Latest / UK Column Radio / J. Michael Waller Discusses His Book Big Intel—Part 2

Transcript

J. Michael Waller Discusses His Book Big Intel—Part 2 · UK Column Radio

0:07
Welcome to UK Column viewers and listeners. Really good to have you back.
0:12
This is part two of my interview with Jay Michael Waller, who is the
0:18
author of Big Intel, How the CIA and FBI went from Cold War heroes
0:25
to Deep State villains. And I'm going to say to our audience that this
0:30
is really fascinating book. It's kept me occupied for several weeks and produced a
0:36
really interesting discussion with Mike in part one. But can I say, if
0:43
you're joining us today and you haven't seen part one, my suggestion is that
0:49
you go onto the UK Column website and watch part one first, because it
0:54
gives the introduction to Mike and his his not only his work on the book,
1:00
but also his personal history connected with the intelligence services and psychological warfare.
1:07
And then it leads in through to the start of his analysis of what's been
1:11
happening in the US, not only in politics and society, but deep inside
1:17
the US intelligence system. So see that part one first and then come back
1:23
to part two. If you've already seen it and you're with us ready to
1:26
go for the next episode, Thank you very much, and I don't think
1:30
you'll be disappointed. Mike, Thank you very much. For joining me again.
1:36
It's great to be back with you. We ended having covered a lot
1:41
of ground which I'm just going to try and summarize in a couple of words,
1:47
which is that you had taken us through things that you were seeing happening
1:53
not only in US society, but particularly amongst the very agencies that people would
2:00
expect to be protecting US society, the CIA and the FBI. And essentially
2:07
this brought us down to you craped me if I haven't got this right,
2:12
But this brought us down to what you saw as a psychological attack on the
2:16
United States itself. Yeah, it's a psychological attack on all of us,
2:22
on all Western societies. And because the adversaries that created this who are long
2:28
gone, the program still survives, living on its own, but the adversaries
2:31
themselves are gone. They could not bring us down through a violent Bolshevik type
2:38
revolution because people in Western societies had too much hope and too much upside for
2:43
working within the system. So instead the strategy was to destroy the system from
2:49
within and persuade the citizens of all our countries to destroy our own system from
2:53
within by attacking our heritage and our culture and all the that we've had for
3:00
surgery. I think that we got to about chapter twenty seven in your book
3:07
in part one and twenty eight. I'll just give you this because I'm sure
3:13
it'd be useful to have a little bit of a prompter. Chapter twenty eight
3:16
was main sources of the allegations foreign spies, and you gave a mention to
3:23
Christopher Steele and the Hunter Biden laptop, and I was particularly keen if you'll
3:29
tell us a little bit about that, and then you go on from there.
3:32
You're talking about Antifa just an idea, Trump team Biden, You're talking
3:39
about five former CIA directors, the incident at the Capital, defending against communist
3:47
Chinese spies, and then you get into the positive stuff, which is rebuilding
3:55
US, sorry, rebuilding American intel diligence, and that leads through to chapter
4:04
thirty seven, which is what to do with the FBI, And then you've
4:09
got a conclusion which I think can be summarized by big Intel is bad intel.
