Ex-CIA Agent Speaks Out: JFK, 9-11, UAPs, MLK, MKUltra & Everything Trump Is Hiding

>> Thanks a lot for doing this. How long are you at CI? I joined the CIA in 2013. I was in state department before that private sector.

I served a second range of a time before that.

“Second range of a Italian state department CI, when do you leave CI?”

I retired on 30 June, so real recently, month ago. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Last year you became a whistleblower. That was before last year, but yes, I think it started long before last year

and had to do with vaccine mandates, which is a separate topic from COVID origins. But yes. >> You first came into my attention anyway, for it and thank you for fitting vaccine mandates. Almost evil things as countries have been done.

But COVID origins, you went very public, you testified in the Congress. Why did you decide to do that? >> Well, there's a spina. That helps make a decision process. So, but in all honesty, I came forward and I had done a transcribed interview

for six hours and 40 minutes behind closed doors, with the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. When it looks like that the CIA was obstructing our investigation. When it looked like every obstacle was being put in place. When the spina came, I was frankly, I was happy to go.

I was happy to speak publicly. >> But then you become, I mean, you're in a different category once you do that.

“I think that's a big decision, isn't it?”

>> It is, you know, I hate to say it. I had some practice with the COVID vaccine mandates. And frankly, you know, maybe we'll be touching on this earlier. But that story that came out publicly on May 13th in front of Senator Rand Paul's committee. I had passed that story to the Senate Select Committee of an on intelligence in April of 2024.

I had also given it to the home to the House Permit Select Committee on Intelligence to Oversight bodies in 2023. And the first time I came and spoke to the House Permit Select Committee on Intelligence, on COVID origins, was actually in November of 2021. Now the story was a little different then.

But I came forward multiple times trying to let them know that we're being lied to. >> So those two committees, you pronounce their, I mean, you spelled out their formal names, but just the House and Senate Intelligence. >> Right.

>> The Oversight, this is the legislative branch's oversight of the most powerful,

are you being the most powerful agencies in the government, which have very little civilian control, particularly CIA, think they're only what three appointees at CIA, believe three appointees, which is, in my opinion, not enough. >> Of course, totally crazy, because it means whoever's elected by the public doesn't have any control over this agency, which I think is proof in truth.

But anyway, the control is supposed to come from the Congress in the form of these two committees. So when you tell them something really rotten is happening in CIA where you work, you expect they're going to do something about it. >> I did, and I think COVID opened my eyes, I was naive, I was, I was an operations officer. So I didn't, I most of the time, I spent most of my time out in the field collecting intelligence,

recruiting spies, that was my job. I was not an analyst, I was not collecting other people's intelligence and turning it into finish intelligence, and I was a bit naive about you're doing the traditional work, when people hear the term CIA, they think of what you were doing for a living. >> Yes, which is not what most people there do.

>> Correct, correct, you know, the director of operations does the conducts the operations for the agency, we collect the intelligence, and this is why this whole thing in foreign countries. >> Correct, you know, I, I was gifted, many things from the agency, I was gifted Mandarin language training, Arabic language training, I could use some brush up on Arabic, but my

Mandarin is still pretty good, you know, and they give us a lot of authority to live and work overseas, I love the job, I love the job, and despite everything that's happened,

“I actually still think if you're a motivated, critical thinker, you should try and get”

into the director of operations, it is fun job, it's a good job.

>> I tried to get in for that exact reason, probably never should have admitted that, because

I've been accused of being a tool to say, I have a sense which I'm not, I think it's enough to make it clear, I'm not, but I just, for that reason, I thought it's like a very interesting job. >> It's great, interesting. >> You don't think about the politics, there's no politics in the field, it's such a small

group of people that you get to come back and talk to about what you're doing, so if you're in the office to come back and you're like, hey, I collected this intelligence, I recruited this by, I did this operational act.

a special, it was a blessing and a gift, everything good in my life was touched by working

“at the CIA, which is why COVID woke me up to sort of the mess.”

I mean, we're supposed to be in people laugh when they're not living in McLean, Virginia, headquarter, near headquarter, you're like a broad, right, for a lot of news time.

>> Most of my career, yeah, it was a broad, it was a broad, and I loved it, I finally

came back to headquarter in 2019, right before COVID hit, and being a CIA case officer, or even any intelligence officer, your job, and people are kind of laugh, especially when you say our job is truth, so we go out, we go into this sea of misinformation, lies, the difference types of motives, and we're supposed to pull out that little tiny nugget of truth right it up and present it to policymakers so that they can make wise decisions.

In the most altruistic way, that is what we're supposed to do, and what COVID revealed was most of us don't, most of the agency, they lost their sense of discernment, they gave

up on taking a hard look at what was happening all around them, and I could not believe,

I was running work on financial intelligence against strategic rivals, and I had an office, I was running two big branches, and I had like seven people who'd come into my office every day and like, we're not crazy, we're not crazy, this, this masking, this thing where they want to test us all the time, like this shot, we're not crazy, this doesn't seem right,

“and that was, that's what started me down the road, there's a few other things before that,”

it was, you know, few other things before that that opened my eyes, but I'm also a slow learner, I mean, I spent some time in the Middle East looking at dumpster fires and, well, you know, I know we didn't actually get this done, but thank God we're here for democracy, so I mean, I own that, you believe that. I did, I did for a long time, I no longer, I think that we probably should take a good hard look at the decisions we're making on foreign policy, and I think that whole

thing about no new foreign wars was probably a good idea. Most Americans were strongly in

a favor of that, playing in the platform. How ownership has always been at the center of the

American dream, it is an actual asset in place, people work their entire lives to build, place of stability and security and real value. Right now, though, too many homeowners are stuck, swiping credit cards to cover groceries, there's basically a survival tax of 20% interest or more, so why keep handing your money to the banks when you could keep it for your family, interest is what kills you. Our friends at American financing have a better way, they're helping

homeowners use their hard earned equity and their supporting Americans looking to fulfill the dream of owning a home with mortgage rates currently in the fives. American financing saves its customers an average of $800 a month, that's about 10 grand a year. It's not just a loan, it's a true financial reset. We recommend American financing, they're called America's home for home loans for a reason, so get out of credit card debt. I mean, it is just crazy to borrow money.

No judgment, but it's just making any sense to borrow money at that rate. If you want out, call 800, 685, 56, 96, 800, 685, 56, 96 are visit American financing.net/tucker. So you come out in this, let's just start with your testimony before Ranch Hall's committee about COVID origins, so there's a point point where did COVID come from do you believe? It was a lab incident, there was a lab incident in Wuhan, and it's spread from, it was already, the cat was already out of the

“bag. I think if I, you know, people look at my public testimony, I'm convinced that the intelligence”

community could have made a pretty sound assessment by mid 2020, that there was a significant chance that this was some variety of lab incident that occurred that caused this pandemic. And a lab incident changes how we view public health, public health policy. So if it's a natural incident, I have a feeling, you know, if Americans, and I, I said this during the testimony, if Americans knew that the basis for the vaccines, for example, came from a nucleotide sequence

that was given to us by the Chinese government. And we just took it, put it into a computer model and said, "Oh, here's our vaccine." And people like, "But didn't you just say it came from some lab in China?" And Wuhan, they probably would be a little more hesitant to put that in their body.

We got, I think it was, I forget the exact date. It was early January. The nucleotide sequence

“was sent from the Chinese CDC over to, I believe it was our CDC, but it was sent over to”

the health establishment here in the United States. We took that. And it was, it was put into a computer modeling that, I mean, my guess is there was probably a lot of previous work done on COVID. So, I'm sorry, on coronavirus research, I should precise on that. There's all sorts of coronavirus that we've been looking at over the over the years. It was a famous outbreak, of course, in Asia. So, do you believe, so you believe that the virus just escaped from the lab, the famous lab in

Wuhan? Do you think it was an accident? I think that we need more data from the CIA to

actually fill out what Director Gabber was doing. But yes, I think that it escaped from a lab in Wuhan, and it's spread everywhere inadvertently. And it's, I think, I think. There's no direct evidence

“right now that says, yes, they did it deliberately. That's quite a hedged answer. There's no direct”

evidence right now that they did it deliberately. So, the possibility exists. Possibility exists, because, I mean, I'd love to give you a direct answer. But the CIA would have had to have given the information that was requested from Director Gabber's Director's initials group. That probably could have cleared everything up. When I conducted an investigation, actually an intelligence operation, if I'm going after a target, I first thing I do is put together a timeline. Okay,

a timeline of events, known things about the target that we're investigating. If I don't have everything that goes in that timeline, I can't, I can't give you a full answer, right? And won't CIA simply refuse to provide the information. And it's, it was obvious early in the outbreak that this was from the lab. I mean, there were Chinese researchers who've said it. And then subsequently,

you know, disappeared. But people were saying this from February of 2020. Yeah. And, and it always

seemed likely to me. But the US government from the very beginning went along with this pangolin lie. Yeah. And then subsequent to that, even when it became obvious that it was a lie, we were describing continued to cover up. Why? Well, um, part of the reason, I mean, Fauci is part of that reason. And, you know, I'm going to be very blunt about it. And since I'm going to be blunt and also give my opinion, um, you know, when I was sitting in front of the

