Title: CIA Whistleblower John Kiriakou Exposes Torture, Assassinations, and the Epstein Files
Show: The Inquiry
Date: 2026-03-01
URL: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2cHt3dZqn6c
Duration: 58:31

---

[00:00] The CIA is constantly pushing the the envelope of legality and they just wait for somebody to push back. The reason why the Russians haven't agreed to substantive talks brokered by Donald Trump is that they're winning. So that it is now legal for the American government to propagandize the American people. Every one of them has seen something. Some ship sometimes they're coming out of the water. You know that I probably shouldn't comment on.

[00:36] Hello and welcome back to the channel. I'm here today with John Kiriakou. Uh quite well-known CIA whistleblower. And I'd like to start today's interview by welcoming John and asking him he could give a quick introduction for those who might not be familiar with his work. Sure. I'm John Kiriakou. I spent uh almost 15 years at the CIA. I uh I was the chief of the CIA's counterterrorism operations in Pakistan after 9/11. I

[01:08] blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program in 2007, later went to the private sector, and then after that was the chief investigator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Um now I'm a journalist, author commentator talk show host bunch of different things. How's what you're most well-known for especially in recent months on the internet it seems is your initial whistleblowing

[01:38] over the torture program or the enhanced interrogation program as they called it. It seems that this was the final straw for you. Could you explain to people what was occurring and why you thought you had to speak out? Yeah, the CIA had decided to torture its prisoners after 9/11. Plain and simple. And torture is illegal. By any measure, it's illegal. We have the Federal Torture Act of 1946. We have the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

[02:10] The lawyers at the Justice Department stood on their heads to somehow make it not illegal. I disagreed with that and decided to go public. I work under Clive Stafford Smith. I think I might have mentioned that. Um and he sometimes talks about some of his clients who are in Gitmo and some of the um torture methods that were used on them. Do you find any of the methods used particularly troubling?

[02:41] Of the of the enhanced interrogation? Yeah, most of them I found to be particularly troubling. Uh in fact, you know, rather than list these these things, I'll tell you that in 1946, we executed Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American prisoners of war. In 1968, we prosecuted successfully prosecuted a soldier, an American soldier, for waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner. He was given 20

[03:11] years in prison. So, this went from a death penalty uh case to 20 years in prison to all of a sudden, like magic, just being suddenly legal in um in 19 uh I'm sorry, in 2002. The the law never changed. We changed. And my position was if you if you want to torture people, that's on you, but you're going to have to change the law because the law is very clear.

[03:44] Much of the torture programs and the these um wrongdoings were a response to 9/11 or at least they were framed that way. In how would you say they should have responded to 9/11? Oh, by hunting down those who had perpetrated 9/11 and bringing them to justice. And when I say justice, I don't mean with a bullet to the head or with, you know, a life without parole at

[04:14] Guantanamo despite never having been convicted of a crime. What you do is what the Constitution tells you to do, and that is to allow them to face a jury of their peers uh in a in a federal court. If our contention was that the Al-Qaeda leadership and Al-Qaeda fighters were violating US law, then charge them with a crime and put them on trial. It really was as simple as that. It seems that

[04:45] a lot of the things that happened within the CIA are quite compartmentalized. Do you think that in terms of individual officers, there wasn't a large awareness of of the interrogation uh methods that were being used? >> There was not. When I When I was first told about the uh the torture program, uh there were fewer than two dozen people in all of the entire American government who knew about it. Wow. So so it seemed it was

[05:15] from the top, really. >> Oh, it came directly from the top, yes. I want to ask a little bit about how you feel about the CIA now. Do you think that this was a unique example of, I suppose, incompetency, or do you think that they generally have issues like this across the board, many of which the public may not be aware of? Oh, yeah, it wasn't incompetency. In fact, they were very competent in the way they carried out a a torture

[05:47] program. It was that the CIA is constantly pushing the the envelope of legality, and they just wait for somebody to push back. The problem is that the congressional oversight committees, which are supposed to be the bodies that do push back, really act as little more than cheerleaders for the CIA, egging them on. Think of it this way. The torture program was created from the top of the CIA. The

[06:18] director of the of the CIA, George Tenet, ordered its creation. But, it was authorized, and it was funded by the congressional oversight committees. So, these protestations later that members of Congress had no idea that this program was taking place, that was just a lie. They were just lying to their constituents and to the American people. Not only did they know that the torture program was taking place, they had authorized it, and they had appropriated funds to fund

[06:49] it. I know you mentioned you've mentioned before that even the president signed off on some of the wrongdoing of the CIA. How much autonomy does the CIA have though? Is it does it have power above and over the presidency? No. >> Okay. Okay. And and at the [clears throat] end of the day, the president had signed off on on everything that the CIA was doing.

