we don't really waste our time on it. And I think the reason that we've been successful in business outside of government is because we approach it the same way. What's the benefit to us? What's the service that we can provide? And if we, if there's a positive, a net sum win there, then we execute. If it's net neutral or net loss, we're not going to

waste our time. So many people out there, our culture, talk about cultural ideology, our culture in the United States has somehow turned into somebody else needs to do it for me. It's somebody else's responsibility to teach my children. It's somebody else's responsibility to keep my neighborhood safe. It's somebody else's responsibility to give me a job. It's somebody else's responsibility to determine if my skill sets warrant a college degree. We've outsourced every so much of our life. We've outsourced to somebody else's systematic structure of approval. And who defines that systematic structure of approval? The state. Not the state of Florida, but the nation's state of the United States.

Amen on that. I totally agree. So when you're up against that kind of, like that kind of enemy, honestly, sometimes the best thing to do is just to work outside of the system, which is why that's how we've chosen to operate. We work outside of the system because then the system doesn't really know what to do with us. And most of the clients that meet us are like, you guys are outside of the system.

We're like, yeah, we can do pretty much anything you want to have happen. We can find a creative way to make it work. But what if the same people who are perhaps funding you to do that? that are also funding the system itself. Isn't it just a never-ending closed circle? Does it, here's where I get cutthroat. Do we benefit? Does the client benefit? End of story. That's it. You know, and the one thing I've learned, I've learned a lot from Andy and it's only been, you know, what you guys are working together. Money is the ultimate religion. But the thing that, the thing that impressed me so much and that has changed my style of doing business and what he does really well is his one thing. So what he does is training.

and that's his one thing. And he's able to look outside of anything else and say, no, I'm really sorry. You know, I never could do that as we know here. It would be like, yeah, I definitely can do that.

And then I found myself in a position where I couldn't, not because I wasn't capable because I didn't have time. And I didn't want to get outside of the realm of just the one guy. So watching Andy operate and we sat last summer, you know, and just listening to him, I've been able to one thing it. And you know how difficult that has been for me.

me. And man, oh man, right, all I'll say is it's taken off. Where he's the training person and he does it and what we witnessed last night, you know, how well he does it and how thorough and how servant leadership oriented he is. My assessment work has just been a blessing. I simplified to the point where we can do it. Now, you can't do that in a government organization. You can't one thing, it. Even if you're in, even if you're in a certain, you know, if you're in one area of the world or another, you still have many responsibilities. Even if you're talented, even if you're super talented at one thing. You're going to get, you never, you're going to get moved around. Now, they'll pigeonhole you in shit that's meaningless. They will do that. So you got to watch out.

Well, they do that. Why is that though? Because it's easy because there's no issues with that one thing. But you know what? Put this guy. He's going to do all our car or all a computer, you know, work. Put him over there. He won't, he won't say anything. In the meantime, the dude's burnt out. He's miserable. He's been divorced twice. But you know what? There's never a problem that comes with the computer systems here, ever. We never have an issue. And I was guilty of that, probably a bunch until I started to realize, what's going on with so-and-so? He's miserable. So my point is, the one thing is your detriment sometimes in the Bureau, but also the fact that you cannot choose your one thing and move forward with it is the biggest distraction. It's the shiny

nickels. You're either going to be a guy who wants to be on the headlines or you're going to be a guy that's actually going to get things done. We have too many headline folks at the Bureau right now. Too many people looking for, oh, I've got to be this and that. And you see what's happening. You see the press we're getting. And rightfully so, we're getting. So yeah, I think Jim and I are no, we're not naive to corruption. We're not naive to conspiracy. We're not naive to the fact that the system is built for the preservation of the state, not the preservation of the people. We're not naive to any of that. But we also realize that our sphere of influence doesn't bleed into that. And I'm not going to spend my chance to create a legacy for my family. I'm not going to spend that spinning wheels trying to

reshape the world, trying to reshape the country that has formed the way that it has formed because of the foundation that we've been formed on. We're a giant battleship. We turn. Our country takes changes, it turns, it evolves, but those evolutions are really slow. I'm not going to be the one that spins my wheels trying to turn it. And I think what we've discovered in business especially is that when you're, depending on how you shape a business, it can be a freaking sports car. Speed up, slow down, turn on a dime, you know, take off. Or you can spend your time trying to build a giant warship or a cruise ship. You spend 10 years building it and then it still doesn't turn very well. right and that's just not the world that I'm that I'm part of right I'll talk about like John

karaoke yeah I'll talk about anything that folks want to talk about if I can contribute if I can collaborate I absolutely want to contribute and collaborate but the truth is I don't get I go to sleep at night just fine with the fact that our country's in some kind of decline right now I can't fix it yeah you speak really bluntly about that and I actually that's one thing that I think it almost like the people all the same people who call you out for still being active CIA or not a real spy or something, they then hear that and they're like, oh, well, right. Yeah. Well, giving up control. I mean, we, we have, we have lived a life of control from our service academy days through our service through, you know, our time in the government.

And it's so, it's so nice to give up that control in many ways in your life. And, you know, not to get spiritual or whatever, give up control and everything seems to fall into place, right? We're not, we weren't built for that, but we're able to do it. I find the, the best part of this whole conversation is that an Air Force and an Army guy are using Navy, you know, kind of ships to explain our points. It's because the only place we can find real inefficiency. The place we can find real inefficiency is the Navy. I had a guy in here last week who was a Harvard scientist. He had a master's degree from Harvard, a doctorate, I think, from MIT. And he was hired by DARPA. He was part of a head hunting thing. And he got picked to work with DARPA to develop all.

kinds of weapons that he said he couldn't talk about a lot of them but he could talk about some of them and he was talking about a lot about he's made this his life's mission is to help people with this directed energy brain brain problems people are having which is quote unquote havana center and i try to research it i try to like actually do like a two-day deep dive on it and it's split down the middle there's so many people online that say that these are just crazy people like these people are like that worked in the embassy in Cuba like conveniently had a headache and a hangover and now they want to try to take all this

these benefits claiming they have some sort of fucking covert CIA weaponization thing that happened to them from either the Russians or whether it was our weapons or Russia's weapons and they say they claim it's just you know like woo woo conspiracy shit and then there's a whole other group of actual like former officers of CIA or FBI. There's actually an article that just came out last week of an FBI agent in, I sent you

this article, the FBI, the new FBI Bureau in Miami. One of the guys there just got diagnosed with quote unquote Havana. I forget what the actual medical term is, directed energy. Do you have any experience or knowledge of anything like this? So I know, I know directed energy weapons are real. They're very real. They've been experimented for a long time. They're fraught with issues because our technology isn't good enough to be able to hone the directed energy. So it's dispersed and it's unpredictable and it's unreliable. So for sure, directed energy weapons are something, microwave energy weapons and other types of directed energy weapons have for a long time been real. Now, whether or not they're what's causing Havana syndrome, that's the real question that people have. Have they been actively weaponized and deployed into the field? For me, I've got peers and people that I trusted CIA who are claiming these symptoms, and they have no reason. There's no win for them. Like, you guys don't know the culture at CIA. The culture at CIA is you don't walk around claiming that you're hurt with a headache.