4:15
But if you will take us into that second half of the book,
4:20
and in particular what you were seeing when you started to talk about foreign spies
4:27
and the likes of mister Steele and the Hunter Biden laptop because I know this
4:31
would be of great interest to a UK audience. In particular, Christopher Steele
4:36
was the main source of allegations that Donald Trump was somehow a Russian tool or
4:44
a Russian government asset who was sort of our Manchurian Canadid in the United States
4:50
to take over the United States on Russia's behalf. This was found to be
4:57
a lie in two federal investigations by former FBI Director Robert Muller and another one
5:02
by a Special Prosecutor Durham, and there was there was no basis in fact
5:10
to Christopher Steele's allegations. The now Christopher Steele was an MI six officer professionally,
5:19
but prior to being in six he had been part of a campaign to
5:26
unilaterally disarm NATO. He was with the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as an
5:31
activist at the time when the CND was being used by the Kremlin as part
5:38
of a Soviet active matures campaign to destroy NATO and just to destroy the British
5:43
and American nuclear deterrence. So this is the type of person who was behind
5:46
these allegations. Wow, I did I did not I did not know that
5:51
I didn't know of his connections with nuclear disarmament. That's extremely interesting. Yeah,
6:00
and well, I think the other comment i'd make on this, so
6:03
it's not unusual that we find British intelligence agents meddling inside US politics. We
6:12
seem to have always had a finger inside the pie. That's how I see
6:16
it. I don't know how you view that. Well, George Washington had
6:21
a problem with that too, So it goes back a very long way,
6:25
but under very different circumstances. Since our countries have been such strong, it's
6:30
been in the British interests, not necessarily the American interest. But if we
6:35
consider each country has its own national interests, and sometimes those interests won't won't
6:42
be the same, And so it's been in British interests to get involved in
6:46
American politics from time to time, just as the United States gets involved in
6:50
other countries politics from time to time. But it's a very different issue when
6:57
for British and eligence officers metal in American politics with falsehoods to disrupt and polarize
7:06
our system. That's a hostile act, not by the British government, because
7:12
in this particular case, the individual was acting we hope as a private citizen.
7:16
But nevertheless, it's it's a divisive, an extremely divisive action by really
7:28
what amounts to a hostile foreign actor as an individual hostile being just because he
7:33
is a British citizen and is a citizen of our closest ally does not mean
7:40
that he himself is doing work beneficial to us. Now, parallel with Christopher
7:45
Steele's false allegations were allegations by a Russian asset that the FBI had It was
7:49
a Russian citizen the FBI believed at the time was still working for the Russian
7:55
security services. So you have you have Steel and this Russian individual will both
8:01
providing the raw information to create these allegations that the FBI then leaked to the
8:07
press that a top presidential candidate with half the country support was a Russian asset.
8:16
And I have to ask this question because in part one you express some
8:20
you what one did your boote. You're expressing concerns about how the FBI is
8:26
behaving at the time that the FBI stepped forward with these allegations. Could because
8:35
could you, as an American citizen, trust what the FBI was actually doing
8:39
in relation to the case as a whole. No, this is this is
8:43
part of the breakdown of public confidence in the FBI. There had been problems
8:48
for a long time, and you can always forgive a human institution for making
8:52
mistakes if those mistakes were corrected. But in this case, the FBI was
8:56
adamant that that Trump was a Russian asset that the and in so doing,
9:05
through falsehood, undermined public confidence in the ability of our own government to detect
9:13
and combat Russian disinformation and Russian comport operations. If the FBI was spreading lies
9:20
about these things, who do you trust anymore? So we as a public
9:24
didn't have an institution that we could trust to protect us against past our Russian
9:28
foreign subversive political attack. And that's a key point, isn't it. Society
9:35
starts to become confused as to where the truth is, who they can who
9:41
they can trust. So we have a lot of information certainly being thrown at
9:46
us here in UK at the moment that it's only social media that's pushing out
9:50
misinformation and disinformation. But when when government assets are doing that, people in
9:58
the population of becoming really disorientated and confused. Right, and then it even
10:05
gets more complicated because we as a public we trust the British implicitly, But
10:13
when a former intelligence officer from the British Secret Service is doing this and there's
10:20
no public pushback from the British Secret Service saying he doesn't speak for us,
10:26
and indeed there are. We know for a fact that the FBI was using
10:31
some of the Five Eyes to spy on American citizens to help the FBI circumvent
10:35
domestic laws against spying against our own citizens. That undermines public confidence in our
10:41
closest Ally, You've said something which I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at,
10:48
but actually I'm quite shocked, and that is that there's inherent trust when it's
10:54
the British doing things. Because I'm here living in this country. In the
10:58
last time x years of my life has been becoming to the realization that I
11:03
can't trust a thing my government says, almost so that's quite a statement that
11:09
the trust is so strong in the US for what may come out of the
11:16
mouths of British intelligence assets. We've been well indoctrinated through a lot of fleming
11:24
books and movies and other things that glorify that the British Secret Service, but
11:28
we also have a genuine affection for sort of everything that's that's indigenous to the
11:35
UK and you know and have since at least World War two, if not
11:39
many of us are four. And so when when this type of confidence,
11:45
and not just say not not just the British Secret Service, but in the
11:50
UK in general, when that deteriorates? I mean, where are we both
11:54
as countries we need each other? Yes, yeah, that's fascinating. Okay,
12:01
So let's leave that one for a moment. Take us on to the
12:03
Hunter Biden laptop, because certainly there has been an awful lot said and printed
12:09
on media and well mainstream media and social media about the whole of the Biden
12:16
affair. So it appeared to be a really big, ugly bubble where it
12:22
was everywhere, and now it seems to have just almost disappeared. So tell
12:28
us what you saw about the episode and where you think it is now.
