WEAPONIZED with Jeremy Corbell & George Knapp - Journalists vs Secrecy : How UFO Reporters Push Back - Guests : Chris Sharp & Matt Laslo

Episode Date: October 1, 2024

Reporters who cover UFO-related topics know the risks of pursuing a subject that has been scorned and ridiculed for decades. Intrepid journalists know they risk their professional credibility, but there are other less obvious downsides. In this episode of Weaponized. Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp converse with two journalists who have been on the receiving end of unscrupulous and underhanded slams and insults. Chris Sharp, editor of The Liberation Times, shares details about his explosive reports looking into a multi-agency operation that pursues non-human technology in the world's ocean. Who is pulling the strings on USO secrecy? And Washington DC based congressional reporter Matt Laslo provides an update on the UAP Disclosure Act, which may NOT be dead after all. Both Sharp and Laslo say they have been targeted by trolls and provocateurs and why they are still hopeful that upcoming Congressional hearings can move the UAP subject forward. ••• Follow Chris Sharp's work on X at https://x.com/ChrisUKSharp and his publication at https://LiberationTimes.com ••• Follow Matt Laslo's work on X at https://x.com/MattLaslo and his publication at https://askapol.com ••• Watch the three-part UFO docuseries titled UFO REVOLUTION on TUBI here : tubitv.com/series/300002259 ••• GOT A TIP? Reach out to us at [e-mail] For breaking news, follow Corbell & Knapp on all social media. Extras and bonuses from the episode can be found at WeaponizedPodcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work, use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications, and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who check all your boxes. Listeners of this shelf will get a $75-sponsored job credit at Indeed.com slash podcast. That's Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero? This is a job for Indeed sponsored jobs. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building.

Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank. In this week's episode of Weaponized, I was told recently by somebody who would know that we're up against a legacy idea. We are up against the most close hold secret of all time within our government. featuring journalist Christopher Sharp and congressional reporter and Professor Matt Laslow. I've been sitting on information for some months now about an alleged undersea retrieval. The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades, but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong, and additionally, it breeds mistrust.

Who gutted the Senate Majority Leader's bill? You know, it's the Senate Majority Leader who usually guts other people. bills. Secrets, cover-ups, and strange phenomena. UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself. All these mysteries, all this time. Are we ever going to get to the bottom of these? My name is George Knapp.

I dig into news stories that others can't or won't. I'm Jeremy Corbell, and for some reason people tell me things they probably shouldn't. And this is weaponized. This is weaponized. I'm George Knapp, uh, broadcasting here. podcasting here from Las Vegas, joined by my friend and colleague Jeremy Corbell. How's it going, Jeremy? It's good, man.

I am so excited. I can't contain my excitement. We got a lot going on in the UFO world. Really? I haven't heard anything. What's going on? Well, hey, look, we're going to have new hearings, not from us, but the date was put out, which was the 13th of November.

You know, everything's a little bit of a moving target, but that is correct information. and I'm glad, you know, that that is now out in the public. It gives everybody a chance to kind of, you know, take aim at paying attention. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there, but I've heard some statements, although I'm not reading a lot about it about some of the witnesses and quality of witnesses that I would just like to officially say, people should be optimistic. Yeah, we saw a representative of Anna Luna gave a statement to the UFO world saying, you're going to be happy with the witnesses.

Nancy Mace talked in generalities about the kind of witnesses they're looking for. And I think people are guessing who it might be. And if some settle on this name and some settle on that name, as far as we know. And you just can't return from a week back there speaking directly with members and with staff. I've had some conversations as well. It's not set in stone, correct? Yeah, yeah. So nothing is set in stone because,

is things can occur prior to that date that will alter the course of maybe who's testifying. Well, I know for sure. Things can occur before that date that would alter the course of who is sitting up there and testifying. But at the same time, and also, a lot of people will be asked about their availability. So there's backups and that sort of thing and maybe for future hearings. But there is officially a date set on the books. and it's moving forward.

And I think this process is fluid, but I think it's exciting because if we hear from certain people at one hearing, there's going to be more or we've not done our job. You know, UFO world, of course, has its opinions about who it should be, what they'd like to see. I think a lot of those coincide with what the members want. You know, they want the biggest bang for the buck. They know there's going to be a lot of eyes on this.

they want to make it, you know, have an impact. So they're evaluating a variety of witnesses. There is some lobbying going on behind the scenes about who wants to be in there and who doesn't want to be in there. There have been suggestions made. There have been conversations with these senior staff members who are doing the heavy lifting, right? They're vetting possible witnesses, gathering a lot of information, trying to figure out what should be the focus. You know, the sense that we have, I think, is that at least some of these communications,

meeting members want the same kind of information that we want. They want to hear from whistleblowers who have direct knowledge, hands-on, hands-on experience with these secret programs. Crash retrieval, reverse engineering, that's the hot button issue, right? But there are challenges with getting those kind of people to come, those kind of people come forward, correct? Yeah, yeah. So that's, so, yes, I'd say, you know, the members that are making these decisions, that they're just like you and me. They are interested, but that they have a role of accountability and oversight and a duty to bring information for it if they know it to be correct. And they vetted it. However, like you're saying, what people don't realize is you can do these closed door briefings, which you and I have been and

continue to be a part of where you give information, you give the evidence and proof and data and all that stuff and you can encourage, you know, kind of a higher understanding of stuff. However, if I was a government employee and I was still active and I was an official whistleblower, I would have to really consider, is it better for me to give this information to the people that it's being, the information is being held back from in a closed setting and keep my job and I protected through whistleblower protections and there's official process for that. And some people are going through that process. But do I want to blow up my light? Do I want to endure what we saw, what happened with David Grush, where that, you know, hack of a journalist was leaked information

from an intelligence agency about the mental health of David Grush and tried to use that as a weapon to undermine the testimony of David Gresh. Of course that's going to happen. Of course. So some people are choosing to remain publicly anonymous, yet have their experience. is brought forward publicly so it can be understood. That doesn't mean they want to be sitting there with their face being shown. However, if push come to shove, there are reasons why people would have to do that as a form of protection. So there's different classes of witnesses.

There's people that can speak about generalized knowledge. There's from point of authority. There's people that can speak about secondhand understanding of these programs and UAP in general. And then there are people that can speak from a first-hand perspective. And we're talking from physically working on the craft either in the past or people currently in programs that think about that. Think about how you would nuke your entire career for this ideological perspective that you're being a patron and bringing stuff forward to the degree you can without farming national security. So we have all of these types of witnesses ready to fire. The question is, how does this next hearing go?

You know, we know what's going to happen, no matter who the witnesses are, no matter how qualified they may be, no matter how much direct knowledge they might have, UFO world is going to bitch and moan and whine about it. Oh, no, not that guy. Oh, my God. He's a complete charlatan. That guy doesn't know crap. He wasn't there.