That's not, you're not a warrior if you walk around just complaining about a headache or if you try to fake that you have a bad knee or something like that. The culture is hardcore. The culture is anything that is required to keep America safe, we will do and we will be. area to silence sentinels. That's the culture. So if there are people at CIA saying that they have this common symptom, I believe them. And I know that energy directed weapons are real. I trust the people at CIA who are saying they have symptoms. I'm going to say there's a guy who has graduated Harvard with multiple degrees who's saying that they're real and he's dedicating his life to solving the problem. I'm going to say it's real. I'm going to say the idiots on the internet who have

an opinion about how it's not real, they don't have a stake in the game. So from my point of view, they can go to hell. The people who have a stake in the game, that's where I'm going to gamble. He's also saying he's interviewed over 2,000 civilians who claim the same exact symptoms. Which would make sense, if it was truly a direct energy weapon because they can't be controlled and directed. So you've got all sorts of bleed over and all sorts of collateral damage. I just, you speak, brother. I mean, I don't have personal experience with knowing folks. I'd love to see who the Miami agent is because I know that office pretty well. I texted you the

I'm wondering if they were these folks that had it happen in Miami or were they over this is the art. This is the article right here. Go back to the top. Is that one of them? No, this is not this is not the right one. I got to text you the right one.

But this one came out a week ago. I'm with Andy on the side of, you know, if they exist and we know they do and we have somebody that's confirming that who's educated and we have people with in the organizations that we work for. I've, I mean, there's guys that are dying from the pile, and they're not making it up.

You know what I mean? So I look at it and say, hey, look, and it's not, it's not, listen, there's no benefit of getting medically, medically retired. I'm telling there's no benefit. You're miserable. And you just, I know one or two people who have done it. They're miserable, miserable, miserable people, because they want to be back in the fight.

But the government now, because you brought it up, government's saying, sorry, you know, you can't do it. Anybody out there saying that it's easy to get medical benefits from the government is clearly completely ignorant to what it's like to get medical benefits in the government. Here we go. This is the article. Okay.

Florida cases of having more than 1,000 U.S. government employees and their families say they're experiencing severe headaches, mental disorientation because of something called the Bana syndrome. Okay, this is like a 60 minutes. This keeps going. Yeah. So I guess there's like some sort of. There's Ruby.

So the FBI won't talk about it. Like I guess they reached out to the bureau to get some sort of official comment on it and no one will comment on it. Well, that doesn't mean anything. They're saying it's a quote-unquote cover-up. Yeah, of course they're saying it's a cover-up. If you send a media inquiry to CIA or NSA or FBI, it better be something extremely important and relevant to their normal line of work if you expect the one or two public affairs officers to find that one request out of the 10,000 they got that day

and take the time to respond to it. No comment is literally. just no comments. And it's also got to be like I totally understand why there's things not in your interest to do it. Right. Like the last thing you need and this even applies to the FBI because there's plenty of, you know, covert level things that have to happen there from like a policing perspective. The last thing you need is to put information that can be used out there. So I don't, I almost don't understand like you had the one guy in, right, Tom O'Neill, right? The dude who wrote the Manson book.

He broke it down perfectly because he went to... Chaos. Chaos, yes. That's a great... It's a great read. I connected Charles Manson to M.A.L. Great read. He went through the story perfectly about how I think it was with the Washington Post.

They were insisting that, like, their CIA sources were perfect. They said, okay. And he had the actual, like, information that they were going to be looking for. So he said, I'll tell you what. I'll bring it down. Let's get them on the phone. Let's see what they say. And so they get them on the phone.

They're like, hey, Tom. How are you? Like going back and forth like it's every week. Or Jim, we'll call them, whatever. And so Tom O'Neill is sitting in the room with the documents. And the reporter asked, where the editor, I think it was, asked the CIA guys about this information that's literally sitting right in front of them to comment on it and describe like what they know.

And they say, oh, yeah, we know all about that. And they proceed to lie their ass off and say the opposite of what's on that page. And when you hear that story, you're like, oh, wow, what's scumbags, whatever. But at the same time, I do write. Recognize that like whatever was on that page is not in their interest to be able to like get the story to the media so that the media can tell people and distract them from doing their job, which is a slippery slope. Let's be honest. It could be. But at the same time, like I don't like the CIA especially is a spy organization. I expect them to be spies. Right? Like I don't expect them to be out here doing podcasts though you're doing a great job on behalf. You know what I mean? It's not like. He won't leave that alone. I'll never leave that along. I'll never leave that long. I'll never leave that long. I'll never leave. I'll never. I'll be a podcast. I don't. I don't. I believe in that one. But you know what I mean? Like it's not it's not, it's not, and I get that. It's not in your interest to say that. So even with a story like this, you guys may very well be working on all this right now, but you're not going to be like, yeah, no, it's totally real. They're attacking

this every day. No. It doesn't benefit. It doesn't benefit the people who are doing the work. It doesn't benefit the victims. It doesn't benefit the scientists, right? The truth, the truth is that the truth very often doesn't benefit the public. And the public doesn't like to hear that. Right? The truth is that the truth does not often benefit the public. So what's the point in telling the public the truth? Just because they feel like they're entitled to the truth? If they feel entitled to the truth, they can go apply for a job at FBI.

That's right. They can go apply for it. They can go enlist in the military and they can learn all the truth they want to learn. There you go. How does that erode at the trust of government? I rode at the civilization or not just the civilization, but a road at the fucking the nation. The government doesn't care. Yeah.

The government doesn't care. They're not care. They don't care, right. They don't care. They don't care. Does it erode at the trust? They don't care. The government doesn't benefit from trust in government.

