Latest / World Ablaze with George Fontes / 48 - KERVIN AUCOIN - PUTIN'S NUCLEAR THREAT, ELECTION OUTCOME, OSINT, AND TULSI GABBARD

Transcript

48 - KERVIN AUCOIN - PUTIN'S NUCLEAR THREAT, ELECTION OUTCOME, OSINT, AND TULSI GABBARD · World Ablaze with George Fontes

• 0:00
  Today, we welcome back Kervin Okwin, host of the podcast This Week Explained.
• 0:05
  He is also an intelligence analyst with over 20 years experience.
• 0:09
  He helps shed the light on the situation in Russia and Ukraine,
• 0:14
  especially after Biden had given Ukraine the green light to use
• 0:17
  U.S.-made missiles to launch attacks against Russian territories.
• 0:22
  We also discuss how Putin's claim of using nuclear weapons in retaliation
• 0:27
  against Ukraine for using US-made missiles is nothing more than posturing and that we need to
• 0:34
  stop talking about World War III. Kerwin and I then go on to touch on the election outcome,
• 0:41
  truth and information in social media, the validity of podcasting, and we also discuss
• 0:47
  Tulsi Gabbard's new appointment as head of national intelligence, what that means,
• 0:54
  and if she is qualified for the role.
• 0:57
  You are listening to a Fonz Media Network production.
• 1:13
  Hello, World of Blaze listeners.
• 1:15
  Today, I welcome Kervin back to the show.
• 1:18
  And Kervin.
• 1:19
  How you doing?
• 1:19
  I'm doing well.
• 1:20
  We've had a little pregame earlier.
• 1:21
  Hey, let me first say I am excited to be back.
• 1:25
  I really enjoyed the last conversation.
• 1:28
  I know that, you know, we've been back and forth trying to get this scheduled.
• 1:32
  Some new things are popping up in the geopolitical realm.
• 1:36
  I'm sure everybody is hearing up.
• 1:38
  So the fact that you're flexible and that you have let me come back on and say my piece in all of this, I'm really appreciative, man.
• 1:47
  I love this show.
• 1:48
  I love being a part of it.
• 1:50
  And hopefully we don't get too wild today.
• 1:55
  Well, so like I said earlier, you know, we had a little talk previously before I pressed the record button.
• 2:00
  Just catching up in, you know, realities.
• 2:02
  I did want to go in a different direction at first, but I know that you don't want to talk about it again.
• 2:06
  But this whole thing that's going on in Ukraine, it's hard to ignore.
• 2:09
  I know you've been on a few broadcasts already and you have some other things lined up with, you know, news, live news.
• 2:17
  So that's awesome that people are reaching out to you for that and for clarity.
• 2:20
  So that's great.
• 2:21
  And I'm glad you're here to be honest because you keep us honest and you can correct me on stuff that I'm probably wrong on.
• 2:27
  But with everything going on, and I know you're busy because I see that you're very active right now because of this.
• 2:34
  Yeah, my socials are so active.
• 2:38
  It's good and bad.
• 2:39
  I'll say that.
• 2:40
  Yeah.
• 2:40
  Well, hopefully this is all good.
• 2:42
  But I have, okay, Trump won.
• 2:46
  We're going to get past that.
• 2:47
  You know, his cabinet picks, whatever.
• 2:48
  I know we don't want to dwell on that because personally, I'm like, I'm on the same page
• 2:51
  as you.
• 2:52
  I kind of want to move on and talk about other important things, right?
• 2:55
  Yeah.
• 2:55
  There's a few candidates or picks that I'll go over later, not here on my own show, and
• 3:00
  I'll deep dive and, you know, I'll give them my, give my opinion on that.
• 3:03
  I will ask you as we talked about earlier about Tulsi, but kick that can down the road
• 3:07
  just a little bit for now.
• 3:09
  Sounds good.
• 3:09
  But let's get into what's going on in Ukraine.
• 3:12
  The whole thing that I can't believe that.
• 3:15
  Okay.
• 3:15
  I have theories on this.
• 3:16
  And, but firstly, Biden given the okay and the green light to Ukraine to use U S made weapons.
• 3:22
  And then after that, you have France and Britain that said, yes, you can use ours as well.
• 3:28
  Um, and then Putin's response is literally, I mean, just reiterating what he said before, uh, the election in saying, Hey, if you allow this, I'm going to look at that as you being directly involved in this war.
• 3:43
  Thoughts on that?
• 3:44
  I mean, that's a lot.
• 3:45
  So open-ended question, I get it.
• 3:47
  But that's actually the thought on everybody's mind, right?
• 3:51
  And, well, I've been very consistent on this from the beginning that Ukraine asked for,
• 3:58
  especially the ATAKIMS, which is the U.S. capable long-range missile system, tactical missiles.
• 4:07
  And I was very consistent that I think Ukraine should be allowed to use those.
• 4:11
  You know, they were given them, if they need to use them in Russian territory,
• 4:15
  Russia invaded Ukraine. Have we forgotten that? Unless you are just a completely pro-Russian
• 4:22
  person, which some people are, and I get that. If you're just sitting there looking at this
• 4:30
  from a nuanced perspective, and you've got Russia sending missiles to Kiev, to Lviv,
• 4:37
  which is closer to the Polish border than it is to the Russian border, why not? Why not have? So
• 4:44
  So Russia is using Ukraine.
• 4:47
  Sorry, one second here.
• 4:48
  Russia is using Iranian provided weapons.
• 4:52
  They're using North Korean provided weapons.
• 4:54
  They're using Chinese provided weapons to attack Ukraine in Ukrainian territory.
• 5:00
  So why not use Western munitions deeper into Russia territory?
• 5:04
  And I get that.
• 5:05
  It's because Putin has said he nuclear weapons are not off the table.
• 5:09
  It's going to be a war with NATO.
• 5:11
  But he has said this from the very beginning.
• 5:14
  From the moment he made that miscalculation for a push into Kiev, he has said anything that the West does is a red line for Russia, and they're going to attack NATO if that happens.
• 5:27
  F-16s, that was a red line.
• 5:29
  M1A1 Abrams, those are the tanks that the U.S. provided.
• 5:32
  And I'm really coming from a U.S. perspective here because I'm a U.S. intelligence professional.
• 5:37
  I was U.S. Army.
• 5:38
  So if you hear a lot of me talking about the U.S. stuff, that's because I know it.
• 5:42
  I know a lot about this.
• 5:44
  So all of those, if they're used, then that's a red line for Putin. He could use nuclear weapons. Not a single time have those happened that he has actually solidified that as a red line and used nuclear weapons.
• 6:01
  So what does that tell you?
• 6:02
  It tells you he's a bully and that not a lot of the things he says is actually true.
• 6:08
  So at that point, like Mike Tyson, funny Mike Tyson, he just had a fight with Jake Paul that was kind of a big disappointment.
• 6:17
  But Mike Tyson famously saying everybody has a plan until you punch him in the mouth.
• 6:21
  Yes, they do.
• 6:22
  So is it Putin posturing?
• 6:26
  I mean, are these really just veiled threats, you think?
• 6:28
  Or is he really getting closer to saying, fuck it?
• 6:30
  No, I don't think he's at a fuck it moment, which thank you for starting that off so I know where my language barriers are.
• 6:39
  Oh, we're good.
• 6:40
  I know I've already been on, but I can get quite wild sometimes.
• 6:46
  It's okay.
• 6:47
  Yeah, my point that I'm waiting for is the cat in the corner.
• 6:53
  Anybody who has cats or have ever dealt with cats, if you put them in a corner and you interrogate them or move towards them, it's complete chaos as soon as they get in that corner and there's no way out.
• 7:05
  Once Putin's backed in a corner and there's no way out, that's the moment I think nuclear weapons are used.
• 7:10
  So how do you do that? You attack Putin personally, much like Israel does with Hezbollah leadership and Hamas leadership and stuff, where you're attacking the leaders, not just fighting a war.
• 7:27
  But does Ukraine themselves have that capability or would they have to rely on outside agencies to make that happen?
• 7:34
  they would definitely and i don't think i honestly don't think ukraine has a desire
• 7:39
  okay to i would hope not honestly to kill vladimir putin say whatever you want about
• 7:44
  vladimir putin yes he's a dictator he's maybe a despot he's he's all of these terrible things
• 7:49
  but you assassinate a leader of a country yes russia is a free country because i get the
• 7:57
  elections are not 100% fair and balanced, but the majority, if you talk to Russians,
• 8:04
  and I've talked to Russians, I've been in Russia, they love Putin. He has quite a big approval rating
• 8:12
  in Russia. Take out all of this interference and him bumping the numbers up. People in Russia love
• 8:21
  him, even the moderates. If you kill Vladimir Putin, that's the point where I think if he sees
• 8:28
  that he's about to be assassinated, he will use nuclear weapons because so what? What the fuck?
• 8:33
  I'm just going to do it, kill the whole world. That's my legacy. Who's going to remember anyway?
• 8:38
  That's the moment that he does it. I don't think it's a good idea to do that at all. And also,
• 8:43
  Ukraine just doesn't have the capabilities to do that. Right. I'm kind of thinking that
• 8:48
  for as bad as Putin may be in our eyes or in most of the world's eyes.
• 8:53
  If that did happen, I think that would just lead to further chaos, you know, because everyone's
• 8:59
  going to come out of the woodwork trying to take charge and probably people even worse than him.
• 9:03
  He may be the only one actually keeping things stable there, even though we don't think he is.
• 9:06
  Just my opinion.
• 9:07
  Yeah, absolutely.
• 9:08
  No, your opinion is factually correct.
• 9:11
  You make him into a martyr.
• 9:12
  He then goes from a global pariah into a global martyr.
• 9:18
  Maybe not for everybody, but yeah, there will be a majority of people around the globe who say that was the wrong thing to do.
• 9:27
  I don't believe that you should have done that.
• 9:30
  And now we're going to actually mourn his death no matter what happens.
• 9:35
  Look, the guy has done a lot of terrible things.
• 9:39
  He's not Hitler.
• 9:40
  Hitler is on a whole different level.
• 9:44
  This is part of my problem with every presidential candidate post-World War II is Hitler because they don't agree with my belief system.
• 9:52
  Just because somebody doesn't believe the same as you doesn't make them Hitler.
• 9:56
  Right. Agreed.
• 9:57
  Now, if they round up 6 million Jews and start to kill them indiscriminately, that's a Hitler.
• 10:05
  What Putin is doing is more on the level of like a Napoleon, somebody who sees himself as a world leader, not just a Russian leader, and wants to, you know, his legacy is more important than anything else in his life.
• 10:22
  I agree with that.
• 10:23
  you know, especially as he's getting older, I think he wants to be known for someone who is
• 10:28
  considered to be great in the world. And I'm not going to sit here and disagree with anything you
• 10:33
  said in terms of Ukraine defending themselves, because it should. Any nation should be able to
• 10:39
  defend themselves. And it's crazy that, you know, Putin will put out this mandate about,
• 10:44
  you know, considering anybody to be directly involved in the war just for using weapons
• 10:50
  manufactured by other countries such as ourselves,
• 10:52
  such as the USA.
• 10:55
  Yet, like you said, he's using weapons supplied by his allies,
• 10:58
  which is not a problem, apparently.
• 11:02
  Question, though, because he just had another press release
• 11:05
  where he brought that.
• 11:06
  I was going to play it, but I'm sure you saw it.
• 11:09
  You're probably way ahead of me anyway.
• 11:13
  Nature of what you do.
• 11:14
  It's been a rough couple days.
• 11:15
  I'm still trying to unpack.
• 11:17
  He's reiterating, but he did.
• 11:19
  So when I watched, I watched a few different versions because I don't speak Russian.
• 11:22
  So I just watched different translations to try to compare them and see the consistency in them.
• 11:26
  And in each one, he did say, and this is where I asked if he thought it was a veiled threat,
• 11:32
  because he did say he would under consideration if it was verifiable evidence of direct involvement.
• 11:42
  So he says all these things like, well, I will use them because I will consider this,
• 11:46
  you know, I will consider the U.S. being directly involved now because they okayed Ukraine to use
• 11:51
  these weapons. But then later in his speech, he says, but given verifiable evidence. So I'm not
• 11:57
  really sure where he's at with that other than that's why I was asking if he thought he was
• 12:01
  posturing because it seems like he's just trying not to look weak to his people at this point.
• 12:08
  So that's exactly it. What you said at the end, that's what he's doing. And it's something every
• 12:13
  leader does, right? So they understand, hey, now we're getting hit by attack. It's a military site
• 12:21
  that's being hit. But the people of Russia know this. They're not completely in the dark about
• 12:27
  what's happening. So they're seeing, well, Ukraine's using these US-provided munitions,
• 12:33
  and they're hitting within Russia. Putin, what are you doing about it? He has to come up
• 12:38
  and do this press conference and do this public event where he says,
• 12:43
  listen, if we have verifiable 100% evidence that NATO is providing munitions
• 12:50
  that are being used in this war to attack Russian people in Russia all bets are off we going nuclear He has to say that Is he going to do it So all bets are off I think if a and this is part of my problem with allowing Ukraine to use these
• 13:12
  weapons for long range, they have to be very accurate. And these weapons are very accurate.
• 13:17
  But if there's a mistrike, and it hits a civilian population, now the attackants can't reach Moscow,
• 13:24
  They can reach other populations within Russia. If it hits a population center and it's a mass
• 13:31
  casualty of civilians that happens, I don't think Putin has any other choice than to use
• 13:38
  nuclear weapons. Now, I'm not saying global nuclear war. I'm saying tactical nuclear weapons
• 13:44
  in the war in Ukraine to defeat, 100% defeat the Ukrainian military. That's what he's going to be
• 13:52
  using. So all this conversation about global nuclear war, I think we got to stop doing that.
• 13:57
  That's nuclear saber rattling. We got to get off of that because no one wins. I want to say this
• 14:04
  again. No one wins in a nuclear war. Question though, if he was to use even strategically
• 14:11
  tactical nuclear weapons, as you say, the fallout regardless is going to spread.
• 14:17
  And then what about the NATO states or countries that border the Ukraine?
• 14:24
  Absolutely. Interesting question because tactical nuclear weapon goes off.
• 14:32
  I don't know how much you know about tactical nuclear weapons.
• 14:35
  I don't know how much your audience knows.
• 14:38
  So a tactical nuclear weapon would be used in air.
• 14:43
  It would go off above ground, in the atmosphere.
• 14:48
  And what it does, it would be more of like an EMP where it shuts down a lot of communications, electrical.
• 14:56
  And so, yes, you're absolutely right.
• 14:57
  A lot of that residual effect then is in the air.
• 15:01
  And then the weather takes it.
• 15:02
  This is a lot of the stuff we talked about early on in the war in tracking weather systems and which way the wind blows.
• 15:09
  Is that similar to what they refer to as a dirty bomb?
• 15:13
  Is it similar in how it can affect it?
• 15:16
  Yeah, it's similar because once it's released, you just don't, you know, nature takes its course.
• 15:23
  And so a lot of particles could move towards, I know Germany was very worried about it.
• 15:31
  Listen, between Ukraine and Germany is another country called Poland, the country I've been in and I've worked with.
• 15:37
  I worked with their military on anti-Russian aggression.
• 15:41
  That would be the first country that's hit.
• 15:43
  And so then at that moment, if the fallout reaches Poland, the problem with it is, what does that mean? For the Polish people, they're scared, upset. The Polish government is pissed off. Does NATO view that as a direct attack? Because that's Article 5 of the NATO agreement, a direct attack on any country.
• 16:06
  So is it, I'm sorry, a direct attack on any country is an attack on all NATO countries. NATO has to get involved. Does NATO view that as a direct attack on a NATO country or is it sort of this gray area?