This is the witness it should be. they're going to gripe and bone endlessly. That's part of it. Two, whoever those witnesses are get a lot more scrutiny from unfriendly media, from UFO crazies, from government agencies who probably would prefer that they kept their mouths shut. So it's a perilous little thing to take on for whoever is on that panel. You're going to get crap for it no matter what. Second consideration is, I think there is value in a broad,

scope of understanding of the issue. We know what the learning curve for UFO issues are. This is not something you can learn in a month or six months or a year. It's big. And it's hard to get your head around it. I think this is a learning process for the committee members, for the members of Congress who have a hundred issues that they have to focus on. It is a learning process for their staff. We know they're trying to get up to speed and get their heads around really complicated issues. And thirdly, I mean, a hearing like this should be used to educate the public as well, to bring along the public and give them a basic understanding of just how big and complicated this mystery is and why it's been so hard to get to the bottom of things for so many

years. So I know there are some general, general kind of witnesses that have been considered who could help educate both the committee and the public. And I know that, you know that, you UFO world is going to beat them to a pulp as soon as their names are announced, you know. Yeah. You look, you got to have grit, man. You got to be doing this because you're a patriot. That's the truth. You know, you've got to be doing this because it's good for the country and it's good for

understanding. And when there has been something that has been hidden, look, I was told recently by somebody who would know that we're up against a legacy idea. We are up against the most close hold secret. of all time within our government. And if that is true, then what I was told is we are up against forces where the pushback is beyond our typical understanding of reality of how that can be done. And I have personally witnessed it now. I have personally witnessed it. And so, look, this is about pushback. Let's get in front of this. Let's get everybody tuned in that there are people

that want to testify, that can testify, that should testify, but also they don't want to go through that ringer of having their lives and their jobs completely ruined. Just as of now, right now, oh gosh, I know if I, there are people that are in a position where, I've said this before, where their security clearances are being held in purgatory to make sure they cannot leave programs. That's real and that may come out in finite detail if those types of repercussions keep happening

to people. So we're at a real crossroads, man. This is a crossroads. This is, it's important. We understand the pushback. And all of this will be validated with time. But I think the most exciting thing, George, is kind of that as long as we know and we can see what types of pushback come out against journals.

as well against as against people like David Grush, then we're going to have a context when people do decide to speak publicly and what they're saying. So all these different classes of witnesses, it's going to be really interesting. Again, I'm not at liberty to say where we are, where that's going, but you're going to start hearing it percolate. But I want to talk about something specific because you brought it up, George. We have a colleague and a friend who's a friend of the show, been on many times. Man, I read his articles all the time. I have learned so much. We've done stories together.

I was kind of concerned in this conversations with our friend Christopher Sharp from Liberation Times. I was kind of concerned that as he and I had been talking about how far do you go? What do you expose before you get, you know, dig in deeper over years and try to find out, like, when's the right time to expose something if you believe it to be accurate and you have sources, good sources that are saying it's true? and that's a dance. It's like, do you put it out immediately?

Or are there repercussions? Like, will doors be closed? Will you get threats? Will you be doxed? Will you be outed in some way? So you've got a guy in Chris Sharp who's walking this fine line. Like you and I have done many, many times.

And then you brought something to my attention, George. You said, yeah, Chris is under attack. And I went like online and like looking it up. Didn't really understand it. We should hear from him. But what was your idea, George? in talking with Chris? Well, a couple things.

One is we're talking about pushback. It's real. It happens. It's happened to us. It has happened to Chris as well. Brave young journalist who dives into this topic. I'm just remembering the times when he was first starting out, and we had a lot of conversations and helped give him some guidance. And now he's to the point where, hey, Chris Sharp, can you give us a little nugget?

We have some of your table scraps, some of these big stories that you develop. you know, it's like Luke Skywalker has superseded Darth Vader. Chris Sharp, there he is. The following is an interview with the editor-in-chief of Liberation Times, Christopher Sharp. Chris, what was the story that you published that led to risk for you? Yes, so it was actually the lead of the story was about the UAP disclosure at seeming to have failed again because it did make it. into the Senate's managers pack, which would be negotiated for the National Fet Authorisation Act

when they start talking to the House, although, as Matt Laslow reported, there's still the opportunity to drop that within negotiations and cells. So we still have a glimmer of poke. But I think at the time, I was feeling quite emotional. And I decided to actually, because I've been sitting on information for some months now about an alleged undersea retrieval program. And I just felt it was the right time just to put that into there, put it into the mix, saying, look, we can only be fought it so many times. There is information out there. And I think it's time for some transparency about what is going on in terms of these

seemingly illegal retrieval programs that have not been disclosed to Congress. So I put some details and some breadcrumbs in the article about that program. And then I got nervous. I got nervous. I was always warned that this program, the Undersea's Retrieval Program, is the most sensitive of them all, perhaps, although there may be another while involving space, which you've alluded to as well, Jeremy. But, yeah, I mean, this is something they can get really, really nasty about the gatekeepers. to this program and I'd been warned about that for months, that I should be careful.

So I decided, I thought, I can't put myself through this. So I decided just to delete that section and referencing that, referencing that program. And then what happened is a few days later, someone was looking on Wayback Machine and they found the original story. And they posted up on X and it was a way to try to embarrass me or something like that, I think they were trying to get at. But for me, it was just like, oh my gosh, I don't want this to be magnified. I don't, you know, obviously some people may have seen it, but I don't want people to draw attention to it to put me at potential risk because if it's a bigger story, then it could perhaps

make me at risk, you know. And also this person was using as an opportunity to try to embarrass me. need to say that I made it mistake and stuff like that. But I hadn't. I had taken it down just because I didn't want to run the risk. So what happened when that came out in terms of that person put it up, I decided to put it back up, put the story back up. And I decided to add some more details as well. So that, you know, it made a bigger, bigger impact. If it's going to be out there, you may as well ensure that you put all the details in, that ensures that people can go out and invest.

No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks co-pilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs to help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going and which little extras make the dollar slice work.

Now, Hank has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365 copilot.com slash work. To gate themselves and find further details and get more people's talk. So let's get to brass tax here real quick. So as a journalist, sometimes when you're going after a story, you have to be careful about when you put it out. Because when you put it out, it raises alarms.

And you might still be investigating a thread, and you'll get more if you shut the fuck up about it. So not only do people try to shame you for putting something out, but they also try to kind of highlight that as if, and by the way, I mean, as if you're taking something down, but you were just taking it down because you felt uncomfortable. But let's get really clear why. If UFO activity is more under the water than it is in the sky,

it would make sense that there would be more sensitivity about UAP under the water, specifically because a lot of our greatest and most tighthold assets are underwater assets from recording devices, both audially and visually. That's why they always say in hearings, closed session, when that's brought up in congressional hearings. If you notice that, play the tape, baby, right? There was a closed session. But also because you are revealing some of the people that have allegedly dealt with these

crash retrieval programs that people don't that's not in pop culture yet and i want you to tell and by the way that that is something that connects it very much with me i was told many many years ago from from some of the initial contacts i've had with high high ranking people that i should be looking at u sos and i was like what are you talking about i've got a submarine so this has always been a topic that seems to be really important but additionally chris your experience supposing something. From my understanding, Bobby Ray Yemann used to be one of its directors. So did the former Senator John Warner as well. So yeah, it's something that not a lot of people talk about. Obviously, it's known. Its name is out there. It's not a classified name. But, you know,

like the opposite global access, you know, the name is not classified. But there's very, very little material online that you can find about it. There's no real news articles about it of note. So, yeah, it's something they don't want to talk about so much, let's say. Chris, can you give us two things? One is your thoughts on this troll who attacked you, tried to kneecap your credibility and perhaps put you at physical risk. The same guy who has attacked Jeremy, me, Jacques Valet, Dave Grush, all kinds of

of people. What's going on there? Why someone would go to the trouble of trying to hurt you or hurt your credibility? And then secondly, can you give us the rundown on your original story? We've got little bits and pieces that there's something underwater, but what it was that you found out? Give us a recap on what you were able to document. Yes, yeah, sure. So my thoughts on that person, I mean, I really don't think about them so much. Obviously, they've got beef with me and you guys and Dave and Jack, most likely others as well. That's fine.

