[00:00] [Music] Hello everyone, I'm Anja Purple and I welcome you to Level 1. My guest today is whistleblower John Kiriakou, who was recently pardoned by the [ __ ] administration after violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Korea Co. is the only person ever imprisoned on charges related to the US waterboarding program,
[00:31] but that was for revealing its existence, not for participating in it. John Kiriakou, welcome to Red Lions. Let's get right to it. The New York Times recently reported the quote: "A former top advisor to the [ __ ] campaign received $50,000 for his help in securing a pardon for former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was convicted of illegally disclosing classified information." Carrier.com was separately
[01:02] informed that Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, would help him obtain a $2 million pardon. Krakow declined the offer, but an employee who feared that Mr. Giuliani allegedly selling illegal pardons alarmed the FBI. Juliani, of course, denies these claims. The Times' reporting was, unfortunately, all true. To make Mike Schmid, the main author of this
[01:32] report, believe him, I must point out that he interviewed more than 30 people for the article. It wasn't just a decision to take a convenient swipe at Rudy Giuliani. Schmidt interviewed a lot of people for this article. This means there were at least two dream allies trying to sell pardons. Based on their story alone, they made the distinction between selling pardons and
[02:03] lobbying for pardons. Obviously, this was some kind of payment to play along. Where does one even begin with this story? You know what's best at the beginning? I have a lawyer who has been helping me obtain a pardon for many years. He didn't have very good contacts in the [ __ ] Administration. I had no contacts in the Trans Administration, so we decided to hire a woman. I hired a woman named Kevin Giorno, who managed the Trump campaign in Florida in 2016. She doesn't
[02:40] like to call herself a lobbyist, but she is a political strategist, whatever that means. We met with her at a law office here in Washington in 2018, where she told me about her close contact with the president and showed me the president's personal cell phone number that she had saved in her phone. At least, that's what she claimed. She asserted that the president regularly called her in the middle of the night to talk about politics and strategy, and that she was still very close to him. For $50,000, she said she could
[03:12] influence the White House on my behalf. In the event of a pardon, she would demand another $50,000. I borrowed the $50,000 because I didn't have it. I gave it to her and never heard from her again. Every four, five, or six months, she would call me and say, " Hey, I haven't heard from you in four, five, or six months." What's new? And she told me the same story. Kelly Ann Conway is on your side, and she knows his story and his hobbies. Anders is always on your side, and kid, a
[03:42] story too. I spoke with the White House political director, and he's on your side. It got to the point where I said to her, "So help me God, if you tell me one more time that you spoke with the White House political director, I'm going to lose it." Because I don't even know who the White House political director is, but whoever he is, he clearly does n't have regular access to the president. I said, "Damn it, Carron, I want you to go to the president and ask him to pardon me, and if you can't go to him, I want you to go wash up." Since she
[04:16] had bragged about her access to Jared Kushner, but she didn't know Jared Kushner, he wouldn't know her if she approached him on the street, and when it came down to it, she did n't help me get a pardon. I knew this would happen, and I knew time was running out. Last summer, on July 1st, I had a meeting with two business partners with Rudy Giuliani and one of his assistants or staff members at the Trump Hotel here in Washington. The meeting concerned the sale of a very
[04:46] large number of Cain Ein T5 masks to the Pentagon. During a break in the conversation, I asked Giuliani about a pardon. As soon as I said the word "pardon," he stood up and said he had to go to the restroom. He went into the bathroom and told me, "Don't talk about pardons. If you want to talk about a pardon, then talk to me.
