Latest / Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar / 3/20/26: Saagar X Joe Kent: RESIGNATION, Israeli NUKES, Epstein, Charlie Kirk, Mike Huckabee

Transcript

3/20/26: Saagar X Joe Kent: RESIGNATION, Israeli NUKES, Epstein, Charlie Kirk, Mike Huckabee · Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

0:00
Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
0:01
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
0:05
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
0:07
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
0:08
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
0:10
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
0:13
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
0:14
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
0:17
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
0:19
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
0:22
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
0:25
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
0:27
Speaker 1: news media, and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
0:29
Speaker 1: dot com. Hello everybody, we are about to record an
0:32
Speaker 1: interview with Joe Kent. He's the former NCTC director the
0:36
Speaker 1: National Counter counter Terrorism Center, resigned in protests over the
0:41
Speaker 1: Iran War. Many of the questions that we pulled were
0:44
Speaker 1: from our premium subscribers, so I just want to say
0:46
Speaker 1: at the top, thank you all very very much. You
0:48
Speaker 1: submitted over five hundred. They were so helpful. I actually
0:51
Speaker 1: paraphrase many of them into many of the ones that
0:54
Speaker 1: I have that are prepared. So with all of that,
0:56
Speaker 1: let's get to it. Joining us now is Joe Kent,
0:59
Speaker 1: the former NCTC director. He resigned in protests over the
1:03
Speaker 1: Iran war from the Trump administration. We have a lot
1:05
Speaker 1: of questions for him, and we thank him very much
1:06
Speaker 1: for his time and his heroism. Joe, thank you so
1:09
Speaker 1: much for joining us.
1:10
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. I really appreciate it. Oh.
1:12
Speaker 1: Absolutely, well, it's a very interesting time. I did, of course,
1:15
Speaker 1: want to give you at the very beginning, an opportunity
1:18
Speaker 1: to respond, Mac if we can go and put this
1:20
Speaker 1: up here on the screen. Multiple stories now coming out
1:23
Speaker 1: from the Trump administration alleging that you leaked classified information,
1:29
Speaker 1: specifically to multiple media outlets and to Tucker Carlson, and
1:32
Speaker 1: so just at the very beginning, did you ever leak
1:35
Speaker 1: classified information of any kind?
1:37
Speaker 3: Nope.
1:39
Speaker 1: So do you believe that this is political retribution against you?
1:43
Speaker 3: I do if it's even true. I mean these they're
1:47
Speaker 3: saying I'm being investigated, which would be a leak onto itself.
1:50
Speaker 3: So I think this is more of a media campaign
1:52
Speaker 3: than anything else. So I don't even think it's necessarily retribution.
1:56
Speaker 3: They released all this at the same time my interview
1:58
Speaker 3: of Tucker was coming out. I think they're just trying
2:00
Speaker 3: to kind of capture the narrative.
2:02
Speaker 1: Got it, so capturing the narrative obviously, to try to
2:05
Speaker 1: discredit some of the allegations that you've made here in public.
2:09
Speaker 1: Obviously we believe that these are very serious. And to
2:13
Speaker 1: my knowledge, you are the highest president, highest profile presidential
2:17
Speaker 1: appointee in modern history to resign over a war, and
2:22
Speaker 1: the specifically at the beginning of a war. So I
2:25
Speaker 1: do want to give you the opportunity, even though many
2:27
Speaker 1: others may have heard your explanation that you laid out
2:30
Speaker 1: in your resignation letter, why did you decide to do this? So?
2:34
Speaker 3: I decided to resign at this juncture because I thought
2:37
Speaker 3: that I had kind of expended all options for helping
2:40
Speaker 3: us get out of the current state that we're in.
2:42
Speaker 3: So basically, from the time that the lead up to
2:44
Speaker 3: the Twelve Days War happened, Operation Midnight Hammer and then
2:47
Speaker 3: everything since I did the best job that I could
2:51
Speaker 3: to paint an accurate picture of the intelligence and why
2:55
Speaker 3: we had more options with regards to Iran and that situation.
3:00
Speaker 3: Then the war kicked off and I saw the trajectory
3:03
Speaker 3: that we were on and I could no longer be
3:05
Speaker 3: part of that. In good conscience, knowing that this was
3:07
Speaker 3: a war of choice. This is the type of war
3:09
Speaker 3: that I fought in my late wife and so many
3:11
Speaker 3: of my good friends lost their lives in. And I
3:13
Speaker 3: promised myself long ago, if I was ever in a
3:16
Speaker 3: position of responsibility or had a way to make my
3:19
Speaker 3: voice heard, that I would be against something like this.
3:22
Speaker 3: But also what was critical for me was to really
3:25
Speaker 3: explain to the American people, but really to the President,
3:28
Speaker 3: because I couldn't get through to the President anymore from
3:31
Speaker 3: the inside. I needed to do it from the outside.
3:33
Speaker 3: And I truly believe, and really Marco Rubio, President Trump,
3:38
Speaker 3: Speaker of the House, and many other government officials public
3:41
Speaker 3: statements confirm this. I truly believe that the Israelis forced
3:46
Speaker 3: our hand in this. The only thing that was imminent
3:49
Speaker 3: about the operations in Iran was the fact that the
3:51
Speaker 3: Israelis were going to attack the Iranians, setting off a
3:56
Speaker 3: series of events that would get us deeply involved in
3:59
Speaker 3: this war. So there was no imminent threat posed by
4:02
Speaker 3: Iran itself. If anything, the Iranians, since President Trump came
4:07
Speaker 3: back into office, they had showed that they were willing
4:09
Speaker 3: to Number one gets the negotiating tamble number two that
4:12
Speaker 3: at times of conflict they would use a very deliberate
4:15
Speaker 3: escalatory ladder, because they took President Trump very very seriously,
4:20
Speaker 3: and because in my personal opinion, I think the data
4:22
Speaker 3: supports this. They did want to reach a deal, and
4:25
Speaker 3: we can get into all the details there, but that's
4:28
Speaker 3: basically why I felt like at this juncture I needed
4:31
Speaker 3: to resign.
4:32
Speaker 1: Sure, so you opened up that statement saying you no
4:35
Speaker 1: longer felt you could get to President Trump. So who
4:37
Speaker 1: specifically was keeping you away from President Trump or people
4:41
Speaker 1: liked you who had those ideas.
4:44
Speaker 3: Look, I don't want to get into specific people. I
4:46
Speaker 3: don't want this to become a he said, She said,
4:47
Speaker 3: palace intrigue of the Trump administration. I just feel like
4:50
Speaker 3: there was a wall put up around President Trump so
4:54
Speaker 3: that he was not getting a wide variety of options,
4:57
Speaker 3: and so he was kind of existing. And unfortunately this
5:01
Speaker 3: echo chamber where you had highly influential members of the
5:05
Speaker 3: Israeli government that would come to President Trump and an
5:07
Speaker 3: official unofficial capacity, or members of his very inner circle,
5:11
Speaker 3: and they did a very effective job of moving a
5:14
Speaker 3: key red line. President Trump has always said that Iran
5:17
Speaker 3: cannot have a nuclear weapon. And as a matter of fact,
5:19
Speaker 3: the former Supreme Leader since two thousand and four had
5:22
Speaker 3: said the same thing, that Iran will not get a
5:24
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon. So the Israelis knew that. Actually this was
5:27
Speaker 3: very dangerous for the Israeli agenda because the Israelis wanted
5:29
Speaker 3: regime change and they saw that President Trump and the
5:32
Speaker 3: Ayah Tola basically had a place where they could start negotiations.
5:35
Speaker 3: So the Israelis very very effectively took the policy of
5:40
Speaker 3: no enrichment and they'd breathe, they break life into that,
5:44
Speaker 3: and they basically made that into the US policy by
5:47
Speaker 3: having their unofficial folks come in and say, Hey, it's
5:50
Speaker 3: really the enrichment that's the issue, and then they would
5:52
Speaker 3: have that echoed in their pro Israel media apparatus here
5:56
Speaker 3: in the United States, and so that was kind of
5:58
Speaker 3: all the President was hearing. So I wanted to be
6:00
Speaker 3: able to express that to the President, and I felt
6:03
Speaker 3: like I was kind of out of options to do
6:05
Speaker 3: that from the inside, and so having to go this
6:08
Speaker 3: route was the best course of action, right.
6:10
Speaker 1: So I guess, just to make it very clear, you're
6:11
Speaker 1: not going to be specific, but you were obviously kept
6:14
Speaker 1: out of the room by your telling. If that's the
6:16
Speaker 1: case for other people in the administration, do you anticipate
6:19
Speaker 1: any other resignations of your caliber?
6:23
Speaker 3: I'm not sure, honestly. I know there's a lot of
6:25
Speaker 3: folks who who feel the same way I do, that
6:27
Speaker 3: have the same concerns as me, and they may or
6:29
Speaker 3: may not approve of the you know, the method that
6:31
Speaker 3: I'm using right now, because it does, you know, incur
6:33
Speaker 3: a lot of risk. So you know, honestly, I don't know,
6:37
Speaker 3: I could see it going either way.
6:38
Speaker 1: Well, let's talk about that. Then there's a theory and
6:41
Speaker 1: I've seen leveled against you within MAGA. One was Joe
6:46
Speaker 1: to be a truly loyal patriot. You know, you should
6:48
Speaker 1: have stayed in the administration and you should have continued
6:51
Speaker 1: to work at this end. I believe I speak to
6:54
Speaker 1: probably some of the same people of those mind in
6:57
Speaker 1: the administration, and that's their theory is I need to
6:59
Speaker 1: stay in order to try and effectuate what kind of
7:02
Speaker 1: change I have. You clearly felt that the situation was
7:05
Speaker 1: so dire that you had to end up resigning, So
7:08
Speaker 1: talk us through that process and what that interim three
7:11
Speaker 1: week period before your resignation ended up happening. What was
7:15
Speaker 1: going through your mind.
