The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump FIRES Bondi, CIA's "MK Ultra" History, and "Two Weeks" Talking Point, with John Kiriakou, Sean Davis, and Sohrab Ahmari | Ep. 1287

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist, and Sohrab Ahmari, U.S. Editor of UnHerd, to discuss reports that President Trump is about to fire Attorney General Pam Bondi, Bondi's challenges in handling the Epstein Files, Trump's reported frustration with the lack of prosecutions from the DOJ, reports Trump is considering firing DNI Tulsi Gabbard over her position on Iran, why Megyn hopes Gabbard doesn't leave, the implications for the coalition Trump built in 2024 if Gabbard leaves, and more. Then John Kiriakou, former CIA counterterrorism officer, joins to discuss the “two to three weeks” talking point that President Trump and Lindsey Graham are pushing about the Iran war, what really happens next with the war, the CIA’s “MK Ultra” origin story, the secrets of the CIA and FBI, why conspiracy theories are growing in a post-COVID world, how Israel tries to recruit CIA operatives, the influence Israel has on both Democrats and the GOP in Congress, how he got recruited into the CIA, the challenges of balancing marriages and relationships in covert CIA roles, and more.   Davis- https://thefederalist.com/ Ahmari- https://unherd.com/ Kiriakou- https://johnkiriakou.com/   Relief Factor: Break up with pain—Relief Factor targets inflammation so you can move better and feel better; try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Quo: Make this the season where no opportunity slips away. Try QUO for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to https://www.Quo.com/MK Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com/MEGYN & Use code MEGYN for up to 20% off PureTalk: Save on wireless with PureTalk visit https://PureTalk.com/MEGYNKELLY     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow  Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. We've got a former CIA officer coming on in just a bit who has some wild stories about being a spy and unique thoughts about everything from the war in Iran to Jeffrey Epstein. And I'm really looking forward to this talk. But we begin today with Trump's talking about regime change in Iran and the numerous reports that he's planning. big changes to his own administration. That regime change does seem underway in some way, shape, or form. Last night, the New York Times breaking the story that the president is considering firing Attorney General Pam Bondi. Mr. Trump reportedly upset at her handling of the Epstein files and her lack of aggression in going after his political enemies like New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI director James, homie at all. The report was quickly confirmed by multiple news outlets, according to the Times.

Mr. Trump is considering replacing Bondi with current EPA administrator Lee Zeldon and Semaphore this morning, a news outlet, reporting that the president has informed Ms. Bondi that, quote, her time as Attorney General is nearing an end, end, quote, and a formal announcement is expected soon. As always, with Donald Trump, semaphore is reporting he could change his mind before going through with the plan. But that's not all. The Guardian, just as we came to air, dropping a report that Donald Trump is privately polling his top advisors about whether he should replace the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The answer is no. He shouldn't. The president apparently upset that Tulsi did not condemn Joe Kent, the former National

Counterterrorism Center director, who resigned over Joe's opposition to the war in Iran. Before he left the government, Kent reported to Tulsi before he resigned. He worked for her as their chief of staff and then went over to counterterrorism and did speak to Tulsi before he resigned. They spoke to the vice president and then he went and directly spoke to the president about leaving. The Guardian also reporting that Trump is not happy that Tulsi, a longtime opponent of foreign interventions, has appeared somewhat reluctant to defend his actions in Iran. There's a lot going on here. Joining me now to react to all of this is Sorabamari. He's U.S. editor of Unheard and Sean Davis, who is CEO of the Federalist. Ever been in a bad relationship? You know the kind it just wears you

down. You settle in, even though deep down, you know this is not how it's supposed to be. Well, that's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to feel good. And you start thinking, I guess this is just my life now. But it doesn't have to be. With relief factor, you can break up with pain just like Anthony did. He wrote, quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue. I've been taking Relief Factor for about two months and now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening, doing the things that really matter to me. If you have back pain, knee issues, or stiffness slowing you down, relief factor could give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug-free. It targets the inflammation that causes pain,

helping you move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 8004 Relief, break up with pain, and get back to what matters. Guys, thank you so much for being here. I can't think of any two guys I'd rather have on for what we just saw last night in the news this morning. We got lucky having you here.

So let's start with the potential firings, Sean. I guess I'm not shocked he may or may not be wavering on Tulsi, because the Joe Kent thing clearly was a B in his bonnet. But I am kind of surprised about the Pam Bondi thing because my impression of the Pam Bondi thing was she handled most of that exactly the way he wanted her to. So what do you make of let's start with the Bondi report first? Yeah, so I think to understand the whole Bondi thing,

you'd have to go back to the first Trump administration. His initial AG was Jeff Sessions, one of the first people in Congress who ever got on his side back in 2015. Trump thought he would be great. He was an immigration hawk, and he ended up being a disaster. He turned over the department to the deep state. He recused himself during the Russia hoax. And then we had Rod Rosenstein for several years. And in comes Bill Barr. So at that point, Bill Barr was maybe not the most loyal guy, but was seen as very, very competent. He dispatched the molar probe and his special counsel. But then kind of fell apart at the end. He didn't really follow through with what he needed to do. do on Russiagate accountability and then ended up kind of going crazy towards the end. He and Trump have a breakup. So I think Trump with Bondi decided that what he wanted was not someone who may have been ideologically on his side. He wanted someone who was loyal, above all

else. He tried the competent but not loyal thing with Barr. This time he wanted someone who was loyal. I think unfortunately she was very loyal. Absolutely. She wasn't particularly competent. I think she dropped the ball on a ton of things. The Epstein handling was a farce, the way she handled that initial White House meeting, the handout of the binders. And I think it did extreme damage to Trump the way she handled it. So I don't blame him. And I don't find it particularly surprising that he's probably had enough, especially when you look at what happened with Tish James, with James Comey, with so many things falling apart. I think he understands now, yeah, loyalty's important, but you need to have somebody who can actually do the job competently

every day. I mean, I'm wondering, Sarab, if he's seeing his dwindling poll numbers now and looking for somebody to blame. And there is no question that when it comes to Trump's base, the two things that arguably have hurt him with that base, while we're seeing some erosion thanks to Iran, but the Epstein files is definitely on the list. And I don't, is there, is there a chance he's blaming Pam Bondi for that as opposed to himself? Because we watched, yes, she was way out ahead of her skis with her PR campaign around the Epstein client list is on my desk and all the Fox News appearances and all that. But like in terms of we're done giving you any more disclosures, goodbye, that we saw Trump on camera saying all that himself. Yeah, I think that's the price you pay when you campaign on

full disclosure of the Epstein files. and then sort of renege on that, whether it's for understandable reasons or not. I think some of it is understandable. There are people who are on the so-called list who I know just happened to be there because they had some interaction with Virginia Jeffrey, but they were not at all accused of being on the island or done any wrongdoing, yet if there was a kind of full, unredacted disclosure, the lives would be destroyed.

So whatever the reason, the fact is that I think Pam Bondi, is basically executing what the president wanted to do some disclosure, but not the full. That would be super destructive. So I think the blame lies there. I will say one thing. There is one specific area, which is kind of wonky, but it's important. And that has to do with antitrust, meaning breaking up monopolistic businesses. That was an area where kind of left-wing and right-wing populace had begun to see eye-to-eye

going back to the first Trump administration. And part of it falls under the Department of Justice. There's a specific antitrust unit within the Department of Justice. And over the past year, you know, the person who was put in charge of that, her name is Gail Slater, she came from J.D. Vance's office and was seen as a MAGA populace, someone who would translate the MAGA populist agenda into going after big tech and other companies that is not the free market, right? Businesses colluding to buy each other and ultimately so that consumers only have one choice

to go to, whether that's in technology. or ticket prices with ticket master and the like, that's not free market capitalism. And antitrust is a way to correct for that. Unfortunately, the Bondi DOJ was pretty actually bad in that regard. Gail Slater, the person who was, again, put in charge of the antitrust unit, was basically had all her power taken away. Firms that had reached basically settlements with the Department of Justice were able to sidestep her so that the normal scrutiny that goes into

how a settlement was reached. This happened, for example, with the merger between two companies Hewlett-Packard Enterprise and Juniper networks that provide like Wi-Fi and networking services to big stadiums, hospitals, and things like that. They basically, they reached a settlement with a DOJ, but one that where it was done behind in a kind of behind-close, there was literally over cocktails, which raises serious legal questions. And when Gail Slater's team objected to this, one of her deputies was fired, and then eventually she herself was fired as well. So it's one of those instances where, you know, what looks like populism on the campaign trail, and then under Bondi, it cashed out as kind of crony capitalism. So that was an area of disappointment. I have

no idea whoever comes next will do anything different. Gail Slater is now gone, and she was seen as like one of the real populist anchors of this administration. I don't think Bondi did right by her. That's interesting. Okay, that's, I didn't know about that. That's what that could be a potential ding she suffered behind the scenes as opposed to the ones we saw publicly, Sean, which were, you know, there in front of the scenes for all to see. Who could forget this moment? This is Fox News February 21st of last year. Sought zero here. DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.

So have you seen anything there? You said, oh, my gosh. Not yet. Okay. That was an embarrassment. It turned out, I guess, not to be true or so they would later tell us. And then even more recently, Sean, she was asked, it was at a cabinet meeting. And clearly she was trying to run cover on this issue and change the subject from Epstein,

she got asked a question to the Dow, you know, the surging Dow, like, hey, look at this. It's so much better. Look what Trump did. And it was just inept. We pulled it. We never got to this a couple months ago, but here it is, Sot ZeroB. The American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today.