[05:17] But Rudy will demand two million dollars." I laughed at him, I literally laughed in his face. He said, "Two million dollars? Look, first of all, I don't have two million dollars. Secondly, why on earth would I spend two million dollars to get a $700,000 pension?" I said that was outrageous and ended the conversation. Now I reported... This was Carol Jordan, and she explained to me that this was the usual price and that she had offered me a deal. The next chance had paid a million
[05:48] for his, and Conrad Black paid a million, and she just kept rescuing. I told the story later to a friend of mine, another one, Robert McLean, the title character, and he said to me that it sounded as if pardons were for sale. I replied that that was a crude way of putting it, but yes, I think that's really what's going on here. They call it lobbying, but it's not really lobbying. I think pardons are for sale, and even if Donald Trump does
[06:19] n't get the money at the end of the day, it's people like Rudy Giuliani who are enriching themselves. That's what it really boils down to, even if the people don't have the connections to carry out Order 60, as was the case with Meteo. Exactly, it was greed, whether it was Carnival or one of the other dozen people who supposedly had close ties. Those who maintained contacts with the orphanage or were closely enough connected to the White House to receive a pardon— that's what it was. It was money-making. I mentioned that Robert
[06:52] McLean was appalled, you have to acknowledge that, and he called the FBI and reported it. He reported that Rudy Giuliani was essentially selling pardons, but the FBI wasn't interested, and Robert was so disappointed that the FBI didn't care that he called the New York Times, which started this story as they were concerned. Many, about 30 sources, were spoken to to substantiate this process regarding the pardons.
[07:23] Is this kind of corrupt management of the participation process unique to the Trump administration? No, this also happened during the Clinton administration. Although it wasn't the lobbyists and lawyers who earned the money, they passed the money on in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation. So this isn't specifically a partisan matter. It's not specifically a matter of Trump's statement simply points to the corruption of the entire
[07:54] system. Let me say something I consider very important: the system we have that allows convicted criminals to apply for pardons is completely broken. The intended way it works is that you go online to the website of the US Office of Pardons, Sun-Walz, fill out a form, and say that you are rehabilitated and regret your crimes, that you are on the right path, and explain your future life plan. Then you submit this file to the FBI. The FBI conducts
[08:26] a background check, which, once completed, is returned to Pardons, Sun-Walz, and he then decides whether you deserve a pardon or not. In a perfect world, that's how it should work. In reality, 10,000 people apply for pardons every year, and they recommend only five or six people out of 10,000. So, only five or six have truly been
[08:56] rehabilitated, and at the end of the day, nobody gets a pardon. Now, if no one is pardoned and everyone knows that the formal process doesn't work, what will they do? Well, if they are penniless, they can't do anything because they have no luck. If they have money or friends in high political positions, then they go the lobbyist route, and that simply shows you how perverse this whole system has become. How do you,
[09:29] based on your experience, advocate for a reform of the pardon system? I have always maintained that the original authorizing legislation in the early nineteenth century that allowed the creation of the Office of the U.S. Pardons Attorney meant or intended that the Pardons Attorney, Sun Wald, should be independent of the Attorney General. We know from contemporary accounts of the debate surrounding the legislation that it was independent, but it never was.
