EverydaySpy Podcast - CIA’s Most Dangerous Secret: How They Hunt You Down & Use Fear to Control the World

Episode Date: August 20, 2026

FREE TEST: Find Your Spy Superpower HERE - https://yt.everydayspy.com/spot_20260820 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation Walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcfwalk.ca. If you really wanted to hide, you could hide away from CIA, couldn't you? You could try.

Yeah, we have the skills to try and to do a pretty good job of it. But if they were to really use all of their resources, they'd find pretty much anybody. So what's been a method where they've done something where other people are scared to not want to follow through with that? So I think there's two things here, right? So first, I would say that you don't have, I would disagree with your first point, that you have to have a public example of punishment to convince people not to do something. You actually don't need a public punishment. You just need to state and demonstrate some level of high probability that something might happen. Most people are motivated by fear.

Fear is a future state. So if they just instill enough fear, fear is something that controls behavior. So if you're coming from CIA, I mean, Matt, put yourself in the shoes of a person who is committed part of their life to working for this organization. And then they leave. And then they start writing a book or they start speaking out. they start coming on podcasts, whatever it might be, they don't want to run the risk of crossing a boundary too far and then actually forcing the hand of the federal government. You don't want to be that person. Because in my heart, I'm still very proud of serving. The last thing I want to do,

going to jail isn't the worst thing. Having my wages garnered isn't the worst thing. Losing the respect of the same organization that I served, losing the respect of the American people who I love, that's worse than sitting in a jail cell. Yeah, but that's your character. That's not everyone's character. That's a lot of our characters. I left. Keep in mind, I left.

I had my first child and I left. Many people have many children and stay. Many people sacrifice their relationships, multiple divorces. They sacrifice their health. They sacrifice their fitness. They sacrifice everything to continue to serve. For me and my wife,

2014 came and we had to make a life decision. And we decided to prioritize family first. Now, you were exactly right. That's 2016 on, massive attrition from the intelligence services. We were at the front end of it, but what they've seen since 2016 is incredible. And we didn't start the trend. We just happened to be on the first wave. Of leaving.

But you left like at the, it's like selling your property at a perfect time. You sold at a perfect time. And we're very happy of it, too. Yeah. Oh, I mean, congratulations on selling your property at a perfect time. So, okay, fair enough. So I ask that because, you know, you said fear is a great motivator of what actions we take in the future. I get it.

But I also think, you know, sometimes also when you learn a lot, you know, the three phases we all go through with parents and kids, right? You first phase, you know, kids idolize their parents. Then second phase, they demonize their parents. Oh, I saw what you did, dad, you know, a little mom I said they demonize. Then third phase is they humanize their parents, right? I'm assuming an agent, a CIA agent or an FBI and NSA probably goes through those three phases with the agency as well. You first idolized like to others. You're like, oh my God, Andy, CIA, that's sick.

Oh, my, I'd be using that to get late every day. You know, that's what I'd be doing. Right. So I'm assuming like phase one is dude. I'm idolizing. I'm part of the freaking CIA. And second phase is like, damn, that's some dirty stuff right there. Because there's stuff you know that we don't know, right?

So then you demonize. Then you humanize. and you say, well, these are not perfect people. Everybody makes mistakes, and every organization makes mistake. Corporations make mistakes. Governmental agencies make mistakes, et cetera, et cetera. So you go more in the humanizing phase. But while somebody's in the demonizing phase and they're seeing the dark side of the organization,

that's a vulnerable area for somebody to come in and exploit that opportunity. Absolutely. Okay. And many have from the outside, right? We've had agents that have been bought, money, sex, women, all of that stuff. For me, when it says a lifelong type of an end day, you call it secrecy, you know, I don't know. Sometimes I wonder if it's happening. We don't know about it, but they can't talk about it because it will ruin the credibility of the existing agency.

Because how do some people know so much about us, where are they getting there until? Like you were talking about how Russia on another podcast, you were talking about how great of a job Russia's done against Ukraine, how they're actually getting exactly what they won. Yes, Ukraine has shown a lot of strength, but maybe Russia's strategy is working very effectively. How they're getting their intel, I don't know. Even you said, you said, I don't know how they're getting, how they're doing what they're doing.

So how are they doing it? Maybe we have some people that are supporting them. Could that be a possibility? I would say it's more than a possibility. It's almost a guarantee that we, that the United States, in the world of intelligence, we all assume that we are penetrated. to some level or another.

Penetrated means we have a mole among us or we have information leaks among us. There's a technical operation collecting information from servers or databases somewhere. You have to assume that you're compromised because if you assume that you're not compromised, you're even more exposed to risk. So assume that you're compromised compartmentalized from there and act appropriately, increase your security from there, right? Just like I joked about the guy who didn't let me in the front door, that's awesome security for valutainment. This building is that much more secure because that guy in the face of doubt

kept me out. No problem. He let me in eventually. Guy's getting a promotion, by the way. But that's how you have to operate if you want to maximize security, right? When it comes to why we don't speak out of school, yeah, we don't want to dishonor our country. We don't want to dishonor CIA. We don't want to smear our family names. But we also, for damn sure, don't want to give our enemies information they might be able to use against us just so that we can talk about it CNN or talk about it in the press. There's an awesome example of Osama bin Laden from 2002, 2003. The Washington, the Wall Street Times,

or maybe the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or New York Times, was speaking to an intelligence service anonymous source, and they talked about how we were tracking Bin Laden through his satellite phone. That was a source and a method, right? The one thing we're not supposed to talk about. And then because of that,

bin Laden stopped using that satellite phone, completely changed this communication strategy, went dark, went black, and we had to start all over again. Damn. I don't want to give China any advantages. I don't want to give Russia any advantages. I want to give the American people

every advantage we can give them, but I also want to be able to talk honestly about what my peers don't talk about because just like you're saying, I want to respect my secrecy agreement, but I also want to be able to shed some additional perspective on the awesome work

that the men and women still inside get to do. The privilege that I have as an American being able to leave and still talk about it. Because if I was in France, I wouldn't be able to. If I was in China, I wouldn't be able to. If you're a SVR officer in Russia, once you leave, you don't get to talk about it. That's good that you're so pro-American, okay? And I love hearing that. But for me, I want to transition into this next topic, and then we can talk about the one that I skipped over.

So Peter Strach, okay, James Comey. James Comey parties with Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton. His wife, they've supported their campaign. Okay. Peter struck, hey, text come out. This is what we're willing to do, XYZ. You know, there's no way we're going to let him win, you know, and the texts.

We can see the text, right? Okay. You seem like a reasonable guy. You seem like a nice guy. You seem like a guy that you're like a trifecta. I would have a blast having a party with you, going partying with you. and we were 20s, we'd have a blast together.