• 16:21
  And there's a lot of back-channel conversations that happen. Yes, Russian intelligence still talks to U.S. intelligence through back-channels to tell them, hey, we're going to do this. I know you don't want us to, but don't worry about it. We're not escalating it even further. So don't do anything to us.
• 16:41
  That would happen with a tactical nuclear strike. As soon as they go off, those back channels would hit the Pentagon and say, hey, because of what you did, we're doing this tactical nuclear strike. It's not meant to be a nuclear strike. It's meant to affect only military sites. Any residuals that happen, that's a part of nature. And so don't look at it as a direct attack.
• 17:03
  Then the U.S. and NATO have to decide, hey, is it worth getting involved because economies are failing?
• 17:12
  We got China in the Indo-Pacific making moves.
• 17:15
  Is the juice worth the squeeze to go after Russia and be part of this war because they did that?
• 17:23
  Well, that's always a concern, right?
• 17:25
  Because we don't want world war.
• 17:27
  Like you said, nobody wins, period.
• 17:29
  Especially in nuclear.
• 17:30
  The people who want World War III have never been in war, and they don't know what it means.
• 17:35
  It's dumb to even consider that.
• 17:38
  I've always been an advocate of, we don't need to go there.
• 17:41
  And I've always been more critical of the decisions being made, not because we shouldn't see Ukraine defend itself, but slowly pulling us in.
• 17:51
  It seems like we're slowly being pulled in that direction due to decisions made by our leaders.
• 17:58
  and even
• 18:00
  people who don't have to go to war
• 18:01
  yeah even with that explanation
• 18:03
  like you said nature will take its course
• 18:05
  and we don't know
• 18:07
  to what extent or how bad
• 18:09
  that exposure would be for example
• 18:11
  because even if it hits
• 18:13
  any of the NATO nations around
• 18:15
  Ukraine
• 18:16
  sure we can say oh act of God
• 18:18
  we weren't directly putting our weapons at you
• 18:21
  whatever it was just nature took its course
• 18:23
  the wind blew things and unfortunately it hit your
• 18:25
  borders
• 18:26
  understandable now you're just arguing
• 18:28
  whether or not it was intentional.
• 18:30
  And like you said,
• 18:30
  it's just worth the squeeze.
• 18:32
  I get that.
• 18:33
  But you can also look at it as
• 18:35
  they knew better.
• 18:36
  They knew what kind of weapon this is
• 18:37
  and what it would do.
• 18:38
  It wasn't really a controlled strike.
• 18:41
  Yeah.
• 18:41
  So there's always that concern as well.
• 18:44
  You know, we don't know how Poland will react.
• 18:46
  We can assume,
• 18:47
  but we don't know how they will react.
• 18:50
  I mean, they've already been pretty active
• 18:52
  in making sure that, you know,
• 18:54
  their military is ready to go on their borders
• 18:56
  and they're already pointing missiles
• 18:57
  and weapons that direction anyway.
• 18:59
  I think Romania was too.
• 19:01
  I think so.
• 19:02
  Yeah, I just read something on that.
• 19:04
  I think Romania as well
• 19:05
  is also getting ready for that
• 19:07
  just because they're on that.
• 19:07
  Lithuania as well.
• 19:09
  Sweden and Finland have just put out,
• 19:11
  they've released pamphlets to their people
• 19:13
  on how to survive a nuclear attack,
• 19:16
  how to survive a global conflict.
• 19:19
  So, I mean, yes,
• 19:22
  we don't want a global conflict.
• 19:23
  We don't want World War III.
• 19:25
  I don't think,
• 19:26
  So I would like to get into, because I've seen a lot of reporting that the Biden administration did this to screw over the Trump administration.
• 19:34
  I was kind of going to lead into that, but I want to get more of your take on, because I thought this would be a little.
• 19:43
  I could do more take on what this means.
• 19:45
  Oh, it's okay.
• 19:46
  We can move forward from here.
• 19:48
  It's just, I wanted to use your expertise to kind of clarify this situation we were just talking about.
• 19:55
  because it's very, well, it's a hot, hot one right now.
• 19:58
  Yeah.
• 19:58
  And a lot of people aren't really understanding
• 20:00
  what it really, really means.
• 20:01
  I mean, I have concerns, but again,
• 20:03
  I wasn't in your position and what you did.
• 20:05
  So that's why I'm asking you.
• 20:07
  I mean, I can tell you the conversations.
• 20:10
  So I'm sure, well, you know,
• 20:12
  but just to let your audience know,
• 20:14
  our podcast this week explained,
• 20:15
  it's myself and my wife,
• 20:17
  that we have these discussions on the podcast.
• 20:20
  But for the most, honestly,
• 20:22
  we have those discussions day to day in our day to day lives.
• 20:27
  And I can tell you, as soon as this stuff started coming out,
• 20:30
  we had those conversations, you know, Hey, what should we be doing?
• 20:33
  Should the exact, I think, response from Tiana was,
• 20:39
  you know, do we need to prep for this?
• 20:42
  Or do you think it's just bluff and bluster?
• 20:45
  And my response and the response I can tell to your audience is that at this
• 20:49
  moment, I think it's bluff and bluster.
• 20:52
  But as an intelligence analyst, the intelligence cycle is continuous.
• 20:57
  So with new information, new assessments are made.
• 21:01
  I can make a new assessment in the near future if certain things happen.
• 21:06
  Those certain things that happen, those are going to be things like the movement.
• 21:13
  So Russia's nuclear arsenal right now is in Belarus.
• 21:17
  I don't know if you remember that last summer, they moved everything to Belarus.
• 21:21
  I actually didn't remember that.
• 21:23
  Yeah, so that's where the nuclear arsenal for Russia is.
• 21:28
  And part of that is to protect Russia if a nuclear attack does happen.
• 21:33
  Got it.
• 21:34
  Not protecting Belarus, but their president has his own securities in place that he can move out in that case.
• 21:42
  So that's step one, right?
• 21:43
  That moved me closer to, huh, nuclear, at least tactical nuclear weapons being used.
• 21:50
  So there they are.
• 21:51
  There is a continuous monitoring of all of these munitions. Now, Russia did get out of the nuclear pact that they had with the United States, but we're still monitoring them, right?
• 22:06
  the moment those munitions start to move in place towards certain locations,
• 22:14
  that's when I would start questioning, okay, where are we going with this?
• 22:20
  As of right now, those nuclear munitions are safe.
• 22:23
  They're secure in Belarus and they're not being used.
• 22:27
  Yeah. Understood.
• 22:28
  This currently is just, like you said, it's posturing.
• 22:30
  It's yes. It's him just saying, hold on everybody. We're good.
• 22:34
  I'm going to take care of this, you know, basically talking to his fellow citizens of Russia saying, hey, I got you.
• 22:40
  Don't worry.
• 22:41
  But I'm sure he's smart enough to realize, as I think you're saying, or at least I believe, that he doesn't want that either.
• 22:48
  He doesn't want that.
• 22:50
  He really doesn't.
• 22:52
  And what I wanted to veer into, though, outside of this, because thank you for explaining that situation, but where we see North Korean troops.
• 23:01
  how was things going to change once we start seeing more of his allies there on the actual
• 23:07
  battlefield against Ukraine? What if Iran actually sends troops? What if China's kind of staying out?
• 23:12
  They're still kind of been silent to a degree. They're not saying a whole lot.
• 23:17
  That's a whole different conversation we can have because of the Putin explanation on being done by
• 23:25
  2026 and things that I know that I can't really talk about that shows a 2026, 2027 timeline for
• 23:31
  the invasion of Taiwan. That stuff's unclassified. There's other things I can't go into.
• 23:38
  But yeah, so that's a very interesting thing about China. They're not providing any troops.
• 23:44
  They're kind of upset with North Korea for providing troops to Russia because I think
• 23:49
  China expected, now this is all publicly, China expected North Korea to be utilized in their conflict in Taiwan.
• 23:59
  But the flip side to that is, as North Korean troops are in battles with Ukrainian troops, they're getting true wartime experience.
• 24:10
  so okay yeah maybe
• 24:13
  maybe tens of thousands of North Koreans die in the Ukrainian Russo war that's a travesty I don't
• 24:22
  think that should have been put on them it's a war that they should not be involved in but those
• 24:27
  the leaders of those troops are not going to be killed because they're you know they're in support
• 24:34
  roles and they're not on the battlefield. Those leaders, those generals, they're going to gain
• 24:40
  wartime experience in a real land conflict that they would have never had otherwise.
• 24:49
  And so you can move those leaders back to North Korea. China then makes a move on Taiwan.
• 24:56
  Now those leaders in North Korea understand, hey, this is how a Western force works conflict.
• 25:04
  maybe we can help out in advance what you guys are doing.
• 25:08
  So I'm not saying this is your opinion,
• 25:12
  but maybe it is.
• 25:14
  It seems like,
• 25:15
  it seems like,
• 25:16
  because I,
• 25:18
  okay.
• 25:19
  I personally know,
• 25:20
  I personally can't assume anyway,
• 25:22
  don't know,
• 25:23
  but assume that China's not done with their intention to take Taiwan.
• 25:27
  They've never,
• 25:28
  they've never given that up.
• 25:29
  No,
• 25:29
  they are not.
• 25:29
  They've never given that up.
• 25:30
  And I,
• 25:31
  and I see what you're saying about them in an unclassified environment.
• 25:34
  And I can tell you and your audience, absolutely, they have not given that up.
• 25:38
  They have just revved it up even more.
• 25:41
  Yeah.
• 25:41
  And so, them assuming that North Korea would be supporting them in their efforts.
• 25:46
  But, you know, who knows if this wasn't the plan all along?
• 25:49
  Maybe North Korea is literally just getting real-world training experience.
• 25:55
  And then they pull their troops out and then you know shift their focus possibly I don know Yeah Yeah Yeah this is all So for me everything that Russia has been doing in Ukraine has all been my understanding under the guise of
• 26:11
  China. Right. So let's start from the very beginning. Russia did not invade Ukraine until
• 26:20
  after the Winter Olympics in China in 2022. Putin and Xi had a meeting a week before the
• 26:27
  final ceremonies. That was the moment on my podcast, This Week Explained. I just got to
• 26:31
  give it another plug here. It's your time.
• 26:34
  When I said, hey, they're having a conversation about invading Ukraine. And so it's all going to
• 26:44
  be dependent. And how I saw it, Xi gave the go-ahead as long as Putin withholds invasion
• 26:52
  until after the Olympics. So Beijing's got this great Olympics that they put on. They can do the
• 26:57
  closing ceremonies. And then a couple of days later, he can invade Ukraine. That happened.
• 27:02
  Part of that conversation was also, hey, you have my backing on this. I may not be public about it,
• 27:10
  but I'm letting you know. I'm going to give you intel. I'm going to give you maybe some
• 27:14
  technologies that you can use under the auspice that when we invade Taiwan, you're going to help
• 27:23
  us out in that invasion. I believe that Putin did agree to that. And that's what led to
• 27:28
  him actually deciding to invade Ukraine. So regardless, we're still kind of,
• 27:35
  outside of which you know, you can't tell us. Everyone's still speculating what China's real
• 27:41
  involvement is. And the reason I say is because they were supposedly for so long,
• 27:47
  one of Russia's or Russia's closest ally due to their politics and whatnot.
• 27:51
  And then it did seem like they were starting to distance themselves from Russia and Putin.
• 27:56
  And the situation isn't all about China at the moment as far as what Russia is doing.
• 28:02
  But there's definitely an unspoken bond there that I don't think they've completely severed yet.
• 28:11
  And I don't know if China is going to sever that.
• 28:14
  Maybe they're letting Putin run his course, do whatever he wants to do,
• 28:17
  and just implode on himself so that they don't have any other opposition
• 28:21
  in terms of stepping up to be a world leader.
• 28:24
  At that point, all they're looking at is us versus them.
• 28:28
  And even with that, I don't know if China would be looking at an actual war,
• 28:34
  direct war anyway, with us for that fight.
• 28:37
  I don't know if you have, but I'm sure you have.
• 28:42
  You're a smart guy.
• 28:43
  If you read The Art of War in China, they wrote The Art of War.
• 28:48
  This is generations.
• 28:50
  Sun Tzu.
• 28:52
  The main thing in The Art of War is the best way to win a war is to never go into battle.
• 29:01
  Win that war any way you can without killing your soldiers, airmen, whatever.
• 29:09
  do it without ever firing a single weapon because economically that helps you
• 29:14
  militarily it helps you your civilian base loves you that is what china has to decide right now
• 29:23
  they now have so tiptoe around it until early november of 2024 who's going to be elected
• 29:32
  as the u.s president because that's going to help china identify what the policy is going to be
• 29:38
  moving forward. I've said this from the very beginning for the election. China doesn't care
• 29:43
  who wins the election. I believe I said it on the podcast with you. China doesn't care who's
• 29:49
  going to win the election. They only care about mass chaos. They want a contested election that
• 29:55
  we're talking about for six months and nothing is getting done and we don't even know who the
• 30:02
  president's going to be. Unfortunately for China, that didn't happen because Trump won by a
• 30:08
  substantial margin. Over 300 electorates is a substantial margin. So we're not fighting about
• 30:17
  who's going to be president and who their policies are. Our fight right now online,
• 30:22
  you're perpetually online like I am. You know what the fight is. It's that Trump just put this
• 30:28
  person up and you know Trump's going to be a despot he's going to do all of this stuff and
• 30:33
  that's what we're kind of focused on I think that hurts China because we're are we're focused on
• 30:38
  policies instead of focusing on who's going to ascend to the presidency so it didn't happen
• 30:45
  the way they want it and also Trump is a China hawk and he doesn't like China at all doesn't
• 30:51
  um does that mean he's going to go to war it goes back to kind of the conversation we had about
• 30:58
  Putin, right? And I didn't want to say this because it'll make it look like, I'm not trying
• 31:03
  to say that Trump and Putin are the same guy and they're going to do the same thing. Absolutely not.
• 31:07
  I worked under the Trump administration in the Department of Defense, military capacity,
• 31:12
  in Poland, overt anti-Russian aggression, opposed to Russia, opposed to Putin.
• 31:19
  So I don't believe he's just some Putin hack that's going to come in and help Russia do whatever
• 31:24
  they want. But where is he similar with Putin? He knows how to frame certain things for his base.
• 31:31
  And what I'm saying there is this. Trump is saying, I'm not going to start any wars, right?
• 31:37
  He said, I'm a president that's going to stop wars and not start them. So what happens if China
• 31:44
  invades Taiwan? Is the U.S. military going to come to support Taiwan? I feel at this moment,
• 31:51
  absolutely in a Trump administration, the U.S. Navy is going to come to support Taiwan and push
• 31:56
  back China. Why is that? Because China taking over Taiwan is not just a military thing. It's
• 32:03
  an economic situation. The moment they're successful within Taiwan, there is a complete
• 32:09
  blockade of the South China Sea. This is the highest trafficked maritime economic system
• 32:19
  in the world. Almost every supply chain moves through the South China Sea.
• 32:25
  At that moment, when there's a blockade, the United States is no longer the top economy in
• 32:30
  the world. They are then the fourth economy in the world. The fourth, going from the top to the fourth.
• 32:37
  That is a complete defeat for the Trump administration, who has an America first
• 32:43
  policy. America should be
• 32:45
  first.
• 32:46
  Well, us falling from
• 32:48
  first to fourth was something that
• 32:51
  started long ago,
• 32:52
  before President Trump.
• 32:55
  Oh, absolutely.
• 32:56
  I don't agree with that, but it would be a
• 32:59
  direct result of
• 33:01
  not trying to help
• 33:03
  Taiwan. That wasn't me defending Trump.
• 33:04
  It was just like, years ago, those decisions
• 33:07
  were made to offshore this, manufacture
• 33:09
  this here, cheaper, cheaper, cheaper, and then
• 33:11
  we gave it away so much that now
• 33:12
  it's no longer in our control.
• 33:15
  And eventually that's what's going to happen, right?