The government benefits from obedience and civil order. If the day came that distrust in government... And that's how you get fucking January, whatever, what was the date they fucking sold it, January 6th. Yeah. So the point is that we've created, our forefathers created a government in the United States that was designed to protect this perfect union. not all of the people within this perfect union. As long as the union is secure, then it can operate to serve the benefit of the people,

even the people who don't like or trust the government, right? So who does the government prioritize? It prioritizes the person engaged in civil governance. The people who vote, get a say. The people who pay taxes, get a say. The people who want to run for office and become elected. They all get a say. So if you engage and participate, then the government does, in fact,

serve you. But if you sit around and you throw pot shots and you bitch, government already knows you're going to be perfectly content with your working water, your working sewage, you're working electrical lines, your local police force, your public school. Here's the scary thing. Look at you chuckling. If you look at media and the evolution of media, it's moving away from the people that are in control of pushing the narratives and it's going more into the hands of independent creators who can speak their minds and speak freely and have conversations like this and talk about all the fucking deception and all the lies and all the dark, sinister things that the government has done. And when it starts to go more and more that way, well, the problem is they're financially incentivized to do that more.

And that voice becomes bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. And now that's directly in conflict with the government. What happens after that? It is, but you're giving people what they crave. Yeah. You know, we can't do that. As government servants, I can't sit and talk to somebody about what they crave, what they really want to know. oh man was there anything and and it's it's cliche for us when we say we really can't talk about it but

sometimes we really can't talk about it you know it's it's our livelihood and our well-being that goes on the line should we do that but what you guys are doing which i think is beautiful and it's it's it's the next level of where we should be going for independent there's no independent thinkers until these things came along right so people are never really investigating their own mind and saying what do i really think about that and why now you're showing the structure for how to do that with guests, but what you're doing together, what you're doing separately,

what other people are doing, there are not a lot of independent thinkers. And I'm talking very well-educated people who the last thing they watched or saw is their opinion. Have you ever heard of the 80-20 rule? Yeah, I love that. Of course. Yeah.

So the 80-20 rule applies to everything. It's mathematically sound. So that means it applies to all of this independent media that you're talking about. Yes. Of the 100% of people who are listening to this conversation right now, 20% of them will learn something new and take action. 80% of them aren't even paying attention right now.

Maybe they're looking at the screen right now because I just called them out for not paying attention. Right. But 80% of them aren't paying attention. We are not here to talk to the 80%. You're not doing this work every day to talk to the 80%. We are all talking to the 20%. And then if you look at just the 20% of the 20%

that listen and learn something new, of that group, only 20% will take action. The other 80% will be satisfied with the fact they learned one new thing. But it's also the 20% control in the conversation too because the 20% who yell out the fucking loudest and scream at each other get all the attention. And so then the 20% who actually are paying attention

get pissed at them because they're in the 80% that doesn't want to do that. And that's another never-ending circle right there too. Yeah, but I think what the value is here is the thought and the idea of independent thinking. We need more of that. We don't have that. Look at, you know, I'm not picking on a generation,

but this tells them all they need to know. Yeah. Right. In their mind. Now, we know that's not the case, right? We know the case that you should really look into things that bother you, look into things that interest you. And like Andy said, find your one thing.

Pursue it with full, you know, foot down on the pedal, and learn from that and experience the independent thinking, which is, again, it's a control thing. lose control, let yourself do it. To look at the control point a different way, we were brought up in government where we had to try to have functional control over a wide set of things,

but we didn't have full control over anything. When you can shed all of that functional control and focus on getting full control of one thing, you're unstoppable. There's lots of people out there that can kind of multitask and have functioning control over 10 different things. but the one guy, the one gal who has full control over the one thing. Oh, man.

Can't be stopped. So well said. Yeah, multitasking is bullshit. It can't happen. Just can't do it because just never get back to the thing that you're supposed to be doing. You know, and I just think you're opening people's eyes to that, to the ability to do that and to think about what they can, not only what they can learn, but what they can do.

and think about being, you guys are independent thinkers. That's what you do. You question things, but with background, that's significant. We don't agree with your questions. We don't agree with your point of view sometimes, but you still run a platform where we can basically sit here and make fun of Julian's tin hat. And you can sit here and tell me all day long

that I'm lying to you about not being a current CIA. That's the kind of thing that doesn't get to exist. And the people that bitch and moan, what we're talking about, the people that are complaining all the time, this didn't happen, whatever. There are people that don't have that independent thought. So what is there, what is there one thing? Bitching in my. That's what they do. And they're great at it. And it's, it's instant gratity. It's instant satisfaction. Oh, did you see

what I said? And that dude said, okay. But what, what did you accomplish by having that instant, you know, gratification? Nothing. Yeah. Nothing. You're back in the circle. So think about it. I find this fascinating because, because I love watching your guys's podcast continue to grow. And congratulations on both you. Oh, it's awesome. One of my favorite things to do is to look at the comments. on one of your recent videos, the last, whatever, a video from two weeks ago. And yeah, I know you're laughing. Oh, yeah. Because when I look at it, I look at it just to see how many people are making comments.

Because that's an indicator of engagement. And then after I see how many people, I'll open up and just kind of scroll through it to see how many are positive comments and how many are negative comments. The vast majority of these negative comments. Yes. Right? Trash talking the guests, trash talking the host, trash talking, whatever else. What I think is awesome is that you guys see those comments the same way I do. people are feeding the algorithm to make YouTube realize that your interview that you just did is interesting

to people. Oh, it's great. So then as they're, as they're pissing all over us, they don't even realize they're adding fuel to the vehicle to make it reach more people. 80-20 rule applies. The more people it reaches, 20% of those people are the right people. 80% of those people are going to piss and moan about it. Make a comment. Fire it up. Get it to more. Generated to the next level. I love it. And I love the fact that that's that's going to happen it's going to happen with this one too there's probably somebody writing a negative comment right now oh they've already been there my friend that started it like timestamp too shit how do i delete that thing i don't want this to go to anybody they don't realize if they just shut their mouth if all the naysayers just shut their mouth social media would come to a screeching

home isn't that interesting that you'll click on a youtube video just so you can scroll right past the video and read the comments if you take a look if you take a look at my twitter account i'm pretty sure my twitter account is oh it's world war five it's full of hate followers. Really? No, no one likes you. Have you heard of hate following? I love hate following.