12:33
It was interesting to have an insider's view of that episode because I had access
12:37
to the contents part of the contents of the Hunter Biden laptop before it became
12:43
public. So I vetted a lot of the emails and other communications concerning Russia
12:48
and Central Asia and some from Ukraine, so we knew in advance. We
12:54
knew the original source, so we had the whole providence and the whole chain
12:58
of custody of the information, so we knew that it was legitimate, and
13:03
so there was a good sized team of us going through these materials to evaluate
13:09
them well before the laptop's contents were released to the public. So when those
13:16
contents were released and then immediately came back the allegation that this was Russian disinformation,
13:22
we knew that something was wrong. And this is the crux of it.
13:26
So I'll say the words, but what we had what appears to be
13:31
criminal activity going on. Why is somebody with connections to the highest political levels
13:37
in the States, And when that activity started to be exposed, then in
13:43
step the state in order to say, well, actually this is just disinformation,
13:50
ignore it right right, And it was timed, of course, the
13:54
release of the laptop was timed, and it was October twenty twenty, right
14:01
before our elections. But the denunciation of it was very interesting because political activists
14:09
who were supporting Joe Biden came out and they organized. These were intelligence professionals
14:18
who became political activists, came out and they had fifty one former senior intelligence
14:26
officials, five former CIA directors, a whole lot of different operatives and analysts
14:31
and officers, and then a lot in the military field and other industrial and
14:35
other intelligence organizations to come out. Fifty one of them applied their names to
14:41
a letter with the false headline that this was Russian disinformation. The letter said
14:48
it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation, and then the usual caveats that
14:52
they can't tell one way or another. But the group wanted their headline that
14:56
it was Russian disinformation because this was three days before or the Biden Trump presidential
15:01
debate, when Biden was able to say, this laptop stuff that's coming out
15:07
from the Trump camp is a lie. Here we have fifty one former senior
15:11
intelligence people saying that it's Russian disinformation, so that itself was a political operation
15:20
by intelligence people designed to disrupt our political process. Yeah, and of course
15:26
this is unbelievably serious because you have your own intelligent services fully disrupting the democratic
15:35
process inside the States, right right, and they're unaccountable. Now, all
15:41
these fifty one, as with Christopher Steele in his case, these are all
15:45
former officials, but in the intelligence world, you never know, are they
15:50
still former and so many of them are around. So many of them are
15:54
around, are active, and they maintain active security clearances, so they're still
15:58
part of the intelligence community. When you have former CIA directors and former senior
16:04
CIA officials throughout American intelligence tradition, which which only extends for World War Two,
16:11
they can they're they're considered to to continue to speak as well connected intelligence
16:19
professionals for the intelligence community. So what they say has a high degree of
16:23
currency, and it is it is logical and expected that their views imply the
16:32
views of the intelligence if we take your analysis to its to the ends point,
16:37
what it's saying is that within America at the moment, our forces which
16:42
are absolutely working to work in counter to the democratic system in America. You're
16:52
you're absolutely under attack, not by an outside agency, You're under attack by
16:57
by effectively your own people, right, and they're unaccountable. There's no oversight
17:03
there. So this is this goes completely outside of our constitution. There is
17:08
no check and balance and no public accountability for it. So you have a
17:14
state within a state that's developed, a state within a state. Yes,
17:18
absolutely, okay, and this one pops into my head. But Hunter Boyden
17:25
laptop can I ask you anything about the Hillary Clinton emails, because that was
17:32
another one where a large amount of data was circulating, but the public,
17:37
the American public at least, never seemed to get the absolute truth about what
17:41
was hidden in those emails, right, and we still don't have answers to