7:16
Speaker 3: So I completely understand the theory that you laid out,
7:20
Speaker 3: and it's just like I'll stay here, I'll stay at
7:21
Speaker 3: my level, and I will continue to make a difference
7:23
Speaker 3: from the inside. I'll soldier on. And quite frankly, I
7:26
Speaker 3: did that for over twenty years and I didn't see
7:29
Speaker 3: a result. And I did it for over a year
7:31
Speaker 3: here in this administration. I think there's some places where
7:33
Speaker 3: we had some very significant victories. However, I felt like
7:37
Speaker 3: I had reached my maximum level of effectiveness, and quite frankly,
7:42
Speaker 3: just because I had pledged to myself so many years
7:44
Speaker 3: ago that I would take action at a time like this,
7:47
Speaker 3: I felt called to do this. But I do think
7:49
Speaker 3: we need to have a multi krong strategy, and part
7:51
Speaker 3: of the strategy is keeping people that are on the inside.
7:54
Speaker 3: And I say strategy, I don't mean I'm conspiring with anybody.
7:57
Speaker 3: I don't want to start a witch hunt within the administration.
7:59
Speaker 3: But I think we need people on the inside who
8:01
Speaker 3: are still going to try to seer the ship. So
8:03
Speaker 3: for people who are frustrated within MAGA and think there
8:05
Speaker 3: should be mass resignations, that wouldn't work any more than
8:08
Speaker 3: everyone's staying in kind of grinding and keeping their nose
8:11
Speaker 3: to the grindstone. I think we need people doing, you know,
8:14
Speaker 3: kind of both. So for me, I felt like, considering
8:16
Speaker 3: the fact that I have soldiers on for so long before,
8:21
Speaker 3: I have tried this before, and honestly, it felt like
8:24
Speaker 3: the easiest thing for me to do was to just
8:26
Speaker 3: like kind of go back to my default mode, which
8:28
Speaker 3: is I'll be a good soldier, I'll salute, I'll move out,
8:30
Speaker 3: I'll try and make a difference. You know, it feels
8:32
Speaker 3: good being the NCTC director. People are very kind to you,
8:35
Speaker 3: and you have a cool office and you have a
8:36
Speaker 3: cool title. It would be the easy thing to do.
8:39
Speaker 3: And whenever you for me anyways, whenever I feel like
8:42
Speaker 3: I'm doing the easy thing, I always try to check myself.
8:44
Speaker 3: And I said, I'm in a unique position right now
8:46
Speaker 3: because of my experiences in my past life in the
8:49
Speaker 3: military and the CIA and even running for office, I
8:52
Speaker 3: feel like I have a pretty thick skin for this
8:53
Speaker 3: set of stuff. So I think the most value add
8:55
Speaker 3: I can have right now is in this role with
8:58
Speaker 3: the Israelis. We're able to get into President Trump's ear
9:00
Speaker 3: using the media. It's time for me to do the same.
9:04
Speaker 3: Got it.
9:04
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's obviously very admirable. So let's talk then.
9:07
Speaker 1: The specific allegation I've seen about this is that you
9:11
Speaker 1: are misrepresenting how this went down, is that you have
9:14
Speaker 1: not provided specific evidence for how the Israelis manipulated President Trump.
9:19
Speaker 1: I think that's pretty clear to your explanation. So you've talked,
9:23
Speaker 1: you know, I think in some vaguer terms about the
9:26
Speaker 1: you know, they've presented shifting red lines, et cetera. But
9:29
Speaker 1: what did they do to get him to accept those
9:32
Speaker 1: red lines? Because ultimately he's the one who asked to agree.
9:35
Speaker 1: So how did that play out?
9:37
Speaker 3: So look, if I were to give very very specific examples,
9:41
Speaker 3: I could put myself in a lot of peril. However,
9:44
Speaker 3: like what's already publicly out there, I think the Secretary
9:47
Speaker 3: of State and the President's and statements about well Israel
9:50
Speaker 3: was going to go so we had to go really
9:52
Speaker 3: tell you pretty much everything you need to know about
9:54
Speaker 3: the off balance relationship that we currently have with the
9:57
Speaker 3: State of the Israel. But it works very simply. The
10:01
Speaker 3: Israeli officials would would come to us, either through intelligence
10:03
Speaker 3: channels or through official engagements with the President with members
10:07
Speaker 3: of his cabinet, their counterparts, and look, these guys are,
10:10
Speaker 3: they're they're good. A lot of them, they're very good
10:12
Speaker 3: at what they do. A lot of them are dual citizens,
10:14
Speaker 3: native English speakers. When you deal with the Israelis, it's
10:18
Speaker 3: different than dealing with any other foreign government really because
10:20
Speaker 3: they sound like us, they look like us. You can
10:23
Speaker 3: get pretty comfortable with them. And they have a very
10:26
Speaker 3: competent intelligence service. They're good at what they do, and
10:29
Speaker 3: so you're kind of like a little bit you could.
10:31
Speaker 3: You can be impressed by the intelligence that they can offer.
10:36
Speaker 3: And so they these officials would come in and they
10:39
Speaker 3: would kind of shop around different ideas, in different concepts
10:43
Speaker 3: that would basically get us to the point where we
10:46
Speaker 3: would need to take action against Iran. And they knew
10:49
Speaker 3: that President Trump had always said no, no nuclear weapon
10:52
Speaker 3: for Iran, and so they took this line of zero enrichment,
10:56
Speaker 3: knowing that the Iranians had this had a red line
10:58
Speaker 3: of their own. And the Iranian red line was very pragmatic.
11:01
Speaker 3: It was that they wanted the ability to enrich uranium.
11:04
Speaker 3: And it's kind of common sense why. It's because they
11:07
Speaker 3: watched Kadathi and Libya say hey, I don't have any
11:09
Speaker 3: more nuclear weapons. I'll give him all up. Look what
11:11
Speaker 3: happened to him. Or if you have bluff where you
11:13
Speaker 3: try to develop nuclear weapons, you end up like Saddam Hussein.
11:16
Speaker 3: And so the ir audience had this ice called the
11:19
Speaker 3: Goldilocks solution where they said, you know, we don't have
11:21
Speaker 3: nuclear weapons, but we could have them if we want them.
11:24
Speaker 3: And so that was their red line. So the Israelis
11:26
Speaker 3: came in and they took this talkie point and to
11:28
Speaker 3: my knowledge and people can fact check me on this,
11:30
Speaker 3: to my knowledge, you know, the first Trump official who said,
11:33
Speaker 3: you know, no enrichment for Iran it was Mike Bompeo
11:36
Speaker 3: in the first Trump administration. And I haven't seen anyone
11:39
Speaker 3: else come in and say like, this is the US policy. However,
11:42
Speaker 3: it was repeated enough in official channels that they can't
11:44
Speaker 3: have enrichment, and enrichment equals like like Lindsay Graham would
11:48
Speaker 3: say ten nuclear bombs in ten days or something just
11:51
Speaker 3: absolutely absurd. If you got a nuclear expert in the room,
11:54
Speaker 3: they would say, no, that's not how any of this
11:55
Speaker 3: works at all. Plus, the Ayatola and his government had
11:59
Speaker 3: enforced they're no nuclear weapons stands since two thousand and four,
12:03
Speaker 3: and so we had no intelligence that reflected that enrichment
12:06
Speaker 3: equaled a nuclear bomb. It was pretty clear what their
12:09
Speaker 3: strategy was. So they came in with their officials and
12:11
Speaker 3: they would say, like, no enrichment because in richment equals
12:13
Speaker 3: a bomb. They would kind of just repeat it, but
12:15
Speaker 3: then they would do a good job of coordinating that
12:17
Speaker 3: with their surrogates in the pro Israeli media here in
12:20
Speaker 3: the US Marplevin, Sean Hannity Foundation for the Defensive Democracies.
12:24
Speaker 3: They'd have it on Fox News, they'd have it in
12:25
Speaker 3: the Wall Street Journal in New York Post, et cetera.
12:28
Speaker 3: And the next thing you know, they're hearing it enough
12:30
Speaker 3: that they kind of breathed reality into it, and then
12:33
Speaker 3: we're having a debate over no enrichment and we basically
12:36
Speaker 3: reach an impasse. I think prior to the Twelve Day War. Again,
12:39
Speaker 3: this is just this is just my opinion. I believe
12:41
Speaker 3: that Steve Wikoff was on the cusp of getting a deal. Now,
12:44
Speaker 3: it wouldn't have been the Iranians just giving up everything
12:47
Speaker 3: in terms of enrichment, but they were talking about Richmond
12:50
Speaker 3: and what levels and how would it be monitored, and
12:52
Speaker 3: we're making a lot of progress. And again, every time
12:54
Speaker 3: we'd get close to a place where there's progress being made,
12:57
Speaker 3: the Israelis would come in with a bunch of crazy intelligence,
13:00
Speaker 3: usually just to see which would stick. You know, they're
13:04
Speaker 3: developing blistic missiles that I mean, you know, pointed directly
13:06
Speaker 3: out America that can reach America, things like this, and
13:10
Speaker 3: they would they would try and generate enough hype to
13:12
Speaker 3: take away the president's decision making space.
13:15
Speaker 1: So something I've noticed here is about Wikoff. I don't
13:18
Speaker 1: know what to make of Wickcoff. I'm hoping that you
13:20
Speaker 1: can maybe shed some light on this. I was very
13:22
Speaker 1: optimistic about Sea Wikoff in the early days. Clearly him
13:25
Speaker 1: and President Trump were willing to exert a lot of
13:27
Speaker 1: influence on the Israeli government to attain a ceasefire. But
13:30
Speaker 1: then it went away. Then we ended up with a
13:31
Speaker 1: twelve day war. You said you were optimistic about those negotiations. However,
13:36
Speaker 1: a member of the British government has basically said he
13:38
Speaker 1: thought that Wikoff and Jared Kushner were effectively acting like
13:42
Speaker 1: Israeli assets in their negotiations. So do you think that
13:46
Speaker 1: that's true. Are they Israeli assets. Are they working on
13:48
Speaker 1: our behalf? Is there some communication being lost in the
13:52
Speaker 1: flow here? What's your actual assessment as somebody who saw
13:55
Speaker 1: this a little bit more on the inside.
13:58
Speaker 3: To my knowledge, both Seebricoff and Jared Kushner were doing
14:01
Speaker 3: their best to get a deal. I mean, that's all
14:02
Speaker 3: I know. I wasn't in the negotiations, so I don't
14:05
Speaker 3: want to, you know, overinflate like what my access to
14:07
Speaker 3: negotiations were. I spent a good deal of time with
14:11
Speaker 3: Jared Kushner in the previous Trump administration, and I spent
14:14
Speaker 3: a good deal of time with Steve Wikoff in this administration.