People follow you just because they hate you. They follow you so that they can be the first one to shit talk you as soon as you make a tweet. No, your comments are, both of your comments are pretty crazy. Your comments are fucking hilarious and I love it because every other, I'll refresh my feed and every other comment is, this guy wasn't a real CIA spy or like this guy's taking over the world. I love when they correct. But it's like, stop. That couldn't have happened because, all right, bro, whatever.

And it's so easy to predict too Because if I have John Kariaku on here Everyone's fucking kissing his toes Yep They love John Kariaki That's the way that fucking The people on the internet Confirmation bias

Yeah exactly right Confirmation bias But it's a great vehicle I mean it's it's fabulous Truly It's truly It's truly fantastic But right now we're talking about

The easiest thing that we shouldn't be taken for granted Which is like You know the ability to communicate And how it's changing on like a mass level Great Very important I agree. I want to continue to see it like go this route of where we're seeing a lot of good independent thought out there. But in society itself, and I mean this around the world, you know, I just get the feeling all the time as a naturally positive guy.

You still have to be a realist about what's going on. And I've never felt things so fragile. And it's like when you look at history, effectively the world got fragile the minute, you know, we dropped two. I don't know why we need to do two nukes on Japan. but that's another question. But like you drop a couple nuclear bombs, you prove that it's possible. And then, you know,

what a lot of people don't even realize is that within the next 10 years, a lot of countries, including us, were able to develop chemical weapons, all these different things. And I look at this and I go, holy shit, we have had this stuff for now 75 years,

whatever it is. And for the most part, like we've been okay on like a mass killing perspective in that way, right? But now we're living in this world where every day I'm like, When's someone just like going to drop the microwave bomb and we just all go and you know this whole conversation about independent journalism doesn't exist because we don't anymore. Where are the aliens?

That's my question. I don't know. I think rings of Saturn. You know, it's funny. You said one of the guy who I was telling you about the Harvard guy was also telling me about this technology that Air Force has that is some sort of laser beam hologram technology. and its purpose is designed to show up on fighter on radar of an enemy's radar and show up like a fleet of planes or shit is coming at you when really it's just fucking holograms

and the first thing I thought about was the UFO sightings off those ships and yeah buddy that's not just technology we have that's technology that that is basically laser pointers in the sky and that's exactly how those fighter pilots explain and describe it's asymmetrical warfare That's all it is. If you can make a radar system detect something, then you've got an asymmetric advantage. You can turn one fighter jet in the sky into 15 fighter jets in the sky. You can turn zero fighter jets in the sky into a fleet of fighter jets in the sky.

You can make it look like an unidentified flying object off the coast of your carrier, suddenly ducked into the ocean, ducked out of the ocean, and then flew straight up into the atmosphere. You can essentially incapacitate any radar-driven device with disinformation. Is that what you think this is after we talked about this maybe almost a year ago. Yeah. Would you have your opinion changed on it since then? No. I mean, if anything with the increased amount of research and the increased amount of information

that's come out since the government started releasing its UAP, UFO, you know, reports, it, the overwhelming probability continues to point to terrestrial explanations, right? Whether it's, whether it's new weapons systems, old weapon systems, experimental weapon systems, disinformation systems, whatever it is, that is still the predominant description. There's fantastic reporting out there that explains the TikToks that we're seeing. I mean, very sound, solid, scientific explanations for how it's shadow from radar, how it's the speeds that are reported are inaccurate compared to the actual speeds that are reported on the actual airframes themselves that can that help to color with more scientific

context what those various UFOs were recorded by the Navy fighter jet pilots which also explains why they would be publicly allowed to be released because they're they're not in fact hyper dangerous weapon systems from foreign governments and they're not in fact suspicious foreign invaders right so yeah as far as the whole UFO conversation goes I still very much believe we have to lean on terrestrial explanations first when those are proven to be unreliable then we can open the door to what's next but we have to we have to start with what we know that's what science is you start with what you know well how do you explain how do you rationalize the the new york times articles coming out saying that we have to take these seriously as a

as a otherworldly threat i don't know if if the new york times is coming out saying we have to take them seriously as an otherworldly threat then whoever like literally literally the word threat they used. I'm sure, but otherworldly is the thing that I don't necessarily believe, right? Do we have to take them as a serious threat? Yes. If you have some sort of phenomenon happening in the atmosphere that puts commercial airlines in danger or Perth's military aircraft in danger, yes, that's a threat that you have to take seriously. But do you have to take it seriously as an otherworldly alien species threat? No. But that, and I think the government is doing the right thing answering to the American public and answering to general flight safety and, uh,

air superiority. If you want to control the skies above a battlefield, you have to understand what's happening in the skies. That's why special operations have special ops meteorologists. Because you've got to be able to control the sky. If there are pockets of gas and weird lights and objects in the sky that could put a pilot at risk or put a drone in danger, we've got to understand what it is.

Is there a protocol for if a spaceship lands on the White House lawn? Is there a government protocol? Somebody got paid for that. Had to happen. Someone in Deloitte. No doubt. Yeah. Sleepy Joe wasn't aware.

What would that protocol be? I don't know what it would be. I was thinking, let me go back to the last bit of conversation. So if you think about TWA 800, now we interviewed. I was just going to put that up. I love where your head's at. What is that? We interviewed.

So TWA 800, sometime in 95, I think it was July of 95, there's a commercial airliner coming out of LaGuardia Airport, heading to France, packed. It's like a, it's a 747, packed. There's probably 300, 280, 300 passengers on it. And it shot, well, I won't say it shots out. It blows up in midair, about 13 miles off of the airport. And, you know, everyone obviously dies. Is this the, like the soccer, or there's students or something?

Students, that's right. It was students going over to like some type of summer, summer youth week in France. Yeah. So. And you worked this case. You were investigating this. So we put this thing back together over the course of a year. And there's clearly a missile shot in the side of it. The explanation that the center gas tanks on the 747 were not locked off.

So they're supposed to be locked off so they can't pass wing to wing. They can only take the fuel that they have in either way. wing and the pilot couldn't go ahead and, you know, switch out. So the explanation was well. There was a little bit of a seal that was not working and it opened up and the thing blew up in the sky. I think we interviewed every certified 747 pilot in the United States who all said that that's impossible that that could have happened.

