Latest / UK Column Radio / J Michael Waller Interview 3

Transcript

J Michael Waller Interview 3 · UK Column Radio

0:07
Speaker 1: Good afternoon to UK column viewers and listeners. I'm delighted,
0:12
delighted to have J. Michael Waller back with me, author
0:15
of Big Intel, How CIA and FBI went from Cold
0:21
War heroes to Deep State villains. So I'm going to
0:24
say to the audience that if you've not come across
0:27
this book before, have a look online and do think
0:31
about getting yourself a copy. It's extremely interesting analysis, historical
0:38
and operational analysis of what's been going on inside the
0:41
CIA and the FBI in America. Now, Mike, thank you
0:46
very much for greeing to come back for another chat
0:49
with me. We were just saying off camera a few
0:52
moments ago that we don't seem to have problems covering material,
0:56
so I've got lots of questions for you today. Welcome
1:01
to UK, Colin.
1:02
Speaker 2: It's nice to be back.
1:04
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well. I wondered if we could we could
1:07
start off with asking you about the Trump assassination attempt.
1:13
I've obviously watched that incident develop, the reporting of it,
1:17
at least in the press and the media, and I
1:21
certainly thought there were some strange things as I watched
1:25
the initial footage and over the past, whatever it is
1:29
now a couple of weeks, we've seen a lot more
1:33
questions arising about the security that was provided for Trump
1:38
and also the reactions reactions at the sniper teams. Also
1:45
some controversy over preparations by the intelligence services themselves in
1:51
scoping out the site where he gave his speech, and
1:57
of course that's ultimately resulting in the resignation of the
2:02
Secret Service director this cheatle So let's jump straight in
2:08
and I wonder what are your thoughts on the assassination
2:11
attempts on Trump.
2:14
Speaker 2: Well, the first thought is it's shocking to everybody how
2:17
sloppy and unprofessional the Secret Service. Come. Here's the agency
2:23
that was created just weeks after the assassination of President
2:27
Abraham Lincoln in eighteen sixty five, and you would think
2:31
that they would be the best of the best, doing
2:34
the best job they possibly can. And you're keeping in
2:38
mind there can be human error in this case, though,
2:41
it looks like serial ineptitude, almost like a deliberate ineptitude,
2:49
as if they didn't really care if they did their
2:51
job or not.
2:53
Speaker 1: That's a pretty strong statement. They didn't care whether they
2:55
did their job or not. What if you observe that
3:00
concerned you about the incident itself, and what measures were
3:06
and were not taken to protect Trump.
3:09
Speaker 2: Well, the first one was pretty basic, and that they
3:13
left a direct line of sight between a rooftop and
3:17
the former president who is now the Republican nominee, and
3:22
so this is one of the main people the Secret
3:25
Service is bound to protect. Usually in a case like that,
3:29
where there's a line of sight, the Secret Service would
3:31
have a very large vehicle or something else placed in
3:34
the way to interrupt that line of sight. They didn't
3:37
even bother with that. So with the video footage we're
3:40
seeing now from other people with cameras in the crowd,
3:43
one could see the shooter actually walking along the roofline
3:47
with his weapon in the minutes leading up to the shooting.
3:51
So there's no excuse for that. Another one is the
3:55
actual I'm not faulting the agents themselves as individuals, that
3:59
is the people on the ground. It's really the problem
4:01
with the management. The whole management of Trump's personal security
4:06
detail was incompetent from the start, and it gets worse
4:10
the more we hear. But from what any witness could
4:13
see on the ground, if you have a man who's
4:17
six foot four inches tall, a very large man who
4:20
is being guarded by people too short to be able
4:26
to cover him and to get between him and the bullet.
4:29
That's a problem. It's not a problem with the agents
4:31
who's of a different stature. It's a problem of the
4:34
organization of the security detail. So when you saw them,
4:37
the Secret Service agents pushing Trump down the way they
4:41
did and trying to push him off the stage, one
4:43
of the agents in front was about a foot too
4:46
short even to be able to protect him from his
4:48
chest to his head. She did the best she could,
4:51
but she wasn't you know she would have been better
4:53
in another spot. Then we learn how the Secret Service
4:57
is deliberately putting people in the those positions in the
5:01
name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. So now you're having
5:06
a you're not putting the best of the best in
5:08
these positions for political or for not partisan political, but
5:12
for ideological reasons to diversify the people around the person
5:18
being protected, which is something that's just outrageous. You have
5:21
to have the best of the best.
5:23
Speaker 1: Do You've jumped straight into the to the hot topic
5:26
for me? Because when I was doing some research around this,
5:29
I quickly I stumbled I wasn't really looking for the
5:32
angle of the diversity, equity and inclusion, the DEI angle,
5:37
But I stumbled over a series of press articles and
5:41
they were grouped together not only on DI but also
5:46
on misogyny. And basically this was a pretty strong backlash
5:51
by the bigger press and media in America saying, well,
5:55
these horrible online people, I think some of them were
5:59
branded right wing, are making these vile claims that it's
6:05
the use of diversity, equity and inclusion which have destroyed
6:10
the ability of the Secret Service to use agents appropriately.
6:16
But they were very much taking it that it was
6:19
a personal attack on the female agents that were present
6:24
to protect Trump, and those media sources were clearly very
6:33
protective at any idea that there was a problem with
6:37
providing security because of the use of these policies. But
6:42
you're going right to the heart of the matter and saying, yep,
6:45
these policies have impacted the quality of protection that the
6:50
Secret Service could provide.
6:53
Speaker 2: If you had a woman who was a six foot four,
6:57
very athletic person who was the best of the best
7:00
and could protect the presidential candidate, that's fine. So it's
7:05
not misogyny to say that the person there was too short,
7:09
and the other one was infect too overweight and out
7:12
of shape to holster her weapon properly, and then too
7:15
poorly trained to even know what to do in the
7:18
event of a shooting. And so we saw the one
7:21
female Secret Service agent she did her very best that
7:24
you can't fault her for doing her very best. She
7:27
put her life on the line, But her colleague was
7:30
photographed cowering behind Trump with her hands up like this,
7:35
not knowing what to do. And then that same individual
7:38
back at the presidential limousine was pulled out her weapon
7:42
and was holding it in kind of like a Hollywood
7:44
pose where their head going back and forth wondering what
7:47
to do. And then she couldn't she couldn't holster the
7:50
weapon again properly because her belly was in the way. Well,
7:53
come on, what kind of first rate protection is that.