14:18
Speaker 3: And I think that Steve Wikoff was working diligently from
14:21
Speaker 3: the time that even before President Trump was inaugurated onwards
14:24
Speaker 3: to develop the relationships necessary to get us a deal.
14:29
Speaker 3: And like I said before, I truly believe that there
14:31
Speaker 3: was a deal that was very, very that was within
14:34
Speaker 3: our sites, within reach prior to the Twelve Day War.
14:37
Speaker 3: And the fact that the negotiations picked up after the
14:40
Speaker 3: Twelve Day War it shows you where the Iranians headspace was.
14:43
Speaker 3: I mean, we did Midnight Hammer, and you know, the
14:46
Speaker 3: Iranians launched back an equal number of missiles at you know,
14:49
Speaker 3: the far end of a base in Katar they knew
14:51
Speaker 3: was empty, and within short order, I mean, they were
14:55
Speaker 3: right back at the negotiating too.
14:57
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's talk about this imminent threat. So that's
14:59
Speaker 1: another thing I've seen leveled against you. Imminent threat. Only
15:02
Speaker 1: the president Mac. We could put Director Gabbard's statement up
15:06
Speaker 1: there on the screen. She said that the ODE and
15:09
Speaker 1: I and your I guess the officer you used to
15:11
Speaker 1: work for. Your job was really just to assess the intelligence.
15:15
Speaker 1: The only person who can determine what is and not
15:18
Speaker 1: an imminent threat is the president. Do you believe that statement?
15:22
Speaker 1: Do you think? Do you think that statement? Because clearly
15:25
Speaker 1: you're saying that there was no imminent threat, and I'm
15:28
Speaker 1: assuming you had access to the same level of intelligence.
15:31
Speaker 3: I mean, this is one of the reasons why I
15:33
Speaker 3: had to resign. I think this is I believe the
15:36
Speaker 3: d and I is speaking the truth. She's at the
15:39
Speaker 3: end of the day, the president was elected by the
15:40
Speaker 3: American people. So if the president was to say, like,
15:42
Speaker 3: my tolerance for eminent is anybody coining a weapon generally
15:45
Speaker 3: in our direction? Well, okay, okay, you're the boss, you're
15:47
Speaker 3: the commander in chief. I don't agree with that, and
15:50
Speaker 3: I had to. I had to resign because basically, if
15:52
Speaker 3: that's the bar that we're going to have, then we're
15:54
Speaker 3: going to need to start a lot more warriors for
15:56
Speaker 3: a lot more countries. I think when you assess intelligen
16:00
Speaker 3: and sret's intent versus capability, I think that's absolutely key.
16:03
Speaker 3: There's a lot of people who intend to do his harm,
16:05
Speaker 3: who were just some guy yelling on the internet and
16:07
Speaker 3: they have no capability. And then there's other actors that
16:09
Speaker 3: have the capability to do his harm and they don't
16:12
Speaker 3: have the intent. Again, we had so much data even
16:15
Speaker 3: you know, you know, over twenty years of conflict with
16:18
Speaker 3: the Irions, but especially under President Trump and the post
16:21
Speaker 3: Costum SOULMANI Strike era of seeing what the Iranians esplanatory
16:26
Speaker 3: ladder was, but especially since the Twelve Day War. I mean,
16:29
Speaker 3: so at this junction, when we had negotiators back to
16:31
Speaker 3: the negotiating table, it was pretty clear that the Iridions
16:35
Speaker 3: weren't going to do a preemptive strike on us, that
16:38
Speaker 3: they weren't going to strike unless they were you know,
16:40
Speaker 3: stricken first by the Israelis and the Israeli suit of this,
16:43
Speaker 3: which is why they took the action that they did.
16:46
Speaker 1: Right, That's okay, let's talk about Trump now. So I mean,
16:49
Speaker 1: and I'm saying this from a very visceral feeling, I
16:52
Speaker 1: truly understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to
16:54
Speaker 1: influence President Trump. You did resign in protest because you
16:59
Speaker 1: ultimately felt you came answer, but per your reasoning, it's
17:01
Speaker 1: to try and influence Trump. Much of the meta narrative
17:05
Speaker 1: here is about how the Israelis manipulated Trump. But isn't
17:08
Speaker 1: Trump responsible? Like he's the commander in chief. He chose
17:11
Speaker 1: to believe it. He could have called you if he
17:13
Speaker 1: wanted to. He could have called Gabbart, he could have
17:15
Speaker 1: listened to any of these people. He ultimately chose not
17:19
Speaker 1: to do. You feel like you're stripping a little bit
17:21
Speaker 1: of agency away from the President by I wouldn't say
17:23
Speaker 1: laying all the blame on the Israelies, but a lot
17:25
Speaker 1: of the blame on the Israelis.
17:27
Speaker 3: I think, well, plenty of time for that later on.
17:30
Speaker 3: I think right now we're on a crisis, and what
17:32
Speaker 3: I want the president to know is that right now,
17:36
Speaker 3: I mean, probably for this you know, hopefully two weeks,
17:39
Speaker 3: but maybe even less time. He has time to turn
17:41
Speaker 3: this thing around. So that's the most important thing. I mean,
17:44
Speaker 3: that's the most important message I want to ge out.
17:45
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, he has the commander
17:46
Speaker 3: in chief and he understands that, and that's why I
17:49
Speaker 3: think for him to truly capture all of his tower
17:53
Speaker 3: back and for him to actually governing based on the
17:56
Speaker 3: mandate that seventy seven million people gave him, I think
17:59
Speaker 3: if he reflects right now on the way that this
18:02
Speaker 3: whole debathel happened and we got into the state that
18:04
Speaker 3: we're in right now, with the straits of worn moves
18:07
Speaker 3: in peril and the price of energy and no end
18:10
Speaker 3: in sight, I think the main focus has to be
18:13
Speaker 3: on getting him to change course. So I guess we'll
18:17
Speaker 3: I guess we'll have this conversation again later to say,
18:19
Speaker 3: you know who deserve blame later on, But right now
18:22
Speaker 3: my focus is on hopefully letting getting him the space
18:25
Speaker 3: to change his mind.
18:26
Speaker 1: I see the tactical of approach that you're trying to
18:29
Speaker 1: make here with true and again I really do respect it.
18:32
Speaker 1: It is just that I guess, you know, what we're
18:33
Speaker 1: in different positions here, because my relative confidence for that
18:36
Speaker 1: happening is basically zero. What's your confidence on that.
18:40
Speaker 3: I have hope, and I hope and I pray. If anybody,
18:43
Speaker 3: if any leader can change his mind and change it
18:47
Speaker 3: decisively and rapidly, it's President Trump and then sell it
18:51
Speaker 3: to the American people. Uh, there's a lot of red lines.
18:53
Speaker 3: I know you and Tucker discussed them, that we need
18:55
Speaker 3: a total surrender. There's been there has been a lot
18:57
Speaker 3: of bellicoast rhetoric that that gives me concern because total
19:02
Speaker 3: surrender it means only like one of the two things,
19:04
Speaker 3: like we're going to go in and ground invade for
19:06
Speaker 3: the next I don't know however long it takes to
19:07
Speaker 3: conquer Iran. I don't want to find out, or we're
19:09
Speaker 3: going to use something more drastic like any weapon or
19:12
Speaker 3: allowed the Israelis to do. So. However, if anyone can
19:15
Speaker 3: turn that around, it is President Trump. Because he is decisive.
19:18
Speaker 3: People take him seriously. The Iranians will take him seriously.
19:20
Speaker 3: In the Israelis will take him seriously. So look, I
19:23
Speaker 3: still have a lot of hope. I think it's possible.
19:26
Speaker 1: Joe, what's your assessment of the use of a nuclear weapon.
19:30
Speaker 1: Do you believe that it's a possibility by the United
19:32
Speaker 1: States or by Israel.
19:34
Speaker 3: By the United States, I would say it's relatively low. However,
19:37
Speaker 3: the Israelis are the wild card. If you would have
19:40
Speaker 3: asked me before they shot cruise missiles or they shot
19:43
Speaker 3: ballistic missiles at Qatar, when we had active negotiations going on,
19:48
Speaker 3: I would have said, there's no way they would do that.
19:50
Speaker 3: But they did. If you would have told me a
19:53
Speaker 3: year ago that the Israelis were just going to attack
19:56
Speaker 3: Iran to get us entrenched in the conflict, I'd be like, now,
20:00
Speaker 3: I don't think that they would do that. The Israelis
20:03
Speaker 3: view the threat from Ron as existential. They also believe
20:07
Speaker 3: that this is a very very limited time that they
20:09
Speaker 3: have to affect the result they want, which is regime change,
20:12
Speaker 3: and not regime change in the way that Americans think
20:14
Speaker 3: about it. Americans think about regime change in the way
20:16
Speaker 3: we go in and we take out the we take
20:18
Speaker 3: out the leader, we put in a new guy or whatever,
20:20
Speaker 3: and then we're kind of dealt with it. The Israelis
20:22
Speaker 3: don't really care what happens to Iran. They just want
20:25
Speaker 3: the Iahtola and the IRGC degraded or just completely taken out,
20:30
Speaker 3: and if chaos ensues from their chaos and the straits
20:33
Speaker 3: or moves, you know, the country fracturing into a bunch
20:37
Speaker 3: of different warning factions, a migration crisis into Europe, they
20:40
Speaker 3: don't really care because in their minds they've taken away
20:42
Speaker 3: the threat and from the Israeli perspective, I understand that,
20:45
Speaker 3: but that's where I have to be clear eyed as
20:47
Speaker 3: Americans and say, us and our partners, who we may
20:50
Speaker 3: like in some regards, have very very different strategic goals here,
20:53
Speaker 3: and we have to pursue our interests.
20:56
Speaker 1: So you are worried about it in Israeli nuclear use,
20:58
Speaker 1: I certainly am, absolutely, ok Yeah, Okay, Well then let's
21:01
Speaker 1: talk then a little bit about you know, this escalation.
21:04
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons here that you decided
21:06
Speaker 1: to resign. What I'm curious is in this escalation there
21:10
Speaker 1: was a lot of speculation Joe Kent's resignation means a
21:13
Speaker 1: ground invasion is coming? Can you clear that up? I mean,
21:15
Speaker 1: do you think a ground invasion is coming? What's your
21:17
Speaker 1: personal assessment?