If we added in it, maybe we'd go to jail, but we'd still have a blast together. Number two, you're the kind of guy that I'd, you know, enjoy watching a game with, and we're sitting there talking and, you know, and then three, I'd feel comfortable for my family and my kids to meet you, and we, you go to the house, bring you to my place. You give that vibe, okay? You're a man's man, you give very peace, comfort, all that stuff.

I can't say that about everybody, and we can't say that the CI's, 100% bulletproof hiring process because you can't read in the minds of everyone. And I understand how some people that are fully non-emotional, that can be also psychological or a person can be extremely narcissistic or whatever where they can manipulate. That's probably not a person that want to hire as well. But how do people like Peter Struck? How do people like that get in where they represent an institution that we have to trust

an agency that's essentially working to protect me? how do they prevent from their emotions and their friendships and the parties they get invited to and the communities they live in? How do they say, listen, we may be best friends, I may support you, but you're going to jail, okay? That's a very hard thing for a person to do once you're fully vested with someone, right? There's a reason how they say in Hollywood, a lot of big celebrities, they don't go on social media. If you notice the big names, they're not on Twitter. You can't find a Daniel Day Lewis on Twitter.

Twitter. You can't find any of these big actors on Twitter because for them is the moment we open our mouth and give you our opinions, it's very hard for us to act because now you see us in a certain way, right? Okay, that's very deep to me. Like this guy that played Elvis Presley, I don't know what the guy's name is. Incredible job. I was watching all his interviews. I was so flabbergasted by the guy. I was really blown, but there's nothing on the guy, right? How, what kind of an artist he is. But for this side, I have a hard time believing that even these agents on the inside can let their emotions get in a way where they help one side of the political party over the other side. No, it is again, let's, if we skip the idolized phase and we skip the demonized phase, we go straight

to humanized phase. That's, you're, you're explaining exactly why that happens. Of course, they're swayed by their emotions. We're all swayed by our emotions. We go through specific training to, to, de-incentivize our emotional decision-making and increase our dependence on rational decision making, but it's still a process. It has to be trained. It has to be practiced. It has to be exercised. Oftentimes when you're making emotional decisions, you're not giving yourself space or time to train or exercise. You're just in a moment making an emotional decision. That's a very human thing to do. We all do it. I don't know Peter. Peter struck. So I don't know him personally. I can't speak to his specific credentials, whether he was Blue Badge CIA, Green Badge CIA, related to C. I have no idea.

what his role was there. But what I do know is the men and women inside CIA, when I was FBI, Peter struck his FBI. Thank you very much. So when I was inside federal government, inside specifically inside CIA, we are always taught to expect and predict that we will think and act emotionally

and then try and take steps to limit that so that we can give ourselves the space to let our rational brain keep up. If you're interested in the cognitive cycle, I can give it to in about two minutes. Go for it. So every human brain, we call it, we call it pink matter.

It's like a computer in your head. You have two sides, a left side and the right side. We all know that. What we don't know is that one side works faster than the other side. Your left brain is your logical brain. Your right brain is your creative or emotional brain. Your right brain works faster than your left brain. It's because your right brain depends on these things called cognitive biases or cognitive

connections, these inferences that it builds over time so that it can jump from conclusion to conclusion skipping logic. That's why if you're a if you're a butt guy, right? You don't even, you just, you are attracted or not attracted in an instant based off of the thing that you're interested in. Right? If you're a girl that likes a certain kind of shoe or a certain kind of purse, you're attracted to it immediately. Your brain is skipping the logical step. If your right brain, if your left brain was in charge, it would say, what is that?

Is it real? How much does it cost? Can I get access to it? That's four steps compared to the one step that says, I like it, I want it. Sales people understand this intrinsically, even though they may not be able to put words to it. Make it so that it triggers a right brain reaction and the sales process will move faster.

If you're trying to sell through a left brain process, the sales cycle is going to move slower. Try to talk about the features and benefits, whatever else. So they train us to slow down our right brain and speed up our left brain. And there's exercises and practices you can do that. It's one of the things that I teach my executives now, and one of the things I teach my sales teams now,

so that people can kind of reprogram the pink matter. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer. That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca. By the way, can we do a poll?

Can we do a poll to see which agency people trust the most? Put FBI, put CIA. What else you want to add to it? NSA. Put NSA there as well. Which of those three do you trust the most? CIA, I have an assumption which one I think is going to be number one. But just put it in there.

I don't want to say it before people put it. So FBI, CIA, NSA. Let's see what people say in this poll. But, okay, so that's my discomfort. So for me, when you're working like, okay, last night we're having dinner and we're talking consulting. Our consulting business is growing very rapidly. And we're getting more and more consultants that are coming over to us. And we're getting more people that are calling us from McKinsey's, you know, these bigger consulting firms that want to sell our product.

So they're reaching out to us. One of the things that a guy was talking about, how is a lot of lazy executives nowadays in Fortune 500 companies, they have an idea that they want to bring up to the CEO. So when they want to bring up this idea to the CEO, and Tom's talking about this last night, they say, the best bet is I'll go to McKinsey and I'll say, here's my idea, here's a half a million dollars. Can you send me an analysis on why this idea is good or bad? they send it to them and they'll say here's why it's a good idea then they'll go pitch it to their CEO or whoever the bosses that they're working with and they'll say here's my idea by the way I've already spent a half a million with McKinsey McKinsey already approved that it's a good idea let's go ahead and test it so that's their insurance policy to say if it succeeds awesome I get the

victory but if it fails look at least I went and got my insurance policy from who from McKinsey and McKinsey gave me a thumbs up, hey, you're doing a good job, go for it, you know, kind of like backing them up. Don't worry, we'll take the blame for it because of our, and whatever research that we gave you. So it's an interesting way of doing it. So for me, intelligence, do I trust a government agency

that's been there for years to do it? Or would I rather use an independent agency that's more on the free market, free enterprise side, that has a reputation that if you don't hit it, negative reviews is actually hurts a private agency. Negative views doesn't do shit for CIA. I can't go on Yelp and find CIA. I can't go on Glassdoor and find CIA.

I can't go anywhere and do anything with FBI. They're like, dude, say whatever you want. You can't do nothing about it. So maybe what happens with this, with my opinion, is even if I'm a president that gets elected, say I become a president, do I really trust the guy that's been an agent for 22 years? because in a way, the agent that's been there for 22 years or 27 years or the director that's been there for 32 years, he looks down at me. Because in the back of his head, he'll say things like, dude, you're only here for four years. At best, if you're lucky, maybe eight years.