Senate, I want to make sure I was very accurate. And everything I said, I don't want to give some supposition. But I will give a little supposition here as well. Because, you know, I have a brain,

“I think, you know, I've got synapses that fire off. And occasionally, when I see data,”

I don't, I, you know, if it looked, yeah, quacks like a duck, right? So, um, I think Anthony Fauci was fully aware that, um, the funding that had gone on for various types of dangerous research, dangerous gain of function research, have been going on for a very long time, okay? Different viruses, different bacteria. And, um, you know, there are I see connections to, for good, good reasons as well, biodefense. I see connections to, to, to research that goes on. But, um, I think

they understood that a house of cards was going to fall down. If this, if this got out too quickly, that, that there is a distinct possibility that American know how American expertise, I mean, we really do, I mean, I take a look at some of the scientists that the I.C. relies on for, for expert advice. These people are really, really impressive people, okay? Um, you know, they, they, uh, they were see funding to go do research. They're involved in health. They're

involved in biodefense. All the sudden, you've got a virus that looks, boy, it's sure, there's, there's a couple ties, the tie, the financing, over to Wuhan, China. He had to know, he had to know what that looks like at the end of the day. So instead, based on everything that's out there, he gets the proximal origins of SARS-CoV-2 written with his buddies. That paper gets waived around the I.C. as the end all be all, as the paper to prove that, yes, it's, it's a zoonotic

origin. Um, and he had to know when he's pushing these type of experts, I'm a variety of experts that he pushed towards the I.C. Once in February of 2020 and again, in June of 2021,

And, um, unfortunately, I'm going back to the comment I made before, you know, some people just appeared to swallow like, hook line and sinker. I, there was actually, I read an email where

a very senior person and I, I wish I could name names, but a very senior person waived that basically

waived that paper around and said, well, we've got our answer. That was, somebody was in a position to, to sort of influence, not sort of, in a position to influence how the I.C. looked at SARS-CoV-2.

“Why are they covering it up now? How do she's gone? New administration. I think that, um,”

there's an embarrassment piece. Again, I think, you know, you don't want to be caught with your pants down. I think that, um, you want to be caught at all covering up for a global pandemic that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Yeah. So there's, I think, um, I think, seeing, and hold on, let me be very clear about who doesn't want to be caught with their pants down, causing a global

pandemic. Um, very, the senior people within, um, denies, um, the part of the denies that's

responsible for looking into WMD matters and file weapons matters. And the weapons account of proliferation center over at the CIA, there's very senior people over there that had a heavy hand in what happened. And it's not the analyst, like the, the technical analyst that we're, we're pushing, saying, hey, listen, guys, this looks like this is a lab leak. Their careers were destroyed for pushing. If this is the story that I really want to make sure

it gets out. I want to correct the record. They were not bribed. There was, there was a number of analysts inside the CIA. And they did everything in their power to include writing a, uh, little dissenting mail that went all the way up to the top of WCPMC, saying, hey, listen, guys, we're technical experts. And I'm, I'm paraphrasing, obviously. We have this much expertise. And it's, it looks like a lab leak. Their careers were destroyed after that. They weren't no longer

part of that establishment. And, um, if there's ever, um, so the entire leadership of CIA swung behind this lie that it was from an animal. Yeah. And why are they still doing it? Well, because, because I, well, tell you what, when the CIA produces the documents that were requested

“to help finish the investigation, I think we'll have a better answer on that. But how can”

CIA get away with not producing those documents or documents from the Kennedy assassination 63 years ago? It's they also haven't produced as, you know, how, who allows that to happen? Oh, that's, that's Pat question. There's a few pieces to that. So senior managers allow it to happen inside the CIA. Um, and oversight, to some extent, let's, well, oversight has failed clearly over the years. I'm not criticizing right now. I just were reclaring. I think actually

Rick Crawford is on it right now. I'm definitely, he's the, he'd be the member of Congress who oversees the house in Tokyo. Yes. Yes. So historically, they've abdicated their role in oversight. Let me give you an example. I want to give you a very clear example. When I was a young officer, you know, not a young officer, but, you know, I had earned my stripes, done my work, and I was

“going to do my first meeting with a liaison service. Now most of the time, it's, it's like,”

good luck, buddy. Yeah, have fun. I actually had a senior officer pull me aside. He said, listen, here's the liaison, sir, be a foreign until foreign and sell service. So this is where you get to Claire to the foreign until service. No longer hiding from everybody. And you're working together on goals that are, you both care about. Hopefully. And he said, listen, this isn't going to go,

well, here's how this is going to happen. Here's what I need you to do. He did what rarely happens

for CI officers. He trained the junior officer on how to handle the meeting. I was so grateful. Years later, and I love the guy. Years later, he disagrees with me by the way on just about everything of substance, but he's a great officer. And he pulls me aside. I had gone a job where I was interacting with oversight on a very regular basis. My job was to ensure that the things that we're coming from the CIA that we're going over to oversight were truthful honest. We were

producing things that was valuable for them to actually do their job. So what I never really done that kind of work I dealt with oversight before. He says, here's how oversight works. Take for example, we have to, we are supposed to report all of the organizations that have human rights abuses that we work with. I mean, the CIA works with bad people. That happens. That's by statute.

So we give them a list. And I don't know if it's quarterly or every other year or whatever it is,

but there's a report that comes out. And he said, if he was explained to me, let's say somebody on the other side of the table says, hey, this service here. I don't like this. I don't want you work in with this service. So he says, how do you handle that? I don't know. You tell me, he goes, you say, well, just tell us to stop. And the meaning is, we know that you can tell us to stop, but you got to get everybody else to tell you to stop. And if we keep doing it,

“you got to get everybody else to pull the purse strings. And that never happens. So like you should”

just tell us to stop doing it then. It's become a Kabuki dance. In my opinion, a Kabuki dance.

I said in an oversight meeting that was three years after a huge failure happened and they're

asking the people sitting on the other side. The other people are talking to the agency officers. They're like, has anyone been held accountable for something that happened three years prior? And the agency lawyer leans in and says, we're holding the system accountable. So unless, just how are we doing that? I don't, I don't, I don't, well, if they're holding the system accountable, they need some work because the system keeps

chugging away. System is not a person, right? Right. Right. Right. Eating rights pretty important, but it's hard if you live here about half of the American

diet is ultra processed foods. And that hurts you. Fake food harms your body, your mind,

and especially your liver. So people think that feeling sluggish and foggy and bloated is just what it is to be older. But that's not true. Eating crap makes you feel that way. Well, our friends at Dose have a solution. It's called Dose for your liver. This doctor approved plant-based liver supplement is clinically proven to promote liver function and lower liver enzyme levels. That means you're less bloated, less tired. You feel more like yourself.

“All you need to do is take a daily two-ounce shot, tastes like orange juice, an easy shot of”

liquid. It's not the vax. People we know use Dose for your liver and they have seen rapid results that are blood work and they feel much, much better. The difference is very obvious. Lots of brands claim to support liver health, but do so before their products have gone through testing. This has been tested. Everything checks all the boxes. Visit dosedally.co/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 35% off. That's dosedally.co/tucker. Code Tucker 35% off. You're going to love it.

Where does Tom Cotton, who is the senator, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence? Where does he fit into all this? I think he's a chairleader for everything we do. He has no role in oversight. I think he's a complete chairleader and I'll give you a very good example. I provide you a couple documents here. After my hearing, Senator Rand Paul sent another subpoena over to the O.D. and I say we need all of this information. I'll leave it with you. We want it.

Well, Director Gabbard leaves, Balti takes over, and Balti gets a letter from Senator Tom Cotton's

“team saying, "Hey, listen, here's what you need to understand." Sissy maintains oversight”

responsibility. Sissy's a senator. It's a senator. It's like Committee on Intelligence. We maintain primacy on an oversight for these sort of matters. And so, hey, Balti, make sure. Make sure that you consult us before you decide to give anything over to them. Okay, and not only that, I said that I had done a six hour and 40-minute transcribed interview in a skiff in March of this year. For his gag, Republicans and Democrats were both there. Well, let me clarify that.