17:45
those questions, you know, many many many years after the fact. That
17:51
was a different case where Hillary Clinton has a as secredate was circumventing the law
18:00
or breaking the law because all communications between government officials on government business have to
18:07
be done through government servers and archive with the National Archives. In Hillary Clinton's
18:12
case, she had a private server installed in the bathroom of her house to
18:18
circumvent all of that, so there would be no archival record of the things
18:22
she was working on as Secretary of State. So not only was that a
18:27
major violation of the law, then you had classified information which is understood to
18:33
have been put on those servers of a highly sensitive nature that was open to
18:37
compromise because it didn't have any of the security features that a Secretary of State
18:41
of the United States would need. So again, this is another massive breakdown
18:47
of well it's part of it's breakdown to democracy, but it's a breakdown also
18:53
of the investigatory powers, isn't it because these if these we'll call them allegations
19:02
are not investigated properly, then do you have any form of Can you have
19:07
any form of confidence in the security services, be it the CIA or the
19:11
FBI. No. I mean, imagine you've got your We just have our
19:17
own domestic American interests here, but you also have international issues. Imagine being
19:22
a foreign leader in contact with the American Secretary of State and you have no
19:29
confidence that those communications will be secure. You have no knowledge that those communications
19:33
are being run through a server in her bathroom with no integrity to the security
19:41
of this. So anybody can pick up the secrets that are being discussed.
19:47
Yeah, and I'd like to say this because we've got people in the American
19:51
audience. So I'm here as the Brits asking some pretty tough questions about how
19:56
America is conducting itself. And I'll say that as I'm asking these questions,
20:03
a few years ago, we were looking at a situation where there had been
20:07
clearly been the abuse of children at high political levels in Britain, and it
20:12
was our own intelligence services m I five that were working to keep everything quiet.
20:19
In order to protect the political leaders. This isn't hearsay. This was
20:26
reported quite openly by many credible mainstream media sources. So we've seen the same
20:33
problem here where the intelligence services that you would have thought would have been digging
20:38
this stuff out to make sure the people running the country were above board,
20:44
honest and certainly not criminal. The intelligence services were working to protect those sorts
20:49
of people. So it's happened here as well. Sure, then imagine now
20:56
hostile foreign actors, say the Russians, are the Chinese others who might also
21:02
be using this. So if the if the Internal Security Service is keeping it
21:07
secret and the the uh these are the types of activity. You know,
21:11
it's easy to blackmail and compromise anybody who is abusing children. Imagine what the
21:18
Russians and the Chinese could have and the leverage they would have over those politicians
21:22
and officials because it's all being kept secret. If it's brought out to the
21:26
light, then then there's someone can't be blackmailed for it. I mean,
21:33
they can be have their careers destroyed, but at least they cannot be blackmailed
21:37
to the detriment of the country. So what what the what the counter intelligence
21:41
or security services were doing. There seems to be helping cover up for these
21:45
crimes and also assisting inadvertently, we hope foreign actors who would be exploiting these
21:52
these embarrassing and criminal secrets. Yes, this this also takes me back to
22:00
basic what I know as military vetting, where the security services look into the
22:06
background of military personnel to determine what level secrets they're going to have access to
22:12
and are they trustworthy people. So I know the same system goes on in
22:19
America that if you're going to have access to classified material, you're going to
22:25
get some form of personal professional vetting to make sure that you're safe. But
22:32
as we've seen increasingly liberal policies coming through government, so a lot of that
22:40
has sort of disappeared into the long grass. What am I getting at that
22:44
if we go back fifty years ago, probably if somebody had an affair and
22:48
they were in a high political position, this could be a big problem.