This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration released over three million pages of documents, over three million. And Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in the nation's history. And none of them, none of them, ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now, is a...

over the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader, as I hear Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000 right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records, Americans 401Ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about.

Is it over? Is it over, Sean? like, let's be honest, she's not an effective messenger for the administration. No, and I think what she didn't understand and what a lot of people didn't understand was that the Epstein case was not just about Jeffrey Epstein. It was a proxy for a shadow government, a bunch of corrupt people who could lead the nation around by the nose, get rich, and never have any accountability. That's actually what the whole thing stands for. And I understand that there's specific crimes that people are very upset about and want accountability for. But when Trump kind of went out during the campaign and made a big deal that he was going to be the one to

get all this stuff out, he was going to be the one who'd get to the bottom of it, people really believed him. And they said, oh, well, finally, this is going to be the guy, this outsider that they tried to kill, that they tried to put it in prison, that they tried to bankrupt. This is going to be the guy who's finally going to hold everyone accountable. And I think, you know, he has done that to a large extent, but not with the Epstein thing. And so you had a lot of people who really felt disillusion when they saw him come out and say, oh, it's a hoax or this and that. He was very poorly advised by whoever did that, whether it was the FBI, whether it was Bondi.

And that began, I think, a series of significant missteps from him that eroded key demographics. When you look at his victory in 2024, he won every swing state. It was an overwhelming victory. And it was largely done on the strength of what people were calling the podcast bros. These are guys who speak to under 30 men who are. fairly apolitical, who are kind of sick of all the crap, who don't trust anyone. They said, you know what, this guy's going to be the one who gets it done. And then you have Bondi get in there.

She does the whole stupid stunt with Epstein. She ignored everyone who told her, hey, by the way, you should probably just get a special counsel to go in and review these items and slowly release them to make sure it's all done properly. Because she wanted the attention. She wanted to go on television and talk about it. She wanted to be the hero. Well, I've got bad news for you. When you want to be the face, you're going to be the one who takes the fall.

And it looks like she's finally taking the fall. That is so right with the influencers who could forget this moment where she had them all come to the White House. These are some of the president's most loyal social media, you know, warriors. And she humiliated them by having them to the White House. We were told that she actually didn't even front to them when she got them to come that it was going to be about Epstein. But then she handed out these binders and sent them out understanding that they would all be photographed by the press sitting on the White House lawn with the binders. There was nothing in them. Nothing knew. She humiliated them. But, you know, it's tough to say it's, I mean, this is just embarrassing to watch because I like these people. And I blame her. They didn't know that she had effed them over. So, So, So, it's hard, though, to blame it squarely on Pam Bondi when, like, who could forget this moment? I said that the other thing was at a cabinet meeting. It wasn't. It was Pam Bondi testifying in front of Congress. But there was this meeting with Trump and Bondi early on in the Epstein scandal where we were all, it was right after there. The DOJ had released that two-page memo saying, like, we're done.

You're getting nothing else. This is a long time ago, right? This is like last summer. We were all like, what? And then when Trump got on camera, he wasn't like, sorry, never mind the DOJ went rogue. This is what happened. Could you resolve whether or not he did? And also, could you say why there was a minute missing from the jailhouse tea on the day and said?

Yeah, sure. Did I just enter a little second? Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking, we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time?

Do you feel like answering? I don't mind answering. I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein at a time like this. Okay. That's not great. All right, now my team is just sending me this, R. this is trying to see the source of this article, Daily Mail. Pambandi begged Trump not to fire her during dramatic White House showdown as insider reveals his final straw.

It reports A.G. Pambani begged Trump not to fire her in an explosive showdown at the White House after he accused her of an unforgivable offense. He informed the AG last night shortly before his Iran speech that she would soon be leaving the Justice Department, according to a senior administration source. She responded by pleading to give her more. time in the role, but Trump remained firm that her time leading the agency was over. She was unhappy and tried to change his mind, said the source. However, the president told her she was fired and that an announcement would be made shortly. The announcement said to be made on Friday, but is now imminent because of all the media attention. His reasoning for the sudden dismissal comes in part because the president believes Bondi tipped off Eric Swalwell.

Okay, this is not on our bingo card, guys, tipped off Eric Swalwell about the FBI's efforts to release investigative documents related to his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy, our old pal Fang Fang. The FBI was preparing a cache of documents on Swalwell's relationship with Christine Fang. She's intervening in those matters. This is a quote. The White House was not pleased she was intervening due to her personal friendship with Swalwell, said the source. I call bullshit on that.

I don't believe that's the reason. I just don't believe that. It's over. the FBI getting ready to release the file on Swalwell from 2015, which it reportedly is, which reportedly is they didn't find any wrongdoing, but Swalwell doesn't want the report coming out because he's running for governor and the elections May 2nd in California. I don't believe that. But your thoughts, So, Rep. Yeah, look, there's a sort of great deal of crumbinology that goes on with any Trump administration.

I'm trying to think, and I want to be fair about this. But it is remarkable how messy these Trump administrations are. We're now a year and a half into the second one. I'm trying to think back to the Biden administration. And, you know, the guy was really senile, like drooling senile, you know, bless him. But, you know, they held it together until fairly, you know, almost to the end. Because he wasn't making any decisions. They were like, gee, should we fire ourselves?

No. Does everyone agree? Yes. exactly right. But, you know, then you compare this. And look, I mean, if the previous administration, if the first Trump administration is any guide, if there was indeed a scene that involved her begging him not to fire her, you can almost bet that there's going to be three years of Bondi serving as a source to the press, getting a book deal, what I saw up close. And of course, like the, you know, the irresponsibility of this president and so on and so forth, having, you know, been, you know,

perfectly eager to do those sessions where they sit around in the cabinet and each of the cabinet members goes by one by one and says, sir, your presidency really is better than Abraham Lincoln's. It's amazing. She was doing that just as much, but she'll be leaking against them. It's very uncomfortable. It's very uncomfortable. I mean, I'm a Trump supporter and I like most of the people in the administration, but the cabinet meetings and like the constant fluffing of Trump is very provda-esque. It makes me uncomfortable. Like, just stop. Just like, stop with the obligatory compliment. It reminds me of what I saw in Russia with Vladimir Putin. If you watch a press conference over there, I mean, the entire

Russian press square is like, isn't he fabulous? He's even more fabulous than we thought he was, isn't he? He's amazing. Now, our press isn't like that, but certainly the cabinet is. It's just too much. It's like, okay, whatever. It's like, it's fine. I forgive Trump the need to be, to have his ego stroked because he gets just ripped by everybody so often, so I get it. Okay, Sean, here's what I think. I think it's probably more of what we said in the intro, which is she's not bringing indictments against the people who tried to put him in prison and bring down his first presidency. You know, we have not seen an indictment of John Brennan.

We have not seen a renewal of the charges against Tish James. The Comey matter, too, is on the ropes because of a judge ruling that the indictment was improper. And I bet Trump actually is very angry about that stuff and maybe is blaming Pam Bondi. Like, if I had to put my own money on it, that's where I'd put it. Yeah, I think it's a whole collection of things. You know, if you look at his presidency so far, which we forget how bad Biden was, thank goodness he is president now and we don't have to deal with all that nonsense. But I think he's had kind of two major missteps. The big political one was the Epstein thing, which we've covered. But I also think his administration had a fairly significant strategic misstep in how it was handling what I call the judicial insurrection, these collection of completely corrupted, inferior unelected district judges, to a certain extent, circuit court judges. This was something that started very early in the administration where you just had a bunch of judges with no authority to do this, nonetheless saying, hey, Mr. President, we get that you're the head of the executive

branch, but you don't get to do anything unless you get unanimous consent from a bunch of chuckleheads with law degrees who manage to somehow get appointments to district courts. And I think there is a strategic calculation made early on that rather than taking them head on immediately, and saying, we're not going along with your stupid lawless nonsense here. You can issue all the opinions you want. We're not going along with them. We're not going to pretend they're valid. And we're going to do what we're going to do.

And if Supreme Court wants to step in and somehow back you up, they can have at it. And I think now whether it was at the advice of the White House counsel's office or the AG, I think Trump now understands that he's been in a bit of a hole by how his administration has decided to handle these courts. And when you add that up to all the other missteps with Bondi, the appearance, the embarrassing hearings, the Epstein thing, I don't see how Trump had any other decision to make other than it's time for you to go and we're going to put someone else in there. You made some of these comments in a taped interview we did for our AM update podcast, which we release every day. And my husband and I were listening to it this morning, as we always do, over our coffee. And he, you really gave him a lot to think about.

He was saying, my husband was saying, like, how good your points were and was saying, you know, how is it that we have all these district court judges who have lifetime appointments who want. to, you know, ding Trump and pretend that there are little mini presidents and get plaudits at the Georgetown cocktail parties with no skin in the game. Like, they don't care anymore if they get chastised by the circuit courts above them, who, you know, depending on the jurisdiction, never will chastise them anyway. The only chance is when it goes up to the Supreme Court, they don't care. They all hate Trump so much. They have such TDS. We never impeach them. We do abide by their rulings. You know, anyway, you persuaded him. And if people missed AM update this morning, you miss something good. You can still go back and listen to

it on YouTube or on podcast. Here's the other thing. The Tulsi news, I really hope. Now, it's the Guardian, Soreb. I don't know how great the Guardian sources are inside the administration and what the motive here might be. I believe Tulsi Gabbard wants to stay and that she doesn't think her neck is on the chopping block, but the report is that it is.