The Democrat tried to leave, but I insisted that he stay. No. I finished that transcribed interview. They won't give it back to his gag. Sissy will not give it back to his gag. Sissy will not get his gag. Is the, sorry, the half of the government affairs committee, the one that ran Paul's on and ran Johnson's on. I think some of the Democrats were on their federalmen a few others wouldn't know they didn't show up to the hearing. So, you know, Sissy's saying, you can't have

your own transcribed interview. Sissy's saying, we are the ones who have primacy over oversight over the intel community, but they're not doing oversight. And how do I know they're not doing oversight? I've already sort of mentioned it. I went to Sissy in April of 2024, and I told the story about six of seven technical experts saying COVID origins, you know, COVID originate

somebody else digging into it, because it probably just exposes the failure of their oversight. Tom Cotton is so clearly a tool of Sissy. Oh, yeah. I mean, as far as I can tell that guy, he's there to make sure that he protects the Sissy. But that's the opposite of what the job entails. That is exactly the opposite, yes. Now, his wife worked at CI as an analyst and Langley. I don't know, but I believe you know, and that is correct. I've talked to her about it.

And so, I'm not blaming him. She's very nice. I'm not attacking his wife just to be clear. But that's pretty close relationship for someone who's going to be in charge of oversight of that same agency. Yeah. It's sort of like, Fauci having his wife in charge of bioethics. That's an interesting little. Right. So, that's just, again, I'm not accusing Mrs. Cotton of anything. Yeah, nice person. And I think she's left CI. But the point is, that's weird. And then Cotton's

reflexive defense of CI against everybody, including the Office of the Director of National

Intelligence, is very, very striking. And his impulse always is to hide more from the public.

“That isn't what we voted for. I'm very aware of that. And you have to, and of course, he's a very”

weird guy. I don't know. So he's no very, let me say again, he's a very weird guy. And almost everybody I know on those companies. I know a bunch of members is, I mean, Dan Crenshaw was on the house and told committee. So it's like, what is going on here? It feels like the ICCA probably taking the lead on this controls these people. How do they do that? You know, I'm, I hate to say this, but we've squandered a historic opportunity and Director Radcliffe and Deputy Director Michael Ellis.

I think when history looks back, they're going to say that they were the worst leadership team the CIA could have got of course. And it's, it's not because they're, it's because of what they're not doing. They have an opportunity for reform, but they've kept all the same people that were involved in covering up COVID, covering up Ivana syndrome. They're all sitting and senior positions. And why would Trump, so Radcliffe has been in contact with John Brennan, right? And I've heard that

“deeply that's true. I believe that's true. Right. So Brennan is a sworn enemy of Trump. So why”

would you ever in a million years? And Trump has said a million times, I hate John Radcliffe's

stripped him of his security clearance. Why would you put a guy he's in contact with in charge of CIA? Like, what the hell is that? I don't know. I don't know, but what I think it's weird, I think it's very weird. It's a very weird. It's very weird. And there's other data points that I think speak to this. John Radcliffe take the Trump Russia collusion documents that Director Gabber released in, was it late July, 2025? So those documents were damning. I mean, it's

treason. What they were trying to do. It was like, and I read the unredacted documents. I read the documents. If this is our story, we're sticking to it. Okay. You can't unread that. And then go away thinking, boy, good thing we've got great leadership at the IC. So that's all real. The thing is Director Radcliffe was Director D&I. He had possession of the documents that were released by Director Gabber. When he was over at the D&I, right? He could have released them. I could have released

them when he was at D&I. Maybe he was scared. I mean, I mean, I could put Trump, that that was he was

he ran D&I in the first Trump first. So Trump knew this. Everyone knew that. The John Radcliffe

is also, by the way, loyal to a foreign power. I would say. And he's in touch with Trump's enemies. And he's doing nothing to help Trump on the issues of Trump claims he cares about most. And then the first thing Trump does when he gets elected, is a point that I Director of Central Intelligence, like, what the hell are we looking at? Yeah. I can't get into President Trump's head on that one. But what I can do is, and you just affirm again my suspicion. This is like the weirdest thing

“that's ever happened. Yeah. This is dumb. It's flat out dumb. Like if if you want to be followed,”

like he's proven, President Trump is proven, that there are people within the federal government that will go to great lengths to destroy people. Yes. If you want to continue to him, especially him, if you want to continue to be destroyed, this is exactly what you do. Exactly. So it's dumb. Well, dumb at best. It sounds like it's the nicest way to address to me. I don't know why any person would do that, and especially with someone with finely honed self-preservation

instincts, which Trump has, why would you do that? And I also noticed something else tell me if you have two that of all the appointees, high-level of cabinet secretary's, big appointees in this

need to did Rubio for the most part. Sorry. Sorry. I wanted to. Fair. Fair. Thank. Thank you.

“But did you notice that? Of course I noticed it. It's the eye director. You're one of those”

powerful people in the world. It's a giant red flag. It's a giant red flag to me. I'm sorry.

You got to have, if you're coming into one of those positions, I want, it doesn't matter who's in charge. I expect controversy. I want an argument over it. I want to see people get mad about the person that's going to stay. Most people have no idea who the director of national intelligence is, right? And he's treated like a head of state when he travels abroad. He runs CIA. We don't know what their budget is. I mean, it's incredibly powerful. As you know better than I. So

and this guy no one says a word about him. So that tells me that the American media are at the very least beholden to if not controlled by CIA. Like where are they? We're seeing that. Where's the New York Times on this? Here's the Washington Post. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned the media because the media plays a huge role at this point in American freedom, our future. And like take a look at the media blackout even on like personalize it here. On May 13th,

you would have thought every news outlet would want to hear what was happening behind the scenes during COVID. Fox News was the only one that covered it. And that happens all the time. It tells me that the media is controlled. The media is controlled by the government. This thing where we've gotten independent media, it doesn't exist. Okay? And that's a big problem for government oversight. It's a big problem because whistleblowers who go through the system. Sorry,

I'm going to pivot just a little here. But whistleblowers are essential to holding the system

accountable, but to honest government, to honest government. So I can tell you, I've personally walked through the system and it's so broken that now when people come to me and say, should I be

“a whistleblower? I tell them, no. And that's the honest. I say, the only reason you should be a whistleblower”

is if you're prepared to lose everything. Okay? Because you're not going to, you're not going to get a gold star when you're done. Okay? It's not going to make it good for you personally. It's not going to be make it good for you professionally. And if you say go through the IC system, they continue to investigate themselves and find no wrongdoing. If you go to the ICIG, I went to the ICIG and I tried to get them to intelligence Inspector General. Thank you. I apologize.

No, it's all right. The internal watchdog. Yeah. The internal watchdog. And Chris Fox, by the way, I think is another one. I should mention specifically. I think he's got the spine to try and get something done to clean things up. And I said that in my testimony. But let's say you go through the whole system and you realize, oh my gosh, the system is broken. What do I do now? Well, that last line of defense, the last line of defense for a free

society is a free media. And let's say you want to, you're like, you know what, this is wrong. I have to do something. And you say, I'm going to go to the media. Well, that is, that's Russian Relet. Okay? And by the way, let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating that people with classified information go immediately to the media and just start spending their mouth off. That is not what I'm

“saying. You know, this is dump it on the internet. That's what I think. Put it on the block shape.”

Just want to be clear. Okay. I am advocating for that. I do think that people with relevant classified information should as close it to the public. They should. They should. But I don't blame any of them for not. The system is broken. Christians ought to be safe in the holy land of all

places, but they are not. Keep in mind, these are the descendants of the first converts, the first

people who followed Jesus. People whose families have worshiped in the land, Jesus walked for centuries, for thousands of years. And these same people are now facing enormous pressure to leave, fleeing their homes amid war and anti-Christian terrorism. Untold numbers of innocence are lost and without hope, fellow Christians. But how do you support them? There are groups out there who claim to support them whose real agenda is to move them out of their actual homeland. We think that's

wrong. We think that's evil, in fact. And so we've looked far and wide to find a group that is actually supporting Christians in the Middle East. And we found one. It's called the Vulnerable People Project. VPP. It's one of the very few groups consistently helping vulnerable Christians throughout the Holy Land. They deliver food and water to Christian communities trapped in Gaza, for example. They help rescue civilians. They provide emergency aid to families who have nowhere else

to turn. Today they are helping Christian churches and families safely remain in the communities where their ancestors worshiped Jesus. There should be a lot of groups doing this and trust us, we have looked for over a year now and there aren't. But the Vulnerable People Project is doing

helps provide a day of protection and support for the Vulnerable Christians in the West Bank. Who's looking out for them? Nobody. They are. A monthly gift of $83 helps sustain that protection throughout the month. So visit SaveWestBankChristians.com and stand with Christians in the land where Christianity began. That's SaveWestBankChristians.com. We are proud to partner with them. Thank you. And if you go to the media, so if you go to Jake Tapper, maybe you're not, he's not going to

Yeah, not he might be a great desire to say to you much. Yeah, yeah, you're playing with fire because you could be putting yourself in a lot of trouble. And that's, that is an oversight mechanism.