I mean, you come across those people some of the times. I just found it really, really odd that he would look back on way back machine, just to search this out. It's like, okay, just someone give you a tip. How did you know to look for this? Are you looking for all my stories of this fine comb? But, yeah, it is what it is.

I think I was quite emotional at the time when I found out that this person had posted it. But look, that's fine. People can attack me all they want. The most important thing is the information. Is the information good? I want people to

redo their own research, see if they could make their own connections with this, because when I was actually doing the research and talking to sources, I was finding that obviously, you know, I wouldn't have published the information unless I had a very, very good, trustworthy source, let's say, that it was coming from.

And also, I did go it verified by another source, but otherwise, no one was talking about it. All I got was no comment. That's classified. I'll get in trouble. So we weren't, you know, everyone was just shutting up, basically. No one would talk about it at all. So that was the issue that I had of it. But, you know, I'm just hoping that the information is good and that it could lead to some new transparency around the UAP topic. And in the long term, it does do some good. So that's all I'm focused on, you know, and day in, day out, I'm looking after my son. I'm looking out of my daughter. I got a really busy life, you know, so it's kind of like you're changing naps one time.

And then you're feeding your son and all this stuff. And, you know, they're saying daddy, daddy, daddy. And then, you know, you get five minutes and you see that people talking a load of rubbish about you online and stuff like that. And you're just like, okay, that's fine. On to the next thing. So, I mean, I've got a really busy life anyway with lots of challenges day to day. So, I mean, that's just another thing on top of it. But my immediate concern, you know, is my son and my daughter, to be fair, not all this drama online. Here's what you had reported. Liberation Times has uncovered details of an alleged program focused on retrieving advanced craft from beneath the sea. Some reportedly non-human or unknown origin.

This program draws on multiple agencies and departments. Among those involved the maritime branch of the CIA's Director of Operations, the U.S. Navy, the National Underwood, Water Reconnaissance Office jointly operated by Navy and CIA, U.S. Special Ops Command, and you said it's further understood Wood's whole oceanographic institution has provided deep submerged vehicles to support these retrieval efforts. That under the ocean, there are craft of unknown origin that have been retrieved and have been sent for analysis to secret labs, defense contractors, much as we heard about UFOs crashing and being quickly recovered. That's the basic, that's the basics of the story, right?

Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely correct. So, you know, we've got collaboration from multiple agencies and offices with the US government working together. So in terms of the National Water Reconnaissance office, obviously that's going to be involved in detection and tracking of crafts. And then obviously you've got your, you've got Woods Hole, which will provide a submersibles, which will help you, you know, get the craft out of the water. And but from my understanding as well, Lockheed, Martin,

have their own kind of vehicles now that can help with that, some merchants vehicles. So, you know, that was a new story I actually put out there a few days ago that U.S. operational, special operational command, special operations command, sorry, was working with Lockheed Martin with their new submersibles. So that's really, really interesting as well.

But yeah, what happens is the CIA do have a maritime branch within the operations directorate. And, you know, from my understanding, they do work with U.S. operational command, special operations command on this. And they have their own kind of like maritime program. within that as well. But I mean, this kind of, it's like the Office of Global Access again. You know, this program isn't dedicated to USOs. You know, a lot of the time they're dealing with Russians, Chinese, other adversaries underwater, but it's from time to time. They will come across something of unknown origin as well. And what they do is they recover these crafts.

and from my understanding what happens is the office of naval research. They're the ones who actually do the, that they handle the recovery of the materials and they ensure that they go to the contractors for analysis to ascertain where they came from, what they're capable of doing. So, I mean, those are the details I've got so far. And obviously, as well, if you look at the Office of Naval Research, you can see that it has facilities and offices dedicated globally all over the world.

So, I mean, it kind of makes sense from that perspective. If you are dealing with a global operation under the seas, you know, it's good to have a footprint in all those places around the world. So, yeah, it's obviously, you know, none of the names I put out there are classified. All these entities are known. All I am doing is based on the information I can give them is basically putting the pieces together in terms of how it may work. One thing I am unclear of that I didn't get the answer to is terms of salvage ships.

How did you get the salvage ships there, especially if it might be a race against time? How did you get them there on time? Is there a form of international cooperation, for example? You know, we know, I think it was like a few months ago that one of the US fighter crafts came down in the ocean. I think it must have been in the South China Sea. and they did a recovery operation, and they actually had to use a salvage ship from Singapore,

which was Chinese made. So, I mean, it might be, again, like the Office of Global Access, you know, it has to work pragmatically. You do what you can with the best resources at your disposal. Keep in mind the Glomar Explorer. Remember that? Howard uses ship that was outfitted by the CIA to go after something they wanted from the bottom of the ocean.

That could be how it works. Jeremy? Yeah, let's get right in front of this. So basically, you are exposing, based on your sources, a potential mechanism for UAP or UFO crash retrievals or just retrievals from underwater. And it implicates the Office of Global Access. It implicates certain individuals and just a mechanism and a process. And if that is accurate information from your sources, right, then that is dangerous in a way. If you know that, you're saying something that other people haven't said. And we do know, and I just want to be really clear again, like it was on the last episode of Weaponized.

We know for sure that there was a UFO, UAP, that we breached the hole of, that there was additionally a material transfer of UIP that was supposed to happen to Ossap from Lockheed, and that that was shut down specifically by CIA involved individuals, and that is in the public now. So I'm not speaking out of school. And there's an individual who is head of science and technology at that time. That is in the public. We've talked about that. So if that is the fact, if that is the case, then as we've always suspected, the CIA has a lot of communication and oversight and kind of their hands in a lot of these retrieval programs.

probably then to fit them and give them with people that can then look at the technology for derivative technologies. So you're exposing something that is not in popular culture yet. A Wikipedia is fleshed out. People are coming at you right and left to try to discredit you, make it uncomfortable, make you afraid. Now you've just done set it and we're out in the public about it. People should jump in and start trying to look at it, get their own sources. And I know you keep fighting for sources. But Chris, I just wanted to say, say, man, that's the job you've chosen. George always says, that's the lively

chose, right? It's like, hey, man, you put it out, and now let's see where it goes. Yeah, I just wanted to add as well, from my understanding the Office of Global Access and the CIA's director of science technology, it seems to always be involved in these operations,

so it does have some form of involvement in oversight as well of these undersea retrieval missions. It's just that, you know, when you're dealing of overseas retrieval missions. You need different units, different agencies involved with different specialisations in terms of undersea retrievals.

And obviously that's a lot more in the US Navy's domain as well to be working with the CIA. Remember, the National Underwater Reconnaissance Office is an office that formed with a partnership between the CIA and the US Navy. However, I mean, some people are telling, now that there seems to have been a wrestling contest between the CIA and the US Navy about who runs that. So I don't know where its current status is, where it's more CIA or more US Navy.