Take it forward. There was a Navy ship in the area that there was a rocket or a missile that was seen traveling to the aircraft, a bunch of flames, and then basically the thing dropped right after that. Let's take the technology that we just talked about. This particular person or persons that were commanded that ship swore that they saw enemy aircraft in the air, and that's why they made the shot.

Now, that's gone. You can't find that anywhere, just like the, I hate to say this, but just like some transmissions with a couple of fighter pilots, it's right at as 9-11 was happening who supposedly may have caught up to the shanksville aircraft i don't know that'd be a fact but you can't find anything on that anymore but it was out there the transmissions and everything yeah i heard about that i fact those guys interviewed on nightline the pilots so ted coppel interviewed them here comes the comments and then it's gone right so but take but take that tw8800 think about what we were just talking about with things in the sky to make it look like as if there's a fleet

fighter jets, you know, rolling across from another country, take the Navy ship in the area, take the witness accounts, eyewitness accounts, including I think Pierre Salinger was one of the ones that actually reported on it. Who knows, right? I mean, yeah, here we go. Conspiracy theory. Right. Yeah, because I wonder if that was... Let the skepticism begin. The reason I was going to ask about that... Right, don't make sense, right? It doesn't. And then it, and then it, what does make sense is that they had to stop, you know, going back to like the TWA 800 though, like what does make sense

is that you can't admit that. Right? So, so, all right, just straight up without going into all the conflicting details with this and everything. It's like you're a Navy ship, you fire off test missiles, or

you're off the coast of Long Island and if you see enemy aircraft, you're supposed to fire because you get one shot to do it. You end up firing on a commercial airliner. We all know what kind of hearings would happen in D.C. The regulation and what you wouldn't be allowed to do anymore. And so from a cost-effective perspective, which is a very callous way of putting it,

there's no reason to say that the military, the Navy, whatever, wouldn't make an assessment there in coordination with the top levels of government to say, look, win some lose some. This is an L. Public can't really know about this, and we're going to move the fuck on. And then they shut down your investigation. And again, that's a tough one. is if there's no malice with it,

which I guess we'll never know, but I have no reason to believe, like, why would you shoot down a bunch of students going to fucking France? You know what I mean? Like, there's no malice there.

No. Then the bigger picture of like, that's just me thinking out loud about kind of tying together. Right. You know, as we do so well. Yeah.

You see in the bureau, we connect dots now. Yeah. Yeah. Have you ever seen the documentary? What was the documentary? I told you to watch about 9-11. Yeah,

it was like four hours. It was 9-11. the new Pearl Harbor. It was a four-hour documentary. They take a lot of it is bullshit. Yeah. But they go deep on it. Like they interviewed,

I think it was like 400 Boeing pilots and Boeing engineers. This is just one of the things they had in there that stuck out with me the most. They said that those Boeing jets could not fly at that speed at that low of an altitude without the wings ripping off. I got a theory on this. What's your theory? call it the Julian Dory No I'm just one with you No but like looking at the 9-11 thing

Because you were there that day You're another person there that can speak to this I find that people who Were below the age of at least six or seven Sometimes a little older on that day And or and perhaps more importantly People who lived starting two states out Or call it 150 miles in radius from New York City

Are increasingly exponentially more likely to assume conspiracies at the highest level on all of that because they did not know people who were there that day in the building who went down with the building or were on the ground or one of each. And so when you're someone like me or especially someone like you who was a just past that age old enough to be able to understand what was going on, B new people that died in there, C new people on the ground, D new people that got out of the building and what they reported. it is very hard to listen to some of the arguments that people try to make about how this was all a fucking inside job when they take liberties with what actually happened that day and what people reported when they were going through the building. And then they also switch around facts.

Now, are there things that were their mistakes made? Oh, fuck yeah. We already talked about it. We know the CIA and FBI had a lot of issues going back and forth. Furthermore, could there have been a couple rogue people in the government that maybe had intelligence from a like, this wouldn't be the worst thing ever? Sure. And would the government ever let the public know that? Absolutely fucking not.

And of course, we want to know that, but they're not going to do that. But what people do is they then take it down to George Tenet was literally standing there controlling a missile that looked like a plane because it was graphically edited to do that and put it into the fucking Twin Towers and we went over there to kill a million Iraqis. And that's where I go, hold on a fucking minute. take a step back, that's not what this was. What people don't want to look at with the conspiracy of like 9-11 is the very real possibility that a bad thing could happen. Bad people in the government might have been like a human being that day, upset it did, who then also then took advantage of every fucking thing that it allowed them to do to be able to take other powers

that perhaps liberties that they didn't have the power to take in the past and set all these precedents. that get us to this point where you had this world-changing event that changed everything, changed our way of life, and has now gotten us to a point in the country where 20 years later, more than 20 years later, we're literally more divided than ever and people are looking for a search for meetings, so they find it in two towers going down that day and a fucking Pentagon hit. I don't know why on the internet, that's a controversial opinion. But apparently it is. And like when I watch a documentary like that, which I do, I actually want to watch it again,

you know, they can tie together some things that make sense. but then to go back to the conspiracy point they'll tie nine things together that make no fucking sense. Absolutely. None. Absolutely. And then when you had the problem,

another problem is when you have things declassified like Operation Northwoods, that's not a very good look either. Yeah. Yeah, you're right. And there's tons of questions. I mean, there is tons of questions. There's tons of things that were never answered,

tons of things that were hidden, like all the tapes that were hidden. You know, I guess there was. Can you tell people what that was? Just like that. Northwoods? Oh, Operation Northwoods. Um, was a declassed declassified operation that was planned by, I believe, Alan Dulles, who is the head of the CIA,

to fly a empty airliner, passenger airliner over Cuba and shoot it down and then claim that Cuba shot it down to create a false flag to invade Cuba. That's pretty terrifying when you read through it. They didn't like Cuba, man. Fuck. Yeah. That was during the whole Kennedy thing. Yeah. And Kennedy is the one.

Like him was the one who shot that down, right? Or who ended that? Oh, here we go. We got the fucking, oh, there we go. 13 March 62. You write this, Jim? I was my first document. So just so, you know, random admin geek insight.

So if you look at the classification at the top, oh, please zoom back out. Zoom out. A little too much. There you go. Top secret, special handling, no foreign. What does that mean? That was very, very classified back then. TSSH, right, that top secret is by itself.