“The whistleblower system is an oversight mechanism. And that's what, sorry, and that's what I love”

about Gabbard's release of information, for example, take the Trump Rush occlusion documents. She included whistleblower testimony. It's not just straight documents. It also provides a contextual sort of real feel of, that's sort of a real feel of what was happening at the time from a real person. And so do you get an idea why this is the case? Which is to say, do you have any clue how CI influences the behavior of the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, NBC News,

the Associated Press, etc. My limited window, because I, like I said, I'm an ops officer. Up until recently, all I cared about was stealing secrets, right, in some foreign country. Yeah, yeah, to be clear, not American secrets. I want to ask you about that in a minute. But okay, my limited window is there's clearly some preferred outlets that they will go to. I mean, I see some of these things and these are puff pieces. These are, these are cheerleading pieces.

Talk about how great things are. Talking about all the things, all the reform that I've seen a few. Reading it, the problem with CI I have long thought this is it doesn't get enough money. And so Congress needs to appropriate more money to say that every piece is like that. No, right. If only they can, you know, they had full funding. Right, right, which, I mean, which is a great point. You know, not only do they knock it in a

funk, no. The funding piece is actually interesting that you mentioned it, because it's also,

“sorry, this might be a non-secretor, but I think it's important. Part of the, the reason we failed”

is the Patriot Act and 9/11. You know, I was part of the whole system post 9/11. I can tell you,

I never had a time even during continuing resolutions where, like if I went to the boss and said,

hey, boss, I got this great operation going on. You need more money. They always found money for me. And I think, I think we started confusing good managers for good leaders. So after 9/11, Patriot Act opened up a bunch of authorities, a bunch of operations were opened up. And, you know, the good managers were the ones who could juggle a gazillion different things at once. You know, I wish I was one of those people. I was never good at juggling a gazillion things at once. I, you know,

I stuck to sort of a handful of things I knew I could accomplish, but the good managers, they could. And they were working in a time where there was a ton of money. We've always had money.

We've always had money. And so those good managers who didn't really have to get tested about,

hey, should we do this? Should we say this money for something else? Should we make this moral decision on blah, blah, blah, blah? They got confused as good leaders so they got, they matriculated upwards. And they were never really, and this is a generalization. They were never really tested in terms of moral decisions or decisions that were weighty in terms of like, should we continue doing this operation or not? So, you know, and we had chances to be tested. How many people spoke

up during the whole enhanced interrogation piece? How many people came forward and said,

“hey, last I checked that's torture. Well, one did, one did and he was destroyed, right?”

Went to prison. He wondered this subsequent administration, which was the amazing part. That's crazy. So he came forward during Bush, but Obama got there and John Brennan immediately saw that he was indicted and sent to prison and wrecked his life. So all these managers who have

continued to be moved up, they've never had to make hard moral decision, COVID heads, and he got

people saying, hey, I've got religious rights, have got bodily rights. Hey, this is executive overreach and no one knew how to handle that and it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. The management, they're not leaders. The managers in the CIA are not trained to handle conscientious descent and real moral decisions. For me, that was that was it. They failed, tested their humanity.

but where does the CIA's funding come from? Well, comes from the Congress in part, but that's

not the entirety of its funding period. But the part that is appropriated is classified. So we don't know exactly what the budget is. How can you, and I'm pretty sure the president doesn't know, in fact, I'm pretty certain the president doesn't know. So like, how, how is that civilian control of an agency? If no one really knows how much money there is or even where it's coming from, it's not, you know, and that there's, you know, there are reasons why they want to hide

“budget. And like, like, I really believe in sources and methods, right?”

We don't see sources dead. We don't want to see sensitive methods destroyed. But, you know, if the naming conventions for the various offices at the CIA are made so indistinct, that outsiders can't understand what they do in that office. Well, that's meant to protect the type of operations where this source is methods. Of course. But there's a real question on the oversight piece. Like, how does oversight happen if you can't go? What exactly

does that office do right there? What does it do? It's got a weird name. Where's the money going? Yeah. Why doesn't it need that much money? And you also have to ask like, is CIA doing anything

that's so critical to the interest of the United States that you would give up any hope of

managing it or having oversight over it. You would allow it to be its own country in the middle of your country. The answer is that that shouldn't occur. Period. I mean, morally ethically no.

“Is it occurring? I worry it is. Oh, I think it was definitely occurring. There's no question”

about, I mean, yeah. I mean, from my experience, it sure looks like it. Yeah, it sure does. And again, if we don't even really know, there's a big debate, which I've listened to carefully about where this money is coming from. And again, it's not all coming from the Congress. So what? Follow the money on how can you if CIA is running businesses or engaged in business practices

as an agency, which it is. It's like, I get that this all can all be justified. If I were King

for a day, if I were in charge, and I wanted to start the process, I totally get this, it's become such a carcantuan problem. Where do you even start? Right. But if I wanted to make immediate games on that question, how do we, I would. So the director of CIA, the deputy director of CIA, and it used to be the chief operating officer that changed names. They have special authorities to grant no bid contracts under national security auspices. I would come in and I would start auditing

every single one of those contracts that were given out by the director and deputy director, particularly in that little window between administrations. Once you catch a little bit of wrong doing, it makes a lot easier to justify, okay, now we're going to start doing the deep dive. Why don't we take a look at, you know, the other funding mechanisms that are in play for various types of intelligence work. I would definitely, I would definitely audit in cutel 100%. In cutel

needs to have a full audit. Can you explain for people who don't know what in cutel is? In cutel is, you know, it's the venture capital arm that funds all sorts of stuff that venture capital arm of what of the CIA. Okay. I mean, I know the answer. I just want to make sure that everyone listing understands that CIA has its own, and I'm quoting you venture capital arm. Yeah. So we thought that's something that happened on like Sandhill Road and, you know,

not in the California, but no, CIA has its own venture firm. Yeah. I mean, you know, there's real reason to have an insight into things that are tech and things that are about it. There's good reason to have it, but if you're going to do it, if you're going to do it, you better, you better

“be able to justify every penny. Well, and you have to have control over it by the public,”

the end of its representative. So what happened in Pakistan is you know, I don't know if you've been posted in Pakistan, but like Pakistan did this with its military, and the next thing you know, with the military runs Pakistan, and no matter who you vote for, the military still runs Pakistan. So you don't want that, because that's the opposite of democracy, right? I spent two years in Pakistan. Okay. I didn't even know that. Is that a fair assessment? Yeah. It's a fair assessment.

I mean, how many businesses does the Pakistani military own? Lot, lot, lot, a lot. Right. And they're the best fun and institution in the country. It's really obvious when you drive around Pakistan. It's like all the mode lawns or the military bases. Yep.

Something where to happen to you, what exactly would happen to your loved ones?

“Your children. We've heard so many stories of families losing a parent and having their life”

insurance policy saved their financial lives. That's the whole point of it. It makes all the difference in the world. The next question becomes, "Well, how do I get life insurance?" And that's where ethos comes in. A company we're proud to partner with. ethos makes securing a life insurance plan fast and easy and a hundred percent online. People don't get it, because it's a hassle and it's expensive. It solves that problem. You get a quote in seconds,

apply in minutes and get same-day coverage. There is no medical exam. You're sanitary,

few simple health questions, then you can get up to $3 million in coverage. Some policies

is low as 30 bucks a month. Takes about 10 minutes to get covered. Life insurance through ethos. Free quotes are available now at ethos.com/tucker ethos, ETHOS.com/tucker rates and obviously application times may vary, but it's great. So you don't want that here, right? No, don't know I do not. And the American people don't want that. What they want in my opinion is we were told that we were going to get some IC reform. And we haven't seen one lick of it. Except, sorry,

that's not true. Except with director Gabbard. She did exactly what President Trump said. "I want you to downsize the DNI. I want you to pursue the weaponization of intelligence. I want you to pursue COVID origins. I want you to pursue Havana syndrome and election security. She did all those things. She tried to pursue those things and she got beat up for it." I want to get to that

in some detail in just a second, but first I just want to go back to John Rackler, former congressman

was true. Who runs CIA? Why has he pursued reform of CIA? That's a very tough question because I'm not in his inner circle, but as far as I can tell is because he doesn't want to. He's perfectly happy to let the people that are running the agency who are those people, those managers who matriculated upwards, who were confused for good leaders, yeah, they're running the place. I don't know why he's letting that happen. Everybody I know in that world says that he's

just a pure mouthpiece from Assad. Everybody says that about John Rackler. I don't know about that. I can't speak to that, but what I will say is he's not getting it done. He's not reforming anything.