21:19
Speaker 3: I look, I don't know any secret but I don't
21:22
Speaker 3: know any military plans I couldn't give them up even
21:24
Speaker 3: if I did, but the President has said all options
21:27
Speaker 3: are on the table. And one thing I do know
21:29
Speaker 3: from being in combat for most of my adult life
21:32
Speaker 3: is that things can change very very quickly, and there's
21:36
Speaker 3: decisions you think that you're gonna have time to make,
21:39
Speaker 3: but you don't necessarily have that time. If you have
21:41
Speaker 3: capabilities deployed, they tend to be used. I mean, if
21:46
Speaker 3: military commanders feel that their troops are in danger, or
21:49
Speaker 3: if they've been given a military objective of hey, we
21:52
Speaker 3: need to take out all the ballistics, we need to
21:53
Speaker 3: take out the Iranian Navy, we need to take out
21:55
Speaker 3: the IRGC, and they have those resources on hand, they'll
21:59
Speaker 3: deploy them. Look, I respect everybody that's at Syncom right now.
22:02
Speaker 3: I spend most of my life in the syncom aor
22:05
Speaker 3: but Syncom is a very big war machine, and that's
22:08
Speaker 3: a good thing if you can actually rein them in. However,
22:11
Speaker 3: what I've learned in twenty plus years of seeing this
22:14
Speaker 3: play out is that if you give Syncom vague guidance
22:17
Speaker 3: or even kind of like relatively specific guidance, like they're
22:20
Speaker 3: going to run until you yank them back in, it's
22:23
Speaker 3: what they do. You've got to be able to really
22:26
Speaker 3: tame that lethal machine. And that's what makes me nervous
22:30
Speaker 3: right now where this could happen really quickly. So my
22:33
Speaker 3: assessment this is based on several sources, people who I've
22:36
Speaker 3: spoken to. What I'm told is that I see a
22:39
Speaker 3: lot of Pentagon leaders. They've come out anonymously and they're leaking.
22:43
Speaker 3: They're like, no, we warned Trump about the straits of
22:45
Speaker 3: horror moves. From what I know, that's not one hundred
22:48
Speaker 3: percent true. Again, I am not absolving Trump of any responsibility.
22:51
Speaker 3: They certainly told him that it was going to be
22:54
Speaker 3: a potential issue, but they sold a much more optimistic
22:58
Speaker 3: vision at the big This is not just the Israelis,
23:02
Speaker 3: this is also our own chairman of the Joint Chiefs
23:04
Speaker 3: of Staff I'm speaking about specifically. And the narrative again
23:08
Speaker 3: that I've been told is that the people who did
23:10
Speaker 3: share that view were excized from their command, which you
23:13
Speaker 3: could see. It's public knowledge, it's been reported out there.
23:16
Speaker 3: I'm curious for what you heard about the way that
23:19
Speaker 3: that went down many of those critical meetings in the
23:21
Speaker 3: situation room. Yeah, you know, I think the imagery that's
23:26
Speaker 3: been publicly released is very telling where you had one
23:29
Speaker 3: small group that was down mar A Lago that night,
23:31
Speaker 3: and then you had the rest up of the situation
23:33
Speaker 3: room at the time. Look in the lead up to
23:36
Speaker 3: the Twelve Day War, we were having very robust debates
23:39
Speaker 3: that were part of the National Security Council process. The
23:44
Speaker 3: principal small group, we'd have the Deputies Committee meetings, we'd
23:47
Speaker 3: have very robust debates, will fall into eighteen intelligence agencies
23:50
Speaker 3: with the Joint Chief's Staff, et cetera. And that played
23:56
Speaker 3: out over the course of about a month and the
23:58
Speaker 3: lead up to the Twelve Day War. And to include
24:00
Speaker 3: that ahead of Midnight Hammer, where a lot of us said, okay, fine,
24:03
Speaker 3: if you bomb these sites, that's all well and good.
24:06
Speaker 3: We take out a RAN's ability to enrich that meets
24:08
Speaker 3: our strategic objective. Problem is the Israelations or come right
24:11
Speaker 3: back to us in you know, a couple of months
24:13
Speaker 3: and demand more because their their goals regime change. Like,
24:16
Speaker 3: they're not beating around the bush about this. And so
24:20
Speaker 3: that was known and so from from my optic in
24:23
Speaker 3: the lead up to this last iteration, that process didn't
24:26
Speaker 3: play out. And people can say, oh, Kent doesn't know,
24:28
Speaker 3: because it's just he wasn't invited. But I can tell
24:31
Speaker 3: you the robust debate with the Deputies Committee's National Security
24:34
Speaker 3: Council that that just that simply wasn't happening.
24:39
Speaker 1: So it's a non nerd speak. I think this is important.
24:41
Speaker 1: What you just laid out is a normal process the
24:44
Speaker 1: Deputies Committee, Principles Committee, NSC, All options and views are
24:48
Speaker 1: presented to the president. Even the Iraq War, the most
24:51
Speaker 1: disastrous thing in the world in or at least in
24:54
Speaker 1: my lifetime, that played out that way. That's how it did.
24:56
Speaker 1: You can go and you can read about it. What
24:58
Speaker 1: you are talking about is effective a bespoke process which
25:02
Speaker 1: played out with some advisors down in mar Alago others
25:05
Speaker 1: in the situation room. I guess you are confirming by
25:07
Speaker 1: the way the White House told us that there was
25:09
Speaker 1: nothing to be seen about that, But from your telling,
25:11
Speaker 1: obviously there was something that we could gleam a little
25:14
Speaker 1: bit from that takeaway. So I do think it's very
25:17
Speaker 1: important to say then that if some bespoke process played out,
25:20
Speaker 1: we have to really investigate that bespoke process and the
25:23
Speaker 1: information that was getting to Trump then and also now.
25:27
Speaker 1: And so again I respect your want to not play
25:31
Speaker 1: the what was it the palace intrigue story, but I
25:36
Speaker 1: will say for people like me, it is deeply frustrating
25:39
Speaker 1: to watch people who told us to our face, privately
25:43
Speaker 1: and publicly, we're not going to do this, and then
25:46
Speaker 1: it happened. And what we've seen publicly reported is that
25:50
Speaker 1: when you took your concerns to the Vice President and
25:53
Speaker 1: to the DNI, that they told you not to make
25:56
Speaker 1: a big thing about it. I wonder if you can
25:59
Speaker 1: comment about your frustration, first of all, if you can
26:02
Speaker 1: tell us whether that report is true or not, but
26:04
Speaker 1: really just to tell us what that tension is like
26:08
Speaker 1: for the people who ostensibly did share those views and
26:12
Speaker 1: what they're doing right now in the way that they're
26:14
Speaker 1: even voicing any concern to Donald Trump.
26:19
Speaker 3: In terms of the process, it was. It was just
26:22
Speaker 3: frustrating to see the stark night and day difference. I was.
26:25
Speaker 3: I got to a place where I was okay with
26:27
Speaker 3: with Midnight Hammer because we had such a robust debate,
26:31
Speaker 3: and I've heard criticisms of me where they say, hey,
26:33
Speaker 3: if you if you don't like what the president's doing
26:35
Speaker 3: as one of his appointees, then go ahead and voice
26:37
Speaker 3: your opinion behind closed doors, offer other options when when
26:39
Speaker 3: he smacks the table, you sleut and move out. Okay.
26:42
Speaker 3: That was That was where I was at with the
26:44
Speaker 3: Twelve Day Wore and with Midnight Hammer, because our voices
26:46
Speaker 3: were heard. It was a robust debate, and at the
26:49
Speaker 3: end of the day, Hey, you know, we lose whatever,
26:51
Speaker 3: that's fine, live the fight another day. This last iteration,
26:54
Speaker 3: like I said that, that didn't play out nears They
26:56
Speaker 3: wanted to just kick me out. You know, I've heard
26:58
Speaker 3: people say, well, they kick it out because you know
27:00
Speaker 3: whatever he talked to Tucker Carlson or something. Okay, that's fine.
27:04
Speaker 3: But then there still was plenty of other deputies they
27:06
Speaker 3: could have had in that meeting, actually a pretty robust
27:09
Speaker 3: staff that would offer a wide variety of options. And
27:12
Speaker 3: I just didn't see that play out, and there was
27:14
Speaker 3: there is frustration with that internally, and you know, like
27:16
Speaker 3: we talked about before, there's some guys who say, Okay,
27:18
Speaker 3: I'm gonna stay here. I'm going to say, you know,
27:20
Speaker 3: keep my eyes on target. And I think there's others
27:22
Speaker 3: that may be considering leaving. I. You know, obviously I
27:27
Speaker 3: report to the it's CTC directors come an odd job.
27:30
Speaker 3: You're a presidential appointee, President's chief counter terrorism advisor, so
27:34
Speaker 3: I technically report to the President, but then like for
27:37
Speaker 3: administrative functions, I'm also report to the d and I,
27:40
Speaker 3: but I'm also her counter terrorism advisor. And just you know,
27:43
Speaker 3: to be obviously, I mean most people know friends with
27:46
Speaker 3: with Tulsi prior to being in these positions. I served
27:49
Speaker 3: as her chief of staff before I was confirmed, around
27:52
Speaker 3: the beach head team and the landing team for her
27:54
Speaker 3: before she was confirmed, So we have a good relationship.
27:57
Speaker 3: I brought my frustrations to her over and over again,
28:01
Speaker 3: and then same thing. The Vice President has always been,
28:05
Speaker 3: i'd say, giving me probably more time than you should,
28:07
Speaker 3: very very generous. He's had a lot of people that
28:09
Speaker 3: want to get in his ear, and he would always
28:10
Speaker 3: give me the time of day whenever I said I
28:12
Speaker 3: had a concern. So I'm deeply appreciative of that. And
28:15
Speaker 3: so you know she was hearing me out. When it
28:17
Speaker 3: came time for me to resign, I wanted to do
28:18
Speaker 3: it the proper way. I said, hey, I'm happy to
28:20
Speaker 3: take my letter into the president and to resign to
28:23
Speaker 3: him if that's proper. I got to speak with the
28:27
Speaker 3: Vice President one on one the DN I joined us,
28:30
Speaker 3: and then later I got a phone call from the President.
28:33
Speaker 3: But that was kind of the way I went down.