But yeah, it is really, really, you know, something that I want people to dig into and look at, you know, like, like Matt Lasley, those, you know, it's kind of like, it's easier to kind of like disprove rumors and allegations when it comes to political stories by just getting comment from, from members of the Hill, you know, and I think as well that, you know, as much as we can, we should always try to keep it real as well. You know, like I put that, you know, in that story as well, I was reporting that there were allegations that, you know, Rand Paul was to blame for shooting down or the UPDA. But, you know, then what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to seek confirmation from the other way around, you know, can I get a denial from Rand Paul's team?

So, you know, when it comes to these things, you know, I'm looking for information. whether it supports the allegations or whether it doesn't support the allegations. So I'm always trying to keep it real in terms of that as well. But I can say that so far, you know, no one has tried to pull BS on this story in terms of the insiders, let's say, who matter, who do know. But let me also say, you know, there are lots of people that we know insiders, some that have come public as well. there is a good reason why none of them are talking about these programs. And you know and I know that a lot of these individuals have knowledge about these programs. And there is a good reason they're not talking about them because they know that they can get in trouble by getting that information out.

So the risk is really, really real. Chris, you're always welcome here, of course. And please keep us in mind, throw two old guys a bone once in a while, some tables grabbed. Well, one old codger and Jeremy. But come on, man. help us out once in a while. I suspect Chris is going to be breaking some pretty big stories coming up soon. Everybody should pay attention to his work.

Go to Liberation Times. Thank you so much of my friend, Chris. Thank you so much for being here. George and I got your back. But now we're out in front of it. You've said what you said. Nobody's going to mess with you, hopefully, in the same way. But here we go.

I want to talk about another journalist you mentioned Matt Laslo. And I want to do that now. So, Chris, thank you so much. We're going to follow your work as usual. It's going to get exciting, right? Thank you so much, both. Thank you so much. Your kind words as well coming from the OGs.

So thank you very much. George, it's so good to always talk with our friend Chris Sharp, and you're right, man. I mean, we talk all the time, but I'm learning so much from him. And what's cool is, like you and me, we can go independently verify stuff that are not in the same circles. I really think they're teeth. I think there are fangs on Chris's story about, underwater UFO retrievals. And I do think he's taking a risk

from bringing it out now. But I do think that it's going to lead to people's kind of attention and we're going to learn more about it. CIA is involved with the Navy, with these retrievals. With that said, let's shift gears here a little bit.

When I went to the hearing with you, George, and we were at that first UFO hearing where we're sitting there, there was a dude in the front. I recognized him. his name is Matt Laslo and and I'm looking at him and he and he kind of comes up to me first time I ever met him but I'd seen his reporting. I'd followed his reporting. What was unique was that he was able to like jump in front of people with microphones and get the scoop at least what they're saying

to him. You know, as journalists were not responsible necessarily for if that's true. We're reporting what was said. But man, he has been right 99.9% of the time because he's talking directly with members. So I was like, damn, that's Matt. So we had like a quick brief exchange. And then I know on our previous weaponized, we were in the office of Representative Luna and something came out that somebody said. And it wasn't quite accurate. But everybody tried to divide us. They went online and went crazy as if I had said something against Matt.

I didn't. I respect the work he did. I'm pumped about the work he did. And his work is going to be more and more important as these months come up towards the new hearing. So I'm really excited. and you mentioned it, George, we get to have Matt on. So before he comes on, tell me why you think it's important. We talk with Matt right now.

Well, you know, you and I talk to people on Capitol Hill here and there. You are back there for a week and spent time with members and staff. We talk to staff frequently. Matt's there every day. He works. You know, he's there every day interacting with these folks. They know him. He gets a lot of information.

He gets a lot of scoops. And in the context of why he fits also with our previous guest, Chris Sharp, the UAP Disclosure Act, big legislation, supposedly killed. Chris had reported that the UAPDA, if it had passed, would allow Congress to dig into some of these undisclosed programs, things that are operating using public money, deep black budget money, that Congress has no idea about. That would allow them to go after a USO-type retrieval program and find out what's going on. Matt's there on the ground every day reporting the same kinds of things. He broke a fairly big story this past week that again led to

a bunch of crap for him, people raining grief on his head because he said, hey, UAP Disclosure Act may not be dead after all. And it was like he had insulting somebody's mom. Matt, we're so glad to have you here. You do such great work. Let's get into it. The following is an interview with congressional reporter, journalist, and new media professor at John Hopkins University, Matt Laslow. So before I covered Congress, I covered music and entertainment. I've been covering Congress 18 years. I do say that I know how to deal with asshole politicians from dealing with asshole musicians. But music is still my first love.

But, yeah, I'm kind of a nerd for a living. So for Congress, I'm a Wired Magazine contributor where I cover data privacy issues, section 2.30, all that stuff. The TikTok debate, you know, the social media, the whole battle over your kids' data and what these companies do with it, which is sell

on the open marketplace, all that good stuff. Well, then I'm also, I've covered drug policy for a correspondent for Playboy, Rolling Stone, Vice, Vice News Tonight, the general policy reporter for Daily Beast, I worked for the Atlantic. I also got my own bureau where I've covered Congress for more than 60 local NPR stations over the years.

And again, that wire served. John's Hopkins. Yeah. Then on the side of that, I did my master is that Johns Hopkins and our government and public policy program. That's where I now teach in that MA program, teaching kind of history of the media and politics with an eye towards how the press corps and politicians have adapted to new mediums over time, whether that was the telegram, the steamship, or TikTok, and all of that. So yeah, I love the teaching side of what I do, even though I've kind of kept that siloed from my journalism, because I have hope

in the next generation. I don't have any hope in my generation, like my parents' generation failed, you know, but I think the next generation, they can get a lot of things right that we got. Because there's so much distrust in the media and rightfully so, one thing I'm trying to do is take myself out of it. I know that half of the American public doesn't just think I'm fake news. Half of the American public thinks I'm actively lying to them, me and all my colleagues in the media. So that's a huge problem for democracy. And so with Ask a poll, we just put the raw interview out there. lawmakers, as you'll hear sometimes, there's a little silence because we let them go off the record and stuff, sometimes.

But we basically just want to bring people inside the Capitol so you guys can get your questions directly answered by your lawmakers. And I think there's a lot of power in that because, for one, we have the brain trust of this community, and you guys are so knowledgeable. But then two, lawmakers can roll their eyes at me. I'm Matt Laslow, blah, blah, blah. I'm just fake news. They can't roll their eyes at their constituents. And so when I say, hey, to Congresswoman Luna, hey, this is a question from a Florida voter,

she takes that a lot more seriously than she takes me. And so all that said, when it comes to reporting what, because ultimately these are, I've been covering Congress 18 years, I joke that I cover 535 liars for a living. You know, they're all politicians. And more so, they're all subjective beings who only know what they know. And because Congress has hadn't had in the sand for some 50 years, there's a lot that Congress just doesn't know. A lot of questions they don't know to ask, et cetera, let alone the silos that lawmakers think

still exist within the federal government where they think secrets are actively hidden from them. You know, David Grush's claim that they're these hidden SAPs or special access programs. Senators still don't think that part of Rush's claim has been answered, and they're still pressing the executive branch, you know, and trying to shake the tree to get some of those

secrets to fall out. Own it all. Pay off your home. Travel for life. Drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble

responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion. All new drinks are now at McDonald's, with refreshers like the strawberry watermelon refresher, and the mango pineapple refresher with popping boba to crafted sodas like the Spriteberry blast with berry flavors and cold foam. Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire? Try them all now at McDonald's. Refreshers contain caffeine. Copyright 2026, the Coca-Cola Company. Sprite is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.