I'm going to read what the Guardian has reported. Trump has privately asked Cabinet officials in recent weeks whether he should replace his DNI, venting frustration that she shielded a former deputy, meaning Joe Kent. It's not clear that Trump will actually fire her over the episode. There's no standout candidate to take the job. It's an ominous development for Gabbard that he's doing this polling, given that he does tend to poll his advisors when he starts to seriously consider whether he should change a post. The nature of Joe Kent's departure and his criticism of the war had already angered Trump, but he expressed particular the frustration about Gabbard, seemingly

defending Jo Ken and appearing reluctant to defend the administration's position to attack Iran. He was asked on March 29th, just days ago, whether he still had confidence in Tulsi on Air Force One. Here's what he said in SOT 1. She's not confidence in Tulsi governed, sir. Yeah, sure. I mean, she's a little bit different than her thought process than me, but that doesn't make somebody not available to sit. Okay. That was pretty tepid.

it doesn't make somebody unavailable to serve. Like, that's this, not a ringing endorsement. Yeah, I think here's what's happened is what my sources in the administration, including lots of people who've in the security apparatus or the Pentagon, this is what they tell me, is that the so-called restraint camp, people who are conservative, but believe that the U.S. should leave forever wars, especially wars of regime change, and especially in the Middle East behind, the people who want to pivot away from that

and focus either on domestic development or because they see China as the greater threat. Those people of whom Tulsi was very much won, as everyone pointed out, like her 2020 campaign sold T-shirts that said no war with Iran. Those people won many of the staffing battle inside the administration, meaning they got these jobs up and down the Pentagon,

the intelligence community, and so on. But what's happened is that that's not who the people who ultimately made the really, really big policy call, which is to invade your on. Mark Levin, it's these outside, they call them outside voices, like Mark Levin, like Senator Lindsey Graham, like Senator Tom Cotton, these kind of Uber Hawks, Miriam Adelson, who has the president's ear very close. She's our real president. Well, I wouldn't go so far, but I'll let you say. So you say. I'm being facetious, but her $200 million really did get her a bang for her buck. And so, so, you know, at some point that that's going to come to a head is there there are these people in the administration who were brought on on the premise that this was going to be the administration that was not going to do this one thing, which is to launch a war against Iran, a big war, especially, rather than like a quick intervention.

So here they are, what do they do? And all of them are facing this pressure. Do they just, like, grind it out and grit their teeth and do, you know, execute policies that ultimately leave them unhappy and feel like, against their conscience. I think she's prepared to do that. It may well be, or do they resign, or even if they don't want to resign, do they get, you know, thrown out for lack of sufficient enthusiasm? And I think maybe she's in that third. Right. Right.

Or lack of sufficient enthusiasm, or in her case, there is a tie to Joe Kent. And if the president is somehow hanging Joe Kent around her, yeah, he could potentially make her suffer for it. But, Sean, I mean, we can't, I mean, to lose Joe Kent and then to lose. Tulsi Gabbard too. It's like the restrainer wing of the Republican Party, which is always, which is already unhappy with Trump. If he fires Tulsi, that's not going to help the poll numbers. He doesn't need to give the neocons another gift. He needs to worry about the other part of the Republican Party that feels as Tulsi does, or at least as she did prior to joining the administration.

I'm assuming she secretly feels the same way, just keeping a quiet out of loyalty to him, which is we don't want this war. Right. So I have something of a different perspective. Having been a staffer, I worked on the Hill for a long time, I worked for a presidential campaign. And when you're a staffer, you have, I think there's a certain code you need to adopt, which is that you don't matter. You are there entirely to serve the person that you're working for. And Joe Kent was a staffer. Tulsi's a staffer.

You might even say JD is a staffer. The only important one there is Donald Trump. And I think as a staffer, when you have made the decision internally that I can't work for this person because I can't in good conscience implement these policies. I personally find it distasteful to see people do the big public spectacle. Here's why I'm quitting. I think you have a responsibility to quietly quit and go your separate ways. Now, in defense of Joe Kent, he could have done what so many people in Washington have done for decades, which is stew privately and then do everything he possibly could to backstab and delegitimize the person he's working for. Okay, that's what, that's what

everyone in Washington does. So bless him for actually having a whole-fashioned way. Yeah, taking a stand and saying, I can't do this. But I have a hard time faulting Trump for being disappointed with that, because if there's one thing Trump cannot stand, it's number one, being disloyal and number two, making yourself the story over him. And I love Tulsi. I think she's great. I think she's a very important voice to have in there. But I don't think you can be surprised when Trump says, hey, this was your guy and he went and did that. Are you really on my team? I think that's probably a fair question. Right.

And I think he accurately senses her skepticism about the war and maybe he just doesn't want that right now because he wants all loyalists around him to promote his agenda. But then that's how you make

really big mistakes is the only people who, I mean there's a video going around kind of a downfall like it's a Hitler movie making fun of the decision to go to war and the Trump in it says like I'm in this

because I just brought so many askisers around me and no one to say hey, like Mr. President, Iran is not like Venezuela. Iran is not like Iraq. It's going to be a while and it's going to be a big war. I think, you know, like loyalty is very important. But sometimes loyalty means actually putting your neck out there and saying, Mr. President, this is a really bad decision. Yeah, because, Saurav, there's no way Trump isn't seeing the collapse of the coalition that put him in office. You know, the latest polling out, we've talked on this show this week about the loss of the Hispanic voters,

the loss of the young voters, the loss of the men. He's lost men, young men in particular, but men across the board now no longer favored Donald Trump. And of course, the women have hated him for a long time. Now, today, the latest is he's lost the working class, the working class vote for Trump, which has always been his bedrock, is now he's underwater with them. So he sees this, and he looks around for like a clean way to get out of Iran. It's not there. And it's because of this escalation trap that Professor Pape has been talking. talking about that we're falling into. And then last night, there were reports that he was going to go out and announce that we were pulling out. We were de-escalating. It wasn't true. I heard nothing new

last night. I heard a restatement of his truth social posts, which basically say, we're staying. He said maybe two to three weeks, but he said he wants the Iranians to do what we want them to do to cut a deal, or we're going to do all the stuff he said in the true social post, which is bomb their electric plants, so their energy plants. He didn't mention the desalination plants, which he said in the true social. But did you hear anything new and what did you make of last night's White House address? Well, I did hear one thing that was new, which is in a very disturbing way, is the president has said, you know, it's not possible.

It's not possible for the U.S. to pay for Medicaid, Medicare, daycare, quote, we're fighting wars. And now, wait, wait, hold that thought. Because that wasn't at the White House address. Correct. Correct. But he did. But this is a separate story. And it's important. You're right.

That's where the working class comes in. He had a meeting at the White House. They put a post up on YouTube apparently erroneously of his remarks to this private group. And there was a devastating soundbite by Trump. It's now been pulled down. But everybody has it. We all have the feed that was up there for some time. And here is the soundbite to which you refer in SOT 9.

Because the United States can't take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people. We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare.

You've got to let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. They should pay. They have to raise their taxes. But they should pay for it. And we could lower our taxes a little bit to them to make up. But it's not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.

They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection. You go ahead. So that is a big departure from the Trump of 2016, from the Trump of 2020 and the Trump of 2024. The whole thing with Trump was he repeatedly said, I am not going to touch your entitlements. I am not going to touch your entitlements, including in the 2024 GOP,

Republican platform, one of the planks is, you know, protect and preserve entitlements. And that means Social Security, Medicare, Medicare. And they've even, there are even White House statements you can find in which that says we're not going to touch Medicaid either. Now, for the voters who are the marginal voters whom Trump brought into his coalition in 2016, then again in 2020 and even bigger in 2024, these are, I'm not talking about the MAGA hardcore. The MAGA hardcore, if he converted to Shia Islam tomorrow, they would would continue to support. But I'm talking about those marginal voters,

half of Hispanic men, a fifth of African-American men, young men who are anti-war. For those people, what stood out about Trump was that unlike Ted Cruz and Marco Ruby, the kind of old Republican Party of 2015, he would say, I'm going to protect your entitlements, and the foreign wars have been a disaster. This is the complete reversal from that,

because he's saying, Medicaid, Medicare, all of these things are under the chopping under chopping block potentially and it should be a state problem maybe we give them some discount which is not how they're set up certainly not for Medicare

and then but what is not on the chopping block is the war I just launched in Iran which is going to add a minimum is going to cost 200 billion inches what is being asked for from Congress so that's like literally a switcher run and I'm sorry I know that was not from the

from the the original the address he gave us I didn't hear anything new in the address last night. No clear timetable, you know, no sense of even like, again, the shifting of the mission, is it to open the straight, isn't to denuclearize, is it regime change? All of these things, depending on which Trump you ask or which member of the cabinet, it shifts literally every 12 hours. So whatever, it was another address.

It sounds like we're in for the big war. It shifts along with a message, no matter who it's from, of we've been perfectly clear from the start. Yeah. And then what follows is some new, like another explanation that isn't clear, but okay, whatever. I mean, I really don't care. Like, I don't, I don't care anymore about, like, the retroactive justifications. I just want us to get out. I don't care what excuse we have to use.

I'm perfectly happy to go along with the excuse. I really am. I just get out. Like, I hope his advisors tell them, they'll buy it. Yes. Just get out. The straight, it's not fair to the Europeans to say it's your fault. I mean, it's your problem now.