• 33:17
  We just lost our footing.
• 33:19
  That and also,
• 33:22
  I know recently,
• 33:22
  because you were just talking about
• 33:24
  how valuable that area is
• 33:27
  with the South China Sea
• 33:27
  and all roads of, you know,
• 33:29
  lead through or through there
• 33:31
  or whatnot in terms of commerce.
• 33:34
  And then China just, you know,
• 33:36
  announced and christened their new ports
• 33:39
  and routes over,
• 33:41
  I think it was in Peru.
• 33:42
  I want to say Peru.
• 33:44
  I might be wrong, but that would give them direct access
• 33:47
  going all the way through up into Brazil and everything,
• 33:51
  from what I read.
• 33:52
  And so now that just solidifies basically what they're labeling
• 33:55
  the Silk Road of the Sea or the ocean.
• 33:58
  So they're already making moves while we're being distracted.
• 34:02
  And we're just giving it away, unfortunately.
• 34:07
  But China, I have a feeling we're going to be talking about that
• 34:09
  later down the road.
• 34:11
  Okay.
• 34:11
  And I'm very, very sorry to bring, sorry to bring that up, but it's all,
• 34:15
  so it's this entire geopolitical interplay.
• 34:18
  It's all related. And I want, I asked you because,
• 34:21
  because if you look at the relationships and who's the allies, it's like,
• 34:24
  we have to ask that question. Okay, well, Putin's doing this,
• 34:27
  but what is China doing? Because they're, they're an ally.
• 34:29
  If allies are supposed to back each other and protect each other,
• 34:32
  we have to ask that question.
• 34:33
  We cannot say that they're just going to sit on the sidelines. There's no,
• 34:36
  there's no way. So it's a very important question to ask.
• 34:39
  and really good that you explained that situation
• 34:42
  because we got to keep tabs on that for sure.
• 34:46
  Well, if we go back,
• 34:47
  let's go back into Russia a bit though.
• 34:51
  The situation that you,
• 34:52
  okay, you were going to say it earlier,
• 34:53
  but I kind of halted you,
• 34:54
  about Biden's timing.
• 34:58
  You know, so.
• 35:00
  Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 35:00
  Because Trump president-elect
• 35:02
  hasn't even taken office yet.
• 35:04
  And then all of a sudden Biden makes it,
• 35:06
  well, allegedly Biden makes this decision.
• 35:08
  what were you going to say on that? You had something that you wanted to
• 35:11
  get off your chest there. Thank you. Thank you for letting me do that
• 35:15
  because a lot of the places I don't get to
• 35:17
  get off my chest what I want to.
• 35:23
  So I really think there's something I wanted to say on
• 35:26
  NTD when I did my new spot but I didn't get a chance to which is
• 35:30
  that this I do think it was Biden.
• 35:35
  I know he doesn't make a lot of decisions but
• 35:37
  But stick with me on this one.
• 35:39
  I think it was Biden that decided to do this.
• 35:41
  And the reason why is because he's got a legacy issue here.
• 35:46
  With all the bluster about Biden, you know, everybody, this microwave nation.
• 35:51
  And so everybody on the left is like, Biden's the best president that ever happened.
• 35:55
  Look at the economy.
• 35:56
  Look at all of this.
• 35:57
  He understands realistically he's going to go down as the president that left Afghanistan in shambles.
• 36:06
  he left ukraine to lose in the war with russia he let china become more active in the south china
• 36:14
  sea in the indo-pacific that's going to be his legacy and he he needs to change it for the better
• 36:21
  and so i think the allowing so it's my opinion but the allowing of these attack comes missiles
• 36:28
  to be used deeper in russian territory is a legacy response he wants to show that historically
• 36:35
  look we did have the ukrainians back we did allow them to use these munitions yeah it's too late
• 36:42
  sorry but we did do it um and we had to wrestle with that because we didn't want a nuclear war
• 36:48
  to happen i don't think it was a direct response to to donald trump being elected in office to make
• 36:56
  his administration work harder to to stop the war i think it was a response to kamala harris losing
• 37:03
  And so the Biden administration not being able to continue their policy and try to see this war out.
• 37:09
  So what I'm saying here is I do believe that if Kamala Harris did win the election, that we would have seen this happen post inauguration in January.
• 37:24
  Kamala Harris would announce it. She would announce all these full force of the U.S. military support in Ukraine to help push back Russia.
• 37:36
  So time was of the essence here. And so he made that decision. I think that decision started. So those conversations started to happen two weeks ago, as soon as Donald Trump was seen to be the victor in this election.
• 37:53
  and it takes everything with the government.
• 37:56
  It takes time to formulate that opinion,
• 37:58
  get it to your cabinet,
• 38:00
  have them approve it,
• 38:01
  and then send that over.
• 38:03
  So I think that was the process.
• 38:04
  I don't think it had anything to do with,
• 38:07
  we want to make the Trump administration
• 38:08
  a failure in the future.
• 38:10
  So to do that, let's start a war.
• 38:12
  Let's start World War III.
• 38:14
  I don't think it had anything to do with World War III.
• 38:15
  I think it just was Putin's a bully.
• 38:18
  What you have to do to a bully
• 38:20
  is punch him in the face and see what happens,
• 38:22
  see what their reaction is because nine times out of 10, a bully's reaction is not going to be what
• 38:27
  they say. They say they're going to kill you and hurt your family and do all of this stuff.
• 38:31
  Typically, you punch them in the face and they have no reaction to it and they go with their
• 38:36
  tail tucked between their legs and they run off. They don't know what to do.
• 38:39
  I like that assessment. Yeah, I like it too. I don't like the other side.
• 38:44
  It does raise questions though. I'm not saying it may not be the right response,
• 38:50
  but why now?
• 38:51
  Like that's,
• 38:52
  that's been my whole thing.
• 38:54
  That's been my whole problem,
• 38:56
  mostly with,
• 38:57
  with the Biden administration.
• 38:58
  I mean we we can get into politics if you want but as far as decisions like this why did they wait so long I mean because it just raises the question They thought they were having
• 39:09
  they were going to have another administration.
• 39:11
  I think internally, the Democratic Party
• 39:13
  said,
• 39:16
  and listen,
• 39:17
  they're, okay, they're very smart
• 39:19
  people because they've gotten in power
• 39:21
  and they're in power, but they're idiots
• 39:23
  because they just succumb
• 39:25
  to their worldview.
• 39:26
  and in their echo chambers and in their worldview,
• 39:29
  Trump had no chance to win this election.
• 39:32
  Now you get outside your echo chamber
• 39:34
  and you start looking at Pennsylvania
• 39:37
  and you drive through the rural counties of Pennsylvania
• 39:40
  and you see the Trump signs
• 39:41
  and you see the increase in support for Donald Trump.
• 39:48
  We, listen, I saw it.
• 39:49
  I'm sure you saw it.
• 39:51
  We didn't, I don't think we had the conversations about it,
• 39:53
  but we, my,
• 39:55
  my exact opinion on this was whoever wins Pennsylvania wins the election.
• 40:01
  It's that was everybody's assessment. Really? Yeah.
• 40:04
  And I still think if Kamala Harris wins Pennsylvania,
• 40:10
  she also wins Michigan and, um,
• 40:15
  and Wisconsin. Right. And, and that puts her over the edge.
• 40:19
  But what I saw are people and what I heard were people from Pennsylvania who
• 40:25
  said, I'm fed up with what's going on in politics. I don't want a politician anymore. I want a
• 40:32
  businessman. That's what they see Donald J. Trump as. I see Trump as a political businessman, being
• 40:38
  that he says the things that his people want to hear, and he can kind of frame things in a way to
• 40:44
  make people vote for him and listen to him. And that's what the people of Pennsylvania said,
• 40:50
  And they came out in droves in support of him.
• 40:54
  That's what happened.
• 40:56
  I don't think the Democratic Party, I don't think the Biden administration thought that
• 41:00
  was going to happen.
• 41:01
  They trusted their internal polling that had Kamala Harris up by 2%, 3% in Michigan.
• 41:07
  And they said, hey, we're going to do this.
• 41:10
  And once you're in office, you now have this.
• 41:15
  And you can go support Ukraine in every way that you want.
• 41:17
  And they were going to allow after January 20th on the inauguration, they were going to allow the munitions to be used.
• 41:26
  Because if they did it, let's say they do it in September before the election, that then you start losing percentage points from the Kamala Harris.
• 41:39
  Because the Kamala Harris campaign was just an offshoot of the Biden campaign.
• 41:43
  Everyone knew her administration was going to be the Biden administration.
• 41:47
  And so you have that happen, and then you have Putin saying, listen, I'm going to use nuclear weapons. There is a majority of people, not a majority. There is a percentage of people who still voted for Kamala Harris in this election that would not have voted for her if they did that, if the Biden administration allowed the attackums to be used.
• 42:08
  So, okay, so from a politically strategic point of view, that all makes sense.
• 42:17
  And the issue I have is not an argument.
• 42:19
  It's more of a why.
• 42:21
  Because it's showing, okay, if they were concerned that if they did this,
• 42:26
  we're just going to keep saying the Biden administration because that's, yeah.
• 42:30
  If they were that concerned about nuclear war, it's almost as if they're saying,
• 42:34
  well, now that I'm out, I don't care anymore.
• 42:36
  If it happens, fuck it.
• 42:38
  Right?
• 42:38
  I don't think it's about actual nuclear.
• 42:45
  I think it's about the rumors of nuclear war.
• 42:50
  And those rumors would play out and the Republican Party and the Trump campaign would be blasting ads.
• 42:58
  About look what the Biden administration did.
• 43:00
  We can also get on to why France wouldn't let the Ukrainians.
• 43:07
  So France's long-range missiles actually reach further.
• 43:10
  They can reach Moscow.
• 43:12
  The Atakums cannot reach Moscow where they're currently positioned.
• 43:17
  But French munitions can.
• 43:18
  The UK can go further.
• 43:19
  Their munitions can go further than the Atakums.
• 43:22
  So why didn't France do it?
• 43:23
  Why did they wait for the United States to do this?
• 43:26
  I think that's a conversation that needs to be had within NATO.
• 43:29
  Who is really supporting NATO?
• 43:32
  Well, what's the United States?
• 43:34
  Understood.
• 43:35
  So going back to what I was going to say is the optics here, basically, I guess is the way I should have framed it.
• 43:41
  It looks as if they cared but now don't.
• 43:45
  And if we were in full support of Ukraine winning, it's almost like we should have stepped in and said,
• 43:50
  hey, look, here's your munitions.
• 43:52
  Let's just get this done instead of letting it go on for so long.
• 43:55
  That's what I'm trying to say.
• 43:57
  Yeah, I mean, look, if everybody is…
• 44:00
  I just hate that politics gets in the way of…
• 44:02
  of what I'm trying to get is it gets in the way of things that are as important as this is what
• 44:06
  I'm saying so I'm taking a long road around to getting my point here um I also say hey if you're
• 44:12
  really that worried why don't you like I said this on NTD I said is the U.S. military the greatest
• 44:23
  most powerful most agile force across the globe are we or are we a feckless military that won't
• 44:30
  do anything. And right now we're looking feckless. It's a good point. Because who cares?
• 44:38
  Who cares what Russia is going to do? We are the greatest fighting force in the world. Put those,
• 44:46
  and I'm not, no, I'm not, this is not what I'm hoping for. Listen, I was in war. I understand
• 44:52
  the issues with war. But we have an entire military base, not a military industrial
• 45:00
  complex, a military base that has gone through 20 years of war, we understand how war affects us and
• 45:08
  war works. And you're not going to put that fighting force against the Russians who couldn't
• 45:14
  push back Ukrainians in Kiev just because you're scared of nuclear weapons being useless.
• 45:20
  At the moment, it looks like the U.S. military could get in, defeat the Russian military,
• 45:25
  and take those nuclear weapons out of the equation.
• 45:29
  But we never tried to do that.
• 45:32
  And now, so that's just the US fighting force.
• 45:35
  Bring NATO into the conversation.
• 45:38
  And now you start to see why Putin is scared of NATO.
• 45:40
  And he is scared of NATO.
• 45:42
  But I don't think Putin ever wants to go to war with NATO.
• 45:46
  He would absolutely, if it was just Russia versus NATO,
• 45:49
  they'd be absolutely destroyed.
• 45:51
  If it's NATO, all the allies in NATO
• 45:54
  versus Russia and all of their allies.
• 45:57
  Who are the Russian allies?
• 45:59
  Iran?
• 46:00
  Yeah, true.
• 46:01
  You're destroyed.
• 46:02
  I mean, Israel's just been picking them apart lately,
• 46:05
  you know, with their attacks
• 46:07
  on their strategic locations and their bases.
• 46:09
  So what are we doing here?
• 46:11
  Like, what conversation,
• 46:12
  I'm not, not you and me,
• 46:14
  I'm talking about on a political level.
• 46:15
  I'm hearing you.
• 46:16
  What conversations are we actually having?
• 46:19
  I get it.
• 46:20
  our fighting force is tired and weary and we don't want to go to a war again,
• 46:27
  but leave it to the Americans that if a war happens and we're called,
• 46:32
  we're going to go full steam in battle and we're going to destroy the opposition.
• 46:38
  I just had this conversation at work today about when you ask somebody or when you're talking to
• 46:45
  somebody, they always say, well, when, what was the last war that the United States won?
• 46:49
  right because we've got vietnam we the debacle's there we've got the iraq war the the complete
• 46:57
  debacle of afghanistan listen we won all of those wars wars i'm talking war the actual fight the
• 47:05
  fight so troops the military wins the battles we absolutely won every single battle politicians
• 47:15
  then come in and they either win or lose the war with ceasefire deals and peace agreements and all
• 47:22
  it gets mucked up. And I made this point that when did the Iraq war end? Because you say,
• 47:29
  we didn't win the Iraq war. You could say whatever you want about whether we should have gone in or
• 47:33
  not. That's a totally different conversation. We could probably talk on it for seven hours and I
• 47:38
  could give you my full opinion. Militarily, it was one long time ago. And we were just-
• 47:42
  2004, George W. Bush said mission accomplished.
• 47:45
  He went on the aircraft carrier, did that.
• 47:47
  The war was won at that point.
• 47:50
  Saddam Hussein had been captured.
• 47:52
  The entire Iraqi military was gone.
• 47:54
  Their government was gone.
• 47:56
  If you leave at that point and tell the Iraqis,
• 47:59
  you got to build it yourself, guys.
• 48:01
  Whatever you do, that's fine.
• 48:04
  Are we going to be back in Iraq in five to 10 years?
• 48:06
  Probably, but we've won that war.
• 48:09
  Afghanistan was the forgotten war.
• 48:12
  for a decade after we got there because we ran roughshod through the Taliban.
• 48:17
  They had nothing except for little pop shots that they were sending
• 48:21
  until this Afghanistan withdrawal, which was so, I don't think it should have ever happened.
• 48:27
  And it was so long and drawn out. And we gave the Taliban all the information that it was happening.
• 48:33
  So of course they were going to muck it up. The first Gulf War, complete destruction of the Iraqis.
• 48:41
  the Vietnam War became a peacekeeping ordeal long before or directly after the U.S. won all those
• 48:55
  battles. The problem was the insurgency. And so you're not in a war, you're in a conflict with an
• 49:00
  insurgency. And that's where we get into issues when the U.S. military should not be a peacekeeping
• 49:06
  force. It should not. We're not trained to do that. And so when things like a terrorist insurgency
• 49:13
  pops up in Iraq, we don't know how to deal with it except to kill people. And then ultimately,
• 49:18
  you kill civilians, and then it becomes what we had for two decades in the global war on terrorism.
• 49:25
  So pro-Russian accounts can push out how, when was the last time the US won a war? Well,
• 49:32
  it was every time. Name a time that we lost a war, not a conflict, not a political diplomatic
• 49:41
  peace deal. We just didn't because we have the greatest fighting force, people that I work with
• 49:48
  day in and day out, who if you push them, they're not going to retreat. They're going to come at you
• 49:56
  with the full force. So we've just got to stop being scared of what Russia is going to do.