So Matt, bring us up to date. UAP Disclosure Act. A lot of people had high hopes for what it could do. We get the story that it was, it didn't make it into the final defense authorization bill. It had been cut. Rand Paul gets blamed for it. It's dead in the water. You dug up some additional information, though.

Give us a sense of where it is, is it dead or alive? And if it's dead, who killed it? Well, so I've been on the hunt for who killed it for a year now, ever since last year's NDAA, where Schumer's UAPDA amendment was gutted. And it's fascinated me because I'm like, hey, hey, who gutted the Senate Majority Leader's bill? You know, it's the Senate Majority Leader who usually guts other people's bills. And so I was outside that.

They had that mini public conference committee last year. And I remember just sitting in the hall waiting for lawmakers to leave. And I got a one-on-one with the Hask, the House Armed Services Committee chair, Mike Rogers. And it was interesting because I asked him about it, and he knew about Schumer's Amendment. And he said, yeah, we think parts of it are redundant. Well, so then fast forward, six months later, I talked to Chair Rogers, and he goes, well, my committee, we had nothing to do with it. I talked to the ranking Democrat on Hask.

And he goes, what are you APs again? Yeah. And so then I also pressed, you know, in the Senate, Chair Reid and ranking member Wicker. and I have a new exclusive with Wicker that's coming out, and he kind of likes Schumer, the one we dropped this week, doesn't reply anything. But so I just kept pressing lawmakers on it, but especially Senator Rounds.

Senator Rounds, if they're not familiar with him, he's governor of South Dakota, but he was Schumer's lead Republican sponsor on the UAPDA. And so, you know, him and I through this issue, and also he's big on AI, and I cover that. And so we know each other well. trust him. He's South Dakota. I don't think it's a sin out there to lie. But he is very careful with his words. And that's why in this exclusive we dropped this week, he, you can kind of hear

him catching himself because he knows that negotiations are ongoing, so he doesn't want to say too much. But he does say that negotiations are continuing. And people push back on line, rightfully so, because they're, you know, they've read the Constitution. and they're like, whoa, this isn't how things work, you know, like schoolhouse rock. House passes a bill. Senate passes a bill. They're two different bills. They meet in a room and they're supposed to hash out the differences.

Ha, ha, ha. That's so quaint. You know, some 1950s. No, in this Congress, like, I was there when they crafted Obamacare behind closed doors. Like, literally my job for a few months was to stand outside Nancy Pelosi's office. for 10, 12 hours a day, waiting for them to come out for a break. They would tell us, like, there was one change. We were running off and report it.

Then we would go sit there again. Then when the bill actually came out, the change that had happened was gone. And the lawmaker who got that change would be confused because that's how this Congress works, where there's just knifing of other lawmakers amendments behind closed doors. And so that's where it seems like rounds insurer are kind of using that dysfunction to their advantage on the UAPDA because there's no such thing as regular order in this dysfunctional Congress. Now that they're having to reconcile the House bill with the Senate bill, it seems like according to rounds, he's still got hope, but they might get some, they might get the UAPDA in or at least point. portions of it because it seems like there are active forces, again, unnamed ones, because people on House Intel tell me it's not them.

You know, Turner and Heim say it's not them. So I'm still on the hunt for the culprit. DM me. My DMs are open. Find me on Signal or WhatsApp. Tell me if you know who's gutting it behind closed doors. Rand Paul got blamed for it. And he was the main culprit.

He's opposed and been pretty derogatory toward UFO-type programs in the past. what did he have to do with killing this? What did he tell you about his role in it? Well, so I haven't talked to him. I actually looked for him all week long. He's the top Republican on that investigating the Secret Service fiasco, you know, all the assassination attempts against former President Trump. And so I've seen him a couple times in the past couple weeks,

but he's been, you know, mobbed by a lot of reporters. asking about, you know, the assassination attempts against a former president, which is a show Biden's words. That's a BFD. It's a pretty big effing deal. And so I just haven't been able to get him one-on-one. And it's interesting. I used to cover him for Kentucky Public Radio. And so he knows me well. And so I did reach out to his staff. We'll see. There is going to be an update coming. It's interesting to me that right now, Rand Paul is, you know, getting blame for it and that the blame is sticking from what we know. Because usually he's the outlier on the other side.

You know, usually he's fighting the CIA, you know, their torture program, waterboarding overseas, et cetera. You know, so he's usually the outlier in the Senate swimming in kind of his own direction. It's weird for him to come out against something like disclosure. Because like the Republican Party is like back with the Tea Party was around. There were these like strong libertarian tingees in the Republican Party. And for him to be, you know, he's a ranking Republican on this conference committee. But he's the guy who kills the bill that's supposedly favored by the Senate Majority Leader.

That doesn't seem to make sense. If Chuck Schumer was really pushing for this thing, what is he, why does he roll over for Ray and Paul? That's why I didn't think it made sense. So one thing that's new with the NDAA, and remember, let's take a step back, the NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. There's, what this bill does, it's a massive. It's called a must-pass bill, because if it doesn't pass, then our military, you know, our soldiers, you know, my nephew, who's a Marine boot camp, their mission just stops. Their authorization halts. there's a separate funding bill each year for the military, but this is a needed authorization that Congress has to pass every year.

And so Republicans in the House have done something that we haven't seen in the past. They did it last year and then again this year where they're putting a little bit more politics into it, you know, social policy, abortion stuff, some DIA, what is it, diversity, equity and inclusion, the D-E-I stuff, got some of that language in there. So because Schumer and Democrats control the Senate, it kind of seems, and I've had, I think, Senator Rounds are one of them, kind of agree with me on this assessment. Senator Schumer, when he goes into those negotiations on behalf of Senate Democrats, he's already at a disadvantage because the first thing he says is, hey, this isn't going to

pass if there's abortion language, isn't going to pass if there's needs. So he already gets a big win and big concessions on a lot of hot button issues just because he's like, there's no way this can pass with any of that in it. So automatically he knocks off a lot of those amendments or riders that the house put in. So he kind of loses bargaining stature, loses bargaining power from the get-go in these dynamics. And so that's one theory I have that, again, lawmakers have supported me. that it's a little too kind to Schumer because like this week when I asked Schumer, you know, he was leaving. He was flanked by his security detail. He's heading into his

black SUV. I run after him and just yell out like, hey, you know, any update, you know, what's happening with her? UAP amendment in the NDAA doesn't say anything. And I think that's probably because he doesn't really have a clue what's going on. I think he pushing this issue out of a promise he made to former majority leader Harry Reid. And so he's, you know, fulfilling that promise. But I think he's got a staffer who he's tasked with it. I know last year he got on the Senate floor and did that colloquy with rounds. So he's read in on it.