The straight of hormone is being closed. deal with it. It's not fair, but I don't care about that either. I just want us out. I don't want any more troops over there. And I think he can do it if enough people get in his ears and if enough people show them these polls, Sean. But your thoughts on both the sound bite we ran just there and on the address last night. Yeah, so I was actually pretty encouraged by the address last night. And I am where you are. Like, I don't think this was a wise action to take. I think it's a distraction. I think it's making it harder to do things that need to be done here domestically. And it was the domestic agenda that got him reelected. But what I saw, I saw a couple things. So he talked about a few different

things. He said the objectives were largely completed. He said Iran was no longer really a threat. It's a direct quote. That regime change wasn't a goal, that there were maybe two to three weeks left, and that the Strait of Hormuz is just going to have to open up on its own. So what I saw on that was an admission that, hey, we're not going to do this big ground invasion to open up the straight. It's not our problem. Look, we may have been the reason it got screwed up. You're going to have to deal with it. I was encouraged by all that because it suggests to me that he understands that this is not popular, that people didn't want it, that it's a distraction, that it's hurting him. And it reminded me of a New York Post article that ran right after the war was launched.

And there was a quote in it that was very uncharacteristically Trump, where he said something along the lines of, well, I don't care what the polls say. It's the right thing I need to do it. I don't care what the polls say. And it's very, very rare for Trump to ever. say something like that because it's an implicit admission that what he's doing isn't popular. I think he's known all along that this was going to be a drag, but for whatever reason, he felt compelled to do it. He felt he had to do it. The overall vibe and impression I got from that speech last night was a president who understood that it's a drag on him. It needs to be wrapped up, and it's time to move on. And say what you will about Trump, unlike I think every other president

I have experienced and seen as an American, the man does listen. He has a pretty incredible political radar and political instinct. It's how he got elected twice, three times, depending on where you sit. The guy's not an idiot. He's not a political neophyte. He survived, attempts to imprison and bankrupt, and even murder him, and he's been president again. So I was encouraged because I think I saw a president who understands this thing's got to get wrapped up and we've got to move on. I hope you're right. I get a little worried when I see, you know, Levin tweeting out, perfect speech, Zorav, like, whoa, wait, why is he so happy? I get nervous. But maybe it's true. Maybe we're not going to use all those ground troops that we sent there.

There's some 5,000. We've got 50,000 in the region now, which is 10,000 more than normal. Or there's always the possibility that the speech is telegraphing a wind down over the next few weeks was a head fake and that we are going to see the use of those ground troops. How did you read it? I simply don't know. I think I just would not count on this being. I want Sean to be right. I want this to be basically an indication of we're going to like do a bit more. And so it'll look like we've really hurt the Iranians now.

And then that gives him domestic justification to leave. I hope that that's correct. But, oh, you know, the pattern has been one of, has been on a kind of escalatory ladder. And so what I worry is two kinds of ground deployments that either or or both, I think would be terrible. One is to try to take this Karg Island or some portion of Iran's southern shore. The problem with that is that that area, the Iranians have so fortified. And I watch Iranian state TV and you can say, yeah, it's all their propaganda and stuff. But at some point, there's some nexus between propaganda and reality.

And I think the Iranians really, really want that to happen because it'll get them a chance to get up close and get far more U.S. deaths than they've been able to achieve, even if it means they also rack up lots of deaths. But to them, it's like it's martyrdom, right? They like glory in it. So they don't mind that. But if they can rack up like more kills, and it provides a static target too. If you're landing on an island, it's pretty easy for them to like drone it, you know, and other forms of targeting that they can do. That's one. The other, which is, I think, even crazier, is this idea of landing special forces to try to retrieve several hundred pounds of enriched uranium, which are in tunnels. And obviously, the Iranians aren't like

cartoon villains to keep all their enriched uranium in one underground site. It's multiple tunnel cities across the country where they've placed these. So the idea of sending special forces on this, to me, it seems like a wild goose chase of, I laugh, but it's grim, because it's also obviously very, very, it's a very dangerous thing to do for those, for the special forces operators. So, I mean, like, the only way to do the really big thing of, quote, unquote, defeating Iran is to do an invasion that takes 500,000 troops at a minimum. And that's what Mark Levin really wants. It's obvious from all of like living type messaging. It'll become a U.S. problem for two decades.

Short of that, like, let's not go there. Let's just leave. I mean, I'm just saying let's please leave. But my problem is I just can't be sure that in order to like maintain credibility, he's not tempted by the escalation trap that eventually leads to the 500,000. Because why isn't he leaving now? I mean, I think last night should have been, we're leaving. We did a lot.

Here are all the great things we did. And we're piecing out. Like I don't really know what's happening over two to three weeks. They said that they hit all of their targets. They said they were running out of military targets because our, of course, our air force has been so effective. So what are we hitting? What are we doing over these three weeks? And, you know, is it going to be escalatory? Guys, got to run. Thank you both so much for coming on today. Really appreciate it. Thank you. See you both.

Okay. Coming up, more reaction to the Iran speech last night and an in-depth interview with the real live American spy. I'm going to ask him everything about the CIA spying on you and MK Ultra and all the stuff that you ever wanted to do. know about the CIA. When you are in a business growth mindset, you know how much the basic stuff matters, like how you talk to customers or clients and keep your team aligned. A more modern setup makes everything run smoother. So I want to tell you about one of our sponsors, Quo, spelled QUO, the modern alternative to running your business communications. Quo works right from an app on your phone or computer unless you keep your existing number, add new numbers or teammates, and sync your CRM.

Your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number, so there's no mixed messages or missed, mixed or missed. And Quo's AI automatically logs calls, generates summaries, and highlights next steps, so nothing gets lost. It can even qualify leads or respond after hours, ensuring your business stays responsive. Make this the season where no opportunity and no customer slips away. Try Quo for free.

Plus, get 20% off your. first six months when you go to quo.com slash mk. That's q uo.com slash mk quo. No missed calls, no missed connections. My next guest is a former CIA officer who spent more than a decade inside the agency, eventually rising to become chief of counterterrorism operations in Pakistan at the height of the war on terror after 9-11. And that's some responsibility. During his time there, he was involved in high-stakes operations against al-Qaeda, including efforts tied to the capture, of a senior operative. After leaving the agency in 2004 to work in the private sector, his life took a dramatic turn. During an interview with ABC News in 2007, he became the first U.S.

official to publicly confirm the CIA's use of waterboarding on terror suspects. And at the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed and as September 11th has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I've changed my mind. And I think that waterboarding is probably something that we shouldn't be in the business of doing. Why do you say that now? Because we're Americans and we're better than that. But at the time, you didn't feel that way. At the time, I was so angry and I wanted so much to help disrupt future attacks in the United States that I felt it was the only thing we could do. And with Zabeda, you think that was successful?

It was. And we have reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was also waterboarded. I was out of it by then, but it's my understanding that he was also watered. But those were really the only two? To the best of my knowledge, yes. And bottom line, you're sitting here now, do you think that was worth it? Yes. Did it compromise American principles or did it save American lives or both?

I think both. It may have compromised our principles, at least in the short term. That interview put him at the center of a national firestorm over in Terry techniques, and U.S. policy in the War on Terror. Years later, Keriaku was charged under the Espionage Act and ultimately pleaded guilty, with the Fed's breathing down his neck, to revealing the identity of two covert CIA officers to journalists. He believes he was targeted for speaking out about the enhanced interrogation program. He ultimately spent just under two years behind bars. John says he has no regrets about speaking out, and in recent years,

he's become a major player on the podcast scene, revealing some of the agents. tactics and strategies and speaking out about Jeffrey Epstein and what really motivates U.S. foreign policy decisions. Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kirooku joins me now. John, what a pleasure to meet you. Oh, the pleasure is all mine. Thanks for the invitation. Of course. I'm really looking forward to this discussion, and I've been enjoying your podcast tours as well. Thank you very much. And I'm like, I got to know this guy. There's so much I want to go over. Before we get to your amazing story and background, which is spectacular, can I just get your reaction on where we are right now in this Iran war? Because you know a lot about this. And you've got,

I know, strong thoughts on what we're doing over there. Did you hear anything last night that encouraged you in any way? Not really. What I had been hoping for, having watched Donald Trump for the last six plus years, longer than six plus years, 10 plus years, I was hoping that, that he would declare victory and announce that the boys are coming home. And that's not what we saw. What we saw was that we're winning or we won, which I don't believe we are. And we're going to keep fighting for weeks. That's probably going to stretch into months.

But one of the things that really disturbed me the most was the president threatened again to attack Iran's infrastructure, specifically its electrical grid. And that is quite literally a war crime. It's very unusual for a president to go on TV and announce, I'm going to commit a war crime. But that's what we saw last night. You know, and I think that we made a policy decision to accept and to believe Israeli intelligence at face value. I think that the Israelis had a vested interest in lying to us and pulling us into this war to do their dirty work for them. And that's exactly what happened.

The Iranians weren't the threat to us. Yep. I mean, it seemed clear because the administration admitted it early on. And then when they realized that the public had a strong reaction to that, started changing that story. I always get worried when I see Mark Levin happy or Lindsay Graham happy. And they were very happy last night, which alarmed me. Lindsay Graham was on Sean Hannity's program.

Listen to this. Five. Do you believe this is pretty much wrapped up in two to three weeks? In two or three weeks, we'll have completed the objective of destroying their ballistic missile program. In about two to three weeks, those objectives will have been met. And how does this movie end? What people don't realize is that they were two to three weeks away Iran from going from

60% to 90% enrichment. Trump said, okay, I've got two or three weeks to act. I'm going to act now. Two to three weeks said I had enough material to make eight or ten nuclear weapons, and Trump blew up their enrichment facilities so they couldn't go from 60 to 90. But what I learned tonight, Iran's going to have a choice in two to three weeks. By the way, I don't even think they have two or three weeks, Senator. That's two or three weeks when their infrastructure would be blown up. Now, we have two or three weeks left to achieve our military objectives, destroying their missile program, making sure they can never have a pathway to a nuclear bomb, and putting them out of the

state sponsor of terrorism business. We're about two or three weeks away. But at the end of two or three weeks, what happens next? Wow. Do you think he's trying to get a certain time frame in our heads, John? Seems to me like something might happen in the next two or three weeks. It's just ridiculous. I don't like, this guy is driving our foreign policy. You know, Megan, I have to say, in all the years that I was in the CIA, literally every time an Israeli prime minister came to the United States, and they come all the time. Regardless of who happened to be the president, whether it was Ronald Reagan all the way into Donald Trump's first term, every single Israeli prime minister would come and say, please bomb Iran, please bomb Iran. And every president would say, no, we're not going to bomb Iran until this president. And the Israelis, from 1986, the Israelis have been saying that the Iranians were six months away from a nuclear bomb.