• 50:01
  forget about it. Yeah. I agree with you there. I think what people are scared of is the,
• 50:08
  the word that keeps getting tossed around, which is nuclear. Yeah. You know,
• 50:13
  because nobody wants that. And it's understandable that people would be scared of that,
• 50:16
  but you're right. I mean, in the end, I've always thought personally, I'm going to be honest. I
• 50:21
  agree with you completely. If we just, if we just send strategic, strategic forces in there to
• 50:28
  really just surgically go in and take care of things, they would do it.
• 50:31
  Russia wouldn't be able to stop it.
• 50:33
  Just be honest.
• 50:33
  They wouldn't.
• 50:36
  And so I agree with you on that.
• 50:37
  Listen, decisions were made, I think, mostly for optics and politics.
• 50:42
  Really.
• 50:43
  Absolutely.
• 50:44
  I mean, if we really, really cared, if we really, really, really cared,
• 50:47
  I'm not saying you don't care or, you know, just saying the situation we're in right now,
• 50:51
  if America really cared, our leaders cared, this would have already been handled.
• 50:54
  Putin would have been
• 50:56
  sitting back at his desk
• 50:58
  pondering his decisions
• 50:59
  and, you know,
• 51:00
  figuring out what he's going to do
• 51:00
  to move forward.
• 51:01
  But, hey,
• 51:02
  here we are now.
• 51:04
  And so, yes,
• 51:05
  people are scared
• 51:05
  and they keep tossing around
• 51:07
  the nuclear war thing.
• 51:09
  In your opinion,
• 51:10
  you don't think that's going to happen?
• 51:13
  I'm just going to have to decide with you.
• 51:15
  It's Putin's greatest asset.
• 51:15
  If he uses it,
• 51:17
  he's lost all of his bargaining chips.
• 51:19
  Yeah, that's all he has.
• 51:20
  To be honest,
• 51:21
  that is exactly all he has
• 51:22
  to keep everybody,
• 51:23
  at bay.
• 51:26
  So let's go into the reasoning
• 51:27
  on why this even happened.
• 51:28
  Do you think that maybe Putin felt
• 51:31
  he was backed into a corner
• 51:33
  and had to react because of
• 51:35
  feeling it being encroached by NATO?
• 51:37
  Or encroached on by NATO?
• 51:39
  Yeah, it's an interesting question.
• 51:43
  And I mean this by strategically
• 51:45
  aligning or bringing
• 51:47
  nations into the fold of NATO
• 51:49
  around the borders.
• 51:50
  Like slowly just kind of
• 51:51
  Yeah. It's something he's talked about for since he's ever been in office is that he is protecting. So he is protecting his people from that encroachment from.
• 52:04
  from NATO. And he can message that. And I absolutely agree that he messages that quite well.
• 52:12
  Now, my issue with all of that is NATO has never, and correct me if I am wrong,
• 52:22
  and I don't like to use never because then something happens, but NATO has never instigated
• 52:29
  a conflict in its entire organization.
• 52:33
  The only time NATO Article 5 was used was after the 9-11 attacks.
• 52:37
  That was because Osama bin Laden decided that America is the great
• 52:41
  Satan and he was going to attack it and destroy
• 52:45
  the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon and try to make a play for the White House.
• 52:50
  That's when NATO got involved. When the Iraq
• 52:53
  War happened, NATO didn't get involved.
• 52:56
  They didn't.
• 52:57
  They said, hey, we're out of this.
• 52:59
  This is your war.
• 53:00
  You go, that's what got France.
• 53:02
  Remember, we called them freedom fries, not French fries.
• 53:04
  Yeah.
• 53:05
  Because France said, we have no agreement that says we have to help you guys, and we don't want to get involved in a war.
• 53:11
  So, NATO's never, in its inception, it has never started a conflict.
• 53:18
  It has never instigated a conflict.
• 53:21
  Yep, it's put itself around the borders of Russia, but that is because the countries bordering Russia, especially a lot of the former Soviet Union countries, are scared.
• 53:34
  I've talked to the Polish people.
• 53:36
  They are absolutely terrified that Russia would come in and start another USSR, another Soviet Union, or United Soviet Republic.
• 53:46
  And that's because a lot of those people in Poland remember the 80s. They remember when the USSR was active and how terrible their lives were. I'm sorry, Bernie Sanders, standing in a breadline is not a good thing. I know this because not that I've sat in a breadline or Bernie Sanders has sat in a breadline, but I've talked to the people who have stood there and have had to deal with that. And they're absolutely terrified.
• 54:14
  I don't think Bernie's ever worked in his life.
• 54:16
  He's been in politics.
• 54:17
  He hasn't.
• 54:17
  He got kicked out of a commune in Vermont because he did not work.
• 54:24
  For a guy who's against corporate greed and everything,
• 54:28
  he became a multimillionaire just being a politician,
• 54:31
  but he put everything in his wife's name so he has immunity.
• 54:34
  Right.
• 54:35
  Well, he also wrote a book.
• 54:36
  So if you want to make money, write a book.
• 54:39
  That's what he says.
• 54:39
  but yeah
• 54:42
  they're absolutely terrified
• 54:43
  that Russia would do that
• 54:46
  well I brought this up because I've heard that
• 54:48
  theory and it kind of makes sense on the
• 54:50
  surface but
• 54:51
  at the same time you know after
• 54:54
  the USSR was
• 54:55
  disbanded for the most part
• 54:58
  it was done borders everything were set
• 55:00
  it's been set for a while so
• 55:02
  it's as if Putin's just really using that as an
• 55:04
  excuse more than anything
• 55:06
  you know to do what he's doing he wants his territories
• 55:08
  he's back. He wants to recreate the good
• 55:11
  old days, the grand old days of Russia.
• 55:13
  Absolutely. That's what he told Tucker Carlson.
• 55:14
  And expand his land. Right?
• 55:16
  So that's what he's really doing.
• 55:18
  He's using it as an excuse, but people are unfortunately buying
• 55:20
  into it. It's like, oh, poor Putin. We're provoking
• 55:22
  him. We're the ones that, it's our fault. It's NATO's
• 55:24
  fault. And you're right. NATO only got
• 55:26
  involved together
• 55:28
  on 9-11. It hasn't been any time since.
• 55:30
  The only time I've ever heard of them ever being involved
• 55:32
  was basically for monitoring and control
• 55:34
  of a situation. Maybe it's a poor nation
• 55:36
  who might need something, but not really
• 55:38
  directly involving troops per se.
• 55:41
  I believe they got involved in Bosnia as a peacekeeping force.
• 55:46
  I know the U.S. did.
• 55:47
  That was during the Clinton administration.
• 55:49
  Outside of that, you're absolutely right.
• 55:52
  No, it was not a wartime effort.
• 55:54
  It was a conflict.
• 55:57
  Yeah.
• 55:57
  Or like conflict management, if that's the right way to say it.
• 56:01
  And the thinking there is we don't want it to spill over in our borders.
• 56:05
  so let's try to keep this contained and do what we can and that's the same exact thing that's going
• 56:10
  on in ukraine right now we want to keep this contained so it's why nato isn't getting involved
• 56:15
  militarily but they're supporting ukraine because they're saying we don't want this to bleed over
• 56:20
  uh into a conflict outside of ukraine's borders and the thought is at some point it would reach
• 56:27
  poland but they're they're looking at moldova and georgia and and non-nato countries that were
• 56:33
  former Soviet Union countries that are being manipulated by Russia right now. And I've said
• 56:40
  it for two years now, Moldova is the next country. If Ukraine for Russia is successful, then they can
• 56:46
  take over Ukraine. Moldova is the next country because it's smaller. Their military is not going
• 56:50
  to be able to handle a Russian movement. And they've got Transnistria, which is a Russian
• 56:55
  enclave right there
• 56:58
  that they can then stage troops
• 57:01
  and invade Moldova immediately.
• 57:03
  That's the next country to look for.
• 57:05
  But Poland's there.
• 57:07
  They're the first NATO country to be attacked.
• 57:09
  But Poland's strong.
• 57:11
  Yeah, Poland's got a strong
• 57:12
  little Trump line here.
• 57:14
  Their military is beautiful.
• 57:15
  It's beautiful.
• 57:16
  Lovely military.
• 57:18
  And I think that's the real key
• 57:20
  to what's going on here
• 57:21
  with watching Ukraine,
• 57:23
  how they handle things if they win
• 57:24
  because if they fall,
• 57:25
  there's nothing really going to stop Russia from being emboldened to just keep moving on to,
• 57:30
  like you said, these other nations to take them in and bring them into the fold.
• 57:34
  So you're saying, let's stop worrying about nuclear war.
• 57:38
  It's not going to happen because realistically, if America really wanted to,
• 57:42
  we would just end it, right?
• 57:43
  We would just go in there and just say, look, no, not happening.
• 57:47
  I mean, I think, like I said, nuclear weapons are a last-ditch effort.
• 57:51
  For anybody, I believe.
• 57:52
  But by that point, you're at the point where it's like everyone around him can stop it for their own benefit.
• 58:01
  Like Belarus, they have the nuclear weapons.
• 58:05
  They can see Putin backed in the corner on life support and go, yeah, I know you said that, but there's going to be a new administration coming into Russia.
• 58:14
  We're going to see how that plays out before we actually destroy the entire world.
• 58:20
  Every nuclear war game ends in complete world collapse.
• 58:26
  Society collapses.
• 58:27
  That's good for nobody.
• 58:30
  But the fear of nuclear war actually helps more than actual nuclear war.
• 58:38
  What do I say it helps?
• 58:39
  That helps Putin.
• 58:41
  Because if he can keep saber rattling, nuclear saber rattling, fear mongering, this is going to be, we're going to go to nuclear war.
• 58:48
  We're going to go to nuclear war.
• 58:50
  You know, it's just like, it's like this.
• 58:54
  Have you ever seen the, it's not a theory.
• 58:57
  There was a study done that even houses with the sign that says we have a security system, have a lower rate of criminal activity.
• 59:12
  Then like, so they don't have a security system, but they just have that sign ADT simply safe.
• 59:17
  I'm not going to advertise for anybody, but just that sign. They don't have a security system in place, but they have a sign that says this house was protected by ADT or whatever. They have a lower rate of break-ins than a house that otherwise would not have that sign there. That's this nuclear posturing.
• 59:38
  hey we have nuclear weapons don't attack us it was the whole reason that saddam hussein wouldn't
• 59:44
  admit to not having uh weapons of mass destruction right it's part of the conversation that i get
• 59:51
  with about going into iraq did saddam hussein have weapons of mass destruction uh absolutely
• 59:57
  because he had chemical biological weapons i consider those weapons of mass destruction
• 1:00:02
  he used it on his people that showed he had it the world sees weapons of mass destruction
• 1:00:08
  as nuclear weapons. And so if Saddam Hussein says, well, no, we don't have nuclear weapons.
• 1:00:14
  They had just gotten done with a war in Iran, with Iran. Iran did not like Iraq at that time.
• 1:00:20
  They didn't like the Saddam Hussein administration. And they were looking for a reason
• 1:00:25
  to attack Iraq. Saddam Hussein understood that. And he said, hey, I can't confirm or deny
• 1:00:34
  if we have weapons of mass destruction for that simple fact.
• 1:00:38
  Because if I admit it, that we don't have nuclear weapons,
• 1:00:42
  Iran's coming after me.
• 1:00:43
  So the threat that I just might.
• 1:00:46
  So this is just an Iraq that says,
• 1:00:48
  a Saddam Hussein that goes,
• 1:00:49
  hey, I might have nuclear weapons.
• 1:00:52
  Don't come after me because I might have them.
• 1:00:55
  Now you have Russia.
• 1:00:56
  Putin has nuclear weapons.
• 1:00:59
  And he says, hey, I might use them.
• 1:01:01
  That's a deterrent.
• 1:01:03
  That's what the U.S. is trying to do with China,
• 1:01:04
  is be a deterrent to that conflict.
• 1:01:08
  Putin's using it very effectively.
• 1:01:11
  He's getting exactly what he wants by using that.
• 1:01:13
  Well, and I understand that.
• 1:01:16
  I understand this whole game they're playing with.
• 1:01:19
  I got it. You got it.
• 1:01:20
  If you shoot me, I'll shoot you.
• 1:01:21
  I get it.
• 1:01:23
  And that's the one thing that's kept the world kind of at bay
• 1:01:26
  from killing each other off entirely.
• 1:01:29
  You're always going to have to have fear in play
• 1:01:31
  to keep things at bay, period.
• 1:01:34
  And I get what you're saying.
• 1:01:36
  I want to move on to what's been rumored
• 1:01:39
  about Russia possibly sharing
• 1:01:43
  nuclear weapons and technology with North Korea.
• 1:01:45
  Do you think that's going on,
• 1:01:46
  or is that just a rumor?
• 1:01:47
  So at this time, we don't know, right?
• 1:01:51
  That goes into,
• 1:01:54
  so from an intelligence community perspective,
• 1:01:56
  why are North Korean troops in Russia right now?
• 1:02:03
  Well, there's a, you scratch my back, I scratch your back, right?
• 1:02:08
  So Kim Jong-un says, we're going to provide soldiers in the Kursk region
• 1:02:13
  to fight back against Ukraine so that you don't have to use your own troops.
• 1:02:18
  You're going to need to give me something.
• 1:02:20
  And there's theories behind what sort of military capabilities they've had.
• 1:02:25
  Nuclear weapons is a big one.
• 1:02:26
  That's a scary one because North Korea being a full-on nuclear power is very dangerous because they have Kim Jong-un.
• 1:02:36
  Kim Jong-un is a wild card in the geopolitical space.
• 1:02:39
  He is.
• 1:02:40
  If anybody is going to use it, it's that guy.
• 1:02:43
  Take it from the intelligence community who's been tracking him and his family their entire trajectory in North Korea.
• 1:02:52
  His sister's worse.
• 1:02:52
  His sister's worse.
• 1:02:54
  Wow.
• 1:02:54
  This is my thing on when, hey, let's kill this despot.
• 1:03:01
  Let's kill this guy.
• 1:03:03
  So what's the alternative, right?
• 1:03:05
  Usually the alternative is worse than the actual guy that's in power.
• 1:03:10
  That's scary.
• 1:03:11
  That is scary.
• 1:03:11
  His sister is far worse than he is.
• 1:03:15
  And so I would say scarier for me than the nuclear technology, which I, Russia may be helping out, but not enough to give them a nuclear weapon that could be utilized long range because Russia also understands if they do something, or Putin even, if he does something wrong to North Korea, they could just go, oh, thanks for that nuclear weapon.
• 1:03:42
  now we're turning it on you.
• 1:03:44
  That's the kind of fear that's in place.
• 1:03:47
  Yeah, I think Putin's smart enough to see that
• 1:03:49
  he's an asset,
• 1:03:51
  an ally, but volatile at best.
• 1:03:54
  So what's scarier than that?
• 1:03:56
  To me,
• 1:03:57
  and this is probably
• 1:03:59
  what is being,
• 1:04:01
  what Russia
• 1:04:03
  is transferring into North Korea,
• 1:04:05
  which is the satellite technology.
• 1:04:08
  So Russia's
• 1:04:09
  space program is far
• 1:04:11
  advanced, far more advanced than North Korea.
• 1:04:14
  They're on par with the United States and China as far as satellite technology.
• 1:04:18
  And North Korea has had this issue of getting spy satellites into the atmosphere.
• 1:04:22
  They cannot get their satellites up there, which would help them
• 1:04:25
  kind of, not kind of, but it would help them
• 1:04:29
  view South Korea and Japan.
• 1:04:34
  So it would gain intelligence from South Korea and Japan
• 1:04:37
  if they could just get it into the atmosphere. That makes more sense, actually.