22:53
But we've now got to the situation here in UK at least where we can
22:59
have politicians who can not only be having affairs, they can be taking drugs
23:04
on camera and organizing for drugs on camera, and yet they seem to survive
23:11
this. It's as though that's acceptable. So what's the next level. Well,
23:15
probably we're going to go to some form of really serious issue. Child
23:22
abuse is one of them, where that is the last domain. You can
23:27
take drugs, you can have multiple sexual partners, you can be doing all
23:34
sorts of things that's now acceptable. So you've got very little left before anything
23:41
goes and once that's acceptable, you have no control over morality, or honesty
23:48
or democracy itself. So the liberalization is part of the problem, which I
23:55
think I'm correct in saying, is partly what you're warning about, because this
23:59
is the changing of the mindset of the nation. Every society has its own
24:06
moral standards and those standards can change over time. Some standards are eternal,
24:11
some some are rather fluid. But the whole object of the campaign, the
24:18
critical theory campaign being waged against all Western countries is to destroy the morals and
24:26
destroy the the the ethical character of nations, to tear them down. Once
24:33
you accept peterophilia as a norm to be protected by the authorities, you've lost
24:42
your society. Yeah, that is the statement, and I believe that's the
24:48
situation that we're seeing in the UK. But that will we'll say it will
24:52
save that one. So probably the next thing to move to after Hunting and
25:00
this Trump because one of the chapters you were talking about Trump and the apparative
25:07
if I go that correct, and you were saying that he saw things,
25:11
but he didn't actually have a plan to counter what he saw. Can you
25:15
tell us a bit more about what you were seeing in relation to that.
25:19
Yeah, Well, first, Donald Trump didn't really think he would win in
25:23
twenty sixteen. He didn't think he would beat Hillary Clinton, so he didn't
25:29
have a plan to take office. And then even if he did anticipate taking
25:34
office, he thought you could run America like you'd run a business. You
25:37
just put the right people in on top, and then they would follow orders
25:41
from the CEO. Of course, that's not how it works, and he
25:45
learned that the hard way. So he didn't come in with a strategy.
25:48
He didn't come in with a plan because he didn't have a strategy to guide
25:53
the plan, he didn't have the team to put in place. It was
25:56
a very eclectic, last minute type of team. A lot of it was
26:02
very inexperienced, and there was a lot of acrimony with him. So he
26:07
came in with none of the of the planning assets that an incoming president would
26:15
require to govern the way he had campaigned he would govern. Apart from that,
26:19
he had then no executive orders. So when a president comes in office,
26:23
any president, he issues executive orders that are dictatsed to tell the bureaucracy
26:30
how he wants things to run or how he wants them not to run.
26:33
He didn't come in with a library of executive orders ready to implement on day
26:37
one. Bill Clinton did, Ronald Reagan did before him, Barack Obama did,
26:44
and Joe Biden did. But Donald Trump did not. So he came
26:48
in with no assets. So he was hamstrung from day one, and this
26:52
allowed the entrenched apparat, the intelligence apparat, what some call the deep state,
27:00
to survive unmolested. So Trump never tried to bring the FBI to heal.
27:07
He just changed the leaders and put in a took one leader out and
27:11
put a week leader in. But the central nervous system of the FBI,
27:15
which has become radicalized, is able to run that leader as its own.
27:21
The same with the FBI when he put in Gena Haspital as a spartan the
27:25
CIA when he put in Gena Haspital as CIA director. He allowed the CIA
27:29
to run itself, so to his credit, he never tried to politicize it.