It means you can only see it if you have a top secret clearance. Special handling is above special compartmental information. It's a subset within special compartmental. So if you have SCI and access to special handling, that's what special handling means. So if there are 10,000 people with a top secret clearance, there might be 1,000 with SCI. There might be 100 with special handling. And then the no foreign, it means no foreigner is allowed to see this. Oh, wow.

And that's specific because it means this cannot be seen by any American allies. No Canadians, no Australians, no New Zealanders, no Brits. So that's what the no foreign means. So this was very, very classified if that was the original classification. Yeah, so it's pretty. And it's still, I mean, not many people know about it. Really, not many people know about it. There's a small, like you said, the 80-20 rule.

There's really not many people who pay attention to this shit. Yeah, can you scroll down? Scroll down to you'll see on the lower left-hand corner of the report, might be right here. Stop right there. No, keep going down. Yeah, I'm looking for Stop there a second.

Nope, go back up. Top secret. How do we get this? Who leaked this? I don't know, that's a good question. It's not a leak. If it's unclassified. Yeah, it's unclassed.

It was probably taken to a reading room. Yeah. NSA Archive 2. And how do we get all this stuff on fucking Kennedy's assassination? That was extended. Yeah, that was extended. What?

There's a reason. Oh, wait. No. What does that say? they did it. 21 May. What would happen? Reviewed by a JCS on May of 84.

If you were like we all want to know, we all want to see the classification continued. There it is. So continued after 80. 84. Yep. Let the word go forth. This document does not have the proper markings.

Eric. What were you saying, Julianne? I'm saying we if, if we all wanted to like not have any consequences for anything and like just kind of like, no, we'd all love to see the JFK document. Yeah. Obviously.

But like, there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. No doubt. There's a 99.9, actually, 100,000% chance that that person was traceable to individuals in four different layers, three different layers, two different layers, one layer in a fucking mobster removed from individuals at the CIA. And so even if it were rogue elements there, if you release that document 60 years later tomorrow, And it says that. The trust in the CIA is gone forever. It doesn't matter if 60 years ago.

It's like, oh my God, you guys whacked the president. But there's no treat. What Andy's saying is there doesn't matter if there's trust or not. What would happen? What would be the implications on society if we all found out? They said, okay, yep, we plotted to kill Kennedy. We whacked him. What would happen?

How many people would even pay attention to it? All you need is that 0.01% chance you didn't. That seat of doubt over there. It allows it to continue. Yes. Yeah. That's the problem. So I want to make sure that I highlight Julian that your whole,

you've slipped in this rogue element thing, like rogue officer, rogue element, right? It's not, it's kind of like from Princess Bride. I don't think it means what you think it means, right? We've talked about Harlan's Razor, right? No. Never subscribe to conspiracy what can be explained with idiocy. Oh, that's what that is? Okay.

Never subscribe to conspiracy, what can be explained with idiocy. It's much more realistic that somebody just had to go poop and they didn't read that report on that could have saved 9-11. It's much more likely that that person was just feeling sleepy and went to go get a cup of coffee, ended up in a long conversation, came back up and forgot which document he was reading. And just did the crossword puzzle and went home. Much more likely that happened. Incombatism.

Than some rogue, rogue officer saw this piece of killer bulletproof evidence and said, I'm just going to let this pass and let them all burn. Right? The thing is nobody, you want to know what people are really uncomfortable with the idea of? Incompetency in the government. Yes. That's what they're so uncomfortable with that, that they'd rather believe the government is so intelligent that they can keep a conspiracy. And why did all those people,

why did all those people in government politicians sell off all of their American airline stocks two weeks before? It's the same thing that happened here with the guy who said, I'm going to die in the Bahamas. It's not going to be suicide. It's the FBI. It's the CIA suiciding me. Right. They've done that before, though, no?

Yeah. There's always, you've always got to be ready to consider correlation versus causation. And that's a fair point. And again, it goes back to something else

that we were saying earlier, which is that when you use that logic, though, you can always say it falls on the side of correlation or a coincidence or whatever because you're already saying that 99% of the time

that's what it is. So this isn't the 1% and that's where, you know, look, I'm some fucking guy in an armchair. Like, I don't, I'm not sitting there looking through government documents down in Langley.

You know, so I can only know what I know. And I also, like, I get pissed off when everyone says, every goddamn thing is a conspiracy. It's like, no, it's not. But then where do you throw him a bone and say, well, yeah, this one was. We'll give him Epstein. Yeah. Even then, even then, right? Like, Epstein is proof of criminal activity, not proof of high level government conspiracy.

Right? It's still not smoking gun. you know what is smoking gun criminal activity not high level I mean we did find OJ innocent in this country so I guess smoking gun is real fucking subjective definitely what kind of country

you don't think Epstein's smoking gun what kind of country do you want to live in do you want to live in a government do you want to live in a country where you go to jail only with a smoking gun or do you want to go to jail in a country that says there's like a 15% chance that I'm right so send them off just to be safe just to be safe that person should go to jail

that's a fair right so all those it's it's It was one of those things. So what was Epstein? Epstein was still a big question mark in a lot of world in a lot of places. There's information we're not allowed to see. There's information that nobody has. There's tons of criminal activity.

But you know what? Tons. When you have professional politicians, that lends itself towards criminal activity. When you have a system where the same politicians that dictate the law are the politicians who are elected to make the law. And then what laws do they have to follow? Right? You've got super PACs out there or funding who the politician is going to be. You've got lobbyists out there deciding who's going to be.

It's not a government by the people for the people like it was intended to be. And even then, it was never intended to be a government for the people by the people. It was a government intended to be for land-owning individuals by land-owning individuals. Oh, yeah, we had to change that. I don't know if we ever actually changed it either. right? Are you talking about how we were still

like a slave-driven society? Yeah. My point is our country was founded, our entire government was founded on the idea that you don't get a say unless you own land, which is a way of saying

you don't get a say unless you have a stake in the long-term success of the country. Now we are a country where you can have a say and you can be wholly against the government itself

and you still have an equal say to somebody who has a business, has land, has multiple kids, has whatever else, right? I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying, let's notice where we were, where we are, right? And where we're going. Yeah. Ideally, where are we going. Let's, let's, let's, there are votes as good as anybody else. For a second, let's, let's play, a realistic, not realistic, like something that definitely has happened as far as like, where intelligence has been used through criminal enterprises to be able to get. get information and let's remove like Epstein from the equation. Let's say that you are government

A. This could be any power, pick any powerful government in the world, U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, Israel, pick any one of them. And you are sitting in a room. Let's say you're sitting in a room in the mid-60s right now. And you are saying to yourself, okay, we are focused on the survival of our country, not 10 years from now, not 50s. 50 years from now, but a thousand years from now. And that could also include, you know, every country I just named is an ethnicity, too. So let's even include that, perhaps with the exception of America in a way, obviously. But, like, they're looking for the survival of their people to be able to have a place in the world and not be threatened in the future.