Just simply not true. The CIA in the last 20 years has written two national intelligence estimates. Now, this is a sense of the entire intelligence community concluding both times that the Iranians did not have a nuclear weapons program. besides the fact that Ayatollah Khamanai, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa, a religious decree in 2003, saying that it was a sin to have a nuclear weapons program and that the government was forbidden from doing so. There's no evidence that they had a nuclear weapons program, except for what the Israelis have been saying, and I think the Israelis made it up. And our own intelligence assessment, as we heard from Tulsi Gabbard, when she testified publicly, is that they did not have a nuclear weapon and that they were not close. to getting a nuclear weapon. And even our president told us that their nuclear weapons program was obliterated last June. So this is why many of us are having trouble believing anything other than

Israel had an agenda and we decided to help them. As you point out, the same agenda they've had for many years. There's much, much more to do. John, stick with us. We've got to take a quick break and we will be back with a great interview. I just know it. Next. Let me tell you about cozy earth, which makes relaxing at home so much more enjoyable. If you have not tried their robes or sluble, yet you are seriously missing out, my friends. Their robes are unbelievably soft, perfect for slow mornings after a shower or just relaxing at night. The fabric is breathable, lightweight, and incredibly comfortable. It's the kind of robe you put on and immediately feel more relaxed in. And their slippers have this plush lining. They're warm, they're comfortable, they're easy to wear around the house all day,

which you should. With Mother's Day coming up, cozy Earth makes an amazing gift, something she will actually use and appreciate every single day. And here's the best part. Cozy Earth backs everything with a 100-night sleep trial and a 10-year warranty so you can try it completely risk-free. Go to CozyEarth.com. Use my code Megan for 20% off. That's CozyEarth.com promo code M-EG-YN for 20% off.

And if you see the post-purch survey, mention you heard about Cozy Earth from this show. You've been hearing me talk a lot about Pure Talk lately. Pure Talk is veteran-led, so helping veterans is their North Star. They have donated over half a million bucks to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that's on the front lines of preventing veteran suicide. And Pure Talks creating American jobs with a U.S. only workforce. Yes, it'd be a lot cheaper to send jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best experience possible for their customers.

And Pure Talk Service, I mean, they give you the same towers, the same network, same 5G cover, as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. Pure Talk supports veterans every single day and creates American jobs. If you want to give it a shot, dial pound 250 and say Megan Kelly to switch to pure talk. That's pound 250, 250, 250, 250, and say, Megan Kelly to switch to Pure Talk, America's wireless company, Pure Talk. Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on serious, And it's called the Megan Kelly Channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Morin Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more.

It's bold, no BS news, only on the Megan Kelly channel, Sirius XM 11, and on the Sirius XM app. Back with me now, former CIA counterterrorism officer John Kiriaku, John. So you're at GW University from 82 to 86, a boy from Pennsylvania, and Middle Eastern Studies is your thing. And one day a professor pulls you aside and makes an extraordinary admission and offer to you. Tell us. Right. I got a degree in Middle Eastern Studies at George Washington University. And to tell you, the truth, I wasn't ready to go into real life yet. So I stayed for a master's degree in legislative affairs with a focus being on American foreign policy analysis. And I was taking a class called the Psychology of Leadership with Dr. Gerald Post, who was an eminent psychiatrist. He gave us an assignment, quite a controversial assignment, to shadow our bosses and then to write a psychological profile of our bosses. I did that. And it was a, I worked for a, I worked for a sociopath. And I called him on it. And so I got my paper back at the end of the week and I got an A and Dr. Post wrote in the margin, please see me after class. So I went to his office to see him. He had me close the door. And then

he said, look, I'm not really a professor here. I'm a CIA officer undercover as a professor here. I'm looking for people who might fit into the CIA's culture, and I think you would fit into the CIA's culture. Would you like to be a CIA officer? And the truth is, you know, I wanted to go into public service. I wanted to see the world. But the real truth was I was getting married in six weeks and I didn't have a job. So I said, yeah, sure, I'd love to join the CIA. And the next thing I knew, I was in the CIA. So what was it about you? Just your ability to profile people? That was the start of it, yes. It turned out that I was hired by the office that he had created about six years earlier called the Political Psychology Division. So I was assigned to Iraq.

I became Saddam Hussein's classified biographer. And I did that for years before making what at the time was a very unusual switch to counterterrorism operations. But the agency gave me opportunity after opportunity. I learned to speak fluent to Arabic. that went with the fluent Greek that I had. And yeah, I mean, one day you're sitting in a college class and the next day you're in the Oval office trying to think of, you know, how not to sound like an idiot when you're speaking to the president. And yeah, the rest was history. And so do you, do you, are you, was this the kind of higher that you could tell anybody about

or like when you join the CIA or do they say, no, your cover is going to be you too are a university professor? Well, at the beginning, I was an overt employee. So I wasn't under formal cover. But what that meant, for all intents and purposes, was that I could tell those closest to me that I was working for the CIA. And then that was it. I mean, even my own wife, she knew that I was a CIA officer.

She had no idea what I did, which caused all kinds of problems later. And frankly, it led to our divorce. You know, you come home and she says, how was your day? You say, great. Would you do? Nothing. Who would you talk to? nobody. And then your phone rings at 11 o'clock and you say, you know, the rain in Spain

falls mainly in the plane. And then you leave until 6 in the morning. And that's just not conducive to a to a smooth marriage. A healthy marriage. Did you really use little phrases like that, like the pearl is in the river? Sometimes, yeah. Sometimes if you're not close to the person that you're trying to trigger an emergency meeting with, it would be easy to say, hey, Constantine, let's have coffee. I'll meet you tomorrow morning at nine. Well, tomorrow morning at nine really means tomorrow morning at eight in the abandoned, you know, parking lot behind the sweater factory because you've arranged that all in advance. So if somebody's listening to your phone, and nowadays everybody's listening to your phone, they don't have any idea what you're going

to do. Well, I was interested in your, I want to get to all that, but I do, I am interested in your relationship with your wife. You've had two wives as I understand it. And I heard you tell the story in part and I wanted to hear the rest of it. So you were in Greece. And I think this is the first wife. Right. My first wife. And your son, your son said something shocking to you. Can you tell us that story? Yeah. I was so focused on the job and trying not to get killed. You know, there was a terrorist group active in Greece at the time called Revolutionary Organization 17 November. That was the whole reason why I was in Greece at the in the, at the basis of it at all. It was to, to try to infiltrate this group, to disrupt their attacks and really to destroy the group from the inside. They'd killed

the CIA station chief, two U.S. defense attachés, the Turkish ambassador, the deputy ambassador, the minister of finance. They just killed, they killed 28 people. And so she was a first generation American. Her parents were, were from Greece, and she inherited her grand. grandmother's house on one of the Greek islands. And so she started going to the island on the weekends and taking the kids. I thought that was a great idea. The kids can get to know their cousins. Well, leaving Friday coming back Sunday became leaving Thursday coming back Sunday, then leaving Thursday coming back Monday. The kids are missing school. And then one day I'm shaving, getting ready for work. And my then six-year-old is sitting on the floor next to me.

we're talking about his day and what his day is going to look like. And then he said to me, I told Mommy not to kiss Uncle Stelios on the lips. I told her to kiss only you on the lips. And she told me to mind my own business. I felt like I had been electrocuted. And so I went into the bedroom and I kicked the bed. She said, what? I said, who is Stelios?

And she said, where did you hear that name? I said, who is he? and she said, don't believe everything a six-year-old says. And I said to her, and I said it very plainly and clearly at the time, I'm going to leave right now before I do something that's going to dog me for the rest of my life. And so I didn't even finish shaving. I finished shaving at work. I got in the car and I drove to the embassy.

And it was all downhill from there. As it turned out, 17 November murdered the British Defense Attesier a few months later. Stephen Sonders. Stephen was a friend of mine. We were next door neighbors. And a couple of months later, they mailed a manifesto to a leftist newspaper. And they said in the manifesto, I met on megalocatascopos, we saw the big spy, but we knew that he was armed and he was driving an armored car. So we elected to carry out the revolutionary sentence on the war criminal Sonders. Well, I got to the office and the chief said, he came just barging into my office. He said, did you see the the manifesto? I said, what manifesto? He said, the Sondra's manifesto. I said, they didn't leave a Sondres

manifesto. He said, no, they released it today and you're in it. I said, what do you mean I'm in it? He said, they set out to kill you that morning. And I said, oh my God, he said, you have to go. I said, go where? He said, home, like to Washington. I said, I just dropped my kids off at school. I can't just up and go home. He said, listen, you get in an armored car. We're taking into the airport. going to pick up your kids, we're going to pick up your wife. So we all met up at the airport. And I said to her, I am so sorry. And she said, I want a divorce. I'm not living like this anymore. And so the plane landed in New York. I caught a connection to Washington. She caught a connection to Cleveland. And that was the end of it. Was that the end of it for Stelios, too?