27:33
But to his you know, I think you've learned a lesson now,
27:38
he never tried to prevent the abuses that were being taken place, to prevent
27:45
them from happening, and then to hold those abusers accountable. This is a
27:51
very important part of this thing for discussion because when we look at any Western
27:59
democratic and you start to ask within that democracy, who holds the power?
28:03
And we'd like to say, well, the voters do, because if the
28:07
voters are unhappy with what's going on, they can vote in their new democratically
28:12
elected representative and that makes the change through the system. But it isn't quite
28:19
as simple as that, because most of the Western states, and if I
28:23
focus on UK, they've got an inherent machinery of government which runs itself.
28:30
We would call it the civil service. These are the publicly recruited and paid
28:37
officials that work in the Ministry of Defense or the Department Health, whatever it
28:41
is, and around them is an immensely strong policy heading in whatever direction it's
28:48
heading in. And even if you get a new member of parliament that is
28:53
elected who says, well, actually, what we're doing is wrong. They've
28:57
got to try and chain change this change direction for a very big beast.
29:04
It's like a super tanker. It's going to take time to turn it.
29:08
And I think that's what you're getting at with a system. But over and
29:12
above the civil service, we've got very powerful advisors who the intelligence services must
29:22
form the backbone of that because they come in with information always as if it
29:29
is factual, because they've been very clever in determining what this information is,
29:34
and it's then presented to political leaders and even the president or the Prime Minister
29:41
here in UK as factual. And how does the political representative or the or
29:48
the Prime Minister or the president challenge information which has come from the intelligence system.
29:55
How do they do that? It's really difficult, and this was why
29:57
it's so important for leaders as well as the public to be able to trust
30:03
their intelligence services because it's not as if you say, prove it to an
30:07
intelligence report, it can't be proven because the sources and the methods of the
30:12
information are secret in order to protect to protect those sources and to protect those
30:18
methods from our adversaries. So you have to accept the material at face value.
30:26
When it becomes politicized, or when there's when there's a concern that it
30:30
has become politicized and weaponized as we call it, you can't trust it at
30:34
all. Yeahs, the whole purpose of having an intelligence serve Now, Mike,
30:38
in making that statement, you're talking when you say politicized, you're saying
30:44
it's being politicized within the intelligence services itself before it's being given to the politicians.
30:52
Yes, Yes, it's because the worldview has become so skewed. I
30:57
mean, if you if you consider it's ha CI now where you have you're
31:02
supposed to collect intelligence based on a tasking to collect intelligence certain natures from certain
31:08
place or whatever. That intelligence, that information is then analyzed, it's vetted
31:14
for its validity. It's then analyzed by different groups of analysts, all professionals
31:18
who who hopefully will have different perspectives and different points of view in order to
31:26
validate and invalidate what's coming in, and then they process that into what's called
31:32
an intelligence product, an analytical product. It's then provided to the president or
31:37
his designees for the purpose of making sound decisions. If you don't have that,
31:44
if you have intelligence that is now so skewed because of an ideological transformation
31:52
of the intelligence professionals themselves, the critical the embrace of critical theory, the
31:59
view that America is a is an evil country founded by evil men for the
32:05
purposes of building and maintaining a white, racial supremacist system and oppressing the rest
32:13
of the world. If you're believing that as an intelligence analyst, and you're
32:15
letting that color your analysis of intelligence, you're basically doing the enemy's work for
32:22
him. Yeah, and you're misinforming and then deliberately disinforming the president and his
32:31
designees in this, and then the entire integrity of the intelligence community is destroyed.
32:37
The same thing goes with the FBI and domestic security, but also the
32:40
rules of evidence, because the FBI is a domestic intelligence service with police powers,
32:47
so it has both the rules of intelligence but also the rules of evidence
32:51
that you would enter in court. And if the FBI is going ahead with
32:55
an entirely skewed view of the nation and a skewed view of our constitutional system,
33:00
and even a no longer believing in our constitutional founding principles, it is
33:07
going to take its its powers and authorities and abuse them to make the evidence
33:14
fit the crime they want to vict you up as opposed to simply letting the
33:17
facts speak for themselves. And as a foreigner, as an outsider, I
33:22
watched with interest some of the congressional interrogations of the of senior people in the
33:31
FBI when they were being asked questions about Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden laptop.