“I mean, they're still, and I don't remember what they're called, and I'm not even sure I'm”

allowed to say what they were, but right before the administration changed, the DA came up with

three new ways to write products that only stay inside the CIA. They don't get propagated out. So what good is that? And so the CIA continues to create products that have no oversight and can be held onto, especially if they're writing things up, that they want to wait until they let a product says you're not, you don't talk about a new kind of thing. Right? No. So, you know, analysts will write a paper, finished intelligence on some topic, and there's different types of

papers. You can really have different names. But there's a, there's a, there's a new type of analytical product that they can write up now, which that is supposed to be shared with the community. That's a whole point. You write something up. You share it with the community. No, they decided they're going to keep it inside the CIA and not propagated outwards. If oversight wants to look at something, look at those papers that are being written that are meant to stay inside the CIA and

not go anywhere. My gut tells me they're just going to hang on to them until they can make them go somewhere, maybe the next administration who knows. All right. I mean, you're describing the ability to create dossiers on people. dossiers on all sorts of stuff. So here's the reform that I would institute, if I had the power to do it, the president of the United States asks for information that is held by one of his agencies that he oversees, because he's one of only two elected

officials to the entire executive branch of government. And the CIA does not produce that information. And then that's the point in which you call John Radcliffe and you say, "Listen, bitch, you've got twenty for us to do this, or I'm having cash, Patel, have you arrested?" But there's none of that. It's like the president's proxies ask for information from CIA and they're like, "We can't find it." Yeah. When everyone knows that's a lie, election security.

“Here's a good one. Kurt Olson is the guy. But like, without work, why couldn't you do that?”

You could, in theory? The president, this is the president's agency. He was elected by the public. No, no, to run CIA. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry, no. You are 100% like CIA, like it's a foreign power that he has to negotiate with. I can't understand why. It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. It should work like that. But it's not, it's not working like that. There are negotiate. Like frankly, director Gabbard shouldn't have to negotiate with

intelligence background to handle the type of products that were coming on a CIA, operational traffic,

“those sort of things, and had it negotiate. Everybody's got a negotiate. Why do we have to”

negotiate? Why would president, where's the president in this? The president issues an executive order January 23rd saying, "I want all available documentation on these number of historical incidents, including the assassinations of the '60s, but not limited to those." He doesn't get it. He does not. Why doesn't Trump say, "Where?" It's been a month. I want it by the afternoon. Where is it? Where you're under arrest? I just don't, I don't know what is going on.

I wish I knew. I wish I knew because we expected. We, when I say, we, I mean the American Pollock voted for the greatest disruptor in American history. Not hard, is it? But he's not, for some reason, he's not being the greatest finisher. In my opinion, he's a colluter with the system. I don't, I don't get it. I don't understand because we really want to see him successful. So how hard is it to get? And I'll just get to pick the most benign of them all, and that was

Kennedy's murderous because it's so old. Right? But there's not possibly revealing sources and methods, everyone's dead. Like, I don't really see the legitimate impediment to producing these documents after all these years and all these votes by the Congress to do it multiple executive orders including this one. So they don't produce those documents, which they have not. They have not. Why, why is it would be hard for Trump just to say, "Times up. I want to know."

There is a sea of lawyers who covets and say, "The here's, here's all the things that are, here's all the reasons you could be sideways with the law." Here's all. Trump has full power to do all this, but he does. Correct. He could just do it immediately. But for some reason, the bureaucrats,

“they all sit around convincing over all the legal ramifications. I think, and Tom Cotton, too,”

is Tom Cotton, too. He doesn't want to disclose her. He doesn't want to disclose her. At this point, like, if we're serious about reform, we just got to lay it all out and let it let it, like, if the documents are that come out, these operational records come out. And they show all sorts of

wrongdoing that happen decades ago. Maybe we can finally start correcting those mistakes that happen

and improve the institutions. I physically handled the MK Ultra Documents. Okay. Thank you. You're about, you know, to die. And the office, again, I was hired laborer that dad just needed to move the documents for somebody into another office. But those were the MK Ultra. I thumbed through them. And there's no reason. There is absolutely no reason to not just put that out. Okay. I think those documents that are JFK, which there's no during daylight raid or anything like that,

that was incorrect. DNI was locked out of getting those access to those documents. And some of those documents, they're going to use bureaucratic double-speed to talk about why, you know, DNI doesn't need certain documents, why some of these documents probably need to stay, you know, behind closed doors. It's all bullpucky. It's too long ago. It has to be released. There's an executive order with the force of law requiring the release of these documents with no

caveats in it. Yeah. So they're breaking the law by holding these. You could say the same thing with the COVID Act of 2023. That was unanimously passed. Said, "We want all of it disclosed." Was it? No. No. There's thousands of documents that are still sitting there and I pray that Palty or whoever else comes after him, or even Radcliffe, I don't care who does it. Declassify him. There's thousands of documents. Of course not going to happen. And I'm sure Tom, Tom Cotton would

jump up and prevent it. Yeah. And it's too bad because the people who put this administration in office is going to look at that. And they're going to, they're going to, they're not going to be

“happy. And what's not in democracy if you don't know your government's doing? Yeah. And what about 9/11?”

Was there ever an effort to, because as you just said yourself, it was the Patriot Act and the

wake of 9/11 that changed the whole structure, changed the country forever? There's never been

a meaningful push to the class by after 25 years. You know, I can't, there was no push for 9/11 during my time at the day to declassify anything. It's fine. I'm very aware of that. I wonder why? I have my theories. I mean, what are your theories? That there's something that's, you know, all these people who are out there that say,

cook, if you think that, you know, there's a possibility that there was something, some

underhanded thing happening behind the curtain. I can tell you, we can keep a secret. I know, I've kept secrets. I am keeping secrets, okay? Morally, ethically, I'm keeping secrets. And if somebody says that a group of people can't keep a secret about 9/11, that's not true. Okay? I have questions about building 7. That for me was wake up call. And that's where the CRFs was. That. Yeah. And so I have a real, real question about building 7. It does not make sense.

And this is, and again, I used to be a normal CIA officer, you know, I did. That's a great sentence. I used to be a normal CIA officer. It's true. I'm assuming that's a category. You know, it's just a category. I'm just joking. I know it's a category. It is. You know, I, I, and I, I still, I still love the agency. But there's something, uh, there's something off with with building 7 and something off,

you know, like how did fall down? Why, why was it announced on television before it fell down? Those are real questions that need real answers. So because the CIA, there was a CIA office in that building, they admitted it. I didn't, I didn't,

“I remember that. No, you didn't. Do you ever talk about this? We mean at CIA.”

At CIA, I would have the course of my career. Yeah. Like what happened to our office in building 7? They're building that no plane hit, but somehow it fell down. So when I say I used to be a normal CIA officer for most of my career, no one I knew talked about that. Right. And it wasn't till COVID that I started running into people, um, whatever this means, it wasn't till COVID that I started running

into people that started asking those questions. And I was listening to them going, first it,

I had a CIA employees. Yes, CIA employees. I had a visceral reaction when I first heard that. I was like, what are you talking about? I did exactly that. What are you talking about? I think I can't. I, that, that didn't happen. And it's time has gone on. I have the same reaction by the way. You know, I'm a slow learner. It's a slow learner. And I'm a slow learner. But um, there's a lot of questions at need. So what were, what were the other

CIA employees would thought about this before you did or I did? What was their theory about how that building came down? Uh, well, uh, I've put me on the spot here, but doesn't mean it's true and you're not endorsing. I'm not endorsing. I'm interested to know what actual CIA employees think about the destruction of the CIA office in building seven. A lot of people had questions about, you know, the folks that were dancing on top of the top of the building and some of the

realies, you know, the solid officers. Yeah. There's a lot of people had questions about that. A lot of people had questions about why, um, was it insurance policy, I believe? You did a whole

“segment. That's what you did a whole segment on this. Yeah, we did a inventory. Yeah, uh, there's, um,”

there's an insurance policy that was taken out right beforehand, which is pretty, pretty uh, fortuitous, pretty uh, president. Um, they've brought up a whole bunch of things and, um, from a perspective, from my perspective, these are good questions that deserve answers. So what's the feeling that that building was by someone brought down? Yeah. I mean, some have said that explicitly, but I've spoken to, you know, you said explicitly,

yes, it sure looks like that thing was, uh, controlled explosion and, you know, fell in on itself. Um, and these are, yeah. These are active CIA officers. I mean, it's pretty obvious. Yeah. If you take, you know, if you, you know, if you filter out the propaganda, the screaming in your ears from Jake Tapper, like shut up, it spares, you know, and just asked, like, well, how did that happen? You can't get an answer, because obviously

was brought down with explosives. It sure was some kind. Right. So, but who did that and why,

and by the way, that building collapsed in exactly the same way that the first two towers collapsed.

So it does raise like a bigger question. If that was fake, well, what else is fake, if anything, I mean, we don't know, but anyway, so all of these questions, if you, if you're a former normal person and your colleagues at CIA, presumably also, these normal CIA officers, you, you just wrote, who I love the great officers. Of course, they were cards. Totally kidding, but they're all just at freedom fighters. Yeah. And I've known a lot of people like that in various federal agencies,

who are like, good people, not everyone's bad, right? It's true. However, if they're coming to the same conclusion, then it seems like nine, eleven would be the number one thing you looked at in the dig. And I would have liked to have taken a look at it. I would have liked to have taken a look at it. It seems obvious to me that because unlike the MLK assassination, which is, I'd

“love to know more about it. Yeah, clearly it was a conspiracy, I think, but like in the end,”

it didn't change the world in the way that non-leavened it, maybe it's just too big to investigate.

the 9/11 document. Oh, yes, some of the people in the dig said a couple, a couple times, but I mean, we have to be right. We were doing only what we were directed to the EO told you, too. EO told us to do. We're trying to be, we're trying to follow the law. Well, yeah, yeah, trying to follow the law, trying to make sure that we accomplish the mission that was put in front of us and get that done as quickly and as effectively as we could.