You ain't shit. I've been here for 32 years. Who the hell are you? You're going to come and put it on your resume that you became a president and you're out of here. I don't care what you're going to be doing. So me as a president who gets paid to be paranoid, I sit there and I say, why the hell would I trust you to do the intelligence for me? because your loyalties to people that came before me, I'm going to go use an independent agency outside, not in the government,

because I don't trust you, to be honest with you, and then see what we can get. So do you see how there's a little bit of that, you know, distrust and the lack of respect the director of CIA or director of FBI has for whoever becomes a president and how the lack of trust a president could have for people that are currently in these agencies? Yeah, and you're exactly right, that that is what happens.

And then, but there's a second step that I think we're over. overlooking because all of those director positions are presidential appointments. So I would say almost to a worse detriment, the president just brings in whoever he wants to put in or whoever she wants to put in and they become the new director. Every president has the right to appoint who they want. And that's why directors at CIA and directors at FBI and directors at NSA change so frequently because they don't come up from the inside. They don't spend 35 years at CIA and become the director. they spent 35 years and become some lackey to the director and the director is appointed by the president inside the president's inner circle of friends or peers and then they get the chop off from the Senate.

So even I would say it's almost worse than what you're saying because the most professional person in that organization doesn't even have a chance of becoming the director. They have to make friends with whoever the incoming president is or even worse, whoever the presidential party represents and then they will become nominated for that role. And so that's the truth of how. it works how much and then to your second point which I think is even more powerful America is asking itself the question now should we privatize intelligence we we failed massively on September 11th 2001 massive intelligence failure

because we let the the intelligence infrastructure at FBI and CIA run the way they had always run things through the Cold War and we had completely closed our eyes to the fact that we were moving into a war on terror Afghanistan massive failure predicting Ukraine massive failure Right. And now with 2016, President Trump, when the CIA turned its back on Trump, Trump just dried up funding and directed this funding into a private intelligence organization. So we have seen it work. We've seen people do it. The precedent has been set. So now the government is asking itself the question collectively, do we even keep doing it this way? How do we change? How do we evolve? How do we evolve closer to the speed of business and less to the speed of government? It's not going to happen, though. It's not going to happen. That's why you see. private intelligence on the rise right now. Most of the people that sit inside CIA headquarters aren't government employees. They're contractors that belong to Booz Allen Hamilton, Raytheon, Ladoes.

I'm more comfortable with that. But that's the transition. Yeah, I'm more comfortable with that. And I'm glad, I hope it goes that direction. So my paranoia, if I'm in there, even if we appoint a director of CIA, okay, what percentage of the guys that are on the inside, forget about the director of CIA, what percentage of the guys on the inside that are actually? doing the legwork that are bringing up the report to the top are getting replaced with a new

president not many of them and you're and you're right again so that's where again if you if you look at it through the humanized lens the way that you get those people to fall in line is you have to incentivize them the right way but I don't even want it to be incentive because I I I don't want it to be incentive I like okay in sales I understand like the best thing that the John Amanda said to me was a follow on I said what's a quality of a great great CIA agent. She said, Tyler, we can hear you type. She said somebody that is extremely charming, somebody that can pull information out, somebody who is very competitive, somebody who is very curious, but when they save the world, they have no desire to share that big victory

with anybody and they keep it to themselves. Like to the level of the ambition isn't, hey, dude, you won't even believe what I just did yesterday. I've proven at World War III. That part doesn't happen. Because to most people in sales and Hollywood in sports, hey, so tell us, LeBron, 38.16 rebounds, 12 assists, three steals. How's it feel? Well, let me tell you, you know, da-da-da-da-da. It's a form of a recognition. So tell us Andy, C-I.J. Jim Boussammatis, how does Seafil know when you went in there with Gigi and you found that? The China's doing this. Well, this was a team effort and we've been working on getting into him. You don't have that kind of recognition, right? So I don't want there to be incentive. The only incentive I want anybody working for the government is

the truth that is the only incentive that's that's not the only incentive you want what are the incentive do i want form of recognition because the the thing is no so i never said recognition was the incentive you said the incentive i said they have to be incentivized but what so how do you incentivize the same way you incentivize career any career that's totally fine with me that's what i'm saying oh i'm game with yeah you want you want the person in charge yeah of africa operations yeah to be the most qualified most experienced person who's done the most hard work who's done the most whatever to become the head of of Africa and then you want to incentivize that person to tell the truth to the director every time.

So then you don't wanna make it punitive. You don't wanna make it some kind of weird, you only brief up good news and you hide bad news. You don't want that to happen. So you have to incentivize them to continue with their career even when they tell you what you don't wanna hear. Yeah, so for example, like we're studying, I don't believe in art, okay?

Like I believe 70% of art is fraud, okay? I don't know that it's fraud, but I don't understand it, so I'm with you there. But check this out. But I'm so skeptical that I did research. Okay. And we're sitting there going through the stuff with art, right? Where today, total value of art in the world is $1.7 trillion.

Okay. And Deloitte says that by 2026, it's going to increase by $900 billion. And there's a place in Switzerland called Geneva Freeport that holds $100 billion of art, 1.2 million pieces. They hold $100 billion in one building. You may want to show this building. That's the building. That building in Geneva, Freeport holds one point.

holds $100 billion of art in that one building, okay? And this is people that buy the art, that send it there, who never see the art to prevent from paying the taxes, and it's a form of a vault. So they don't buy it because I'm going to show it off on my house. They buy it as an investment purpose. They put it in a lot of times what a lot of billionaires and millionaires will do is they'll buy an art at a half a million dollars.

They'll send it there. They'll get a new appraisal to say it's worth $10 million. And then they'll give that art and donate it to a museum, and they get a $10 million write off where they get to write off 30% of So there's a lot of different things with art. But I'm really trying to see maybe Pat you ought to give the people in the art world a break. So even this Salman Mundi thing that recently sold for. Salman Rushdie.

Not Rushdie. Salvador Dali. You can pull up the piece that the art piece that sold for $450 million recently, the guy from Saudi Arabia that bought it. Leonardo, what is it called? Salvador Mundi. Salvador Mundi. So this thing in 1950. sold for 45 pounds.

Then in 2005, it sells for $10,000 in New Orleans. Then a person comes out and says this was part of, you know, the Queen of England's collection and it's a real piece of Leonardo and et cetera, et cetera. Next thing, you know, it sells for $450 million by person that nobody knows about, right? So I'm like, but 80% chance it's a fake and it's not real. So I really want to debate myself on this. I really want to convince myself that the CIA and the FBI and these organizations do a lot of good, where the net, net positive, you know, it's a net positive than a net negative.