[07:19] They did nothing without executive approval, nothing. Because they would have just been prosecuted. Mhm. Back to I I briefly mentioned 9/11, and I've heard um you respond to this before, but where were you on the day of 9/11, and and how did you respond to that situation? Yeah, I was at CIA headquarters. I had a 9:00 meeting planned with uh the director of counterterrorism at the White House. We were going to see Condoleezza Rice, who was the national

[07:51] security advisor. And I got a call from the driver saying that the car was ready to take us to the White House. Went up to his office to tell him it was time to go and saw on his secretary's television that the World Trade Center one tower was burning. I asked her what happened. She told me a plane had flown into it. And then the second plane flew into tower one. And then it started that that nightmare that 25-year long nightmare

[08:23] now just began as easy as easily as that. And what do you think fueled the response to 9/11? Do you think it was primarily fueled by fear or anger or Yes and yes and a desire for revenge. Yes. This was the greatest intelligence failure in the history of the republic. And so, you know, 3,000 Americans lost their lives that day. That one day because we didn't do our jobs. And so there was this great desire to

[08:54] extract revenge. Yes. Yes. >> overwhelming. You mentioned that it's intelligence failure, a major intelligence failure. Do you also think that that was an element um an element of this can be attributed to policy failure? Absolutely. You know, I I say all the time, too, that it wasn't just an intelligence failure. It was an American failure. The CIA failed, obviously. The FBI also failed because the FBI knew that the

[09:26] hijackers were were loose in the United States. The State Department failed because none of those hijackers were here illegally. They went through the visa application process and they were granted visas by the State Department. Congress failed to to appropriate enough counter-terrorism funding to really lock the place down. It was It was a failure across the board. You know, the Federal Aviation Administration failed because security at the airports wasn't appropriate to the point where 19 people

[09:57] boarded airplanes that day with box cutters in their pockets. How in the world did that happen? And looking back, do you think that there were warning signs that were missed before 9/11? I mean, it's led to millions of innocent people being killed in Iraq and and other areas of the Middle East. Do you think that there were warning signs that should have been noticed before 9/11 occurred? You know, I'm not sure I would call it so much a warning sign as as I would a deliberate

[10:30] policy. Um what what made these Al-Qaeda people hate us so much that they just wanted to carry out the wholesale slaughter of Americans? It was US foreign policy. That's what they were objecting to. And um we've never undertaken a review of our foreign foreign policy. Back a little bit to your choice to come out and

[11:01] be a whistleblower. Um in what ways were people like you and others marginalized within the CIA? I mean, I know you were later imprisoned. But um were there other ways in which you were marginalized? No, when I resigned from the CIA, I was at the very top of my game. I I resigned because I got divorced and I wanted to spend more time with my children. So, I I was never marginalized. The last job I had at headquarters was as the

[11:32] executive assistant to the CIA's Deputy Director for Operations. So, I my my career was on a a rocket ride to the top. Um I I was never marginalized. Okay. So, would you mind going into a little bit more detail on when you spoke out and then later you were investigated and subsequently imprisoned? Could you explain um these events?

[12:02] Yeah, I I thought certainly that somebody would go public with the CIA's torture program uh because there were so many people internally who were opposed to it. Opposed to the point where they were resigning, they were curtailing their positions and coming back from from the secret prison site, and I thought certainly somebody was going to say something. And then nobody did. And then finally in December of 2007 at the urging of Brian Ross of ABC News,

[12:33] I went public and said something. The Bush administration investigated me for a year from December of 2007 until December of 2008 and then decided that I had not committed a crime and then closed the case. Barack Obama became president a month later. John Brennan became his Deputy National Security Advisor for Counterterrorism. He asked the Attorney General to secretly reopen the case against me. They investigated me for three more years and then charged me with five

[13:03] felonies in uh January of 2012, a little more than four years after I had gone public. And how long did you spend in prison? 23 months. What was that experience like? I mean, being imprisoned for essentially no real wrongdoing. How did you deal with that situation? Well, >> [sighs and gasps] >> it's a difficult question to under to to

[13:33] answer because on the one hand you're in shock, you can't believe this has happened. On the other hand, you have to get a hold of your bearings. Um I wrote a book about the experience that actually won two literary awards. It's called Doing Time Like a Spy: How the CIA Taught Me to Survive and Thrive in Prison. And it's done well enough that that the publisher uh just came out with a second edition a month ago. But um I decided that I was trained for this. That I was going to to use the life

[14:08] lessons that the CIA taught me to keep myself safe. And at the top of the social heap, I would forge strategic alliances in prison. And honestly, by the end of it, I felt like I was practically running the place. Mhm. Okay, that's interesting. So you your your CIA skills helped you be I told myself I had lived and served in far worse places than Loretto, Pennsylvania. And so I was going to just take the bull