• 1:04:41
  so that's what we're going to be seeing
• 1:04:44
  and then in that case
• 1:04:47
  spy satellites are used
• 1:04:50
  North Korea who has been far more aggressive
• 1:04:53
  on the Korean peninsula than they had been in the past
• 1:04:57
  if they decide that everybody else is looking away China just invaded this is a future scenario China just invaded Taiwan we all talking about that Russia Ukraine blah blah blah can we do can we make a push for South Korea
• 1:05:12
  They could have that thought
• 1:05:13
  based off intelligence
• 1:05:14
  that they gained from their spy satellites
• 1:05:16
  that Russia helped them with
• 1:05:17
  at that point
• 1:05:18
  North Korean Kim Jong-un
• 1:05:20
  or his sister
• 1:05:21
  or his daughter
• 1:05:22
  if that's that far in the future
• 1:05:23
  could then go to Russia
• 1:05:25
  and say
• 1:05:25
  look we helped you
• 1:05:26
  now we have this issue
• 1:05:29
  we need some support
• 1:05:30
  from your troops.
• 1:05:31
  We need some munitions from you
• 1:05:33
  and you're going to have to help us
• 1:05:36
  because we helped you.
• 1:05:37
  That's a scary thought.
• 1:05:40
  I feel as far as North Korea,
• 1:05:41
  South Korea goes,
• 1:05:42
  I always think,
• 1:05:46
  and I could be wrong
• 1:05:47
  because I'm not in the intelligence community.
• 1:05:49
  It's just me gleaming
• 1:05:50
  what I can gather
• 1:05:53
  and put together in my own head.
• 1:05:54
  But it seems like Kim Jong-un
• 1:05:56
  has always been waiting
• 1:05:58
  for the opportunity
• 1:05:59
  for everyone to be so distracted and involved
• 1:06:01
  that it would make it easier for him
• 1:06:03
  to invade South Korea if he ever had the chance.
• 1:06:07
  He's absolutely, that's what he is waiting for.
• 1:06:10
  He is hoping everyone is distracted.
• 1:06:13
  Like we have, we've got Russia, Ukraine.
• 1:06:15
  Yeah.
• 1:06:16
  We've got Israel.
• 1:06:17
  Now he's got to be looking at that and going,
• 1:06:21
  okay, Hamas, which I would say miscalculated
• 1:06:25
  in their invasion of Israel in October of 2023.
• 1:06:31
  Because as soon as that happened,
• 1:06:33
  the world's eyes opened back up to the Middle East.
• 1:06:36
  And so there was this timeframe,
• 1:06:39
  and I have to think about it a little bit more.
• 1:06:42
  It could have been six months to maybe a year
• 1:06:44
  where we just stopped talking about Ukraine.
• 1:06:48
  We didn't care about Ukraine
• 1:06:49
  because now we're on opposite sides
• 1:06:51
  of the Middle East conflict.
• 1:06:53
  Israel has a right to defend itself. Israel is doing too much in Gaza. Then you bring Hezbollah in. And so North Korea looks at that and goes, okay, whatever happened there, we can't mirror that.
• 1:07:09
  because if we do something similar and start a conflict that is globally interesting,
• 1:07:16
  the world's going to view us and we're going to lose that conflict.
• 1:07:21
  But if we can go under the radar and there's a big enough conflict,
• 1:07:28
  like World War III maybe, where our little skirmish isn't really worried about,
• 1:07:35
  we might have a play for the Korean Peninsula.
• 1:07:38
  that's all going to be affected by the intelligence
• 1:07:41
  gained through the support
• 1:07:43
  from Russia. I was going to make another point
• 1:07:45
  about the Korean involvement
• 1:07:46
  the rumor about them getting
• 1:07:48
  nuclear technology from Russia
• 1:07:50
  was one thing
• 1:07:51
  and here's another factor
• 1:07:54
  I don't know
• 1:07:55
  if it's true
• 1:07:57
  this is just a little theory here
• 1:07:59
  do you think that maybe
• 1:08:02
  North Korea could have been one of the allies that Russia
• 1:08:04
  could go to and push into this
• 1:08:06
  because I know that Russia supplies a lot,
• 1:08:09
  them and China both,
• 1:08:12
  but Russia does supply a lot of food to North Korea
• 1:08:14
  because North Korea doesn't really grow
• 1:08:16
  a lot of their own stuff.
• 1:08:17
  I mean, they're in such turmoil over there in that nation.
• 1:08:20
  They're farming and everything's just horrible.
• 1:08:22
  And I know Russia supplies a lot of grain
• 1:08:24
  and a lot of different supplies to North Korea.
• 1:08:27
  Do you think that could have been a bargaining chip as well?
• 1:08:30
  Yeah, so that was actually part of the bargaining chip.
• 1:08:34
  Got it.
• 1:08:34
  So that was the public thing that was announced was that North Korea.
• 1:08:38
  Oh, I missed it.
• 1:08:39
  I didn't even know.
• 1:08:40
  Yeah.
• 1:08:40
  So North Korea said, yeah, we're going to support, we're supporting Russia, not from a, they didn't, they haven't admitted even yet that they're there militarily.
• 1:08:51
  But they did say, yes, we have a mutual.
• 1:08:53
  So there's a mutual agreement that was signed in July that just came out publicly over the last few weeks of this Russia-North Korea agreement. The major part of that agreement is that it goes back to the you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back.
• 1:09:09
  It says, if one of us is attacked, it's sort of the NATO Article 5. If one of us is attacked, the other person is going to come to support militarily.
• 1:09:19
  The other part of that was Russia is going to continue to supply, I believe, tax-free or tariff-free grains and food and sustenance to the North Koreans to prop up their economy.
• 1:09:37
  Because their economy is in shambles. They need to improve it. That was one of the parts of it.
• 1:09:42
  I didn't even know that. I didn't even catch that article or that report.
• 1:09:47
  yeah I mean it was so that would probably be because a lot of what the media reported on it
• 1:09:52
  and then you know how I feel about the media I guess I don't need to go in into that but
• 1:09:57
  I don't like it guys if anybody's wondering well a lot of their headlines were oh this new pact
• 1:10:06
  this is a new military pact well it was an economic pact honestly it wasn't really that
• 1:10:13
  was sort of like reading between
• 1:10:15
  the lines. Got it. It was an economic
• 1:10:17
  pact. Alright, so I wasn't too far
• 1:10:19
  off, I guess. No, no. I don't
• 1:10:21
  think many people understand it.
• 1:10:23
  Got it. Yeah, it was just a theory.
• 1:10:25
  I didn't know that that was an actual
• 1:10:27
  thing. There's so much coming at us.
• 1:10:29
  I can't grab it all.
• 1:10:32
  So I just, I thought I had my own
• 1:10:33
  little theory I came up with, but apparently someone else figured
• 1:10:35
  it out. So I just thought I'd ask you.
• 1:10:38
  Hey, nobody figured it out. You were
• 1:10:39
  right. You were on the right track.
• 1:10:40
  This is so, if you want to understand how the intelligence process works, you just walk through it.
• 1:10:48
  Yeah.
• 1:10:49
  Hey, you know, without even having all of the details in place, because we have known knowns, known unknowns, and then unknown unknowns within the intelligence community or within an intelligence perspective.
• 1:11:02
  It's a lot of information, right?
• 1:11:04
  You just said it eloquently.
• 1:11:06
  We're inundated with a lot of data, a lot of information.
• 1:11:09
  But we've got to understand that we're not going to see it all. Not every analyst is going to see everything that's out there.
• 1:11:15
  There's no way. There's just so much.
• 1:11:16
  But we use common sense and we take away bias and we just try to understand the world outside of a worldview in that community's view, right?
• 1:11:28
  So North Korea's view. What would North Korea gain from this?
• 1:11:34
  Well, their economy is collapsing. There must be some sort of economic factor to this.
• 1:11:38
  And so at that point, if you are the intelligence analyst that's working North Korea, that's the point where you would start diving deep into the economic aspects of it. And that's the difference between an economic intelligence analyst and then a sort of military intelligence analyst.
• 1:11:57
  A military intelligence analyst is going to view it from a military aspect.
• 1:12:01
  Munitions, soldiers, an economic intelligence analyst is going to view it from the economic perspective and say,
• 1:12:09
  what's the benefit here economically?
• 1:12:11
  I think what's hard is for people on the outside, like, let's just talk about open source intelligence, right?
• 1:12:18
  Everything's based on what's publicly available, you know, declassified or publicly available.
• 1:12:23
  So you've got to keep comparing and putting these pieces together until it's like, does A and B equal X?
• 1:12:29
  Yes, A and B equal X.
• 1:12:30
  And then there's a Y.
• 1:12:31
  Like, no, it doesn't.
• 1:12:32
  You've got to keep comparing to find that you're getting enough of the same result to go, okay, this might be true or could be true.
• 1:12:38
  And this is my problem with open source intelligence accounts on X, Twitter, whatever, social media,
• 1:12:46
  is that they're really just open source information accounts.
• 1:12:50
  So they're seeing information, headlines.
• 1:12:54
  They're basically just copy and pasting headlines and regurgitating it.
• 1:12:59
  And they're like, open source intelligence.
• 1:13:01
  No, motherfucker.
• 1:13:02
  That's just information that everyone has access to.
• 1:13:05
  You just found it first.
• 1:13:06
  And there's a benefit to that.
• 1:13:09
  But all you're doing is reporting.
• 1:13:12
  You're a journalist.
• 1:13:13
  You basically just pigeonholed yourself as a journalist because you're reporting what happened and nothing else.
• 1:13:19
  And my problem with journalism,
• 1:13:22
  so journalists should do what those OSINT accounts are doing,
• 1:13:26
  which is just report what's happening,
• 1:13:28
  get into the details, and leave it at that.
• 1:13:31
  Let the investigators, let the analysts understand,
• 1:13:36
  comprehend what's going on, and highlight that.
• 1:13:38
  So an open source intelligence account shouldn't say,
• 1:13:41
  currently, Ukraine just used ATACMS,
• 1:13:45
  so that's a current event.
• 1:13:46
  Ukraine was authorized and they just did use ATACMS, these long-range U.S. military munitions in Russia.
• 1:13:55
  An open-source intelligence account on Twitter will say just that, that they did that.
• 1:14:00
  An actual open-source intelligence account will say, here is what happened.
• 1:14:06
  Here is the reasoning behind that.
• 1:14:08
  So Ukraine just used munitions deeper into Russia.
• 1:14:14
  They did that because they're making a big push to not go to the negotiating table, backlogged in a loss, in a conflict that's dragged on for almost three years.
• 1:14:28
  And here are the primary, secondary, and tertiary effects of that.
• 1:14:33
  That's actual open source intelligence.
• 1:14:35
  Just saying Reuters reported that this happened, that's a journalist.
• 1:14:40
  Let journalists do that.
• 1:14:41
  You're not giving a real assessment of why, where it's going, what could happen. None of that. You're just regurgitating information.
• 1:14:50
  And then a lot of the accounts that I do utilize these accounts, it's great, because I get open source intelligence from open source information accounts.
• 1:15:00
  Right.
• 1:15:01
  And you have to, so then in that, you have to understand those accounts are biased as well.
• 1:15:06
  You've got pro-Ukrainian ones, pro-Russian ones.
• 1:15:09
  I've noticed that.
• 1:15:10
  You see it pro-Israel, pro, they're not going to say they're pro-Hamas or Hezbollah.
• 1:15:14
  Oh, there's a few that definitely do say that.
• 1:15:17
  I mean.
• 1:15:17
  And they give core assessments.
• 1:15:20
  on what's going on based on their worldview because they haven't lived it.
• 1:15:24
  They have not been an intelligence or they were an intelligence practitioner
• 1:15:28
  and they did it for a couple of years.
• 1:15:32
  I'm not denigrating anybody who's done it for a couple of years and then wants to go out there,
• 1:15:36
  but they've only got that sort of two to four years of training and experience.
• 1:15:43
  And it's like a college student who's in finance and they graduate from college
• 1:15:48
  and they expect to be the CEO of a Wall Street company.
• 1:15:53
  It's like, you can't do that.
• 1:15:54
  You've got to actually do the work and get to it.
• 1:15:58
  And I'm not saying that because I think I'm not better than them.
• 1:16:01
  As far as grabbing the information,
• 1:16:05
  so within the intelligence cycle,
• 1:16:08
  you've got, like I said, it's an entire cycle.
• 1:16:13
  So part of that cycle is the collection portion.
• 1:16:20
  So that collection portion, they are probably 10 times better than I am at collecting the data.
• 1:16:27
  But according to people that trust me, I am 10 times better at analyzing and assessing that data than they would ever be.
• 1:16:37
  And that's not propping me up or tooting my own horn.
• 1:16:39
  It's just my experience.
• 1:16:40
  This is what I have noticed about you.
• 1:16:42
  You're not the first person to comment on a situation, which is a good thing, which means I can trust that you've taken your time to really assess what's going on and comparing the data.
• 1:16:53
  Okay.
• 1:16:53
  I think from what I've seen, because I'm not in the, this is not my game.
• 1:16:57
  I mean, I don't have this experience.
• 1:16:59
  You do.
• 1:17:00
  But I see what you see where they're not taking enough information from enough sources to compare.
• 1:17:07
  It's just like, oh, you know, this news network said this and then this other one did.
• 1:17:11
  They might take three and go, okay, this is what's going on.
• 1:17:14
  They're not getting enough.
• 1:17:16
  I don't think they get enough information from different sources that may be both biased and unbiased.
• 1:17:20
  Like I usually try to get, if it's something that's pro Hamas, for example,
• 1:17:25
  I actually do have some accounts I'll subscribe to.
• 1:17:27
  And I like, I want to see that information because I want to see what they're saying.
• 1:17:31
  I'm not going to comment on it, you know, on their social media.
• 1:17:33
  Listen, I absolutely do as well.
• 1:17:36
  You know, my follows are not a testament to my belief system.
• 1:17:40
  I don't think we should be in echo chambers. I'm happy to hear that you do have even pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah. I follow accounts. I follow U.S. intelligence accounts or prior service veterans who were U.S. intelligence who are pro-Hamas and Hezbollah.
• 1:17:59
  They wouldn come out and say it but the statements that they have made against Israel and for what going on what Hamas is doing they definitely a pro pro Maybe not pro because they don view those entities as
• 1:18:14
  terrorists. But they have a worldview and not everyone in the intelligence community is unbiased.
• 1:18:22
  I have been in a situation where a leader, so my customer, has told me,
• 1:18:29
  hey, can you kind of fudge these numbers?
• 1:18:32
  Because we're really trying to go out tonight
• 1:18:34
  to go after this guy.
• 1:18:37
  And I've had to tell them,
• 1:18:38
  no, that's not what I'm going to do.
• 1:18:42
  You're not going to do that to me.
• 1:18:44
  And if I...
• 1:18:45
  So kind of getting how the sausage is made, right?
• 1:18:49
  We do PowerPoint presentations.
• 1:18:51
  Everybody probably knows that.
• 1:18:52
  PowerPoint Ranger.
• 1:18:54
  I started to file mines as a PDF
• 1:18:56
  because they couldn't be edited at the time
• 1:18:58
  and send it to that person only as a PDF
• 1:19:01
  because I saw that they started editing what I was saying
• 1:19:06
  because I got back from people
• 1:19:08
  who are in a position of power now,
• 1:19:10
  leaders now asking me,
• 1:19:12
  hey, you said this and it wasn't true.
• 1:19:14
  What happened there?
• 1:19:16
  And I was like, that is absolutely what I did not say.
• 1:19:18
  Here is the presentation that I gave them
• 1:19:21
  and what I did say, they changed it.
• 1:19:23
  That leader that changed it was then fired and pushed out.