7:57
So it's not being misogynistic to point these things out,
8:00
it's just being practical. And then you look at, well,
8:03
why were these agents placed there? And that's because Secret
8:08
Service Director Kimberly Cheetle was following the Department of Homeland
8:13
Security directive to put diversity, equity and inclusion in all
8:17
hiring and promotion decisions, and so it was for ideological
8:20
reasons that these physically substandard bodyguards were put in those positions.
8:25
But then also you didn't have a drone operative. Normally,
8:29
if you have an element of personal security that's not
8:32
functioning at that moment, or if you have a threat.
8:34
Here's two counts. There was a visible line of sight
8:39
where the Secret Service did see somebody on the roof.
8:41
They normally would have said to President Trump, excuse me, sir,
8:46
we're going to have to wait until we clear a
8:48
possible threat up there. We're going to delay you ten
8:50
or fifteen minutes. And Trump is fine with delays because
8:52
he's usually late for his rally meetings. And the second
8:55
one is you had the drone for security of the
9:00
area was inoperable until it was way too late. So
9:04
why would you have on those two occasions you would
9:07
still tell the person being protected that it's okay to
9:10
go and speak when it absolutely was not.
9:13
Speaker 1: The other thing I observed from the video footage was
9:17
the length of time that members members of the public
9:22
in the crowd were actually shouting and warning that there
9:26
was a man acting suspiciously, and then there was a
9:29
man climbing on the roof, and then there was a
9:31
man on the roof that they described his arrival and
9:36
the fact that scoped the place out, and then he
9:38
climbed up onto the roof. And yet with all the
9:42
crowd shouting that, there didn't appear to be any direct
9:46
reaction from the police or the installed security team. And
9:50
I found this quite extraordinary.
9:53
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, there's some evidence that some local police did
9:56
try to do something, but their radio communications were not
10:00
compatible with the Secret Service, or whether there was some
10:02
other reason that they were disregarded. This gets us back,
10:06
in part to the deterioration in training by the leadership
10:10
of the Secret Service. Because your best eyes and ears
10:13
on the ground can be the local population, and when
10:16
the locals see something, you should listen to them. But
10:20
in any service that considers itself elite, it's going to
10:24
consider itself above everyone else. And then when you have
10:27
a Department of Homeland Security that houses the Secret Service,
10:31
whose ideology is that the people of this political persuasion
10:35
that populist American citizens in middle rural America are deplorable,
10:41
they're they're weird, they're you know, people not to be
10:46
regarded as citizens, that their opinions don't matter. Then people
10:53
in those services are not going to regard what they
10:57
hear from locals who they consider to be idiots. So
11:01
that's that in itself, it would be poor police, law
11:05
enforcement or protective work if you're not listening to warnings
11:09
coming from the public.
11:11
Speaker 1: As you say that, into my head comes a little
11:14
bit of my own military background with the Navy, and
11:18
that is that you can you can if you're at sea,
11:21
you can be following the best navigational equipment that there is,
11:26
you can have all of the charts, all of the
11:28
depth information, but at the end of the day, local
11:32
knowledge from the local fishermen can often warn you of
11:36
something that you would you'd never detect on your own,
11:39
So don't dismiss local knowledge is certainly something that works
11:43
at sea as well. The other thing here is that
11:49
obviously the then boss of the Secret Service, Kimberlee Cheedle,
11:53
came under huge pressure in questioning as to what actually happening,
11:58
what actually happened, and I've got a quote here that
12:01
she said that it was the most or she admitted
12:04
it was the most significant operation operational failure at the
12:08
Secret Services in decades. But then she didn't want to
12:13
open up about anything that would happen and that had happened.
12:17
Do you think her reticence to answer questions was simply
12:23
trying to protect herself or was there something deeper that
12:27
she was trying to deal with.
12:30
Speaker 2: It was two things. She was trying to protect herself.
12:33
If you look at the answers that she gave, you know,
12:35
these are the types of ways you go to Congress
12:37
or to court to be evasive. In fact, you wouldn't
12:41
be this evasive in court because the judge would take
12:43
would take action against you. Speaking in the passive voice,
12:47
speaking in indirect terms, not answering yes or no questions,
12:52
just by giving a long monologue. You know. These are
12:55
all things that they're coached to do before testifying, so
12:58
that they can look like they're saying something and not
13:01
be not be guilty of lying before Congress or contempt
13:07
of Congress. So she was covering up for herself because
13:11
she was the one immediately responsible, she was the boss.
13:14
But she was also covering up for her boss, the
13:17
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, who's one of
13:20
the most ideological figures in a very ideological administration. That's
13:26
Alejandro Majorcas and she's also covering up for a system
13:31
wide policy which is deliberately lowering standards in order to
13:37
fulfill ideological principles. So she was in the hot seat
13:43
on that. And if she had come forward and said,
13:45
you know what, it's my fault, it's my leadership problem.
13:50
I hereby tender my resignation, she would have been forgiven
13:54
for a whole lot. Just as the Capitol Police chief,
13:56
Chief Chief Stephen sund On Jay, when you were a
14:00
seventh twenty twenty one, right after the riots, he tendered
14:04
his resignation immediately and then arranged for an orderly transition.
14:08
She did no such thing. She said she was going
14:10
to stay on, and she knew she had top cover
14:12
from Secretary Majorcus and from the White House.
14:16
Speaker 1: And so it was only when that pressure built and
14:19
built until it was untenable that she finally decided to
14:23
step down.
14:24
Speaker 2: Right and then her replacement, I mean, look at him.
14:27
He gave more direct answers, but he acquitted himself extremely poorly.
14:34
He spoke also in the passive voice, as if it
14:36
was the shooter's fault that the Secret Service itself was
14:39
not prepared. Now, of course, it's the shooter's fault for
14:42
what the shooter did, but it's not the shooter's fault
14:44
for what the Secret Service did or failed not to do.
14:48
But Acting Director Rose passive voice in all of this
14:52
shows again he's not really accepting responsibility and he's he's
14:56
trying to shield someone or something.
14:59
Speaker 1: Right, And now, with respect to Row, I came across
15:03
an article which I found very interesting. It was a
15:08
claim that whistleblowers were releasing information that actually the Secret
15:13
Service had been informed of a number of things. So
15:16
I'll just read this quote out. It says, a whistleblower
15:20
has alleged to my office that the Secret Service Counter
15:23
Surveillance Division, the division that performs threat assessment of event
15:28
sites before the event occurs, did not perform its typical
15:33
evaluation of the Butler's site and was not present on
15:36
the day. This is significant because CSD's duties include evaluating
15:44
potential security threats outside the security perimeter and mitigating those
15:49
threats during the event. Now, the article itself also suggested
15:54
that a whistleblower has said that that Roe reacted very
15:59
badly to agents that raised concerns about the quality and
16:04
the level of protection on the rally site. So Rowe
16:10
appears to be incredibly defensive himself, as you say.
16:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he's also not taking blame. And he would
16:19
have been the one where you have the director of
16:21
the Secret Service as the boss, so she's responsible for
16:24
everything that happens. He was much more closely tied to
16:28
the actual protective details. But they're also covering up or
16:32
for the decisions to make sure that more resources went
16:36
to a very minor event by First Lady Jill Biden,
16:40
also in the state of Pennsylvania that day and letting
16:44
it be known that the Secret Service needed more resources. Now,
16:48
any time of bureaucracy needs more resources, especially in the
16:51
security area, they're going to get the resources they want
16:54
or that they need. That's seldom been a problem. But
16:57
in this case, for some reason, the Secret Service didn't
16:59
have enough agents, it didn't have snipers, it didn't have
17:02
a means of communicating properly with the state and local
17:06
police forces, and so it was lacking resources for the
17:13
political rival of the President of the United States, who
17:16
then was still running for reelection. So then it causes
17:20
a lot of other questions. Why was the system and
17:23
the leaders of the system in such a state of
17:25
mind that they weren't providing the best of the best
17:28
security for a political rival. They weren't providing Secret Service
17:32
protection either to Robert F. Kennedy Junior, who's running as
17:35
an independent rival of Biden. And of course, the Kennedy
17:38
family has been plagued with political assassinations for the past
17:44
sixty sixty years or more, so they weren't. Even the
17:48
White House repeatedly denied Secret Service protection to Kennedy. And
17:52
this was repeated active refusals, not simply in competence, but
17:58
policy decisions not to by this protection. So you really
18:02
have to wonder what is going on in the leadership
18:05
of our country when they are not making sure that
18:09
the lead candidates for public office with the highest threats
18:13
against them are not receiving the protection that they're entitled
18:16
under law.
18:17
Speaker 1: Thank you for that much. I wanted to ask you
18:20
what you've felt about the Biden administration. You've now said, well,
18:25
they weren't providing resources which they should reasonably provided to
18:30
any high profile speaker or presidential candidate. Certainly, is this
18:37
just mismanagement by the Biden administration in your view? Or
18:43
have we got political control party political control over the
18:49
security services? Is that what's going on.
18:51
Speaker 2: It's a combination. And this is where we get into
18:54
a really swampy area where you're at risk of pushing say,
19:02
let's say a theory about a conspiracy, so it's a
19:05
conspiracy theory, and then you'll be denounced for being paranoid
19:08
or whatever. But imagine, look at all the facts we've
19:11
talked about so far, and if before July thirteenth, somebody
19:15
had put this argument together that these policy decisions are made,
19:18
Trump's going to get shot as a result of it,
19:20
people would have said, you're a crazy person. But so
19:23
I don't want to get into to theorizing too much
19:26
about what might have happened, and just look at certain facts.
19:29
And those are that these security services from FBI, Secret Service, CIA,
19:38
all of the different three letter places, they have been
19:41
able to operate without real checks and balances. And they've
19:46
been able to do this for many decades, in some
19:49
cases ever since they were established. And this is really
19:53
dangerous in a democratic republic because you have where you
19:58
have government by con and of the governed, now you
20:01
have government by bureaucracy. And when when you have bureaucracies
20:06
that have become politicized within through hiring decisions from the
20:10
entry level on up and through management decisions from the
20:13
top on down. You can't really trust those services to
20:16
act in the impartial way that we expect them to,
20:19
even if we don't expect them to operate perfectly. So
20:24
as as I wrote in Big Intel about the FBI
20:26
and the CIA becoming not only politicized for or partisan means,
20:31
but ideologically radicalized, we see the same pattern now with
20:39
the Secret Service based on what we've learned since the assassination.
20:43
Speaker 1: Yeah, this us takes us back into the into the
20:46
heart of your book, because that's where it started with
20:48
your warnings about what was happening to these these agencies subversion,
20:59
just as us you the is this ideological change subversion?
21:05
Speaker 2: In your opinion, absolutely, it began this way. This is
21:11
not just a simple question of societies changing. So the
21:15
nature of our security services are changing because the security
21:19
services come out of the society that they're protecting. So
21:23
this is just part of change. This is not This
21:26
is an ideological agenda that has been refined over many decades.
21:32
But you can trace it back as you can in
21:35
the UK with the radicalization of five and I six
21:38
and others, and the Tavistok Institute, that you have a
21:44
radicalization that began a century ago, a little over a
21:49
century ago, and the purpose was to deliberately undermine Western
21:54
democratic societies to create revolutionary change by through the legal
22:00
systems and through the social and educational and media and entertainment,
22:06
to create that social revolutionary change that could not be
22:13
achieved through violence, in say, the Bolshevik form. So this
22:17
began at a meeting in nineteen twenty two in Moscow
22:22
about how to do that, and then they set up
22:26
an institute in Frankfurt, Germany, the shorthand called the Frankfurt School.
22:30
And then when they were active in trying to undermine,
22:33
polarize and tear the center out of Bymar Germany and
22:37
then have their communist revolution once the whole center of
22:41
German society had been destroyed and the country had been polarized.
22:44
But unfortunately for the world, the Nazis had a similar
22:49
idea to polarize, and then they were better equipped to
22:51
take power than the communists were. So these Frankfort Institute
22:55
people fled to Switzerland, France, UK and the United States
23:00
to set up their revolutionary movements through universities and institutions
23:05
in those countries, and so we see what we have
23:08
now a century later, and you can trace this back genealogically.
23:12
It's literally like following a family tree. You can go
23:15
from the sort of the red thread of custody of
23:22
this ideology from one generation to another, and you can
23:26
trace it back person to person chronologically.