It was interesting last year when I asked him about David Grush. Well, there he at least gave a no comment. And there, that was interesting. because he knew the name David Grush. He knows about this UFO whistleblower. And so he's not as dumb as he plays, but I think he doesn't want to be associated with this like Harry Reid was. And whether that's indifference or whether that's he doesn't want it on his resume per se.

I don't quite know. He's a hard one to figure out. It is intriguing that no one has stepped up. forward to say, yeah, I killed it, you know, if they really wanted it. Right. Be proud of your work. Yeah. You know, it's the same thing last year when various House members, committee chairman, were blamed,

and then they all came, most of them came out and denied. No, no, it wasn't me. It's weird in that it's the only issue, one of the only issues, where there is bipartisan support, both houses, both parties. I mean, in the House, the loudest voices, the most vociferous proponents of disclosure are Republicans, Birchett, Luna, but there are some Democrats in there as well. In the Senate, it has been Democrats, along with a couple of Republicans. It might be the only issue in the Capitol Hill where there is bipartisan support. Amen. That's 100% true statement. Well, it's funny,

that and pot politics, because I also covered cannabis. And like in Mitch McConnell's Kentucky, 70 some odd percent of Republicans support, you know, upending the war on drugs. And yet McConnell and them oppose it. And so that is where this issue, UAPs has been a breath of fresh air in a, you know, hyper-gridlocked and hyper-disfunctional Congress. You know, it's an election year. So there's been some attempts to put a little politics into it, like, oh, we're not having hearings.

We didn't have hearings this summer because Republicans are, you know, in discerpts. Ray, blah, blah, blah, blah, which I called those members out. I'm like, keep politics out of this one at least. The interesting thing about the UAPDA and the NDA is so I used to cover Congress for Connecticut Public Radio, where ranking Democrat on Hipski, the House Intelligence Committee, Jim Himes, he's from Connecticut, so I know him will. He kind of, I'm a thorn in his side, on this issue, but I still trust him. He's so 100% convinced that Arrow has answered all the questions, that, you know, there's no there there that he's just checked out.

And so with that, that really empowers the chair of that committee, Chair Turner, who I used to cover for Ohio Public Radio, Mike Turner. Let me just put it this way. This week, after months of trying, I'm not. I finally made headway with the House Intelligence Committee, Republican side, possibly with the most powerful person on that side, let's say. And they told me, you know, on background, that they don't give a shit about this issue.

And so now I'm like, all right, if I am Tom, folks, Democrat and folks on the Republican side on Hipski, the House permanent select intelligence, then saying that they've washed their hands of this issue, well, that can mean that either Chief of Staff is super empowered on this, or it can mean that someone at the Pentagon who has the trust of that committee is super empowered

and they can just get their will done. Because if you have ranking, yeah, it's literally I've had, And I trust these folks because I've covered Mike Rogers, or I trust him enough. But I've covered Mike Rogers, the head of Hask, for Alabama Public Radio. You know, and so, and who's the other guy from Washington State? I've covered him for K-U-O-W in Seattle. And so none of them, none of those four heads say they give a shit about this issue.

I'm part of my French. But so that means someone there in the background is super, super empowered. because none of those people at top care about it. And I kind of, because asking Joe Courtney, Joe Courtney is the second most powerful ranking Republican, pardon me, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. Well, he's from Connecticut. So he knows Heim as well.

I was like, hey, if you, I asked him at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. I was like, hey, have you ever talked to Heim's about UAPs? And he's like, no, no. I asked for an NDAA update. and he's like, UAP just hasn't come up at all. And if you recall, on the House side this year, no one even brought up an amendment in the little committee they had, you know, when they were crafting it.

And so the House showed. And then part of that is because no one on the Congressional UAP caucus is on, or Nancy Mace is on Armed Services, but she's way, this is her first year on the, or first, session on the committee. So she's the lowest in seniority. So she's powerless for now. And she's kind of wisely learning the committee, learning the seniority, and like getting your name out there. She'll be able to flex on that committee in due time. So that's where it's interesting that now attention is back on Rand Paul in the Senate because Senator Rowland says he's negotiating

with someone in the house. And he thinks because of the negotiations with the house that they might be able to get it in. That's where to me there's just, when I hear people online so definitive in their understanding of this, I'm like, how are you definitive? None of the principals who I've talked to

have any clue what's going on, which is a little bit unsettling. Jeremy and I talking with this a lot in that I think the public doesn't realize the intense lobbying power of the combined forces there, the Pentagon, their base is basically everywhere, and every member of Congress wants to be pro-D-D. These defense contractors are huge corporations who hand out lots of money. I mean, if somebody wants to kill it, there are a variety of different ways that pressure

can be exerted. CIA, who knows, if they use blackmail or arm twisting, or they have a lot of power to kill legislation like this if they want to do it, correct? Well, and yes, yes, of course. but also there's such power in indifference, you know, and if you see someone who doesn't care about something, you know, if you work in a company and you see like, oh, no one cares, like, our social media hasn't been updated in like four years. Well, you can own that, you know, and boom, you can like prove your bosses, like, you know, you can just see that like, oh, there's a fruit on the ground, I'm going to pick it up. It seems to me like that's more what's happening.

Just the indifference of the issue is really empowering someone or some entity. And I don't think there's enough curiosity yet. So, like, again, UAP caucus, a lot of those members are first-term lawmakers or second term or third term. So, you know, some of these lawmakers have been there, you know, 50 years. swamp creatures or even almost two decades like me. I have to remind myself that I'm a swamp creature as well at this point. A lot of self-doubt over here these days, but I think it's good.

We need more of that in this godforsaken town. And so I think there's really that indifference has empowered someone. And because those lawmakers who are at the table, because this isn't their first issue, third issue, fifth issue, sixth, the tenth issue, they've allowed someone to just manipulate the process and just got Schumer's amendment in front of his face, which again, I think he's kind of fine with that because he's able to fulfill his promise to Harry Reid and just get something passed. And that's where I think the outcry from this community last year where they had to do that soliloquy.

Like, they didn't fight very hard for it. But they did the public soliloquy to show the UAP community, hey, we care about this. Well, in the background, they didn't care that much. And so we're kind of seeing a repeat of that. And so I think the more they hear from you all on this, because even at basketball, we alerted lawmakers on the UAP caucus in the House that the UAPDA was back in play this year.