[10:05] It was always subordinate to the Attorney General's Office, and that is simply wrong. Instead of the Pardons Attorney, Sun Wald should reside in the White House. He should not be subordinate to the Attorney General; he should be subordinate to the President's Office. They should be able to make their own decisions about who deserves forgiveness and who doesn't. No political pressure should be exerted
[10:37] because, as things stand now, apparently almost no one deserves a pardon. At the very end of the Obama administration, Obama fired the pardon officer Sun Wald for precisely this reason: because Wald hadn't nominated anyone for a pardon for years. And that defeats the whole purpose of the office. I wanted to ask you some questions about the intelligence priorities of the new administration. On
[11:08] January 20th, Will Heinz was confirmed by the Senate as the first choice of both. She will be the director of the National Intelligence Service. We've heard a lot about her role in the CIA's drone program, as well as about downplaying US torture. How will she influence President Biden? That's a very important question and a significant issue. Engel Heinz is heavily influenced by John Brennan and China Haspe. She was Bremen's deputy in the National Intelligence Service. Security Council and at the
[11:39] CE, and remember that Engel Heinz was confirmed in her position by the Senate yesterday with 82 votes to 10, which made my hair stand on end. He wants Heinz to be the one responsible for creating the legal arguments to support John Brennan's hit list in the NS. She was the one who took the call from the field, asking for
[12:11] permission to shoot down the terrorists' previously targeted jeep, and she gave permission to shoot it down. Inevitably, we killed innocent civilians, women, children, and elderly people in the process, and she never answered any questions, at least not in my sense. She answered the questions relating to her role in the drone program, which was at least as important. It was insane that Heinz, John Brennan's deputy at the CIA, ordered CIA agents to hack into
[12:43] the computer system of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Democratic staffers, because they were writing the Senate torture report and wanted to know what they knew, and so he ordered this hack of the system. Engel Heinz was deeply involved in hacking the system. So these are two small things, minor details regarding global politics, that bother me. Another thing that bothers me is that we don't really know where Heinz wants to go on issues like China, Russia,
[13:14] Iran, proliferation, and anti- terrorism. She never had to answer any of these questions, at least not in a public place. Nevertheless, she was approved by a vote of 82 to 10 and is now the Director of National Intelligence. For some reason, many of these intelligence service decisions or questions seem to have bipartisan support. What do you think of both decisions? The nomination of William Burns, a career diplomat, to head the agency—
[13:48] I was very pleased about that. I've known Bill Burns for 30 years; he served presidents of both parties and was the go-to person. For the Obama administration during the negotiations with Iran for the IPO, the Iran nuclear deal [music], he dedicated his professional career to human rights and the Arab-Israeli peace process. He
[14:18] is a true expert and he is absolutely apolitical. There isn't a single political bone in the man's body. He held practically every high-ranking position in the State Department. From Deputy Secretary, he became Ambassador to Russia. He was Ambassador to Jordan. He was the Special Envoy for Peace. So if you are looking for someone who has nothing to do with torture or Guantanamo or secret prisons around the world, then he is your man.
[14:52] If you are looking for someone who has the political influence in the bureaucracy to actually reform it, if that is what you want to do, and I think it urgently needs reform, then Bill Burns is the right man for the job. What remains a mystery to me is that Joe Biden, in the same week, chose someone with the qualities of Bill Burns and someone as devastating as Avril. Heinz, I just don't understand it. This suggests
[15:23] a bit of schizophrenia within the administration. Perhaps some have said that the selection of Burns, and you've already alluded to this, suggests that negotiations with Iran, the resumption of talks with Iran, will be a major priority for both administrations. Together with a friend from the show, a reporter, you've written a book, so far in Siders' Guide to the Year and Crises. Why, from your perspective, are the United States so fixated on branding Iran as the ultimate enemy, and how will both administrations approach the country?
[15:56] That's a good question. Historically, the problem we had with regard to Iran was the specter of communism. As old-fashioned as that may sound now, the CIA and the State Department were absolutely obsessed with the idea that Iran could become communist, and of course, in typical American fashion, we overreacted and created brutal dictatorships like Iran's. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his
[16:27] father Reza Pahlavi were installed to suppress any left-wing resistance in the country. They naturally went beyond what dictators are known to do, and in the end, they oppressed their own people and killed many thousands. This led to the Iranian Revolution of 1978 and 1979. We, as a country, as a government, have never gotten over the Iranian hostage crisis. We simply have
[16:58] never gotten over it, and that's why we don't trust the Iranians. Well, the Iranians don't trust us because we have interfered in Ireland for so many decades. At the same time, we always seem to need an "ism" to fight against, be it communism, anarchism, socialism, or, over the decades, Islamic fundamentalism. It's as if we are looking for an ideology
[17:30] against which we can unite because it helps us politically. And I think that is the path we have been on with Iran. The GP's successful negotiation for the The Partnership Agreement (PGA) was a huge leap forward in American diplomacy. The shame of it lies in two things: firstly, that the agreement came about so late in the Obama administration, and secondly, that it wasn't recognized as a treaty by the US Senate. This meant that Donald Trump could simply withdraw it.