And you have in this room the president or prime minister, the fucking head of the intelligence, the head of the national police, and maybe one or two other people. It is the top guns on a need-to-know basis. and you say to yourself, okay, what's the best way for us to be able to survive? Well, it's to have leverage. It's to have a need so that other people who aren't like us from other places have to help us out when we call upon them. I think this is going to go a lot better if you don't answer your own questions. I'm not answering. You just answered your own questions.

How do I just answer my question? Because you said, what are they going to think? They're going to think we need to do this this way. That's what you just did. Yeah, but I'm saying, like, think about it in the way. The worst, like actually put the visual on it. Okay. And you're saying, what if, what if we needed to get leverage over these people to be able to do what we need to do?

So right away, you're assuming that the best solution is to get leverage over the people. And you know their darkest secrets. You tell me it's not? Nope. Nope. How do you ensure the survival of a country for a thousand years? A mean, a bunch of different. Yeah.

A bunch of different. You don't try to leverage the people. You take the choice away from the people. Yes, by leveraging them. But how do you take that? Why is China buying up every single fucking port around the world? Because they just enjoy collecting ports? They're not leveraging.

They're not leveraging people. They're literally just rewriting the rules. That's not leverage. Leverage means it takes effort to try to put your... Leverage is another way of saying debt. It means you... How's that not debt? That's literally debt.

I go buy Greece's fucking port for $600 billion or $600 million, whatever it was. Yeah? And now Greeks owe me shit. How's that not leverage? So because China's not leveraging China. Greek is, the Greek in that example, Greece is leveraged. Yes, this is, okay, so let's go right back to it. This is exactly what I'm saying.

So you are these people in a room from country A, and you are saying I'm focused on our survival, and the only way to do that is to get leverage off of all, pick out all these powerful nations and the people who are in them who mean something and have a say. Would you not sit there if you're just thinking in this way? And I'm actually trying to look at it from their perspective of, like they're not being evil,

but they can lead themselves to think and do an evil thing that's past the line. Would you not sit there? Would you not be able to see them sitting there in that time? And in this group think room of five people focused on this one thing, be able to convince themselves like, you know what? Yeah, we would sacrifice 50,000 girls over the next four or five decades to make sure we were able to do that because what's the one thing no one can come back from? Fucking a kid.

It's the one thing you can't come back from. OJ. Simpson's out there tweeting any five. fucking hacked his wife to death. Now, I would argue he didn't really come back, but there's other people who have come back from horrible things. You can't, once you, once you are a kid fucker, you're a kid fucker. It's done. You're, you haven't traveled to Pakistan, India, the Philippines, Thailand. I'm talking about it in the, in the power, in the power countries. What do you mean? What do you mean when you say that? Those, I mean, child prostitution is a very real thing all over the world. Yes, I know that. I'm saying in the United States, it's not accepted in public, though.

You didn't say anything about it being an American. You said a powerful country, and then you listed off a whole bunch of different examples. Britain, United States, France. Like, there's plenty of powerful countries out there where it's a totally normal thing. It's not newsworthy at all. And let's not forget that let's not glorify the United States where we have a massive human trafficking of children problem. Right. Right. So there's plenty of ways that you can bounce back, just find all over the world, like, it's not like a death sentence to engage in prostitution or child prostitution. Yeah, but not with people who make laws, not with people who make the rules. Yes. Those are exactly the people who make the rules are the people who have the most power.

Again, if you're, I think the problem here is you're actually trying to vaguely talk about the United States by using this, by using this hypothetical country. I was not. No. So then if you're talking about a hypothetical country, we can talk about real countries where it happens all the time, including the United States. Right. But if you're a country who has bigger threats, that your threats are the other three big countries that are much bigger than you, have much more powerful people that can easily take you over or easily destroy your race or your culture, whatever it is, you want to have leverage on the tippy top people of those top countries, those top nations. So you're going to try to blackmail them with child prostitution. That's what you're saying. Okay, got it. Yeah. I mean, leverage. Hey, leverage is in power, right? So we're mutually assured destruction still exists. You know what I mean? The fact that Putin's in power and he's got nuclear weapons, the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons, the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons,

that's really where the leverage lies on each other. Nobody wants to die, right? We don't want to be extinct as a population. Now, the rest of what you're talking about with child labor and child slavery and those issues are very real. However, I've been to Thailand. I know Andy has. I've been to certain places where It's the accepted way of culture, not for us. We get picked up immediately by people that watch out for that to happen to us. Not that we would select to do it, but make sure that they're not selecting us. Yes.

Kind of thing, right? So when I think about leverage on top people, it's never going to happen. Efficiently, efficiently, you're not going to go down the road to blackmail. Blackmail is an unpredictable one swing, one attempt to blackmail somebody, if it works, it might work for a short period of time, but it's much more, it's much more controllable to gain leverage over somebody with a strong deterrent. Yep. So if I had... Would you say it worked with Epstein? Well, we can't know the if you say, if you would say the theory is true, would you say it was effective? All I'm saying

is if the news were able to come out that, that pick any of the last five presidents, like any of them. Yeah. If the news were ever able, that's the highest level. If the news ever came out while they held any powers, let's say while they were in office, that there was irrefutable evidence that they were fucking a kid. And no, I'm not talking about Monica Lewinsky because she was fucking 21 years old. I'm saying, like, dead seriously. If it came out, they're like, oh, they're fucking 14-year-olds. They're done. They're done.

Agreed. Benito. Yeah. Agreed. But I think what we're saying is knowing... That's not going to put another country in power over the United States. Yeah. Why not? And it's just never going to happen. But why? Because the United States is bigger than a president.

And we're nobody. It wouldn't have to us. We've traveled to the country. I can tell you the end brief is, I'm going to be on your ass and I want to make sure nobody approaches you. Because you go to wash your hands. I was undercover in Thailand. You go to wash your hands and there's a girl sitting on the faucet. You've got to like move around the way.