And so again, like, I always say Congress is its own universe. But within that own, that separate universe, you have the Senate, which is its own universe. And then you have the House, which is its own universe. And so you have just like the dysfunction of this Congress just makes it so there's no lines of community. There's not very well-laid lines of community. communication, even between members who are like-minded on some really big issues like this one. Yeah. So listen, I'm, you know, I'm kind of ignorant to the politics and George and you are way more tuned into it, but I think a lot of our audience might not be. But what I'm hearing, and if you can

kind of explain or confirm to me that what I'm hearing is correct, is that the indifference is kind of a problem, that some people that you see as like the figureheads of this might not be the ones really pushing for it. I find it astounding that you're able to jump in and get a quote from an unsung hero of the UAP disclosure movement, which is Senator Rounds. And you've been able to be there and get on audio, direct quotes about this, you know, inciting or sorry, informing the American public that someone like him is saying, it's not dead yet. And that's right out of the horse's mouth. So I, first of all, I commend you for your work. I'm very, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, proud of you. I don't know you that well, but like, damn, man, you're going for it. And you're

asking people the weird and hard questions and you're getting answers on the record. And I want to make sure we push our audience over to hear when you break news like this on Twitter or Ask a poll. I'll ask you how people can find you at a moment. But what I'm also hearing is that you're saying somebody is empowered by this indifference, meaning that there's some sort of overlord that's taking advantage of being able to dismiss the UAP thing or try to contain it or even just to shape the emerging UAP narrative. So I'd like to ask you, I mean, do you have any idea? I know you said you're on the hunt, but do you have a suspicion of who is trying to influence

the public's understanding of UAP behind the scenes? Who's empowered? Do you have any idea? Well, here's the crazy thing. You use Overlord, which, yeah, could be what we find. It also could be an underlord, like someone who doesn't matter. Like, again, there is such indifference from these key principles on the Intel committees. That quote, we've got another exclusive at Asgapol that we're going to drop with Senate Intel chair Mark Warner, where I ask him, like, hey, did you hear about Gillibrand?

that she's having a UAP hearing with, you know, the new head of Arrow. He's like, no. Chilla Brand sits on both Intel and Armed Services. She's running. She'll be chairing. She says she's chairing a November hearing in the Senate, public one with Arrow. She says, she'll be chairing that from her Armed Services subcommittee that she chairs. But I'm like, how do you bifurcate this?

Like, you're one of just six lawmakers in the Senate. They weren't just six U.S. senators who sits on both the armed services and the Senate Intel Committee. Well, armed services overseas America's, you know, the military industrial complex and the troops, two separate things. And so that's, that committee is so integral to the nation's intelligence that, for me, as a novice, you know, looking from the outside, I think those two would just be wet at the hip. But no, they're siloed. So that's where even in this Congress, they're siloed. And so I really am on the hunt for whether it's, you know, someone super powerful, a super powerful corporation because we are all, we're also pushing lawmakers.

And you guys said, you know, this is the most bipartisan issue. So sitting outside of the skiff on the house side where they're, you know, having these UAP briefings, it's fascinating when AOC, you know, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez comes out. And, you know, then Tim Burchett is a member of the Freedom Caucus. You know, those two groups, like the progressive squad and the, you know, eight spending freedom caucus, those are the furthest, most extreme wings of this Congress and this nation. And yet they're both at the same table on this issue.

AOC, she tells me and tells us at Ascapul, she's at the table because she's skeptical of the, you know, military industrial complex of the nation's contracting industry. And she thinks they're way too powerful, which I should say, a lot of them are based in Connecticut where Jim Himes is. So I've still got my eye on you, Mr. Himes. And so that's where you are, and even Nancy Mace, who's going to be chairing the House UAP hearing. on November 13th, she's kind of, she comes at this skeptical of the military industrial complex and the contracting industry. And so that's where we've been sniffing around and especially basketball, we're just like riding the coattails of these lawmakers on this one specifically

because it's an interesting theory that the Pentagon has washed its hands of this by outsourcing what they know to a contractor. You know, we don't have that proven, but that's one thing we're exploring. And that's one thing these lawmakers are exploring, I think, because they've heard no so much from, you know, the regular lines of communication. And again, well, this takes me back, you know, Arrow. So lawmakers are dubious to them, and someone like Himes takes them at their word. The question becomes, how much information does Arrow have?

and some people think they have access to everything. Well, if they don't, and if people at the Pentagon, the Pentagon's been there a lot longer than Arrow, if the Pentagon is doing what the Pentagon does and keeping stuff siloed from itself, which the Pentagon is very good at. Oh, no, no, no. You're completely wrong.

We heard it from Kirkpatrick. They had access to everything. You know, don't get you started on that line sandbag and SOB. I've hated his like media tour since leaving because I want to remind everyone, hey, right before you resigned, you had four private or three private meetings where Mike Rounds met with you one-on-one and pushed you on the fact that whistleblowers within the armed services today and veterans do not trust you. So you're failing at your mission. Senator Gillibrand had a one-on-one meeting with Kirkpatrick and said, hey, you're failing at your mission. Whistleblowers are coming to my office because they don't trust your office. Well, then we broke the news that Senate Intel chair Mark Warner and vice chair, Marco Rubio,

had a one-on-one private meeting with Kirkpatrick and said, hey, you are failing at your mission because whistleblowers are contacting us. And as Rubio told us, he's like, he kind of is like, I'm so annoyed. by this because he's like, we outsource this. He didn't say outsource, but he basically said, we set up Arrow to do this thinking for us. So they basically outsource their thinking on this issue to Arrow because you, they heard from this community so much that they were like, all right, we have to do something. Let's set up Arrow. And what they told Kirkpatrick is you're failing because you're supposed to be the Senate or Congress's brain trust, you know, our thinking and our investigative arm on this

issue, and yet Kirkpatrick you would have failed. And so when he's trying to like recreate history, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Kirkpatrick, you got it spanking and then you walked off the field. You're pathetic. You can't be a revisionist. So George, I want to hear your final

thoughts on this, but I think one of the things that I want to just make sure I'm clear on, you and I have said, George, we believe the Senate hearing that Jill Abrat is setting up, is going to be a repeat of, oh, Mr. Kirkpatrick, how can I comb your hair for you? How do you need more money?

I mean, it's not going to be a hearing like we're going to have in the house. Just real quick, Matt, do you agree? Wait, can I do my job and ask you guys questions? Do you guys know the new head of arrow? I'm not familiar at all. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save?

Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected.

When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. This summer, serve up the cookout classics, Oscar Meyer hot dogs and Heinz mustard. Grill up a dog, add classic yellow mustard, or loaded Chicago style. We all know it's not a cookout

without Oscar Meyer and Heinz. People we know know him well, but Matt, it doesn't... Do they trust him? Why not? People we know that George is close with and people I know trust him. However, and he's making...

I'll tell you this. He is making the right calls, meaning he's calling certain people physically that I know, and asking the right questions that makes me think at minimum. He understands there's a problem with the PR look of Arrow.

I'm not going to go further than that, but just he knows there's a problem that they failed at their public relations engagement. However, I hope, and George and I hear that he's a, he understands that there needs to be a change at Arrow, but I believe that the box that Arrow is that was created was rigged from the, the beginning, that it's a blue box, like blue book, and that even if he's a good guy,

can he push outside the walls of that? And my thinking is no. But so, so that's what George and me, maybe, and George can speak on this. That's what kind of where we're coming from. But I just want to know what the, what you think the Senate hearing is going to be like this. George and I think, if I, if you agree, George, it's just another whitewash. Yeah. And it's interesting because Jill Abrand, who, um, it's interesting. We launched an Ask a Pole crypto, just like we have an Ascopal drugs, but now we have that, you know, Ask a Pole UAP. Joe Brand is big on crypto.

And so kind of these days, every other time I see her, I'll ask about UAPs or crypto because she usually doesn't have an answer for me on UAPs, and I don't want to make her sweat too much because, like, she's always sweating when she sees me. So I'll, like, throw her a bone sometimes and just ask her, ask her about crypto. And when I ask her about crypto, oh, we'll have a long conversation, and she knows everything. When I ask by UAP, it's short.