Yeah. Yeah. They didn't wind up together. Oh, no. A guy could barely read. That was, no. She was feeling lonely and it was because I was so focused on the job. It was very hard to maintain a marriage in the CIA. Very much so. Very, very much so. And you know, I'll tell you another thing. Two years later, I was in Pakistan and I'm dating a CIA officer. And in Pakistan, we had this trunk line. So it was just a normal phone, but it was a 202 area code. So it's like you're making a local call. So I think we were like 11 hours ahead of Washington. or 10 and a half hours ahead of Washington. So I would call her every morning when I got to the office

because it was already evening the previous day for her. And one of the guys in my branch, they were all retirees in my branch. They were all either former chief or deputy chief of Near Eastern operations. And so one of them heard me say, okay, I love you. And I hung up the phone. And he said, so, are you? Are there wedding bells in the future? And I said, oh, I don't know.

I just got divorced. And I really don't want to be a two-time loser. And he says, two-time loser. He says, I've been married four times. Jim, how many times have you been married? Jim says, five for me. Bill, how many times have you been married? He says, I have four.

Dave, Dave has three. He says, two-time loser. Welcome to the CIA kid. Wow. I mean, I guess I'm not surprised. It doesn't really breed intimacy. Or honesty. Not to mention your psychological profiling skills, which if used against the wrong person could be an annoyance to a spouse.

I'll say it. But it's something you're really good at. And when you're, you know, you're going to do a day trip or something. You take your kids to the, you know, Luna Park or whatever. And you're taking some crazy way. She says, where are you going? And the answer is, well, I don't want anybody to shoot us on the way there. And that's like a legitimate fear. It's a problem. Yeah. Yes. So tell me about the CIA because the CIA, the CIA, has a very bad reputation in the circles that I travel in. I think most people are very suspicious of them in today's day and age. They're not supposed to be spying on Americans, but they are. They're masters of the dark arts. They have people killed. And I think the question is like, how many people? Like Americans? Like what are the most shocking things they do in your experience that you need people to know about? Well, Americans, that's the $64,000 question right there. The answer is we don't know because they won't tell us. You know, years ago when Senator Rand Paul, the Republican from Kentucky, was questioning then Attorney General Eric Holder, I think it was in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He asked Holder directly, does the President of the United States have the legal authority to assassinate an American citizen? And after some hemming and hawing, Holder said yes. And then he asked a follow-up question. does the president have the authority to murder an American citizen on U.S. soil? And Holder wouldn't answer the question. Well, we murdered Anwar Aulaki, who was a bad guy, but had never been charged with a crime. He had never faced his accusers in a court of law. He had never stood before a jury of his peers.

We just decided we didn't like his politics. And so we blew him up. And then a week later, we blew up his 16-year-old. son and 16-year-old nephew, also American citizens. They had never been accused of a crime. So either we're going to be a nation of laws or we're not going to be a nation of laws. We have to choose, but we can't pretend to be the one while really being the other. We need to make a policy decision here. But may I answer further?

To answer more specifically your question, way back in the battle days in the early 1970s, a dear friend of mine started as a 22-year-old at the agency, and his initial job was in the Counterintelligence Center, which was then headed by the notorious James Jesus Angleton. And on his first day, the secretary was walking him around the office, and she pointed to an entire wall of file folders, and she said, you may find yourself alone in the office every once in a while. You are not permitted to look at those files. Well, of course, what's he going to do? he's 22 years old. As soon as he's alone, he's going to run and look at the files. And he said, and now he's in his 70s, he said every single one of those files was on an American citizen.

Now, that was patently illegal, but they were doing it anyway. We all thought that with the Church Committee and Pike Committee reforms of 1975 and 1976 that we had cleaned all that out. And maybe we did, at least for a while. But September 11th, September 11th changed everything. And the CIA went back to the battle days with largely the support of the American people, at least for a while, and certainly the support of both Democratic and Republican administrations. So, but what about now? Because what I'm noticing is I think post-COVID were much more conspiratorial than we were pre because all of our conspiracies came true Exactly.

During the COVID era, so it made everybody like, I trust nothing and no one. But, you know, for example, I know there are a lot of people questioning whether the CIA had some control over the butler shooter of President Trump. Right. There's been a question about whether they had any knowledge whatsoever about what happened to Charlie Kirk. Do you think that the CIA possibly has any role in cases like that? I don't know, but I can tell you it's absolutely possible.

You know, when Joe Kent, whether you like Joe Kent's politics or not, you cannot doubt the man's patriotism. He's walked the walk. And if he says that he was forbidden from having his analysts follow investigative leads, you have to ask why. Why? Why do we not know more about the Butler shooter and the circumstances surrounding the Butler shooting? I grew up 15 miles from Butler. We never missed a county fair and farm show. I've been there a thousand times. That should have been easy to investigate, right? They're all patriotic people. It's a red county and in a red part of the state.

and then the president in the United States takes a shot to the ear. So why were comprehensive, full, complete investigations not carried out? Why was Joe Kent told that he could not pursue investigative leads in the Charlie Kirk case? And one other thing about the Charlie Kirk case that I've always been confused about. Why is the FBI involved at all? The crime took place in Utah. the shooter is from Utah. He set out that day from Utah.

He went to a location in Utah. This is a state police case for the Utah state police. Why in the world is the FBI calling the shots? Unless they know something that we don't know. Unless they know something, something that they haven't revealed that indicates, you know, either cross-interstate, some investigative lead that came,

across state lines or some kind of international involvement. But my God, transparency is everything. And like you said, Megan, in the post-COVID era where we've learned definitively that we can't trust what the government is telling us, and wouldn't transparency make that all go away? Well, as I understand it, because I haven't really been conspiratorial in my adult life in any part of my life. But I do want to understand the theories because some of them do turn out to be right over time.

And as I understand it, the theory kind of revolves around MK. Ultra. Yeah. Like either, you know, they unleash an operation on a vulnerable target to try to get that target, possibly the shooter and butler, to do what they want him to do. But can you walk me through what you know about MK Ultra? Sure. MK. Ultra was a CIA operation that was a, was a CIA operation that was. was conceived in 1952, it began to be implemented in 1953 and really took hold in 1955. It did a lot of different things. There were even sub-operations within MK Ultra, MK. Chick-Wit, MK.K. Midnight,

something or other, lots of them. The bottom line was this. There was a source that the CIA recruited, a Chinese communist source who said that the Chinese government was experimenting with mind control. That's where the idea of the Manchurin candidate came out, which led to a popular movie in the late 1950s starring Frank Sinatra. In fact, the Chinese were not experimenting on mind control. The Russians were and the source was wrong. But the CIA believed that it was behind the eight ball. And if the Chinese were experimenting in mind control, then we needed by God to experiment in mind control and to figure out if,

we could sort of create a Chinese zombie who could then work his way through the upper echelons of the Chinese Communist Party and take over China and then do away with communism and we all live happily ever after. That's how it started. So the CIA went about doing this in all of the worst possible ways. Right around the time that MK Ultra was being hatched, a scientist in Switzerland invented something called LSD. And LSD did these incredible things. And it could manipulate your mind. You could see colors that didn't exist. You could see people that didn't exist. And maybe if we microdosed people with this new LSD, that maybe we could control their minds. The CIA began by using it on their own people. Now, we know that one of those CIA contractors

actually jumped out of a hotel window and committed suicide because he thought he could fly. That's been well documented. Then they decided, you know, maybe experimenting on our own people isn't the best way to go about this. Maybe we should just experiment on random citizens in San Francisco. And so they went to San Francisco. They rented a safe house. They recruited a bunch of prostitutes and sent the prostitutes out on the street to pick up dates. bring the dates back to the safe house, dose them with LSD without their knowledge,

and then try to get them to reveal their innermost secrets just to see if the CIA could collect those. Another part of MK.K. Ultra, also in San Francisco, was they decided to create a virus or a bacterium, in this case it was a bacterium, that they could just push out into the air. and see how many people they could infect. They waited until an unusually foggy day, where the air is very heavy and sitting close to the ground. And all around the city of San Francisco, as well as on the public transit system,

they released this bacterium. And eight people came down with this very rare upper respiratory infection. So then they tried to couple that and the release of the bacterium with the LSD. Can we release LSD? into the air. They experimented in a small village in France by dosing the yeast in the village's only bakery with LSD. Everybody in the village ate bread from that bakery and everybody went nuts for a day or two. And so that was another, you know, successful operation.

In the end, nobody's mind was taken over. We didn't bring down. Chinese communism or Russian communism or anything else. It was a failure. But then Congress got wind of it. The church committee got wind of it in 1975 and called the Director of Central Intelligence to testify. And then at the testimony, specifically ordered him to not destroy the documents. He immediately went back to CIA headquarters and told everybody, destroy everything. that's why what we have today is only 15% of the MK Ultra documents. Everything else was destroyed in 1975. Now, he was held in contempt of Congress, and by God, he was fined $150. And all the CIA employees chipped in to pay the $150 fine for him.

Yeah. And a negative presumption was against him that he had something to hide. That's exactly right. But I think as a result of that, it's part of the reason why people now suspect government involvement in everything. There it is. You know, the things that we don't feel like we're getting full transparency on, it's a CIA conspiracy or maybe an NSA conspiracy or maybe an FBI conspiracy. And it's, it's undermining what probably are CIA and FBI conspiracies. Do you know what I mean? Like, not everything is a conspiracy by the government, but for sure, they are doing some things that we should know about. So how do you tell the difference? I think you're exactly right. And the only way, to tell the difference is through robust congressional oversight, something that we have not had since

the early 1980s. And we're screwed. We're screwed. Because what are they? They're cheerleaders for the CIA and the FBI on the intelligence committees and on the judiciary committees. They're cheerleaders. You know, when I got home from prison, I was invited to a dinner at the Greek ambassador's residence. And I went there. And there was a Democratic senator there who, who happens to be a member of the Intelligence Committee. And I went up to him. He came up to me, actually. And he said, hey, welcome home.