23:29
Speaker 1: Over the last few days in UK, we've had street
23:33
riots in a number of cities around UK itself. And
23:38
this is my local paper. You might not be able
23:41
to see it on the screen, but the headline is
23:43
protest brings violence to the streets of Plymouth. So we've
23:48
had rioting, we've had people hurt, police hurting as a
23:55
result of bricks and rocks being thrown at them. We've
23:58
had a lot of damage to proper and these riots
24:02
have involved both white people and Asian people from the
24:08
immigrant community in UK. But suddenly this is erupted across
24:14
the country. For UK column News yesterday, I reverted to
24:21
some of the analysis by Christopher's story talking about the
24:29
creation of circumstance in order to put pressure on the
24:33
public and bring on breakdown of society. And I did
24:37
this too, try and get people who are feeling very
24:40
emotive that at the moment, Immigration in UK is the
24:44
whole problem, and we've got to look at the Muslim
24:47
community and the Asians. I was trying to get the
24:51
audience to reflect on something deeper, that there was a
24:54
hidden hand here that was undermining all levels of society.
24:58
The police were being under my themselves, tension was being
25:02
created in communities, and above all, we were saying to
25:07
the audience, don't get involved in violence, because if you
25:09
get involved in violence, you're actually going to lose the
25:13
battle with a very well armed state. But it was
25:17
very interesting the reaction from the audience because a lot
25:20
of people have not seen some of this material before
25:24
and they never actually thought of the idea that there
25:26
was something dark operating within society to break down our institutions.
25:33
And in our previous dis discussions, you and I have
25:37
been talking about that breakdown occurring in the United States,
25:41
for yourself and certainly for UK here. So a lot
25:45
of tension at the moment in UK as a result
25:49
of those riots over the weekend and a lot of
25:51
people searching for answers as to what's actually going on now.
25:57
I came across an article that you've written about events
26:03
in Capitol Hill when supposedly a crowd simply turned riotous
26:09
and then invaded the premises. But you gave that account
26:14
as a first hand witness. You were present on the edges,
26:18
and I wonder whether you take our audience through some
26:21
of the things that you observed. And I'm just going
26:24
to say I was very taken with some of the
26:27
headings in the article that you produced, because you talked
26:32
about a motivated crowd, but there was a sort of
26:37
festive atmosphere. So initially the crowd starts off being lively
26:43
but not threatening in any way. And most importantly for me,
26:47
you also say that many people in that crowd were
26:50
extremely pro the police, who they regarded as there to
26:54
protect them. But as events unfolded, tear gas was used
26:59
by the police. And then you commented that people in
27:03
the in the crowd were asking the question, why are
27:08
our police attacking us? And I found that a very
27:11
emotive statement, because again, over the weekend, many people who'd
27:16
gone out for what for them was a peaceful protest
27:21
had then said, well, the police suddenly turned on us.
27:24
So take us through what you observed in all those
27:28
amazing events in Capitol Hill.
27:31
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah, that was on January sixth, twenty twenty one,
27:34
and I live on Capitol Hills, so it's my neighborhood
27:37
just a few blocks away from the Capitol. And so
27:40
it was at a time where I was sort of,
27:42
you know, I've gone to hundreds of protests as an observer,
27:45
as a participant, covering them as a journalist, sometimes as
27:49
an organizer, so you know how things work, and the
27:55
the it was a festive atmosphere going from the White
28:00
House where Donald Trump was still speaking to a very
28:03
very large crowd, and then the march heading over to
28:05
the Capitol. So the police and the City of Washington,
28:09
d C. Had issued permits, I think it was seven
28:12
permits to seven different individuals and organizations to have protests
28:16
on city property. And so by getting a permit protest,
28:21
of course, the city knows or issuing them. The city
28:24
knows about how many people to expect, about how many
28:29
portable toilets to put out there in the streets, about
28:31
how many police officers and the types of police units
28:34
to put out there, and so forth, and then to
28:36
coordinate with other agencies to make sure there's not going
28:39
to be any trouble. So nothing unusual at all. So
28:43
These were people from Middle America. It was people of
28:46
every age, people of a lot of people in their
28:50
fifties and sixties, and people in no shape or no
28:55
physical shape or no mental you know, condition or character character,
29:03
I would say, to cause any rioting or cause any destruction.
29:07
These were his ordinary people, working people, a lot of
29:11
off duty and retired police officers and retired military, super
29:15
patriotic bunch of people. And they went at their own
29:18
pace from the White House about sixteen blocks from the
29:23
White House to the Capitol. But among those people it
29:27
was very festive. They had people sharing, you know, refreshments
29:31
that they had with them, and even people picking up
29:33
litter that they found in the street. It was all
29:36
very nice, except you would see these different cell groups
29:39
of three to six people dressed in the same type
29:46
of clothing, whether it was it was tight black clothing
29:51
or some type of camouflage. Some had tactical helmets on,
29:55
and they would run ahead of everybody. They wouldn't associate,
29:58
they wouldn't say hello, they wouldn't stop to look at
30:01
all the landmarks, because you could see how many people
30:03
were out of town by everybody's looking up at the
30:06
different landmarks and buildings and so forth. None of that.
30:09
These people were with a mission. They were running ahead
30:11
of everyone else in different small squads, and so I
30:16
could tell there was going to be some kind of trouble.
30:18
Somebody was organizing provocations, but I had no idea who
30:23
BacT to. First. I thought it might be far left
30:26
anti types, but I didn't see any of that when
30:29
I actually saw the trouble. So going up to the Capitol,
30:35
since again it's my neighborhood, I know when you stay away,
30:38
I know when there's going to be an event. In
30:40
this case, the flag was flying over the House and
30:43
Senate chambers, so you could see the House and Senate
30:45
were both in session. We knew it was a historical
30:48
event because the Vice President would be there to break
30:50
a tie vote. This was to certify the American elections
30:55
and for president, so it was a really really big deal.
30:58
But the hurricane fencing and the signs to tell people
31:03
not to enter a restricted area, by the time we
31:06
got there, they were gone. This was about five foot high,
31:12
heavy plastic hurricane fencing, and then there were sort of
31:15
bicycle racked type low level barriers. They were put to
31:19
one side and very neatly sort of perpendicular to the
31:21
way that they should be. There was no police loudspeaker
31:26
system the way the Capitol police always has one, and
31:28
you can hear living in the neighborhood. They drill with
31:31
this every couple of months, so everyone can hear very
31:34
loudly any order, circe or whatever or is the police skipped.
31:38
There was none of that there, So people just went
31:41
up to right up to the Capitol the way you
31:44
normally would on a regular day. Not a single police
31:47
officer could be seen. They didn't have any canine units
31:50
of any kind. And I thought, well, this is really strange.
31:53
They should have more security here because there are a
31:55
lot of people coming in a very small area when
31:58
both Houses of Congress are in session, and of course
32:02
the Supreme Court is located right across the street from
32:05
the Capitol building. So you have two of our three
32:08
branches of governments with tens of thousands of people crowding
32:11
around it at a very important time. And people were fine.