33:39
And of course when a question was asked which was the key penetrating question,
33:45
invariably they would come out with a comment like, oh, well, we
33:47
can't answer that question in this venue. We can't, you know. So
33:54
whether a private response clear of the public was ever provided or not, I
34:00
don't know, but you could see constant deflections when questions were coming in from
34:06
senators that were clearly hitting the spot. Yeah, And it's not like the
34:10
FBI witnesses don't know they're going to get these questions, because the terms of
34:15
the hearings are discussed in advance and the witnesses are told please be prepared to
34:21
address these types of questions, and the FBI could always say, look,
34:24
this is sensitive information. We can tell you in a classified session. So
34:30
both the House and the Senate have secure rooms called skiffs for the purpose of
34:36
discussing highly classified information and not having any eavesdroppers being involved. Those skips are
34:42
used all the time, but you've never once heard the FBI director say,
34:46
let's address this in closed session in a skiff. Okay, so Trump was
34:52
there, he hadn't prepared properly. So he ends up being a president being
34:57
driven by the powers system around him. If that's a reasonable summary. And
35:02
presumably that power system had its own political agenda in that they didn't want Trump,
35:12
and so what did they decide that they could just about tolerate him until
35:19
he was not there? They didn't need to remove him, I'll choose my
35:22
words carefully in a permanent way. They could simply wait for him to atrophy,
35:29
to him, to him to fade away. Right, And this is
35:32
a game that bureaucrats play anyway. If they know they're looking at their career
35:38
is they essentially can't be fired from government service, so they if they just
35:43
wait and they drag their feet for four years, then they can pretty much
35:46
get most of what they want. Now, this defeats the whole idea of
35:50
having a civil service and its equivalent to the intelligence service of the foreign service,
35:54
because there's a providing a service, not servicing themselves their own agendas,
36:00
so they'll slow walk these types of things. They'll do the same with issuing
36:06
with doing the background investigations for security clearances, so they'll take their time on
36:12
it, dragging their feet so that the individual they don't like will never get
36:16
the background investigation finished so he can be given a security clearance. Okay,
36:21
now you have. If Trump is elected this fall, he'll he'll only be
36:25
president for four years. He cannot run for another term, so all the
36:31
bureaucrats are going to know this is just a one term president, and we're
36:35
just going to give them a very hard time and drag our feet. Right,
36:38
So I got to ask the question, is Trump smart enough? Second,
36:43
if he gets in for the second time, is he smart enough to
36:46
realize his mistake before and to be properly prepared to deal with these problems when
36:52
he comes in? Could he get it right this time? He could.
36:55
He's got a lot of outside help this time, a lot of seasoned people
37:00
have known the problem. He's also been terribly burned by this. He's paid
37:05
a terrible personal cost for this, with the law fair waged against him,
37:08
and again the security apparat continuing to go after him. Imagine raiding the home
37:15
of a former president to get documents that he actually got legally, because under
37:21
his authority, any president can declassify whatever he likes, and he can he
37:25
can have custody of those documents in a secure area for his own use in
37:30
writing his memoirs or starting his library or whatever else. And imagine that the
37:35
FBI could actually raid the former president's home and disrupt everything. So this this
37:42
affected Trump very personally, and he now is developing a plan. There was
37:49
some material published today about part of that plan about what to do with the
37:53
FBI. I think it needs to be strengthened, but at least it's an
37:57
action plan, and it's been vetted by seasoned lawyers who had served for a
38:01
long time in the Justice Department. For so yes, he's going to be
38:05
there with a plan right on election day, and then you'll have that period
38:10
up to January to begin implementing that plan behind the scenes so he can launch
38:15
it on day one. Okay, Now I've got to keep myself in check
38:20
here because I want to go I want to stay on the subject to the
38:24
psychological warfare. But this is really interesting with Trump he comes in and he
38:30
tries to do these things. What's your assessment of the political will in America?