[18:01] Now Joe Biden wants to revive the PGA, and the Iranians are hesitant, and I think rightly so, because in their view, it's okay to agree to rejoin the PGA, and then what? What's going to stop them from withdrawing from the agreement again and imposing crippling sanctions on us again? Do n't forget, these sanctions aren't just paragraphs in the newspaper. These sanctions have real consequences. People are dying because of sanctions.
[18:33] They either don't get food, medicine, fuel, or spare parts. People are dying. There's pressure, and not just on the government, but also on the citizens. That's why the Iranians simply don't trust us. Right now, we're hearing that the two administrations, according to the designated [candidate/position], Secretary of State Anthony Blinken will not necessarily return to the negotiations without making further demands on Iran,
[19:04] even though it was the United States that broke the agreement in the beginning. Tony Blinken is another person I have known for a long time; I even took over his desk when I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He left the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the week I arrived. Blinken is a Washingtonian; he owes his entire career to Joe Biden. He spent his entire career as Joe Biden's aide in
[19:34] various roles. He was a staff assistant in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and then worked his way up to staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when both became its chairman. Both joined the White House twelve years ago and became deputy national security advisor, then national security advisor to the vice president, then deputy secretary of state, and he spent the Four years with metal, enormous breadth, and other heavyweights from the Democratic Party's diplomatic wing,
[20:05] and now he finds himself as Secretary of State. He owes it all to Joe Biden. And finally, I wanted to ask you the following: We know from US defense documents that since the beginning of 2008, the US has placed a major power struggle over Russia and China at the center of its strategy. Why are our military and intelligence services so focused on this struggle, and how might it manifest itself under both of them and his cabinet?
[20:37] I consider this a dangerous political development. Instead of confronting Russia and China, instead of trying to find out where we can cooperate with them—for example, in intelligence work, in combating terrorism, in combating proliferation, in combating drugs—we are challenging them and simply assuming that we are at the beginning of a volatile war. Therefore, we must prepare for this war. This is a political decision that
[21:08] was made many, many years ago. This is a bipartisan matter, and we are in the A minority of people like you and me want to see cooperation and negotiations, but I don't think it's really important. He's sitting in the White House. I don't think it matters who the Secretary of Defense is, who the National Security Advisor is, or who the Secretary of State is. We will challenge Russia and China forever. What is the lobbying we are seeing from the arms companies?
[21:44] What else can be said in this context? Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and he was right. Here we are, three generations later, and we are still having the same discussion. Nothing will change, and I don't care how much people want to believe that Joe Biden is liberal. Our relations with Russia and China will not change. During Blinken's Senate confirmation hearings, one of the main topics was China,
[22:15] and even for someone like Blinken, who is not considered as radical as some of the other people who might have been chosen for the position, the main threat Blinken saw, as did most of the senators on the Foreign Relations Committee, was that China would replace us as the world's number one power. And I think that This will be a major issue throughout the entire presidency. I agree, China will replace us as the largest economy in the next ten years. Tony Blinken is a neoliberal, just
[22:47] like Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. And don't forget that it was Barack Obama who spoke of reorienting himself towards Asia, turning away from Russia as our greatest threat and seeing China as our greatest threat. That was a strategy of the Democrats, and I think that this strategy will continue during the administration. Both will certainly be the case. John Kiriakou, whistleblower, thank you very much for
[23:19] your time. We believed in your pardon, and I'm sorry about the developments. At the same time, I appreciate that you are sharing your story with us and discussing some of the problems of this system now, just as you did after your time in prison. I know that you spoke a lot about the experiences of prisoners after their release. The fight must go on. Thank you very much. [Music]