32:17
The crowd was fine, They were spirited, they were chanting.
32:20
Some of them were chanting in a loud, obnoxious way,
32:23
the way you're going to find it any protests, But
32:25
most everybody was in good spirits until all of a sudden,
32:29
police from the Capitol Building started firing tear gas and
32:33
flash bang and smoke grenades into the crowd. So we
32:38
couldn't see at the time, we were about sixty eighty
32:40
feet away. We couldn't see at the time that there
32:43
was trouble up front. But these are grenades being fired
32:49
way into us and even behind us, sixty eighty one
32:52
hundred feet away from the site of trouble. And then
32:56
that's when people started getting angry. Why are they firing
32:59
at us doing anything? Nobody's hurting anyone. And it kept
33:05
going and kept going and kept going. So it seemed
33:08
like there was going to be a stampede of people
33:11
to leave from what the police were doing with these
33:15
with these crowd control weapons, because thousands or tens of
33:20
thousands more people were still marching to Capitol Hill from
33:24
the White House. Of course they had no idea what
33:26
was going on, but there was no way to escape.
33:28
You had low stone walls or very high curbs on
33:32
either side of these pathways and no way for anybody
33:35
to get out. So it was becoming a dangerous situation.
33:37
So people started getting very angry at what the police
33:41
were doing to them, and that was at the moment
33:45
when the organized groups. And later on we're looking at
33:48
our own videos and we could see they were marked
33:51
with red tape either on the back of their hats
33:54
or helmets or on their shoulders, an orange tape. One
33:57
unit worked with them, the blue tape was another unit.
34:00
Red tape was another unit, and so on. Those were
34:03
the ones pre organized and pre stationed to go up
34:07
the Capitol steps and to storm the capital up on
34:10
the Senate level, Senate chamber level, and then they call
34:13
the crypt level down below on the house side. They
34:17
were organized in advance for this, and they were using
34:19
the larger crowd as cover.
34:21
Speaker 1: Well, there's a number of points there isn't there. But
34:24
tear gas a low grade we'll call it a low
34:27
grade crowd control weapon, but still extremely unpleasant if you
34:32
experience its effects. But if you use it on a
34:37
crowd where people haven't got any place to run, this
34:41
can easily lead to a really serious condition where people
34:47
are going to be crushed by the oncoming crowd. They
34:51
can't see. If they've got tear gas in their eyes,
34:55
they're going to be in a certain amount of pain.
34:57
And yet you've got more people coming into the So
35:01
you either say this, this is a very poor policing
35:04
decision or it was a decision designed to actually cause
35:09
confusion and greater anxiety in the crowd itself.
35:14
Speaker 2: Right, And the investigations showed and the police chief, Capitol
35:18
Police Chief sound showed that he didn't have the intelligence
35:23
to know that there was going to be such a
35:25
large number of people at that event and that rival
35:29
certain rival groups were going to be there and found
35:33
it later turned out that his intelligence chief in him
35:36
is Yoga Nana Pittman apparently made the deliberate decision not
35:40
to inform him of this, so he could not marshal
35:44
his forces properly. He could not request outside assistance from
35:49
the city police or other state police. So you had
35:52
police from other states when they heard the news about
35:55
the riot at the Capitol, they came down and they
35:58
arrived before some of the federal authorities based in Washington,
36:01
d C. Actually came on site. But you had Chief
36:06
Son known this, he could have marghaled its forces accordingly,
36:09
asked for that National Guard assistance, or he couldn't invest himself,
36:13
but he could have asked his civilian bosses. Because he
36:16
answered to the leadership of the House and Senate, not
36:19
to the executive branch. He could have said, look, there's
36:22
going to be trouble. We need that National Guard support
36:24
that Trump had been offering, but of course the mayor
36:26
of Washington, d c. Said no, we don't need it
36:29
after Trufford it days before, and the Speaker of the House, Pelosi,
36:35
said that they don't They're not going to want it
36:37
or need it. So so somebody made decisions along the way,
36:42
and we don't know why they made those decisions to
36:45
make sure there was not adequate security there. So even
36:48
of the twenty three hundred or twenty six hundred person
36:51
force that the Capitol Police has, only a fraction of
36:55
them were on duty at the time to protect the capital.
36:58
Which again, with two sessions of both the House and
37:01
the Senate in session and the Vice President there to
37:03
break a tie in this very historic vote to certify
37:07
an election, he didn't even have his own forces marshalled
37:10
properly for that. Yeah, so there's a lot of either
37:15
there's a lot of omissions in breaks in the chain
37:19
of command, or bad decisions being made. And this is
37:22
before people start even asking was something deliberate. In this case,
37:28
it was just a chain of either incompetence, negligence, or
37:32
willfully doing nothing in order to let a bad situation
37:35
get worse, even at a time when it could have
37:38
been prevented days in advance.
37:41
Speaker 1: This is the plausible deniability conundrum, isn't it? Is it
37:46
pock up or is it conspiracy theory? It's difficult to tell.
37:49
But which other side of the line it is. Something's
37:53
clearly wrong. And you weren't just there as an ordinary
37:56
member of the public. Well, you were there as a
37:58
member of the public, but you were a trained member
38:00
of the public, So I would imagine that your observations
38:05
were a lot more acute than the average member of
38:09
the public because of your background.
38:12
Speaker 2: Well yeah, when you know how crowds work, and when
38:14
you know how to organize protests, and you know how
38:18
how troublemakers work, it's a regimented thing. Like being in
38:22
the military, you can recognize certain decisions and you can
38:26
even anticipate certain actions, whether it's a naval action in
38:28
your case, or you know how a military an army
38:31
group is going to operate. If you've been in there,
38:34
you know you can pretty much either figure out what's
38:37
going to happen, or you understand it when you see
38:39
it when other people might not see it. They wouldn't
38:42
know enough to observe it, so it's easy to see
38:45
when you notice. And then you have the other separate phenomenon,
38:48
which is mob mentality, where there's some trouble starts and
38:54
people who go there who don't intend to cause any
38:56
trouble at all. Some of them get curious and they
38:59
want to see what's happening. Others want they see the
39:02
excitement and they want to be part of it. And
39:04
other people like it a really good rock concert. You
39:07
know they will would would just be stupid and let
39:10
their better judgment get the best of them and or
39:14
lose their better judgment and then join in with this
39:17
crowd and do things that they ordinarily would never do.