28:34
Speaker 1: So then, how did you make of it when the
28:36
Speaker 1: President mac, I think we have this, He said he
28:38
Speaker 1: always thought you were weak on security. I mean, how
28:41
Speaker 1: does that feel personally? I assume you knew it was
28:45
Speaker 1: coming of some kind, but genuinely, like as a person
28:48
Speaker 1: who served your country, who served multiple combat tours, who
28:52
Speaker 1: lost your wife in combat, I mean, how does that feel?
28:56
Speaker 1: Does it make you question, you know, how this all
28:58
Speaker 1: went down the last year, probably two years of your
29:00
Speaker 1: life that you dedicated to serving him, to helping him
29:03
Speaker 1: get elected.
29:05
Speaker 3: No, I mean, all things considered, I wrote a pretty
29:07
Speaker 3: point letter, and for him to say that, you know
29:09
Speaker 3: week on security, I've seen the President be much harder
29:12
Speaker 3: on peaking before. So like, look, I kind of knew
29:14
Speaker 3: it was coming. People got to say what they got
29:16
Speaker 3: to say. Yeah. So at the end of the day,
29:19
Speaker 3: I before I left, I had a really good phone
29:22
Speaker 3: call with the President. He called me, and I believe
29:24
Speaker 3: that we parted on good terms.
29:26
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean I think that's admirable. I do think
29:29
Speaker 1: it's kind of interesting I've been talking, you know, about
29:31
Speaker 1: your situation with a lot of people. You're one of
29:33
Speaker 1: the only whistleblowers I've ever seen. You don't have to
29:36
Speaker 1: call yourself that I'm saying. I'm elevating to somebody who's resigned.
29:39
Speaker 1: You're not whistleblowing or leaking anything. I just want to
29:41
Speaker 1: be very clear. But somebody of that caliber who is
29:43
Speaker 1: coming out resigning in protests, who still seems to have
29:46
Speaker 1: some confidence in leadership, and I mean, we've talked about
29:50
Speaker 1: how you're scoring that circle, and again I appreciate it
29:52
Speaker 1: because you're trying to make a tactical point about the
29:54
Speaker 1: problems that we have. At what point, though, do you
29:57
Speaker 1: think that other people need to follow your lead? Is
30:00
Speaker 1: it a ground invasion, is it a you know, a consideration.
30:03
Speaker 1: Is it a feeling of not having your voice heard?
30:05
Speaker 1: Like a lot of people are going to listen to
30:07
Speaker 1: you right now for guidance. I know that for a fact,
30:09
Speaker 1: we're working in the United States government. What's your advice
30:11
Speaker 1: to them for the people who share a review.
30:14
Speaker 3: I think for my former colleagues, once they reach a
30:17
Speaker 3: point where they think that their their advice and their
30:20
Speaker 3: counsel is not being heard, they need to consider doing
30:24
Speaker 3: what I did, and the calculus is going to be
30:27
Speaker 3: different for everybody. I understand. There's even like, hey, can
30:29
Speaker 3: I tay my mortgage next week? There's there's there's those
30:31
Speaker 3: types of considerations as well. However, I would just, you know,
30:35
Speaker 3: really implore my former colleagues to just think about where
30:38
Speaker 3: we were at this time in two thousand and three
30:41
Speaker 3: in the Iraq War. How many lives could have been
30:43
Speaker 3: saved had more government officials said no, I'm not going
30:47
Speaker 3: to do this. And honestly, those guys kind of had
30:49
Speaker 3: an excuse. Nine eleven had just happened. We didn't have
30:52
Speaker 3: this access to media, we didn't have this access to information.
30:55
Speaker 3: I don't think our generation has an excuse. If you've
30:57
Speaker 3: fought in the global warrantear you don't next to you
31:00
Speaker 3: is we've seen this before. So I do think they
31:04
Speaker 3: need to reflect. If they're fighting in place or fighting
31:06
Speaker 3: the inside, I completely respect that. However, if they reach
31:11
Speaker 3: a point where the options that they're offering aren't being
31:15
Speaker 3: heard at all, and they're not even allowed in the room,
31:18
Speaker 3: they're not even allowed at the chain of command, the
31:19
Speaker 3: reports aren't even being read, they've got to reflect internally
31:23
Speaker 3: and think about how this is going to impact future
31:26
Speaker 3: generations or impact the men and women that are going
31:28
Speaker 3: to have to go fight and die overseas.
31:31
Speaker 1: I want to just double click on that, what if
31:33
Speaker 1: Cole and pal had told the truth? And can you
31:36
Speaker 1: imagine the world? Can you imagine what that world the
31:39
Speaker 1: prestige of someone like that? And I implore anyone listening
31:44
Speaker 1: to this to think about your comments and your background,
31:47
Speaker 1: of your you know, honestly, I think you're almost faithful,
31:50
Speaker 1: perhaps to a fault, to the administration, which I don't
31:53
Speaker 1: think has treated you particularly well. But to look at
31:56
Speaker 1: somebody like you who has the courage and to think
31:59
Speaker 1: and reflect about what that could have had some sort
32:01
Speaker 1: of impact. Maybe we'll get there at the end, maybe possible,
32:05
Speaker 1: but you probably want to be doing something about it,
32:07
Speaker 1: unlike Colin Powell who went along and lied to the
32:10
Speaker 1: American people. Moving on here a little bit with Iran,
32:14
Speaker 1: A lot of our audience we asked them for questions
32:16
Speaker 1: because you knew we were coming on. A lot of
32:18
Speaker 1: them actually want to hear some of your tactical breakdown.
32:22
Speaker 1: Why would because I mean, one of the presumptions in
32:25
Speaker 1: your resignation is that more military escalation with Iran is bad,
32:28
Speaker 1: is a nightmare. Why don't you lay out that case
32:31
Speaker 1: beyond just loss of American life? American presidence can stomach
32:34
Speaker 1: that if it's for a great greater objective. Clearly you disagree.
32:39
Speaker 1: Why would more escalation or any sort of ground invasion,
32:42
Speaker 1: even a limited one like carg Island, Why would that
32:45
Speaker 1: cross a line for you? Why do you think it's
32:46
Speaker 1: a bad idea?
32:48
Speaker 3: Well, let's just start off for he Well, actually, let's
32:50
Speaker 3: start with probably the most important thing. The most important
32:52
Speaker 3: thing if you're going to commit troops to a fight
32:54
Speaker 3: is you have to stay upfront what your strategic objective is.
32:58
Speaker 3: Why are we doing this? This is all said and done,
33:01
Speaker 3: this will look like what and that has not been
33:04
Speaker 3: clearly fleshed out, That has not been clearly articulated. We've
33:06
Speaker 3: said very vague things like well that Ran' is not
33:08
Speaker 3: gonna have any deo webpon. We're going to take away
33:10
Speaker 3: their ballistic missiles, We're going to take away their navy
33:12
Speaker 3: that those are those are tactical things, taking away you know,
33:15
Speaker 3: equipment essentially capabilities. Those are tactical capabilities. I know some
33:18
Speaker 3: of them technically for the walks out there have strategic
33:21
Speaker 3: strategic impact, but that's not a true instate. We actually
33:24
Speaker 3: have to have a true in state. And if we're
33:27
Speaker 3: going to go with the whole regime change thing, we've
33:29
Speaker 3: got enough data for the last twenty years that anytime
33:31
Speaker 3: we try it it ends up screwing up the region
33:33
Speaker 3: even more. So, I think number one that's homework hasn't
33:37
Speaker 3: been done as far as like putting people on Caring Island.
33:40
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think you need to be a
33:41
Speaker 3: tactician to say if you commit troops to that, they're
33:44
Speaker 3: essentially going to be used as bait, because I ran,
33:47
Speaker 3: regardless of how degraded we think some of their capabilities are,
33:50
Speaker 3: they can pin down that island with a good deal
33:53
Speaker 3: of ballistic missile, a good deal of drone fire. They
33:57
Speaker 3: could essentially cut off the straits than any ship that
34:00
Speaker 3: goes to reinforce them. In the airplane that goes to
34:02
Speaker 3: reinforce them, it's just a matter of time before they
34:04
Speaker 3: can pick them off as well. So I think that
34:06
Speaker 3: that would tactically be a massive blunder and we would
34:10
Speaker 3: lose lives. And if we mose lives, then we're stuck
34:12
Speaker 3: in the cycle of well, we lost lives, we have
34:15
Speaker 3: to double down and avenge them, and we have to
34:17
Speaker 3: commit more. Would taking the island didn't work, so now
34:19
Speaker 3: we just got to take all the beach heads and
34:21
Speaker 3: we'll secure the straits of horror moves by having soldiers
34:23
Speaker 3: and marines, you know, like on the shore and for
34:26
Speaker 3: how long? For what end? Once again, So this is
34:29
Speaker 3: where I think the fight there is just it could
34:32
Speaker 3: just end up being a massive quagmire. And look at it.
34:34
Speaker 3: And if our goal is regime change, the last thing
34:37
Speaker 3: that we should have done was killed the last Ayetola
34:39
Speaker 3: who was putting a lid on the development of a
34:42
Speaker 3: nuclear weapon. And look, there's no formula that I think
34:45
Speaker 3: a lot of folks would have you believe. And this
34:46
Speaker 3: is kind of the Israeli theory of the case. If
34:48
Speaker 3: you kill enough of these guys, you're eventually going to
34:50
Speaker 3: get to the moderates. That's not the way this works.
34:53
Speaker 3: If you kill these guys, you're going to get more
34:55
Speaker 3: and more radical people. There's always been attention in Iran
34:58
Speaker 3: between you know, hardliner and the clergy and some of
35:01
Speaker 3: the more moderates. But then the IRGC in particular and
35:04
Speaker 3: the IRGC these are these are the soldiers of cost
35:06
Speaker 3: them Solmani, and Solmani was like literally a very very
35:09
Speaker 3: hardcore competent. In general, the IRGC's leadership, these guys cut
35:13
Speaker 3: their teeth. They grew up fighting in the Iraq Iran War.