• 1:19:28
  That definitely happens. And it's why I push for, just like you said, multi-source intelligence reporting. Very, very interesting. I'm going all over the place. I'm very sorry for this. You can stop me.
• 1:19:41
  Oh, no, this is all going to lead to where we're going next. So it's okay.
• 1:19:44
  When I did my interview for special operations, and I was not, I want to make it abundantly clear, I was not a special operations soldier.
• 1:19:54
  I did not put on a uniform as a special operations person.
• 1:19:59
  I was attached to a special operations unit, these special operations unit, under the capacity of an intelligence analyst.
• 1:20:08
  And in my interview for that, because of my background in imagery intelligence, I was asked, what do you consider the greatest form of intelligence?
• 1:20:21
  And my response, which actually hurt me on my scale, was I think all intelligence practitioners and every intelligence practice has a benefit in that combined all source intelligence, combining every aspect of the intelligence community, is the most important part of intelligence.
• 1:20:43
  And I was told by the sergeant major at the time, no, we wanted you to tell, it was kind of tongue in cheek and a joke, but he was like, no, you should have said imagery analysis because you're going to be doing geospatial intelligence.
• 1:20:55
  I did not do that in that capacity.
• 1:20:57
  I was the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance team lead, which combined a bunch of different factors, which is what I pushed for.
• 1:21:06
  But that, yeah, that was part of it.
• 1:21:07
  I am a proponent of multi-sourced intelligence.
• 1:21:14
  Those sources come from as far left,
• 1:21:17
  if you want to talk politically,
• 1:21:19
  as far left and as far right as you can be
• 1:21:21
  because you don't understand what's really going on
• 1:21:24
  unless you know what everyone is saying.
• 1:21:27
  So just like we go back to the art of war,
• 1:21:29
  know your enemy and you'll know,
• 1:21:32
  and you'll be, if you know yourself,
• 1:21:34
  then you can win a battle.
• 1:21:36
  If you know your enemy as well as yourself, you will win the war.
• 1:21:40
  Right.
• 1:21:40
  That's true.
• 1:21:41
  Also, what?
• 1:21:42
  Keep your friends closer or your enemies close, right?
• 1:21:45
  Yeah.
• 1:21:45
  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
• 1:21:47
  Closer, yeah.
• 1:21:48
  Because you'll know what they're saying about you.
• 1:21:50
  So it's just amazing to me how people who claim to know or be authorities don't do exactly
• 1:21:57
  what you said and rely on multiple sources and take the time to analyze that data before
• 1:22:04
  they actually make a statement or have an opinion.
• 1:22:08
  It just, the average person doesn't see through that, unfortunately.
• 1:22:13
  And that's how we get to where we are at many times.
• 1:22:18
  It's sad.
• 1:22:19
  Yeah, when you're confused, like I am sometimes.
• 1:22:22
  So why does this account have 1.1 million followers?
• 1:22:25
  I have zero idea how that happens.
• 1:22:27
  And I can't gain traction when I'm actually putting out, like,
• 1:22:30
  And some of that is I've got to deal with that myself of being, I know what I'm saying is fucking right. So why isn't anybody listening to me? Those are internal conversations that I have.
• 1:22:42
  My thing with social media is, you know, it has turned into more of a source of information than it ever has before in terms of news and what's going on.
• 1:22:52
  But trying to filter through whether those sources are actually legitimate, you know, sources is another issue.
• 1:23:01
  Because there's a lot of people doing what you say.
• 1:23:03
  They're just regurgitating it.
• 1:23:04
  And then the more they do it, it looks like more people believe it.
• 1:23:07
  And then it's assumed to now be true because there's so many people regurgitating that information.
• 1:23:12
  but it's not necessarily the correct information.
• 1:23:14
  And I got caught up into it too early on.
• 1:23:17
  It was like, hey, something happens.
• 1:23:21
  And I got to, man, I've got to comment on this.
• 1:23:24
  I'm on the news.
• 1:23:25
  I'm on all this kind of stuff.
• 1:23:27
  I've got to immediately comment.
• 1:23:29
  And there were a couple of times
• 1:23:30
  where I commented on something
• 1:23:31
  and it turned out that it was the wrong source
• 1:23:35
  or I was reading it wrong.
• 1:23:36
  And I had another intelligence professional
• 1:23:38
  that respected me and I respect them.
• 1:23:41
  and they said, hey man, you got this wrong.
• 1:23:44
  I just want to let you know,
• 1:23:45
  you need to re-comment on it.
• 1:23:47
  I re-commented on it,
• 1:23:49
  but it really, this was like two years ago.
• 1:23:54
  And I was just like, that's not who I am.
• 1:23:56
  I shouldn't be doing that.
• 1:23:57
  I shouldn't be commenting
• 1:23:58
  because that first response is an emotional response.
• 1:24:03
  It's always going to be an emotional response.
• 1:24:06
  And you get things wrong in that.
• 1:24:08
  And I did on a couple of occasions.
• 1:24:13
  And so it's good to hear now that you're seeing that my account is waiting.
• 1:24:17
  Even on my show, I've said some shit where I'm like, well, maybe it's already out there.
• 1:24:22
  I can't fix it now.
• 1:24:24
  It happens.
• 1:24:25
  And sometimes it's based on what's available, as you said.
• 1:24:28
  And there's other times where it's just an emotional or knee-jerk response to something.
• 1:24:33
  But at least you can go back and say, hey, I fucked up.
• 1:24:35
  This isn't exactly what it was or what I said.
• 1:24:38
  I mean, I've been responding on X on a few times where I'd have to go back.
• 1:24:41
  Well, you know, that was wrong.
• 1:24:43
  So I think the response usually should be, and this is what I've been trying to work on myself.
• 1:24:52
  So let's take it real world here.
• 1:24:55
  There's a lot of conversation going on on if the Grand Ayatollah in Iran is in a coma or dead.
• 1:25:01
  Heard that.
• 1:25:01
  Yeah, what's going on?
• 1:25:02
  Yep. And so the initial response from an account that's looking to gain traction would be to just copy and paste it and say, hey, the Grand Ayatollah is in a coma and he's on a deathbed.
• 1:25:16
  The real response that I have is, oh, wow, that's interesting. What could that mean if he is there?
• 1:25:24
  But within that response is, I don't know if this is true or not. And then I go on within what I say, which is my probability scale. And I try to make it for the civilian consumer. And my probability scale is unlikely, possible, and probable.
• 1:25:50
  So, I posted this on X a couple of days ago when I started seeing the Grand Ayatollah. I said, okay, let's use this on the probability scale. Is Khomeini dead? Unlikely. Is Khomeini in a coma? It's possible. It's possible he's in a coma.
• 1:26:10
  These are the things to kind of look for if he's in a coma. Other people making public statements on his behalf, not being able to see him in a public setting. Those are things to look for.
• 1:26:22
  then I said is the is the Ayatollah Khomeini an evil terrible bastard that has his thumb on his
• 1:26:31
  people and is ruining the economy of Iran yes that's probable I have that as more than 99%
• 1:26:37
  chance that that's what's going on here but that's the that's the the intelligence scale
• 1:26:43
  right it's like oh this is interesting I wonder if it's true my first my first initial reaction
• 1:26:50
  Is this true? It's possible. A lot of things are possible. Let me dive deeper into it. At this point, I've dove deeper into that. I don't think he's in a coma. I just think that there are some entities within, especially within Iran, who want him out and they want to usher in a new Iran that is friendlier to the West to get those sanctions off of them.
• 1:27:13
  And there's probable that they're promoting these baseless coma or death information.
• 1:27:25
  So that's probably where we're at.
• 1:27:28
  But that's how it's done.
• 1:27:29
  And so to just say, I'm going to copy this headline that says Russia is about to use nuclear weapons, copy, paste it, throw it into X.
• 1:27:40
  It's possible they are, but that's not what the headline says.
• 1:27:43
  it says that they will.
• 1:27:45
  The problem, okay, so I personally,
• 1:27:48
  since we've been talking about social media,
• 1:27:51
  you know, right now, this conversation,
• 1:27:54
  I personally already came to the conclusion
• 1:27:55
  that I don't use it to build this massive account
• 1:28:01
  like most people do, to be honest.
• 1:28:03
  I don't have the time of the day to sit there
• 1:28:05
  and just post and post and post.
• 1:28:07
  I'm not looking at that to make money
• 1:28:08
  like some other people do.
• 1:28:10
  And I just can't understand that world.
• 1:28:11
  It's not what I'm there for.
• 1:28:13
  I'm there for gathering information.
• 1:28:16
  I just want to hear the whispers and the echoes and kind of get a pulse on what people are kind of thinking.
• 1:28:22
  And as you said earlier, I mean, there's just so much coming at you.
• 1:28:26
  You just kind of got to take it in and start, you know, assessing, okay, what might be real?
• 1:28:32
  What's plausible?
• 1:28:33
  What isn't?
• 1:28:34
  And that's what I use it for.
• 1:28:35
  So it's like, for example, I know there's times like guys like you who are telling the truth and you know your shit.
• 1:28:41
  you're like, why isn't this catching fire?
• 1:28:43
  Right?
• 1:28:44
  Like I'm telling people what's going on and they're not understanding that
• 1:28:47
  this is what's really happening.
• 1:28:49
  And unfortunately I'm seeing that, you know,
• 1:28:52
  if you're not making people feel, if you're, if, if you're not,
• 1:28:55
  if you're not getting there and letting them reaffirming their beliefs,
• 1:28:59
  um, based on what they're getting within the bubble they live in,
• 1:29:04
  you're just not going to gain any traction.
• 1:29:05
  And that's not what you are.
• 1:29:07
  You're, you're the person that's like, look,
• 1:29:08
  this is the situation based on my professional experience and what I've done and everything that
• 1:29:13
  I can say, given the data, this is what's really happening. And, and that's not exciting or sexy
• 1:29:19
  for people. You know what I'm saying? They're just like, Oh yeah. Yeah. So there I've been,
• 1:29:23
  I've been just playing this line back in, in my head for months now. So there's a line from
• 1:29:27
  an Andrew Byrd song. I don't know if you know who Andrew Byrd is, maybe some people in your
• 1:29:32
  He's a musician. He does a lot of like, he's incredible. He can play every musical instrument. His whistle, I've seen him live. His whistle, whistling just with his mouth is absolutely incredible. But he has this line in the song called Sisyphus, about Sisyphus, if everybody knows their philosophy. And the line that really resonated with me, he said, history forgets the moderates. And that is absolutely true.
• 1:30:00
  That's a great line, actually.
• 1:30:01
  And that is the problem that a platform like mine or like yours is coming up against.
• 1:30:08
  And it's part of, I've said this on a couple of different podcasts as well as in some writings
• 1:30:13
  that I've done.
• 1:30:15
  No, we can no longer let history forget the moderates.
• 1:30:18
  Allow the moderates to do what we do, which is see things outside of the perspective of
• 1:30:25
  bias and move this society, the human culture and society along outside of our tribes and
• 1:30:33
  worldviews in a path that is far better than what the extremes are going to do.
• 1:30:39
  Yeah. I mean, that's, all right, you said it. All right. There you go. No, that's all very true.
• 1:30:46
  It's a great statement because it's, I don't know what we're going to do to change people's...
• 1:30:52
  I mean, if you think about it, do you know any historical figure who was just moderate?
• 1:31:00
  I mean, one, John Adams comes to mind.
• 1:31:02
  He not even the most popular Here the thing What you said is correct because look it always goes back to that old sailing sailing
• 1:31:14
  saying,
• 1:31:15
  you know, at some point,
• 1:31:16
  everyone's always,
• 1:31:17
  always going to tell you,
• 1:31:18
  well, you got to choose a side.
• 1:31:20
  Yeah.
• 1:31:21
  Right.
• 1:31:21
  Absolutely.
• 1:31:22
  We're always going to try
• 1:31:22
  to play the middle
• 1:31:23
  and I'm not saying
• 1:31:24
  you're playing the middle.
• 1:31:25
  I'm just using that
• 1:31:26
  as a figure speech here,
• 1:31:27
  but we're always going to try
• 1:31:28
  to say, okay,
• 1:31:28
  here's the right,
• 1:31:30
  here's the left,
• 1:31:30
  here's the back front,
• 1:31:31
  whatever.
• 1:31:32
  We're going to sit up
• 1:31:33
  right here, right here, kind of in the middle, take all this in and try to make sense of it and
• 1:31:37
  make sure that people don't start tearing each other's throats out. It's like, hold on guys.
• 1:31:41
  That's not what's really going on. That's not what he said. She said, this is what's really
• 1:31:45
  happening. And we all want to, at least you and I want to be that person. But historically,
• 1:31:51
  the people, as you said, that have always been recognized are the ones that literally either
• 1:31:57
  went full right or full left, period.
• 1:32:00
  Well, it's because I think
• 1:32:01
  people will take chances.
• 1:32:03
  The extreme people are going to take chances.
• 1:32:06
  Now, I'm also
• 1:32:07
  what some would consider an early adopter.
• 1:32:10
  A new technology comes out.
• 1:32:11
  I'll use it. I early adopt
• 1:32:13
  a lot of things.
• 1:32:15
  I know one thing on X
• 1:32:17
  that has a lot of people chromogeny
• 1:32:19
  is this new Blue Sky
• 1:32:21
  platform.
• 1:32:23
  And everybody on X
• 1:32:25
  is virtue signaling
• 1:32:27
  that they're leaving Twitter and they're going to go to Blue Sky. I adopted Blue Sky very early on
• 1:32:32
  because I have some friends in journalism that gave me access to it and I was able to build
• 1:32:38
  an account. So I'm an early adopter. That's not a platform for Blue Sky, but if you're there,
• 1:32:46
  hey, follow. So I'm an early adopter. I am a moderate in that I try to view things out.
• 1:32:55
  I have a worldview. I absolutely have a worldview that was curated through my entire childhood,
• 1:33:01
  into my military experience, through my military career, into where I stand right now.
• 1:33:06
  I have a worldview. What I try to do is escape that worldview and identify things that are
• 1:33:14
  happening outside of ideology. And to do that, you have to understand other people's ideology,
• 1:33:19
  and you have to understand people where they're coming from.
• 1:33:25
  So we have a lot of conversations about how did Trump win? You're asking the wrong people if you're the Democratic Party asking why Trump won because they're only asking each other why they lost. You know why Trump won? Go ask the guy in rural Pennsylvania why they voted for Trump and they'll tell you. That's who you need to go to. That's the kind of moderate that I'm looking for or that I'm trying to be. Am I going to take a chance? Am I going to take a side?
• 1:33:52
  I'm going to take a side on
• 1:33:55
  On truth and what's actually happening
• 1:33:57
  But also
• 1:33:59
  If you're going to ask me to take a side on my morals and ethics
• 1:34:02
  I'm going to take a side on that
• 1:34:03
  I did that in this election
• 1:34:04
  On who I voted for
• 1:34:07
  I think I was on here when I said
• 1:34:09
  I wasn't voting in this election
• 1:34:11
  Actually, my wife and I sat down
• 1:34:14
  And we talked about it
• 1:34:15
  And I did vote in this election
• 1:34:17
  Because she made a great point
• 1:34:18
  She said, you are always telling people
• 1:34:21
  you need to vote locally. And she said, we have a local election here. We have an election within,
• 1:34:29
  I'm in Virginia, Northern Virginia. So we have an election in Virginia with
• 1:34:34
  our representatives and our Senate. We have in our town that we live in, we have elections
• 1:34:41
  just because you, and she's like, you tell people this all the time. The presidency doesn't matter.
• 1:34:48
  Why are we always focused on the presidency? The president should not have that much power in this country. And yet you're going to bypass an election based on the presidency when there are local elections that you should be voting for. And I said, you're absolutely right. That's part of the intelligence process. Yes, you're absolutely right. And I'm going to change my opinion on that. And I'm going to vote in the local elections and bypass the presidency.