I'm okay with, well, I'm not looking for perfection. Right. But I want to be able to trust it. But, man, it's very, very hard to do with the last few years on what's happened. My level of skepticism, it's so high. It's hard to believe how much. good they do rather than how much bad they do to the world. I can understand. I can totally understand. And I don't, I wouldn't disagree that I am also disappointed with what I've seen in the

last since I left in 2014. So what is that? Eight years. There's a couple of things that are, you brought up two points, right? You brought up your own questions about the productivity and the constructive use of the intelligence services. And then you brought up the art thing, as I think is a parallel. This has a very interesting story. or a very interesting explanation. If we can get to it, I think you'd like it. But when it comes to the value of intelligence services, it's hard to assess the value

when you only see the cost of goods sold, right? That's essentially what you're looking at. What the American people look at with any secret organization, they only see what they do wrong. They only see the things that costs money. They have no idea the lives that are saved. They have no idea the tragedy that's avoided.

They don't get those stories. I love Jonah. She's a great, a great lady, a great patriot, a great CIA officer. But she embellishes sometimes what it's like to be at CIA. That's an old school tactic. We like to overreach in our gray hairs, always overreach and idolize what it's like to be CIA. Part of it's because that's how they were conditioned while they were there. Part of it's because they always want to be pitching people back, right?

The more accurate way of saying it, she was right about the curiosity and she was right about the competition she was right about all that but we absolutely celebrate our victories we just don't do it publicly we have margarita machines inside CIA we'll shut down offices for half a day we'll put them on skeleton crews just so we can celebrate the fact that we just avoided a civil war in nice in Niger right absolutely those high fives all the time people will sit in a bullpen we have a bullpen not too different from this and you'll sit together with a few people overseas and I'll be like holy shit guys I think we just I think we just

literally saved ten American lines today. We just brought down a terrorist cell that no one even knows existed. Without any specifics, how many times does that happen in your seven-year career when you were there? It happened probably three solid times in my seven years. It could have been massively damaging to the world? Where Americans would have been killed, innocent Americans would have been killed. There's a very clear example of that. There's a place where we would probably be 10 to 15 years behind where we are right now in terms of the global economic situation between China, Russia, and the United States. Had one of our operations not happened.

And then there was another one that was in Africa where it would have been like innocent, non-American lives, but allied lives, Western lives, British citizens, Canadian citizens, a mix, just a group that was targeted by a fringe extremist group in Africa. So we have those victories. We celebrate those victories. We love those victories.

We don't talk about those victories. I guess my biggest thing becomes, if there's a bigger push to go private, then go public, because the challenge becomes there is zero competition for CIA. You have a monopoly. There's zero competition for FBI. You have a monopoly.

That is not good. There's a reason why we have monopoly laws when AT&T went through it. Microsoft went through it. Even Facebook right now is going through, hey, we've got to kind of break it apart. You're too this, you're two that. Okay, I actually understand some of those conversations. But why have monopoly laws for free enterprise

and not have monopoly laws for government agencies? I think we need monopoly laws for government agencies as well. How does a patent differ from a monopoly? Patent gives you a timeline. You don't have it forever. Correct. Right? Monoplies don't last for either, forever either.

They incentivize people to create competition, and monopolies are intentionally attacked by the federal government, where patents are protected by the federal government. Sure. So what I'm saying is that there's a place for everything. There's a place for patents. There's a place for monopoly. There's a place for secret intelligence services.

There's a place for one-sided advantage. Absolutely. But there should be checks and balances. There are checks and balances in our private intelligence world, in our secret intelligence world publicly and privately. But what we're also finding is that there's vulnerabilities that nobody talks about. The vast majority of espionage cases right now are coming from private intelligence. They're coming from Chinese, Russian, Iranian penetrations through the private intelligence network into a mainstream building. There was just two, a husband and wife couple, I don't know if you want to look it up, husband and wife couple that were working,

that were teachers in, I don't know where it was, somewhere in the Northeast, but they were caught spying, giving nuclear secrets about American submarine technology to an unnamed foreign service. They were just arrested because they were contracted. The husband was contracted as an engineer to go work with the Navy. And now, because of that, in Maryland, thank you very much. This just happened. Nobody knows this happened. This doesn't make headlines.

This is the kind of stuff where we're doing the right thing and nobody even knows it's happening. This happens all the time. Unpacked the story. So what happened here? Maryland husband and wife arrested a nuclear submarine spy case. The couple are accused of selling nuclear secrets including a SD card concealed in a peanut butter sandwich.

This is classic human intelligence espionage. I would suspect that the unnamed service that they're talking about here is the Chinese because this fits a Chinese model of collecting military secrets on American technology, right down to the fact that they were doing dead drops in Maryland in food. But let's break that down a little bit because I think you could make the case that even though it may be a private institution, it's still technically controlled by the CCP,

right? And I think it's because it's tied to the Chinese government. I think you could make the same case for Russia. And I don't disagree with Pat on the idea that we should privatize intelligence agencies, but I think you mentioned Raytheon. So like how do we keep, if we do go that route, how do we keep from Raytheon making up false intelligence to sell weapons, right? Or like going down that path to where they're no longer focused on the actual intelligence.

They're focused on the bottom line of the profit. Well, that's one of the reasons that you want to have a national intelligence organization. Because one of the ways that you differentiate information from intelligence is through a process called vetting. Information can be single source. One time you hear it, you can't find it anywhere else. Vetting means you have to find the same piece of information in multiple different unrelated sources, right?

So the difference between information and intelligence is specific. But what I'm saying here is this penetration, these secrets were lost because of the privatization of intelligence. Had this been a naval engineer working only within the Navy, it would have been harder for a foreign intelligence service to recruit them and get them to provide secrets. But because this person was a civilian working for a private organization contracted by the Navy, it was easier. So you're saying there's more risk to being privatized? There's more risk to being privatized. Just like there's more risk to any company hiring anybody. How do you know if you work in the number one company in pharmaceuticals that the number two company in pharmaceuticals doesn't recruit your top sales? So let me tell you this I fully fully agree

between what you're saying fully agree with what you're saying however there's a big however So there there is risk to both sides agree it's which risk you want more So which of the two has more of a risk to bully the American people I trust the market I'm with you okay I trust the market here's where I'm going with that. See, the market cannot bully the American people. They're going to eventually get caught, but the government can bully American people. That's exactly what they're doing today. They're bullying American people. And so although you're right, we're a person on the free market side because they're getting paid for the work that they're doing, you know, they may be like, well,

if you give me $500,000, I'll give you the information. If you give me a million dollars, but we know a lot of government agency people have done that as well and, you know, sold their soul. I can tell you stories. There's plenty of articles of different names. You know them. I know them. we've read about him. So, but my, my bigger concern is free enterprise cannot take my freedoms away, but the government can't take my freedoms away and bully me. And a lot of times what they do is they use, you know, like Andrew Tate, this guy never met him, never talked to him.