And we found that, well, the deep state exists. I mean, I don't know what you want to call it.

“I love Mike Benz's description of it, the blob. I think it's the most accurate description.”

Because it's amorphous. Yeah, there's no meaning. It's everywhere. And it just rolls in, it fills space. It fills the cracks. It pops up everywhere. Yes, miserable. So what, um, so the dig was the director's initiative group, initiative group. And that's the group within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, so D and I run until recently by Tulsi Gabbard that was charged with producing these documents that Trump had

called for in this executive order. Is that all true? Yeah. Yeah. So what were the, uh, if you'll just judge by memory, the cases, the events that you were looking into? Well, um, a lot of them are listed in that ranpaal subpoena. So it's okay. Oh, of course. Yes. But he said he's show was the JFK assassination. The declassification effort. Denise had a lumped MLK JFK, um, uh,

“Bobby Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, uh, in that category, there was election security issues. There was,”

uh, January 6th, um, there was, uh, COVID, Havana syndrome, UAPs, um, and a couple other issues. They tried to compartment out things. So like everybody wasn't working on the same things. And so there's some things that I was. Those are all super interesting topics. So let's just go through them really quick. And I'm going to ask you, do you learn anything new about the JFK assassination?

So I have to admit, I'd never really followed it. So uh, I was just hoping we just released it all.

And I assumed there was a lot of people who were into it. And they would pull the documents and make, make those conclusions inform me. So, um, I don't have any revelations that I was following very closely. I was shocked to know that the CIA was was running Oswald. Yeah. And that's true. I feel that they've come, he defected. But that was all a scam. Yeah. Russians were very paranoid about, uh, we Oswald. He was a Marine Corps corporal, I think. And he shows up in Russia. And they're

like, you're a secret agent, but he actually was. So I didn't know that. Um, M. Okay. Anything? Good morning. I was, sorry. January 6th. Uh, I think your interview was Steve Baker

“covered quite a bit with that. And I think the only thing I'll, I want to add to that is, um,”

Steve Baker's provision of information to the dig. I think that was sort of the first step to the

dig being shut down. And um, I've never seen a reaction quite like what I saw from the agent.

I was what Baker did just so we have context. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. Um, so Steve Baker provided information based off data analysis that indicated that a current CIA officer, former capital police officer, um, may have been the person who placed the, the, the, the bombs around side, the RNC and DNC on the evening of January 5th, early morning, whatever was. And, um, provided it to the DNI. Now, he provided it to the DNI because, and I didn't realize this too much

later, you know, as we're doing these and investigations, sometimes you just need to bring in an expert and he had been following it for so long. Somebody and I'm not sure which part of the team did it. They asked him to, hey, would you like to help us with this? He deferred. He said, listen, I'll be glad to give you anything you need, but I don't actually formally want to be part of the investigatory work because he wants to be a journalist. Yeah. He's actually a musician. Um,

yeah, fine, great. Um, and so he provided that information and, um, a memo was typed up. The memo went to the PDDI, the principal deputy director of National Intelligence and Lucas. And it got scanned in and sent over to Michael Ellis and that thing got shot now or two at CIA. Number two at CIA. Shot all over the CIA and, next, you know, um, people were losing their minds.

When I say people, they were so excited to get to the bottom of this race. Right. Right. We finally figured it out.

No, they were pretty upset. They're like, what are you doing? This is defamation and, you know, people are holding front of other people and defamation in what way? Well, you know, they're saying,

was not the person who did it and, you know, you could get yourself a lot of trouble. You could get sued.

“How do they know that person didn't do it? They don't. Right. They don't know that and we know.”

They're a bunch of liars, is what you're saying. Uh, that is definitely one way to say it, but yeah, I mean, they don't know that. And it's weird to me because the CIA's job is to take an information and, I agree. And, and our by law, if there's a chance that there is some illegal activity that occurred, we have to inform the CIA that, hey, listen, there's an employee that might be, might be involved in, right? Take it seriously. But you're saying that CIA did not respond

poorly or analytically to this information from Steve Baker as provided by ODI and I, they did instead what? Um, they decided they were going to investigate the dig. Okay. And I, like, like, for what purpose people provided the information? Yeah, gave it to them. And, you know, to me, it's, it's insanity. Um, where they upset about this information, sure seemed like it because you don't send somebody for, you don't call somebody up and say, we'd like you to show up at this facility for an

interview in that facilities for polygraphs, by the way, which is basically an interrogation tool.

And, um, and say, hey, listen, come on by. I mean, there was a felicit next to me. He asked me, you know, how do I deal with this? And I said, well, you tell them that you work for the DNI and that you would like them to send a full list of the questions they'd like to talk about. Maybe send it to your lawyer. And, uh, you make sure you see, see, everybody in the DNI front office on that email chain because you want them involved in fixing this. It was insane.

Uh, the reaction we got from them was a visceral reaction. And so if you, I mean, you were practicing tradecraft, your, your career at CI. So you know, know that that kind of reactions

suggests, oh, yeah, not good. Not good. I immediately assume that there's wrong doing. And like

“right or wrong, that's what I assume. If you're going to react like that, well, hold on a second.”

What, what are you protecting? Why are you? Of course. And so, and everybody on that, like I'm not a genius here, you don't need to be a CO to have the exact same question. So what I'll say about this was, um, the CIA decided that that was the end of it. And so they put up, they made every obstacle they could to try and prevent us from conducting our investigations. And, um, it's simply refusing things, slow-rolling things, um, you know, even, even within the DNI's

office of general counsel, there are, there are things that we want to push through there to make sure that we're street legal. For somehow, they managed to slow-roll even the stuff we were trying to get over to, for example, Senator Rand Paul's committee. That's, there was, there was questions and follow-ups that sat with that, that group for months. And we put on the specific, the specifics are a case of, of January six. So there are a couple of things that jump out,

one that of all people in the world to be identified by a distinctive gate. It's apparently a product of a sports injury. Sounds like it. Baker says, but it's, whoever was in the, the figure in the picture at a weird, a weird gate, the woman's deep baker says he thinks is that person has a sports injury. She's a capital police officer, but of all places to wind up working at CIA. How did she wind up, right? According to the court documents, she had applied for a job prior to

six months prior to January six. I can't remember. Okay. But, but, I mean, it's possible to get a job

“over there. It's not easy to get hired by the CIA. What does she do there, do you know?”

She works in security. I don't know the specifics of her exact job. Is it possible that she provided security to the director? I don't know. It is possible, I suppose. They pull people in if they're short, so they'll pull people in to, like, there's a special group of people that have security for the director, deputy director, the coup, maybe not the coup. Well, the coup's changed names, but like the director and deputy director over at the coup,

the chief operating officer is now against most of that. Oh, sorry. No. Just stay as little CIA and joke. Yeah. Yeah. You guys know coups. We know that. That's a different coup. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, I suppose it's possible. It doesn't matter whether she did or didn't. What really matters to me was that reaction. And it's worse because the information, there was a Homeland Security investigator that was given the information, asked to pursue this. What was his name?

that's worrisome. It's worrisome because there's questions about how he died. And, you know,

people, there's a lot of people who don't want to talk about Mr. Osborn and his death.

“What? Well, I think, I think what they, they don't want, why don't they want to talk about it?”

They don't want to talk about it. There's no obituary, I notice. Yeah. Well, there's no, it's still an open question about how he died. Okay. We don't know. Did he commit suicide? Did he, he was killed by a gunshot? He was killed by a gunshot. Okay. And it's worrisome because he was pushing to pursue this investigation. And people don't want to talk about it because they say, well, listen, we got to let the system work, work the investigation. We got to let the

system figure out whether it authors something to this. My issue with that is if there is nefarious

intent, which I, I hope to God, this is just some horrible thing that happened to this poor man, or if it's suicide, I hope his family isn't suffering and all those things, you know, pray for him, pray for his family. But if there was nefarious action that occurred with that,

“this is not something you want hidden behind a wall of secrecy, because it's not safe for anybody”

else who, who was aware of what was happening with that. It has to be talked about publicly. And I hope that Fairfax County Police, because that's where the investigation is going on, I hope they're getting to the bottom of it. I really do, because it's just interesting that it's someone who's spent this adult life working for CIA, and you said you, you loved it. I'm got so much out of it, but you seem to believe by what you're saying that the CIA

would at least be capable of killing this guy. Well, I don't know who did that. I'm not saying the CIA did it, but something happened, something happened. He was killed. And it, you could make that supposition that, you know, it might be the CIA, could be, could be other people with interest. And I also find it fascinating that within a very short period of that Steve Baker piece coming out saying we found the woman who placed these pipe bombs, the Department of Justice after,

well, I guess five years of not finding a suspect arrested some autistic black kid in charge, Tim, with the crime. It's crazy. I, I don't believe that for one minute, that the autistic black kid did this. No, I don't, not for one minute. And the other issue, I don't know. Do you think that Department of Justice is capable of framing someone like that? Apparently, I don't, I can't speak to motives. I don't want to show evil though. If this is what happened, it's pure evil. And there's

other data out there. People should go take a look at Kyle Seraphins podcast and what he, what he was on the surveillance team, surveilling person of interest three. There's other data out there that seems to indicate that there is, this is not the full story. I don't believe that that kid in my, this is just my opinion. But I don't believe that that kid is the one, the guy they got arrested, the autistic kid that, you know, has feet that are six sizes too big to be the same person.