39:20
So you have that factor as well, where there was
39:22
no criminal or conspiratorial intent there, it was just simple
39:27
mob mentality.
39:28
Speaker 1: In the article which you originally wrote for the Center
39:32
for Security Policy, you had four different groups of people
39:38
that you were highly suspicious of. They were plaine what
39:41
you described as plain closed militants, agent provocateurs, fake Trump protesters,
39:49
and disciplined uniformed column of attackers. Just tell us a
39:54
bit more about those four groups.
39:58
Speaker 2: And that was the observation that I had at the
40:00
and I think I can still stand by that based
40:04
on what I saw. So you had people who were
40:07
obviously not Trump supporters, they were trying too hard, they
40:11
were completely out of character, they were out of the norm.
40:14
But they were all wearing similar gear. So people are, yes,
40:20
you have local vendors selling things, and everyone's going to
40:22
buy from that person, selling hats or selling shirts or
40:25
whatever else. But when you see them wearing their Trump
40:29
hats backwards, and it's only the troublemakers who are wearing
40:33
their hats backwards, you can see that. Okay, that's their
40:38
unit identifier. So that's one group. You had others who
40:45
were just wearing plain clothes and they might have been
40:48
wearing Trump gear, but they weren't readily identifiable, but you
40:51
could see some kind of order of battle among them.
40:54
So in this case, when we were trying to evacuate
40:56
the area as the serious trouble began, there were some
41:00
two guys several years older than me, so they would
41:02
have been a Vietnam War generation, and they had a
41:05
military demeanor to them if they were really senior non
41:09
commissioned officer, tough demeanor of people accustomed to working with
41:15
enlisted personnel. And they were standing on those high curbs
41:19
at the highest point of them physically trying to hold
41:22
people back and prevent them being that area. They wanted
41:25
the area to become more and more and more full
41:28
and more and more and more dangerous. And in my case,
41:31
we tried to climb, We went to climb up over
41:33
that stone barrier to leave the area, and he physically
41:37
grabbed me and said no, and was barking at me,
41:40
I need to get back there. Who you to give
41:43
me orders for anything? So you had that group of
41:46
plain clothes agitators, and then looking around you could see
41:49
some of them had air pieces, some of them had
41:51
climbed up lamp posts, and they all had they were
41:54
all visible to one another as if they were in
41:57
situations to a ship command. And then you had you
42:01
had other fake Trump supporters who were carrying a lot
42:04
of people had flags, but in this case there were
42:07
two in this part of the capital area that had
42:11
Confederate battle flags on very very long flagpoles and identical
42:17
very long flagpoles. So I know just from experience. Anytime
42:20
you see Confederate battle flags at a conservative event, it's
42:26
not old fashioned Southern pride. These are people who are
42:28
up there front and center to give an image for
42:31
the cameras and for TV to show how racist and
42:36
insurrectionists and trees and the whole crowd is with that imagery,
42:40
and of course that imagery worked. It works every time.
42:44
And then you had agents provocateurs within the crowd. So
42:47
as in any good crowd, if you want to create
42:50
a good impression and you're organized for it, you'll have
42:52
people dispersed in a diamond shaped pattern so they look
42:57
like they're normal and they're spontaneous, but all issuing the
43:01
same chance. And then they get the rest of the
43:03
crowd to issue the same slogans and chance. So I
43:06
could detect that crowd pattern as well as agents provocateurs.
43:09
But they weren't just saying say patriotic slogans or pro
43:13
Trump slogans. They were saying really militant, provocative slogans to
43:18
get people all riled up, so you could tell that
43:21
those were the provocateurs. And then they were trying to
43:23
lead ordinary people in up toward the capital to go
43:27
in and break the line and commit acts of violence.
43:29
Speaker 1: So, without outputting words in your mouth, Mike, these four groups,
43:37
what were they? Are they sort of accidental provocateurs? I
43:42
have to use that expression coming from smaller groups who
43:47
were better organized and wanted to take control. Or do
43:50
you think that the nature of the four groups you
43:53
identified tends to suggest there was a bigger, more professional,
43:59
controlling power that was targeting that crowd as a whole.
44:04
Speaker 2: It seemed at the time, but it especially seems so
44:07
in retrospect that there was a larger controlling power that
44:13
had its own people create position, but also had others
44:18
who it was able to exploit. For example, the Oathkeepers.
44:23
In that article, I referred to a column of men
44:25
dressed in tactical gear coming through in one single regimented march,
44:31
and some of them had punisher skull patches on them
44:35
as a unit identifier. Those were the Oathkeepers, and I
44:39
had heard that at the time from others in the crowd,
44:42
but I didn't put the name in the article because
44:44
I didn't want to be since it's an organization. I
44:46
didn't want to defame an organization unless I knew for
44:49
a fact that it was the Oathkeepers, but indeed, looking
44:52
back at it now, it was and some of them
44:54
were tried and convicted. So that's an organized conservative and
45:02
right wing militia type group. So it's a legal organization.
45:07
But what we later found was that the Oathkeeper leadership
45:12
were FBI informants. So in this case, you have the
45:16
FBI had penetrated and compromised the leadership of this group
45:21
that attacked the United States capital, knowing in advance that
45:24
it would do so, and no attempt was made to
45:29
stop them from doing so, and indeed, every attempt was
45:32
made to ensure that they succeeded. So the FBI could
45:36
have shut this down in a moment, had it wanted to,
45:39
and for some reason the decision was made not to
45:42
do it. That leads to the question why exactly?
45:46
Speaker 1: That is the key question. So we're asking the question why.
45:50
What's your answer to who and why?
45:54
Speaker 2: I don't know why. I have opinions about why, but really,
45:58
why would the FBI do this? Like in the question
46:02
of the governor of the state of Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer,
46:06
there was a plot to kidnap and even assassinate the
46:10
governor of Michigan. Well, it turns out it was a
46:13
bunch of real stupid idiots who were easily manipulated by who,
46:18
by FBI agents and by the FBI Detroit Field Office
46:23
to plot in collusion with these undercover FBI agents to
46:28
kidnap and harm the governor of Michigan. The FBI then
46:31
went in made it arrests of a criminal conspiracy to
46:37
kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan. And oh, now
46:40
the FBI is all heroic because they saved this governor
46:43
from a terrible right wing plot. But did they would
46:47
these individuals have committed this plot on their own had
46:50
they not been organized to do so by the FBI,
46:53
which would then arrest them. We don't know, But we
46:57
do know that many of those people who were set
47:00
up were acquitted in court because they had been set
47:03
up and they had been baited into doing something they
47:07
never would have otherwise done. But the special Agent in
47:10
charge of the Detroit Field Office, who was behind all
47:13
of that, was then transferred to the Washington, d c.