[14:39] by the horns and manage it. And that's what I did. You mentioned as well just a moment ago that you were surprised others didn't speak out about the enhanced interrogation um methods. I've also heard you in other interviews discuss the fact that CIA officers may have a um certain personality type. Could you explain whether it may be you think that it's because of this personality type that there was a lot of silence and um complacency within the

[15:11] program? Well, yeah, what you're talking about is is the CIA's policy of hiring people who have sociopathic tendencies. Not sociopaths, but people who have sociopathic tendencies are willing to work in moral, legal, and ethical gray areas. I think though that the reason people who were even opposed to the to the torture program didn't say anything was not because they had

[15:43] sociopathic tendencies, but because they feared for their job security. The One of my attorneys said something to me that made perfect sense. He said, "This case is so much bigger than John Kiriakou. This case is about making an example so that if anybody else in the CIA is thinking about going public and reporting wrongdoing, they're going to see what happened to you. You lost your pension, you lost your freedom, you lost your family, you lost everything.

[16:14] Are people going to really want to take that that risk?" And the answer's no. I suppose a lot of people might view espionage as a way of protecting national security. Do you think that it's more often than not, or at least in a lot of cases, used merely to silence embarrassment? That That's a very good question. Um Yes. I do, actually. There's a law in this

[16:46] country, and this is why the Bush administration declined to prosecute me. There's a law that says that it is illegal to classify a criminal act. And torture, the FBI said, was a criminal act. And so, you can't prosecute me because I revealed a crime. Mhm. Well, the Obama administration said it wasn't torture, and thus it wasn't a criminal act. And so, my revelations were violations of of Espionage Act. They ended up dropping all the espionage

[17:17] charges against me. I hadn't committed espionage, and they knew it. But, um But, yeah, to answer your question, I think I think a lot of what we see coming out of the CIA in terms of classification um is is an effort just to protect the agency. Sure. And after these experiences, after your time in the CIA, and then subsequently um your treatment

[17:49] do you are you rather cynical towards the powers that be or or >> I am. It's been my considered experience my personal experience that most of our leaders are lying. Right? They don't have any interest at all in in exposing the truth or perpetuating truths. Mhm. Um they see their job as um

[18:19] carrying out the policies of whomever happens to be in the White House and doing so clandestinely, and doing so despite the fact that it may, you know, be vi- a violation of the law. And anyone who tries to stand in their way should be destroyed. That's really what the bottom line is. Mhm. And it's interesting because the UK the US, they claim to be um democracies. Right. And do uh that's an interesting point as

[18:50] well that links on from this is whether the CIA in its activities um that the public aren't made aware of is undermining democracy. What what would you say? >> I I would go even even further than that. The the the British government is even tougher on whistleblowers than the American government is. We don't have an Official secrets act, like you do. And we don't have a terrorism act, like you do. So, if I if I were, you know, in the UK, and I said that I support

[19:23] Palestinian human rights, I could be prosecuted just for saying that. I could be stopped at the airport and told that while I'm not under arrest, I'm also not free to go. I have three friends, one of whom is a former British ambassador, who have been stopped at the airport and threatened with with um arrest under the terrorism act or the uh official secrets act. It's draconian in the UK. At least in the US,

[19:54] you have a fighting chance with the Espionage Act. Not so in the UK. It's much tougher. I mean, we've seen this as well with the terrorism acts. Um recently with with a certain protest group in alignment with Palestine and Right. >> designating them as a terrorist terrorist group um to then arrest harmless protesters in the street. So, I suppose there's issues with Yeah, and in the United States, there

[20:25] are individual states that are trying to enact similar legislation or legislation that is similar to what the the UK um has. In the state of Florida now, and this won't last very long because it'll be it'll be successfully challenged in the courts, but it is illegal to go onto a social media platform and um and express support for Palestinians. Uh to the point where I happened to be in Miami 2 weeks ago, and a woman wrote on Facebook that she supported uh

[20:57] Palestinian human rights. And sure enough, the Miami police knocked on her door the next day and demanded that she explain herself. She closed the door and they walked away. They didn't arrest her, but when an arrest comes, and it will, uh that law is going to be thrown out. So, there is this move in support of of you know, squelching free speech and any challenges to to Israel at all.

[21:28] It's as though, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu is president of the United States right now. I'd like to um go to a slightly different well, a very different topic, which is um the idea of targeted killings or assassinations carried out by the CIA. Um could you explain the dynamics of these um activities and how the CIA behaves in these areas?