It doesn't, doesn't, doesn't end up. But I will say is the NAACP involved this while the professional defenders of black people out there who was out in four, five years ago. I love black people. Okay. Now is the time for everyone who stood up five years ago during the George Floyd insanity, even said I love black people. What about this black guy, autistic black kid? Who's defending him? Anybody? Nobody. Nobody. Nobody. Oh, all the I love black people are absent on this.

Apparently, yeah. Apparently, I mean, not surprised. It's, it's sickening to me. It is sickening.

You know, I, I never said I love black people. I never treated black people in God. There's

their people like you and me. Yeah. But I'm offended by this. I'm offended because if this poor kid, you know, he sounds like he's got some spectrum issues. Yes, spectrum, you know, I've got people very close to me with mental health issues. Yeah. And to think that, you know, like, you know what,

“this is a throwaway person. This is a throwaway person. That's what they're saying. If this is really”

is as bad as it looks to me, they're basically saying it's not the first time when Mary Pinchon Meyer was murdered on the, on the top half, right near my house, sheltered at home in Georgetown, cord buyers widow, wife. She was not, they grabbed some black guy and put him on trial for her murder when they knew when CIA was perfectly aware that he didn't do it. And they allowed the DC police to arrest us and put him on trial. Yeah. Well, what I'd say about all of this. Sorry,

it makes me mad. It makes me mad, too. I mean, it's so mean. And it's every single one of these acts

to demoralize us. And make us, make us feel like there's nothing we can do against this giant

blob that does whatever they want when we, John Radcliffe. And so, you know, as far as the dig is concerned, as far as Steve Baker's story is concerned, that was the death now for the dig.

“And I think what it's got to make you think if CIA is this involved in it, clearly they were”

this involved in January 6th. I mean, why else, if I'm running, if I'm John Radcliffe, okay, and I find out that someone on our security team has been identified by deep recognition software, as the person who planted the pipe bombs on J6, I would say, at least, we gotta look at this. Yeah. So I wouldn't say, let's shut down the investigation that produces information. Right. Right. And if I were, I'll take Kyle Seraphins surveillance team. If I were on the surveillance

scene that was surveilling all these people that were in the vicinity, as soon as that new information came out from Steve Baker, I'd be calling up my surveillance team. And I'd be saying, hey, boys, we've got some new information. We're in a, let's go over the old files. And we're going to, I'm an intelligence officer. I'm not a law enforcement. But I as an intelligence officer, if I were doing something overseas and it had some shades of what this is, I would immediately

call my surveillance team together and say, let's get on the target again. Let's, let's start, let's start getting some, I'm some brass tax of what's, what's going to go through the old files. Figure out what is happening. Oh, that's happening. I mean, this person, you know, like, I don't know anything. I mean, I was uninvolved in investigating this. I just talked to Steve Baker knew that's it. So I'm not a wedgie anything. But, I mean, Dan Bungino, what FBI was defending this

“person and attacking, steep, that's correct. Yeah. Did, is it, can you verify that?”

Tack, wait, attacking, steep, Baker. Yeah. Steve Baker. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'm going to help fund a viable suit against you and all this stuff. I supposedly, he said, but he was certainly attacking steep, Baker. What does he Baker do? He used gate recognition software, which the federal government uses, by the way. Yeah. It's not a crackpot technology. No, no. Does it prove anything, but it moves you close like a, like anything else, facial recognition, right? Yeah. I mean,

it, it breaks things open so that you can start conducting more investigations. Okay. So you're an expert in human behavior, of course, because you're, like recruiting spies. If this were happening in Pakistan, not your country, you'd be like, this agency must be involved. Yes. Yes. You inventing questions, J6. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's the problem. I, I keep seeing

parallels to third world countries of things like this happening where I'm like, if this

were happening in another country, I'd run an intelligence operation. You know, I've monitored elections in foreign countries. And, you know, as part of that process, and if, you know, there's another example. If, if I had seen the anomalies that had occurred during our, our election, that caused January 6th, in some foreign country, state department would be probably sending out a démarche. So there's, and we explain to people who don't know what that,

what does that mean? Oh, it means we'd be criticizing that country for their election practices. We'd give them a formal statement saying, you have done wrong. And we think that you need

“to stop doing X, Y, and Z, because your elections are fraudulent. That's what I'm saying. So”

that's another example. I keep seeing these parallels. If this had to happen in some foreign local, it's kind of weird if you take three steps back. I'm not alleging anything at all. I just happened to notice the pattern that this happens in 2020. It's clearly, no one's proved the

election was stolen. So first I can tell, but the evidence that this was like not how you run an

election, it's the so fraudulent election is done. It's overwhelming. And then Trump gets shot him butler and then decides to hire Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, Steve Walsh's National Security Advisor, and critically John Ratcliffe is Director of Central Intelligence. And then he wins the election with the majority of the popular vote, and you don't have any of these problems. What, I mean, if this were a happening in foreign country, what would you say? I have some questions.

I will say, part of the reason President Trump won was because he managed to capture the Mahavote, and he should be probably a little more cognizant of what Mahavote shouldn't be in the forcing mRNA technology. Yeah, but that's a separate from your point. It's just kind of weird like if you wanted above all to have a war with Iran, not just to get rid of their nuclear program but to reset the world order, right? Get the US out of the Middle East and the US dollar

and the Petra dollar. And that was your plan, clearly. That's the plan. It's happening. And no American President would go along with that because that would destroy your legacy

clearly didn't want to do it. But let's say that was your plan. And that's a big plan. That's a

“history-changing plan. Yeah. You would, you know, you do whatever you could to make it clear to that”

guy like there's a carrot on a stick here. Like maybe you get elected, maybe you don't get killed if you go along with it. Yeah. Is that a record too? Yeah, I mean, if I'm being honest with myself, yes. I don't know that that happened. I don't know if any has ever bothered to explain what did happen if that's not what happened. Like, oh, it's just totally normal that we invaded Iran after, you know, six months after saying we ended the nuclear program to like restart again

without trying to convince the public. And then just do this thing that we know is going to record

our country, which it now is. Yeah. What I, what I, mostly, not mostly, what I very much disliked

is the alternative voices that came together to form this coalition because whatever maga is, whatever maga is, like all these people came under a very big tent and they offered their voices. They're support for President Trump because it was great coalition. It was awesome. It was awesome. You had these people came forward and then the alternative voices have been systematically removed

“from the pool of people that are supposed to be advising. Is that true? I think so. Sorry,”

just laughing. I was one of them. Yeah, no, that is definitely true. And like Joe can't, for example, oh, the best. He's a wonderful human being who I agree. I look at the reaction to him residing the way he resigned. And I have friends who I deeply respect, I love him. And they're like, oh, he shouldn't have done it that way because it criticized President Trump. I'm like, you know, many, many, for many years, when people resign from the office a lot of times, they'd resign

on principle. And they'd write a letter just like that. Joe Kent was not disrespectful to President at all at all. And if you can't get through to a president, you can't get your message across the hey, listen, I need you to listen to me. At some point, doing the right thing is writing a respectful letter that says, hey, I disagree with this policy. I'm leaving for this reason. This happened all the time before. The thing that bothers me is the option leaking to the media,

subverting the president's program. Those are clearly less honorable responses completely. If you can't carry out a job consistent with your own values, don't. I mean, I don't know what, how is that bad? Isn't that what we ask our children to be? It's exactly what we ask. And Joe Kent did exactly what many, many other people have done in many other administrations. My problem is the screeching and the gnashing of teeth that came from this people associated with this administration.

You know, they treated him worse than if he was like some kind of leaker. Well, actually, they claimed he was, well, they claimed he was a criminal. He was under criminal investigation. I mean, it's security clearance was unimpeded till the day he left. So we know that that's not true. It's a lie. They admitted it was a lie. But they trashed the guy's reputation. They trashed his wife. Yeah. I mean, just this, I mean, I'm sorry, he is sacrificed for this

country. And, you know, he did an honorable thing. He spoke with respect to the president. He couldn't get through. So he decided to leave. I keep seeing these indications that there are

“blast doors up around the White House, around key figures that you can't get through.”