We're probably going to do podcasts together eventually. But he said some stuff I agree with, and I love the fact that he's pushing the envelope. All of a sudden, hey, let's silence this guy. Okay, why? Because he's got a case going on with women and all this other stuff. Okay, there is criminal activities that you have to, you know, be held accountable for. And then there is banning because he's saying some stuff you disagree with. On the criminal side, if I break the law, yes, I have to go to court and if I'm doing time, I'm doing time.

Big difference. I don't know what he's done. If he's done crime, hey, that's the level of accountability. But banning somebody for things you disagree with, OJ Simpson is on Twitter. You know, Khomeini is on Twitter. Putin, who just killed a bunch of people, he's on Twitter. He ain't banned. How come they're not banned?

You're afraid of what this guy's going to be doing? So that's the part where I wonder if government gets involved and saying that guy's been a little too loud, shut this guy up. And free market can bully by saying, we don't want your customer. It's simple. Facebook can say that. Twitter can say that. Instagram can say that.

But are they saying it because they're saying it like this whole story going into Facebook where, you know, he sits with Rogan. He sucked it? Yeah, Zuck sits with Rogan, and they go through a bunch of different stories. And, you know, here's a story from Fox Business. FBI response to Zuckerberg's claim on Rogan that Facebook limited Hunter Biden's story after agency's warning. An appearance by Mark Zuckerberg on Joe Rogan podcast last week stole controversy after METAseal that Facebook limited the bombshell Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election

because the FBI had warned about Russian propaganda after the release of the episode on Thursday, the FBI said it routinely notifies U.S. private sector entities, including social media providers, of potential threat information so that they can decide how to better defend against threats. The agency said it has provided companies with foreign threat indicators to help them protect their platforms and customers from abuse by foreign malign influencer, influence actors. Okay. You read this. I can take this in a couple different ways. One way I take this is Zuck did this intentionally. Because he's like, I'm so sick of you guys targeting me.

Leave me alone. I have two customers. The left or right. I have to kind of deal with both of you guys and both of you guys hate the other side. I get it. But let me do my job. So maybe he said this publicly intentionally to get under FBI's skin and kind of have them be exposed a little bit. Maybe.

10% I believe it was intentional. Did he do it accidentally? He's too smart to do it accidentally. Like was Joe really cornering him? him and pressuring him, you better tell me or else and you know, here's, no, it's just a basic conversation way he came out. Could it be accidental? But when somebody says something like this, this just keeps hurting more and more and more.

So the FBI bullied the American people through cornering a free enterprise company that made them silence because they didn't have the intel that the FBI claimed they had and they couldn't verify it through private agency that's a competitor to FBI that they had to kind of take that position. And because of that, we have the greatest motivational speaker of Alton as our president Joe Biden. Right? So it's kind of like a very weird situation that takes place here. Yeah. So what you're, I think that there's a couple of things that we want to keep in mind. We want to keep in mind the context of the situation. So if you recall 2016, first of all, let's be, let's be very honest with each other. Russian meddling in the U.S. elections did not start in

2016. Every election cycle ever has had people trying to meddle in the election. What happened is that in 2016 social media got caught. That's what happened in 16. Before then we could all kind of pretend it wasn't there. It's like the it's like that uncle in our family that we don't want to talk about because they're kind of maybe they're a criminal or maybe they went to jail or who knows what they did. But we don't really what we don't want to we don't want to be the one who calls the police and turns the uncle in. But we also don't want to be the person who admits that we know the uncle or that the uncle's in our family. Right. That's exactly what happens with espionage almost all the time. People don't want to admit that it's there, but it's happening all

times. That ugly wart on your butt you don't want anybody to know about, right? What happened in 16 is everybody saw a war. Espionage became a household word, influence campaigns, covert influence became household conversation. In 2020, everyone was expecting it to happen again. Trump was back, back in the race. Russia was still involved. All the 16 investigations came to fruition in 18 and you had CIA basically telling us that they couldn't trust the president and the president saying that he didn't trust CIA and it was a disaster. It was a total mess. The social media companies did not want to get stuck in the middle of being accused in the future of being willing voices for propaganda from Russian meddling or Chinese meddling or Iranian meddling, all of which happens. Saudi meddling

happens, right? Nobody wants to, nobody wants to be on the X for that. So the more cautious approach is to just shut it down. If FBI calls you and says, hey, this is Russian meddling, we think this is Russian meddling. What does, what does Zuck have to lose? by being overly cautious and just doing what they tell them to do. To a certain extent, you're right. He's saying, just leave me alone, guys, let me do what I do. I'm not a political mouthpiece. I'm just a social media channel.

But I'm also a business owner, and the practical solution here is if the FBI tells me that I might be being abused by the Russians, I don't want the Russians to abuse my platform, so I'm just going to shut it down. Two years later, we have the benefit of time now. Now we can look back and look at all the information. He had limited information in a short period of time. I actually am really proud of Zuckerberg. for saying it publicly like, hey, I agree.

I had to shut it down, guys. It doesn't mean that FBI is bullying me. It means I took the more conservative decision, and maybe that was the wrong decision. But by the way, that's publicly standing up to FBI. Correct. And then that's, we all, as American citizens, we have the right to stand up to our own government.

That's what the First Amendment promises us. He's already screwed up, by the way. Like, you know, he screwed up the election because him and Dorsey, both of them took the fear position, and it was so sudden, it was, okay. Strategically, can we all agree that that story was held till the week prior to the election because that's the bomb they were going to drop to flip the voting at the last minute? We all know that would have been intentional.

It's not like they just got the story last minute. If I'm a skeptic, I'm assuming New York Post had that story for a while, and they were timing on when to drop it. That's my skepticism. I may be wrong. So, and in politics, stories matter. on timing matters on when they drop it so he essentially affected the election so dorsey is essentially affected the election the fact that he's saying and now i think he's more doing this to say

don't come bothering me for 2024 i i don't disagree with you so i will i will say that i don't necessarily agree that the washington uh the wall street journal washington times whoever broke the story I'm not saying that they dropped the story when they dropped it specifically to change the direction of the election. They dropped it at a very intentional time, most likely to get maximum readers, maximum views of their advertisement, maximum, you know, press coverage and secondary viral coverage, not to sway an election. But what I will also say is that there's only one person, or not one person, there's one entity that has the responsibility for the way the elections turned out, and that's the American people. if you stood in line and you voted, you own the vote that you cast that day. Zuckerberg did not change the course of the election. Did he have a tool that could have been used to sway it?