[21:58] Yeah, uh the CIA has a um has a unit Actually, there there are several units whose job it is to simply travel around the world as needed and carry out assassinations. Uh if if the president deems a person to be what is called a clear and present danger to the United States,

[22:28] to American citizens or American installations, they can be killed according to US law. And so, these teams fan out each week. They carry out their assassinations, and then the next week they get the next list of names, and then just do the same thing week after week after week. I suppose the obvious question um how is this not possible to answer um

[23:00] with any certainty, but are there regular cases of wrongful executions, I suppose? Cases where people are killed I would I would say there have to be. There There would have to be. Keep in mind, none of these people have ever been charged with a crime. So, we don't even know what it is they're supposed to have done. Um and I will add that since the Obama administration,

[23:31] the position of the Justice Department has been that the president has the legal authority to order the assassinations of American citizens who have never been charged with a crime. If the president decides that this person is dangerous, the president can legally order that that person be assassinated. Purely out of interest, do you know if a similar program exists in the UK?

[24:01] No idea. Okay. Okay. But you know what? If it did, it would be so highly classified that almost nobody would know about it. My guess is that there is no similar program. And And I'll tell you what I base that on. I'm I'm friendly with a handful of retired MI6 officers. And they have told me independently of one another how disappointed they were in the United States after 9/11 because

[24:32] the CIA just started killing everybody. And that's something that MI6 just wasn't doing. Mhm. But I think um possibly there's a common um occurrence where people who aren't from the United States underestimate the impact that 9/11 had on people, especially in New York, and and Without a doubt. Yes. Okay. Well, I want to move on a little bit again to some geopolitics.

[25:03] Um particularly the Russia-Ukraine war. So Today's the fourth anniversary. Yes, but it seems to be um never-ending. It doesn't seem like there's too much of a um working towards peace. But um how do you view the war and NATO's role in perhaps poking the bear? Um how do you view this situation and how the war came about?

[25:34] I believe the war really originated in 2014. Uh not in 2022. Uh you know, the United States had repeatedly promised the Russians that NATO would not expand to Russia's borders. And then we did exactly that. We expanded right up to Russia's borders. And we promised the Russians repeatedly that Ukraine would not become a part of NATO. And then we announced that we were going to start talks with Ukraine to

[26:05] become a part of NATO. So we lied repeatedly to the Russians. The Russians twice asked to join NATO themselves. And twice, under President Bill Clinton and under [clears throat] President Barack Obama, we told the Russians that was not going to happen. Can you imagine how different the world would be today if the Russians were part of NATO? Well, in 2014, we deposed a prime minister, a a democratically elected prime minister of Ukraine, who

[26:37] happened to be pro-Russian. And we replaced him with a pro-American, pro-Western prime minister. The Russians saw this as a direct challenge. And so they snatched Crimea. For their own protection, they snatched Crimea. Uh and then elected and said that he wanted to not only uh begin accession talks for Ukraine to become a member of the European Union, he announced publicly

[27:08] that he wanted to join NATO. And the Russians had had enough. And the reason why this thing is still dragging on, the reason why the Russians haven't agreed to substantive talks brokered by Donald Trump is that they're winning. And there's no reason for them to engage in talks because they're winning. The bottom line is that Ukraine at the end of this is going to be a rump state. It might even be a landlocked state.

[27:39] And it will never be in NATO. But the Russians are trying to put as much hurt on the Ukrainians as they possibly can. And there's nothing that the United States or NATO can do to stop them. So, why do you think it almost seems as if um NATO and the United States and these Western countries wanted to cause a conflict um such as the conflict that's now occurring. Why is it in their interest

[28:09] to have this conflict going on at the moment? Because a weak Russia is always in the national interests of the Western countries. Just like a bankrupt China would be in the national interest of, you know, the United States and the Western countries. Because if you keep Russia weak, that makes the European Union and NATO and the United States strong. It really is that simple. And do you view, I mean, in the UK the media is incredibly um biased, the

[28:40] mainstream media. Do you think that Russia are as much of a threat as the media makes out or a threat at all to the West. Yeah, I I don't have rose-colored glasses. Um I think that sure, the Russians are going to be a threat. Um yes, the Russians kill their political opponents uh whether domestically or overseas. We've seen that play out in the UK. We've seen it play out all across Russia.