We were really pulling for you. And I said, thanks, Senator. But I got to tell you, I expected more from you. I thought you would have been more helpful to me. And he got angry. And he said, look, it took everything I had just to not lose my security clearance. And I said, oh, you're afraid of them. You're not overseeing them.

you're afraid of them. And he walked away from me, but I was right. He was afraid of them. They're all afraid. And so they just tow the line. Remember who was it that said about Trump? Like, you mess with the three-letter agency,

you mess with CIA, and they will make you pay for the rest of your life. That was Chuck Schumer. He said, they have nine ways from Sunday to make your life miserable. To make you pay. But here's my question, because I heard you on Diary of a CEO,

saying the CIA, they can rest control of your car. You know, our cars have these big brains now that, I mean, you know, if the car company can, like, whatever the services, if you get into an accident, you can just sort of say, help me, if they can get in there, sure, I bet it's hackable by somebody else, to the point where they could potentially drive your car right off the road. If they could do that, then why would they ever have to do anything more explicit? Why would they ever have to do mind control over anybody at a rally in Pennsylvania if that's what they want? You know, like there would be ways of getting rid of you that would be so undetectable and not suspicious that they could be doing that all the time.

They wouldn't have to go about mind control, MK Ultra, LSD, you know what I'm saying? So that to me, that undermines the theory that they're doing any of these public executions explicitly or behind the scenes. I think that's right. But think of it this way, too. I'm going to tell you a little funny, little anecdote about one of my promotion panels. I had been working with a psychologist in the CIA's Counterterrorism Center to come up with outside the box ideas on how to recruit spies to steal secrets. And she happened to also sit on my promotion panel.

And she said in my promotion panel, in great support of my promotion, she said, John Kyriaku will come up with 40 different ideas for an operation. 36 of them are insane, but four of them are going to be really good. So imagine sitting around the table and somebody comes up with an idea to put an explosive in Fidel Castro's cigar. Well, that's a stupid idea. If you're going to get close enough to put an explosive in the cigar, just shoot them in the head, for example, if that's what you really want to do. So there are a lot of people sitting around a lot of conference room tables at the CIA coming up with really stupid ideas. And then there are nodding heads all around the table saying, yeah, that's a great idea.

We should do that. So, you know, the bottom line is this. We know thanks to WikiLeaks and the Volt 7 revelations that the CIA can remotely take over your car. They can make you drive off a bridge or into a tree or into an abutment and kill you if they want to. They can turn your smart TV into a microphone. They can reverse engineer your speaker to turn into a microphone so they can listen to everything you're saying even when the TV is off. The technology is 20 years ahead of what anybody else thinks the technology is.

I don't want to be a pollyana about it, but they're not supposed to do that without a warrant. Are they doing that shit without a warrant? Without a warrant. You know, at the CIA. I mean, that's disturbing. In training, they used to tell us all the time. Our job is to break the law. And I remember saying, yeah, but not here.

The job is to break the law over there. I was perfectly happy and on multiple occasions actively participated in, you know, breaking into people's houses or offices and planting bugs and cameras. We're the good guys. That's what we have to do. This is to protect the United States. But not here. You need a warrant.

And besides, the CIA is forbidden by law from doing anything operationally inside the United States. That's what the FBI is for. I just never understood this. Like, why isn't it that? clear to everybody. I don't know. Do you think the FBI is doing similar behaviors or is this all CIA? You know, it was my experience when I was working with the FBI and I worked with the FBI for years and years that they really were sticklers for the law where the CIA wasn't. I remember

even saying one time, I'm going to I'm going to fudge the details here for obvious reasons. But they were talking, a couple of us CIA people were talking to a group from the FBI. and they were saying what difficulty they were having infiltrating a domestic terrorist group. And I said, oh, no, I got you covered. I said, there was this group that we took care of. We just didn't have access to them. So what we did is we found one of them. It was only like six members of this terrorist group.

We found one. And we said, hey, listen, Muhammad, your friend Abdullah, I'm from the CIA. And Abdullah told me that you'd be a good guy for me to talk to because Abdullah works for me. And he said, you'd like to work for me too. Well, the guy runs screaming from the room, but he goes back and he kills Abdullah. And then we tell Russia, hey, listen, we were talking about Abdullah with Muhammad. You know, Muhammad's one of our guys. And he told us that Abdullah was a bad guy.

And then Russia kills Muhammad. And then by the end of the year, this terrorist group doesn't exist anymore. And the FBI guy said, oh, my God, that's so illegal. we couldn't possibly do that. And I was like, oh, it never even occurred to me that that might be illegal. So the FBI does kind of pay closer attention, at least they're supposed to,

to what's legal and what's not legal. But with the CIA operating overseas, you know, who cares what's legal and what's not legal? They can do anything they want over there. And what about domestically? I mean, I was a big fan of that show, The Americans. Oh, me too. Wonderful show.

Right? It was so good. Is that really? real? I mean, do you think there are a bunch of foreign spies, like sleeper spies here in America? Oh, yes, yes, yes. That show was written and created by Joe Weisberg. Joe was a colleague of mine in the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. He was a brilliant writer. And I went to the office one day and he walked up to me and he said, hey, listen, I quit this morning. And I was like, what? Why would you do that? And he said, this job is just not for me. I'm not married. I don't

have any kids, I'm going to go to Hollywood and find my fortune. And he went to Hollywood and he created the Americans. And the reason why it was so successful was because it was completely real. Just in the last two years, I happened to live in Arlington, Virginia. In the last two years, one of my neighbors was arrested. She was an elementary school substitute teacher. She was arrested because she was a Russian sleeper agent just sitting in place and waiting to be activated by the SVR. This is something that the Russians have always been very good at, the long game. They'll recruit an agent, put them in place, have them pretend to be an American, and just let them sit there for 20 years, 30 years until they need to be activated to carry out some

operation. Wow. Wow. I mean, the odds are we've all met one and have no idea. That's right. That's incredible to think about that they've been lying away. The Russians will play the long game. The Chinese will play the long game, too. that's one of the problems we're up against. They're thinking generationally. They're thinking the next 50 years. Exactly right. How will they be positioned versus how will we be positioned? And this is part of our problem.

I just want, forgive me for diverting the discussion, but this just breaking. Yes. Pam Bondi is out. As we reported at the top of the show, we had heard she would be. The president just tweeting, Pam Bondi, or posting on true social, is a great American patriot

and a loyal friend who faithfully served as my AG over the past year. She did a tremendous job overseeing a massive crackdown and crime across our country, with murders plummeting to their lowest level since 1900. We love Pam, and she will be transitioning to a much needed and important new job in the private sector to be announced at a date in the near future. Okay, I don't know what that means. And our deputy attorney general and a very talented and respected legal mind, Todd Blanche will step in to serve as acting AG as acting AG. So we'll see. the earlier reports were that he was probably going to give the replacement to EPA

administer Lee Zeldon. Todd Blanche makes a lot more sense, not only because of his job title, but because I hear he's very well liked over there. So we shall see Pam Bondi's officially out. Did you have any thoughts on that? Like why she's like, why now? Why is Pam Bondi gone now? You know, I've always heard the loveliest things about Pam Bondi, that she's a sweetheart

of a person, she's loyal to the president. I also heard that she never really wanted to be attorney general. The president insisted that she be attorney general. And, you know, when a president calls you and says, your country needs you, you say, of course, Mr. President, I'll do whatever the country needs. And I think that's what she did. I think she really wasn't happy in that job. And that after a year, it was probably time to move on.

I wonder, because, I mean, the reports are that he was unhappy with her, which is why she got pushed out. But I mean, I will say it's such a thankless job. You can't win. My information is they're all miserable over there in DOJ for a good reason. They have way too many cases and way too few bodies. They had a bunch of people quit over the politics of the administration. So that's even fewer bodies.

But like a lot of lawfare, you know, by the Trump administration, against the Trump administration, these judges who think they're mini president. Like it's just zero free time, zero thanks, zero love, you know, coming back from the public, whatever Pamboddy's going to do next, especially if it's private sector. It'll be better. I guarantee she's going to be happier. So we'll see what happens with Todd Blanche. Okay, but back to you.

So the CIA doesn't have any real rules overseas. The FBI domestically does. I've heard you say before, another group that has no rules is the Israelis. And that seems really clear right now. I mean, one of the dynamics of this war has been the president going out there saying, we are talking to somebody, I can't tell you who it is, because I'm worried he'll get killed. And then, of course, left on set is killed by whom. Obviously, it's the Israelis.

So what was your experience with them? It was universally negative. In my very first briefing, I had only been on the job as an Iraq analyst for six weeks. My boss said to me, I want you to participate in a group briefing. You're going to brief the Israelis. They have a shin bet representative. and a Mossad representative. And he said, we don't, we don't speak to the Israelis in the building.

They're not permitted in the building because every time they would come to CIA headquarters, they would bring gifts. And the gifts were always laden with listening devices and batteries. And, you know, we would x-ray everything. And we would tell them, stop trying to bug our conference rooms. And they would say, oh, okay, okay, you caught us. Okay. So finally, we said they just can't come in anymore.