Sure. But ultimately, somebody went and stood in line, cast a vote, and that's the person who owns the responsibility for the outcome right now. That's the person who owns the responsibility for every single outcome. That's why you have to vote. It's why you have the right to vote. We just have to understand, especially if you look at 2020, 2020 was a freakish year.

I have a hard time processing that. I have a very hard time processing that. So you're telling me the person who voted has the ultimate responsibility for the results. For the vote they cast. For the vote they cast, I understand. But the journalists have a responsibility for digging up and getting the information to the people so they can read it before voting to be as educated as possible. Journalists.

And these virtual governments such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have to permit that information to be released to the public so they can make the most educated vote, which they prevent it from happening. So you can't, I have a hard time saying in this case that it's the voter's responsibility on the way they voted. No, they did not have access to the entire information. This article says, 79% say truthful coverage of Hunter Biden's laptop would have changed the 2020 election, and the numbers they gave is majority in both parties, 89% of Republicans,

which is fine. That makes, I'm surprised, it's not 99% of Republicans, but 89% of Republicans. 61% of Democrats said they believe the laptop is real along with 74% of independence. So if the difference between it coming out a week versus a week after that, that's a very big difference. Let me show you a quick spy tool. Sure. So what's our, I'm sorry. Tyler. Tyler, do me a favor. Go to this article and then look up the specific survey.

I did this after I saw this article. I want to show you exactly how Spied. New Jersey, I looked at it. Yeah, I saw that. This is the first thing I did. This is what, New York Post? Did you see the population that they tested? 1,000.

226. 1,226. Do you know what a statistical relevant population is? What's that? 3,000. Okay. So this is not a statistical, not a statistically relevant representation of a survey result. They could essentially have called 1,022 old Republicans in a single district to ask them this

question and get this result. Surveys are no tolls are notoriously difficult. I trust two poles. Is this one of them? No, that's not one of them. So this is what I'm saying. And what I tell you yesterday, by the way, what I said to you yesterday when I said, look up the poll, who's a by, we look at New Jersey.

I said, I tell you which two polls I'll pay attention to? Pure. Gallup. Those two, I'll pay attention to them. I'm not going past the red. Everything else I'll want like, like, CNN poll, box poll. Yep.

No, I fully get it. I fully get it. So these guys, when I looked at this, that's when I was like, well, they can shake They're paid for a goal result. Forget about these guys. Just the four of us talking right now and whoever else that's watching this, right? You mean to tell me the story not being released didn't impact? The story did.

So here's, I want to make sure that we're aligning responsibility in the right place. Please. Zuckerberg does not, Zuckerberg runs a business. He does not run a second government, a federal, a commercial government, a shadow government. He runs a business. The journalists have a journalistic responsibility to report the facts, amen, 1,000 percent. true. Journalism is dying. Journalism, some people say, is fully dead. And the journalists who write from most of these mainstream news sources hate the way that the editors handle their

journalistic responsibilities because the editor does not have a journalistic responsibility like the journalist does. So they're forced to produce at a certain speed before they can do what's needed to meet journalistic requirements. And then information is controlled by a business that wants to spend its time being protective of its own long-term business interests. I'm sure you get that. And then what's left is the human being, the person, the American on the other side is scrolling through Facebook, only reading what they see. And we have given that person that American has got the permission now to think that it's okay to get your news from Facebook. It's not okay to get your news from Facebook. It's not okay to get your news from just one source of anything.

But what do you mean it's not okay to get your news from Facebook, though? Facebook isn't a platform where I get my news from because they write it. Facebook is where stories go viral. Twitter is where stories go viral. For you to prevent a very damaging story to not go viral for the public to know before they vote, knowing this is a very corrupt situation here, you're essentially manipulating the election. And then the world paid a price for it because if the election was possibly in a different way, say somebody else becomes president, Russia probably doesn't attack Ukraine.

Lives could have been saved there. We probably don't lose $83 billion of equipment in Afghanistan because that would have been handled in a different way. And, you know, economy would probably be in a slightly different place. Inflation would be in a different place. Many things would be in a different place if it wasn't for that. And the American people today are paying a price for it. Yesterday a poll came out.

I don't know if you saw the poll or not on who they're saying the leading candidate is for presidency. Did you see that or no? I did. The story by five. So a story came out. What page is that on? So you've seen this. I'll read it to you. So page seven. This is yesterday. Do you know which one I'm looking at, Tyler or no?

Bottom of six, you're talking about Bernie Sanders? No, it's not that one. It's another one where it says Bernie Sanders is the leading candidate. Leading polls. Yeah, it's page six. Is it page six? Okay. So if I go to a hill story. Highest favorability. Sanders, Sanders has highest favorability among possible 2024. This is a Hill story. This is not a Fox story or CNN. Sanders clocked in with the highest favorability rating amongst the list of 23 potential 2024 candidate presidential contenders. According to a new USA Today poll, 46% of respondents say they had at least a somewhat

favorable view towards Sanders, while 41% said they had an unfavorable opinion. President Biden had the second highest at rating of 43%. Although his unfavorability was notably higher than Sanders at 50%. And then, you know, Trump clocked in with the same rating as Biden. So again, polls, USA Today, we know which side they're going to lean. Of course, they're going to want a Sanders, you know, because it's going to be more. Sample size, yeah. Yeah, they're going to want to be able to use that part as well.

But at the same time, I think when you're saying Facebook, Twitter, these guys don't have a responsibility. I think they have a responsibility of allowing the message to be released. The populace, what the populace, you and I, the citizens, the voters have a responsibility. for is not to jump to conclusion is to do our own due diligence before voting. But that the responsibility is for them. So releasing of the information is on Facebook. They got to release that part. The information is out there regardless of whether it's on Facebook.

They could just get it from a different news source. I know, bro, but I can post the same video clip on Instagram, on Facebook, on Twitter, on YouTube, on TikTok, and all of a sudden one of them, like, for example, TikTok, I'll tell you, perfect situation. If you go back, look at my TikTok account, I was posting videos and I was getting 100 views, 600,000 views, 600,000 views, 5 million views, 2.1 million is 1.8 million views. I post two clips about China. Find a clip after, it's been 50 videos since that clip. Find a clip after that if any one of them have ever done 10,000 views. I'm like, okay, content is content.

One of the clips posted by somebody else got 6 million views of the same thing I said on a source. smaller platform posted it, but I put it on mine. It got 11,000 views. So virality is about the gods of viral to allow an article to go viral. Today, when an article is going viral, social media, they know when the triggers back in, uh-oh, look at this. This thing's going viral. What is it? Okay, let it go. Uh-oh, this thing's going viral. Oh, yeah, let it go. Oh, oh, this thing's going to shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, shut it down, goes like this. I've seen videos on November 22nd, five years ago.