47:16
Field Office to handle the January sixth work. So you
47:22
really have to wonder why was this agent with a
47:25
proven record of running agents provocateurs to commit acts of
47:29
violence against democratically elected leaders of our country. Why was
47:32
he transfer why was he not disciplined? Why was he
47:35
not fired? Right? Instead, he was put in the most
47:38
important field office in the country, Washington, DC. So there
47:42
are all of these questions. And then when the FBI
47:46
Director and when other senior FBI figures were called before
47:51
Congress to us to answer questions, they were asked repeatedly,
47:56
questions like did the FBI have any assets or personnel
48:04
who were involved in planning or executing criminal acts of
48:07
violence at the US Capital on January sixth? It's a
48:11
simple answer, no question, And the FBI would not answer
48:14
the question time and time and time again until years
48:19
later the FBI director said, well no, But why didn't
48:23
they say no from the beginning because the answer wasn't no.
48:29
Why did the FBI have those assets there? Why didn't
48:32
it take every possible measure to stop this from happening?
48:37
And now now the Capitol Police doesn't have their own
48:40
intelligence unit. They get their intelligence from the Secret Service,
48:44
the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, the Washington DC area police,
48:51
so they get it from them. So if the FBI
48:53
had its own agents involved in the attack on the Capitol,
48:58
and Chief Steve Son of the Police was never told
49:02
about it. And you have the federal government from the
49:05
executive branch using its forces to subvert and commit acts
49:09
of violence to disrupt or even stop the constitutional process
49:14
of certifying votes in the Senate and the House, and
49:20
the police chief responsible for that, who answers to the
49:23
Senate in the House, was never told. Now you have
49:26
a constitutional crisis that's created by our own security apperats.
49:30
It's not even political. We still don't have answers to
49:33
those questions.
49:34
Speaker 1: This is a phenomenal point which all members of the public,
49:39
whether it's in the United States or here in UK,
49:42
should pay attention to this. My feeling, I can only
49:45
give my opinion. My feeling is that we've got similar
49:49
sorts of tactics being used in UK at the moment
49:52
to help inflame these intention these troubles which are largely
49:58
caused by sessive immigration, which is a policy which we
50:04
can easily show goes back to the political system where
50:08
continually governments on the left and the right of lied
50:11
about the number of people coming into this country. Now
50:15
we got to the stage where people are unhappy and
50:19
they're trying to do some some are hot heads. Some
50:21
are going to go on the streets and yep, they're
50:23
going to break windows and throw rocks. But there's a
50:26
lot of very good people both sides of the line.
50:29
They can be people who are long established people here
50:33
in UK, or they can be long established immigrants who
50:37
are also concerned at the open border's policy. But now
50:43
the hidden hand has taken it to violence on the streets.
50:46
And of course what has come in as a result
50:49
of that violence. We've got our new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer,
50:54
telling the country that he's going to bring in all
50:58
sorts of draconian controls to deal with these quote right
51:03
wing extremists. And my intelligence, my own brain power says
51:09
that I'm watching something different happen. I'm watching people being
51:13
manipulated in order to get a desired outcome, which the
51:18
state wanted in the first place.
51:21
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's very similar with the threat is always
51:24
coming from right wingers, it's not coming from the people
51:27
who are actually there to commit acts of violence. And
51:32
he mentioned hot heads in crowds, and we get you know,
51:35
you get those everywhere on earth. There's always hot heads
51:37
that even a lot of hot heads are at heart
51:40
good people. They're just hot heads. But what about those
51:44
who are not hot heads? But they have been trained
51:49
and emplaced and mobilized and zed and funded in advance
51:57
to cause these riots. Riots don't just happen spontaneously from
52:02
city to city by the same types of people rioting
52:07
about the same things. These riots are organized. And when
52:10
they know that the police won't do anything against them,
52:13
and when they know they can cause provocations against normal
52:18
citizens or against hotheads who are from the population of
52:23
the say the disfavored majority, then they know they can
52:27
continue to commit these acts of violence pretty much without
52:29
any government surveillance of them or paying any legal cost.
52:35
And this is how these riots continue and how historically
52:39
people have lost their countries.
52:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot to think about. We've probably just
52:45
got a few minutes left. But one other subject that
52:49
I came across when I was preparing for fat today
52:54
was it was a document that essentially it's the new
53:01
Secret Service Research examines for the first time five years
53:06
of mass violent sorry, mass violence data. So this has
53:12
come out of the United States Secret Service, and essentially
53:17
it's an assessment which is based on behavioral the behavioral threat.
53:25
And I was very interesting to see that the introduction
53:29
was signed by Kimberly Cheetle herself and the key team
53:35
are people who are sorry themaglasses for this embarrassed myself.
53:41
They're both social science research scientists, and I'm very interested
53:50
in this because again in UK, we've got a huge
53:53
amount of research done into the behavior of people in
53:57
order to identify whether they're going to be a future threat.
54:01
Is this actually thought crime which is being generated here?
54:06
But here was a whole document which was released a
54:09
little while ago looking at a number of very serious
54:15
incidents in America where it's been shootings in the schools
54:18
or other violent crimes on the street. But we've got
54:22
a whole raft of people now looking at the public.
54:26
To my mind, almost as though the public has become
54:29
the laboratory specimens. And then I say to myself, well, okay,
54:34
if your behavioral analysis of the public was so good,
54:38
why did these crimes happen in the first place. So
54:41
you've got the public under the spotlight for who they
54:46
are and what they think and what makes them agitated
54:49
or why they get excited, and then we've got events
54:52
taken place, But it doesn't appear that this behavioral assessment
54:57
is preventing the crimes which they suggest it could. I'm
55:02
not sure I've explained that very well. I'm just suspicious
55:05
of the whole use of the so called social scientists
55:09
in order to deal with what are security issues. But
55:13
you might have a different view.
55:15
Speaker 2: It's pretty much along yours, and it's just as murky
55:18
as what we were trying to explain. It's here. I
55:22
think of the huge social science resources we have in
55:27
both our countries and social scientists, whatever that is. It's
55:31
hard to think, how can you take something social and
55:34
be a scientist about it and treat it in a
55:37
scientific way. But if they are indeed scientists the way
55:40
they claim, then they're going to use data and they're
55:43
going to be unbiased in their assessments. And you don't
55:46
see that at all. You see the conclusions are almost
55:50
always it's a certain demographic of the population that is
55:56
the most prone to being violent or otherwise dangerous, and
56:03
it's that group that needs to be demonized, and it's
56:06
the others who are usually made up over led by provocateurs,
56:12
many of them who came to our country legally or
56:16
illegally for the purpose of being subversive and causing trouble.