35:15
Speaker 3: They they grew up fighting us in Iraq. They grew
35:18
Speaker 3: up fighting with Lebanese HESBLA against the Israelis, and then
35:22
Speaker 3: the most of them fought heavily against Isis in Iraq
35:25
Speaker 3: and Syria. These are battle hardened guys and they've been
35:27
Speaker 3: screaming essentially at the clergy and a lot of a
35:29
Speaker 3: lot of a lot of the political leadership, like the
35:31
Speaker 3: guy who the Israeli has just killed Lary and Johnny
35:33
Speaker 3: and some of the other ones are a Rachi that hey,
35:36
Speaker 3: you're going too soft on the Americans, like let's go,
35:38
Speaker 3: let's let's throw down, let's use our proxies, let's get
35:40
Speaker 3: deeper and deeper and deeper engaged in this. And so
35:43
Speaker 3: I think a major problem in the major quagmire we
35:45
Speaker 3: get have is that if we continue this cycle of
35:47
Speaker 3: just killing off their leaders, the whole country of their
35:50
Speaker 3: fragments into absolute chaos, which is going to have the
35:53
Speaker 3: Libya effect on steroids or what We're going to continue
35:57
Speaker 3: to get more and more hardline folks, and that's going
35:59
Speaker 3: to keep like the effect that's going to have on
36:01
Speaker 3: the straits of corn moves, that's going to impact global
36:04
Speaker 3: energy way more than it already even has in terms
36:07
Speaker 3: of not just fuel production, not just natural gas, but
36:09
Speaker 3: also what's going to happen with fertilizers in terms of
36:11
Speaker 3: being able to grow crops. So these are very very
36:14
Speaker 3: big issues, and again I don't think we did our
36:16
Speaker 3: homework on in terms of what's our strategic objective.
36:19
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to turn a little bit to some
36:20
Speaker 1: comments you made with Tucker Carlson. You made some very
36:24
Speaker 1: ominous comments about the Butler assassination attempt and about Charlie
36:29
Speaker 1: Kirk's assassination, And I want to be super clear, like
36:33
Speaker 1: do you think that there was foreign involvement in the
36:37
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk assassination.
36:39
Speaker 3: The only thing that I will say for certain is
36:41
Speaker 3: that we did not get an opportunity to fully investigate
36:46
Speaker 3: the potential for foreign links. I'm not saying foreign governments,
36:48
Speaker 3: but I'm saying foreign links. That was n ctc's role.
36:51
Speaker 3: And I think just even a casual observer of the
36:54
Speaker 3: Charlie kirk case will say, hey, like there was I know,
36:56
Speaker 3: we got the guy that has his fingerprints on the gun.
36:59
Speaker 3: So it sounds like it's a slam done case. But
37:00
Speaker 3: most people they know that there was folks posting online
37:03
Speaker 3: ahead of time that like Charlie Kirkskin diet you on
37:06
Speaker 3: this specific date, and so it seems that the investigation
37:09
Speaker 3: is complete. What I can tell you from from our
37:12
Speaker 3: vantage point, from what nctc's function was supposed to be
37:15
Speaker 3: was investigating foreign links, and without getting into towny details,
37:18
Speaker 3: I can just say we didn't get the opportunity to
37:21
Speaker 3: fully run down every lead with foreign links. I'm not
37:25
Speaker 3: implicating any government, I'm not implicating any people. I'm just
37:28
Speaker 3: saying we were stopped from finishing our.
37:30
Speaker 1: Job, okay, and then tying that in back to the
37:34
Speaker 1: Iran question, clearly, I mean, look, I do, frankly think
37:37
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of conspiracy stuff out there. However, you,
37:40
Speaker 1: as you testified to in your Tucker interview, Charlie was
37:43
Speaker 1: a very vocal voice behind the scenes against the war
37:46
Speaker 1: with Iran. And what I'm trying to square is why,
37:52
Speaker 1: why exactly that this assassination has this assassination has become
37:58
Speaker 1: almost like fan fiction, you know, in really discussing and
38:01
Speaker 1: grotesque way. In my opinion, However, when somebody is so
38:04
Speaker 1: credible like you who was in charge of potential exploring
38:08
Speaker 1: foreign or foreign links, I have to take that very
38:11
Speaker 1: very seriously. So do you remain like committed to this,
38:15
Speaker 1: I guess committed to an anger or a frustration that
38:18
Speaker 1: you weren't allowed to do so. And is do you
38:21
Speaker 1: think that that had a potential impact on the current
38:24
Speaker 1: situation that we're in.
38:26
Speaker 3: Look, Charlie was one of the most vocal advocates that
38:28
Speaker 3: had access to the president from the outside against going
38:32
Speaker 3: to war with Iran, and at some point we have
38:35
Speaker 3: to look at like the bigger picture. So you've given
38:38
Speaker 3: me credit for being very gracious to President Trump, and
38:42
Speaker 3: I am. I think President Trump has a lot of
38:43
Speaker 3: agency and I think he can turn this around. We
38:46
Speaker 3: got in this topic on Tucker's program because he said, like,
38:48
Speaker 3: we know Trump is a smart guy, why didn't he
38:51
Speaker 3: let this happen? And I said, there's two schools of thought.
38:53
Speaker 3: One is the most likely, which is what I outlined
38:55
Speaker 3: basically in my letter and what we've been talking about
38:57
Speaker 3: up to this point. The second is, if you just
38:59
Speaker 3: take a look at the totality of things that could
39:02
Speaker 3: influence President Trump's decision making, you have the assassination attempt
39:06
Speaker 3: in Butler. That in theory, the assassination attempt in Butler
39:09
Speaker 3: is not linked, according to the official narrative to what
39:13
Speaker 3: took place of us a merchant who was hired by
39:15
Speaker 3: the Iranians to come to America hire a sniper arrested
39:18
Speaker 3: two days prior to Butler. That case is shut. We're
39:22
Speaker 3: not allowed to ask any questions or see if there's
39:23
Speaker 3: any linkage between him and Crooks. We were told that
39:25
Speaker 3: Crooks was just a lone gunman, no online presence. We
39:28
Speaker 3: attempted to look into that too, and essentially we're blocked
39:31
Speaker 3: by the FBI, and damn On disputes that. However, Tucker
39:36
Speaker 3: Carlson himself, his uninvestigative reporters dug up the fact that
39:39
Speaker 3: Thomas Crooks did indeed have an online persona, And so
39:42
Speaker 3: all I'm saying is like, we need to run that
39:43
Speaker 3: down because those are potential foreign links as well. As
39:45
Speaker 3: a matter of fact, Tucker's investigative journalists found some of those.
39:48
Speaker 3: So Trump's life was threatened a few different times before
39:51
Speaker 3: he even took office in a very real way, obviously
39:54
Speaker 3: the most real way in Butler, and there's lots of
39:55
Speaker 3: unanswered questions there. And then there's multiple breaches of President
39:58
Speaker 3: Trump's you know, secure perimeter. And then we have what
40:01
Speaker 3: happened with Charlie. And Charlie was vocal against the Twelve
40:04
Speaker 3: Day War. He was vocal against Midnight Hammer. He eventually
40:06
Speaker 3: got on board because he supported the president, but in
40:08
Speaker 3: the lead up to Midnight Hammer, Charlie was in the
40:11
Speaker 3: Oval office and Brett Weinstein's confirmed this with tech text messages.
40:15
Speaker 3: Others have as well. People can say that, you know,
40:17
Speaker 3: Charlie and I didn't talk, but like like I said
40:19
Speaker 3: on top of d the last time I saw him,
40:20
Speaker 3: and I can't pretend to be close with Charlie. I
40:22
Speaker 3: didn't even any test basses is from. But he saw
40:25
Speaker 3: me in the hallway and we spoke a lot. During
40:26
Speaker 3: the transition. He said, stop us from getting a war
40:28
Speaker 3: if Iran, and he was there to lobby the president
40:31
Speaker 3: for that. And then after Midnight Hammer, a lot of
40:35
Speaker 3: us in the more restrained camp said the Israeli is
40:38
Speaker 3: going to come back to us and ask us to
40:39
Speaker 3: do this again, and Charlie was aware of that as well.
40:42
Speaker 3: Then Charlie is killed in September again, same thing. Are
40:45
Speaker 3: there links? Is there more? Leads to rundown? All of
40:49
Speaker 3: that is stopped, and here we are with a nice,
40:52
Speaker 3: nice clean narrative that we're really kind of yelled at
40:55
Speaker 3: for questioning, which I don't fully understand. And so if
40:57
Speaker 3: you take all those things, you know in totality, and
41:01
Speaker 3: I think one of President Trump's strong suits is he
41:03
Speaker 3: can take in large sets of information and he can
41:06
Speaker 3: come up with what the leverage points are, what the
41:08
Speaker 3: vulnerabilities are, and what his interest is. And so whether
41:11
Speaker 3: or not there is some grand conspiracy or not, there
41:13
Speaker 3: is a potential that he views all of that as
41:17
Speaker 3: a deciding factor. Again, that's not my number one theory
41:20
Speaker 3: of the case. But for some people who are saying,
41:21
Speaker 3: like President Trump is too stupid, are too smart to
41:23
Speaker 3: fall for all of this, And I don't think he's
41:26
Speaker 3: I don't think he necessarily fell for it. I just
41:29
Speaker 3: think with the ecosystem that was created, I think he
41:32
Speaker 3: was heavily influenced. The alternative course of action is that
41:35
Speaker 3: he is under some degree of coercion, and so that's
41:39
Speaker 3: what Tucker and I were discussing there.
41:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean that's why I brought it up.
41:43
Speaker 1: I mean, this is shocking stuff. And to have somebody
41:45
Speaker 1: of your caliber, with the highest security clearance, who served
41:48
Speaker 1: in the Unitedias government, who served at the pleasure of
41:50
Speaker 1: the president, bring it up, I mean it really troubles me.
41:52
Speaker 1: I talked about it in our show yesterday. I genuinely
41:55
Speaker 1: dismissed a lot of this as kukery. But to hear
41:57
Speaker 1: you talk about that makes me really question whether some
42:01
Speaker 1: of my initial dismissing, specifically around Charlie Kirk was wrong
42:06
Speaker 1: or not. And so, and you continue to believe that
42:09
Speaker 1: there was at a blocking of your investigation, and that
42:13
Speaker 1: whether I guess some plot or not, that it created
42:15
Speaker 1: a potential impression in Trump's mind. I do want to
42:18
Speaker 1: make sure though, on this Butler assassination, this Iranian alleged
42:23
Speaker 1: assassination attempt, Mack. We have that screenshot. Trump said, I
42:27
Speaker 1: believe I got the Ayatola before he got me. So
42:32
Speaker 1: does your impression here then he says they tried me twice.
42:36
Speaker 1: Is your impression that this was an actual Iranian plot?