I did an interview with Jim Jenkins. And Jim Jenkins was one to four guys that held John of Kennedy's brain. He was in the autopsy room. He stayed quiet for 50 years. Christian man, quiet man, never wanted to talk to anybody who was afraid because they told him, if you say anything, we're going to take the Navy money away from you. So this guy doesn't want to talk. Finally, he says, I want to talk about it.

But he comes in, if you ever see the interview, he was so nervous. We put it out on November 22nd, which is the assassination. the video goes like this, boom, boom, boom. Then suddenly it went like this. Right. That doesn't happen. What platform? YouTube.

That doesn't happen. It went like this. And then it stayed like this. Okay. So what does that mean? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Hold this thing back. A person on the back in when I look at my creative studios, I can see I've never in the history of my 1800 videos. I've ever seen a video do that. Why is this happening? And sometimes these types of things happen because these platforms have the ability to prevent these types of topics to become commerce. So that's my only concern with Facebook.

And I think I want to be able to be an optimist. And I think what Zuck is trying to say is, guys, next time we're on FBI, we're telling the story and we're not getting in the way. I think that's what he's saying. Now, whether he'll follow through with that or not, we have no idea. Yeah, there's an interesting relationship between national security and big business in the United States. Biden's laptop is an Hunter Biden's laptop is an excellent example the make and model that laptop is an Apple

how did they get onto an Apple without the user how did they do that? You shouldn't be allowed to do that you know what FBI has long had a contentious relationship with Apple big time because Apple won't let them onto iPhones San Bernardino

yeah the San Bernardino Pensacola yeah exactly right how the hell did they get on how do they get on this Apple what's your skepticism my point here is you can see that Apple does not protect your privacy like they promise that they do. They choose which device

to let who on when. In this case, they let somebody onto this guy's Apple. And in other cases, they won't let FBI get onto an Apple iPhone that belongs to a Saudi pilot who kills a bunch of people in Pensacola.

So there's a relationship between the government and Apple, and Apple chooses when to share and when not to share. So this is this relationship that you're talking about with Zuckerberg. Yeah.

It happens in social media. It happens in all big government, all big organizations, all big companies in the United States. Because companies, if they get big enough, they have a responsibility to contribute to national security. Some play nicely. Others play inconsistently. Others don't play well at all. So what you're seeing is every company has to learn. It has to mature and evolve its own position on how am I going to be, how am I going to plug myself in to this national security context?

I want to say, we had the guy here who he had the laptop. John Paul Mac Isaac. We had him here six weeks ago, seven weeks ago. And I want to say when Hunter brings it in, the password to get into the computer was given. I want to assume it was given because he let him log on. Well, he was working on it. That's what I'm saying. So I want to assume so.

I don't think it was Apple. I think the government can't stand Apple because they don't give the information that they do. Because Tim Cook is a very interesting guy, by the way. Tim Cook is a very, very interesting guy on how he works with the government, how he works with different presidents and who he is, first CEO of a Fortune 500 company to come out. But at the same time, he had a good relationship with Trump and he had a good relationship with, you know, very interesting way how he is. But I don't know. If it's true, it's true, maybe Apple gave him the information.

But from what I know from the guy that was here seven weeks ago, I thought he got the password to log into the system. But you don't have an Apple phone. You're not a fan of Apple, correct? Correct. All right. You're Android? Are you a droid person? I use Android mainly because it's the other option, right?

There's only like two major options that are out there. There's other options when you get to super high levels. And that's just a personal preference? Or there's a moral, political, what rational reason? Yeah, it's because if people are killing, if terrorists are killing Americans, what kind, what business stance do you have as an American company to not let, to not help the FBI solve that case? You don't have to help them solve every case. But how the hell are you choosing to not protect?

We can't investigate a Saudi Arabian phone. We can't investigate a network of phones that belong to known terrorists. Why can't we investigate those phones, right? You obviously have a way to get into the phone because you guarantee service to all your clients. So you already have a backdoor. We don't need to know the code to the back door. But at what point do you decide when you're responsible for the security of Americans and when do you decide that you're not responsible for security of America?

By the way, you know what you just made me think about? You just made me think about it. So how many employees does Apple have? 400,000? I don't know what the number. It's a massive number. You mean to tell me none of those guys on the inside who can't stand a president on either side won't somehow release the password to the government in a way that nobody will find out?

I'm sure they could. I'm sure they could. There's always leaks. Yeah. It's the wart on our butt that we were just talking about, right? 37,000 employees, yeah. Well, it's like 400,000. Yeah, 400,000 employees.

Yeah, it makes you kind of think about the fact that whistleblowers on the, you're seeing what Project Veritas is doing. I have to say, I'm curious to know what you say. How does a CIA or FBI, how do they look at a Project Veritas? What do they think about an organization like that? So I am not familiar with Project Veritas. Okay, you're not familiar with James O'Keefe? What is it?

You've never heard of James O'Kee. The name is not ringing a bell for me. Really? Yeah. Okay. I'm surprised because that guy is, well, you may want to look him up. If you just look him up, you'll see because Project Veritas is everywhere with what he's got going on. Okay, so let's talk about the Marlago rate and what happened there.

Okay. So at this point of the game, you know the story. The people know the story. It's gone back and forth. Now they're saying, hey, former FBI official says Russian, Chinese, and Iranian, could have tried to infiltrate Trump's Marlago residence. This is an insider story, which I believe is. CIA believes that all people are born

with a spy secret superpower. For some people, that means they can win deals. For others, they can spot liars. Some can even seduce lovers. I built a free three-minute test to help reveal to you exactly what your secret hidden superpower is. All you have to do is click on the link in the description below. Take the test and start using your spy superpower to stay ahead of 99% of people.

Said by Peter Strutt, the same guy was talking to you about earlier, who was once the deputy director of FBI's counterintelligence division, said it is likely that foreign agents from Russia, China, tried to infiltrate former Trump's, former President Trump's Marlago residents, considering the top secret documents that were being kept there. Struck was fired from the agency for sending anti-Trump texts on his work phone, absolutely the Russians, but not the Russians alone. any contempt foreign intelligence services, whether that's those belonging to China, those belonging to Iran, to Cuba, certainly including Russia, or all were very interested and are interested in gaining access to Marlago, he said, especially concerning the lack of any sort of control of memorization, memorialization of who had access to Marlago at any given time.

So when you hear something like that and what happened with Marlago, first of all, just the position that they took where, You know, Biden says, oh, we had no clue about it. This is not something we knew about it, you know. And then Garland is the only one. I know nothing about it. It's not my project. Somebody else says, yeah, okay, there is 8 billion people in the world. There's only one other guy that's a former president.