56:21
They somehow always managed to get off, free from any
56:26
kind of blame, to continue to do what they want
56:28
to do. And in fact, they're hired on in the
56:31
social science community as subject matter experts. So we had
56:35
this here in the United States over the years. Whether
56:38
it was the member, you know, loyalists of the Soviet
56:41
Communist Party, or people being paid or having their academic
56:46
credentials funded by the Chinese government or the Communist Party,
56:51
or whether it was the Iranian regime or the Muslim
56:55
Brotherhood or you name it. It's overwhelmingly people in those
57:00
areas who are hired as subject matter experts or even
57:04
trained as scholars with the university credentials that they have
57:09
to come out and then write these reports that guide
57:11
our security services.
57:13
Speaker 1: So, just to be clear, what I was looking at,
57:16
what I am looking at is United States Secret Service
57:19
National Threat Assessment Center as the body that actually put
57:24
this document out. And interestingly, if you look at the
57:29
bullet points in the executive summary, they describe people who've
57:35
got problems in their lives in essence, So it starts
57:39
off saying that most of the attackers are elicited behavior, sorry,
57:44
exhibited behavior that elicited concern in family members, So there
57:48
was some form of trouble with the individuals. Some of
57:52
them were physically aggressive. Half of the attackers were motivated
57:57
by grievances. Well, the moment somebody's got grievance, there's something
58:01
wrong in their life, they're unhappy about something, then we've
58:06
got people who are depressed or suicidal. As I read
58:13
through each of these bullet points, I'm thinking, what you're
58:16
describing here is a society that is on the verge
58:22
of breakdown. In a community, we have a rising number
58:25
of people who've got problems, and so why are we
58:29
suddenly surprised that these people are now doing things which
58:34
we don't like? So which comes first? Is it the
58:38
breakdown of society which is causing the dissent and the
58:43
grievances and the problems, and those people then attempt to
58:47
do something to solve the situation by creating a mass
58:52
event to get recognition. Is that what's actually happening people
58:56
are being broken down and therefore they're reacting war. Is
59:00
this just normal? And yes, the agency is doing something
59:04
effective by analyzing the behavior of the public's pre warn
59:09
of a crime.
59:11
Speaker 2: If you ever met a lot of these social sciences
59:13
and scientists and spent any time with them, you'll see
59:16
that a lot of them fit the same profiles that
59:19
they're applying to others. They're depressed, they have grievances, they
59:23
have terrible family troubles, they feel alienated to their angry.
59:28
So they're the ones who are diagnosing the rest of
59:33
the public. And then with the increased rise and as
59:35
you're pointing out the decay of society and the rise
59:39
and mental illness and the grievances that even normal people
59:42
will have, and the injustices they see in their own government,
59:45
with say a two tiered system of justice, where people
59:50
standing up for their national traditions are being discriminated against
59:53
and even arrested, while newcomers coming in to destroy those
59:57
institutions get favorable treatment. Of course, that's going to produce
1:00:01
more anger, But it's not the new troublemakers that are
1:00:04
that are going to be blamed and held accountable for it.
1:00:07
It's the people who are trying to defend what's always
1:00:10
been there, defend their national traditions, who are seen as
1:00:14
the evil doers. What you have, though, when these social
1:00:18
scientists come together and make reports. The way you just
1:00:21
summarize to the secret services that they're painting a huge
1:00:24
segment of the society as prospective enemies. And therefore that
1:00:32
logic demands more and more and more resources to a
1:00:36
national security state and a surveillance state to watch everyone
1:00:40
before they commit a crime. And this is where you
1:00:42
get George Orwell walking right in and now all of
1:00:46
a sudden we become Oceania.
1:00:49
Speaker 1: My serious stuff, How do you see things going in
1:00:53
the States at the moment? You've been analyzing this breakdown
1:00:58
and subversions, Solietsy, how do you see that proceeding in
1:01:03
the United States at the moment?
1:01:06
Speaker 2: I'm not optimistic, and I'm not optimistic because it's not
1:01:10
just a question of changing leaders of these agencies. This
1:01:14
has been going on for decades. And so if you
1:01:16
have people who were hired let's say in the year
1:01:20
twenty ten, they're halfway through their careers now. So if
1:01:24
they came in at the lowest levels of the system,
1:01:27
they're halfway through their mid level management, their mid level agents,
1:01:30
they're mid level analysts. So and then the people ahead
1:01:35
of them were promoted for for ideological reasons, not for
1:01:39
reasons of competence and professionalism, but for diversity, equipity and
1:01:44
inclusion reasons. These are those with real grievances, and they're
1:01:48
parts of cell groups that feed those grievances, that fuel
1:01:52
those grievances, and so they're the ones who end up
1:01:55
inordinately getting promoted through the system for reasons other than
1:01:59
professionalists them, which drives a lot of the professionals out.
1:02:03
So you have our FBI, ur CIA, our Secret Service,
1:02:06
our Department of Homeland Security, a lot of our military
1:02:09
where the really professional people are leaving because they can't
1:02:13
get promoted. And in our system, if you're not promoted
1:02:16
within a certain amount of time, you have to leave
1:02:18
the service. So it's a self purging system that has
1:02:23
that has become institutionalized, and a hiring system. If you
1:02:27
go look at say FBI jobs dot com or at
1:02:31
FBI on Twitter x, you'll see that the recruiters are
1:02:34
targeting this same DEI critical theory minded younger people to
1:02:43
become agents and analysts. They still want professionals in the
1:02:46
science and technology fields, but they want the diversity DEI
1:02:50
types to be in the as the actual agents and
1:02:54
analysts and managers. And this is really dangerous because then
1:02:57
you're setting up an apparat it becomes frighteningly close to
1:03:01
what the one party regimes had set up.
1:03:04
Speaker 1: I think we have to end on that very serious point.
1:03:06
But I'm going to thank you for joining us once again,
1:03:09
and also for having the courage to stand up and
1:03:12
warn both the American and public about this and now
1:03:16
the UK public. Very dangerous hand operating, and it takes
1:03:22
good people to stand up and tell the truth about
1:03:24
what's happening. So a big thank you from us. Thanks
1:03:28
for having me on right, Okay, thank you