• 1:35:14
  And I did that. I didn't vote in the presidency, but I voted in all the local elections.
• 1:35:19
  That to me is taking a bold step as a moderate. I'm not going to allow these two extreme sides
• 1:35:29
  to dictate what we're going to do in at least my community. Where can I affect change in my
• 1:35:34
  community? So I tried to affect change in my community. And I think moderates get a bad rap
• 1:35:41
  because they said, well, you don't do anything.
• 1:35:43
  You just sit on the sidelines.
• 1:35:45
  No, we're trying to do stuff.
• 1:35:46
  You just won't fucking listen to us, guys.
• 1:35:49
  Fair enough.
• 1:35:50
  That's a fair point.
• 1:35:51
  And I got in this conversation about voting local.
• 1:35:57
  I got in this conversation with somebody who was actually,
• 1:36:00
  I'm in California.
• 1:36:01
  I don't even care who knows where I live anymore,
• 1:36:02
  but I'm in Modesto.
• 1:36:04
  At this point, it's like, you know, who cares?
• 1:36:07
  What are they going to do?
• 1:36:08
  Say hello, whatever.
• 1:36:09
  whatever. But anyway, where I'm at, it's, I had a fellow who was running for city council
• 1:36:19
  district three. I knew who he was from years ago. I haven't talked to him in a long time,
• 1:36:23
  but he was, he was running for reelection and I had him on the show and we talked about that.
• 1:36:28
  And I, in my opinion, I told him, you know, should have him back on actually challenge.
• 1:36:34
  I kind of softballed that whole thing for him. But anyway, he, he didn't agree with me.
• 1:36:39
  I think personally, if you want to change your world,
• 1:36:42
  I mean your world like your personal world politically,
• 1:36:45
  you've got to start local because if you don't create a base there,
• 1:36:49
  it's never going to reach up to the top.
• 1:36:52
  It's never going to, like it starts there.
• 1:36:54
  You've got to get your base figured out.
• 1:36:57
  You've got to vote for who's going to affect change in your area around you
• 1:37:00
  and the world that you want to live in, and you've got to protect that.
• 1:37:03
  And if enough people pay attention to that,
• 1:37:05
  then it does filter and expand out from there.
• 1:37:10
  And it's almost like,
• 1:37:11
  I hate to say it like a pyramid scheme
• 1:37:13
  to where everything, you know, bottom up.
• 1:37:15
  Um, I believe that.
• 1:37:17
  I believe that's exactly how
• 1:37:18
  we're going to ultimately make change.
• 1:37:19
  I think that's a kind of
• 1:37:22
  what we saw with this election
• 1:37:24
  with Trump winning.
• 1:37:26
  And, uh, I'm not sure that everybody
• 1:37:28
  voted locally the right way.
• 1:37:30
  It really did look like a lot of people
• 1:37:32
  or maybe they did.
• 1:37:34
  I don't know.
• 1:37:34
  a lot of people voted for Trump, but then they voted opposite of the party.
• 1:37:40
  Yeah. It's a very interesting, you know, you know,
• 1:37:42
  and I know there's conspiracy theories coming out that it's like, Oh,
• 1:37:46
  well this Democrat won, but Trump won, you know,
• 1:37:51
  Trump got the majority of votes in this County, let's say, but this Democrat won.
• 1:37:56
  Well, that's because that the, the people,
• 1:37:59
  the majority of people in that community decided, hey, for me personally, what's best is this
• 1:38:07
  Democrat politician who said they're going to do these things for me personally. But what's best
• 1:38:14
  for the country for nationally is Donald Trump because, look, I've seen my bank account. I know
• 1:38:21
  it's been a lot less in the last four years. This is all hyperbole. It's not what I'm saying
• 1:38:26
  I did or anyone else did, but that's the thought process. What's better nationally? Oh, maybe it's
• 1:38:31
  Donald Trump, but what's best locally for me? This guy or girl or whoever who is saying,
• 1:38:39
  hey, this is what they're going to do within the community to help my community.
• 1:38:44
  A lot of people missed that point.
• 1:38:46
  I like the people who do those kinds of things, who will not vote because anyone who's walked
• 1:38:53
  into a polling station understands, they get a kind of pamphlet or brochure or a leaflet that
• 1:39:00
  says, here are all the Republicans that are running, or here are all the Democrats that are
• 1:39:05
  running. Whenever you make your vote, just do it down this party line. And so 70% of our electorate
• 1:39:13
  will vote down those party lines based off of the pamphlet that's handed to them. I think that
• 1:39:19
  should be fucking illegal. I think we should get party politics away from the voting booth
• 1:39:26
  and let people go in based off of their own knowledge on the people that they want to elect,
• 1:39:32
  not based off of the big R, big D, libertarian, independent, green party, whatever.
• 1:39:40
  Have people actually educated on what they're voting for by looking into the candidate personally
• 1:39:46
  and then voting for that person.
• 1:39:48
  And then if you don't know the person,
• 1:39:50
  like there's a ton of different, right,
• 1:39:52
  community elections that you may not even know
• 1:39:54
  the two people running.
• 1:39:55
  And so it's very easy to see R or D on that person
• 1:39:58
  and just vote.
• 1:40:00
  So the way I do it is when I see those names
• 1:40:02
  and I don't know any single person, I'm not voting.
• 1:40:05
  You have a right to not vote in that particular election.
• 1:40:09
  Don't vote for anybody.
• 1:40:11
  Let the people who have done the research vote for it.
• 1:40:13
  But to just vote down party lines
• 1:40:15
  is that's what has gotten us into this two-party system that we can't get out of.
• 1:40:21
  I won't disagree with that.
• 1:40:23
  And I think you're right because voting local is different than voting for the national,
• 1:40:31
  you know, nationally.
• 1:40:32
  Voting for the president is a whole different thing because everyone's backyard is different.
• 1:40:36
  Regionally, your type of job, what's around you, the industries actually will shape where you live.
• 1:40:43
  and you have to vote accordingly to keep those things going, period.
• 1:40:47
  If you live in certain areas, like where I'm at,
• 1:40:49
  it's kind of more like Central Valley.
• 1:40:51
  It's all farm out here.
• 1:40:53
  And if you look at California, what's crazy is it's one of those forever blue states,
• 1:40:58
  but there's a huge chunk in the middle.
• 1:41:00
  It's like a few cities that determine how blue it is,
• 1:41:03
  yet everything else is red because of the agriculture.
• 1:41:07
  You want to know a fun way to explain states' rights to maybe a European?
• 1:41:12
  fly them over to the United States and drive.
• 1:41:16
  Right.
• 1:41:17
  Just drive.
• 1:41:18
  Just go from, you know,
• 1:41:21
  not even from the Northeast to the Southwest of California.
• 1:41:27
  Drive from Georgia to Nevada
• 1:41:29
  and just have them sit there
• 1:41:32
  and they understand,
• 1:41:34
  oh, I get why France doesn't have states' rights
• 1:41:38
  because it's just a small little country
• 1:41:40
  in the middle of Europe.
• 1:41:41
  We have French rights, our own French rights. But from Georgia, I don't think Georgian politicians, the state of Georgia, I guess I shouldn't use that one because there is another Georgia. But South Carolinian politicians should not be making laws for Oregon people. That's not what should be happening.
• 1:42:04
  South Carolinian politicians should be making laws for South Carolinians. And senators and House of Representatives in Oregon should be focused on the issues that the Oregon people should be focused on.
• 1:42:18
  The demographics between Florida and the state of Washington, two completely different states, are completely different.
• 1:42:26
  Obviously, you have a different generation.
• 1:42:30
  You have tons of different generations and different political leanings and all kinds of things.
• 1:42:36
  Those people shouldn't be making policy.
• 1:42:38
  The people of Florida shouldn't be making policy for the people of California.
• 1:42:41
  That's not how this should be working.
• 1:42:42
  Well, it's true.
• 1:42:45
  And it's interesting because you always, especially this election, you've always heard about the diversity, right?
• 1:42:55
  And the left or Democratic Party, I'm just saying left, would push diversity, diversity, diversity.
• 1:43:02
  But the way they were saying it or the points they're trying to make was to fit the context of their campaign
• 1:43:08
  while also ignoring how diverse the United States really is.
• 1:43:11
  is. Like every region, as you just said, is so different. Like you have states that are literally
• 1:43:17
  built around the fishing industry. You have others built around the cotton industry. You have,
• 1:43:20
  you know, so many different walks of life. And, you know, sure, it might make sense for this city
• 1:43:27
  and this state to be completely democratic in their vote, but it may not for the next. Maybe
• 1:43:32
  it needs to be Republican for whatever reasons. I think- And then the conversations that came out
• 1:43:38
  after that, right?
• 1:43:39
  Yeah.
• 1:43:39
  Which is like,
• 1:43:40
  because, you know,
• 1:43:41
  and I talked about this
• 1:43:43
  on another podcast
• 1:43:44
  where it was like,
• 1:43:45
  we had all these discussions
• 1:43:47
  about Puerto Ricans
• 1:43:48
  are going to flock
• 1:43:49
  to the Democratic Party now
• 1:43:51
  because of what a comedian said
• 1:43:53
  during a conference
• 1:43:57
  that was going on.
• 1:43:59
  Guess what?
• 1:44:00
  What's funny is that
• 1:44:02
  an entire base
• 1:44:03
  considers themselves
• 1:44:05
  the diversity base, right?
• 1:44:07
  And yet all of those diverse thoughts
• 1:44:09
  they talk about are done monolithically, meaning, yes, they're all diverse. They're African-American,
• 1:44:17
  you know, Black, Hispanic, all the different races and religions and creeds, but they all think the
• 1:44:23
  same way. And so we know we're going to get the vote of these people because they're just going
• 1:44:29
  to vote the same way. And that didn't happen because Trump disrupted that. And I think that's
• 1:44:34
  a good thing that he disrupted that. Let's stop looking at people as a monolith. People would look
• 1:44:41
  at my background and go, oh, you were raised evangelical. You're evangelical, Southern
• 1:44:45
  Louisiana, white. You have to vote this certain way so that we are going to not even talk to you
• 1:44:52
  as a Democrat because you're not going to vote that way. You didn't even talk to me. You didn't
• 1:44:57
  even ask what my perspective was on the economy or foreign affairs or things of that nature.
• 1:45:05
  Why? Because you judged me. Just what you're saying the right wing is doing, they're judging
• 1:45:10
  people based off of their race, color, creed, gender, everything. You're judging me based off
• 1:45:15
  of the same things. And so stop telling everyone else they're the problem and do some internal
• 1:45:25
  dialogue and understand that it can't be everybody that's the problem.
• 1:45:30
  No, it's not.
• 1:45:31
  It's like when you talk to a guy that's, or, you know, a man or a woman who's been divorced
• 1:45:36
  five times and they go, hey, you know, all those, all my exes, they were just crazy.
• 1:45:42
  It's like, have you done some internal dialogue?
• 1:45:45
  Maybe look at yourself in the mirror.
• 1:45:46
  Maybe you're the crazy one because after a certain point, you might be the problem.
• 1:45:51
  I think that's where the Democratic Party's at right now.
• 1:45:53
  I think you're the problem.
• 1:45:55
  I think America's problem in general is outside of, okay, people like you and I who podcast,
• 1:46:03
  like we put ourselves in a situation where we have to talk for an hour, two hours, three
• 1:46:07
  hours, whatever.
• 1:46:07
  We actually do get to know people based on those conversations.
• 1:46:10
  And most people don't engage anymore like that.
• 1:46:13
  You know, they just look at each other and they might say a couple of words and they
• 1:46:17
  just move on.
• 1:46:19
  Point in case, I just had.
• 1:46:21
  okay, so for wedding anniversary, you know, where we got married, the place was closing down,
• 1:46:27
  the owner sold. So this year, wife's like, hey, let's go out and experience this place before
• 1:46:32
  they close because I guess in December, they're gone. They sold the land and all that. So we went
• 1:46:36
  over there and I got to talk. We always end up in the bar. I don't know how, you know, starts dinner,
• 1:46:40
  we end up at the bar. That's where I end up. You know, that's just where things happen, right?
• 1:46:43
  So we're sitting there and the bartender, we're talking and my wife likes to be, you know, she
• 1:46:48
  likes to poke the bear, so to speak.
• 1:46:50
  So she's like talking about the election and she just, she can tell by the conversation.
• 1:46:55
  She just kept saying Trump's name and I'm just sitting here.
• 1:46:57
  She goes, come on, you have a podcast.
• 1:47:00
  Why don't you?
• 1:47:00
  I'm like, hold on.
• 1:47:02
  Hold on.
• 1:47:02
  Let's not do this.
• 1:47:04
  So anyway, we get to talking and the whole point, I was, okay, I engaged, but I was like,
• 1:47:11
  everyone expects like for me, for example, that I'm just going to go out and start snapping
• 1:47:15
  at people and correcting them or doing whatever.
• 1:47:17
  but that's not what I like to do.
• 1:47:18
  I like to sit there and take it in.
• 1:47:20
  They gave me the opportunity.
• 1:47:21
  This guy was extreme left, by the way, which is fine.
• 1:47:24
  But in talking to that person and not being an asshole myself,
• 1:47:27
  like I usually can be, I was able to get that guy's perspective.
• 1:47:31
  And that's the thing that we need is to talk because you don't know why that
• 1:47:34
  person thinks that way.
• 1:47:36
  Okay.
• 1:47:37
  Absolutely.
• 1:47:37
  We're all brought up differently.
• 1:47:38
  We all have our own experiences and they're never necessarily exactly the
• 1:47:42
  same.
• 1:47:42
  There's a reason this person chose that.
• 1:47:45
  It could be due to just what they read or hear on MSNBC, but for the most part, that's not always the case.
• 1:47:51
  You know, there's always something, you know, deeper that we got to get to and get out of the other person to understand them.
• 1:47:58
  And you don't have to agree, but at least you can walk away going, okay, I get it.
• 1:48:01
  I get it.
• 1:48:02
  And you can respect that person for who they are.
• 1:48:04
  And I don't think we're doing that anymore as Americans.
• 1:48:07
  I think that's where conversations should end.
• 1:48:10
  Right.
• 1:48:11
  Look, we're not all here to be Ben Shapiro or someone else who owns the left or owns the right and have all these grandiose debates and stuff like that.
• 1:48:23
  That's not what we're here for.
• 1:48:25
  There's a time and place for it.
• 1:48:28
  But in a regular conversation, I absolutely understand where you're coming from, at a bar especially.
• 1:48:33
  Because that's typically, you sit at a bar.
• 1:48:35
  I've been called an introverted extrovert, which means I like to get out and do things, but
• 1:48:43
  I'm not the kind of guy like yourself that, well, you did say that sometimes you will
• 1:48:48
  engage and stuff, but at a bar, typically people will try to engage with me because that's,
• 1:48:54
  hey, we're in this social environment. I don't want to be engaged at that point because I'm just
• 1:48:58
  there to have a couple of drinks. Most of the time I'm with my wife. I just want to talk to her
• 1:49:02
  that's outside of especially politics,
• 1:49:05
  but I just there to listen Yeah So I not here for the great questions of like what your perspective on this I want to know what do you think is really happening
• 1:49:17
  That's why I think podcasting is incredible
• 1:49:19
  with what we've been able to do,
• 1:49:21
  which is sit down with people
• 1:49:23
  who otherwise may have a different opinion
• 1:49:26
  and just have a conversation.
• 1:49:28
  And at the end of the conversation,
• 1:49:29
  it's not this big debate where we hate each other's guts
• 1:49:33
  and then we never talk to each other.