[29:10] Um but at the same time, I don't believe that the Russians are an existential threat to the West. I really don't. I think that Russia has been very badly mishandled by especially the US and the UK. And we have missed several opportunities to bring Russia into the Western fold. And now Russia will never be in the Western fold. We're going to be in a state of war with Russia for a very long time. Even if it's not a hot war. Even if it's another

[29:42] Cold War, which is a shame because I think that when the Soviet Union fell apart, we really did have an opportunity to change the global landscape. And we just let it go. Another country that the West um often vilifies is China. You just mentioned. Um How do you view China as a international threat? I We've recently had um the Chinese Embassy

[30:13] controversy. Um how do you view that in particular and also China's broader influence and role? Yeah, China In my view, China really is the threat to the West. Not because the Chinese are bad people, but because the Chinese economy is so strong and the Chinese are so flush with cash that they've essentially been able to buy friends all around the world.

[30:46] You know, there's this ongoing joke here in the United States. Why can't we have nice roads and nice airports and nice bridges and nice hospitals and bullet trains? How come the Chinese have all those things? Well, it's because we spend a trillion dollars a year on weapons and the Chinese don't. I I spoke with a Congolese diplomat one time and he made a statement that was so simple and so powerful. He said, "You promise us democracy. The Chinese

[31:19] promise us food." There's a big difference. You can't eat democracy. Yeah. >> So, the only thing that has saved us, I think, so far is the Chinese through history have not really been an imperialist expansionist country. We can have a conversation about Tibet. Mhm. But, Tibet aside, uh the Chinese don't normally invade other countries. You know, certainly we fought the Chinese in in Korea.

[31:52] Uh they have had border skirmishes with the Indians and with the Vietnamese. But, the Chinese don't actively invade other countries like the United States does. The Chinese have one foreign military Ironically, they share with the United States in uh Djibouti in the Horn of Africa. The Chinese, as enormous as the Chinese government and military are, they have one aircraft carrier. One. We have 24 aircraft carriers. Now, half of them are not seaworthy, but we have a lot more

[32:23] aircraft carriers than the Chinese do. Mhm. >> And so, I'm I'm not worried about Chinese military expansion so much as I'm worried about Chinese economic expansion. There's a There's a satirical newspaper here in the United States called The Onion. And they had a headline last week, and the headline was Chinese content to sit back and watch US destroy itself. And the reason why that's funny is that it's true. Yes. Yeah. So they're not not the military threat that other nations perhaps throughout

[32:55] history have been, but that they've got the ability to dominate economically. Yes. Yes, indeed. >> Okay. Okay. Well, before moving on to the last of the sort of geopolitical issues, which I'm sure you can guess what what that will be. Um I've got a few broader questions about media and narrative. Um So often the UK at least seems to portray Russia and China and these Eastern countries as um

[33:26] purveying disinformation, and disinformation being a primarily foreign uh thing. Do you think that with tools if we think that the UK and other Western countries aren't also engaged in similar disinformation? Oh, yeah. Of course we're engaged in similar disinformation to the point where here in the United States, during the Obama administration in 2014, we changed the law so that it is now legal for the American government to propagandize the American

[33:59] people. So of course we're out there engaging in disinformation. Without any question. Uh do you think that journalists Well, do you know if journalists are used as instruments in intelligence battles or used by intelligence agencies? Without any question. And we know that thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. We know that the CIA will threaten journalists with cutting off their access, not inviting them to the CIA Christmas party anymore, threatening them if they

[34:31] publish certain articles. There are major major American journalists at the biggest outlets in the country who will send their articles to the CIA for clearance before they send them to their own editors. So yeah, I feel like the CIA has a stranglehold on on intelligence reporting here in the United States. And I would assume you think that that's very problematic. Oh, yeah. Part of the problem is that is that

[35:04] American outlets, news outlets, especially in print journalism, just simply no longer have budgets for investigative journalism. And you know, where you have the likes of the Washington Post and the New York Times that literally brought down a president in Richard Nixon, they now just don't have investigative journalism. Mhm. Okay. I mean, I think we could spend more time on that topic, but I think the the Israel issue

[35:35] is going to be a big one as well, so I'll move on to that. Um firstly, I'll ask you about the genocide or or I don't know if you um recognize it as a genocide, but Israel's military actions. Um Yeah, it's a genocide, all right, by any definition. Mhm. So, what do you feel about the situation that's occurring in Israel and Gaza and even after the ceasefire, um the deaths that have been occurring and and the civilian and military casualty

[36:06] proportions, how do you feel about this situation and why do you think that the West and particularly the US is so complacent in their response? Um I I I feel that this is a genocide. I think it's very clear that it's a genocide. It meets every definition of a genocide, including ethnic cleansing. Um I don't believe there has been a ceasefire because the Israelis have continued to kill Palestinian civilians quite literally every single day since

[36:37] the so-called ceasefire was initiated. And um And I think the reason why the United States You know, I hesitate to use the word complacent because complacency implies disinterest. I'm going to say I think the reason why the US is a part of this and it's on the side of

[37:11] of the Israelis and Israeli actions in both Gaza and the West Bank is that the pro-Israel lobby in the United States is so strong that almost no one has the guts to stand up to Israel. You know, there are Israeli lobbyists in literally every single one of the 535 um members of Congress. On Capitol Hill, there are Israeli lobbyists in literally every single one of the 50 state legislatures. And now we

[37:43] have Israeli lobbyists lobbying at the um at the local level. Why? Why do Israelis care about the outcome of American school board races? Or who gets elected mayor of what town? Or who gets elected to some little teeny tiny district in Kansas or Arizona? It doesn't make sense to me. Unless it's a concerted effort to control American foreign policy.