42:40
Speaker 1: Isn't an Israeli plot, because if it only if it
42:43
Speaker 1: was an Israeli plot, would it makes sense to try
42:45
Speaker 1: and box him into some sort of attack on Iran.
42:48
Speaker 1: What's your assessment here of the actual plot itself that
42:51
Speaker 1: was supposed or may have been tied to Butler.
42:54
Speaker 3: So after Seank killed cost Solmoni, the Iranians were rather vocal.
42:58
Speaker 3: I mean, you can find most of this. I mean,
42:59
Speaker 3: they had a lot of the publicly that they were
43:01
Speaker 3: going to avenge cost some some money by targeting President
43:04
Speaker 3: shomp So that's known. The only person that we know
43:07
Speaker 3: of that that actually was deployed to America to work
43:10
Speaker 3: on this is Austin Mershon. And we know the Iranians
43:12
Speaker 3: sent him over here. We we gain knowledge or do
43:15
Speaker 3: we see?
43:16
Speaker 1: See That's why I thing, do we know that for sure?
43:18
Speaker 1: Like that? That's what I'm asking you is that was
43:20
Speaker 1: he was he actually sent by the government of Iran?
43:24
Speaker 1: Your assessment to my to my knowledge he was, to
43:27
Speaker 1: my knowledge he was. Now again like intent versus capability
43:32
Speaker 1: with your onions they have with the capabilities, and so
43:36
Speaker 1: I think the Ranians are pretty competent when they want
43:38
Speaker 1: to be.
43:39
Speaker 3: This seemed pretty half asked to me, it's they were,
43:42
Speaker 3: because these guys are serious, they know what it takes.
43:44
Speaker 3: I mean, come on costing some money. You know the
43:47
Speaker 3: people that he trained, hesbla like. When they're serious, they
43:50
Speaker 3: deploy serious people. I mean, you can look at the
43:53
Speaker 3: trial that's now been covered in Marshaw. He's he's not
43:55
Speaker 3: a serious guy, could be dangerous. You have to take
43:57
Speaker 3: it seriously because you know, unseerious people can can commit
43:59
Speaker 3: violent and so sure, I'm not downplaying the risk. I'm
44:02
Speaker 3: just saying, didn't see to be that serious to me.
44:03
Speaker 3: But to my knowledge, the Iranians did deploy they recruited him,
44:06
Speaker 3: they deployed him. He came here to the US. We
44:09
Speaker 3: had prior knowledge of that through intelligence means, and so
44:12
Speaker 3: when he came to America, he was basically in the
44:15
Speaker 3: pocket unbeknownst to him of the FBI. The FBI then
44:18
Speaker 3: leveraged a confidential human source at him. So there was
44:21
Speaker 3: never actually any according to what we've learned from the trial,
44:24
Speaker 3: not a direct threat to the president. So that's as
44:28
Speaker 3: serious as that was. Now there wasn't, in my opinion,
44:32
Speaker 3: enough due Dillan is done to see if there was
44:34
Speaker 3: anyone else that merchant was speaking with that could be
44:36
Speaker 3: tied to Butler, because Butler got wrapped up just so quickly,
44:40
Speaker 3: and all the requests that we made and once we
44:41
Speaker 3: came in to the FBI and to the DOJ to
44:45
Speaker 3: investigate leads that could confirm or deny whether or not
44:49
Speaker 3: there was any linkage between anyone that Mershant and in
44:51
Speaker 3: particular or the human source they used and Butler, Crooks
44:55
Speaker 3: or anyone in Butler. Those were all denied that that
44:57
Speaker 3: wasn't looked into. And it's been public reported that the
45:01
Speaker 3: DHS Inspector General he's also been blocked from investigating a
45:04
Speaker 3: lot of the DHS activities that day on the ground
45:07
Speaker 3: in Butler.
45:08
Speaker 1: So ask you just final thought on this about the FBI.
45:12
Speaker 1: You know many of us have read over the years.
45:15
Speaker 1: I will tell you what maybe a lot more libertarian
45:17
Speaker 1: during the global War on Terror was reading the indictments
45:20
Speaker 1: of a lot of these terrorists where I'm like, is
45:23
Speaker 1: this a terrorist or is this entrapment? And so what
45:26
Speaker 1: is your assessment of the FBI haven't been blocked or
45:29
Speaker 1: seen blocking to investigations like do you trust these individuals
45:34
Speaker 1: to really carry out their duties? Cash Betel specifically look
45:40
Speaker 1: I don't want to ruin any ongoing investigations. Again, the
45:43
Speaker 1: Palace intrigue, I really don't want to make a part of.
45:45
Speaker 1: But what I think is important is for us as
45:47
Speaker 1: Americans to exercise like our god given constitutional rights.
45:50
Speaker 3: This is a beautiful country. I took a note of the
45:53
Speaker 3: support and deind the constitution fought for it. You have
45:56
Speaker 3: the right to question anyone in the US government, and
45:59
Speaker 3: you should just look at the data from the last
46:01
Speaker 3: twenty plus years. Question every single aspect of the government,
46:05
Speaker 3: regardless of who is in power. Okay, all right.
46:09
Speaker 1: I do want to also ask you about Jeffrey Epstein.
46:11
Speaker 1: So you had I'm sure you probably have been reading
46:14
Speaker 1: the news. You were inside the administration. Also at this time,
46:17
Speaker 1: you did have a very high level security clearance. Do
46:19
Speaker 1: you think that Jeffrey Epstein was an intelligence asset?
46:23
Speaker 3: Yeah? I do, that's my opinion. I'm the n CTC.
46:26
Speaker 3: We never touched an into the Epstein stuff. That was
46:28
Speaker 3: all under DOJ Lock and Key. So I don't really
46:31
Speaker 3: have any inside or knowledge beyond what I've read personally,
46:33
Speaker 3: the same stuff you've read on the internet. But yeah,
46:36
Speaker 3: to some degree, Now, was he you know, a freebooter,
46:38
Speaker 3: a privateer who occasionally would do contract work with different
46:41
Speaker 3: intelligence agencies. That's just my opinion. That's kind of the
46:45
Speaker 3: realm that he was in. But there's obviously something much
46:47
Speaker 3: darker there. There's there's something else that that sneaks to
46:52
Speaker 3: just the power dynamics in our world. I think that's
46:54
Speaker 3: that's in those files. And you know, I think we
46:56
Speaker 3: should again, we should continue to question everything about those files,
47:00
Speaker 3: and we should demand that our government actually gives us transparency.
47:03
Speaker 1: I agree. Well, considering that you know, our colleagues over
47:07
Speaker 1: at drop Side News they commission to poll a lot
47:09
Speaker 1: of Americans believe that the war in Iran was to
47:11
Speaker 1: distract from the Epstein files. Do you think there's any
47:14
Speaker 1: credence to that idea?
47:17
Speaker 3: That's an interesting theory, and I actually but I would
47:20
Speaker 3: say I would disagree it just in the sense that
47:23
Speaker 3: the drum be for the war with Iran has been
47:25
Speaker 3: going on, I think longer than most people knew what
47:27
Speaker 3: Epstein who Epstein was so, but I think it was
47:31
Speaker 3: probably a welcome distraction considering how much it was in
47:33
Speaker 3: the news, because again, if you want people to rally
47:35
Speaker 3: around the flag start a new war, that's kind of
47:37
Speaker 3: like politics one on one tragically, So I think that factor,
47:40
Speaker 3: but I don't think it was specifically for Epstein. Had
47:43
Speaker 3: the Epstein files never existed, there'd still be, unfortunately, a
47:47
Speaker 3: neo conservative Israelian lobby for a war with around.
47:51
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, sticking I think a little bit with
47:53
Speaker 1: the Epstein question, that's another one. And look, I'm not
47:56
Speaker 1: saying I believe this, but I have seen a lot
47:58
Speaker 1: of people who do they think you know, you talked
48:00
Speaker 1: there about Trump potentially being influenced by a threat to
48:04
Speaker 1: his safety. Another theory is about Epstein. His conductor on
48:07
Speaker 1: Epstein has been bizarre. If we're being honest, I can
48:10
Speaker 1: say that. You don't have to say it. Do you
48:12
Speaker 1: think there's any credence to that?
48:14
Speaker 3: I think if Trump was in the Epstein file as
48:16
Speaker 3: they would have used it to take him out long
48:18
Speaker 3: before heaving of the nomination back in twenty sixteen. I
48:21
Speaker 3: just think that's even even if you don't like Trump,
48:23
Speaker 3: I think that's just kind of obvious. But again I
48:26
Speaker 3: go back to we go back to you. This is
48:27
Speaker 3: a This appears to be a very powerful network, and
48:32
Speaker 3: so for people who've been anywhere near it, are they
48:35
Speaker 3: intimidated by it. That's the potential.
48:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, and sticking with that, you know, giving your assessment
48:40
Speaker 1: now you've worked at the highest levels of the United
48:42
Speaker 1: States intelligence community. You said you do think Epstein's an
48:45
Speaker 1: intelligence asset, not specifically for any one country. So given
48:50
Speaker 1: your experience within that, I would just want to be
48:54
Speaker 1: very very clear, it would not be out of the
48:56
Speaker 1: question to have powerful networks like this which are linked
48:59
Speaker 1: to United States intelligence, Israeli intelligence, Russian intelligence, Yes or.
49:03
Speaker 3: No, of course, Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think
49:07
Speaker 3: most Western governments would use several layers of cutouts and
49:11
Speaker 3: all the people who could be called the testified probably
49:13
Speaker 3: actually wouldn't know anything and it wouldn't and there'd be
49:15
Speaker 3: very limited files about it. It's just my professional opinion, Okay.
49:19
Speaker 1: See, and again I think this is very important. It's
49:21
Speaker 1: been dismissed as a conspiracy theory. I think your opinion
49:24
Speaker 1: on this matter, considering your expertise here, is really you know, vital,
49:29
Speaker 1: because you've actually seen some of this up close, and
49:31
Speaker 1: so you know, I think people who have been dismissing
49:34
Speaker 1: this for quite a long time should really really take
49:36
Speaker 1: that to heart. Whenever we're talking about the Epstein story, which,
49:38
Speaker 1: of course the mainstream media if they do want to
49:41
Speaker 1: talk about is intelligence connections, it's to Russia, never to
49:44
Speaker 1: anybody else. Last question here on Epstein and intelligence. Do
49:50
Speaker 1: you think Israeli spy operations continue on US soil?