38:37
Do you think that if he starts to do the right thing, more
38:40
senators will start to be braver and to actually start to push in the right
38:47
direction. I can't give you a good answer on this. Everything requires leadership.
38:55
And if he came in the first time as an outsider, most people,
39:00
most Americans think that people from New York City are obnoxious, and so
39:06
if you look at Trump's personality, he's very much a New Yorker. He's
39:08
not just Donald Trump. Look at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, also from
39:13
New York City, a very obnoxious man, but a very powerful man.
39:17
So there's a question of what kind of leadership do you provide. Do you
39:22
provide leadership that inspires and leads or do you inspire? Do you provide leadership
39:27
that alienates? And I think he's gone more toward the You can see him
39:30
now with more of a welcoming mentality, to bring more people around him,
39:36
to be more forgiving to people who had opposed him before, and to create
39:40
that larger alliance that he had lacked before. So I think, yes,
39:45
he did not try to engage Congress. When he was president before, he
39:49
didn't do a very good job of that at all. This time, you
39:52
can see that he's building his political base in both the House of Representatives and
39:55
the Senate. I've already just started with what i'd like to ask you,
40:00
So if I let you go now, because you've got another commitment pressing you,
40:06
could we effectively finish this part with a bit more time and another data
40:12
at your convenience. I want to do part three. Well, yeah,
40:16
because I'd like to just drift trunk to ask you a little bit about Ukraine.
40:22
But then the other thing was that this whole bit about how this psychological
40:28
attack is affecting people and what it's doing and what we can do about it.
40:32
This is where I'd ultimately like to get because if people are saying,
40:37
we can't even trust our own security services, they're lost, and how do
40:42
we reassure people, and what should we be showing that they can do or
40:45
what should they be thinking about. I'd like to get somewhere where we can
40:49
say, there's a beast attacking us, how do we deal with it.
40:52
I've got some ideas myself, but I'm particularly interested in how you view this
40:58
because and by the time you got to conclusions in your book, you were
41:04
at the point where you're thinking, Yeah, we've got to do something about
41:07
this, and you said something like we're not going to lose. Well,
41:10
there's still time, that's what you said, there's still time to do something.
41:15
Well, what should we be doing. That's where I'd like to get
41:17
with you. Yeah, well, and in that shell right now, we
41:21
could go into it later on the way the career paths move you've had.
41:27
Now these radicalized critical theorists, cultural Marxists have been you know, they're more
41:34
than halfway through their careers. So with one more presidential term, they'll be
41:38
running all of these intelligence organizations with you know, without any checks and balances
41:45
on them. So that's one of the reasons that this next presidential administration is
41:50
so important, is because that career is chain of radical takeover has to be
41:55
broken. Yeah. Absolutely, And just just give you a little teaser.
42:00
I brought a number of books with me which I thought you might be interested
42:04
in some of the things. But this is a book that made a big
42:07
impact on me. The it's basically a US Navy aviator great experience, but
42:15
he also did some work in the US Ministry of Defense, and the book
42:22
was from Trust to Terror. Radical Feminism is destroying the US Navy. And
42:30
this was a book that I came across many years ago. It's not very
42:32
thick, it's you know, you can you know that somebody has really written
42:37
it from the heart. But here was a US Navy aviator warning that the
42:44
radical feminism was doing something really dangerous inside the American military. And to me,
42:51
this was a book that helped my thinking about this psychological attack. But
42:55
we'll save that well. Mike, I've got to say thank you very much
43:00
for joining us. It's been really excellent and I'm really looking forward to getting
43:05
you back to continue this discussion into the psychological attack on not only the US
43:12
but western countries. Thank you for joining us.