[38:14] Which I I believe that it is. Do you think that um the attacks on Iran for example are uh proof of um the fact that Israeli influences APAC or the lobbyists groups might want to control American policy. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Iran is not a threat to the United States, period. I state that as fact. Iran is not a threat to the United States. The Iranians don't have weapons to attack the United States, and even if they had weapons, they don't have

[38:46] delivery systems to attack the United States. They're a threat to Israel. Why? Because Israel's a threat to them. Somebody said something to me the other day, and it was so simple and it made such sense. Why are we not talking about North Korea right now? I can tell you why. Because North Korea has a nuclear weapon. So, nobody's going to attack North Korea because they don't want North Korea to attack them. That's why the Iranians have sought a nuclear weapon. Well, I mean, the CIA says that they actually haven't sought a nuclear weapon, but

[39:16] were they to seek one, it's to protect themselves against the Israelis. The Israelis who have dozens, apparently, dozens of nuclear weapons. And in terms of the intelligence corporation between the US and Israel, how how deep does this go? You know, that I probably shouldn't comment on. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Um So, I

[39:47] if this is something you can't comment on as well, then I can um cut it from the interview or whatever, but in in the case of October the 7th, do you see it as an intelligence breakdown or complete political complacency or something else? I mean, I know we have the Hannibal directive, but what what would you say about this? I I'm of two minds about October 7th. On the one hand, it was clear for two or three weeks in advance of the attack that something was a foot. There were settlers who were

[40:20] warning Jerusalem that an attack was coming. But these two morons, ministers Ben-Gvir and and Smotrich, who are in charge of security, apparently believed, say they believed, that the attack was going to come in the West Bank, not in Gaza. And that's why they were unprepared. That's one side of the story. The other side, and I think there's probably something to this, was

[40:51] this attack on October 7th gave the Israeli government the green light to utterly destroy Gaza. Destroy it. There are probably 200,000 people dead. Officially, there are 69,000. We have no idea how many dead remain under the rubble, just as skeletons now. But I think that was the whole plan was to completely destroy Gaza and to throw out literally all of the Palestinians so that the whole area

[41:21] could be resettled with with Israelis. And do you think there's any way of um Hamas and the Israeli government coming to a uh proper effective ceasefire or a peace plan or a two-state solution, or do you think that the Israelis just aren't interested in that? >> No, Benjamin Netanyahu very proudly said that he killed the two-state solution. There is no two-state solution. It's gone.

[41:52] And it's gone because he killed it. So, no. Hamas is, you know, a handful of guys with long beards. Uh the Israelis are murdering civilians, women, children, the elderly, the sick. And you can't have as a viable policy to just kill everybody. The Israelis of all people in the world should know something like that. Um and so I I don't think there's any chance of a of a true ceasefire. I don't think

[42:22] there's any chance of of a real peace. Look, when the Israelis continue to bomb uh the Palestinian negotiating team while they're in other countries, there won't be any peace. No. Mhm. And do you think in terms of the political influence that um Israel has in the US, do you think that there's any way to mitigate this or try and reverse this or do you think it's just too embedded into every area area of US politics?

[42:53] >> it's a combination of being embedded and and also of senior policy makers not having any problem with it. Donald Trump has no problem with the Israelis running US foreign policy. And Joe Biden also didn't have a problem with that. Mhm. No. And and Barack Obama and George W. Bush and they all just accept that that Benjamin Netanyahu is going to run American foreign policy. I mean, I I think this will lead on to some of my um

[43:24] next questions, but do you think that there's a reason for this beyond the common claim that Israel is our greatest ally and Israel is a point of strength in the Middle East? Sure, it's money. It's money. If If you are not 1,000% pro-Israeli, if you are not an ardent Zionist, they will spend millions of dollars to defeat you in an election. And more often than not, they're successful.