49:55
Speaker 3: Of course, yeah, absolutely, I mean, I mean, I think
49:58
Speaker 3: the Israelis trying a good deal Vespiana against US. I
50:01
Speaker 3: think most of it, they don't have to necessarily spy
50:04
Speaker 3: in a traditional sense. I think they've done a very
50:06
Speaker 3: good job of moving a lot of money around Washington,
50:08
Speaker 3: DC via influence campaigns. And again, look, man, the Israelis
50:12
Speaker 3: are good. I mean, they have so many that are
50:13
Speaker 3: dual citizens. I think there's people that work on their
50:16
Speaker 3: behalf who don't even think they're really working on these behalf.
50:18
Speaker 3: They just think they're doing the right thing. So I
50:22
Speaker 3: think the subtle influence and some of the I think
50:25
Speaker 3: folks who are just sympathetic and they've been told for
50:28
Speaker 3: years that we kind of have the same objectives over
50:30
Speaker 3: and over again carry a lot of water for them.
50:32
Speaker 3: But of course it feels very very aggressive and very
50:35
Speaker 3: competent intelligence service, and the Israelis pursue their national interest
50:40
Speaker 3: with a rigor that's actually pretty admirable, And I wish
50:43
Speaker 3: we could pursue our national interest for the same rigor
50:46
Speaker 3: they do theirs.
50:47
Speaker 1: Right as much as I criticize them, if we just
50:51
Speaker 1: had that same spirit around our own interest, it would
50:54
Speaker 1: be amazing. What as a veteran, as a member of
50:58
Speaker 1: the used intelligence community, what did you think when the
51:02
Speaker 1: US ambassador Mike Huckabee invited convicted spy Jonathan Pollard into
51:07
Speaker 1: the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
51:09
Speaker 3: It's despicable. It's despicable. And look, I think there also
51:14
Speaker 3: is a good chance that Tucker Carlson and I will
51:15
Speaker 3: get looked at by the FBI with more scrutiny than
51:19
Speaker 3: Mike Huckabee will for that. Now, look, I don't know
51:23
Speaker 3: if I can he clide that. I don't know what
51:24
Speaker 3: the gain was there, But you know, Pollard was a
51:28
Speaker 3: spy against the United States of America, and whatever a
51:31
Speaker 3: deal was cut and he got in that he ended
51:32
Speaker 3: up going back to Israel. But in my opinion, as
51:35
Speaker 3: an intelligence officer and a veteran, as an American, there's
51:38
Speaker 3: no reason why our ambassador, are the presidents representative in Israel,
51:42
Speaker 3: should be meeting with him.
51:44
Speaker 1: What do you think of so first of all, I
51:46
Speaker 1: mean again, I'm trying to tap dance here, But for me,
51:49
Speaker 1: how do you do that and not get fired? I
51:51
Speaker 1: just don't get it. How do you do that not
51:54
Speaker 1: get fired? To get defended by the White House, by
51:56
Speaker 1: the President his most recent interview with Tucker Carlson. I mean,
52:01
Speaker 1: I'm curious for your view. I mean it maybe it
52:04
Speaker 1: is genuine considering his religious beliefs. How do you view
52:09
Speaker 1: that type of religiosity when it's paired with our actual
52:13
Speaker 1: United States government, our national interests, and what what did
52:16
Speaker 1: it look like on the inside, Like are there more
52:19
Speaker 1: Mike Huckabees than we know about who are working inside
52:21
Speaker 1: of this administration?
52:23
Speaker 3: I think with Mike Hugaby it's genuine. I don't think
52:25
Speaker 3: he thinks she's being disloyal to America. I think he
52:28
Speaker 3: has a very strong I don't know if I actually
52:30
Speaker 3: have the right I looks like he's the right religious doctorate.
52:33
Speaker 3: I think he's a Christian, Zionised Christian Evangelical and not
52:38
Speaker 3: all evangelical and Evangelical church and it's not like that. So,
52:41
Speaker 3: but I think he strongly believes he is doing the
52:43
Speaker 3: right thing, which to me means like he probably shouldn't
52:45
Speaker 3: be the ambassadort Israel, Like he'd probably be the ambassador
52:47
Speaker 3: kind of like anywhere else, but maybe not Israel. So
52:51
Speaker 3: that's a major issue. But look, the fact that no
52:53
Speaker 3: one removed him, that does speak to the power that
52:57
Speaker 3: the Israeli lobby has on our govern And the fact
53:00
Speaker 3: that you have to resign from the government and come
53:02
Speaker 3: out like I am and say this. You really can't
53:05
Speaker 3: say it from within the government and be taken seriously
53:08
Speaker 3: or even listen to. That just shows you how powerful
53:11
Speaker 3: these guys are. And it's not like they're around every
53:14
Speaker 3: corner threatening people, are paying people off, but there is
53:18
Speaker 3: enough of a power dynamic there. I mean, we had
53:20
Speaker 3: Adelson was at the dinner last night at the White
53:23
Speaker 3: House and she gave over one hundred million dollars to
53:25
Speaker 3: the president. Like, look, people are powerful. That's just the
53:28
Speaker 3: why politics is. At the end of the day. Again,
53:31
Speaker 3: just like our relationship with Israel in the battlefield, I
53:33
Speaker 3: think we have to look at what our relationship is
53:35
Speaker 3: with Israel here in Washington, d c. And in terms
53:37
Speaker 3: of foreign lobbying and say is that good for the country.
53:39
Speaker 3: And I don't think it's healthy for us to have
53:41
Speaker 3: that relationship with any country.
53:43
Speaker 1: I completely agree, Joe. Last couple questions here, there was
53:47
Speaker 1: some speculation that you had resigned to make a splash
53:51
Speaker 1: so you could run for office in the future.
53:53
Speaker 3: Is that your plan?
53:54
Speaker 1: What are you looking at?
53:56
Speaker 3: I ran for Congress twice and I'm not in Congress,
53:59
Speaker 3: So if that's my plan, to be pretty wild. No,
54:02
Speaker 3: I have no desire to run for office ever. Again.
54:05
Speaker 3: I hope to serve in the government, to serve our
54:08
Speaker 3: country in some capacity once again. If it doesn't end
54:11
Speaker 3: up working out, that's fine too. I got to fulfill
54:14
Speaker 3: my childhood dream of being a green brain getting to
54:16
Speaker 3: go to war for my country. So right now, serving
54:19
Speaker 3: in this capacity is what I'm focused on. Again. Like,
54:23
Speaker 3: I have no desire to run for office. I know
54:26
Speaker 3: because I got a lot of views and stuff on Twitter,
54:28
Speaker 3: people like, oh, you're gonna run in twenty twenty eight.
54:29
Speaker 3: I know the nuts and bolts are having to run
54:31
Speaker 3: for just Congress, so like, I can't really even wrap
54:33
Speaker 3: my heads and around for what having to do that
54:36
Speaker 3: at the presidential level would be. So No, my goal
54:39
Speaker 3: is It's really clear, it's to hopefully get through to
54:42
Speaker 3: the president either myself or to have enough public pressure
54:45
Speaker 3: that we change course here in the next couple of
54:46
Speaker 3: weeks and we walk back from the ABYSS.
54:49
Speaker 1: Last question for issue very near and dear to my heart,
54:52
Speaker 1: did you ever see any evidence of extraterrestrial life while
54:55
Speaker 1: you were in government?
54:57
Speaker 3: I did not know. I was most mostly in the
54:59
Speaker 3: Middle East. I did, and I've got some friends who
55:01
Speaker 3: who were pretty involved in looking for for those those
55:05
Speaker 3: types of things. Okay, yeah, no, I heard a good
55:10
Speaker 3: deal the i think it's called the Skywatcher project. There,
55:13
Speaker 3: there's a there's a good deal online. I know one
55:16
Speaker 3: of the guys who was involved in that, not in
55:18
Speaker 3: like the esp stuff, but in actually being able to
55:20
Speaker 3: signal them through through signals. Very credible guy, and so
55:25
Speaker 3: what he found, what he's talked about, I think is
55:27
Speaker 3: worth taking a look at. But I was never I
55:29
Speaker 3: was I was account I was a terrorism guy, and
55:31
Speaker 3: so I didn't run across any any aliens and terrorism.
55:34
Speaker 1: Well, you never know. There are orbs. There are a
55:36
Speaker 1: lot of orbs that appeared in battlefields and Syrian Mosel.
55:40
Speaker 3: I've seen the footage. One hundred percent.
55:43
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, fair enough. Last question, then, where can
55:46
Speaker 1: people support you, what's your plan? Where can people support you? Uh,
55:49
Speaker 1: if they want to?
55:51
Speaker 3: I think my ex account is probably the best place
55:53
Speaker 3: to do it. All these different podcasts and stuff I'm
55:55
Speaker 3: gonna be doing, they'll be clips and stuff on there,
55:58
Speaker 3: but that's the only support. And I would I would say,
56:00
Speaker 3: if you share my views, call your senator, call your representative.
56:04
Speaker 3: There's primaries and there's elections happening in twenty twenty six,
56:06
Speaker 3: and tell them that you don't support this war. Because unfortunately,
56:09
Speaker 3: some of the most active polling that's going on right now,
56:11
Speaker 3: it's getting put up on Fox, Neames, on ABC and
56:13
Speaker 3: mainstream media, and for lack of better terms, I think
56:16
Speaker 3: that either those polls are fake or they're pulling just
56:18
Speaker 3: a bunch of baby boomers. And the people that are
56:20
Speaker 3: tuning into media like this who actually got President Trump
56:23
Speaker 3: into office, I don't think they're reflected in that polling.
56:26
Speaker 3: So we've got to make our voices heard on social
56:28
Speaker 3: media and by contacting your representatives.
56:31
Speaker 1: All right, well, Joe, thank you very very much for
56:33
Speaker 1: your time again. Yeah, where we got you out on
56:36
Speaker 1: the time that we needed to thank you again for
56:39
Speaker 1: the heroism in your action. I have almost never seen
56:42
Speaker 1: it in my life, and I think it's commendable. This
56:45
Speaker 1: fact that you don't have any plans to run again
56:48
Speaker 1: for office speaks also volumes to the mission that you're
56:51
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish here, and I hope that we can
56:53
Speaker 1: speak again sometime under better circumstances.
56:55
Speaker 3: Absolutely, thank you so much, really appreciate having me