You can't talk to him. And again, I wish I was part of the inner circle. So I could see what was happening. But as somebody who was, you know, maybe one or two layers below that, it sure looked like blast doors were going up around a whole lot of people. And, um, yeah, I don't know how we got on that. But, but, well, I mean, it's just because it's sad. And the coalition that brought Trump back to the White House in 2024 was like a beautiful thing.

Mm-hmm. It wasn't organized around a race or even a political party. It was organized around a kind of idealistic hope that the country could be better and that some measure of power be returned to the citizens who own it. It's like these are not radical ideas. They're foundational ideas. Well, now that I am not in a hate-based thing at all. No. And now it's totally blown up because a small group of true haters,

the genocide defenders have all been like basically committed to destroying this coalition and it

worked. And that's really, it has worked. And truth and now that I am not a government employee, I can speak about my personal political beliefs. Um, I am a lifelong conservative. Like, I voted for Ross Perl. I'm a loss. I gave you Bill Clinton at one point. I'm a lifelong conservative. And I was going to vote for Kennedy.

conservative that was going to go the distance for a president Kennedy. And, in my opinion,

“he did one of the most presidential things that, um, I've seen in my lifetime. He chose,”

the American people over, over power. He said, Listen, I've got an opportunity. If I work with this administration, I've got an opportunity to make America healthy again. Um, it, it was the most noble thing I've ever seen. I was really pissed off that he, uh, he pulled out. I really was going

to go the distance. I'd never, if someone had asked young Jim, hey, some day, are you going to vote

for, for a Democrat? Um, I would have been like, oh, that's, that's crazy talk. Uh, you know, I might vote for a occasional libertarian or Ross Perl, but probably not a Democrat. And I was going to go the distance, uh, with him. That coalition that he brought in. I don't think President Trump would be president if he had not brought that in. And so for me, if we're talking about the coalition that said no more war, um, make America healthy again, we're losing the, the promises are being broken.

The promises are being broken, mocked, mocked, openly mocked, and like, you know, I'll still go the distance with anybody who wants to protect religious rights, bodily autonomy, all those things, somebody needs to wake up this administration and say, hey, listen, if the person who owns the, the maha agenda at the polls, they're probably going to get those, those little bits of votes that are going to put them over the edge. Um, it's, it's a, it's too late. I mean, the trail is hard

to recover from, you know, you get in an argument with your wife and you can get past it. You

catcher and bed with the pool boy, and you're never going to see her the same way because she'll trade you.

No. On a very deep level, not that that happened. I hope it never does, but

“but you know what I mean, that's what this is. You, you caught Trump and bed with someone that's”

like he cheated on you and then to lecture you about your lack of loyalty is too much. Your disloyal, Joe Kent was disloyal, really? Joe Kent's wife got killed in Syria because of the neocons. Yep. You're in rather than whine about it, he kept going and tried to serve his nation and did. And if he was right, by the way, on the merits, and then he calls Trump, tries to see Trump on his way out because he likes Trump actually. He's a respectful guy. And Trump trashes his wife.

It's his way got remarried off a quick really because it was under your administration that his first wife was killed because you didn't have the balls to get American troops out of Syria because you're controlled by his role. That's a fact. So then to lecture Joe Kent about getting married again after you ever saw the death of his first wife, I was like, oh, oh, can't deal with this. Anymore. Yeah. You know, it's there's been a lot of disappointment. So I know that's the

understatement of the year, but a lot of disappointment. Like I have disappointment like to bring it back around to the conversation about the agency and everything else, I have a disappointment with the agency. I wanted reform. I wanted real reform. I'm okay with getting rid of some of the

chaff. I'm okay with making some big changes and never happened. Never happened. In fact, this administration's is

just letting it move on. I like, I've left government service now. I co-founded your organization.

“If it's okay, I'm going to talk a little bit about that because I think it's important. You know,”

at some point, I'm going to go into the private sector. But the thing about being a government employee, if you're in military or forward facing, you want to have a mission. You want to have something that you're like, no, no, no, I want to be part of something bigger. And that's the hardest part of leaving government service. You know, that and you realize that, you know, you know, there's a lot of people in the private sector who are incredibly impressive and you have to

compete against them. So some of these government shrubs are afraid to leave. Yeah, of course. But, you know, I co-founded an organization that sued the federal government over vaccine mandates. We got to get, we didn't know what we're doing. We built the cars. We rolled it out of the garage. But we were, we were successful. We got a nationwide injunction that shut down the vaccine mandate for all staff federal government employees throughout the entirety of the Biden administration.

Done succeeded. We filed 17 class action EOS. You know, towards the end of my time at the dig the last year and the dig turns out that the CIA decided that every single person who is non-compliant with those vaccine mandates, yeah, they weren't, you know, just in subordinate. They were spies. So they had all of them investigated by the counterintelligence

So, I, I personally filed an OP and office of privacy and civil liberties complaint. And I blind CCed every single unvaccinated officer in the CIA. And then when nothing happened after 40 days, I sent it up to the intelligence community inspector

“general. I said, you need to investigate this. My problem is they're purposely waiting longer”

than a 45-day period because as soon as I CCed all these unvaccinated officers. As soon as I CCed them, they have a 45-day window to file an EEO complaint. I know a lot about

the complaint process now, never used to. Never made a complaint until COVID.

Then I wanted to give them the chance if they were upset about it to actually file those complaints. A bunch of people filed the EEO complaints. But all we really wanted was, and again, this is under director Radcliffe. All we wanted to do was to expunge the records. See, when you have a counter at John Radcliffe, okay, counter at espionage investigations, the investigation occurred in 2021. Right. Okay. It was discovered. So, after it was discovered, we said, hey, listen,

new administration. This is an easy fix. Here's what we want. Just expunge the records. Just get, get that off your permanent security file. Because that's, the one investigator is a foreign spy,

because you don't want to take the death shot. Yeah, because you don't want to take the death shot.

And that was a simple request. Hey, please, just we asked. Did Radcliffe do it? No. So now we have to sue. And so, you know, I found pro bonal legal support. Why is Radcliffe so vested in? I have no idea. I have no idea. I don't know. Maybe he's incompetent too. He should have his staff were aware. I made sure that both deputy director and director staff were aware that this was occurring. I wanted them to just fix it. And they didn't. So, we're going to sue them.

And so, I'm, I'm, I got out of government service, but I'm still working the good feds of freedom, where feds for freedom is sue in the CIA over this. And we are still actually litigating class action EOs. And this is a half decade later. So, we've got an FBI class action EO. We've got a, there's a couple others, DOD, NASA. We're still litigating this stuff. A half decade later, which is absolutely idiotic. It's this administration. They said they said flat out.

“We shouldn't have to have, well, it's just an attack on Christians. That's what it was.”

Here's a shot with the boarded baby parts in it. Can you take it? The people who said they can't, they get invested as investigated as spies. Get all the Christians out. Yeah. So, at some point, I'm going to go find a normal job. But for right now, I'm, I'm going to ask you one final question, one final category of questions. So, back to January 6th. Sure. Based on everything you've said without any other evidence,

I would find it very likely that the CIA was involved in January 6th, just by the reaction to it, or is aware that DOJ is in covering for DOJ or something. The government is clearly, based on their reaction, it's actually the worst possible conclusion. If I'm just going off reaction, I have no data. I can't prove anything. But it means that the capital police, the FBI and CIA were all in bed. Yeah. And they perpetrated a hoax of such colossal

proportion. And they, you know, January 6th, you had people rotting in these jails. Oh, no, for a very long time. If CIA was involved in that, maybe that four wins thing. Maybe that's where we should be going. We certainly church committee. 2.0. Just shut it down. Yeah. So,

but that raises the question. I mean, like the firewall always was involvement in domestic politics.

Yes, we did overthrow most of that. Yes, we did this, that and the other thing abroad. But it was in the service of American foreign policy goals. And so it's okay. But what we'll never do is start tampering in our domestic politics, our democracy. Right. Right. And yet, I know for a fact that there are CIA domestic influence operations. I've never seen one. But all the indications are when you take a look at the media, media blackouts, what media covers, it starts looking like something's

happening. And, you know, yeah, they're pretty obviously involved in the monocolovance key thing,

“not that I'm pro-clin, never have been. Yeah. But you think it's fair to say. I think it is. Yeah.”

Yeah. So that's like pretty shocking that they would be involved in politics, don't you think? It is shocking. And like I said, I used to be different. And the variety of

you can't read an email that says, this is our story and we're sticking to it. And, and not,

“not, you can't go back, can't go back to that. So yeah, it's, it's disturbing. We're not getting”

reformed. And I have a feeling, um, we've got more pain ahead for us if we don't make some change. I agree

with that. Thanks so much for taking all this time, Jim, to talk to us. My pleasure. Congrats. You've

been out of C.A. less than a month. And you're already doing a good work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.