[43:55] So, if you have any hopes for a political career in the United States, you have to be ardently and publicly Zionist. Okay. Okay. And I'm going to move on now to some um points of controversy, some points of recent controversy. Um first, the Epstein files. I I saw you discuss this in a podcast that was released um 3 days ago. In terms of Epstein himself, I've heard you say that you think or know or think

[44:28] certainly that he was murdered. Um Can you explain? >> I've been adamant from the beginning I do not think he was murdered. Oh, okay. Okay. >> I believe he committed suicide. Okay. And in terms of him being the claims that are increasingly emerging about him being an intelligence asset, um what are your >> That's another thing that I've been very consistent over. I have said from the very beginning that I believed he was an

[44:59] Israeli access agent, and that's been borne out. And not only was he an Israeli access agent, he appears to have at least volunteered to work with CIA, FBI, MI5, MI6, the Germans. He reached out repeatedly to the Russians. So, yeah, I think he was probably an intelligence broker, but I believe he was under the control of the Israelis. How exactly does does this I mean, I

[45:30] don't know how much you can go into here, but how does the process of attaining and utilizing an intelligence asset like this work? Uh we would we would need half a day to talk about it, but an access agent The Israelis are not going to recruit Bill Clinton or Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. So, they do the next best thing. They recruit somebody who's close to those people. Like Jeffrey Epstein. And you give him plenty of money, and he buys this giant house on a

[46:02] private island and he wires every single room including the bathrooms for audio and video. And then you invite your friends to come and have sex with children. And to get them into compromising positions. You record everything that they say, you report it back to your handlers and just in case they object, well, you've got this video putting them in these compromising positions. Do you think that this leverage I suppose is another why Western states are

[46:33] so cautious to criticize Israel? Probably not. Okay. Um, I think really it's it's the money in politics. Mhm. I think this was more of a purely intelligence operation. Okay. Okay. And I've heard talk as well that he's got moderately strong links to the CIA. No. He He No. He repeatedly volunteered

[47:04] uh to work with the CIA. There's no evidence that the CIA ever responded. Uh and then a couple of years before his death, he had his attorney reach out to the CIA asking uh through the Freedom of Information Act to um to receive some kind of confirmation that he had been trying to work with the CIA. And there was no response to that either. Okay, so there's no

[47:34] evidence that he actually worked with them or okay, interesting. And back to um I don't want to linger on this too long, but back to the idea that he wasn't murdered and that he indeed committed suicide. I mean, there's lots of conspiracy theories and these things um in this area. What makes you um certain that he was that he did commit suicide. Because I've served in prison, I know what American prisons are like. All the guards have their heads up their

[48:04] asses, number one. They're supposed to walk around every 15 minutes and make sure that everybody is okay. They don't because they're in the guard booth either sound asleep or masturbating, looking at porn, or surfing the internet, or on the phone with their girlfriends. So, they don't walk around. In the case of Epstein, it was 2 hours before they walked around rather than every 8 minutes. The cameras never work. There are cameras everywhere. They're

[48:35] just not connected to anything. So, people are like, "Oh my god, the camera, there's this glitch." Yeah, the cameras reset every 24 hours and they tape over the previous 24 hours. So, the handful of cameras that work actually reset themselves. Um you're looking at a guy who was going to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. Period. It doesn't matter that he had

[49:05] his own island or the widest townhouse in Manhattan or a billion dollars or fancy friends in important positions. He was going to die on a steel prison bunk after spending every day of the rest of his life in prison. Who would would rather be dead? Mhm. I suppose especially when he's come from that the lifestyle that he was living before with the wealth and the Exactly right. Mhm. Okay. Okay, well, that's

[49:36] interesting. I spoke with his brother Mhm. a couple of weeks ago. Right after this stupid AI-generated picture came out of him just walking down the street in Tel Aviv with three bodyguards. And um you know, some of my my friends in independent journalism ran with this saying, "Oh my god, it's the proof. He was He lived. He was He escaped from the prison. It was a" No, you morons. It's AI. It's obviously AI. He's not just walking down the street.

[50:08] So, I spoke with his brother. His brother identified the body. His brother accompanied the body to the crematorium. He's dead. And we can have the argu- the argument over whether or not he committed suicide or or was murdered. I believe he committed suicide. But, uh, but he's dead. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'll move on now to a very separate issue, which is, um, your work for Russian media. I know you've been criticized for this, um,

[50:39] Only by one person. Okay. Okay. Yes. Yes. Um, I must have just seen that one person, then. Um, Why why did you make the choice to go into this area of work? I've heard you say it was perhaps due to financial, purely financial, reasons. >> I I am a convicted national security felon. Okay? If you're aware of some job that I could have that would allow me to put my five children through college, I'm all ears.