So we have a safe house where we meet with the Israelis. So it was like eight of us, the senior Iraq analyst, the military analyst, the political analyst, the econ analyst, the oil analyst, everybody's doing their thing. And because I was the most junior, I went last. And I said, because I was an overt employee, my name is John Kariaku, and I'm going to brief you today on Saddam Hussein's state of mind. And the Mossad representative looked over his glasses at me. And he said, spell your name.

So I spelled it. And he says to me, in front of everybody, he says, you are Jewish? And I said, I am not recruitable. Don't even think about trying to recruit me. Shame on you. So I went back to the office. My boss said, how did it go? I said, I'm so angry right now.

I could explode. I said, he practically pitched me right there in the meeting and asked if I was Jewish. And he laughed and he said, they've done that too. every single one of us. Trying to get you to turn against your country. Exactly. For them. On my very first day at the CIA, where you know, you put your hand up in the air and you

swear to uphold and protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, we had a briefing by the CIA's Director of Security. And he told us that there are two intelligence representatives at the Israeli embassy, one from Assad, one from Shinbet. He said, but the FBI has been able to identify 100 and 8. 87 other undeclared Israeli intelligence officers spread out all across America working to steal secrets from American defense contractors. But politically, the relationship is so close that you don't want to rock the boat and, you know, start arresting people spying for Israel. Look at Jonathan Pollard. He does every day of a 30-year sentence and then is welcomed like some kind of a conquering hero at the American.

embassy in Jerusalem, it made me sick to my stomach. Well, when you said the comment about how everybody in Congress is afraid of the CIA, the same is true when it comes to Israel. I don't know if afraid is the word, but controlled by. I mean, one of the dynamics of this, the wake of the Iran war, John, has been not just like the loudest, but kind of the only front-facing critics have been from the more isolationist right. Where are the Democrats? Oh, that. They don't say anything. That's the question right there. Where in the world are the

Democrats? They are utterly silent. In fact, I'll tell you, I was especially furious with Cory Booker, the Democratic Senator from New Jersey. Not the last time Netanyahu came to Washington, but the time before. Corey Booker literally ran through the halls of Congress to get to a photo op so he could stand behind Benjamin Netanyahu. with this big stupid grin on his face. Like even now, after Gaza, after the start of Iran, now you're running like O.J. Simpson through an airport in the old, I'm dating myself, but in the old whatever it was commercial.

Yeah, Hertz commercial. You want to be in a picture with Benjamin Netanyahu. Some of them are afraid of being primaried. And God knows that A-PAC, if you are not 100% pro-Israel in your voting record, they will primary you and they will spend millions of dollars to defeat you. That scares most members of Congress. And so they're just not willing to challenge anybody. I'll tell you another thing.

I used to be the chief investigator in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did that from 09 to 11. And a couple of days after I started the job, these two guys came in, clearly, obviously, from APEC. And they said, hey, welcome to Capitol. Hill. I said, thanks. I've worked on Capitol Hill before. We want to invite you for an all expenses paid trip to the Holy Land. They didn't say Israel. Totally. And I said, thanks, guys, I can pay for my own vacations. I'm not interested. It's all expenses paid. And we're going to take you to all the Christian holy sites. I go, guys, I'm not taking Apex money. I'm not interested.

but I don't think a single day went by where I didn't see those two. They practically had offices up there. And then individual House members say that there are APAC reps that will go to their office every day and just sit on the couch. And if constituents come in to meet with staff or to meet with the member of Congress, these guys will get up like it's their office and say, remember, Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel, remember, what is that? That's not the miracle way. I think that the manipulation is so ubiquitous.

You almost just don't even know it's happening because everyone's singing from the same hymnal. And so it's like, yeah, this is what we all think. Yes. I remember at Fox News, it was like a knee-jerk thing. You had to say, like, in Israel, we have a very special relationship. You know, there are most important ally in the Middle East. And every once in a while, I would remember to ask, why?

Why? Why again? Like, you know, to have somebody explain that to me. Yes. And it always kind of petered out after that. Like, why again? It was always about demonizing the Arab states. You know, we're supposed to hate them because they're Muslim.

I'm supposed to love Israel because they're supposedly with us in the Judeo-Christian, you know, narrative. I, it's, there's been such a manipulation paid for, a paid for manipulation that I think many of us are just starting to see John. Benjamin Enjah, who said something that was very, very much overlooked. and I think very disturbing last week. He was giving, he had given a speech, and an Israeli reporter asked him a question about the American-Israeli war against Iran. And he corrected her.

And he said, it's the American war against Iran. We are America's ally. And I thought, oh, buddy, that's not what you were saying two weeks ago. Now we stand alone doing your dirty work. But that's what it's come down to. That's clearly where it is. is, and he's already saying there are many reports out from Israeli TV saying, if we do go boots on the ground, it won't be with them. That's right. They're boots on the ground in Lebanon. They've got

another issue they've taken on where a million Lebanese have been displaced because really Israel wants to be the hegemon of the region and saw an opportunity here. And so we'll be on our own. It'll be American blood and treasure that spills on Karg Island. I think you're exactly right. Right? Our super tight allies will let us do their bidding. I mean, it's just, I believe, every word of what you said about how they've tried to get every president to do this. And unfortunately, Trump was the taker. Trump was the one who was talked into it. Yeah, unfortunately. He watched too much Fox News and he got persuaded by the messaging that's there. Okay, but back to you, back to you. One of the things I heard you say about yourself is that you have sociopathic tendencies. Now,

what does that mean? The CIA actively seeks to hire people who have sociopathic tendencies, not sociopaths. Sociopaths have no conscience. They don't feel guilt or remorse. They blow right through the polygraph because they don't react to anything. People who have sociopathic tendencies do have a conscience.

They do feel guilt or remorse, but they're willing to break the law or to work in legal, moral, and ethical gray areas if they believe it's the right thing to do. So I mentioned earlier that on multiple occasions, I broke into people's houses or businesses and planted microphones or listening devices. I was very happy to do that because I believed we were the good guys.

And this was to protect America, right? We've got to disrupt that next attack. We need to take apart this terrorist group. And if that means identifying a terrorist apartment and renting the apartment underneath and drilling a hole through the floor so I can stick a pinhole camera or a microphone and listen to everything that's being said and then report it back to CIA headquarters, I'm going to do it. That's what a sociopathic tendency is.

To you, are you able to go anywhere now or rent an apartment? Like, I mean, are you constantly wondering whether this is being done to you? Oh, yeah. Oh, I just assume that it is. Sure. And, you know, that's why, one of the reasons why I'm so vocal and so public is I figured it's safer for me because more people would miss me. if something were to happen.

Yep. I will add that an investment in a good bulletproof vest is always wise as well. Oh, my gosh. What do you have that just sitting in your house? What's that doing right next to you? I gave a speech the other day and it was so uncomfortable. I took it off when I got home. But you know, after Charlie Kirk and after these revelations from WikiLeaks about what the CIA does

and what the FBI does and what the Israelis do, they kill everybody who they don't like. So, you know, better safe than sorry. I mean, let me ask you, like, without getting too graphic, but like, let's say you're, you know, you're being intimate in your home. You're in an intimate position. Like, do you remove all phones? Do you make sure there's no TVs in the room? Like, is it at that level where it's like everything's exposed?

Yeah, it's at that level. Yes. I hate to say it. You know, all I have is like a little, one of those waterproof shower radios so I can at least listen to the news in the morning. But yeah, that's pretty much it. Are you not into smart technology for this reason? You know, forgive me because I'm going to sound like a hypocrite, but I do have, I'm not going to say the name because it's going to light up an A-L-E-X-A in my kitchen because I sometimes ask for recipes or the weather. And I don't say anything in the kitchen. You know,

what am I going to talk to myself? So, yeah, but that's the only, that's the only, that's the only smart technology that I allow myself. I mean, my own thought has been, you just kind of have to be a relatively good person or just accept that your foibles are no more bizarre than anybody else's because they probably do know everything. Well, I'm going to blow my own whistle, or blow my own horn here. When the FBI raided my house, when John Brennan took out this vendetta against me, they confiscated all of my electronics.

And they gave it all back to me a year later. And one of the FBI agents said, you know, this was the first time in my career that we ever took somebody's electronics and we didn't find any porn. And I said, what do you think I'm an animal? Oh, no way. Yeah.

No way. Well, you know, my understanding, too, is that the Israelis own a couple of the big porn sites. The one guy just died. He owned Onlyfans. I can't remember if he was an American or is an Israeli, but either way, it was very sympathetic towards Israel.

But that's another way, because if they can turn that camera around at you, I mean, they're done. That'd be a great way to blackmail somebody. It sure would be. Yeah, they've been the kings of the porn industry for decades, whether it's in Brooklyn, it's heavily based in Brooklyn, or in, what's it called, Hawthorne, California, up by Northridge. Yeah, that's the two bases of the porn industry,

and it's almost exclusively Israeli. Wow. Yeah, the guy who owned OnlyFans was Ukrainian-American, but a big fan of Israel and it donated a lot of money. It's all like, I have said many times, in today's day and age, it's not enough to pretend you actually have to be a good person now. It's going to be a massive pain in the ass.

Oh, my God, yes. But we're going to have to just grin and bear it, try to be better people. John, I really hope to continue this conversation. I want to hear so much more about you and your opinions. Love, love, loved, loved media. The pleasure is all mine. Thanks again for the invitation. It was very kind.

Oh, to be continued. All the best. Wow. What a fascinating guy. I mean, what a life, right? Like to be in the intel agencies, to be recruited by your college graduate school professor and then wind up in prison. We didn't even get to the prison stuff, but lots to go over. Okay, tomorrow, we are back with Maureen Callahan for the full show. We will see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS. No agenda. fear.