If somebody raids that guy who was your enemy, you know, he's your enemy, he's the guy that you don't want to go up against. You knew nothing about it. None of that was disclosed to you. And then when they give the affidavit, you saw what came out with all the black bars and, you know, nothing is we wanted to be disclosed. for someone like you who's in the world, how are you processing what happened to you with Marlago? So Trump has been a target of investigations since the time he was running for president in 2016. This is just the next, this is a predictable breadcrumb in that long-term trail, right? Do I, there's a, there's a tool that we use at the agency called Haram's Razor.

And Haram's Razor tells us to never subscribe to conspiracy. what can be explained through incompetence. So never subscribe to conspiracy, what can be explained through incompetence. So do I believe that Biden knew that this was going to happen? Probably not. Maybe it was on a list somewhere that got buried on the bottom of his 10-page list, and he just never got to it.

Maybe he was supposed to be briefed and someone didn't brief him. Maybe the Department of Justice, which falls under the judicial branch of government, actually decided not to tell him because he is the executive branch of government and we have three different branches that don't have to communicate everything to each other. So who knows how it turned out. But I don't see conspiracy in this.

What I see in this is a continuation of the same sort of hunting behavior to find enough evidence to bring some kind of criminal prosecution against Trump that sticks. And that's the same thing that we did for a long time against Hillary Clinton. So this is just, unfortunately, this is the world of politics that Americans are going to live in for a while, as we try to mix executive branch and judicial branch and keep trying to hunt down politicians and business people acting like businessmen and politicians. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer.

That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends, and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Registered today at pmcf walk.ca.ca. How much is this is political incentivization versus actual, all right, let's figure out the truth here, in your opinion?

I think a lot of it is political. I don't think the truth is something that the government is particularly interested in when it comes to Trump. They either know the truth to a high enough probability that, that, that, that, they can make their decisions moving forward, or they don't know the truth, but they also can't just ignore it. To just ignore it would mean to basically let go of all of the time and all of the money

and all of the effort that they've put into it so far. And let's not forget, Trump is still an extremely powerful player in Republican politics, extremely powerful player. Whether he runs for president or not, what he says about a candidate transforms that candidate's opportunities. You brought up Hillary Clinton, and I assume you're talking about the parallel

between her email server and top security information and in this exact same scenario with Trump. What's the parallel you're seeing there? People hunt, people try to hunt down some sort of judicial criminal action to either eradicate or neutralize the threat of that politician. It's just, I mean, whether we, the stuff that we saw in 2016 on just the Democratic side

was horrible. We saw the Clinton campaign, we saw the Democratic National Convention, undermine Sanders intentionally, when he was running against Clinton, like that is manipulation of politics all day long. The idea that the voter gets the ultimate say, yes, that's true, but then you also have things like in 2020,

when Instagram decided to start telling everybody, as soon as you logged into Instagram, as soon as you opened up the app, register to vote, click here to register to vote. It was pushing registrations to vote of the audience that they knew was on Instagram, which is a certain age demographic, a certain socioeconomic demographic, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Which, I mean, that was common. That's, this is the world that we're living in now as everybody starts to get so heavily involved in politics. And we start seeing conspiracy everywhere when what we really need to be accepting is like this is America's adolescence. We're not a mature country. We're just over 200 years old. We're not mature. China's 4,000 years old, right? We're coming into our adolescence, growing pains and hair in new parts of our body that we never saw before. Remember how terrible that felt when you couldn't wear sweatpants to school anymore? That's a horrible feeling for a dude. That's where we are.

right now when we've got like 50 to 100 years of adolescents coming up and this is the kind of garbage we're going to have to deal with yeah i have i and by the way i understand what you're saying on on the truth um conspiracies um i have a very hard time believing that the president didn't know they were going to be doing this a very very hard time believing your again for example like lebron james who are the people that he's going to know everything that's going on with those people. Michael Jordan is probably one of them because he's trying to pass up Michael Jordan. Okay. Like he probably sees everything that's going on with Michael. Okay. All right. Barack Obama, who was he seeing that's, you know, what's going on with anything with

them? He probably followed everything that was going on with the Clintons because, you know, behind closed doors, they're apparently big competitors. And he was probably following everything was going on with Trump, even when he gave that one speech from stage, you know, and he did the tweet and, you know, Trump said this about you on Jimmy Fallon or Kim and he says, at least I will go down as being a president. You know, you won't be a president. To Trump becomes president. Yeah.

So, you know, you know, hey, elections have consequences. And Obama looks to the left. He's right. You know, so I have a hard time believing in the game of competition that you don't know that they're doing this. Oh, I didn't know what's going on. And when you say you don't know what's going on, do you know how pathetic you look as a leader? Wait, let me get the straight.

You did not do that that's going on. Yeah. man what kind of a leader are you that you don't know this kind of stuff is going on if you don't know what's going on maybe you shouldn't be in office because a person that should know what's it's an office should have known that this is going on yeah it's it's both ways no matter what direction you say i didn't know i did know it's it doesn't look good for anybody no i agree i agree with that it doesn't look good for anybody there's a you keep there's a word that you uh that you used quite a bit in that explanation right the word was probably and the core the core word in probably is probable the root word is probable probable

probable refers to probability so when so what the word probably actually means is there is a high probability that such and such is true yeah i absolutely agree with you there is a probability that biden knew i just don't know that it's a high probability 51% versus 49%. i think there's a very high probability someone tried to communicate it to him but I don't know that there's a high probability he actually knew on all the things on that dude's list the lowest presidential approval ratings in history in history the lowest presidential approval ratings ever that dude's got a whole lot of crap on his plate and maybe the mar-a-largo raid didn't make the top of his sheet that day all right i mean i've seen the presidential daily brief the PDB that they get every day they don't get through the

the PDB every day. Every, they can't get it. It's like 100 pages every single day, right? About all the biggest threats facing America. The Mar-a-Lago rate is not a threat to America, right? So even if it was in there, buried under Iran and they're posturing about nuclear weapons and North Korea launching a weapon and what's going to happen in China right now and what's Russia doing in Ukraine and what's Syria looking like right now and what's going to happen in Yemen, what's going to happen in Libya? Like, think about the headache the president has every day. It's one of the reasons why, no matter how you feel about Trump, you got to respect the fact that He sat in that seat for four years.

Everybody who takes that presidential seat, that is a massive sat. They age. Look at what happened to Obama. Look at what happened to Bush. They age so fast because that is a shit seat to sit in. Two and five Canadians will hear the words, you have cancer.

That's why every step and dollar raised matters. On September 19th, join thousands in Toronto for the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation walk. Challenge yourself, friends and family to walk 21 kilometers in support of life-saving research. Together, we can carry the fire and help create a world free from the fear of cancer. Register today at pmcf walk.ca.ca.