• 1:49:35
  it's, well, I'm glad I got your perspective on that. It might not have changed my opinion on it,
• 1:49:40
  but at least now I know where you're coming from so that when you do make a statement
• 1:49:43
  in the future, I understand it's through this worldview and you're emotional and you have an
• 1:49:51
  emotional response to it. And I can be down for that. I can get behind an emotional response to
• 1:49:55
  things. Understanding that's probably not the truth, but it is the truth in how you feel about
• 1:50:01
  what's going on. Right, right. I'm not here to change your mind. I'm really not. I'm here to
• 1:50:07
  give you facts, to give you the information as I see it. And hopefully you'll understand what's
• 1:50:13
  really working, what's really going on. But to change your opinion, I don't care. I don't care
• 1:50:19
  if you think we should be supporting Ukraine or if Russia was right to get into Ukraine.
• 1:50:26
  I really don't care. That's for Putin and Zelensky to worry about. What I care about is, what are you thinking on a personal level? How are you feeling? How's your family doing? Are you okay? In this economy, is what's going on in this world really benefiting you, or do you think we should make some changes in this country?
• 1:50:47
  That's what I think the conversation should be.
• 1:50:50
  So if I talk to somebody who's a Kamala Harris supporter, and maybe I'm not a Kamala Harris supporter, and they say, I really think she would be great for this country because there's a bridge there that she would, you know, there's a gap there that she would bridge into another administration.
• 1:51:05
  And I think that, you know, she's very calm, cool, and collected in her responses.
• 1:51:11
  And I think that's good for the country.
• 1:51:12
  I go, okay, I can get behind that.
• 1:51:15
  You didn't change my opinion on her, but at least now I know where you're coming from.
• 1:51:19
  And we can have a conversation about that.
• 1:51:21
  I can do that for Trump.
• 1:51:23
  If you think, well, I think Trump draining the swamp in D.C. and helping out the economy, that's going to help the economy.
• 1:51:29
  And it's going to be better for me and my family.
• 1:51:30
  And that's why I'm going to vote for him.
• 1:51:32
  I can go, I get that.
• 1:51:34
  I understand that.
• 1:51:35
  It's not about all these other initiatives that are going on.
• 1:51:39
  You're thinking about yourself personally, and I can get behind that.
• 1:51:42
  Well, but yet, you know, everybody likes to judge you based on making a decision,
• 1:51:49
  making a decision based on how you're feeling or what you're going through.
• 1:51:55
  Like using economy as an example.
• 1:51:57
  Maybe they feel voting for Trump would improve their life because of the, you know,
• 1:52:03
  improving the economy.
• 1:52:04
  And then right away, you're a Trumpster or you're a far right fascist or, you know,
• 1:52:10
  it's ridiculous.
• 1:52:10
  and that's the issue we have with social media.
• 1:52:13
  Look, that is not the platform to have a debate.
• 1:52:15
  Everyone always says,
• 1:52:15
  oh, we can't have real debates, discussions.
• 1:52:19
  Look, in less than 300 words,
• 1:52:21
  you can't make a point.
• 1:52:22
  There's just no way.
• 1:52:23
  You absolutely cannot have a debate.
• 1:52:25
  I would agree with people who go,
• 1:52:26
  oh, we can't have a debate here on Twitter.
• 1:52:28
  You absolutely cannot.
• 1:52:29
  No, you can't.
• 1:52:30
  Half the time, because I can't tell sarcasm
• 1:52:32
  and I'm a sarcasm guy.
• 1:52:34
  If you know me personally,
• 1:52:36
  half of like 90% of my conversation
• 1:52:38
  is going to be sarcasm.
• 1:52:39
  That does not come through.
• 1:52:40
  on Twitter. Let me tell you. It doesn't. Well, and the problem with some, since we talked about
• 1:52:46
  podcasts, for example, the problem with some personalities, especially in the news and political
• 1:52:49
  side of things, is they're too evangelical about their messaging. You know, I'll just use, you know,
• 1:52:55
  you said Ben Shapiro earlier, we don't want to be like him because, you know, first off, I'm not
• 1:52:59
  going to be, it's not my goal, but I'll use like a Dan Bongino as an example too. I listen to him
• 1:53:05
  every once in a while. And every time I do, it's like, man, it's almost like hearing a preacher,
• 1:53:11
  you know, up on their platform, just talking to their flock. And it's like,
• 1:53:17
  he's a smart guy, but sometimes like, you know, that's enough. I get it. Okay. I got my 15,
• 1:53:23
  30 minutes. Let's move on to the next. And I just think that it gets to be too much.
• 1:53:29
  So in that capacity, the interesting things to me in that capacity is when someone like that says something that goes against what I would consider their audience or their base would say.
• 1:53:43
  So the interesting thing to me is when a Dan Bondino or a Ben Shapiro actually goes against a right-wing talking point and says, oh, I see all of this commentary online, but actually this is what's happening.
• 1:54:01
  I think they're actually being honest at that point.
• 1:54:03
  They not being honest when they just regurgitating talking points which most of them actually do It just a bunch of talking points listen i an independent podcast no i have no producer that writes up what i gonna say
• 1:54:17
  and says okay this is the scripture gonna follow say this this and this you can't say that because
• 1:54:22
  that's gonna not get our audience right those ben shapiro types and and then rachel maddow on the
• 1:54:29
  left and all of those they have producers telling them you can't say that you have to say this i
• 1:54:35
  know this isn't what you mean, but you can't say it. I know this is actually how you feel,
• 1:54:40
  but you're going to have to say something else. And I got about five more minutes, but I do think
• 1:54:46
  you've got to first understand where these people are coming from. And I do appreciate these right
• 1:54:54
  wing commentators and the left wing commentators, because at least you know where they stand.
• 1:54:59
  so when they're saying a bunch of things that you agree with now you know okay that's a right wing
• 1:55:06
  kind of talking point that's a left wing talk i think they i think you know where they stand but
• 1:55:10
  i also think that they found the form of that works to to keep the money coming in as well
• 1:55:14
  yeah you know and so they're just they're just keeping up with what works to keep their pockets
• 1:55:19
  full i mean let's be honest i think that's oftentimes more the more the point unless
• 1:55:24
  Unless you're a Joe Rogan who's popular and doesn't give a shit.
• 1:55:28
  And he's just, I mean, one day he says one thing.
• 1:55:30
  But how many of those are there?
• 1:55:31
  He doesn't.
• 1:55:32
  Right.
• 1:55:32
  He's rare.
• 1:55:33
  Yeah.
• 1:55:33
  He's a one of one.
• 1:55:34
  Yeah.
• 1:55:35
  You know?
• 1:55:35
  And I think everybody who's trying, I'm sorry, I won't derail it anymore.
• 1:55:39
  Oh, no, no, it's not that.
• 1:55:40
  I just, because you and I both got to go.
• 1:55:43
  I literally have to drive another 30 minutes to do my next thing.
• 1:55:48
  But before that, let's do the Tulsi Gabbard thing.
• 1:55:52
  Because you're the intelligence guy.
• 1:55:53
  This was your background.
• 1:55:54
  Why is she not a good pick for the role?
• 1:55:58
  Well, okay.
• 1:55:59
  First of all, she has zero.
• 1:56:01
  Let me get into the mic here.
• 1:56:03
  Can you fix this audio if I'm screaming?
• 1:56:06
  She has zero intelligence experience.
• 1:56:11
  And now you might say, and I've heard some people who are very smart that I might even
• 1:56:16
  respect who say that's the whole point.
• 1:56:19
  You get her in there to shake things up.
• 1:56:21
  Not the director of national intelligence.
• 1:56:24
  I don't know if a lot of people understand the director of national intelligence is over the CIA. That's over the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency. That's over the NSA. They control the entire intelligence apparatus. She has zero experience.
• 1:56:40
  If you want to put her in your cabinet as a VA representative, veterans assistance, or find something else where she's involved in a military capacity or a veteran capacity.
• 1:56:56
  I have no problems with Tulsi Gabbard.
• 1:56:58
  I really don't.
• 1:56:59
  I think that all of this talk about her being some Russian plant, you're going to have to show me evidence.
• 1:57:06
  No one's been able to quantify the evidence that she's a Russian plant.
• 1:57:09
  Does she say some things that are Russian talking points? Okay, well, those are talking points that a lot of people are saying, not just the Russians. So that's part of her worldview. That's part of her belief. She can say all of that stuff.
• 1:57:23
  From a military capacity, she's very capable. She's working civil affairs in special operations in areas that I've worked in. I told you this before. Her unit was attached to my unit when I was deployed. So we deployed at the same time in different locations, but she was a combat medic and I was an intelligence professional.
• 1:57:45
  If she's the director of national intelligence, that's a problem, I think.
• 1:57:52
  Now, full disclosure, I've also reached out to the Tulsi, to Tulsi's team, I would say, and asked.
• 1:58:00
  I don't expect any response.
• 1:58:02
  And if she's listening or anyone from her team or anyone that supports her is listening to this, if you want to get me in touch with her, I'm absolutely sincere when I say this.
• 1:58:11
  I would be a conduit to her moving into the director of national intelligence. I could consult
• 1:58:21
  on that and I would be perfectly willing to do that. And if she took me up on that,
• 1:58:27
  I'd have a totally different opinion, not because of personal reasons, but because she understands
• 1:58:33
  that she doesn't have full-on experience and she wants to put a team around her that does
• 1:58:38
  have the experience where her experience is in a leadership capacity. So I'm here to lead my team.
• 1:58:45
  They can go off and do great things. I'm just going to be the figurehead in the face of this
• 1:58:49
  organization. Do you think she'd be smart enough to do that? I think she's intelligent enough to do
• 1:58:56
  that, right? To put people around her that do have the experience to help her be the leader she should
• 1:59:02
  be in that position I would hope so I would hope so but there also something that is I trying to find the right word here in enough time There something more powerful than that experience than wanting to be a leader
• 1:59:19
  And that's vindictiveness.
• 1:59:21
  That's something as somebody who's a New Orleans Saints fan from the New Orleans area, we're very petty people.
• 1:59:27
  So go look at the years with Sean Payton and now how we feel about it.
• 1:59:32
  They had a good game.
• 1:59:33
  I loved it.
• 1:59:33
  I was watching it, actually.
• 1:59:35
  But we're very petty.
• 1:59:37
  I hope that that powerful vindictiveness doesn't come through with her.
• 1:59:45
  She's, as a leader, she could be very good.
• 1:59:48
  Is she going to put a good team around her?
• 1:59:50
  That's my worry.
• 1:59:51
  That is my only worry.
• 1:59:52
  It has nothing to do with her as an individual.
• 1:59:55
  It does have things to do with her experience
• 1:59:57
  and that she doesn't have the experience to control
• 1:59:59
  the entire intelligence apparatus within this country.
• 2:00:03
  And if you think that the intelligence community needs to be completely dismantled and that's going to fix all the problems in America, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona that I'm just waiting for you to purchase from me because that is absolutely false.
• 2:00:20
  I was going to say there's way too many moving pieces for that to be the solution.
• 2:00:25
  No way.
• 2:00:26
  Okay.
• 2:00:27
  Well, those are all valid, especially from someone with the actual experience as yourself.
• 2:00:32
  I like her.
• 2:00:33
  I didn't expect this to be her appointment, to be quite honest.
• 2:00:37
  I really didn't.
• 2:00:38
  When I heard about this, I was like, okay.
• 2:00:42
  You know, my reaction was like, good for her, but not what I expected.
• 2:00:47
  Well, I have 20 plus years in the intelligence community.
• 2:00:50
  Yeah.
• 2:00:50
  And I can't get into the office of the director of national intelligence.
• 2:00:56
  This is crazy, right?
• 2:00:57
  I just did not expect for her to be appointed in that position.
• 2:01:00
  You know, something else, like you said, I would have,
• 2:01:02
  there's other things that
• 2:01:04
  Veterans Affairs
• 2:01:05
  yeah
• 2:01:05
  that I could have seen her
• 2:01:06
  definitely stepping into
• 2:01:08
  and doing an amazing job
• 2:01:09
  based on her
• 2:01:09
  actual experience
• 2:01:11
  but intelligence
• 2:01:12
  she could have done
• 2:01:12
  health and human services
• 2:01:13
  as well
• 2:01:14
  I mean yeah
• 2:01:14
  she was a medic
• 2:01:16
  absolutely
• 2:01:16
  a combat medic
• 2:01:17
  basically in her capacity
• 2:01:19
  she was a doctor
• 2:01:19
  I can say that
• 2:01:21
  wholeheartedly
• 2:01:22
  she was a doctor
• 2:01:23
  she could have been great
• 2:01:25
  health and human services
• 2:01:26
  hmm
• 2:01:27
  we'll never know
• 2:01:28
  well like
• 2:01:29
  I'm hoping she does
• 2:01:30
  what you say
• 2:01:31
  and she puts a real
• 2:01:32
  team around her and she relies on that team.
• 2:01:37
  I really do.
• 2:01:37
  I hope so too.
• 2:01:38
  And if you move on.
• 2:01:40
  If you're listening, reach out.
• 2:01:41
  If you move on and you're part of her team, I hope we can still stay connected.
• 2:01:46
  Oh, absolutely.
• 2:01:47
  You'll be the first person I call.
• 2:01:49
  Right.
• 2:01:50
  Anyway.
• 2:01:51
  I don't expect it, but.
• 2:01:53
  You never know, man.
• 2:01:54
  You know what?
• 2:01:54
  I'll tell you what.
• 2:01:55
  I'll do my best to make sure she hears this.
• 2:01:58
  Thank you.
• 2:01:59
  However I can anyway.
• 2:02:00
  All right.
• 2:02:02
  We got that out of the way.
• 2:02:04
  And I appreciate your take on that
• 2:02:06
  and explaining everything that's going on in Russia.
• 2:02:09
  And, you know, I know you're going to be back again
• 2:02:12
  down the road when you have time.
• 2:02:14
  I'm sure China may be the next conversation.
• 2:02:17
  Let's hope not, but let's hope not too soon.
• 2:02:20
  It will be.
• 2:02:20
  My hope is not in the next year,
• 2:02:22
  but maybe two years from now.
• 2:02:24
  That's the hope.
• 2:02:25
  Yeah.
• 2:02:26
  Well, hey, thanks for coming on and taking time.
• 2:02:30
  Absolutely, man.
• 2:02:31
  Definitely want you back again.
• 2:02:32
  And again, I'll always stay in touch with you.
• 2:02:34
  So again, appreciate you clearing all that Russia stuff up.
• 2:02:38
  And hopefully people's minds are at ease after they hear this in turn, you know, in regard
• 2:02:42
  to us not getting into a nuclear war.
• 2:02:45
  And now that we have an understanding, like, hey, a lot of us is posturing.
• 2:02:48
  He's just trying to look good for his people.
• 2:02:50
  And, you know, we know he doesn't want that.
• 2:02:53
  And then as far as Tulsi goes, great to hear from you because your perspective matters on
• 2:02:57
  that.
• 2:02:58
  I mean, like I said, 20 years in the intelligence community.
• 2:02:59
  and for you and I,
• 2:03:01
  we're both kind of like,
• 2:03:03
  like her,
• 2:03:03
  but didn't expect that appointment whatsoever.
• 2:03:05
  That was kind of like,
• 2:03:07
  okay,
• 2:03:07
  sure.
• 2:03:09
  But yeah,
• 2:03:10
  let me let you go, man.
• 2:03:11
  I know you got to go.
• 2:03:12
  I got to go.
• 2:03:12
  All right.
• 2:03:13
  Thank you very much.
• 2:03:14
  All right, Kervin.
• 2:03:14
  Thank you.
• 2:03:15
  Yeah.
• 2:03:16
  Bye.
• 2:03:16
  Have a good one.
• 2:03:17
  Well,
• 2:03:17
  thank you everyone for hanging in there
• 2:03:20
  and taking in all that information
• 2:03:22
  and remember to like
• 2:03:24
  and subscribe to World of Blaze
• 2:03:26
  and please share World of Blaze
• 2:03:29
  with everyone else you know.
• 2:03:31
  I really do appreciate you.
• 2:03:33
  Have a great day.
• 2:03:59
  Bye.