[51:10] Mhm. But, part of the plan that was enacted against me was to ruin me for life. And the only job that I could get was to have a radio show that just happened to be on a Russian network. Now, it was written into my contract that I could say anything I wanted and criticize anybody I wanted, including Vladimir Putin, which I did. On the day that Russia invaded Ukraine, I opened my show by saying, "I

[51:44] unreservedly condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I urge Russian troops to withdraw immediately. Mhm. Yeah, I wasn't attacking you for for your >> No, I I get it. But I and I'm asking rhetorically. I'm not asking you specifically. What's the problem? Well, I think >> knows you can't criticize Israel on American in the American media. Yes, you probably can't. >> What's the What's the difference? Mhm. Yes. Yeah, I I I think that

[52:15] there's no evidence for Russian media being any more um narrative-driven or focused on disinformation than the UK media. And I think that the attitude that the UK media, for example, takes is probably evidence that perhaps they're even more biased. So. Yeah. Um okay, so >> May I May I add one thing? Mhm. The criticism that I worked for Russian media came from Andrew Bustamante, a very public former CIA officer, who runs

[52:46] a website where he sells his training from the CIA. He takes his training that he underwent and he um will teach you, you know, CIA training. Does he train Russians? Chinese? It's my understanding he'll train anybody who pays. So, what's the difference? If I have a show on a Russian network or he's training Russian intelligence officers in CIA techniques, what's he doing?

[53:16] >> in that in fact sounds more problematic. I would think so. Mhm. Mhm. Okay, well, um I'll move on now to a bit more of a um funny topic, I suppose, which is Area 51. And these sorts of conspiracy theories that are surrounding these um these sites. Do you think that there's any legitimacy to any of this and the the claims that the government are hiding very, very huge secrets from the population.

[53:47] Probably. I'm not sure that those secrets are held at Area 51. But yeah, I think there's I think there's a lot of evidence out there. On my first day at the CIA, I asked my new boss, "So, where are the aliens?" And he laughed and he said, "That's everybody's first question on their first day." He said, "We We don't do that kind of thing. That's all at the Pentagon." And now we've had, you know, leaks recently from the Pentagon, leaks of videos. Um I I have a lot of friends who are

[54:20] former fighter pilots, F-16, F-18, you know, F-35. And literally every one of them has seen something. Some ship. Sometimes they're coming out of the water, out of the ocean. Everybody has seen something that is completely inexplicable. So, I mean, there has to be something out there. And I suppose those people would be most um knowledgeable on aircraft and these things, so it there's

[54:51] some validity, I suppose, yeah. Right. Okay. Right. What do you think that the public doesn't understand? What's the biggest thing the public doesn't understand about the CIA and these sorts of organizations? The CIA's job is very, very simple. The CIA's job is to recruit spies, to steal secrets, and to analyze those secrets so that the policy maker can make the best informed policy. Um

[55:21] counterterrorism, counterintelligence, you know, yes, assassination squads, yes, but not space aliens and, you know, alien technologies. There are offices at the Pentagon where that's all they do. Uh it's not the CIA. Uh, the CIA is not beaming waves at your head. The CIA is not communicating with you through the filling in your tooth. The CIA doesn't give a about you unless you have access to

[55:52] classified foreign intelligence. I think those are the probably the most basic and most important things that people should know about the CIA. Okay. Okay. Well, I've got a few points of reflection now if you don't mind um My first question here would be, do you regret joining the CIA in the first place? No. Best job I ever had. Went to 72 countries, enjoyed every minute of it. I regret that after 9/11 the CIA became a criminal organization. But no, I don't regret joining.

[56:24] What was your favorite country that you visited? >> [sighs and gasps] >> I I have two answers. The The most My My favorite country in terms of just natural beauty was Oman on the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula. The most fascinating country I ever visited historically uh, was Syria. Because the the things that you look at

[56:55] as you're going through the day are mentioned in the Bible. They're so old. I really I really loved both of those places. And what would you say your least favorite or the most That's the most dangerous would be a better question. Country that you've been to as? Oh, I've been to some really dangerous places. I served in Pakistan. I went to Somalia. I went to Yemen five times. There are plenty of dangerous places out there. My least favorite place that I ever served was India. Um, Indians are mean to one another.

[57:28] This caste system they have is just awful. It's racist and bigoted and just it's just awful. And I've never been to a place on Earth as physically dirty as uh as India. And you just have to accept the fact that you're going to get sick there. There's nothing you can do to protect yourself. Nothing. Just accept it. And then try to deal with it as best you can once you get sick. In terms of the few countries that you

[57:59] mentioned being very dangerous, how dangerous were these countries? Can you Is there any way you could quantify it for the viewers or Yeah, I I was twice the victim of assassination attempts. Um I narrowly escaped car bombs twice. Uh And one of those car bombs killed um four dozen people and wounded hundreds. So, yeah, I mean, there there are active attempts to murder you every day.

[58:30] >> [music]