Yeah. So it's just the accepted way of their culture. You're trying to ask us to pre- to you in a conversation why an unlikely situation isn't likely going to happen and why even if it did happen, it wouldn't create enough leverage to unseat a nation state or to put one country over another country. It just like that's an impossible task that you're asking for in the first place. If you just think through it logically, how many how many controversies have happened of any kind all over the world where the country remains even though the head of states

replaced. Oh, yeah, yeah, but if the head of state and the blackmailer are the two people in possession of this knowledge and no one else knows, and then the head of state in their own, for sure, is going to call the bluff. They're going to say, blackmailer, do it. I dare you. And you better do it faster than I can use my executive authorities to have you assassinated. So if I have video of that dude.

Deep fake, you prove to me it's. not a deep fake. All right. In 2000, how could it be a deep fake? Proved to me that it was from 2000. Right. No, no, no. I'm saying like let's say, no, let's literally go back 20 years ago, not in 22. Who's got the burden of evidence? Yeah, you could easily make a video look like it was shot 10 years ago. Correct. No, no, I'm saying, like, let's go back right now and say this happened in 2000. Julian, do you see what you're doing? You are now, you are now artificially creating the conflans of the exercise to tighten it up to a place. Because you're looking for something specific. You're not having a hypothetical conversation. You're digging for some kind of specific parallel. You're not

having a true hypothetical. I think the leverage, I think you just can't. I know where you're coming from and I get it, but the leverage just isn't in that particular piece. Deterrant is everything. Blackmail is the weakest, the weakest leverage in the world. You can come out and just say, okay, you know, an admission, you know, just come out. Listen, I made a mistake. I didn't know she was 14. Yeah. How many judges? How many judges that we had said that. And you have a million people come behind you and say he really didn't. He's really in care. It goes away. Right. But when you fight it, that's when it becomes leverage. When you, when you continue to say, what are you going to do? Like, you know, take it to another level. The person I was just, I don't know if I was telling you guys,

one of somebody I know, you know, had an instance where with gift cards, you know, hey, I'll fix your computer. If in fact, you just go out and buy me $5,000 worth of Sephora gift cards. The end of the day, you know, as long as you come clean, that point and say, oh my God, you know, I had no idea what was going on, whatever, it goes away on a different level, you know, and it's the same thing. Hey, I know you're saying this, but he, he didn't do, you know, he didn't do it, prove it, whatever. I know it just goes away. I know it's not comforting. You're seeing it. No, at least you, you're taking, you're not playing word jiu-jitsu with what I said. You are taking, and that's exactly why I brought it up,

you're taking what I said and you're extrapolating it into these very real hypothetical situations. And I can accept that because that's, and that's why I'm asking it because it's like, would this have that type of power? Yep. And you're saying hypothetically in a lot of situations, not necessarily. Correct. Okay. Right.

But couldn't it be useful in a smaller scale? Couldn't it be used for influence? Like to say, okay, Clinton. To a certain. Clinton knows he was in your house, fucking getting a massage and a rub and tug from a 14-year-old. I'm not going to say it. I'm not going to bring it up, but next time I ask you for a favor, you're going to know subconsciously that that exists. So it has a shelf life.

Right. Because eventually you're going to come to the people that you trust and say, look, I might have got jammed up. Yep. I might have done something stupid. And then it goes away, right? But there's a moment of uncomfortableness. It's like anything, any of our relationships. Something happens.

You know what? I screwed up. The other thing goes away. There's nothing you could say after that. The biggest reason why this black male has a shelf life is because the person who becomes the black mailer at some point in time if they choose to execute that card now they have to publicly explain why they held that secret for so long that's the shelf life but here yeah so i guess my point is they don't want to publicly bring they don't want to publicly use that card they just want to keep it as

unconscious leverage correct for a shelf life and they better be perfect yep in their world because deterrent what we're talking about mutually assured destruction yep i can guarantee you you give me a couple of days, I'll find, I'll find your piece. And that now we're, and that's a lot of times, that's what may happen that we don't see behind the scenes with a guy like Epstein. So when you, you know what I mean? Like, what did, what did we kind of show him that may have been, well, we know what we showed him, showed him a noose, you know, I mean, basically, but, well, I'm not saying that anyone did it. Just saying that's kind of what happened. You know, that was his What was Epstein? What was Geylane Gislanes? Her dad? What was the story with her dad again?

Well, her dad is, is, did she hold the black book? He was a masad. I think so. Yeah, she had the book, right? He was a massad asset. And he was the biggest, he was the biggest, like media guy in where? Where was, where was he? He was like, in Britain. In Britain. And it was all a house of cards, too. He actually left a giant fraud for his kids when he died. Right. He was like the Rupert Murdoch of Britain. Yeah. but even look at client number nine right that guy's lived was it what was it elliott spitzer was that his name the mayor or the governor new york i mean that goes away he's he's thriving and the woman is thriving yeah ashley depre she's thriving she she lives down at the jersey shore she owns her own stores and hangs out married like top money you know she was one of the victims right no she was the hooker oh she was she was the one client number nine she made money and took him down yeah Oh, wow.

Yeah, look what happened to, what's the prince's name that did the interview, the fucking interview. Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew. Oh, yeah, yeah. The forgotten prince. Oh, yeah. I don't think he's like the brightest pole. No.

I don't think there's a ton going on up there. Might have been some of that like royal incestion. They told him he was a prince. He came out in purple. Like, no, you're not that prince, bro. I got a prince. You're actually a prince. Oh, all right.

Sorry. All right, guys. That was three and a half hours. It was three and a half hours. Andy, I don't want to make you late. I appreciate you, brother. Thank you guys so much. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. Both of you guys. That's great. Keep up the good work, man. We love it. Tell the people listening where they can learn more about what you guys are doing. Yeah, if you want to find me, you'll find me at Everydayspy.com. You'll find me on my podcast, the Everyday Espionage podcast.

And if you're on social media, you'll find me everywhere at Everyday Spy. Awesome. J3 Global for me. I just did a new website. Check it out and give me your input. And also on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is really where I shine. so I'll see on LinkedIn.

Look me up, friend me up, send me a message. And the Trend to Fire podcast, soon to be the Julian Dory experience. It's not going to be experience. Are you fucking kidding me? The Julian Dory podcast. There will be a name change announced early next year, I think. I'll link below guys. Don't want to spoil it.

Sleep tight, everyone. Thanks, guys.