And, like, in her defense, a lot of this is classified, et cetera. But with this, what she's gearing up for, I think, after getting so frustrated with us at Aske Pohl, you know, in our community, I call the Ask a Pole Army. But because everyone's been sending us great questions for her, and we've been impressing her, she, and, you know, she's a mother. and the feeling I get and God bless mothers everywhere,

she kind of looks at Arrow as her baby. And you have this bipartisan feeling in the Senate that Arrow's their baby. Like they just set this thing up a couple of years ago. Now there's bipartisan frustration that the baby's not walking. Like what? What's wrong with this baby? You've given us examples of private meetings.

And she does seem to have authorship of it, but you're telling me behind the scenes, people like Carpatrick, you failed at your mission. George, what are your thoughts on all of this? Well, I'm the guy who always finds the dark cloud inside the silver lining. Glass is not half full. It's barely got a couple of drops in it, as I'd never expect to see genuine disclosure ever. These are these powerful forces that have killed it for all these years are still trying to kill it. And, you know, elected members of Congress might pay lip service to.

it, but I don't know that it's a top priority for anyone. The most encouraging image burned into my head is from that hearing in 2023, where over literally on the left is Jamie Raskin and AOC sitting together asking good questions. Over on the right, fittingly, is Burchett, Luna, Gates, Mace, also asking good questions. That's the most encouraging thing I've seen there in a long time, that there are polar opposites, polar opposites politically who are deeply interested in the topic. I think all those people have genuine interest. Same time, I see Jilla Brand, who's led this charge for a while, who seems to have rolled over for Kirkpatrick and bought, at least publicly, bought his bullshit. And, you know, I see that the UIP Disclosure Act that gets killed again.

Maybe and maybe not. I'm encouraged by what you've told us about Senator Rounds. I hope it's still alive. I hope it is. And the Gillibrand, I don't think it's that she trusts Arrow. And I'm going to speak for her a little bit. So I'd love for her to correct me if I'm wrong here. We've interviewed her a lot.

You know, you can go check the tape ataskapole.com. We've got Gillibrand on probably the most. And so sorry, ma'am. Not sorry. But I feel like she's got hope for Arrow. Because again, behind closed doors, she pushed Kirkpatrick. So she's like at once a cheerleader for Arrow,

but then she's also critical in pushing it and pushing the administration on disclosure. Because, you know, after Grush's plan came out last year, Chilogrand offered an amendment to the NDAA that said, hey, if there are any SATs out there that are funded by us, because constitutionally, I've got my little pocket constitution near me. But constitutionally, all funding starts with Congress.

And so to smoke out the administration, Jill Brand had an amendment saying, if there's any SAP out there that's funded by us, we need to know about it. And asking her and rounds about that amendment, which they were able to pass last year, asking how much they trust it, both of them were like, no, we're pretty sure they're still hidden SAPs, you know, special

access programs for us. And so like, that's a little unsettling to me as, you know, usually political reporters want to like, go cover the White House. No, no, no, no, no. According to the Constitution, Congress is first, you know, they speak and represent the people. And so that's where here, the power of you all pushing them, I think, is kind of paying off. because yeah they weren't talking about this a year ago yeah yeah yeah so mad i want to end here but i want to say thank you so much and i want to encourage you on something what i just heard you say is that the voices of people being loud about this is actually having influence in the halls of power and the halls of congress so i want to encourage people to be fucking loud about the uap issue and i also want to

encourage people to go look at your excellent work and your excellent reporting where you're jumping in front of people and, you know, trying to get some answers for us and to engage you with what it is that you should be asking them. So just to kind of wrap this up, because I'm going to keep watching your work and your work is going to be more important now than ever before on this topic. Because we have new hearings coming, how do people find you and communicate with you so you can do your work? Just give it to us. So ask a poll.com, again, because UAPs are our OGs, original gangsters, you guys get, I have the handle for Ask a Pole UAPs. But right now, our UAP community just gets Askopold.com.

We've got a very active private chat there. If you've got something that's more secret or whatever that you want to get up to me and don't want to talk about it, they're ping us. You can send me a private message. I'll also share with you privately, your DMs, my signal. I'm on Signal, WhatsApp, proton mail. And, yeah, if you have great information,

good information makes me powerful. Because when I ask my questions, and, yeah, lawmakers legally can't, you know, they're not supposed to talk to me about classified information. But when I go up to them and ask them a question with,

classified information as if it's not classified, that's when they talk to me about classified information on the record, which we have a lot of at aska pole.com. That's happened before. That's happening before. So here's the deal. Not to tell people to color outside of the lot. What people can do is people can go to aska pole.com and they can feed you questions and you will go right to people and get them on record. And I hope we can play a few of those audio clips of your great work on this show as you're talking. Oh, yeah. So either way, Matt, thank you so much for being on with us.

I hope people tune into your work. It is our job not to let social media divide journalists like us when we are all working towards the same thing. So I'm really glad that you're here. George. Let me ask one last question. You know, our earlier guest, Chris Sharp, has taken some lumps because of stories that he's done.

Are you getting hammered, beat up, punched on social media by the same kind of trolls. Yes, but again, I've been doing this 18 years. So I must be a masochist on some level. Matt, you're on the front lines. I appreciate you very much in what you do. Thank you so much for joining us on Weaponized, and I look forward to watching your work as everything heats up to these new hearings.

I know we're going to hear it first for me many times. So thank you so much. Thank you all so much for having me. George, man. It's so cool to see people jumping in and be in active reporters on the UAP thing. It's so different than when you started. What a cool time.

That's maybe the most encouraging thing that's happened is my profession, our profession, journalism has changed over the past 35, 40 years in that there are a lot of people, smart young reporters like Matt and like Chris Sharp who are digging in deep, who've developed their own sources, reporting on this stuff on a regular basis. You know, there is strength in numbers. It's great to see other professional journalists willing to take this on because as we heard from both of them, there are consequences for it. There is truth and there are consequences. And when you get down in this rabbit hole, it not only becomes an overwhelming challenge because the learning curve is so deep, but there are consequences and effects of doing solid reporting.

people come after you, just knucklehead trolls on social media and more experienced manipulators of public opinion. We'll just leave it at that. You know, so I am encouraged that that's happened. I'm also encouraged that there are going to be hearings, that there's a bipartisan group in the House that wants to have this hearing in November, that there is a bipartisan group in the Senate that wants the same thing, although a different focus. Two hearings in two houses in one month, that's that's historic that's that's great yeah it's such an interesting time and i know that it's gonna heat as we get towards the new hearings and um i you know kind of walk in a line here but i think it's gonna be i i think some aspects are going to be revelatory for people i really

hope so and um i just think we're we're really on a good path but george you and i have a lot of work to do before the hearings on November 13th, if that date sticks, which it should stick, I think people should be very encouraged. Watch the reporting. A lot will be coming out, you know, just informationally and visually. I don't know what you're talking about. Oh, Bigger's wrong, gang. Here we go, baby.

Maybe some hints. Anyway, yeah, it's great to talk to you. That was a cool episode. Those two guys, that was great stuff. And you and I have a lot to discuss. Yeah, the pushback is real. We've got to keep right out in front. with people and journalists like that because it's not just trolls online. There's a lot going on.

But, you know, we've got to keep fighting it. Thank you so much, George. Talk to you soon. Never has so few had so much to tell, but could say so little.